@misc{EcksteinSchwarz2018,
  author    = {Eckstein, Lars and Schwarz, Anja},
  title     = {The Making of Tupaia's Map},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Philosophische Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam Philosophische Reihe},
  number    = {154},
  issn      = {1866-8380},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-42309},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-423091},
  pages     = {96},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Tupaia's Map is one of the most famous and enigmatic artefacts to emerge from the early encounters between Europeans and Pacific Islanders. It was drawn by Tupaia, an arioi priest, chiefly advisor and master navigator from Ra'iātea in the Leeward Society Islands in collaboration with various members of the crew of James Cook's Endeavour, in two distinct moments of mapmaking and three draft stages between August 1769 and February 1770. To this day, the identity of many islands on the chart, and the logic of their arrangement have posed a riddle to researchers. Drawing in part on archival material hitherto overlooked, in this long essay we propose a new understanding of the chart's cartographic logic, offer a detailed reconstruction of its genesis, and thus for the first time present a comprehensive reading of Tupaia's Map. The chart not only underscores the extent and mastery of Polynesian navigation, it is also a remarkable feat of translation between two very different wayfinding systems and their respective representational models.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{BarrettEcksteinHurleyetal.2018,
  author    = {Barrett, Lindsay and Eckstein, Lars and Hurley, Andrew Wright and Schwarz, Anja},
  title     = {Remembering German-Australian colonial entanglement},
  series = {Postcolonial studies : culture, politics, economy},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {Postcolonial studies : culture, politics, economy},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1368-8790},
  doi       = {10.1080/13688790.2018.1443671},
  pages     = {1 -- 5},
  year      = {2018},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Eckstein2018,
  author    = {Eckstein, Lars},
  title     = {Recollecting bones},
  series = {Postcolonial Studies},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {Postcolonial Studies},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Abingdon},
  issn      = {1368-8790},
  doi       = {10.1080/13688790.2018.1435146},
  pages     = {6 -- 19},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This article critically engages with the different politics of memory involved in debates over the restitution of Indigenous Australian ancestral remains stolen by colonial actors in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and brought to Berlin in the name of science. The debates crystallise how deeply divided German scientific discourses still are over the question of whether the historical and moral obligations of colonial injustice should be accepted or whether researchers should continue to profess scientific 'disinterest'. The debates also reveal an almost unanimous disavowal of Indigenous Australian knowledges and mnemonic conceptions across all camps. The bitter ironies of this disavowal become evident when Indigenous Australian quests for the remains of their ancestral dead lost in the limbo of German scientific collections are juxtaposed with white Australian (fictional) quests for the remains of Ludwig Leichhardt, lost in the Australian interior.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{Eckstein2018,
  author    = {Eckstein, Lars},
  title     = {Recollecting bones},
  volume    = {21},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1368-8790},
  doi       = {10.1080/13688790.2018.1435146},
  pages     = {6 -- 19},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This article critically engages with the different politics of memory involved in debates over the restitution of Indigenous Australian ancestral remains stolen by colonial actors in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and brought to Berlin in the name of science. The debates crystallise how deeply divided German scientific discourses still are over the question of whether the historical and moral obligations of colonial injustice should be accepted or whether researchers should continue to profess scientific 'disinterest'. The debates also reveal an almost unanimous disavowal of Indigenous Australian knowledges and mnemonic conceptions across all camps. The bitter ironies of this disavowal become evident when Indigenous Australian quests for the remains of their ancestral dead lost in the limbo of German scientific collections are juxtaposed with white Australian (fictional) quests for the remains of Ludwig Leichhardt, lost in the Australian interior.},
  language  = {en}
}