Papers that discuss all aspects of zooarchaeology in Oceania – Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, east Indonesia and the Pacific Islands – are welcome.
Ariana Lambrides, James Cook University email@example.com
Matthew Campbell, CFG Heritage Ltd
Stuart Hawkins, Australian National University
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.
Judith Littleton, University of Auckland firstname.lastname@example.org
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
Katherine Thomas, La Trobe University Katherine.Thomas@latrobe.edu.au
Renee McAlister, Heritage Insight
Colin Pardoe, The Australian National University
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).
Ursula Frederick, Australian National University email@example.com
Steve Brown, University of Sydney
Melissa Riley, University of Tasmania firstname.lastname@example.org
Katharine Watson, PhD candidate, University of Canterbury email@example.com
Dr Maria Lillo Bernabeu, Underground Overground Archaeology
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.
Kurt Bennett, Flinders University firstname.lastname@example.org
Matt Carter, La Trobe University
We invite presentations on aspects dedicated to archaeological applications of radiocarbon, with an emphasis on identifying and addressing key problems relevant to Oceania.
Fiona Petchey, University of Waikato email@example.com
Magdalena Schmid, University of Wollongong
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.
Des Kahotea firstname.lastname@example.org
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?
Michelle Richards, Australian National University email@example.com
Andrew McAlister, University of Auckland
Mark McCoy (Southern Methodist University)
Matt Swieton, University of Otago firstname.lastname@example.org
Tristen Jones, The Australian National University email@example.com
Hilary Howes, The Australian National University
Harry Allen, The University of Auckland
Matthew Spriggs, The Australian National University
Dr. Gijs Tol, University of Melbourne firstname.lastname@example.org
Professor Louise Hitchcock, University of Melbourne
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:
We suggest this session includes time for a panel/round-table discussion with the speakers.
Ashleigh Fox, University of Auckland email@example.com
Samantha Lagos, University of Auckland
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.
Gerard O’Regan, University of Auckland firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr Daryl Wesley, Archaeology Flinders University email@example.com
Ms Clara Santilli, Archaeology Flinders University
Mr Andrew Wilkinson, Flinders University
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:
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.
Makere Rika-Heke, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga MRika-Heke@heritage.org.nz
Dr James Flexner, University of Sydney
Dr Christian Reepmeyer, James Cook University
Charles Radclyffe, Otago University firstname.lastname@example.org
Nick Hogg, Otago University
Papers that discuss all aspects of archaeology following natural disasters, and natural disasters recorded in the archaeological record.
Sheelagh Conran, WSP Opus email@example.com
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.
Michael Slack, Scarp firstname.lastname@example.org
This session welcomes papers discussing all aspects of historic and traditional horticulture throughout Oceania.
Warren Gumbley, Australian National University email@example.com
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.
Barbara Allen, Kurnu – Baakandji Aboriginal Traditional Owner, Chairperson of the Toorale Joint Management Committee firstname.lastname@example.org
Mandy Atkinson, Team Leader Heritage, Biosis
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.
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.
Claire Reeler, University of Sydney email@example.com
James Flexner, University of Sydney
Yann Trsitant, Macquarie University
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.
Mike Rowland, James Cook University firstname.lastname@example.org
Ian McNiven, Monash University
Sean Ulm, James Cook University
Promoting and fostering archaeological research in New Zealand.
PO Box 6337
Contact NZAA »