Zooarchaeology has a long history in Oceania – some of the earliest archaeologists in Australia and New Zealand, both amateur and subsequent professional researchers, were concerned with understanding the relationships between extinct megafauna and newly arrived people. Today the sub-discipline continues to produce high-quality outputs throughout the region and its practitioners regularly contribute to the global conversation about how societies in the past structured their economies for subsistence and/or socio-political outcomes and its impact on biogeography, faunal community structure and environmental change. This session will include papers examining new methods for analysing aquatic and terrestrial faunal remains, such as DNA, stable isotope and peptide analyses, as well as novel approaches for interpreting conventional zooarchaeological data, ranging from advances in the application of biodiversity statistics to multi-species approaches.

Papers that discuss all aspects of zooarchaeology in Oceania – Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, east Indonesia and the Pacific Islands – are welcome.

Convenors

Ariana Lambrides, James Cook University ariana.lambrides@jcu.edu.au
Matthew Campbell, CFG Heritage Ltd
Stuart Hawkins, Australian National University

In Australia and New Zealand bioarchaeologists are grappling with theoretical and methodological approaches to human movement. These studies span geographical scales, from movement between continents to local movement within a regional zone. They also cross time zones from movement within an individual’s lifespan to movement of remains after death.

In both countries bioarchaeologists are using a range of methods now to address these issues: from stable isotope studies, classic analyses of pathology, to the detailed reconstruction of burial practices and the movement involved. The goal of this session is for us to interrogate what is meant by the umbrella terms of sedentism and mobility and how the use of different methods highlights particular windows on human movement. In this session we will bring together studies of indigenous and European mobilities.

Covenor

Judith Littleton, University of Auckland j.littleton@auckland.ac.nz

This session is about the map and the thinking behind it – the audience, the goals and aspirations that frame it – the practitioners who use GIS as much as they use a trowel. GIS is a powerful tool because it apportions space and place within categories of significance, importance, and conservation. It could be argued that the mapping requirements of archaeological research projects generally prioritise time whereas the mapping requirements of heritage and commercial projects tend to prioritise space.

Many of the places, times and spaces that make up the archaeological record do not fit neatly into the bounded spaces on a map. Can intangible heritage be mapped? Can the spatial, temporal, and material aspects of the archaeological record be defined clearly using current GIS outputs? GIS is entrenched as the preferred tool of the archaeologist, the developer, and the surveyor for defining spaces, times, and places of archaeological and cultural significance. This session discusses the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of GIS and the application of GIS in academic and commercial research projects.

We invite papers on GIS, particularly GIS projects that incorporate Participatory GIS, Counter-mapping, Deep mapping, Intangible heritage, Collaboration, Cultural Heritage Management, and Community Engagement

Convenors

Katherine Thomas, La Trobe University Katherine.Thomas@latrobe.edu.au
Renee McAlister, Heritage Insight
Colin Pardoe, The Australian National University

For this session, we invite archaeologists to share a story concerning a real, imagined or virtual place that has had a powerful impact on their way of thinking about, practicing, experiencing and/or communicating archaeology. There are various places where the inspiration, work and production of archaeology take hold, such as field ‘site’s, landscapes, the laboratory, storage repository, library and archive or even the written page. There are also fictional spaces or territories in the archaeological imagination that shape who we are and what we do, such as a film setting, a scene in a novel or a locale pictured in a photograph. Consequently the places we are calling for are mediated through all kinds of materials and media, whether an object or collection/assemblage, or through the senses or emotions. What will unite these stories is that place – however defined – is central to the narrative and pertinent to the participant’s experience of archaeology. We encourage use of the first person; and are open to creative forms of story-telling, expression and performativity. We are seeking stories that speak to encounters arising from professional, personal or domestic life that have inspired, shocked, pleasured and/or shaped you as an archaeologist and human being.

Rather than the normal 20 minute session format, we propose a series of six-minute presentations. We will invite submissions comprising a title, short abstract (less than 100 words) and tweet-able summary (up to 160 characters). We envisage that the papers will cover a variety of the themes identified in the call for sessions (maritime, rock art, public archaeology, etc) We are currently discussing a book proposal with Routledge, and will be keen to speak to interested presenters to develop 2,500 word essays for publication. The proposed volume is intended as a companion to the successful public archaeology volume Object Stories: Artifacts and Archaeologists (Left Coast Press/Routledge 2015).

