This paper is reproduced with the permission of the author. The full bibliographic reference is as follows:

TULA ADZES AND BIFACIAL POINTS ON THE EAST COAST OF AUSTRALIA

Ian McNiven

The documentation and explanation of distributions of artefacts are of major concern in prehistoric archaeology. A fundamental component of this concern is the production of distribution maps. In Australia, a strong historical-diffusionist tradition using distribution maps in the interpretation of historical items of Aboriginal material culture flourished in the 1930s (e.g. Davidson 1933, 1934, 1936; McCarthy 1939-40). In contrast, major use of stone artefact distribution maps in Australian archaeology has only occurred in the last two decades following the professional establishment of the discipline in the 1960s and the ensuing accumulation of basic distributional data. During this time, most interest has been focused upon the distribution of backed blades, points, tula adzes and edge-ground axes (e.g. Davidson 1983; Hiscock and Hughes 1980; Morwood and Trezise 1989; Mulvaney 1975; Pearce 1974; Pickering 1990; Smith and Cundy 1985). In a few areas, historical information is available to account for the movement and distribution of these implement types (e.g. points - Davidson 1935; axes - Hiscock 1988a; McBryde 1978, 1984, 1986; tulas - Hiscock 1988b; Roth 1904; see also McCarthy 1977; Mulvaney 1976). However, most of these studies involve trade and little detailed attention has been directed towards identifying other processes (e.g. diffusion of ideas, independent invention) which may account for the occurrence of artefact types in other parts of the continent (Davidson and McCarthy 1957; McCarthy 1977; Pearce 1974; Rowland 1987; Smith and Cundy 1985; Walters 1988).

In this paper I examine the occurrence of tula adzes and bifacial points in the coastal and sub-coastal regions of southeast Queensland (Fig. 1). The first section describes known tulas and bifacial points from southeast Queensland, thus expanding upon generally accepted views concerning the distribution and use of these implements across Australia. In the second half of the paper I confront this new distributional information directly, and evaluate it in terms of existing general models of invasion, innovation and diffusion. Following on from these discussions, I develop a hypothesis that the occurrence of these implements outside their main range may have been a result of information flow (diffusion) from 'inland' regions made possible by the establishment of large-scale inter-regional social linkages across southern Queensland during the late Holocene.

Figure 1. Southeast Queensland showing location of sites and places mentioned in text (1: Tin Can Bay Site 62-63; 2: King's Bore sandblow Site 97; 3: Brooyar Rockshelter; 4: Sandstone Point; 5: Platypus Rockshelter; 6: Mt Crosby Road Site; 7: Gatton Shelter; 8: Broadbeach Aboriginal Burial Ground; A: Bunya Mountains; B: Blackall Range).

Tula adzes

Numerous 19th century ethnographic observations record the use of hafted, chipped stone adzes by arid/semi-arid zone Aboriginal people (e.g. Etheridge 1891:40-2; Liversidge 1894:238; Roth 1904:17, 20; Smyth 1878:379; Spencer and Gillen 1899:583, 594-5, 1904:636-40; Sterling 1896:93-5; Worsnop 1897:114). However, it was only in 1924 that Horne and Aiston (1924:80, 89, 101-3, 106; see also Aiston 1928, 1929) described in detail a specific hafted, woodworking adze called 'koondi tuhla' by the Wonkonguru people of the Lake Eyre district. The adze ('tuhla') was hafted onto the end of a long handle ('koondi') with organic cement (e.g. resins etc.) and periodically resharpened with a hammerstone. This distinctive stone tool was soon recognised archaeologically, and became known as a 'tula' adze (Hale and Tindale 1930:159; see also McCarthy 1976:31; McCarthy et al. 1946:29; Sheridan 1979:10, 17-24).

Tula adzes are retouched flakes usually made from fine-grained siliceous stone (e.g. chert, silcrete, chalcedony). Characteristically, they are semi-discoidal in shape, 15 mm to 60 mm wide, and exhibit wide platforms with dorsal retouch along the distal margin worked back to the bulb of percussion (Hiscock 1988b:63; Hiscock and Veth 1991:333-5; Kamminga 1985:9). The bulb of percussion is usually pronounced giving the adze immense mechanical strength (Sheridan 1979). Thinning (retouching) of the proximal end of the flake may also take place to aid hafting (Hiscock 1988b:65). Following the ethnographic model, archaeological tulas are generally thought to have been hafted onto a handle. The distal end (working edge) was left exposed and successive resharpening (retouching) of this edge gradually reduced the tool distally/proximally to a point where use was impractical (Aiston 1928:127; Horne and Aiston 1924:89; Howchin 1934:41; McCarthy 1976:30-1; McNiven 1991a:493; Mitchell 1949:46; Mulvaney 1975:82, 232). This 'worn-out' (Aiston 1928:127; Horne and Aiston 1924:89) remnant is usually termed a tula 'slug' (McCarthy et al. 1946:27; see also Campbell and Noone 1943a:299, 1943b:381; Noone 1943:275).

