The Archaeology of Rock Art in Western Arnhem Land Eds. Bruno David, Paul S.C. Taçon, Jean-Jacques Delannoy, Jean-Michel Geneste Published by: ANU Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1zgb356.9, 2017
The western Arnhem Land site of Madjedbebe – a site hitherto erroneously named Malakunanja II in ... more The western Arnhem Land site of Madjedbebe – a site hitherto erroneously named Malakunanja II in scientific and popular literature but identified as Madjedbebe by senior Mirarr Traditional Owners – is widely recognised as one of Australia’s oldest dated human occupation sites (Roberts et al. 1990a:153, 1998; Allen and O’Connell 2014; Clarkson et al. 2017). Yet little is known of its extensive body of rock art. The comparative lack of interest in rock art by many archaeologists in Australia during the 1960s into the early 1990s meant that rock art was often overlooked or used simply to illustrate the ‘real’ archaeology of, for example, stone artefact studies. As Hays-Gilpen
(2004:1) suggests, rock art was viewed as ‘intractable to scientific research, especially under the science-focused “new archaeology” and “processual archaeology” paradigms of the 1960s through the early 1980s’. Today, things have changed somewhat, and it is no longer essential to justify why rock art has relevance to wider archaeological studies.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Duncan Wright
(2004:1) suggests, rock art was viewed as ‘intractable to scientific research, especially under the science-focused “new archaeology” and “processual archaeology” paradigms of the 1960s through the early 1980s’. Today, things have changed somewhat, and it is no longer essential to justify why rock art has relevance to wider archaeological studies.
authentic (including work integrated) learning for higher education. This
follows increased pressure to produce graduates with skills and aptitudes that align with real-world requirements but also evidence which suggests long-term benefits of this form of self-directed and reflective learning. Major surveys involving academic and professional archaeologists have identified sizable gaps between university courses and the skill sets and attributes required by graduates seeking employment (eg. Ulm et al. in J Aust Archaeol Assoc 76:21–34, 2013). While there are many examples of active learning innovations in archaeology, the responsiveness of educators to these concerns is hard to gauge, as is the extent to which authentic learning has been scaffolded across the archaeology curriculum. This paper describes the adoption of a situated-learning, work-integrated approach to student learning for an ‘‘Australian archaeology’’ course at the Australian National University in Canberra. It reflects on the traditional/authentic divide including the value and constraints of such a model in the Australian higher education system.
and contained artefacts attributed to the Aurignacian and Szeletian cultures, including those made from porcelanite (rarely used at Moravian Paleolithic sites). Coarse grained excavation techniques and major
inversions in radiocarbon dates meant that site chronology could not be established adequately. This paper documents re-excavation of Pod Hradem in 2011-2012. A comprehensive AMS dating program using ultrafiltration and ABOx-SC pre-treatments provides new insights into human occupation at Pod Hradem Cave. Fine-grained excavation reveals sedimentary units spanning approximately 20,000 years of the Early Upper Paleolithic and late Middle Paleolithic periods, thus making it the first archaeological cave site in the Czech Republic with such a sedimentary and archaeological record. Recent excavation confirms infrequent human visitation, including during the Early Aurignacian by people who brought with them portable art objects that have no parallel in the Czech Republic. Raw material diversity of lithics suggests long-distance imports and ephemeral visits by highly mobile populations throughout the EUP period.
(2004:1) suggests, rock art was viewed as ‘intractable to scientific research, especially under the science-focused “new archaeology” and “processual archaeology” paradigms of the 1960s through the early 1980s’. Today, things have changed somewhat, and it is no longer essential to justify why rock art has relevance to wider archaeological studies.
authentic (including work integrated) learning for higher education. This
follows increased pressure to produce graduates with skills and aptitudes that align with real-world requirements but also evidence which suggests long-term benefits of this form of self-directed and reflective learning. Major surveys involving academic and professional archaeologists have identified sizable gaps between university courses and the skill sets and attributes required by graduates seeking employment (eg. Ulm et al. in J Aust Archaeol Assoc 76:21–34, 2013). While there are many examples of active learning innovations in archaeology, the responsiveness of educators to these concerns is hard to gauge, as is the extent to which authentic learning has been scaffolded across the archaeology curriculum. This paper describes the adoption of a situated-learning, work-integrated approach to student learning for an ‘‘Australian archaeology’’ course at the Australian National University in Canberra. It reflects on the traditional/authentic divide including the value and constraints of such a model in the Australian higher education system.
and contained artefacts attributed to the Aurignacian and Szeletian cultures, including those made from porcelanite (rarely used at Moravian Paleolithic sites). Coarse grained excavation techniques and major
inversions in radiocarbon dates meant that site chronology could not be established adequately. This paper documents re-excavation of Pod Hradem in 2011-2012. A comprehensive AMS dating program using ultrafiltration and ABOx-SC pre-treatments provides new insights into human occupation at Pod Hradem Cave. Fine-grained excavation reveals sedimentary units spanning approximately 20,000 years of the Early Upper Paleolithic and late Middle Paleolithic periods, thus making it the first archaeological cave site in the Czech Republic with such a sedimentary and archaeological record. Recent excavation confirms infrequent human visitation, including during the Early Aurignacian by people who brought with them portable art objects that have no parallel in the Czech Republic. Raw material diversity of lithics suggests long-distance imports and ephemeral visits by highly mobile populations throughout the EUP period.