Convenors

Ursula Frederick, Australian National University ursula.frederick@anu.edu.au
Steve Brown, University of Sydney

The ever-expanding digital realm presents increasing opportunities for archaeologists to communicate with the public. In particular, there has been a veritable explosion of    archaeological news and information disseminated through news channels and social media in the past decade, and this has broadened the reach of our message to a much wider audience of both experts and non-experts. In this context, the way in which our stories are communicated, and the ways in which the public are engaged with the material culture past, become important. In this session, contributions from archaeologists, educators, museum, interpretation and heritage professionals, academics and journalists who communicate to audiences of non-archaeologists via school curricula, digital technologies, online blogs, social media, site interpretations, museums, popular magazines, books and journals, TV and radio are welcomed.

Convenor

Melissa Riley, University of Tasmania archaeoeducator@gmail.com

Gender is just one of many lenses or frameworks through which the past can be viewed. Looking at the past with a gendered lens helps us understand how gender functioned in the past and the role it continues to play in society today, and to understand how our own biases have developed. It is also important because it was a lens that was ignored for so many years, resulting in many false assumptions about the roles of men and women in the past. It is only by understanding this that we can hope to move beyond these biases. This session seeks papers that look at the archaeological record with a gendered lens, regardless of place or time period, to make women visible, to give us a more complete knowledge of their activities and to place value on how women have contributed to social development.

Convenors

Katharine Watson, PhD candidate, University of Canterbury katharine.watson@christchurcharchaeology.org
Dr Maria Lillo Bernabeu, Underground Overground Archaeology

Oceans are often seen as boundaries that separate; however, in the past, they were pathways — connecting people, ideas, technologies, economies and traditions. Australia and New Zealand have longstanding connections to the sea and their internal waterways. Both countries share aspects of migration, trade, naval, shipbuilding, and ritual maritime histories. In particular, the two countries shared an intense trading relationship in the nineteenth century that contributed to the expansion of their historic economies. In recent decades, archaeological projects have been undertaken in Australasia to investigate, submerged indigenous sites and landscapes, early European exploration, riverine histories, coastal infrastructure, naval histories, shipbuilding practices, trade, migration and whaling. In response to this important resource, both countries have acknowledged the significance of their maritime heritage in law. Current legislation although different in each country contributes to the protection and promotion of their rich maritime heritage. However, much is still to be done regarding, public awareness, management and the on-going protection of this important archaeological resource.

This session invites papers to celebrate our past maritime heritage, to present on current maritime archaeological projects and to encourage discussion for future pathways relating to the promotion and protection of maritime heritage in Australasia.

Convenors

Kurt Bennett, Flinders University kurt.bennett@flinders.edu.au
Matt Carter, La Trobe University

Over the last 20 years there have been significant advances in radiocarbon method and theory and many new recommendations have been made for achieving reliable archaeological chronologies. However, the majority of these advances have taken place in the Northern hemisphere with funding dedicated to geoscience, paleoclimate and oceanographic research. As the poor cousin, radiocarbon applications in archaeology have often relied on adapting these findings. Where recommendations have been made that are based specifically on archaeological research, they have not been designed for the unique conditions and questions present in Oceania. Of note, Bayesian chronologies that successfully result in shorter duration and more accurate chronologies in the continental north, are complicated by the diversity of materials in our region, in particular shell dates.

We invite presentations on aspects dedicated to archaeological applications of radiocarbon, with an emphasis on identifying and addressing key problems relevant to Oceania.

Convenors

Fiona Petchey, University of Waikato fpetchey@waikato.ac.nz
Magdalena Schmid, University of Wollongong

Indigenous archaeology is a broad and popular term in Australia with tertiary programmes and practice, whereas it is completely absent in the language and practice of archaeology in Aotearoa. Its absence can be seen in the context of the Resource Management and Pouhere Taonga Acts where archaeology distinguishes itself from Maori or tangata whenua knowledge and cultural values. The separation of science and human history from a living culture, and descendant communities (hapu and iwi) from their ancestors (tupuna).

