Rock Art Aesthetics and Cultural Appropriation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marks on rocks, painted, engraved, or sculpted, can be found worldwide, wherever there are suitable surfaces. In modern times, archaeologists and anthropologists increasingly have begun studying such marks in relation to their material and social contexts, insofar as available. Frequently, such marks, moreover, display values such as representational realism, abstraction of figures, attention to line and paint application, concern with the quality of the surfaces upon which paintings or engravings are placed, composition, and so on, any of which values may elicit aesthetic appreciation. 1 Although apparently benign, such attention to marks on rocks from the aesthetic point of view may become subject to criticism, because it may be supposed to entail a (problematic) form of cultural appropriation. In the following, I begin by briefly reviewing the notion of cultural appropriation and the circumstances under which it may be seen as problematic. After this, I take note of claims to the effect that rock art aesthetics entails problematic cultural appropriation and show that, given proper care, the alleged problems can be avoided. I conclude by arguing that a strong case can be made for the aesthetic appreciation of marks on rocks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it