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":"89 1","pages":"14 - 31"},"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: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190510
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":"89 1","pages":"73 - 74"},"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: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2183592
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":"89 1","pages":"91 - 92"},"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: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190497
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":"89 1","pages":"66 - 70"},"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: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2194102
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":"89 1","pages":"93 - 95"},"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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2022.2159751
Wanchese M. Saktura, E. Rehn, Lauren Linnenlucke, H. Munack, Rachel Wood, F. Petchey, A. Codilean, Z. Jacobs, T. Cohen, A. Williams, Sean Ulm
Abstract Reliable chronological frameworks for archaeological sites are essential for accurate interpretations of the past. Geochronology represents the core of interdisciplinary research because it allows integration of diverse data on a common timeline. Since the radiocarbon revolution in Australian archaeology in the 1950s, thousands of ages have been produced across Sahul (combined landmass of Australia and New Guinea). Methods such as thermoluminescence (TL) and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) have also been used on Australian archaeological deposits and enabled the study of the deep past beyond the limits of radiocarbon dating. After seven decades, these geochronological methods no longer provide just a ‘date’, but instead, the geochronological community is focussed on providing the most reliable, precise, and reproducible ages. These aspects of age estimation are central to the framework of the SahulArch geochronological database. SahulArch is a new publicly available continental-scale dataset in which context and quality assurance criteria of each dated sample are considered as important as the age itself. SahulArch contains a total of 10,717 ages (9,504 radiocarbon, 973 OSL, and 240 TL) from 2,318 sites across the Sahul landmass. We describe the structure of SahulArch, types of auxiliary data collected, and provide a summary of the data in SahulArch. Graphical Abstract
{"title":"SahulArch: A geochronological database for the archaeology of Sahul","authors":"Wanchese M. Saktura, E. Rehn, Lauren Linnenlucke, H. Munack, Rachel Wood, F. Petchey, A. Codilean, Z. Jacobs, T. Cohen, A. Williams, Sean Ulm","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2022.2159751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2022.2159751","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Reliable chronological frameworks for archaeological sites are essential for accurate interpretations of the past. Geochronology represents the core of interdisciplinary research because it allows integration of diverse data on a common timeline. Since the radiocarbon revolution in Australian archaeology in the 1950s, thousands of ages have been produced across Sahul (combined landmass of Australia and New Guinea). Methods such as thermoluminescence (TL) and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) have also been used on Australian archaeological deposits and enabled the study of the deep past beyond the limits of radiocarbon dating. After seven decades, these geochronological methods no longer provide just a ‘date’, but instead, the geochronological community is focussed on providing the most reliable, precise, and reproducible ages. These aspects of age estimation are central to the framework of the SahulArch geochronological database. SahulArch is a new publicly available continental-scale dataset in which context and quality assurance criteria of each dated sample are considered as important as the age itself. SahulArch contains a total of 10,717 ages (9,504 radiocarbon, 973 OSL, and 240 TL) from 2,318 sites across the Sahul landmass. We describe the structure of SahulArch, types of auxiliary data collected, and provide a summary of the data in SahulArch. Graphical Abstract","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"89 1","pages":"1 - 13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42375402","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: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190558
A. Martindale
Authorship, like many cultural quotients, reflects the positionality within which it has currency. In academic worlds, it is the key metric of scholarly worth, one that defines careers and is the pathway to success. As such, it carries particular potency as a proxy of accomplishment, one that commonly emerges from a foundation of understanding: authorship is the badge of knowledge within our institutional spaces and in those of others, such as legal arenas. However, there are two deviations to this pattern that are raised in this important work. First, because of its value, authorship both generates and reflects power in ways that do not always align with understanding. Second, because of its role as an academic currency, authorship in this context invokes a particularly, perhaps peculiarly, Western view of knowledge. In Western academic worlds, the benefits of authorship typically fall to the individual. Research teams that work collaboratively tend to provide equal opportunity for members to occupy positions of significance rather than confronting the hierarchical nature of system. Some teams simply replicate their own hierarchies in authorship; some authors avoid collaborative practice altogether to avoid