The cosmological axis of Yogyakarta and its historic landmarks represent a living cultural landscape that embodies the integration of Javanese cosmology, cultural values, and spatial organization. Established in the 18th century under Sultan Hamengkubuwono I, the axis connects the key landmarks of Tugu Pal Putih, Keraton Yogyakarta, and Panggung Krapyak forming a coherent system that materializes philosophical concepts within a physical landscape. Structured along a six-kilometre north-south alignment between Mount Merapi and the Indian Ocean, the property reflects a broader cosmological framework linking natural and spiritual realms. Its spatial configuration expresses core Javanese philosophical principles, including Sangkan Paraning Dumadi, Hamemayu Hayuning Bawana, and Manunggaling Kawula Gusti, as well as the relationship between microcosm and macrocosm. Since its inscription by UNESCO in 2023, the management of the property has evolved to respond to contemporary urban pressures while maintaining its living character. Current practices in Yogyakarta demonstrate adaptive and integrative approaches, emphasizing the alignment of development with heritage values, the safeguarding of spatial and symbolic integrity, and the reinforcement of community-based cultural practices and rituals. These experiences highlight important lessons: the need to balance conservation with ongoing change, the central role of local communities in sustaining intangible values, and the importance of bridging traditional knowledge systems with contemporary governance frameworks. In this context, Yogyakarta offers valuable insights into how cultural landscapes can remain relevant and sustainable, contributing to ongoing discussions on the future of World Heritage in the Asia-Pacific region.

Museum adalah lembaga pelestarian berfungsi sebagai jembatan untuk memaknai koleksi agar relevan dengan publik kontemporer. Dalam wacana prasejarah di Indonesia, narasi museum sering kali terlihat berada dalam ketegangan di antara penonjolan nilai saintifik regional-internasional seperti rute migrasi manusia purba dan teori evolusi, atau memposisikan objek sebagai representasi “nenek moyang" dan memori kolektif. Kondisi ini membuat presentasi prasejarah pada museum di Indonesia menjadi arena negosiasi di antara kepentingan akademik, identitas nasional, dan memori lokal. Artikel ini menganalisis transformasi temuan prasejarah lokal menjadi narasi nasional dan global melalui studi komparatif antara museum otoritas akademik di Yogyakarta dengan museum berbasis situs lokal yang tumbuh dari temuan masyarakat di Jawa Tengah dan Jawa Timur. Museum-museum tersebut dipilih karena terkait dengan kekayaan mitos lokal seperti balung buto, namun juga menjadi pusat pengembangan tradisi akademik yang terkait secara global. Berdasarkan data yang dihimpun melalui pengamatan tata pamer, analisis wacana pada label objek, dan pustaka relevan, kerangka New Museology dan Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) digunakan untuk memahami negosiasi makna di antara para pemangku kepentingan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya perbedaan narasi yang signifikan: sajian otoritas akademik cenderung memosisikan publik sebagai penerima pengetahuan yang pasif, sementara pada museum-museum berbasis situs terdapat upaya mengakomodasi narasi organik dari masyarakat meskipun masih terpinggirkan oleh upaya standardisasi nasional. Artikel ini menyimpulkan perlunya demokratisasi pengetahuan di museum agar mampu mengakomodasi masyarakat setempat dalam memaknai identitas mereka sendiri tanpa terabaikan oleh narasi besar yang bersifat nasional atau global.

Why teeth? For most of us, teeth are tools for chewing, occasional sources of pain, or accessories for a smile in photographs. However, for a paleoanthropologist, a tooth is a "time machine." It holds the story of who owned it, what they ate, where they came from, and even the life history of entire population groups thousands, even millions of years ago. This presentation will highlight the story of the long journey of human occupation in the western part of the Indonesian archipelago, known as Sundaland (Sumatra and Java), based on the most abundant evidence left behind, teeth. We have meticulously studied thousands of fossil teeth from ancient times to the present, from Sangiran (early Pleistocene 1,6 Ma) to Gua Harimau (late Holocene 3.000 BP). As a result, this presentation thoroughly explores "who" our ancestors really were, "how" they lived and adapted, "when" they came and went, and "why" the facial features of the Indonesian population became so diverse.

