Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2021.1991409
Jillian Garvey, John Clarke, D. Perry
{"title":"What is farming, what is archaeology, and who gets to decide?","authors":"Jillian Garvey, John Clarke, D. Perry","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.1991409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1991409","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"87 1","pages":"309 - 310"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42181903","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2021.1971373
P. Veth
Sutton and Walshe have succeeded in showing that the underlying premise of Pascoe’s Dark Emu, that First Australians were agriculturalists, is untenable. Its neartotal reliance on a subset of historical records removes insights that could have come from studies of ethnobotany, peoples’ aggregation patterns, and the spiritual basis for regenerating plants and animals. It does not consider widely used methods to establish the age and function of tools at sites. Instead, it offers the reaffirming glow of ‘agricultural supremacy’ which is argued to overshadow the voices of Traditional Owners, social and human scientists. Is this a universal conspiracy or just disciplinary blindness? Pascoe has projected the ingenuity of Aboriginal land and resource use into the public domain, but is it for the first time? It is approximately 20 years since I reviewed a monograph by Rupert Gerritsen on Nhanda Villages of the Victoria District, Western Australia (Veth 2002). I noted at the time ‘If you have ever subscribed to the theory of incipient agriculture in Australia or wanted to believe that (re)planting of yams or domiculture equated with the intensive management of cultigens then this slim research paper is just what you have been waiting for’ (Veth 2002:57). I concluded that the majority of Gerritsen’s conclusions were unsupported by the evidence. In short, I rejected the following claims:
{"title":"Farmers or Hunter-gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate","authors":"P. Veth","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.1971373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1971373","url":null,"abstract":"Sutton and Walshe have succeeded in showing that the underlying premise of Pascoe’s Dark Emu, that First Australians were agriculturalists, is untenable. Its neartotal reliance on a subset of historical records removes insights that could have come from studies of ethnobotany, peoples’ aggregation patterns, and the spiritual basis for regenerating plants and animals. It does not consider widely used methods to establish the age and function of tools at sites. Instead, it offers the reaffirming glow of ‘agricultural supremacy’ which is argued to overshadow the voices of Traditional Owners, social and human scientists. Is this a universal conspiracy or just disciplinary blindness? Pascoe has projected the ingenuity of Aboriginal land and resource use into the public domain, but is it for the first time? It is approximately 20 years since I reviewed a monograph by Rupert Gerritsen on Nhanda Villages of the Victoria District, Western Australia (Veth 2002). I noted at the time ‘If you have ever subscribed to the theory of incipient agriculture in Australia or wanted to believe that (re)planting of yams or domiculture equated with the intensive management of cultigens then this slim research paper is just what you have been waiting for’ (Veth 2002:57). I concluded that the majority of Gerritsen’s conclusions were unsupported by the evidence. In short, I rejected the following claims:","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"87 1","pages":"333 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42500987","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2021.1991378
M. Porr, Ella Vivian-Williams
Abstract In the book Dark Emu, Pascoe argues that Aboriginal Australian societies should not be described as ‘hunter-gatherers’ but as ‘farmers’. In doing this, Pascoe actually places Aboriginal lifeways at the origin of a culture-historical trajectory that he himself has criticised for most of his life. He implicitly supports a historical narrative and a vision of human nature that is at the heart of most current environmental and social problems. The success and enthusiastic reception of Dark Emu by large sections of Australian society is consequently equally unsurprising and deeply problematic. Australian archaeologists have so far largely failed to engage with Dark Emu and its arguments in any substantial form. One of the reasons for this lack of critical interrogation is an agreement with Dark Emu’s key motivation: a genuine interest in growing the knowledge of and appreciation for Indigenous heritage in Australia. However, Australian archaeology is also complicit in the erasure of Aboriginal diversity and alterity that is an effect of Dark Emu’s project and, as such, responsible for the erasure of options to learn from the past and challenge the present. In this paper, we draw attention to a certain tragic dimension of the book and its logic, by placing its arguments in a framework of the modern understanding of society, human history, and humanity’s future.