In the post-settler former colonies of Australia, Canada and USA, the debate of indigenous archaeology has generally centered on being collaborative and community based, but with indigenous knowledge and experience informing Western archaeology. The iron nails of James Cook were a popular commodity for trade during his voyage around the coast for its use as a tool. Is archaeology a tool for indigenous knowledge or Matauranga Maori? Is there a Maori or Aboriginal archaeology?

This session invites papers to this theme that is open to comment, interpretation, experience or theory.

Convenor

Des Kahotea des@kahotea.com

Archaeological research in Oceania has benefited greatly from compositional elemental analyses. Over the past 20 years we have seen marked improvements in instrumentation, calibration and analytic techniques and the accumulation of comparative datasets have increased our understanding of XRF technology and its potential to address archaeological questions. In particular, the availability of inexpensive and non-destructive portable X-Ray fluorescence analysers (pXRF) has revolutionised the way in which compositional analyses are incorporated into research programmes.

This session welcomes papers on XRF analyses of stone, obsidian, volcanic glass, rock art, ceramics, soils and metals from archaeological research in Australia, New Zealand, the wider Pacific region and beyond. Our aim is to showcase and review current XRF methods, pitfalls and limitations, and to discuss solutions for XRF analysis of archaeological materials, and address three inter-related questions: 1) How can we overcome known issues with hardware    and software? 2) What can we do to promote collaboration, data sharing, and replicability? and, 3) Given what XRF results have contributed to our current understanding of the past in the region, where do we go from here?

Convenors

Michelle Richards, Australian National University michelle.richards@anu.edu.au
Andrew McAlister, University of Auckland

Discussant

Mark McCoy (Southern Methodist University)

Replicative studies are powerful epistemological tools in archaeology, but experimental archaeology– as an archaeological research method– has not been fully embraced in New Zealand or in other areas of Oceania. Such studies, carried out in either controlled or experiential settings, can answer well-defined research questions or simply clarify the concepts researchers invoke to think about archaeological material culture. The purpose of this session is to provide an international platform for contemporary replicative research in Oceania and to foster replicative approaches in New Zealand archaeology. Additionally, this session aims to facilitate the expansion of an international community of experimental archaeologists and craftspeople. Any persons are invited to submit abstracts of their replicative work regardless of focus area, degree of experimental control, or background.

Convenor

Matt Swieton, University of Otago swietonmaj@gmail.com

This year’s conference theme, Trans-Tasman Dialogues, highlights the fact that Australian archaeology and New Zealand archaeology share many historical roots. However, there are also important differences in the historical development of archaeological theory and practice in these two countries. Additional shared and distinctive aspects become apparent when we consider Australian and New Zealand archaeology within the context of the wider Pacific region. A better understanding of the history of archaeology is essential to help us critically assess current archaeological practice, challenge outdated theories, and adequately acknowledge the contributions of diverse national, linguistic and faith communities, as well as women and Indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand and the wider Pacific, to the development of archaeology in our region. This session builds on the growing interest in the history of archaeology expressed in recent special issues of the Journal of Pacific Archaeology (Vol. 8, No. 1, 2017) and World Archaeology (Vol. 49, No. 2, 2017), as well as a forthcoming special issue of the Journal of Pacific History. We welcome papers on any aspects of the history of archaeology in New Zealand, Australia and the wider Pacific region.

Convenors

Tristen Jones, The Australian National University tristen.jones@anu.edu.au
Hilary Howes, The Australian National University
Harry Allen, The University of Auckland
Matthew Spriggs, The Australian National University

This session aims to investigate the theme of -scapes, an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of studies into how humans – through their daily activities, beliefs and values – define and shape physical space into meaningful places. We invite papers engaged with the investigation of any kind of scape (landscapes, seascape, riverscape, skyscapes, taskscapes, powerscapes, soundscapes, but also symbolic representations of -scapes as found in material culture and iconography) across time and space. It is our specific intention to bring together researchers working in Old and New World Archaeology, confronting theories and approaches.

Convenors

Dr. Gijs Tol, University of Melbourne gijs.tol@unimelb.edu.au
Professor Louise Hitchcock, University of Melbourne

The theme for a recent international conference on the Public Communication of Science and Technology was ‘Science, Stories and Society’. When working in Australasia and the Pacific, whose stories are archaeologists really telling? How do we involve different audiences in those stories, and why should they want to be involved?

