Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190560
L. Zimmerman
{"title":"Models can be helpful, but common sense may be enough","authors":"L. Zimmerman","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2190560","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2190560","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48159082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190559
Maddison Miller
I thank Ouzman for his contribution, and echo the call for Indigenous partners, communities, and Country to be recognised as authors in research. This recognition of authorship shifts the dynamic from Aboriginal people as subjects to collaborators. It has been often claimed that the sheer volume of research on Aboriginal peoples and our lands and waters have led to us being the most researched peoples on the planet (Martin and Mirraboopa 2003:203). Research has, and continues to, occur about Aboriginal people and Country without fair consultation or invitation. Calls for authorship rights should be welcomed, and this conversation can be enriched through the understanding and application of Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP) rights within archaeology and related disciplines. Indigenous cultural and intellectual property refers to the intangible and tangible elements of cultural practice, resources and knowledge systems that express cultural identity (Janke 2005). It recognises the living and adaptive nature of Indigenous knowledge and cultural expression and includes contemporary and future expressions. Janke argues that when Indigenous knowledge is separated from Indigenous communities, those communities lose control over how their knowledge, customs, traditions, and beliefs are represented and used. Some sources, particularly earlier colonial records, published information that would be considered restricted within community and were recorded when people could not exercise prior and informed consent. This knowledge is further appropriated through modern literature and educational resources without repatriation to the communities from which it belongs. Indigenous researchers are well versed in navigating the cultural safety minefield that is historical research. We are often confronted with closed practice knowledges written about as a curiosity. Within our communities, lore dictates whether that knowledge be held communally or by particular knowledge holders, and how that knowledge is shared outside of community. Our lore is disrespected and dismissed through the disassociation of our knowledges from the rich social fabric in which they emerge and belong. Concepts of stewardship and guardianship sit outside Western legal systems’ understanding of intellectual property as a thing to be owned (Lai 2014). In a Western worldview, humans and nature can be separated, whereas in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander worldviews we are Country. As Ouzman points out, Western legal processes do not handle well collective authorship, intergenerational knowledge, and more-than-human knowledges. The authorship of Country is one way in which we see researchers trying to recognise the knowledge held and shared by Country. Inter and transdisciplinary practice within archaeology begins to paint a social, environmental, and cultural picture of the past. Our understanding of the past is only enriched through Indigenous knowledge systems, which hol
{"title":"Navigating knowledge and intellectual property","authors":"Maddison Miller","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2190559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2190559","url":null,"abstract":"I thank Ouzman for his contribution, and echo the call for Indigenous partners, communities, and Country to be recognised as authors in research. This recognition of authorship shifts the dynamic from Aboriginal people as subjects to collaborators. It has been often claimed that the sheer volume of research on Aboriginal peoples and our lands and waters have led to us being the most researched peoples on the planet (Martin and Mirraboopa 2003:203). Research has, and continues to, occur about Aboriginal people and Country without fair consultation or invitation. Calls for authorship rights should be welcomed, and this conversation can be enriched through the understanding and application of Indigenous cultural and intellectual property (ICIP) rights within archaeology and related disciplines. Indigenous cultural and intellectual property refers to the intangible and tangible elements of cultural practice, resources and knowledge systems that express cultural identity (Janke 2005). It recognises the living and adaptive nature of Indigenous knowledge and cultural expression and includes contemporary and future expressions. Janke argues that when Indigenous knowledge is separated from Indigenous communities, those communities lose control over how their knowledge, customs, traditions, and beliefs are represented and used. Some sources, particularly earlier colonial records, published information that would be considered restricted within community and were recorded when people could not exercise prior and informed consent. This knowledge is further appropriated through modern literature and educational resources without repatriation to the communities from which it belongs. Indigenous researchers are well versed in navigating the cultural safety minefield that is historical research. We are often confronted with closed practice knowledges written about as a curiosity. Within our communities, lore dictates whether that knowledge be held communally or by particular knowledge holders, and how that knowledge is shared outside of community. Our lore is disrespected and dismissed through the disassociation of our knowledges from the rich social fabric in which they emerge and belong. Concepts of stewardship and guardianship sit outside Western legal systems’ understanding of intellectual property as a thing to be owned (Lai 2014). In a Western worldview, humans and nature can be separated, whereas in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander worldviews we are Country. As Ouzman points out, Western legal processes do not handle well collective authorship, intergenerational knowledge, and more-than-human knowledges. The authorship of Country is one way in which we see researchers trying to recognise the knowledge held and shared by Country. Inter and transdisciplinary practice within archaeology begins to paint a social, environmental, and cultural picture of the past. Our understanding of the past is only enriched through Indigenous knowledge systems, which hol","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43112968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2175960
B. Barker, L. Lamb, M. Leavesley, T. Manne, Andrew S. Fairbairn, Andrew Coe, Kelsey M. Lowe, Teppsy Beni, Betty Neanda, M. Aubert
Abstract This paper presents preliminary results from the 2019 excavations at Walufeni Cave, at the eastern end of the Great Papuan Plateau (GPP) in western Papua New Guinea. Preliminary dating and analysis of the unfinished excavations at Walufeni Cave span the Holocene and probably continue into the Late Pleistocene, confirming the presence of people on the Plateau from at least the Early Holocene and potentially much earlier. The data presented here offer a site-specific model of early intensive site use from at least 10,000 years ago, then ephemeral use, followed by a sustained Late Holocene occupation. Although there are significant changes in the quantity of material discard over time, there is little evidence for significant change in the subsistence base or technology, reflecting a degree of relative homogeneity until the Late Holocene, when we see the introduction of pig, a change of focus in the plant economy and the presence of marine shell from the southern coast.
