Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-tgq86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-28T20:04:13.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Stuff Legends in Archaeology are Made of: A Reply to Critics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Robert G. Bednarik
Robert G. Bednarik
Affiliation:
International Federation of Rock Art OrganizationsP.O.Box 216Caulfield South Victoria 3162, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Shorter Notes
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , October 1992 , pp. 262 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 1992

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.)

References

Bahn, P.G., 1985. Ice Age drawings on open rock faces in the Pyrenees. Nature 313,530–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarik, R.G., 1986. Parietal finger markings in Europe and Australia. Rock Art Research 3, 30–61, 159–70Google Scholar
Bednarik, R.G., 1989. The Galgenberg figurine from Krems, Austria. Rock Art Research 6, 118–25Google Scholar
Bednarik, R.G., 1991. Asian palaeoart and Eurocentric science. Purakala 2, 71–80Google Scholar
Bednarik, R.G., 1992a. On the scientific study of palaeoart. Semiotica (in press)Google Scholar
Bednarik, R.G., 1992b. Le défi lancé par l'art Paléolithique de l'Asie. International Newsletter On Rock Art 1992(2), 20–3Google Scholar
Bednarik, R.G., 1993. European Palaeolithic art – typical or exceptional? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12(1) (in press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, L.T., 1989. Comment on I. Davidson & W. Noble, ‘The archaeology of perception: traces of depiction and language‘. Current Anthropology 30, 138Google Scholar
Chase, P.G. & Dibble, H.L., 1987. Middle Paleolithic symbolism: a review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6, 263–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, P.G., & Dibble, H.L., 1992. Scientific Archaeology and the Origins of Symbolism: a reply to Bednarik. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1), 43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, I., 1992. There's no art - to find the mind's construction - in offence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1), 52–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dibble, H.L., 1989. Comment on I. Davidson & W. Noble, ‘The archaeology of perception: traces of depiction and language’. Current Anthropology 30, 330–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorn, R.I., Clarkson, P.B., Nobbs, M.F., Loendorf, L.L. & Whitley, D.S., 1992. New approach to the radiocarbon dating of rock varnish, with examples from drylands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82(1), 136–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, P., 1989. Comment on I. Davidson & W.Noble, ‘The archaeology of perception: traces of depiction and language‘. Current Anthropology 30, 143Google Scholar
Hahn, J., 1971.Eine jungpaläolithische Elfenbeinplastik aus dem Hohlenstein-Stadel. Fundberichte aus Schwaben Neue Folge 19, 11–23Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1985. Theoretical concepts that lead to new analytic methods, modes of enquiry and classes of data. Rock Art Research 2, 95–111Google Scholar