The public communication of research is becoming increasingly important and, when the research involves local communities, there are social and cultural implications to consider. The drive to involve the public in not only sharing results, but actually conducting the research, has been shown to have great impact on future research processes and community values. However, it also presents a number of challenges to the researcher. Is the new wave of ‘participatory science’ feasible in Archaeology?

After a well-attended NZ Archaeology Week this year, this session is an opportunity to share our experiences, successes and challenges, and to discuss how we can increase engagement with public audiences, by:

• involving local communities in conducting the research itself, as well as sharing the outcomes with different audiences
• articulating the purpose for public engagement activities; and
• rethinking / exploring how we design and evaluate our outreach activities.

We suggest this session includes time for a panel/round-table discussion with the speakers.

Convenors

Ashleigh Fox, University of Auckland a.fox@auckland.ac.nz
Samantha Lagos, University of Auckland

Australia is a hotspot in international rock art research whereas studies elsewhere in Oceania are more sporadic reflecting flare-ups in research interest rather than systematic support of traditional owners and kaitiaki of rock art heritage.

This session invites updates on localised or regional rock art research and management initiatives and particularly looks for comment on how they contribute to and/or may benefit from connections with wider rock art endeavours in the Pacific.  It also welcomes outlines of developments in management approaches, research practices or particular investigative techniques with comment on how those may be relevant and accessible across our region.

Convenor

Gerard O’Regan, University of Auckland g.oregan@auckland.ac.nz

This conference creates an opportunity to have a Trans-Tasman and multi-disciplinary discussion on inclusivity in cultural heritage and archaeological practice, study, and research. Considerable progress has been made towards disability awareness and inclusion within UK and European archaeology. This session aims at creating similar conversations about inclusion and accessibility in Antipodean archaeology. We are looking for examples of cross-disciplinary approaches and experiences that have been applied to the myriad of challenges that create inclusion for the wider community in archaeology and cultural heritage management.  The central aim of this session is to explore how we can expand archaeology beyond a privileged space that allows wider participation and community engagement. An opportunity for this session is to highlight individual achievements by many members of the archaeological community to share their lived experiences and innovative approaches to participate in archaeology and cultural heritage management. This session also aims to explore the creation of a common language that allows the development of approaches in establishing best practice for inclusivity and accessibility within archaeology and cultural heritage management. Therefore, we welcome papers that inspire, and aspire, to creating and improving social justice for inclusion and accessibility in Trans-Tasman archaeology and cultural heritage management.

Convenors

Dr Daryl Wesley, Archaeology Flinders University daryl.wesley@flinders.edu.au
Ms Clara Santilli, Archaeology Flinders University
Mr Andrew Wilkinson, Flinders University

Archaeological sites and landscapes are objects of cultural heritage often re-packaged and re-branded to appeal to a target audience – in this instance the heritage tourist, the property owner/developer selling ‘the dream’.

Heritage tourism and Property Development are growing consumer markets which involve transformation of perception, site and identity.

The development, promotion and or marketing of archaeological sites is often aimed at creating landscapes for consumption,  selling the ‘dream’ or ‘snapshot’ of the past, rather than accommodating the knowledge provided by local communities, indigenous communities, historians and archaeologists.

Heritage Tourism targets a certain type of tourist keen to experience the ‘amenity factor’ or ‘unique historical rarity’ of place. Property Development is acquisition centric and seeks to modify and market the above factors as ‘the hook’ in order to profit from selling compartmentalised landscape.

Both Heritage Tourism and Property Development are based on:

• the consumption of a projected idea and popular image
• tapping into human compulsions – to explore, seek out , acquire, build
• the quest for experience and that ‘AHA’ moment
• fiscal motivation

Heritage Tourism can be a boon or a curse as tensions rise to the fore when tourists, tourist ventures, locals, archaeologists and descendent communities interact with one another or with their respective ‘objects’ but in different ways. Property Development potentially eradicates ancestral footprints and has another subset of tensions and flashpoints. Both consumer markets are dynamic and evolving.

Papers in this session critically address one or more of the issues discussed.

Questions of interest include: Is superimposed identity a real thing-acquisition of the other? Are promotional campaigns messing with established identity? What are the growing trends and or strategies of site commodification? Are they measurable and if so how? How are archaeological sites being represented in public and popular imagery-problematic or a non-issue? Is there a growing trend for the Disney-fication of archaeological sites and heritage landscapes? Consumer profile – who are they? Is there such thing as a leisure seeking tourist class? Is archaeology seen as a leisure activity? Host versus guest inversion-when the roles reverse? What happens when those who have traditionally challenged developmental pressures transition into The Developer.

