[Aqualist] AAA conference 2011 FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS

[Lynley Wallis]

This is the first call for papers for the 2011 AAA conference The Sociality of Archaeology (visit http://www.usq.edu.au/aaa-conference), which will be held in Toowoomba 1-3 December 2011. (apologies for cross-postings)

Please submit your paper abstracts to the session organisers for consideration by October 15.

Australian Archaeology and the Digital Humanities
The field of digital humanities has received a renewed focus and large injection of funding in recent years. After decades of advances with traditional methods of archaeological computing (databases and GIS), Australian archaeologists are already prospering from innovative new developments in the library, archive and museum sectors such as Trove, CAN, integrated historical indices, along with a range eResearch projects within its own ranks (online databases of artefacts, grey literature and experimentation with field data capture). As Australia forms its own association for digital humanities (aa-dh.org<http://aa-dh.org/>), archaeologists should be asking what role we can play in the burgeoning field.  I welcome papers on the following topics: advances in the development or application of electronic data management systems and/or software for archaeological data or metadata; any project where online or offline electronic data management significantly transformed the outcomes, methods or presentation or enhanced interdisciplinary contributions; reflections on the social, political or productivity implications of reliance of these new digital resources.
Penny Crook pennyc at histarch.net<mailto:pennyc at histarch.net>


The Archaeology of Religion, Ritual and Ceremony
Ritual behaviour is as much a fact of the human condition as food procurement, development of technology and establishing social protocols. It constitutes a mechanism by which people rationalise their world, express and consolidate their cosmological beliefs and maintain conceptual order. But in what ways may its expression be perceived in the archaeological record and how may the human experience involved in prehistoric ritual and ceremony be effectively demonstrated and interpreted by archaeologists? In this session we propose to present a range of substantive studies which showcase this field of study in Australasia and other parts of the world. We seek paper abstracts which would illustrate the diverse ways in which this topic is currently being explored archaeologically. Studies may be founded on a range of different materialities which could include rock-art, stone artefacts, earth mounds, natural landscape features and so on. While frequently, this topic is explored via landscape approaches, in this session, papers which examine deeply, the materiality of individual objects or classes of objects are also sought. Novel theoretical and methodological approaches will be welcomed. The session aims to explore the materiality of objects and features themselves, their crafting, use, re-use and embedding in the land, and how they may have served to objectify and shape experience, occupation and bodily practice.
Julie Dibden julie at nswarchaeology.com.au<mailto:julie at nswarchaeology.com.au>
Thomas Knight thomas.knight at anu.edu.au<mailto:thomas.knight at anu.edu.au>
Bec Parkes becinsitu at gmail.com<mailto:becinsitu at gmail.com>


Rock Art of the North
The session aims to present reviews and detailed studies pertaining to all aspects of the rock art of Northern Australia from the Burrup to Brisbane (via Darwin or Tennant Creek).
Ben Gunn gunnb at activ8.net.au<mailto:gunnb at activ8.net.au>


Theory, atheory or anti-theory?  Issues in Australian archaeology
>From students to professionals, many archaeologists in Australia today deny that they are operating in a theoretical framework, or question the usefulness of theoretical approaches to their practice. With ever greater numbers of archaeologists in academia and cultural heritage management, what are the implications of this retreat from archaeological theory for the discipline? Since all data are theory-laden, what does Australian archaeology's particular interaction with theoretical matters say about our data?
Because of Australia's history, location and unique archaeological record, archaeologists here have the potential to offer new theoretical insights into such questions as the origins of behavioural modernity, the relationship between lithics and social behaviour, cultural responses to climate change and the role of communities in creating heritage, to name a few.  Despite the existence of outstanding scholarship in many of these areas, we suggest that an a- or anti-theoretical culture, perhaps related to a broader Australian anti-intellectual tradition and the "cultural cringe", has limited the realisation of this potential. Moreover, disciplines such as history and geography are currently engaging with a "material turn" (eg Bennett and Joyce 2010), acknowledging that material culture is a legitimate and indeed necessary component of their enquiries.  As they look to archaeology to understand how this works, we find ourselves in an awkward position. The question of whether archaeology has developed its own theories, as opposed to borrowing in bower-bird fashion from other disciplines, remains contentious. In this session, we want to examine the nature of theory in Australian archaeology today, both in the academic and private sectors.  We invite contributions which address, but are not limited to, the following themes:
* Teaching archaeological theory
* Theory and communities; theory and students
* Contemporary theoretical developments in Australia
* Case studies in the application of theory
* Historical analyses
* The use of theory in cultural heritage management
References: Bennett, Tony and Patrick Joyce (eds) 2010  Material Powers:  Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turn.  London and New York: Routledge
Alice Gorman Alice.Gorman at flinders.edu.au<mailto:Alice.Gorman at flinders.edu.au>
Tom Sapienza sapienza at berkeley.edu<mailto:sapienza at berkeley.edu>