A number of flaked adzes have been surface collected and excavated from the Cooloola-Gympie region (McNiven 1988, 1990a) (Fig. 1). Four of these implements conform to descriptions of tulas. They are described as follows:

1. Tula adze (TCB62-63/IF3)
The tula was surface collected from tidal mudflats adjacent to Sites 62-63 along the eastern periphery of Tin Can Bay, Cooloola (Fig. 1). It is apparent that the implement had recently eroded from a stratified shell midden located a few metres away in eucalypt forest. Given that a basal radiocarbon date of 807 CAL BP was obtained from the site (see McNiven 1991b for details), it is probable that the tula dates to within this period. The adze is made from grey silcrete and exhibits edge rounding (use-wear) along most of its working edge (Fig. 2a).

2. Tula adze (Brooyar IF1)
The adze was collected from the surface of Brooyar Rockshelter (Fig. 1). Given that the cultural deposit of the site has a near basal radiocarbon date of 2762 CAL BP (see McNiven 1988 for details), it is apparent that the adze was discarded after this time. The semi-circular-shaped adze is made from green chert and similarly exhibits edge rounding (use-wear) along the entire length of the convex working edge (Fig. 2b).

3. Tula adze (Brooyar IF6)
This adze was also found on the surface of Brooyar Rockshelter and has a similar antiquity of less than ca. 2800 CAL BP. It is made from very dark green chert with the ventral surface exhibiting a series of step terminated shallow flake scars removed from the distal margin (i.e. working edge) (Fig. 2c). These flake scars are consistent with impact damage resulting from use (Kamminga 1982). More diagnostic edge rounding (use-wear) is located along the length of the convex working edge.

4. Tula slug (Brooyar IF7)
This tula slug also comes from the surface of Brooyar Rockshelter with an antiquity similar to the other two described adzes. It is made from very dark green chert and exhibits edge rounding (use-wear) along the entire length of the working edge and use-polish across most of the ventral surface (Fig. 2d). Small particles of black residue located across the proximal end of the implement appear to be the remains of hafting resin.

Figure 2. Tula adzes from Cooloola and Brooyar Rockshelter (A: TCB62-63/IF3; B: Brooyar IF1; C: Brooyar IF6; D: Brooyar IF7).

Artefact No	Raw material	Platform thickness (mm)	Platform width (mm)	Length (mm)	Width (mm)	Weight (g)
TCB62-63/IF1	silcrete	5	21	22	35	10.9
Brooyar IF1	chert	2	9	14	19	2.5
Brooyar IF6	chert	11	19	8	29	2.2
Brooyar IF7	chert	7	21	10	22	5.3

NB Length measured along percussion axis and width was maximum distance of the tula perpendicular to this axis.
Table 1. Tula adze data from Cooloola and Brooyar Rockshelter.

Metrical variables recorded for each tula are presented in Table 1. While the four implements vary in size displaying little standardisation, they remain within the documented size range mentioned above. A larger sample of tulas is needed before further reliable inferences concerning tula morphology can be made.

It is generally accepted that tula adzes functioned as hafted woodworking tools (Flood 1983:191-2; Kamminga 1982:76; Sheridan 1979). The identification of major edge rounding and polish on the Cooloola and Brooyar tulas and the possible hafting resin on one of these implements supports strongly the hafted woodworking adze function associated with the inland tulas. In this connection, it is worth noting that Mathew (1910:120) mentions the existence of stone 'chisels' (vis-a-vis stone 'spokeshaves') in the study area. I suggest that Mathew may have been referring to hafted adzes (including tulas) similar to those documented from more arid regions. However, the occurrence of tulas on the sub-tropical east coast indicates that these implements were not exclusively an arid zone adaptation (cf. Flood 1983:192; Kamminga 1982:76; Mulvaney 1975:235; Sheridan 1979; White and O'Connell 1982:131). In fact, the Tin Can Bay tula was found in seawater less than 5 km from sub-tropical rainforest. Further insights into the function of the coastal tulas will depend upon the results of continuing use-wear and residue studies.

Tulas have also been reported from other sites in southeast Queensland. They include the Mt Crosby Road Site (Norma Richardson, Queensland Museum, pers. comm. 1989), Gatton Shelter (Morwood 1986), Platypus Rockshelter (Hiscock and Hall 1988) and Broadbeach Aboriginal Burial Ground (Haglund 1976) (Fig. 1). While the antiquity of the Mt Crosby Road tulas is unknown, available data suggest that tulas have a maximum antiquity of 2700 BP at Platypus Rockshelter (Hall and Hiscock 1988:48; Hiscock and Hall 1988:84), 1300 BP at Broadbeach Aboriginal Burial Ground (Haglund 1976) and 1000 BP at Gatton Shelter (Morwood 1986:109).

Current distribution maps of tula adzes do not include the east coast of Australia (Flood 1983:187; Kamminga 1985:19). The most easterly extent of these implements is generally accepted to be the Central Highlands of Queensland located some 400 km inland from the east coast (Hiscock 1988b:68; Morwood 1981, 1984a, 1984b). The recovery of tulas from at least six sites in southeast Queensland demonstrates that the presence of these artefacts on the eastern seaboard is not 'fortuitous' (Mulvaney 1975:235).

