Abstract
The archaeology of Sulawesi is important for developing an understanding of human dispersal and occupation of central Island Southeast Asia. Through over a century of archaeological work, multiple human populations in the southwestern region of Sulawesi have been identified, the most well-documented being that of the Mid- to Late Holocene ‘Toalean’ technological period. Archaeological models for this period describe a population with a strong cultural identity, subdivided into groups living on the coastal plains around Maros as well as dispersed upland forest dwellers, hunting endemic wildlife with bow-and-arrow technology. It has been proposed that the Toaleans were capable of vast water-crossings, with possible cultural exchange with northern Australia, Java, and Japan. This Toalean paradigm is built almost exclusively on existing interpretations of distinctive Toalean stone and bone artefact technologies, constructed on out-dated 19th and 20th century theory. Moreover, current definitions of Toalean artefact types are inconsistently applied and unsystematic, and the manufacturing sequence has historically been poorly understood. To address these problems in existing artefact models and typologies, we present a clarified typology of the Toalean artefacts of South Sulawesi, and describe the technical aspects of artefact production. This typology provides a tool for standardising research and will facilitate more meaningful assessments of material culture repertoires and more reliable assessment of spatial and temporal changes for the region.
Funder
Australian Research Council
Griffith University (GU), Australia
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Reference162 articles.
1. The Oceanic and Indonesian affiliations of Australian Aboriginal culture;FD McCarthy;J Polyn Soc,1953
2. Chapman V. An analysis of the artefact collections excavated by the Australian-Indonesian Archaeological Expedition to Sulawesi, 1969. M.A. Thesis, Australian National University; 1981. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/111371?mode=full
3. A review of the Late Pleistocene/Early Recent stone tool assemblages of Java;H Allen;BIPPA,1991
4. Who let the dogs in? A review of the recent genetic evidence for the introduction of the dingo to Australia and implications for the movement of people;M Fillios;J Archaeol Sci Rep,2016
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献