Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement最新文献

{"title":"Is there life after Lapita, and do you remember the 60s? The post-Lapita sequences of the western Pacific. In A Pacific Odyssey: Archaeology and Anthropology in the Western Pacific. Papers in Honour of Jim Specht","authors":"M. Spriggs","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.29.2004.1410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.29.2004.1410","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122704199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rethinking regional analyses of western Pacific rock-art. In A Pacific Odyssey: Archaeology and Anthropology in the Western Pacific. Papers in Honour of Jim Specht","authors":"Meredith A. Wilson","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.29.2004.1414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.29.2004.1414","url":null,"abstract":"Jim Specht has played a central role in the identification of two discrete bodies of rock-art in the western Pacific region, referred to in this paper as the \"Austronesian engraving style\" (AES) and the \"Austronesian painting tradition\" (APT). The aim of this paper is to explore the merits of the AES and the APT as analytical entities by determining how they articulate with one another across the region. This is achieved by conducting statistical analyses of western Pacific rock-art motifs. The results of these analyses are then compared with models founded on consideration of non-motif variables by previous authors, including Jim Specht.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"38 12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130748512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are the earliest field monuments of the Pacific landscape serial sites? In A Pacific Odyssey: Archaeology and Anthropology in the Western Pacific. Papers in Honour of Jim Specht","authors":"Anita Smith","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.29.2004.1409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.29.2004.1409","url":null,"abstract":"Explanations of the origin and genesis of Pacific field monuments commonly assume they reflect local social change in islands or island groups which were increasingly isolated following colonization. A recent review of early West Polynesian archaeology suggests that the pene- contemporaneous appearance of various kinds of field monuments from eastern Melanesia to Polynesia may be better explained as evidence of interaction and the movement of people and/or ideas, possibly associated with the colonization of East Polynesia.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"472 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123053284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Walpole, a \"Mystery Island\" in southeast New Caledonia? In A Pacific Odyssey: Archaeology and Anthropology in the Western Pacific. Papers in Honour of Jim Specht","authors":"C. Sand","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.29.2004.1407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.29.2004.1407","url":null,"abstract":"Walpole Island, the southernmost island of Melanesia, is a spectacular raised limestone formation 135 km south of the Loyalty Islands within the New Caledonian archipelago. Occupied by enormous numbers of seabirds when the first westerners landed, this rocky spot was mined for guano. Workers frequently reported archaeological finds that indicated prehistoric occupation and an early collection of artefacts was sent to the Australian Museum in Sydney. Over the last 30 years, research on the archaeological heritage of the island has been carried out through the study of museum collections and excavations. This paper reports the results of recent stratigraphic excavations, and synthesizes current archaeological knowledge about the human occupation of Walpole spanning at least 2,500 years. SAND, CHRISTOPHE, 2004. Walpole, a “Mystery Island” in southeast New Caledonia? In A Pacific Odyssey: Archaeology and Anthropology in the Western Pacific. Papers in Honour of Jim Specht, ed. Val Attenbrow and Richard Fullagar, pp. 109–122. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 29. Sydney: Australian Museum. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 29 (2004): 109–122 ISBN 0-9750476-3-9 www.amonline.net.au/pdf/publications/1407_complete.pdf During the last two decades, Melanesian and Polynesian prehistory has come of age (Kirch, 2000). Jim Specht was a pioneer with an insatiable drive to explore new directions in Pacific prehistory. Amongst numerous other projects, he initiated modern archaeological studies of the pre-European settlement on Norfolk Island (Specht, 1984). Before discovering Norfolk on the 5th October 1774, James Cook put a new archipelago on the European map—New Caledonia (Beaglehole, 1961). One week previously he had passed just out of sight of a small uplifted coral island, at the southeastern tip of the Grande Terre. Its name, given a few decades later, is Walpole. Very few people know of this island at the southernmost point of Melanesia. Although Walpole appeared as a “mystery” early in the literature (see Sand 2002: 14 for a review), it is not normally listed in studies of the Pacific “mystery islands”, which focus only on Polynesia and eastern Micronesia (Bellwood, 1978: 352–353; Kirch, 1988; but see Di Piazza & Pearthree, 2001: 165). A historical connection links Walpole to the Australian Museum in Sydney, where the oldest