Abstract
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).
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Museology,Archaeology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),History
Reference12 articles.
1. Australian Aboriginal Stone Implements. A Suggested Classification;Kenyon;Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria,1900
2. A Unique Archaeological Specimen from Australia;Setzler;Journal of the Washington Academy of Science,1950
3. The Central California Chronological Sequence Re-Examined
4. The Place of Chronological Ordering in Archaeological Analysis
Cited by
15 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