Bifacial points

Australian bifacial points consist of 'leaf-shaped' retouched flakes exhibiting bifacial secondary working along both lateral margins and often around the platform or proximal end of the flake. They tend to be triangular in section, approximately three times longer than wide, with a mean length of 40 mm (range = 25 mm to 70 mm) (see Flood 1983:186-8; McCarthy 1976:42-4; McCarthy et al. 1946:38-40; Mitchell 1949:63-4; White and O'Connell 1982:106).

Six bifacial points have been recovered from Site 97, Cooloola (McNiven 1985, 1990b, in press). The site is located within King's Bore sandblow, a huge (ca. 700 m x 300 m) mobile parabolic sand-dune situated approximately 300 m inland from Teewah Beach midway between Noosa Heads and Double Island Point (Fig. 1). The points were collected from an approximately 10,000 m2² stone artefact surface scatter located across the dune floor. All of these artefacts (including the points) appear to have been deflated from their original stratigraphic context by massive wind erosion. Recent radiocarbon age determinations obtained from remnants of this original stratigraphic context (cultural layer) within the dune apex yielded an antiquity of between 2332 CAL BP and 3833 CAL BP (see McNiven, in press for details). A brief description of the points follows.

Figure 3. Bifacial points from Cooloola (A: 97/IF9 [QMS764/40/2]; B: 97/IF11 [QMS764/40/4]; C: 97/IF8 [QMS764/40/6]; D: 97/9/1 [QMS764/40/6]).
1. Bifacial point (97/IF8)
The point is made from andesite with retouching on both lateral margins of the ventral surface and only the right margin of the dorsal surface (Fig. 3c). A series of flake scars truncate the tip of the point.

2. Bifacial point (97/IF11)
This yellow silcrete point has extensive retouching located along the right and left margins of both the dorsal and ventral surfaces (Fig. 3b). A large burin-like spall scar is located on the distal right margin of the flake adjacent to the point tip.

3. Bifacial point (97/IF9)
The point is made from yellow silcrete and the entire perimeter of the ventral surface is flaked (Fig. 3a). In contrast, retouching on the dorsal surface is mostly restricted to the proximal (platform) end of the point. The distal end of the point exhibits a series of transverse burin-like spall scars on the ventral surface.

4. Bifacial point (97/9/1)
The yellow-brown chert point exhibits retouching on both lateral margins of the dorsal surface while on the ventral surface retouching is restricted mostly to the left margin (Fig. 3d). The point tip has been removed by a snap fracture.

5. Bifacial point (97/IF10)
This andesite point has retouching on both lateral margins of the dorsal surface and only the right margin of the ventral surface. Both the proximal and distal ends of the implement are missing and no cortex is located on the implement.

6. Bifacial point (97/IF13)
This square-based point is made from yellow silcrete with the lateral margins of both surfaces exhibiting retouching. Multiple step terminations on one surface have produced a large protruding ridge (cf. unifacial pebble cores from Fraser Island - McNiven and Hiscock 1988). This feature would have impeded continued flaking on the surface and may account for the crudeness of the implement.

Collection unit	Raw material	Weight (g)	Length (mm)	Width (mm)
Circle 9/1	chert	1.12	19	11
IF 8	andesite	37.42	72	28
IF 9	silcrete	21.06	51	27
IF 10	andesite	14.62	48	24
IF 11	silcrete	18.10	57	28
IF 13	silcrete	28.17	54	28

Table 2. Bifacial point data from King's Bore sandblow Site 97 (IF = Isolated Find).

Recorded dimensions of the points are presented in Table 2. Length was measured along the central axis of the point while width was maximum width perpendicular to the central axis. The points display reasonable standardisation, with most 50 mm to 60 mm in length and 25 mm to 30 mm in width. The size range of these points is in accord with the size range for previously recorded points in Australia (White and O'Connell 1982:106).

Most Australian bifacial points are believed to have functioned as hafted spearheads (Flood 1983:186; McCarthy 1976:40; Schrire 1982:247; White and O'Connell 1982:123; see also Kamminga 1978:335, 1985). While the specific function(s) of the Cooloola points is unknown, it is noted that the broken tips on five of the six Cooloola points are consistent with the projectile point hypothesis (Akerman 1978; Bergman and Newcomer 1983; Epstein 1963; Kamminga 1978:338; Witthoft 1968). Future use-wear and residue analyses may shed more light on the function of these implements.

Platypus Rockshelter is the only other documented site in southeast Queensland containing points. A single specimen was recovered from Stratigraphic Unit 1 which formed some time after ca. 2400 BP (Hall and Hiscock 1988:47-8; Hiscock and Hall 1988:84).

