Shangri La： the Paradise

Since the 1980s, I have tramped the mountains and rivers of nearly all the Tibetan-inhabited areas. What touches me deeply is that wherever I went, I would find holy mountains, holy rivers and holy lakes. Invisible deities can be found everywhere at any time. Like man, they are hierarchical. Small holy mountains serve large holy mountains and perform duties for them. The four largest holy mountains are: Magyiabenri Mountain in the east, Kawagyibo Mountain in the south, Dan-gdese Mountain in the west and Nyain-     

Where Is the End to This Rootless Wandering Life?

Theauthorisaseniordiplomat,afamousTibetanstudiesexpertandfirstforeignaffairs.officialstationedinTibetbytheCentralPeople'sGovemmentHofthePeople'sRepublicofChina'Hetscurrentlyapart-tlmeprofessorwhhPekingUniversity.ThespeechtheCPPCCChairmanLiRuihuanmadeatthe…     

Where Are the Coast-Watchers’ Bones?

In October 1942, five British civilians and 17 New Zealand coast-watchers were executed by Japanese military forces, at Tarawa, Gilbert Islands (Kiribati), in the central Pacific. The bodies were buried in a mass grave, the location of which became obscured when the Japanese constructed military fortifications. A battle was fought at Tarawa in November 1943 whereby the US Marines defeated the Japanese defenders and took control of the island. In the battle more than six thousand men died and their bodies were buried in hastily prepared and often unmarked graves. Since the end of the war the remains of hundreds of Americans and some Japanese have been located and recovered from Tarawa but nothing among the remains has been identified as belonging to the 22 British subjects. A problem in locating the grave of the British has been a lack of any record of its position. In this paper the authors consider the documentary evidence including an important map and a report on the first attempt, using local knowledge, to locate the grave. The specific area of the grave is identified, the date of the executions is confirmed and the reasons behind the order to execute are discussed.     

Where is Lowland Maya archaeology headed?

This article isolates three important trends in Lowland Maya archaeology during the last decade: (1) increased use of the conjunctive approach, with renewed appreciation of context and provenience; (2) waning use of the label unique to describe the Maya; and (3) an effort to use the Lowland Maya as a case study in social evolution.     

Where Have All the Realists Gone?

Book reviewed in this article:
Michael J. Hogan (ed.), The Ambiguous Legacy: U.S. Foreign Relations in the "American Century."     

Where are the witches of prehistory?

Why are certain common classes of ritually destroyed objects (persons, artifacts, or architecture), such as persecuted witches, so difficult to identify in the archaeological record? Although a common topic in cultural anthropology, witches seldom receive the attention of archaeologists. The difficulties archaeologists face in the study of religion derive, in part, from the lack of correlates linking ritual activities to the formation of archaeological deposits. This paper defines ritual as a technology and employs an object life history approach that draws upon ethnographic, archaeological, and experimental research to begin building such linkages—including those describing the presecution and deposition of witches, sorcerers, and other victims of ritual violence. These new directions are illustrated through a case study of anomalous deposits of human skeletal remains from the North American Southwest     

Is Archaeology Developmental?

Archéologie et développement semblent deux notions fort éloignées l'une de l'autre. La première évoque une recherche fondamentale, pure alors que la deuxième parle de santé, économie, éducation, agriculture, pêche, équipement, transports, communications, etc. . . Et pourtant elles se rejoignent dans le bien-être aussi bien matériel que culturel qu'elles sont supposées apporter aux peuples auxquels elles s'adressent. En effet, si elles introduisent, importent des connaissances, des savoirs des techniques et des machines permettant de mieux maîtriser le monde, nourrir et élever les peuples, ces connaissances interfèrent avec la façon dont ceux-ci vivent et ceci depuis longtemps, la façon dont ceux-ci pensent leurs vies et le monde: philosophies, religions, histoires et coutumes dont on pense se débarrasser en les considérant fausses ou irrationnelles. Ainsi apprend-on que laTerre est ronde et tourne autour du soleil, que nous sommes faits de particules, et qu'il faut s'incliner devant les lois de l'évolution. La Science nous a appris et nous apprend toujours la Vérité sur le monde qui nous entoure bien qu'elle ait donné les moyens intellectuels et matériels aux plus grands massacres que l'Histoire ait connus et bien qu'il ne se passe pas de mois sans catastrophes climatiques, industrielles, politiques ou culturelles ou sans sinistres prévisions, comme le nivellement du mondialisme! Ainsi un des problèmes centraux du développement, illustré ici par une réflexion historico-archéologique, réside dans le dialogue (ou son absence) entre ces deux domaines de connaissance: le scientifique, le moderne et l'autochtone, l'ethnique, le non-moderne. Si l'on veut que ce développement concerne la majorité de chaque peuple impliqué, il est de la plus haute importance de s'interroger sur les modalités des échanges et choix de savoirs, leur équilibre et les raisons profondes des désaccords planétaires à ce sujet. Sous cette condition, le Développement deviendra vraiment démocratique.Archaeology and development seem widely separated notions. The former evokes fundamental pure research whereas the latter talks about health, economics, education, agriculture, fishery, equipment, transports, communications, and so on. Nevertheless both focus on the well-being as well material as cultural which they are supposed to bring to people. In fact if they input and import knowledge, technologies and machineries allowing a better mastering of the world, together with feeding and educating people, both development and archaeology interfere with the ways in which people live and many of the things they believe: philosophies, religions, histories, and customs that become defined as false or irrational. Thus we are taught that the Earth is round and revolves around the sun, that we are made of particles, and that we have to bow in front of the laws of evolution. Science taught us Truth and still does, a truth that provided the intellectual and material means for the worst massacres of history. Thus one of the central problems of development, herein illustrated by a historico-archaeological reflection, lies in dialogue (or its absence) between these two knowledge domains: the scientific, modern and the autochtonous, ethnic, nonmodern. If development projects are to benefit all, it is of the utmost importance to wonder about the exchanges and choices of knowledge, their balance, and the deep meanings of globalization. Under such conditions, development will become really democratic.     

Is Britain European?

To ask ‘Is Britain European?’ is to engage in a particularly difficult area of the always elusive business of Identity Studies. The very nature and future viability of Britain have recently been subject to extensive questioning. Meanwhile, one can distinguish at least six politically relevant senses of the term ‘European’. Britain was never as exceptional as was suggested by the traditional story of British exceptionalism told by the ‘Island Story’ school of historians. Moreover, it has become much less insular over the past sixty years. The question is whether the process has been Europeanization, Americanization or simply globalization. There is considerable evidence that the country's ties to what Churchill called 'the English‐speaking peoples' are still as strong as those to continental Europe. In fact, both sets of ties have become stronger. But these identities are not exclusive. Britain has always been a place of multiple over‐lapping identities: English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish, as well as British, European and transoceanic. That Britain's European identity is bound to remain only a partial identity does not mean it has to be a shallow one. If Britain is to be a full and effective participant in Europe it has to deepen its European identity, to develop something of the normative, idealistic sense of being European which is second nature to most continental Europeans engaged in these debates.