Convenors

Makere Rika-Heke, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga MRika-Heke@heritage.org.nz
Xavier Forde

Over 25 years ago, Pacific scholar Epeli Hau‘ofa put forth the notion of a ‘sea of islands’, linked by extensive networks of exchange that flowed between islands across the ocean waves. That Pacific Islanders travelled between islands, sometimes over hundreds or even thousands of kilometers, was an observation made by the earliest European chroniclers of the region. Archaeologists have documented complex exchange networks largely through the movement of portable materials including ceramic and stone. These types of analyses have been augmented by the influx of new techniques and technologies, which have further developed the sense of how widespread Pacific voyaging was in the past. Evidence for exchange can be connected to a related (but not equivalent) term, ‘contact’, referring to the cross-cultural interactions that took place in the region. While contact is usually used to refer to European colonial encounters, it can also refer to the pre-European interactions between different Oceanic societies. This session will showcase current research on material exchange and cross-cultural encounters in the Oceanic past.

Convenors

Dr James Flexner, University of Sydney
Dr Christian Reepmeyer, James Cook University
Charles Radclyffe, Otago University radch795@student.otago.ac.nz
Nick Hogg, Otago University

Unfortunately, natural disasters are a part of the world in which we inhabit, and the impacts and that these have on societies past and present can be immense. These challenges include the threat to the archaeological resource, and also in the management of heritage issues after the disaster. The difficulties faced by the heritage industry generally consist of how best to rescue and record the archaeology, while at the same time allowing the recovery, repair and rebuild of the affected area. Experiences from disaster recovery projects in New Zealand and Australia has resulted in some very large scale archaeological investigations being undertaken. Through these, archaeologists have made some significant discoveries, developing a wider understanding of the cultural heritage of affected regions. Additionally, many innovations and efficiencies of archaeological methods and procedures have also been developed.

Papers that discuss all aspects of archaeology following natural disasters, and natural disasters recorded in the archaeological record.

Convenor

Sheelagh Conran, WSP Opus sheelagh.conran@wsp-opus.co.nz

When cultural heritage management was first introduced into Australia in the late 1970s, the focus for research and practice was archaeological sites.  Today, the narrow definition of heritage as purely relating to tangible/archaeological remains of past human behaviour has been countered in heritage discourse, legislation, and policy.  Cultural heritage management as it is practised in the 21^st Century incorporates a range of elements: archaeological sites and tangible heritage containing evidence of past and recent cultural activities; intangible heritage, including stories, social practices, and rituals associated with both physical sites and the landscape generally; and the cultural landscapes – the wider natural and environmental context – associated with sites and places of value.  A cultural landscapes setting for archaeological and heritage research and practice provides the context for the interpretation of places and objects, and the cultural values (including beliefs, stories, songs, etc.) associated with these places and objects.  It also provides the framework for archaeological narratives of the past more generally.

In this session we invite papers that explore narratives of the past that incorporate both archaeological information and the knowledge of Indigenous collaborators.  The session will focus on the capacity for a cultural landscapes approach to site and artefact analysis, which also incorporates Indigenous ways of knowing, to provide a nuanced social perspective on archaeology and heritage management.  We encourage all papers to be jointly authored by professional researchers and community collaborators, and for presentation of papers to include at least one researcher and one community participant. We recognise that costs may prohibit all collaborators to attend the conference in person, so video clips or sound grabs of other speakers, or other technical ways to ensure breadth of participation, is acceptable.

Convenors

Michael Slack, Scarp michael.slack@scarp.com.au
Annie Ross

Horticulture has been a major theme for archaeological research, not just in New Zealand but throughout Oceania. Such research has been prominent throughout the Pacific and remains active and ongoing. It has had several foci; from ethnobotanical to examination of the physical properties of agricultural soil, along with analysis of secondary archaeological elements associated with horticulture, for example kumara storage pits in New Zealand and breadfruit fermentation pits in tropical Oceania. As well as informing us about a significant economic activity and its associated technologies, the study of horticulture has also underpinned much of the social evolution theory applied to Oceanic societies. It has also focused on the adaptation of a suite of domesticated tropical plants to small island environments and to climatically marginal environments such as New Zealand and Easter Island.