Bifacial points were previously unknown from the east coast of Australia (Flood 1983:189). Although unifacial points have been recorded from the Central Highlands of Queensland (Morwood 1981), bifacial points are generally accepted as being restricted to the central northern part of tropical Australia (Mulvaney 1975:217; Smith and Cundy 1985:36; White and O'Connell 1982:116). This places the Cooloola points some 400 km from the nearest documented point producers in the Central Highlands (Morwood 1981) and over 1000 km from the nearest documented bifacial point producers in northwest Queensland (Hiscock 1988c).

Population succession, innovation and diffusion

Despite recent euphemisms, analyses of stone artefact distributions are generally reduced to a discussion of the relative merits of invasion, innovation and diffusion. The invasion hypothesis (Clark 1966) or more generally the theory of successive populations (Adams 1968) posits that major changes in regional artefact assemblages result from the physical replacement of one group/culture by a different group/culture (see Rouse 1986; Trigger 1968). The explanation is generally restricted to areas exhibiting major and abrupt changes in society (e.g. material culture, religion, burial practices, social organisation etc.) and skeletal (genetic) make-up (e.g. the pre-Neanderthal hypothesis - Howell 1957; Howells 1976; Kennedy 1975; Valladas et al. 1987; Wolpoff 1981:289-96).

The problem of isolating population succession becomes more clouded and difficult to identify archaeologically when only partial migration of peoples occurs (Trigger 1968:41-5). For example, it is possible for a small group of people to become incorporated within another group and introduce new cultural traits to the adopter group. Such group amalgamations can take place for a variety of social, political and economic reasons (e.g. exogamous marriage arrangements) and can be incorporated within a more encompassing model of inter-societal/inter-regional linkage (see below).

Identifying whether the appearance of a new material culture item/trait in a region results from either internal processes and developments (independent invention/innovation) or through external stimulation and information flow (diffusion) has its difficulties. The problem of differentiating between these two processes is of fundamental concern not only to archaeology, but to anthropology in general. Even last century, Tylor (1884:547) referred to 'this great problem' in anthropology, claiming its resolution would bring 'the study of civilization into its full development as a science'.

Unfortunately, the basis of many earlier independent invention-diffusion arguments is more emotional than factual, reflecting the personal biases of individual researchers. An example of this phenomenon is the high frequency of diffusionist explanations during the first half of this century for the external origin of many historic Aboriginal cultural traits (e.g. Elliot-Smith 1930:135-9), 1933:5, 8; Rivers 1926:158-66; Thorpe 1924). It is no coincidence that these explanations were most prolific at a time when Aboriginal cultures were seen as 'lowly' (Elliot-Smith 1930; Rivers 1926) and uninventive (cf. British 'invasion neurosis' - Clark 1966:172; see also Kuklick 1991).

Independently invented material culture traits are internally generated by a cultural system and generally termed innovations (cf. Layton 1989). Barnett (1953:7) defines an innovation as:

any thought, behaviour, or thing that is new because it is qualitatively different from existing forms.
Similarly,
Innovation does not result from the addition or subtraction of parts. It takes place only when there is a recombination of them ... the distinctiveness of which cannot be characterized merely in terms of an increase or decrease in the number of its component elements (Barnett 1953:9).

Innovations can be generated by 'goal-oriented' or 'incidental random' activities (Barnett 1953:109). In the case of subsistence items and production tools, goal-directed innovations can be seen as adaptive processes, responding to changes in the functional requirements of these items initiated by changes in subsistence activities, social organisation and the like (Schiffer and Skibo 1988:598-9). Despite these basic observations, the archaeological identification of independent invention remains poorly developed. This results from the lack of theoretical insight into the process of innovation and the nature of cultural antecedents (Hester and Grady 1982:91; Leeuw and Torrence 1989; Rogers 1983:135), and our subsequent inability to identify these phenomena in the archaeological record (White and O'Connell 1982:122; see also Dickson 1975; Pearce 1974, 1975). At present, the archaeological identification of independent invention/ innovation is generally applied only to contexts where external influences can be ruled out.

Diffusion can be defined as:

the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. It is a special type of communication, in that the messages are concerned with new ideas (Rogers 1983:5).

Although Rogers' (1983) definition has wide acceptance, it should be noted that diffusion is not a process per se, but the result of a complex set of interactive events (cf. Hodder 1986:11). In this connection, mechanisms of diffusion concern social interactions and linkages that provide the agent(s) that have the means to effect the transfer (diffusion) of phenomenon from one group to another (Morrill et al. 1988:9). One mechanism of information diffusion is through idea (e.g. language and/or kinesics) communication/exchange. In such cases, transfer of information on a particular artefact form/trait occurs from one group to another. An alternative, though by no means mutually exclusive mechanism for information transfer is through object exchange (Renfrew 1977; Renfrew et al. 1968). In a very general sense, exchange can be defined as 'the spatial distribution of materials from hand to hand and from social group to social group' (Earle 1982:2). Whether or not exchange recipients also acquire technological information on the manufacture of an exchange item, and/or attempt to replicate the exchange item (e.g. Wardaman bifacial point replication - Davidson 1935:170-2; see also Akerman and Bindon 1983; Ride 1958:175) and/or perceive the item in similar or differing ways is another matter (cf. stimulus diffusion - Kroeber 1940; Trigger 1968:28; see also Davis 1983:66-7).