I focus initially on the history of IPPA between 1978 and 2009, when I served as Secretary and later Secretary-General for eight IPPA conferences between Pune in 1978 and Hanoi in 2009. I will then consider developments in Indo-Pacific archaeology since 1967, when I started my archaeological career at Auckland University. I transferred to ANU in 1973 and started my Indonesian involvement in northern Sulawesi and the Talaud Islands in 1974, later in the Northern Moluccas between 1989 and 1996. While at ANU I supervised many Indonesian postgraduate projects, including fifteen MA and PhD theses by a total of nine Indonesian students, some of whom are in the audience today. What have we learnt about Indo-Pacific population history during the past half-century? In 1967, Indo-Pacific prehistory was still in its infancy. In 2026, many independent scientific disciplines (including, of course, archaeology itself) combine on an equal footing to advance understanding of human cultural and biological evolution. Where are we going, and why? What role can knowledge of the human past play in the modern Indo-Pacific world, from Madagascar to New Zealand?? As Homo sapiens we are one species, but do all living humans appreciate this, even in 2026? Knowledge about the human past has increased hugely over the past half century, but respect for other humans in many global situations has not. As archaeologists, can we contribute to a tolerant and safe future for our species?

The first Palaeolithic artefact was discovered in India in 1863, a find that not only pushed back the antiquity of the region but also led to research that reshaped the geographic frontiers of the Acheulian world. Here, I discuss debates in Indian prehistory, focusing on the Lower to Late Palaeolithic, which currently stands at another dynamic interpretative frontier. Recent discoveries, chronologies, and technological studies are changing perspectives on hominin behaviour, migration, transitions, and cultural nomenclature. To begin with, the presence of an Oldowan/Mode 1 in the subcontinent remains debated, but cannot be ruled out. Considerable research has focused on India's rich Acheulian record, beginning at ~1.07–1.7 Ma, but with few chronological controls on its evolutionary trajectory. Acheulian endings are less well known, beginning around 385 ± 64 ka and possibly ending around 140 ka, marking the transition to the early Middle Palaeolithic. Similar debates exist as regards the origins of the blade/microlith/bladelet assemblages of the Late Palaeolithic. The paper proceeds to discuss issues related to cultural 'transitions' and their implications in the context of current perspectives on hominin migration out of Africa or elsewhere, and the conducive climatic conditions for the same. Following discussions on research, I conclude by situating these in the context of interpretative frontiers in popular awareness of Indian prehistory and implications in terms of the conservation of sites.

The contemporary world can be seen as an intersection of climate instability, shifting geopolitics, and a digital revolution that blurs the line between historical reality and simulation. This keynote argues that modern pressures are parallels to the archaeological past. By examining, for instance, climate change, migration patterns, ethnic hybridity, and fluid identities, or the formation of complex power and trade alliances, we produce a critical framework for understanding how societies historically navigated environmental and socio-political disruption. While regional research has traditionally focused on the deeper past, expanding our focus to include the archaeology of the colonial-era, industrial transitions, warfare and conflict will assist in developing a better understanding of the roots of modern regional instability and the complexities of human resilience. To address these challenges, the discipline must adopt and integrate hybrid methodologies that bridge research disparity where high-tech analysis of global questions is often centralized in the West. Integrating local expertise with advanced innovations like DNA analysis or AI/digital archaeology can transform regional data into global insights. We must democratize technological access through sustainable knowledge transfer and capacity building, rather than simple equipment provision. Furthermore, fostering collaborative research that transcends narrow nationalist narratives will enhance knowledge of our shared cultural heritage and regional diversity. In this model, local and indigenous insights are integrated with advanced analytics, ensuring that regional stakeholders maintain narrative agency. This transforms archaeology from a process of external discovery into a symmetrical journey of mutual technical and intellectual growth.