Rare Late Pleistocene-early Holocene human mandibles from the Niah Caves (Sarawak, Borneo)

The skeletal remains of Late Pleistocene-early Holocene humans are exceptionally rare in island Southeast Asia. As a result, the identity and physical adaptations of the early inhabitants of the region are poorly known. One archaeological locality that has historically been important for understanding the peopling of island Southeast Asia is the Niah Caves in the northeast of Borneo. Here we present the results of direct Uranium-series dating and the first published descriptions of three partial human mandibles from the West Mouth of the Niah Caves recovered during excavations by the Harrissons in 1957. One of them (mandible E/B1 100") is somewhat younger than the ‘Deep Skull’ with a best dating estimate of c30-28 ka (at 2σ), while the other two mandibles (D/N5 42–48" and E/W 33 24–36") are dated to a minimum of c11.0–10.5 ka (at 2σ) and c10.0–9.0 ka (at 2σ). Jaw E/B1 100" is unusually small and robust compared with other Late Pleistocene mandibles suggesting that it may have been ontogenetically altered through masticatory strain under a model of phenotypic plasticity. Possible dietary causes could include the consumption of tough or dried meats or palm plants, behaviours which have been documented previously in the archaeological record of the Niah Caves. Our work suggests a long history back to before the LGM of economic strategies involving the exploitation of raw plant foods or perhaps dried and stored meat resources. This offers new insights into the economic strategies of Late Pleistocene-early Holocene hunter-gatherers living in, or adjacent to, tropical rainforests

Working Alongside: community archaeology in post-native title Australia

The recognition of Australian Indigenous peoples' "native title rights" in 1992 formally acknowledged the deep and unbroken relationship between Aboriginal people, place and culture. Although community-based archaeology had been practised in Australia since the 1980s, the enactment of native title legislation introduced not only an ethical, but in many cases a legal requirement to work with relevant Indigenous people (known as Traditional Owners in Australia) on cultural heritage research aims, methodology and management of information. The recognition that native title persists has led to other shifts, such as Aboriginal Traditional Owners are now considered as custodians with authority for cultural heritage within their estates, rather than simply stakeholders. The flow on effects of the recognition of native title has given rise to an increase in the incorporation of Indigenous research aspirations and new research partnerships (e.g. Brady and Bradley 2014; Doring and Nyawarra 2014; May et al. 2005; Porr and Bell 2011; Ross and Davidson 2006). Despite the liberal use of the term "community-based approach" discussion continues about what constitutes community-based archaeology as compared to a general consultative approach. Consultative approaches in archaeology involve a process of negotiation in which the archaeologist sets the research agenda and the community has the opportunity to react to this. The consultative approach is appropriate and ethical for a wide range of archaeological studies and remains the most prevalent model in the archaeological consultancy realm as projects are often triggered by development conditions and are subject to tightly constrained time frames. In contrast, Aboriginal people have greater agency in the community-based approach at all steps in the research process. Essentially, the consultative approach differs from the community-based approach which is interactive rather than reactive (Greer et al. 2002: 267–268). The community-based approach described here follows the lead of Greer (1996), Layton (1992), Taçon (1994), Brady (2010), Brady and Kearney (2016) and others (Domingo Sanz et al. 2016; Clarke 2002; Cole et al. 2002; Greer 2010; Greer et al. 2002; May et al. 2005, 2010; McIntyre-Tamwoy 2002, 2011; Smith 1992, 2010). A prerequisite of the interactive approach is the definition of elements of contemporary community identity that underpin the development of research interests and which inform issues of methodology and practice (Greer et al. 2002: 268). In the research project described here, one of the authors (Buhrich) approached individual communities with the aim of comparing rock art style across the Wet Tropics, but also invited communities to develop mutually beneficial outcomes based around this research. What emerged from this was a new community-based model described below as "working alongside". Rather than align a research project with community aspirations, the working alongside model asks communities to identify projects that meet their aspirations that could work in tandem with the proposed research. This "grassroots" approach recognises that histories and cultural geographies influence community aspirations and capacity. A working alongside approach must be adapted for each individual circumstance and would look differently in different communities. This is different to an ethnoarchaeological approach, such as that applied by Calwell-Chanthaphonh and Ferguson (2010) and Liebmann (2018) in southwest USA, although it does acknowledge distinct traditional knowledge, history and cultural geographies can help us understand the past. Working alongside is also different to Atalay's (2012) community-based participator research (CBPR) in Turkey, where, although community knowledge is an essential component and project methodologies are based on open communication and shared decision making, academic research is the primary driver. The working alongside model is perhaps most similar to the critical approach to community-based heritage projects discussed by Lyons (2013) who recognises that products, process and outcomes of a community-based project must be negotiated through a shared decision-making process

Pleistocene cave art from Sulawesi, Indonesia

Archaeologists have long been puzzled by the appearance in Europe ∼40–35 thousand years (kyr) ago of a rich corpus of sophisticated artworks, including parietal art (that is, paintings, drawings and engravings on immobile rock surfaces)1,2 and portable art (for example, carved figurines)3,4, and the absence or scarcity of equivalent, well-dated evidence elsewhere, especially along early human migration routes in South Asia and the Far East, including Wallacea and Australia5,6,7,8, where modern humans (Homo sapiens) were established by 50 kyr ago9,10. Here, using uranium-series dating of coralloid speleothems directly associated with 12 human hand stencils and two figurative animal depictions from seven cave sites in the Maros karsts of Sulawesi, we show that rock art traditions on this Indonesian island are at least compatible in age with the oldest European art11. The earliest dated image from Maros, with a minimum age of 39.9 kyr, is now the oldest known hand stencil in the world. In addition, a painting of a babirusa (‘pig-deer’) made at least 35.4 kyr ago is among the earliest dated figurative depictions worldwide, if not the earliest one. Among the implications, it can now be demonstrated that humans were producing rock art by ∼40 kyr ago at opposite ends of the Pleistocene Eurasian world

Marks, Pictures and Art: Their Contribution to Revolutions in Communication

This paper addresses the question of the nature of art, how it came to be, how it fits with other communications revolutions, and the implications of the emergence of art as a means of visual communication. How did iconic imagery emerge from other mark-making among humans and their ancestors and what has been its significance? I situate visual communication as the second revolution of the six communication revolutions during human evolution: the emergence of language, iconic imagery, writing, printing, various means of communication at a distance, and the digital electronic revolution. I begin by discussing the context of deliberate production of marks in the environment, with emphasis on the relations between (1) the producer of the mark and the mark, (2) the producer of the mark and an informed observer at the time, (3) the mark and the informed observer in the absence of the producer and (4) the uninformed observer and the mark. It is fundamental that at some stage the producer intended the mark to represent something, a subject in the real or imagined world. I emphasize the importance of telling stories and singing songs in secular and ritual contexts. Out of this framework, I discuss some of the earliest objects called art in relation to their semiotic elements. I outline my arguments about how these semiotic categories were transformed in the emergence of pictures during archaeohistory. I go on to discuss how all these examples of image production connect to that which is called art in western society. I conclude by reflecting on the impact of these changes of means of communication on human cognition. Each of the revolutions involved changes in the relationships among the communicative act (sensu lato), the agent and receivers of the communication, the perception and interpretation of the communication and the persistence of it through time and ultimately across space