A major criterion for isolating object exchange in a region is the manufacture of items from exotic raw materials (e.g. Allen and Duerden 1982; Cummins 1974; Dixon 1976; Egloff 1978; Hammond et al. 1977; Jack 1976; Lilley 1988; McBryde 1984; Pires-Ferreira 1976; Reeves and Ward 1976; Weigand et al. 1977; see also Bahn 1982; Heizer 1968). Whether such exchanges reflect kin-based gift reciprocity, redistribution or specialised marketing systems is difficult to determine and has stimulated much debate (Allen 1985; Hodder 1982: 146-52; Pires-Ferreira and Flannery 1976; see also Polanyi 1957; Sahlins 1972). While these higher order debates continue, it is clear that the more fundamental issue of differentiating indirect procurement (exchange) from direct procurement remains with us, plagued by problems or equifinality (Meltzer 1989).

I suggest that from an archaeological perspective, and valid hypothesis concerning information flow (diffusion) as an explanation for the occurrence of a material culture trait in a region should accommodate at least four conditions. First, the trait must be a new addition (intrusion) into a region, be of local manufacture, and exhibit no evidence of an in situ developmental history. Second, an external origin for the trait must be found. In this connection, the closer the potential source area to the study (adopter) region, the more plausible the diffusion hypothesis. Third, the diffused trait must exist in the potential source area immediately prior to its uptake in the study (adopter) region. Such chronological continuity should manifest both a chronosequence and a positive relationship between the distance the trait has diffused from its source and the timing of trait adoption. Whether or not traits are adopted gradually through spatially contiguous groups (cf. 'contagious wave' or 'neighbourhood effect' diffusion models - Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1971; Clark 1968:435-8; Hudson 1969:45-9; Pedersen 1970:204-7; see also Gregory 1985; Hagerstrand 1967) and/or leapfrog across a landscape due to differential exposure and/or acceptance of traits resulting from a variety of social, cultural and/or political factors (e.g. east coast Australian fishhooks - Rowland 1981:67-8, 1982:114-4, 1983:135; Walters 1988) is a matter for empirical determination. Fourth, some form of social linkage between the diffusion source and potential trait adopter should be identified to provide a mechanism and processual baseline for inferences concerning the transfer of information (see White and O'Connell 1982:121).

Southeast Queensland tulas and points: a case of diffusion?

The southeast Queensland tulas and points could occur as a result of either population succession, independent invention or information flow (diffusion). At present, no evidence is available to suggest that any form of invasion or population succession occurred in southeast Queensland during the Holocene prior to the appearance of Europeans (e.g. Haglund 1976). Similarly, the manufacture of all tulas and points from local raw materials rules out the possibility of object exchange from distant inland areas. While it is possible that independent invention/innovation may account for the occurrence of these implements, I suggest that available evidence is more supportive of idea communication/exchange. This hypothesis is developed below in terms of the four archaeological conditions for identifying information flow (diffusion) detailed above.

Condition 1: no in-situ developmental history

As mentioned above, unfortunately our ability to differentiate between trait intrusion via information flow and trait innovation in archaeological contexts is negligible. In the case of tulas and points, few data are available concerning either the nature of technological antecedents or the degree of chronological resolution required before meaningful inferences can be drawn. as a result, the question of local innovation in terms of the southeast Queensland tulas and points remains unanswered.

Condition 2: potential external source in close proximity

Both tulas and points are well documented for southern central Queensland (Morwood 1981). Although located some 300 km to 400 km inland from southeast Queensland, these 'inland' implements provide a plausible source area for information flow.

Condition 3: older antiquity for potential source area trait

The only dated tulas and points from southern central Queensland come from the Central Highlands. Results from a series of excavations indicate that tulas have an antiquity of ca. 100 BP to ca. 4000 BP while points are more restricted in time from ca. 2800 BP to ca. 4300 BP (Morwood 1981, 1984a). As noted above, such chronologies match remarkably well those obtained for southeast Queensland. For example, tulas date to within the last 3000 years, while the bulk of bifacial points (e.g. King's Bore Sandblow Site 97) were dated somewhere between ca. 2300 BP and 3800 BP. Given that the chronology for tula and point use in the Central Highlands is slightly older than that recorded for southeast Queensland, it is clear that the former region represents a plausible source area for information transfer to the latter region.

Condition 4: identification of social linkages (diffusion mechanism)

McCarthy 1940:249) states 'the frequent gathering together of groups for ceremonies and other purposes provide a simple mechanism whereby ideas diffused throughout Australia'.