{"title":"A Holocene sequence from Walufeni Cave, Southern Highlands Province, and its implications for the settlement of the Great Papuan Plateau, Papua New Guinea","authors":"B. Barker, L. Lamb, M. Leavesley, T. Manne, Andrew S. Fairbairn, Andrew Coe, Kelsey M. Lowe, Teppsy Beni, Betty Neanda, M. Aubert","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2175960","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2175960","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper presents preliminary results from the 2019 excavations at Walufeni Cave, at the eastern end of the Great Papuan Plateau (GPP) in western Papua New Guinea. Preliminary dating and analysis of the unfinished excavations at Walufeni Cave span the Holocene and probably continue into the Late Pleistocene, confirming the presence of people on the Plateau from at least the Early Holocene and potentially much earlier. The data presented here offer a site-specific model of early intensive site use from at least 10,000 years ago, then ephemeral use, followed by a sustained Late Holocene occupation. Although there are significant changes in the quantity of material discard over time, there is little evidence for significant change in the subsistence base or technology, reflecting a degree of relative homogeneity until the Late Holocene, when we see the introduction of pig, a change of focus in the plant economy and the presence of marine shell from the southern coast.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44655294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190501
Mitchell Allen
{"title":"Authorship, academia, and open access","authors":"Mitchell Allen","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2190501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2190501","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41896843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2177949
P. Taçon, L. Taylor, Sally K. May, Joakim Goldhahn, A. Jalandoni, Alex Ressel, Kenneth Mangiru
Abstract From 1912, British anthropologist W. Baldwin Spencer and buffalo-shooter Paddy Cahill collected 163 bark paintings made by artists who also painted in rock shelters in western Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. Spencer made detailed notes about the bark paintings, secret/sacred objects, and other material culture he collected and some rock art, as well as genealogies and other details of the Aboriginal people he encountered but did not record the names of the artists. In general, the names and life stories of the individuals who made most Aboriginal archaeological artefacts or ethnographic objects and paintings now in museums across the world are not known. We have recently begun to address this for western Arnhem Land contact period art and in this paper focus on an elder, Majumbu (‘Old Harry’), who made numerous rock paintings as well as at least eight of the Spencer-Cahill bark paintings. We use his work to begin a new interpretation of the importance of the Spencer-Cahill Collection in relation to land-based religion and show that knowing the names of the artists behind the collection, as well as related rock paintings, puts their work and the entire collection in new meaningful contexts.
{"title":"Majumbu (‘Old Harry’) and the Spencer-Cahill bark painting collection","authors":"P. Taçon, L. Taylor, Sally K. May, Joakim Goldhahn, A. Jalandoni, Alex Ressel, Kenneth Mangiru","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2177949","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2177949","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract From 1912, British anthropologist W. Baldwin Spencer and buffalo-shooter Paddy Cahill collected 163 bark paintings made by artists who also painted in rock shelters in western Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. Spencer made detailed notes about the bark paintings, secret/sacred objects, and other material culture he collected and some rock art, as well as genealogies and other details of the Aboriginal people he encountered but did not record the names of the artists. In general, the names and life stories of the individuals who made most Aboriginal archaeological artefacts or ethnographic objects and paintings now in museums across the world are not known. We have recently begun to address this for western Arnhem Land contact period art and in this paper focus on an elder, Majumbu (‘Old Harry’), who made numerous rock paintings as well as at least eight of the Spencer-Cahill bark paintings. We use his work to begin a new interpretation of the importance of the Spencer-Cahill Collection in relation to land-based religion and show that knowing the names of the artists behind the collection, as well as related rock paintings, puts their work and the entire collection in new meaningful contexts.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49139733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190561
Sven Ouzman
{"title":"Authorship, attribution and acknowledgment in archaeology: Reply, adding audience and accountability","authors":"Sven Ouzman","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2190561","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2190561","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48057163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190510
Katelyn Barney
{"title":"Co-authorship, collaboration and contestation in relation to Indigenous research","authors":"Katelyn Barney","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2190510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2190510","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45539764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190497
Sven Ouzman
In 2021 the COVIDSurg Collaborative broke the world record for most co-authors on a peerreviewed article in the journal Anaesthesia 15,025, who are listed in a 77-page supplement. The previous record, with 5,000 authors, was published in Nature in 2015. Despite growing concerns about the devaluing of authorship, the COVIDSurg study is entirely appropriate for a study involving over 140,000 people in 116 countries. The work could not have happened without collaboration across fields of expertise and national borders. This resonates with archaeologists, who typically work in groups with diverse partners. But we sometimes struggle with deciding who – or what – makes the cut as an ‘author’ as opposed to someone mentioned in the acknowledgments or left out altogether. Added to this is our social science sensibility of how knowledge production works in a twenty-first-century post-colonial context.