{"title":"The tragedy of Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu","authors":"M. Porr, Ella Vivian-Williams","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.1991378","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1991378","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the book Dark Emu, Pascoe argues that Aboriginal Australian societies should not be described as ‘hunter-gatherers’ but as ‘farmers’. In doing this, Pascoe actually places Aboriginal lifeways at the origin of a culture-historical trajectory that he himself has criticised for most of his life. He implicitly supports a historical narrative and a vision of human nature that is at the heart of most current environmental and social problems. The success and enthusiastic reception of Dark Emu by large sections of Australian society is consequently equally unsurprising and deeply problematic. Australian archaeologists have so far largely failed to engage with Dark Emu and its arguments in any substantial form. One of the reasons for this lack of critical interrogation is an agreement with Dark Emu’s key motivation: a genuine interest in growing the knowledge of and appreciation for Indigenous heritage in Australia. However, Australian archaeology is also complicit in the erasure of Aboriginal diversity and alterity that is an effect of Dark Emu’s project and, as such, responsible for the erasure of options to learn from the past and challenge the present. In this paper, we draw attention to a certain tragic dimension of the book and its logic, by placing its arguments in a framework of the modern understanding of society, human history, and humanity’s future.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"87 1","pages":"300 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42835969","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2021.1978915
J. McDonald, K. Mulvaney, Emma Beckett, J. Fairweather, Patrick Morrison, Sarah de Koning, J. Dortch, Peter Jeffries
Abstract The Nganjarli site complex, which includes a rich body of rock art, shell middens and artefact scatters, has been identified by the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) as the primary location within Murujuga National Park for tourism and interpretation facilities. Murujuga National Park lies on the north-west coast of Western Australia, and within the Dampier Archipelago (including Burrup Peninsula) National Heritage Place. MAC owns and co-manages the National Park with the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions. Facilities have been upgraded to accommodate increasing tourist numbers and enhance their cultural experience at Nganjarli. Archaeological evidence was documented ahead of the installation of a boardwalk and concrete walking trails for viewing rock art. The national heritage values of this place are demonstrated, and we outline how existing co-management has mobilised contemporary cultural values and the aspirations of the Murujuga custodians. We document the role of innovative scientific approaches in the interpretive strategy for Nganjarli. New recording techniques and digital imaging demonstrate the diversity of animal motifs in the rock art near the installed boardwalk and identify opportunities for further digital interpretation of this significant landscape. Geochemical testing of surface lithic artefacts using X-ray fluorescence indicates mixed sourcing in the preferred lithics despite this being a tool-stone rich environment. Surface shell derives from targeted harvesting of a single species. The combined archaeological evidence indicates that Nganjarli has functioned as an aggregation locale through time. The rock art assemblage indicates that occupation here began during the earlier phases of art production. All these findings have been incorporated into the interpretative facilities in the tourist area.
{"title":"Seeing and managing rock art at Nganjarli: A tourist destination in Murujuga National Park, Western Australia","authors":"J. McDonald, K. Mulvaney, Emma Beckett, J. Fairweather, Patrick Morrison, Sarah de Koning, J. Dortch, Peter Jeffries","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.1978915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1978915","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Nganjarli site complex, which includes a rich body of rock art, shell middens and artefact scatters, has been identified by the Murujuga Aboriginal Corporation (MAC) as the primary location within Murujuga National Park for tourism and interpretation facilities. Murujuga National Park lies on the north-west coast of Western Australia, and within the Dampier Archipelago (including Burrup Peninsula) National Heritage Place. MAC owns and co-manages the National Park with the Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions. Facilities have been upgraded to accommodate increasing tourist numbers and enhance their cultural experience at Nganjarli. Archaeological evidence was documented ahead of the installation of a boardwalk and concrete walking trails for viewing rock art. The national heritage values of this place are demonstrated, and we outline how existing co-management has mobilised contemporary cultural values and the aspirations of the Murujuga custodians. We document the role of innovative scientific approaches in the interpretive