This session welcomes papers discussing all aspects of historic and traditional horticulture throughout Oceania.

 

Convenor

Warren Gumbley, Australian National University warren@archaeologist.co.nz

The colonisation of Indigenous lands presented opportunities to share resources for use in cultural practices and activities of daily living – evidenced by archaeological finds of traditional tools made from modern materials such as glass and ceramics or the use of Indigenous traditional knowledges of the land for farming practices.

This session looks to include papers that explore the relationship and knowledge sharing between Indigenous and European peoples to evolve in practice, as a people and for the purpose of surviving the changing world.

Convenors

Barbara Allen, Kurnu – Baakandji Aboriginal Traditional Owner, Chairperson of the Toorale Joint Management Committee b.johnson@deakin.edu.au
Mandy Atkinson, Team Leader Heritage, Biosis

We have basically reached a point where we are all, in some ways, ‘digital archaeologists.’ Computers, digital data, and applications permeate all aspects of what we do, in the field, in the laboratory, in the classroom, and in the office. Building on Roosevelt et al. (2015), Richardson and Lindgren (2017) attempt to deconstruct the underlying hegemonies and power relationships inherent within the use of digital technologies.

Richardson and Lindgren (2017:139), whilst acknowledging “digital archaeology as the technical underpinning of modern archaeological practice” warn against a “digital dualist trap, which profoundly misrepresents both the ‘real’ and the ‘virtual’– the ‘online’ and the ‘offline’” and advocate for an increased focus on the communication of archaeological knowledge and the role that digital technologies can play in this sphere.

In the spirit of fostering increased communication, this session presents the great variety of current work on digital applications in archaeology, cultural heritage, and allied disciplines, and theoretical examinations of the role of digital technologies in our work.

Whether you use computers or digital data in any form in the field, the lab or at your desk, or you want to deconstruct the digital revolution in our disciplines, we look forward to welcoming you to join the discussion.

References

Roosevelt, C., Cobb, P., Moss, E., Olson, B., and Ünlüsoy, S. 2015. Excavation is destruction digitization: advances in archaeological practice. Journal of Field Archaeology, 40: 325–346.

Richardson, L-J and Lindgren, S. 2017. Online tribes and digital authority: what can social theory bring to digital archaeology? Open Archaeology, 3: 139–148.

Convenors

Claire Reeler, University of Sydney claire@archefact.com.au
James Flexner, University of Sydney
Yann Trsitant, Macquarie University

Islands have played a significant role in New Zealand, Australian, and Pacific Basin archaeology and in a wide range of other disiplines. Surrounded by water barriers, islands were considered ideal laboratories in which to observe the relationship between humans and the environment influenced in particular by the seminal work of Robert MacArthur and Edward Wilsons 1967 book The Theory of Island Biogeography. More recently, as Matthew Spriggs (2008:212) has noted, the waters have been muddied somewhat by trenchant criticisms of the ‘islands as laboratories‘ concept. We suggest that Fosberg’s 1963 definition of islands, although outdated in some aspects of language and approach, is still relevant to the study of island archaeology.

Relative isolation, limitation in size (space resource); limitation in, or even absence of certain other resources; limitation in organic diversity; reduced interspecies competition; protection from outside competition and consequent preservation of archaic, bizarre, or possibly ill-adapted forms; tendency toward climatic equability; extreme vulnerability, or tendency toward great instability when isolation is broken down; and tendency toward rapid increase in entropy when change has set in (Fosberg 1963:5).

We seek papers that critically address Fosberg’s island characteristics or combinations of these or other island characteristics. In short we invite papers that conceptualise islands in archaeology rather than those that focus on finds and archaeological sequences.

Fosberg, F.R. 1963. The Island Ecosystem. In Fosberg F.R. (ed) Man’s Place in the Island Ecosystem, pp.1-6. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Spriggs, M. 2008. Are islands islands? Some thoughts on the history of chalk and cheese. In Clark G., Leach F. and S. O’Connor (eds) Colonization, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes. Canberra, ANU Press.

Convenors

Mike Rowland, James Cook University rowlandmk@iprimus.com.au
Ian McNiven, Monash University
Sean Ulm, James Cook University