Tinned clues to the past

Press, 1 February 1986, Page 20

Tinned clues to the past

Now Zealand Journal Volume 7, 1985. Edited Davidson. N.Z. Associatton/University of Otago. 182 pp. $15.50. (Reviewed by Beverley McCulloch) The New Zealand Journal of Archaeology is published annually by the New Zealand Archaeological Association. Its object is to present papers on all aspects of prehistoric and historic archaeology in New Zealand, with relevant articles relating to Pacific archaeology also being acceptable. It is essentially a professional journal aimed principally at meeting the publication and reference needs of professional archaeologists rather than the interested lay person. Of the nine papers in the recently issued Volume 7, four discuss work carried out in the Pacific Islands and five deal with New Zealand topics. As one might expect, most of the latter are concerned with sites of prehistoric Maori occupation; there is one on early Chinese miners’ habitation sites in Central Otago. It is this last mentioned which I found of greatest interest Metal containers have been used extensively in the Western world for packaging and preserving foodstuffs and other materials, for about 150 years. They are usually called "tins” or “cans,” and with a few exceptionsare generally discarded once .they have been emptied. . However, compared to glass or ceramic containers, they are not particularly durable—they are, of course, most subject to rusting—and have therefore been to a greater extent ignored, both by archaeologists, and also by “collectors” for whom they lack the attraction of, for example, the übiquitous bottle. Neville Ritchie and Stuart Bedford

of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust have produced a well organised and illustrated article showing! the type of metal containers which might be encountered; in many places in New Zealand and have shown' the value of these as a potential source of cultural and. historic information. Best of all, the article is couched in good clear, intelligible English ; and demonstrates nicely that you don’t lose any scientific accuracy .by refusing to resort to the sort of mumbo-jumbo jargon too often presented as a substitute .Hfor substance. U. ' Other New Zealand contributions include a study, of damage to prehistoric sites by .farming activities; using mollusc-shells to determine when sites were occupied; a discussion of the artifact assemblage from a site at Coromandel; and a look at stylistic variations in Maori rock drawings from two areas. , • One of the points noted in the rock drawing paper is that some subjects are nearly always depicted facing in a particular direction, a fact which is obviously significant and must always be taken into account in any study of this art form. (It is something I had noted myself during my Maori rock art studies some years ago.) Because of this I must remark that the New - Zealand Archaeological Association aims at, and usually achieves, a high standard .for its Journal. Thus, it is a great pity that it persists in portraying on its cover a prehistoric Maori rock drawing,’ printed, for purely aesthetic reasons, in reverse! It offends my scientific ideals by violating a basic principal of good archaeology, that is, to record information as accurately ; and faithfully as possible. That accuracy, in any worth while scientific publication, should include the ’cover as well as the contents. J . .