Last century, certain Aboriginal groups in southeast Queensland hosted large Bunya nut harvests and associated social, political and ceremonial events for Aboriginal people from as far away as northern New South Wales and southern central Queensland (Sullivan 1977). The main focuses of these gatherings were the Bunya Mountains and the Blackall Range, located in the hinterland region of Cooloola (Fig. 1). During such gatherings, it is well documented that exchange of material goods (e.g. hunting items, possum skin rugs, necklaces etc.) and information (e.g. kinship systems, ceremonies etc.) took place (Calley 1959:132; Petrie 1904:19, 56). As Petrie (1904:56-7) states:

It was a great practice, this intertribal exchange of various articles, and accounts for the wa in which some weapon for instance, or perhaps a dilly bag, might be found far from its original home, having gradually made its way after many years to scenes and pastures new. So when some instrument was found in the possession of a certain tribe it did not by any means follow that they had originally made that instrument.

The most westerly participants in what might be called the Bunya interaction sphere appear to have been the Mandandanji people from southern central Queensland (Tindale 1974:125). Consequently, their presence at the Bunya gatherings would have provided an excellent opportunity for the dissemination of information concerning 'inland' cultural traits to the coast (Sullivan 1977:41) and vice versa. I speculate therefore, that inter-regional linkages of a similar scale and area may have provided a mechanism for the diffusion of information concerning tulas and points from southern central to southeast Queensland (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Distribution of tula adzes and points in Australia (after Flood 1983; Kamminga 1985; Smith and Cundy 1985).

A major implication of this diffusion hypothesis is that inter-regional social linkages between southern central and southeast Queensland have an antiquity of at least ca. 3000 years. Other researchers have speculated, however, based largely on excavations at a large coastal gathering site at Sandstone Point, that large-scale gatherings in southeast Queensland have a much more recent (BP) antiquity (Nolan 1986:98; Walters 1987:102, 1989:221; see also Morwood 1987:346). While I acknowledge that large-scale linkages of the form recorded last century (e.g. Bunya gatherings, Sandstone Point gatherings) may date to the recent prehistoric past, I believe the appearance of tulas and points in southern central and southeast Queensland some 3000 to 4000 years ago following comparable ca. 20,000 year antiquities for human occupation (Mulvaney and Joyce 1965; Neal and Stock 1986) supports the view that large-scale inter-regional linkages may have been operating across southern Queensland for a much greater time. What specific form these hypothesised social linkages across southern Queensland may have taken prior to 1000 BP is a matter for future research.

From the available data, I believe that information flow (diffusion) is a plausible hypothesis to account for the occurrence of tulas and points in southeast Queensland (cf. Davidson and McCarthy 1957:397, 405-6). Further theoretical and substantive research is required, however, to explore and expand upon criteria and data used to support this hypothesis. In particular, emphasis should be placed upon documenting the character, distribution and antiquity of both tula and point production and use from southeast Queensland through o southern central Queensland.

The suggestion that information flow through social linkages may have influenced the distribution of tulas and points in southeast Queensland is consistent with aspects of arguments concerning late Holocene intensification in Australia (Lourandos 1983, 1985). While lack of testability and falsifiability plague the intensification debate, available evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that the spread of many tool types (e.g. adzes, axes, points, backed blades, etc.) across many parts of Australia in the mid- to late-Holocene was primarily a result of a restructuring of inter-regional social networks (e.g. McBryde 1978; Morwood 1984b, 1987; White and O'Connell 1982:133; see also David and Cole 1990; Jones 1977). In all cases, however, it is important to realise that these suggested material expressions of inter-regional linkages may not necessarily correspond to the commencement of social interaction. They simply represent a particular manifestation of that hypothesized interaction that has a tangible archaeological signature. Therefore, the challenge of future research is to develop new ways of identifying past interactive systems, and to critically examine under what socio-cultural and chrono-spatial circumstances associated material traits/items appear and indeed disappear from the archaeological record (Schortman and Urban 1987).

Conclusion

This paper expands present knowledge on the distribution of tula adzes and bifacial points across Australia. It is hoped that the information flow (diffusion) hypothesis will stimulate further research into an important, though poorly understood area in Australia prehistory; namely the processes responsible for the development and distribution of implement types across the continent (Smith and Cundy 1985). In particular, it is hoped that more objective and rigorous investigations of the relative roles of innovation (independent invention) and information communication/exchange (diffusion) are initiated (Dortch 1981). As Leslie White (1957:218) prophetically stated more than 30 years ago:

It is now clear that both of these processes of culture change are universal and fundamental; each one merits as much respect as the other. And we may be sure that whatever fads and fashions may come and go in anthropology, the problems of evolution [independent invention] and diffusion will remain with us for a long time to come.

Acknowledgements

Bruno David, Jay Hall, Peter Hiscock, Ian Lilley, Harry Lourandos, Lynette Russell, Leonn Satterthwait and Ian Walters made helpful criticisms of earlier drafts of this paper. Advice on tula adzes was kindly provided by Fred McCarthy. All errors in fact or interpretation are my responsibility.

