Casting the first lithic

59 views
Skip to first unread message

Michael Lever

unread,
Jun 8, 2017, 12:45:58 AM6/8/17
to OzArch

Following a positive and highly scientific process of peer review on Facebook, I'd like to punt the following up for discussion.

What would people think of forming Aboriginal country-specific stone-artefact typologies,  based on names and types provided by Traditional Owners?

This wouldn't need to clash with existing typologies / nomenclature, but could operate in similar manner to the common name / scientific name scheme used in botany.

I'm aware of the problems inherent in getting consensus on anything where traditional ownership is unclear. However, in areas where ownership has been decided (e.g. Wurrundjeri), is there any reason why we should not refer to artefact types by local e.g. Wurrundjeri names?

And yes - many Aboriginal people have lost chains of traditional knowledge regarding stone tools, and their naming of tools may not reflect traditional vocabulary. But engaging with and naming such tools may actually be an opportunity for Aboriginal people to reclaim more visible ownership of the byproducts of their past.

Of course it would be far simpler to have an Australia-wide single nomenclature for lithics. Much as it was once simpler to assume that Aboriginal culture across the continent was homogeneous. 

It made it very simple for Baldwin Spencer to display (wooden) tools from across the continent as a coherently seriated story. A story which unfortunately ignored time, space and culture. And which presumed rightful white ownership of the Aboriginal past.

We have moved well past notions of pan-Australian homogeneous Australian Aboriginality. Are we ready to let Aboriginality into archaeology, and allow Aboriginal people to name 'our' data?

Cheers

Michael

Phil Hunt

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 2:15:48 AM6/15/17
to OzArch
A brave dip of the toes! A discussion very much deserving of having. The more we look to seeing Australia as a place of many traditions, the more we'll come to grips with the reality of it. You've pointed out most of the obvious challenges, some of which are more complex and potentially contentious than others. Perhaps a nice pilot stud where things are clearer in terms of knowledge and authority, as you suggest. Given that each area has its own history and current existing challenges it can't be done with the expectation that a continent-wide solution can be achieved. That is the approach of government policy makers with budgets to spend and a rigid list of criteria to fulfill, but not something flexible enough to go at the pace of individual communities (Indigenous and archaeological).  
I'll cheer from the sidelines and leave it to the experts, but I'm definitely in favour of that kind of approach, whatever that's worth.

regards
Phil

Beth White

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 3:08:31 AM6/15/17
to oza...@googlegroups.com

Studies on this topic have been conducted and/or Aboriginal names for artefacts have been included. See, for example:

Cane, S.B. Written on Stone: A Discussion on Ethnographic and Aboriginal Perspection of Stone Tools, pp.88-108. In In Jones, R. and Meehan, B. (eds.) Archaeology with Ethnography: An Australian Perspective. Canberra: Australian National University.

Hayden, B. 1977 Stone Tool Functions in the Western Desert, pp.178-188. In Wright, R.V.S. (ed) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Cheers,

Beth White.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OzArch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ozarch+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to oza...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ozarch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages