Anke Hein
I am an anthropological archaeologist focusing on pre-historic and early historic China. My main research interest lies with questions of inter-cultural contact and human-environment interaction. Geographically I am focusing on the so-called border regions of China, which have been zones of interactions since early prehistoric times. I have received a broad training in Archaeology, Chinese Studies, East Asian Art History, and Geography at various research institutions in Germany, China, and the United States, which provides me with the necessary background for such an interdisciplinary approach. After completing my doctoral studies at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2013, I served as postdoctoral fellow at Hebrew University and at the University of Munich. In January 2016, I joined the faculty of the Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford, where I am also affiliated with the Oxford China Centre and with St Hugh's College.
Supervisors: Willeke Wendrich, David Schaberg, Li Min, and Lothar von Falkenhausen
Address: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Institut für Sinologie
Kaulbachstr. 51a
80539 München
Supervisors: Willeke Wendrich, David Schaberg, Li Min, and Lothar von Falkenhausen
Address: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Institut für Sinologie
Kaulbachstr. 51a
80539 München
less
InterestsView All (22)
Uploads
Conference Presentations by Anke Hein
This paper will give an overview of the local archaeological record, focusing on the different signs of outside influence, their origin and chronological position. Furthermore, I will suggest some possible routes and types of contact and exchange, their motivations and geographic preconditions. In this brief contribution, it will not be possible to answer any of these questions conclusively. Instead, the main aim of this paper is to give a rough impression of the material at hand and show its potential as a case study for theoretical and methodical considerations for research on mechanisms of and reasons for cultural contact, exchange, and influence.
https://archeol.lab.scu.edu.cn/dongtai/xueshubaogao/2012-09-12/221.html
This paper argues that the reasons for this phenomenon are to be found in the strong historiographical orientation of Chinese archaeology and in some particularities inherent to the Chinese material itself. These characteristics are particularly evident in discussions about vessel nomenclature. On one hand, the existence of textual material harbors the danger of uncritically imposing the transmitted naming conventions on the excavated material. On the other hand, the richness of Chinese textual and material sources provides the unique opportunity to compare typologies established according to formalistic criteria and the naming and ordering conventions derived from written sources. The contradictions arising between those different typologies can help to reflect on the theoretical problem of the purpose and possibilities of classifications. They also make it clear that a single correct typology of any given group of material is probably not attainable, but that we might instead require a whole range of different typologies to reflect the actual ‘fuzziness’ of past realities.
Talks by Anke Hein
Papers by Anke Hein
This paper will give an overview of the local archaeological record, focusing on the different signs of outside influence, their origin and chronological position. Furthermore, I will suggest some possible routes and types of contact and exchange, their motivations and geographic preconditions. In this brief contribution, it will not be possible to answer any of these questions conclusively. Instead, the main aim of this paper is to give a rough impression of the material at hand and show its potential as a case study for theoretical and methodical considerations for research on mechanisms of and reasons for cultural contact, exchange, and influence.
https://archeol.lab.scu.edu.cn/dongtai/xueshubaogao/2012-09-12/221.html
This paper argues that the reasons for this phenomenon are to be found in the strong historiographical orientation of Chinese archaeology and in some particularities inherent to the Chinese material itself. These characteristics are particularly evident in discussions about vessel nomenclature. On one hand, the existence of textual material harbors the danger of uncritically imposing the transmitted naming conventions on the excavated material. On the other hand, the richness of Chinese textual and material sources provides the unique opportunity to compare typologies established according to formalistic criteria and the naming and ordering conventions derived from written sources. The contradictions arising between those different typologies can help to reflect on the theoretical problem of the purpose and possibilities of classifications. They also make it clear that a single correct typology of any given group of material is probably not attainable, but that we might instead require a whole range of different typologies to reflect the actual ‘fuzziness’ of past realities.
https://gradworks.umi.com/35/64/3564265.html
https://search.proquest.com//docview/1400829675
https://gradworks.umi.com/35/64/3564265.html
https://search.proquest.com//docview/1400829675
Understanding Authenticity in Chinese Cultural Heritage explores the construction of "authenticity" and its consequences in relation to Chinese cultural heritage—those objects, texts, and intangible practices concerned with China’s past.
Including contributions from scholars around the world reflecting on a range of different materials and time periods, Understanding Authenticity emphasizes the situatedness and fluidity of authenticity concepts. Attitudes toward authenticity change over time and place, and vary between communities and object types, among stakeholders in China as they do elsewhere. The book examines how "authenticity" relates to four major aspects of cultural heritage in China—art and material culture; cultural heritage management and preservation; living and intangible heritage; and texts and manuscripts—with individual contributions engaging in a critical and interdisciplinary conversation that weaves together heritage management, art history, archaeology, architecture, tourism, law, history, and literature. Moving beyond conceptual issues, the book also considers the practical ramifications for work in cultural heritage management, museums, and academic research.
Understanding Authenticity in Chinese Cultural Heritage provides an opportunity for reflection on the contingencies of authenticity debates - not only in relation to China, but also anywhere around the world. The book will be of interest to scholars and students in a variety of fields, including heritage studies, Asian studies, art history, museum studies, history, and archaeology.
https://www.barpublishing.com/painted-pottery-production-and-social-complexity-in-neolithic-northwest-china.html
The model treats burials as composite objects, considering the various elements separately in their respective life histories. The application of this approach to the rich and diverse archaeological record of the Liangshan region serves as a test of this new form of analysis.
This volume thus pursues two main aims: to advance the understanding of the archaeology of the immediate study area which has been little examined, and to present and test a new scheme of analysis that can be applied to other bodies of material.
The model treats burials as composite objects, considering the various elements separately in their respective life histories. The application of this approach to the rich and diverse archaeological record of the Liangshan region serves as a test of this new form of analysis.
This volume thus pursues two main aims: to advance the understanding of the archaeology of the immediate study area which has been little examined, and to present and test a new scheme of analysis that can be applied to other bodies of material.
applies it to the prehistoric archaeological record of the Liangshan region in Southwest
China that other archaeologists have commonly given a wide berth, regarding it as too
patchy, too inhomogeneous, and overall too unwieldy to work with.
The model treats burials as composite objects, considering the various elements
separately in their respective life histories. The application of this approach to the rich and
diverse archaeological record of the Liangshan region serves as a test of this new form of
analysis.
This volume thus pursues two main aims: to advance the understanding of the
archaeology of the immediate study area which has been little examined, and to present
and test a new scheme of analysis that can be applied to other bodies of material.
This volume closes some of these lacunae by refocusing on two main points Tong Enzheng has raised: the possible connections along this crescent-shaped corridor and their geographic preconditions; and theoretical and methodological issues of discussions on cultures, identity groups, culture contacts, and their reflection in the archaeological record. The volume stems from the session “Reconsidering the Crescent-Shaped Exchange Belt — Methodological, Theoretical and Material Concerns of Long-Distance Interactions in East Asia Thirty Years after Tong Enzheng” held at the Fifth World Conference of the Society for East Asian Archaeology (SEAA) in Fukuoka (Japan) in 2012. The papers collected in the present volume touch on four main topics: 1. Tong Enzheng’s life and research, and his place within the development of modern Chinese archaeology; 2. recent developments in the archaeology of Southwest China; 3. material traces and geographic, cultural, and historical preconditions of possible movements and inter-group contacts along Tong’s crescent-shaped cultural-communication belt; and 4. theoretical and methodological issues in the study of culture contacts and cultural exchange, and of their reflections in the material record.