Search

This paper describes a collaboration between Wilyakali Indigenous Custodians and a group of archaeologists. This collaboration has generated a shared and integrated understanding of the cultural landscape, Ancestral Creation Histories, and archaeology of the Broken Hill region of western New South Wales. The Broken Hill landscape is ancient beyond imagination, and complex geological processes/Creation Histories have resulted in distinctive landscape features and resources including quartz suitable for stone artefact manufacture. Wilyakali stone knappers employed specialised and varied technological processes to overcome the diverse and sometimes intractable nature of the quartz material, resulting in efficient use of this local stone resource. Wilyakali interpret the Country through their knowledge of the travelling sacred Bronzewing Pigeon and its creation of landscape features and resources such as quartz and water. Empirical archaeological data complement traditional knowledge, with the two ways of knowing coming together to reconstruct a nuanced interpretation of the cultural landscape. This shared narrative has had ongoing and inter‐generational benefits to the Wilyakali people, with knowledge communicated to younger generations by Elders, enabling them to interpret both the archaeology and Ancestral Creation Histories with confidence. This paper also highlights the inconsistent recognition of Indigenous ways of knowing and connection in Aboriginal cultural heritage assessments in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines the previous theoretical interfaces of Indigenous oral tradition and archaeology in Oceania, specifically in Aotearoa (New Zealand). Historical processes of writing down kōrero, or oral histories, by amateur historians and ethnologists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, culminated in the romanticised traditions of the early Polynesian society and influenced contemporary archaeological scholarship. In response to criticisms, archaeologists attempted to validate kōrero using Western research methodologies. However, attempts often fell short and processual archaeologists of the mid‐late‐20th century considered oral tradition and archaeology as incapable of cross‐validation. Parallel ethnological scholarship focused on the symbolism in oral histories as indicators of their function in contemporary society or as legitimate forms of recounting actual historical events after critical evaluation. More recent archaeologists use kōrero about the last few centuries like any other historical source. Māori scholars have taken inspiration from previous theoretical arcs to position kōrero in a postmodern space of relative truths or to critically analyse its historical and functional values. The review concludes with how the interface of oral history and archaeology might follow Kaupapa Māori research methodologies and current materialist critiques of dominant settlement pattern theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tok stori, a Melanesian pidgin term meaning "conversate or share stories", has emerged over the last decade as a Melanesian research methodology in the fields of education, pedagogy and leadership. This paper contributes to this scholarship by exploring the value of its application to the conceptualisation and practice of archaeological research in Solomon Islands. From our perspectives as Solomon Islander archaeologists, we reflect on our experiences engaging in tok stori with two communities from Santa Isabel and Lauru (Choiseul) while undertaking field work. We use these examples to demonstrate the highly dynamic nature of tok stori in research, serving as a mechanism to build trust and reciprocal relationships centred upon shared social values, but also to facilitate more transactional partnerships fixated on negotiating financial "benefits". Drawing from our experiences, we also discuss key challenges facing archaeological practice in Solomon Islands. These are a lack of awareness of the purpose and values of archaeological research, and a legacy of monetary enticement we refer to as a "handout mentality" generated by extractive industries. Tok stori, we contend, can aid in navigating these challenges and serves as a valuable research tool for archaeologists due to its adaptability and the cultural bearing it holds for Melanesian peoples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines some of the ways in which Indigenous and Western archaeological chronologies are being negotiated and entwined in Oceania. Indigenous pasts are often known through oral traditions, genealogies and ancestral landscapes; these are vital pasts populated by the ancestors. The archaeological past is often interpreted through taphonomy, stratigraphy and direct dating techniques. There are tensions and intersections between these perspectives, and research partnerships between archaeologists and Indigenous communities must negotiate how to build chronologies and narrate the past. Drawing on case studies from our research in Australia and Papua New Guinea, we discuss how these seemingly different ways of knowing the past can be brought into productive conversation and how these understandings are transforming today. We argue that incorporating diverse temporalities for ancestral places can generate richer historical narratives of value to communities and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The essay summarizes the key pillars of human ecodynamics (HE) research and then highlights the most trenchant ideas from each of the seven papers in the Special Issue, especially as they intersect with HE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides