Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T11:27:47.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Typological Analysis of Axes and Choppers from Southeast Australia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donald J. Tugby
Donald J. Tugby*
Affiliation:
The Australian National University Canberra, A. C. T.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Three major factors have influenced the classification of stone artifacts in Australia. The first is the presence in the country of a contemporary stone-using people, the Australian aborigines. Early, relatively complete, and ethnologically valid studies of their life (Spencer and Gillen 1899), have given Australian artifact studies a functional flavor; so much so, that descriptive classifications have been proposed, whose major categories were in completely functional terms (Kenyon and Stirling 1900). Quite properly, Australian workers have sought functional comparisons between implements in current use and those whose function could not be discovered by ethnological enquiry, either because their makers had become culturally disintegrated, as in southeast Australia, or because their function was unknown to the living aborigines in the area concerned (see, for instance, the discussion of the mounted elouera in Setzler and McCarthy 1950).

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , July 1958 , pp. 24 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author is indebted to D, W. McElwain, Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, who worked with him on the matrix sorting, to F. D. McCarthy, Curator of Anthropology, Australian Museum, Sydney, who made available a number of specimens in his charge, and to the late George W. Brainerd, who provided literature not available in Australia and otherwise encouraged the author.

References

Belous, R. E. 1953 The Central California Chronological Sequence Re-examined. American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 341–53. Menasha.Google Scholar
Brainerd, G. W. 1951 The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis. American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 301–13. Menasha.Google Scholar
Hale, H. M. And Tindale, N. B. 1930 Notes on some Human Remains in the Lower Murray Valley, South Australia. Records of the South Australian Museum, Vol. 4, pp. 145–218. Adelaide.Google Scholar
Kenyon, A. S. And Stirling, D. L. 1900 Australian Aboriginal Stone Implements. A Suggested Classification. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, Vol. 13, Pt. 2, pp. 191–200. Melbourne.Google Scholar
Mccarthy, F. D. 1948 The Stone Implements of Australia. Memoirs of the Australian Museum, No. 9. Sydney.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. R. 1949 Stone Age Craftsmen. Tait, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Movius, H. L. Jr. 1948 The Lower Paleolithic Cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 38, Pt. 4, pp. 329–420. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. 1951 A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits. American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 293–301. Menasha.Google Scholar
Setzler, F. M. And Mccarthy, F. D. 1950 A Unique Archaeological Specimen from Australia. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1–5. Washington.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. C. 1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 305-13. Menasha.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Baldwin, And Gillen, F. J. 1899 The Native Tribes of Central Australia. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Willey, G. R. 1953 Archeological Theories and Interpretation: New World. In Anthropology Today, edited by Kroeber, A. L., pp. 361-85. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar