MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W825797096 · doi:10.1353/gpr.2015.0013

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueGreat Plains research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Rock Art Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRock artNoticePower (physics)Work of artTone (literature)ArtAestheticsHistoryLawLiteratureArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from 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

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreat Plains researchSame topicArchaeology and Rock Art StudiesFrench-language works237,207