the initial chronological framework for an Australian Aboriginal women's sacred area, based on the first absolute ages obtained through luminescence dating. The Thirteen Mile Creek site of the Avon Downs women's sacred area provides evidence for various aspects of women's lives, including lithic raw material extraction and lithic artefact production from ∼7000 years to recent times. It is the first dated Aboriginal women's sacred area in Australia. The successful use of single grain luminescence on a colluvial mantle suggests the potential to extend cultural histories in tropical hillslopes to the middle Holocene. Our preliminary study of the site raises awareness of the challenges of protecting women's sacred sites from mining and development and highlights the importance of preserving Aboriginal sacred sites for future generations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pig and dog were highly valued animals in pre‐contact Polynesia. In this paper, I focus on pig and dog use in the resource rich, and hierarchically complex, pre‐contact Society Island chiefdoms. Utilizing ethnohistoric data and human‐centred use‐webs data, I provide a preliminary study of the diverse ways that pigs and dogs were used in pre‐contact Mā'ohi life across 13 use categories. Ethnohistoric analyses indicate that pigs, and to some extent dogs, were intimately associated with elite ceremonial use, yet pigs were commonly associated with war and fertility rituals, while dogs were commonly associated with peacekeeping events. Preliminary comparison of pig and dog frequencies at eight excavated archaeological sites suggests pig bones far outnumber dog bones. There is also differential recovery of pig and dog bone in terms of site function and site status, with high status temples dating to the Centralization Phase having the highest incidence of both species. It is highly likely that the advent of the 'Oro war cult led to intensified pig husbandry, given this animal's robust associations with ritual use, moral notions of chiefly power and cosmology. Why dog husbandry was less intensified in the Society Islands, and why this animal was perhaps accessed largely through long‐distance trade relationships, is an ongoing question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper presents comparative research on marine shell from four 19th century historical archaeological sites in Melbourne. The shell derives predominantly from Mud Oyster (Ostrea angasi) and Sydney Rock Oyster (Saccostrea glomerata) commercially harvested from natural reefs along the south‐east Australian coastline. The research collects quantitative data that informs on the 19th century oyster industry and investigates inter‐site shell variability and its implications for processing, consumption and discard. Dredging of subtidal reefs provides an explanation for the numerical dominance of oyster, the presence of subfossil cultch (Anadara) and the wide range of minor shellfish. Mud oyster and Sydney rock oyster comparisons in valve size, sided counts and preservation record significant differences within and between sites due to the origins, depositional conditions and the processing of the shell. These data form the basis of two models. The first predicts the archaeological representation of reef dredging and ranks shellfish according to categories, from live oysters to dead shell sampled from the reef substrate. Based on oyster shell anatomy and the separate uses of the right (lid) and left (dish) valves, the second model considers how oyster processing and consumption is characterised archaeologically in differential valve counts and pairing rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

ABSTRACT This is the story of how a young American woman with a degree in anthropology, but not including archaeology, became a pioneer of archaeological research in the New Guinea Highlands from a base in New Zealand; active archaeologically in the Port Moresby region as the wife of the Professor of Anthropology at the University of Papua New Guinea; and finally, back in New Zealand, employed for some years by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, but surrounded at all times by her New Guinea papers and collections that called for her attention. The approach is to follow her progress, note the people she met and the literature she read and discover the qualities that she brought to the tasks that she undertook. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The archaeology of twentieth-century suburbs, in contrast to city centres, has received little attention from archaeologists in Australia. This paper presents the results of an archaeological investigation of a suburban block, a bounded space 347m2 in size, created in 1905 and located in the Sydney suburb of Arncliffe. An extensive collection of objects has been recovered while undertaking gardening activities and six test pit excavations has produced an assemblage of 3600 things. A qualitative analysis of the material remains reveals a wide range of past suburban activities, encompassing building construction, domestic consumption/production and home-making practices. The paper explores links between past activities/behaviours and routine processes of material decay, waste disposal and loss in order to consider the archaeological research potential of the suburban block. Two specific areas of research are outlined - consumption with particular reference to the role of the female head of the house and ecology/health. On the basis of the study a case is made for the development of a 'suburban archaeology' in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]