MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W825797096 · doi:10.1353/gpr.2015.0013

Images and Power: Rock Art and Ethics by Polly Schaafsma (review)

2015· article· en· W825797096 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jack W. Brink

Notice bibliographique

RevueGreat Plains research · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueArchaeology and Rock Art Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRock artNoticePower (physics)Work of artTone (literature)ArtAestheticsHistoryLawLiteratureArchaeologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Images and Power: Rock Art and Ethics by Polly Schaafsma Jack W. Brink Images and Power: Rock Art and Ethics. By Polly Schaafsma. New York: Springer, 2013. xii + 104 pp. Photographs, references, index. $39.95 paper. Polly Schaafsma’s book on rock art and ethics is a thin volume but it packs in a lot of heavy food for thought. This is not a book for people who love to look at rock art images; there are few here, and only as needed to illustrate specific arguments. Instead, this is an in-depth discussion of some of the most complex and contentious issues facing those who study, manage, or have an interest in rock art. The work is strongly and passionately argued and is sure to stimulate debate, the whole point of the Springer series. Schaafsma begins with a discussion of what rock art is, and whether or not it should be called “art.” Her voice on this issue quickly sets the tone for topics that follow. In response to Native Americans who believe that labeling their ancient imagery as “art” denigrates it by equating it with Western secular traditions, Schaafsma argues that to not call it art is a greater disservice, relegating beautiful works to simple “marks on rocks” and diminishing the heritage of the creators and their descendants. The author serves notice that the book will not simply be an impartial review of the debates pertaining to aboriginal rock art; it will be a passionate defense of positions that Schaafsma feels are most ethical. Schaafsma considers differing, and sometimes conflicting, worldviews of Western science and indigenous people. Concepts of time, space, and landscape are discussed, as is the overarching question of whether or not we can begin to understand these concepts—pictured for us by ancient cultures—given the formative underpinnings of the cultures in which the observer has been reared. Western methods of recording and interpreting rock art, including a heavy reliance on ethnography, are contrasted with the understanding of rock art through oral traditions. Schaafsma highlights the value inherent in all approaches, but cautions that that they are very different ways of seeing the world and cannot be expected to correspond. She notes that to discard the voice of the archaeologist (admittedly dominant for two centuries) in favor of solely a native voice simply replaces one form of imperialism with another. It is precisely the issue of making interpretations of rock art conform to certain expected or “acceptable” views of the past that produces the most strongly argued statements. Schaafsma is unequivocal: archaeologists cannot let themselves be pressured into distorting their research-based interpretations of rock art imagery in order to conform with the desires or expectations of relevant interest groups. Violence is a prime example. Many, including the general public, want ancient indigenous cultures to be models of peace. Schaafsma argues that rock art and other archaeological evidence simply don’t support this. There is much more in this book, including an important discussion of who can or should “own” rock art and the point at which it becomes the heritage of humanity, as well as on the widespread appropriation of rock art images for commercial purposes. I was disappointed, however, that the thorny issue of attempting to preserve rock art as opposed to letting it erode away received no more than a passing comment. The book is finely written by a seasoned veteran of the discipline. It is meant to be provocative, and it is, but [End Page 84] it also strives for understanding. Aft er all, the one absolute is that all art produced by human beings is vitally important in defining who we are. Jack W. Brink Royal Alberta Museum Edmonton, Alberta Copyright © 2015 Center for Great Plains Studies, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,579
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,991

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,160
Tête enseignante GPT0,459
Écart entre enseignants0,299 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueGreat Plains researchMême sujetArchaeology and Rock Art StudiesTravaux en français237 207