New Connections: Recent Research in the Archaeology of Northern Australia
Over the last decade a new generation of research undertaken in northern Australia has challenged and, in some very prominent instances, overturned conventional understandings of archaeology in these areas and the connections between them. In this session we invite contributions which explore how recent research findings in this region have shifted our archaeological understandings and reflect on how these understandings in the past and present have been shaped by broader changes in our discipline and society.
Sean Ulm sean.ulm at jcu.edu.au<mailto:sean.ulm at jcu.edu.au>
Mick Morrison mick.morrison at flinders.edu.au<mailto:mick.morrison at flinders.edu.au>
Lynley Wallis lynley.wallis at uq.edu.au<mailto:lynley.wallis at uq.edu.au>


Archaeology and Human Sociality in Deep Time
One of the most significant topics in archaeology is that of the emergence and global dispersal of modern humans. Recent research has suggested that it was aspects of their sociality that made early modern humans so successful at expanding into novel environments and creatively meeting new challenges. Ironically, human sociality becomes increasingly difficult to reconstruct as one moves into the more distant past. Resolving archaeological and palaeoenvironmental detail at the time of our emergence and dispersal has become increasingly important to this issue, and Australian research has contributed to many of the enhanced datasets that now make this feasible. This session will bring together researchers across Australia who are involved in understanding the origins and dispersal of modern humans out of Africa and eventually into Australia. This will facilitate interactions between research groups working on different aspects of a common theme, so that current data quality can be assessed and new approaches to understanding sociality in deep time can be discussed.
Jessica Thompson jessica.thompson at uq.edu.au<mailto:jessica.thompson at uq.edu.au>
Christopher Clarkson c.clarkson at uq.edu.au<mailto:c.clarkson at uq.edu.au>


Mapping Archaeology for the Present
Mapping place attachment is an area of practice that has generated much controversy in the geographical sciences (Brown 2005) with some geographers even aiming to understand people's attachment to place through quantitative measures of identity (Brown and Raymond 2007).  In conservation and environmental management discourses, natural heritage values are generally privileged over cultural and social values of place, which are mapped separately from - and usually long after - scientific values of vegetation and landform have been categorised (Andrews and Buggey 2008; Byrne 2003; Campbell 2005; Milton 1999).  To offset this tendency to leave human attachment and social connection 'off the map', archaeologists and heritage managers have developed an approach known as 'counter mapping' (Byrne 2008a, 2008b).  Counter mapping recognises that there are alternative ways of presenting (and representing) heritage and that there is an urgent need to insert local lives and place attachment into cultural heritage management practice.  Sites are not only locales of past activities.  Descendants of those who produced archaeological materials may narrate these sites in the present (Bradley 2008; Godwin 2005; Godwin and Weiner 2006). In this way, the sociality of archaeology exists in both the past and the present and in doing archaeology, especially in a heritage context, the living heritage connection to place provides a map of archaeology in the present.  The papers in this session review the concept of counter mapping as an applied approach to the sociality of archaeology.
Annie Ross annie.ross at uq.edu.au<mailto:annie.ross at uq.edu.au>


The new Lapita: Southern Papua New Guinea and Torres Strait
It started with the discovery of early pottery in Torres Strait, and know Lapita pottery has been discovered on the southern coast of mainland Papua New Guinea. The realisation that ceramic-making peoples were migrating along the coastal margins of southern New Guinea and on into Torres Strait between 2000 and 3000 years ago opens a new chapter in understanding maritime colonisations of the southwest Pacific. This session documents preliminary findings of excavations along the south coast of PNG and implications for understanding specialised maritime societies both before and after entry of Lapita peoples around 2900 years ago.
Bryce Barker bryce.barker at usq.edu.au<mailto:bryce.barker at usq.edu.au>
Bruno David bruno.david at monash.edu<mailto:bruno.david at monash.edu>
Ian J. McNiven ian.mcniven at monash.edu<mailto:ian.mcniven at monash.edu>


Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and Government
Government at all levels -- commonwealth, state and local -- plays a significant role in influencing and guiding all forms of archaeology in Australia, be it historical, prehistoric or maritime. Commonwealth, state and local departments and authorities establish legislation, policy and procedures for cultural heritage management (CHM) that generate and guide many archaeological projects, especially in the private consulting sector. Teaching and research in universities also intersects with government legislation and procedures. A number of archaeologists work within government, in heritage units, planning and infrastructure agencies, and museums. These archaeologists help determine the direction of aspects of the discipline, setting standards, influencing legislative change, developing guidelines, policy and procedures, and guiding research. This session aims to provide a forum for discussion on the following topics:

 *   the results of all types of archaeological/CHM projects initiated, funded and/or carried out by government;
 *   the role of government in archaeology/CHM in all its forms;
 *   new government standards, policy and procedures for archaeology/CHM, and
 *   any other issues relating to government archaeology/CHM in Australia.
Natalie Franklin natalie.r.franklin at tmr.qld.gov.au<mailto:natalie.r.franklin at tmr.qld.gov.au>
Catherine Westcott catherine.m.quinn at tmr.qld.gov.au<mailto:catherine.m.quinn at tmr.qld.gov.au>


Recording Indigenous Cultural Values within Archaeological Investigations
This session will explore the question of why Indigenous cultural values are not adequately recorded and incorporated in to the significance assessment of Indigenous heritage Places.
Archaeologists commonly believe that ethnographic and anthropological recording is not done in Australia. In fact most archaeologists believe that the last 'authentic' ethnographic study in Victoria, for example, was completed by A.W. Howitt in the late nineteenth century as part of The Native Tribes of South-East Australia (1904). Subsequent publications have relied heavily on the ethnographic data contained within this work.  What has happened to ethnographic recording since that time? Has this skill been lost by the profession and the wider public? Have archaeologists allowed the oral histories of the past to be lost; in effect to become "lost histories", disappearing and not reclaimed? Have the Indigenous perspectives of the past become the invisible history and story of Australia? Or is there an underlying racism at work? If archaeology is about the story of the past, and about the people of the past, then the material remains (stone and bones) are just pieces of the jigsaw that enables that story to be told.
Susie Allia Susie.Allia at melbournewater.com.au<mailto:Susie.Allia at melbournewater.com.au>
Darren Griffin darren at wurundjeri.com.au<mailto:darren at wurundjeri.com.au>


The AACAI Session: Consulting, Research and Heritage Management
Consulting archaeological practice takes place at the hub of a network joining heritage stakeholders. These include the wider public, Aboriginal traditional owners, government regulators, land managers, and researchers and teachers within academic archaeology. Any one project will mean different things to each of these parties, but will only succeed when the core matters of archaeological practice - method and data management - lead to a well-communicated interpretation of the heritage and its significance. To achieve this we must maintain connections among ourselves, recognising that society and technology have made ours an ever changing profession. The AACAI session provides a forum for professional archaeologists to communicate the outcomes of recent research, including methodological development. We invite papers that will benefit the practice of others and demonstrate the diversity of our practice.
Joe Dortch joe.dortch at westnet.com.au<mailto:joe.dortch at westnet.com.au>
Oliver Brown ob at obca.com.au<mailto:ob at obca.com.au>
Colin Pardoe colin.pardoe at ozemail.com.au<mailto:colin.pardoe at ozemail.com.au>


'Machines That Go Bing': Technology and the Sociality of Archaeology
Technical advances in instrumentation (e.g. computers, Web 2.0, geographic information systems and geophysics) and data processing have become useful in archaeology research, especially because they can be effective tools in the interpretation of cultural history. While standard excavation provides one of the most common means of understanding archaeological sites, technology too has become an important source with which to study the human past. This session focuses on how technological advances in a variety of areas has affected the culture of archaeology and the archaeology of culture.
Kelsey Lowe k.lowe4 at uq.edu.au<mailto:k.lowe4 at uq.edu.au>