strategy for Nganjarli. New recording techniques and digital imaging demonstrate the diversity of animal motifs in the rock art near the installed boardwalk and identify opportunities for further digital interpretation of this significant landscape. Geochemical testing of surface lithic artefacts using X-ray fluorescence indicates mixed sourcing in the preferred lithics despite this being a tool-stone rich environment. Surface shell derives from targeted harvesting of a single species. The combined archaeological evidence indicates that Nganjarli has functioned as an aggregation locale through time. The rock art assemblage indicates that occupation here began during the earlier phases of art production. All these findings have been incorporated into the interpretative facilities in the tourist area.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"87 1","pages":"268 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45912219","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2021.2001146
Sean Ulm, Annie Ross
It has been another big year for AA, celebrating the rich diversity and vibrancy of contemporary archaeology across Australia and nearby areas. It has also been two years (and six AA issues) since we began our latest term as Editors. We take this opportunity to reflect on what we set out to do, what we have achieved to date, and where we would like to see the journal head in the future. AA has published articles ranging from meta-analyses to specialist studies of bone points, from advanced rock art recording and analysis to experimental studies of quartz knapping. Indigenous researchers, Traditional Owners and representative bodies authored many articles and we see this as an important trend in partnership approaches to archaeology, especially as the Association works towards dedicated reconciliation actions. International journals have reported a steep reduction in the number of women submitting papers to journals, linked to increased caring responsibilities and job losses disproportionately impacting women during COVID-19 (McCormick 2020; Viglione 2020). For AA over the last two years we have seen a steady reduction in women lead author publications ( 70% to 40%), but a gradual improvement in this authorship trend has been observed across the last two issues of 2021, where there is a balance of women and men lead author publications (5 women lead authors; 6 men lead authors). One of the most important reintroductions in the journal is the Forum section, which we initially introduced when we were last editors. Over the past two years we have hosted two Forums: on the future of Australian archaeology (Wallis 2020) and the topical Dark Emu debate (Porr and Vivian-Williams 2021), with a further Forum on conceptualising ‘contact’ finalised and due to appear in the journal next year. These Forum sections are important vehicles for airing key debates and facilitating a range of voices to be heard on topical and sometimes controversial issues. We are pleased to report that all three issues of AA for 2021 were published on or ahead of schedule, with all copy published immediately online ahead of print publication. We have also worked to improve the turnaround time on decisions on manuscripts submitted to the journal. The average number of days from submission to first decision is now 48 days, largely reflecting the time taken to source three reviews of each paper.
这是AA的又一个重要年份，庆祝澳大利亚及附近地区当代考古的丰富多样性和活力。自从我们开始最近一个编辑任期以来，也已经两年了（六期AA）。我们借此机会反思我们要做什么，迄今为止我们取得了什么成就，以及我们希望在未来看到杂志的头条。AA发表了从荟萃分析到骨点专家研究的文章，从高级岩石艺术记录和分析到石英敲击的实验研究。土著研究人员、传统所有者和代表机构撰写了许多文章，我们认为这是考古合作方法的一个重要趋势，特别是在协会致力于专门的和解行动之际。国际期刊报告称，向期刊提交论文的女性人数急剧减少，这与新冠肺炎期间护理责任的增加和失业对女性的影响不成比例有关（McCormick 2020；Viglione 2020）。在过去两年中，我们看到AA的女性主要作者出版物稳步减少（70%至40%），但在2021年的最后两期中，这一作者趋势逐渐改善，女性和男性主要作者出版物保持平衡（5名女性主要作者；6名男性主要作者）。该杂志最重要的重新介绍之一是论坛部分，我们在上一任编辑时最初介绍了该部分。在过去的两年里，我们举办了两个论坛：关于澳大利亚考古的未来（Wallis 2020）和主题性的深色Emu辩论（Porr和Vivian Williams 2021），另一个关于“接触”概念化的论坛最终确定，并将于明年发表在杂志上。论坛的这些部分是播放重要辩论的重要工具，有助于就热门问题和有时有争议的问题发出各种声音。我们很高兴地报告，2021年的所有三期AA都如期或提前出版，所有副本都在印刷出版前立即在线发布。我们还努力缩短提交给该杂志的稿件决策的周转时间。从提交到第一次决定的平均天数现在是48天，这在很大程度上反映了每份论文的三次审查所需的时间。
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"Sean Ulm, Annie Ross","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.2001146","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.2001146","url":null,"abstract":"It has been another big year for AA, celebrating the rich diversity and vibrancy of contemporary archaeology across Australia and nearby areas. It has also been two years (and six AA issues) since we began our latest term as Editors. We take this opportunity to reflect on what we set out to do, what we have achieved to date, and where we would like to see the journal head in the future. AA has published articles ranging from meta-analyses to specialist studies of bone points, from advanced rock art recording and analysis to experimental studies of quartz knapping. Indigenous researchers, Traditional Owners and representative bodies authored many articles and we see this as an important trend in partnership approaches to archaeology, especially as the Association works towards dedicated reconciliation actions. International journals have reported a steep reduction in the number of women submitting papers to journals, linked to increased caring responsibilities and job losses