From test pits to big-scale archaeology in New Caledonia, southern Melanesia

C. Sand, David Baret, Jacques Bolé, S. Domergue, André Ouetcho, Jean‐Marie Wadrawane
{"title":"From test pits to big-scale archaeology in New Caledonia, southern Melanesia","authors":"C. Sand, David Baret, Jacques Bolé, S. Domergue, André Ouetcho, Jean‐Marie Wadrawane","doi":"10.22459/TA51.2019.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Following on from pioneering projects (Allen and Gosden 1991; Garanger 1972; Green and Cresswell 1976), Melanesian archaeology has, during the last three decades, seen massive developments. In every archipelago, a number of ambitious research programs were initiated in the 1990s (e.g. Bedford et al. 1999; Clark and Anderson 2009; Sand 1996; Sheppard et al. 2000; Summerhayes 2000) and carried on in the following decades, allowing us to broaden, sometimes exponentially, our knowledge of the long past of this part of Oceania. Sadly, in a period characterised by important economic development in the region with the construction of numerous international hotels and tourism-related facilities, new roads and airstrips, extensions of townships, factories and housing, and logging and mining, very few large-scale archaeological rescue excavations in the form of cultural resource management (CRM) programs have been carried out. Impact studies are non-compulsory or mostly neglected in Oceania. In this regard, clear differences can be identified between the archipelagos of the region. Some nation-states have at times allowed highly destructive economic projects like logging or mining without any previous archaeological studies, while in other instances, multimillion dollar development projects by international companies include a multi-year archaeological assessment of the heritage landscapes before development (e.g. Richards et al. 2016).","PeriodicalId":273724,"journal":{"name":"Archaeologies of Island Melanesia: Current approaches to landscapes, exchange and practice","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeologies of Island Melanesia: Current approaches to landscapes, exchange and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22459/TA51.2019.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following on from pioneering projects (Allen and Gosden 1991; Garanger 1972; Green and Cresswell 1976), Melanesian archaeology has, during the last three decades, seen massive developments. In every archipelago, a number of ambitious research programs were initiated in the 1990s (e.g. Bedford et al. 1999; Clark and Anderson 2009; Sand 1996; Sheppard et al. 2000; Summerhayes 2000) and carried on in the following decades, allowing us to broaden, sometimes exponentially, our knowledge of the long past of this part of Oceania. Sadly, in a period characterised by important economic development in the region with the construction of numerous international hotels and tourism-related facilities, new roads and airstrips, extensions of townships, factories and housing, and logging and mining, very few large-scale archaeological rescue excavations in the form of cultural resource management (CRM) programs have been carried out. Impact studies are non-compulsory or mostly neglected in Oceania. In this regard, clear differences can be identified between the archipelagos of the region. Some nation-states have at times allowed highly destructive economic projects like logging or mining without any previous archaeological studies, while in other instances, multimillion dollar development projects by international companies include a multi-year archaeological assessment of the heritage landscapes before development (e.g. Richards et al. 2016).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在美拉尼西亚南部的新喀里多尼亚,从测试坑到大规模考古
继开创性项目(Allen and Gosden 1991;加朗1972;Green and Cresswell 1976),美拉尼西亚考古学在过去的三十年里取得了巨大的发展。在每个群岛,在20世纪90年代都启动了一些雄心勃勃的研究项目(例如Bedford等人,1999;Clark and Anderson 2009;沙1996;Sheppard et al. 2000;Summerhayes(2000)),并在接下来的几十年里继续进行,使我们对大洋洲这一地区悠久历史的了解得以扩大,有时甚至呈指数级增长。可悲的是,在该地区经济发展的重要时期,建设了许多国际酒店和旅游相关设施,新的道路和飞机跑道,扩展了城镇,工厂和住房,以及伐木和采矿,很少有以文化资源管理(CRM)项目形式进行的大规模考古救援挖掘。在大洋洲,影响研究是非强制性的或大多被忽视。在这方面,本区域各群岛之间可以确定明显的差异。一些民族国家有时会在没有任何考古研究的情况下允许伐木或采矿等高度破坏性的经济项目,而在其他情况下,国际公司数百万美元的开发项目包括在开发前对遗产景观进行多年的考古评估(例如Richards et al. 2016)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mummification of the human body as a vector of social link: The case of Faténaoué (New Caledonia) Saltwater and bush in New Georgia, Solomon Islands: Exchange relations, agricultural intensification and limits to social complexity Four hundred years of niche construction in the western Solomon Islands Reconsidering the ‘Neolithic’ at Manim rock shelter, Wurup Valley, Papua New Guinea Technological process in pre-colonial Melanesia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1