{"title":"Authorship, attribution and acknowledgment in archaeology","authors":"Sven Ouzman","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2190497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2190497","url":null,"abstract":"In 2021 the COVIDSurg Collaborative broke the world record for most co-authors on a peerreviewed article in the journal Anaesthesia 15,025, who are listed in a 77-page supplement. The previous record, with 5,000 authors, was published in Nature in 2015. Despite growing concerns about the devaluing of authorship, the COVIDSurg study is entirely appropriate for a study involving over 140,000 people in 116 countries. The work could not have happened without collaboration across fields of expertise and national borders. This resonates with archaeologists, who typically work in groups with diverse partners. But we sometimes struggle with deciding who – or what – makes the cut as an ‘author’ as opposed to someone mentioned in the acknowledgments or left out altogether. Added to this is our social science sensibility of how knowledge production works in a twenty-first-century post-colonial context.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43976871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2183592
Yinika L. Perston
4 The Archaeological Record Consists of all things that preserve and that pertain to the past history of humans 5 The Archaeological Record Consists of: Artifacts: the basic unit of archaeological analysis – it is a portable object made, modified, or used by humans. An artifact must retain and show evidence of having been made or used Simple artifacts (single part) Complex artifacts (having multiple parts)
{"title":"Understanding Chipped Stone Tools","authors":"Yinika L. Perston","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2183592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2183592","url":null,"abstract":"4 The Archaeological Record Consists of all things that preserve and that pertain to the past history of humans 5 The Archaeological Record Consists of: Artifacts: the basic unit of archaeological analysis – it is a portable object made, modified, or used by humans. An artifact must retain and show evidence of having been made or used Simple artifacts (single part) Complex artifacts (having multiple parts)","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44677637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2194102
P. Martín
backdrop. To summarise, this is one of the most detailed reports of an excavation I have ever read. Reading it, you will know exactly what they found in 6m of the PNG south coast and where it was found. Whether we need to know this with such precision might be debated. Now for a couple of more general comments. Although it is clear from the photos and acknowledgments that many Papua New Guineans were involved in the work, only one, the late Hermann Mandui, is an author. The first Caution Bay volume (Richards et al. 2016) says that many University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) students and some others were trainees on site, but there does seem to be something of a hierarchy in presenting the results. Perhaps the meticulousness of this excavation results from being partly seen as a field school? In terms of production, this is a 350-page book of which well over 200 pages are data tables. In the twenty-first century these should be online, or otherwise available in an electronic repository; printed, or even as a pdf, they are very difficult to manipulate and use. This seems an extraordinary oversight. Otherwise, the presentation is fine: my pdf had many excellent colour photos, well organised text and only a couple of minor problems (e.g. the size of sherd in Square N, XU2, #2: compare p.80 with Figures 3.15 and 3.18). It is not clear (Richards et al. 2016:6) how many other Caution Bay monographs there will be, but this project has already made a considerable contribution to the history of Papua New Guinea.
{"title":"Histories of Australian Rock Art Research","authors":"P. Martín","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2194102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2194102","url":null,"abstract":"backdrop. To summarise, this is one of the most detailed reports of an excavation I have ever read. Reading it, you will know exactly what they found in 6m of the PNG south coast and where it was found. Whether we need to know this with such precision might be debated. Now for a couple of more general comments. Although it is clear from the photos and acknowledgments that many Papua New Guineans were involved in the work, only one, the late Hermann Mandui, is an author. The first Caution Bay volume (Richards et al. 2016) says that many University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) students and some others were trainees on site, but there does seem to be something of a hierarchy in presenting the results. Perhaps the meticulousness of this excavation results from being partly seen as a field school? In terms of production, this is a 350-page book of which well over 200 pages are data tables. In the twenty-first century these should be online, or otherwise available in an electronic repository; printed, or even as a pdf, they are very difficult to manipulate and use. This seems an extraordinary oversight. Otherwise, the presentation is fine: my pdf had many excellent colour photos, well organised text and only a couple of minor problems (e.g. the size of sherd in Square N, XU2, #2: compare p.80 with Figures 3.15 and 3.18). It is not clear (Richards et al. 2016:6) how many other Caution Bay monographs there will be, but this project has already made a considerable contribution to the history of Papua New Guinea.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49436883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：