disproportionately impacting women during COVID-19 (McCormick 2020; Viglione 2020). For AA over the last two years we have seen a steady reduction in women lead author publications ( 70% to 40%), but a gradual improvement in this authorship trend has been observed across the last two issues of 2021, where there is a balance of women and men lead author publications (5 women lead authors; 6 men lead authors). One of the most important reintroductions in the journal is the Forum section, which we initially introduced when we were last editors. Over the past two years we have hosted two Forums: on the future of Australian archaeology (Wallis 2020) and the topical Dark Emu debate (Porr and Vivian-Williams 2021), with a further Forum on conceptualising ‘contact’ finalised and due to appear in the journal next year. These Forum sections are important vehicles for airing key debates and facilitating a range of voices to be heard on topical and sometimes controversial issues. We are pleased to report that all three issues of AA for 2021 were published on or ahead of schedule, with all copy published immediately online ahead of print publication. We have also worked to improve the turnaround time on decisions on manuscripts submitted to the journal. The average number of days from submission to first decision is now 48 days, largely reflecting the time taken to source three reviews of each paper.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"87 1","pages":"227 - 228"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47429672","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2021.1976899
Mike Smith, J. Ross
Abstract Increasing populations in Central Australia after 1,500 cal BP led to the development of more closely spaced foraging territories, with a consequent shift towards more intensive exploitation of bush foods. We suggest that such pressure would also lead to concomitant shifts in the use of peripheral areas within individual foraging estates. A small archaeological excavation at NEP23, on Watarrka Plateau in Central Australia, provides a glimpse of this dynamic. Use of this site began around 1,350 cal BP. Given this site’s marginal location, initiation of occupation at NEP23 reflects pressure to extend the exploitation of foraging territory otherwise centred on major springs and rock holes along the base of the Watarrka Plateau.
摘要1500年后澳大利亚中部人口不断增加 cal BP导致了更紧密的觅食区域的开发，从而转向了对灌木食物的更密集开发。我们认为，这种压力也会导致个体觅食区内外围区域的使用发生相应的变化。在澳大利亚中部瓦塔尔卡高原的NEP23进行的一次小型考古发掘，让我们得以一窥这种动态。该网站的使用始于1350年左右 cal BP。考虑到该地点的边缘位置，在NEP23开始占领反映了扩大对觅食区域开发的压力，否则这些区域将集中在瓦塔尔卡高原底部的主要泉水和岩石洞上。
{"title":"Reorganising foraging during the Late Holocene: The archaeology of NEP23, Central Australia","authors":"Mike Smith, J. Ross","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.1976899","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1976899","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Increasing populations in Central Australia after 1,500 cal BP led to the development of more closely spaced foraging territories, with a consequent shift towards more intensive exploitation of bush foods. We suggest that such pressure would also lead to concomitant shifts in the use of peripheral areas within individual foraging estates. A small archaeological excavation at NEP23, on Watarrka Plateau in Central Australia, provides a glimpse of this dynamic. Use of this site began around 1,350 cal BP. Given this site’s marginal location, initiation of occupation at NEP23 reflects pressure to extend the exploitation of foraging territory otherwise centred on major springs and rock holes along the base of the Watarrka Plateau.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"87 1","pages":"294 - 299"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44448052","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2021.1991436
Ian J. McNiven
Porr and Vivian-Williams make the correct observation that few Australian archaeologists have been publicly critical of Dark Emu. I agree that this silence is an attempt to preserve the book’s positive representation of pre-contact Aboriginal society as sophisticated and complex. Yet some archaeologists, including myself and Harry Lourandos, have publicly voiced conditional support for Dark Emu (The Australian – Guilliatt 2019), subsequently becoming targets for repetitious online critique in politically conservative media such as The Spectator Australia and Quadrant (e.g. O’Brien 2019, 2021a, 2021b). It is no secret that many Australian archaeologists have had reservations about Bruce Pascoe’s use of the term ‘agriculture’ to describe Aboriginal Australian plant food production systems. I suggest that part of the problem of a lack of desire to voice such reservations publicly is a lack of alternative words and concepts to better characterise these food production systems. It is not a simple case of stating that Aboriginal people were hunter-gatherers, as this designation is equally as problematic as the term agriculture. Porr and Vivian-Williams rightly point out that the concept of hunter-gatherers was a European intellectual invention based on conjecture and not empirical observation. As McNiven and Russell (2005) pointed out in Appropriated Pasts, the ancient Greeks and Romans invented the idea of foraging peoples as part of a developmental cosmology that saw the first peoples