References

Adams, W.Y. 1968 Invasion, diffusion, evolution. Antiquity 42:194-215.
Aiston, G. 1928 Chipped stone tools of the Aboriginal tribes east and north-east of Lake Eyre, South Australia. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, pp.123-31.
Aiston G. 1929 Method of mounting stone tools on Koondi Tribes east and north-east of Lake Eyre. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania, pp.44-6.
Akerman, K. 1978 Notes on the Kimberley stone-tipped spear focusing on the point hafting mechanism. Mankind 11(4):486-9.
Akerman, K. and P. Bindon 1983 Evidence of Aboriginal lithic experimentation on the Dampier Peninsula. In. M. Smith (ed.) Archaeology at ANZAAS 1983, pp.75-80. Perth: Western Australian Museum.
Allen, J. 1985 Comments on complexity and trade: A view from Melanesia. Archaeology in Oceania 20(2):49-57.
Allen, J. and P. Duerden 1982 Progressive results from the PIXE program for sourcing prehistoric Papuan pottery. In W. Ambrose and P. Duerden (eds) Archaeometry: An Australian Perspective, pp.45-59. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University. Occasional Papers in Prehistory, No. 12.
Ammerman, A.J. and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza 1971 Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man 6(4):674-88.
Bahn, P.G. 1982 Inter-site and inter-regional links during the Upper Palaeolithic: The Pyrenean evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1(3):247-68.
Barnett, H.G. 1953 Innovations: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw Hill.
Bergman, C.A. and M.H. Newcomer 1983 Flint arrowhead breakage: Examples from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:238-43.
Calley, M. 1959 Bandjalang Social Organization. Ph.D. thesis. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Campbell, T.D. and H.V.V. Noone 1943a South Australian microlithic stone implements. Records of the South Australian Museum 7(3):281-307.
Campbell, T.D. and H.V.V. Noone 1943b Some Aboriginal camp sites in the Woakwine Range region of the south east of South Australia. Records of the South Australian Museum 7(3):371-95.
Clark, G. 1966 The invasion hypothesis in British archaeology. Antiquity 40:172-89.
Clark, D.L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.
Cummins, W.A. 1974 The neolithic stone axe trade in Britain. Antiquity 48:201-5.
David, B. and N. Cole 1990 Rock art and inter-regional interaction in northeastern Australian prehistory. Antiquity 64:788-806.
Davidson, D.S. 1933 Australian netting and basketry techniques. Journal of the Polynesian Society 42:257-99.
Davidson, D.S. 1934 Australian spear traits and the derivations. Journal of the Polynesian Society 43:41-72, 143-62.
Davidson, D.S. 1935 Archaeological problems in northern Australia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 65:145-84.
Davidson, D.S. 1936 Australian throwing-sticks, throwing clubs, and boomerangs. American Anthropologist 38:76-98.
Davidson, D.S. and F.D. McCarthy 1957 The distribution and chronology of some important types of stone implements in Western Australia. Anthropos 52:390-458.
Davidson, I. 1983 On the edge of the Simpson: Recent additions to understanding of prehistoric artefact distributions in arid Australia. Australian Archaeology 17:27-37.
Davis, D.D. 1983 Investigating the diffusion of stylistic innovations. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:53-89.
Dickson, F.P. 1975 Bondi points. Mankind 10(1):45-6.
Dixon, J.E. 1976 Obsidian characterization studies in the Mediterranean and Near East. In R.E. Taylor (ed.) Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives, pp.288-333. New Jersey: Noyes Press.
Dortch, C.E. 1981 Recognition of indigenous development and external diffusion in Australian prehistory. Australian Archaeology 12:27-31.
Earle, T.K. 1982 Prehistoric economics and the archaeology of exchange. In J.E. Ericson and T.K. Earle (eds) Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, pp.1-12. New York: Academic Press.
Egloff, B.J. 1978 The kula before Malinowski: A changing configuration. Mankind 11:429-35.
Elliot-Smith, G. 1930 Human History. London: Jonathon Cape.
Elliot-Smith, G. 1933 The Diffusion of Culture. London, Watts.
Epstein, J.F. 1963 The burin-faceted projectile point. American Antiquity 29(2):187-201.
Etheridge, R. 1891 Notes on Australian Aboriginal stone weapons and implements. Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of New South Wales 6:31-43.
Flood, J. 1983 Archaeology of the Dreamtime. Sydney: Collins.
Gregory, D. 1985 Suspended animation: The status of diffusion theory. In D. Gregory and J. Urry (eds) Social Relations and Spatial Structures, pp.296-336. London: Macmillan.
Hagerstrand, T. 1967 Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Haglund, L. 1976 An Archaeological Analysis of the Broadbeach Aboriginal Burial Ground. St Lucia, Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.
Hale, H.H. and N.B. Tindale 1930 Notes on some human remains in the lower Murray valley, South Australia. Records of the South Australian Museum 4:145-218.
Hall, J. and P. Hiscock 1988 Platypus rockshelter (KB:A70), S.E. Queensland: Chronological changes in site use. Queensland Archaeological Research 5:42-62.