archaeological collection from the island is stored. In this paper I summarize the historical and archaeological data of Walpole and propose a tentative chronology. “Mystery Islands”: a short review When European navigators started to systematically explore the Pacific, they visited uninhabited islands with signs of former human occupation, like Pitcairn in East Polynesia, and Norfolk off eastern Australia. These abandoned islands were mostly in Polynesia (Kirch, 1984: table 9), although some east Micronesian islands were also identified (Terrell, 1986: fig. 28). The “mystery” of their pre-historic settlement and a","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126777668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Revision of the snail genus Austropyrgus (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae): a morphostatic radiation of freshwater gastropods in southeastern Australia","authors":"S. Clark, Alison C. Miller, W. Ponder","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.28.2003.1377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.28.2003.1377","url":null,"abstract":"The species that comprise a morphostatic radiation in southeastern Australia of the hydrobiid genus Austropyrgus Cotton are described using shell, opercular, anatomical and radular characters, and the genus is redefined. The previously described taxa have been included under several generic names, including Fluvidona (now a separate genus), Rivisessor, Pupiphryx and Angrobia, which are now treated as synonyms of Austropyrgus. Seventy-four species are described from southeastern Australia, fiftyseven of them new. These are grouped into six informal morphological groups to aid identification. Two recently described outlying species, A. bunyaensis from Mt Bunya, southern Queensland and A. centralia from Dalhousie Springs, northern South Australia, are not included in this revision. Members of the genus are typically found in streams, although a few species live in springs, rivers or lakes. A large number of the species have restricted distributions and several are known only from single locations. In southern New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia Austropyrgus is the dominant native freshwater hydrobiid genus whereas in Tasmania it is often sympatric with the native freshwater hydrobiid genera Beddomeia and/or Phrantela. CLARK, STEPHANIE A., ALISON C. MILLER & WINSTON F. PONDER, 2003. Revision of the snail genus Austropyrgus (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae): a morphostatic radiation of freshwater gastropods in southeastern Australia. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 28: 1–109.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132222673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Fishbone from the Emily Bay settlement site, Norfolk Island","authors":"R. Walter, Atholl Anderson","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1344","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1344","url":null,"abstract":"Fishbone from the settlement site at Emily Bay and excavations in West Emily Bay was identified on the basis of five mouth parts, checked against eight paired bones and some multiple and unique bones. The number of specimens (NISP) was counted and the Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) calculated to display relative abundance of families. Lethrinidae dominate all assemblages, with Carangidae, Labridae and Serranidae as significant secondaries. Many specimens are large examples of the species. The domination of benthic feeders implies baited hooks, used over submerged reefs close to shore, were probably the most common technology. There are no deep water species present. Norfolk Island fishing appears to be very like that of prehistoric New Zealand.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132623748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Archaeological Fieldwork on Norfolk Island","authors":"Atholl Anderson, I. Smith, P. White","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1336","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1336","url":null,"abstract":"Exploratory excavations in Cemetery, Emily and Slaughter Bays in search of a prehistoric settlement site are outlined, along with small scale researches elsewhere on Norfolk Island and on adjacent islands. The archaeological excavations at the settlement site discovered in Emily Bay are described in detail and the taphonomy of the site discussed.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124103788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Approaching the prehistory of Norfolk Island","authors":"Atholl Anderson, P. White","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1335","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1335","url":null,"abstract":"Norfolk Island, on the northeast edge of the Tasman Sea, is of volcanic origin and moderate height. A humid, forested subtropical landmass, it had a diverse range of natural resources, including some food plants such as Cyathea, forest birds such as pigeon and parrot species and substantial colonies of seabirds, notably boobies and procellariids. Its shoreline had few shellfish, but the coastal waters were rich in fish, of which Lethrinids were especially abundant. The island had no inhabitants when discovered by Europeans in A.D. 1774. It was settled by them in A.D. 1788. From the eighteenth century discovery of feral bananas and then of stone adzes, knowledge of the prehistory of Norfolk Island has developed over a very long period. Collections of stone tools seemed predominantly East Polynesian in orientation, but Melanesian sources could not be ruled out. Research on fossil bone deposits established the antiquity of the human commensal Rattus exulans as about 800 B.P. but no prehistoric settlement site was known until one was discovered in 1995 at Emily Bay during the Norfolk Island Prehistory Project. ANDERSON, ATHOLL, AND PETER WHITE, 2001a. Approaching the prehistory of Norfolk Island. In The Prehistoric Archaeology of Norfolk Island, Southwest Pacific, ed. Atholl Anderson and Peter White, pp. 1–9. Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 27. Sydney: Australian Museum. The primary aim of the Norfolk Island Prehistory Project (NIPP), which began in 1995, was to determine the fact, extent and nature of pre-European settlement in the Norfolk Island archipelago, within the context of some wider questions of regional prehistory. Norfolk Island was of particular interest because of its status as one of the Polynesian “mystery” islands, its very isolated situation at the western extremity of Polynesian colonization, yet its proximity to Melanesia, and because of its history of tantalising evidence indicating former settlement. That was not immediately apparent at European discovery. Ten days out from New Caledonia, on the 10th October 1774, HMS Resolution came upon a new island. A brief exploration suggested that it was uninhabited and Captain James Cook “took posission of this Isle... and named it Norfolk Isle, in honour of that noble family.” (Beaglehole, 1961: 565). An absence of indigenous people was confirmed when extensive exploration and European settlement began in 1788, but at the same time evidence began to emerge of former habitation (below) and Norfolk Island became one of those “isolated, mystery islands” of Polynesia, “which have traces of prehistoric settlement, but which had no inhabitants at European contact.” (Bellwood 1978: 352). These islands occur in two main groups, equatorial atolls and sub-tropical high islands, of which Norfolk Island is the most westerly and was before our research perhaps the most enigmatic. Located almost equidistant between New Caledonia and New Zealand, it was open to settlement from either or bo","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126886362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Stone artefacts from the Emily Bay settlement site, Norfolk Island","authors":"M. Turner, Atholl Anderson, R. Fullagar","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1339","url":null,"abstract":"The lithic material from the Emily Bay site consists principally of basalt flakes, blades, preforms and adzes. There are also a small number of obsidian artefacts. The basalt assemblage has been analysed primarily to describe the technology of adze manufacture, which occurred along with reworking of broken preforms and finished adzes. The pattern of adze production is very similar to that found in New Zealand sites. No complete finished adzes were recovered, but the flake material indicates that Duff (1977) Types 1, 2, 3 and 4 were being made. Sourcing studies show that the basalt is local. Sourcing of obsidian shows that nearly all came from Raoul Island (Kermadecs) while one piece may be from New Zealand. Use wear and residues, notably starch grains, were found on many of the sample of 10 basalt and five obsidian artefacts analysed and the range of activities represented is congruent with a permanent or semi-permanent village rather than a temporary camp.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131801591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Prehistoric Archaeology of Norfolk Island, Southwest Pacific","authors":"Atholl Anderson, P. White","doi":"10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1334","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3853/J.0812-7387.27.2001.1334","url":null,"abstract":"VOLUME ABSTRACT. This Supplement documents the discovery, excavation and analysis of material of the Polynesian occupation of Norfolk Island about 600 years ago. The main excavation, in the dunes of Emily Bay, revealed a probable house, with some posts in place, and an adjacent paved area, which we interpret as a possible marae. Some obsidian, mostly sourced to Raoul Island, was associated with the paving. Stone artefacts, including adzes, were made of local basalt. Shell and bone tools were also found. Both stone and shell tools retained residues and usewear. The nature and morphology of the artefacts suggest New Zealand or the Kermadec Islands as the most likely source of the settlement. Faunal remains included a limited range of mammals and reptiles, along with fish, birds and shellfish. Some specialization in collection is evident in each of the three latter classes of remains. Rattus exulans is the only animal which was clearly introduced, and there is also pollen evidence for plant introductions. Detailed analysis of the radiocarbon data establishes that the settlement was occupied between early thirteenth and early fifteenth centuries A.D., although the duration of occupation many have been considerably shorter. Reasons for abandonment of the island are discussed; extreme isolation may have been important.","PeriodicalId":371360,"journal":{"name":"Records of The Australian Museum, Supplement","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116300131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}