as pure and subsisting on the fruits of nature. Pre-contact Aboriginal Australian food production systems were neither agricultural nor hunting and gathering. Anthropological theorising on these major categories of food production systems has advanced little since the nineteenth century, beyond starting that, in many cases, Aboriginal Australians fell somewhere between agriculture and hunting and gathering. One potential answer to this anthropological conundrum is to move beyond nineteenth century dichotomous thinking and to create a trinodal food resource production matrix comprising foraging, cultivation, and agriculture (Figure 1). In this matrix, foragers use the natural availability of food resources; cultivators undertake a wide range of strategies to artificially enhance/increase the natural availability of resources; and agriculturalists replace naturally available resources, usually with imported and domesticated plants and animals. All pre-contact Aboriginal Australian societies possessed varying elements of foraging and cultivation. In some cases, such as the Gunditjmara of southwest Victoria, cultivation extended to fish aquaculture. It is doubtful that any Aboriginal groups were pure foragers, living passively off the natural bounty of nature, just as it is doubtful that any Aboriginal groups artificially enhanced the availability (i.e. cultivated) of every resource they used. The reality is that all societies are cultivators to some degree. Furthermore, ag
{"title":"Bandwagons and bathwater","authors":"Ian J. McNiven","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.1991436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1991436","url":null,"abstract":"Porr and Vivian-Williams make the correct observation that few Australian archaeologists have been publicly critical of Dark Emu. I agree that this silence is an attempt to preserve the book’s positive representation of pre-contact Aboriginal society as sophisticated and complex. Yet some archaeologists, including myself and Harry Lourandos, have publicly voiced conditional support for Dark Emu (The Australian – Guilliatt 2019), subsequently becoming targets for repetitious online critique in politically conservative media such as The Spectator Australia and Quadrant (e.g. O’Brien 2019, 2021a, 2021b). It is no secret that many Australian archaeologists have had reservations about Bruce Pascoe’s use of the term ‘agriculture’ to describe Aboriginal Australian plant food production systems. I suggest that part of the problem of a lack of desire to voice such reservations publicly is a lack of alternative words and concepts to better characterise these food production systems. It is not a simple case of stating that Aboriginal people were hunter-gatherers, as this designation is equally as problematic as the term agriculture. Porr and Vivian-Williams rightly point out that the concept of hunter-gatherers was a European intellectual invention based on conjecture and not empirical observation. As McNiven and Russell (2005) pointed out in Appropriated Pasts, the ancient Greeks and Romans invented the idea of foraging peoples as part of a developmental cosmology that saw the first peoples as pure and subsisting on the fruits of nature. Pre-contact Aboriginal Australian food production systems were neither agricultural nor hunting and gathering. Anthropological theorising on these major categories of food production systems has advanced little since the nineteenth century, beyond starting that, in many cases, Aboriginal Australians fell somewhere between agriculture and hunting and gathering. One potential answer to this anthropological conundrum is to move beyond nineteenth century dichotomous thinking and to create a trinodal food resource production matrix comprising foraging, cultivation, and agriculture (Figure 1). In this matrix, foragers use the natural availability of food resources; cultivators undertake a wide range of strategies to artificially enhance/increase the natural availability of resources; and agriculturalists replace naturally available resources, usually with imported and domesticated plants and animals. All pre-contact Aboriginal Australian societies possessed varying elements of foraging and cultivation. In some cases, such as the Gunditjmara of southwest Victoria, cultivation extended to fish aquaculture. It is doubtful that any Aboriginal groups were pure foragers, living passively off the natural bounty of nature, just as it is doubtful that any Aboriginal groups artificially enhanced the availability (i.e. cultivated) of every resource they used. The reality is that all societies are cultivators to some degree. Furthermore, ag","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"87 1","pages":"316 - 317"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41467329","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 : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2021.1966877
Ian J. McNiven