them. The ability to do otherwise is enjoyed only by people outside the academic system or those senior enough to be beyond it. Those looking for employment or its continuation rarely have the capacity to forgo individual recognition. In this paper, Ouzman proposes profound alternatives for authors such as collective and non-human variants. Ouzman also suggests revisions to the hierarchy of published projects, which can disentangle the hierarchy of value from the rigidity of the hierarchy of status in publications. As Sonya Atalay has demonstrated (Atalay et al. 2017), this can not only address complex issues in new and insightful ways, but make the project of understanding the scholarship behind it more accessible – a key priority for communities marginalised from academic hierarchies. As exciting as these ideas are, they do not fundamentally alter the hierarchy of value attached to being an academic author, so I fear they will remain outliers. If authorship correlates with individual academic value in monetised and career placement ways, the system will remain intact. That should not dissuade people, as this forum achieves, from pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the academic exchange of collective understanding for individual benefit. Universities continue to navigate the paradox of being places where knowledge is both produced for the collective good and where it is monetised for individual benefit. Changing this seems to imply tearing down the very foundations of our academic institutions, which though arguably laudable, will not happen either quickly or without major revolution in other cultural contexts. There is a more proximal issue here, however, one that might have a better chance of unravelling in the near term: that of the di
{"title":"Authorship as social relations","authors":"A. Martindale","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2190558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2190558","url":null,"abstract":"Authorship, like many cultural quotients, reflects the positionality within which it has currency. In academic worlds, it is the key metric of scholarly worth, one that defines careers and is the pathway to success. As such, it carries particular potency as a proxy of accomplishment, one that commonly emerges from a foundation of understanding: authorship is the badge of knowledge within our institutional spaces and in those of others, such as legal arenas. However, there are two deviations to this pattern that are raised in this important work. First, because of its value, authorship both generates and reflects power in ways that do not always align with understanding. Second, because of its role as an academic currency, authorship in this context invokes a particularly, perhaps peculiarly, Western view of knowledge. In Western academic worlds, the benefits of authorship typically fall to the individual. Research teams that work collaboratively tend to provide equal opportunity for members to occupy positions of significance rather than confronting the hierarchical nature of system. Some teams simply replicate their own hierarchies in authorship; some authors avoid collaborative practice altogether to avoid them. The ability to do otherwise is enjoyed only by people outside the academic system or those senior enough to be beyond it. Those looking for employment or its continuation rarely have the capacity to forgo individual recognition. In this paper, Ouzman proposes profound alternatives for authors such as collective and non-human variants. Ouzman also suggests revisions to the hierarchy of published projects, which can disentangle the hierarchy of value from the rigidity of the hierarchy of status in publications. As Sonya Atalay has demonstrated (Atalay et al. 2017), this can not only address complex issues in new and insightful ways, but make the project of understanding the scholarship behind it more accessible – a key priority for communities marginalised from academic hierarchies. As exciting as these ideas are, they do not fundamentally alter the hierarchy of value attached to being an academic author, so I fear they will remain outliers. If authorship correlates with individual academic value in monetised and career placement ways, the system will remain intact. That should not dissuade people, as this forum achieves, from pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the academic exchange of collective understanding for individual benefit. Universities continue to navigate the paradox of being places where knowledge is both produced for the collective good and where it is monetised for individual benefit. Changing this seems to imply tearing down the very foundations of our academic institutions, which though arguably laudable, will not happen either quickly or without major revolution in other cultural contexts. There is a more proximal issue here, however, one that might have a better chance of unravelling in the near term: that of the di","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"89 1","pages":"80 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49427048","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: 10.1080/03122417.2023.2190554
L. Burarrwanga, R. Ganambarr, M. Ganambarr-Stubbs, B. Ganambarr, D. Maymuru, Stephen J. Wright, S. Suchet-Pearson, K. Lloyd, L. Daley
{"title":"Author-ity of/as Bawaka Country","authors":"L. Burarrwanga, R. Ganambarr, M. Ganambarr-Stubbs, B. Ganambarr, D. Maymuru, Stephen J. Wright, S. Suchet-Pearson, K. Lloyd, L. Daley","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2023.2190554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2023.2190554","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"89 1","pages":"75 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41568008","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：