In much of the Western world, collaborative research undertaken by settler archaeologists readily lends itself, at least in part, to a continuation of the colonial project. Yet, against this backdrop, Australia's First Nations’ peoples continue to work with researchers and to drive systemic change in research practice. Community-engaged archaeology, defined here as codeveloped studies of ancestral places (following Schaepe et al. 2017), is directed to improving relationships between Indigenous peoples and archaeologists. Even so, the practice of archaeology with and for nonsettler communities remains underdeveloped with regard to institutional priorities and funding agency bureaucracies. Here, we (Mirarr Traditional Owners, Mirarr employees, and settler archaeologist researchers) reflect on these issues as part of our ongoing research on the ochres and bim (rock art) of the well-known Madjedbebe rockshelter in the Alligator Rivers region, Northern Territory, Australia.

The covid-19 pandemic has revived a longstanding, and understudied, trope in American politics: the association of immigrants with disease. There has been a great deal of scholarship on the economic, cultural, and criminal threat frames attached to immigrant groups in media coverage, but little to date has specifically examined how national and local sources have framed covid-19 in the context of immigrant communities. In this paper we analyze the prevalence of two different framings of the pandemic in national and local online news outlets over the first year of the pandemic: immigration as a public health threat to the nation, and covid-19 as a threat to immigrant communities within the nation. We find significant differences between national and local coverage, with the former more likely to frame immigration as a covid-19 threat, while local news outlets were more likely to discuss the threat the virus posed to already marginalized immigrant communities.

Marcel Proust stated clearly and repeatedly in his vast A la recherche du temps perdu his determining theory of involuntary memory. Proust's entire work was based upon experiences of total recall from a store of memories unconsciously preserved in the mind. In a paper delivered in 1957 by Dr. Wilder Penfield of the Montreal Neurological Institute are to be found physiological bases for Proust's esthetic experiences. Wilder reported that forgotten experiences were revealed to patients in great detail when electrodes were applied to various parts of their brains. Penfield thus supports Proust's view of a stream of memories (or, as Penfield calls it, a continuous filmstrip) preserving an individual's total experiential responses from childhood onward. The juxtaposition of Proust's statements with those of the neurosurgeon about the nature of this stream of unconscious memories, their relation to conscious memory, and the conditions under which they are recalled throws light upon the validity of Proust's technique.

More than most novelists, Proust uses speech as a means of characterization. To his readers Bloch, whatever else he is, means a sophomoric use of pseudo-Homeric epithets, Mme Verdurin a series of recurring tics, and the Duc de Guermantes a pompous indulgence in genealogical ramblings. Even such a major figure as Odette is recognized by her sprinkling of fashionable Anglicisms; and Françoise, by her linguistic deformations. In some cases—so sensitive was Proust to the human voice—the manner of speaking is the character. We have only to listen to a Brichot, a Norpois, or a Cottard to know his class, his profession, his attitude toward life, even his virtues and vices. As life does, Proust frequently tells us all we need to know about an individual by letting us hear him discourse.

I Most of us today recognize but the commonest of the figures of speech or rhetorical devices that we encounter in our reading. Simile, metaphor, pleonasm, even oxymoron still belong to our vocabulary; but most literate people of the present frown or otherwise distort their features at the mere mention of litotes, hendiadys, hyperbaton, meiosis, paranomasia, syllepsis, or zeugma. Our fathers learned to distinguish such figures, with the aid of examples drawn from Vergil and Tacitus, from the Bible, Shakespeare, and Milton, and could even note in passing the clergyman's skillful use of such a device in his sermon.

On the evening of 13 May 1921 André Gide spent an hour with Marcel Proust, apparently for the first time in several years. For the past four days Proust had sent a car and chauffeur to fetch Gide every evening. Finally on the night when the latter could come, the invalid who had not been up in some time, had dressed to go out. The meeting took place in the little salon at 44, rue Hamelin, with its hideous Barbedienne bronze on the mantel and the Jacques Blanche portrait of the foppish young Marcel on the next wall. To one the atmosphere seemed stifling, but the other, having just left a still warmer room, was shivering.