objects they describe. The stories included take the reader on a journey around the world, from the Americas and the United Kingdom and Ireland to Africa and the Middle East, Europe and the Pacific. A few stories are closer to home, including those of the editors, but overall, the book is decidedly cosmopolitan. Many of the stories also provide a virtual trip through time, as we are invited to reflect on the origins of human tool making (in the Acheulean), to ponder over Neolithic and Bronze age artefact encounters, to reconsider objects from the colonial period and dip into the nostalgia of objects from our shared contemporary pasts. A closing summary for the book is provided by Jane Lydon, who asks us to declare our feelings for objects (p.210) by embracing the various affective responses to the aesthetic and tactile qualities of materials and to carefully consider the ways in which objects are imbued with meanings of all kinds. Such an approach, she says, allows for a critical proximity (p.211) that helps to affect change through self-reflection and consideration of one’s own context and motives. Lydon also provides an excellent summary of the narratives collated, weaving together broader themes such as emotion, memory, postcolonialism, materiality and empathy. In honour of Object Stories’ appeal to archaeologists to share the intimate encounters they experience with objects, I have shared the rather ordinary story of my copy of this book. For me, Object Stories will be forever associated with the pandemic and the ways in which I struggled to ‘carry on’ with work and academic commitments in an era of astonishing global change. It will always be closely associated with the assemblage of domestic objects that circulated around me during our 2020–2021 ‘lockdown’ years. I wonder whether, if I had read Object Stories when I first received it, I would have truly appreciated the stories of travel and connection that the book details. The type of global fieldwork described here would no doubt be very difficult now. In an era where global movement has been restricted like never before (in modern times at least), our ability to connect with differing cultures, people, places and objects is woefully, greatly constrained. Now, more than ever, the storytelling in Object Stories has the power to transport the reader to other worlds and times and evokes a particular emotive response that I suspect will be familiar to most heritage practitioners (whether or not they might admit it). Object Stories is an engaging read for any archaeologist, although I am sure you do not need to be an archaeologist to enjoy it.
{"title":"Recording Kastom: Alfred Haddon’s Journals from the Torres Strait and New Guinea, 1888 and 1898","authors":"Ian J. McNiven","doi":"10.1080/03122417.2021.1966877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03122417.2021.1966877","url":null,"abstract":"objects they describe. The stories included take the reader on a journey around the world, from the Americas and the United Kingdom and Ireland to Africa and the Middle East, Europe and the Pacific. A few stories are closer to home, including those of the editors, but overall, the book is decidedly cosmopolitan. Many of the stories also provide a virtual trip through time, as we are invited to reflect on the origins of human tool making (in the Acheulean), to ponder over Neolithic and Bronze age artefact encounters, to reconsider objects from the colonial period and dip into the nostalgia of objects from our shared contemporary pasts. A closing summary for the book is provided by Jane Lydon, who asks us to declare our feelings for objects (p.210) by embracing the various affective responses to the aesthetic and tactile qualities of materials and to carefully consider the ways in which objects are imbued with meanings of all kinds. Such an approach, she says, allows for a critical proximity (p.211) that helps to affect change through self-reflection and consideration of one’s own context and motives. Lydon also provides an excellent summary of the narratives collated, weaving together broader themes such as emotion, memory, postcolonialism, materiality and empathy. In honour of Object Stories’ appeal to archaeologists to share the intimate encounters they experience with objects, I have shared the rather ordinary story of my copy of this book. For me, Object Stories will be forever associated with the pandemic and the ways in which I struggled to ‘carry on’ with work and academic commitments in an era of astonishing global change. It will always be closely associated with the assemblage of domestic objects that circulated around me during our 2020–2021 ‘lockdown’ years. I wonder whether, if I had read Object Stories when I first received it, I would have truly appreciated the stories of travel and connection that the book details. The type of global fieldwork described here would no doubt be very difficult now. In an era where global movement has been restricted like never before (in modern times at least), our ability to connect with differing cultures, people, places and objects is woefully, greatly constrained. Now, more than ever, the storytelling in Object Stories has the power to transport the reader to other worlds and times and evokes a particular emotive response that I suspect will be familiar to most heritage practitioners (whether or not they might admit it). Object Stories is an engaging read for any archaeologist, although I am sure you do not need to be an archaeologist to enjoy it.","PeriodicalId":8648,"journal":{"name":"Australian Archaeology","volume":"87 1","pages":"336 - 339"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43702492","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：