Hammond, N., A. Aspinall, S. Feather, J. Hazelden, T. Gazaed and S. Agrell 1977 Maya jade: Source location and analysis. In T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson (eds) Exchange Systems in Prehistory, pp.35-67. New York: Academic Press.
Heizer, R.F. 1968 Migratory animals as dispersal agents of cultural materials. Science 161:914-5.
Hester, J.J. and J. Grady 1982 Introduction to Archaeology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winton.
Hiscock, P. 1988a Standardization in the manufacture of axes at Mount Isa. Paper presented to the 2nd New England Archaeological Symposium: Technological analysis and Australian archaeology, April 3-5. Armidale: New England University.
Hiscock, P. 1988b A cache of tulas from the Boulia district, western Queensland. Archaeology in Oceania 23(2):60-70.
Hiscock, P. 1988c Prehistoric Settlement Patterns and Artefact Manufacture at Lawn Hill, Northwest Queensland. Ph.D. thesis. Brisbane: University of Queensland.
Hiscock, P. and J. Hall 1988 Technological change at Platypus rockshelter (KB:A70), S.E. Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 5:63-89.
Hiscock, P. and P.J. Hughes 1980 Backed blades in northern Australia: Evidence from northwest Queensland. Australian Archaeology 10:86-95.
Hiscock, P. and P. Veth 1991 Change in the Australian desert culture: A reanalysis of tulas from Puntutjarpa rockshelter. World Archaeology 22(3):332-45.
Hodder, I. 1982 The Present Past. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.
Hodder, I. 1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches in Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horne, G. and G. Aiston 1924 Savage Life in Central Australia. London: Macmillan.
Howchin, W. 1934 The Stone Implements of the Adelaide tribe of Aborigines Now Extinct. Adelaide: Gillingham and Company Limited.
Howell, F.C. 1957 The evolutionary significance of variation and varieties of 'Neanderthal Man'. The Quarterly Review of Biology 32:330-47.
Howells, W.W. 1976 Explaining modern Man: Evolutionists versus migrations. Journal of Human Evolution 5:477-96.
Hudson, J.C. 1969 Diffusion in a central place system. Geographical Analysis 1(1):45-58.
Jack, R.N. 1976 Prehistoric obsidian in California. 1. Geochemical aspects. In R.E. Taylor (ed.) Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives, pp.183-217. New Jersey: Noyes Press.
Jones, R. 1977 The Tasmanian paradox. In R.V.S. Wright (ed.) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, pp.189-204. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Kamminga, J. 1978 Journey into the Microcosms. Ph.D. thesis. Sydney: University of Sydney.
Kamminga, J. 1982 Over the edge: Functional analysis of Australian stone tools. University of Queensland, Anthropology Museum. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 12.
Kamminga, J. 1985 The pirri graver. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:2-25.
Kennedy, K.A.R. 1975 Neanderthal Man. Minneapolis: Burgess.
Kroeber, A.L. 1940 Stimulus diffusion. American Anthropologist 42:1-20.
Kuklick, H. 1991 Contested monuments: The politics of archaeology in southern Africa. In G.W. Stocking, Jr. (ed.) Colonial Situations: Essays on the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge. History of Anthropology, Volume 8, pp.135-69. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Layton, R. 1989 Pellaport. In S.E. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence (eds) What's New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation, pp.33-53. London: Unwin Hyman.
Leeuw, S.E. van der and R. Torrence (eds) What's New? A Closer Look at the Process of Innovation. London: Unwin Hyman.
Lilley, I. 1988 Prehistoric exchange across the Vitiaz Strait. Current Anthropology 29(3):513-6.
Liversidge, A. 1894 Notes on some Australasian and other stone implements. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales 28:232-45.
Lourandos, H. 1983 Intensification: A late Pleistocene-Holocene archaeological sequence from southwestern Victoria. Archaeology in Oceania 18(2):81-94.
Lourandos, H. 1985 Intensification and Australian prehistory. In T.D. Price and J. Brown (eds) Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity, pp.385-423. Orlando: Academic Press.
Mathew, J. 1910 Two Representative Tribes of Queensland. London: T. Fisher Unwin.
McBryde, I. 1978 'Wil-im-ee Moor-ring': or, where do the axes come from? Mankind 11(3):354-82.
McBryde, I. 1984 Kulin greenstone quarries: Social contexts of production and distribution for the Mt. William site. World Archaeology 16:267-85.
McCarthy, F.D. 1939-40 'Trade' in Aboriginal Australia, and 'trade' relationships with Torres Strait, New Guinea and Malaya. Oceania 9(4):405-39, 10(1):80-104, 171-95.
McCarthy, F.D. 1940 Aboriginal Australia material culture: Causative factors in its composition. Mankind 2(8):241-69, 2(9):294-320.
McCarthy, F.D. 1976 Australian Aboriginal Stone Implements. Sydney: Australian Museum Trust.
McCarthy, F.D. 1977 The use of stone tools to map patterns of diffusion. In R.V.S. Wright (ed.) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, pp.251-62. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
McCarthy, F.D., E. Bramell and H.V.V. Noone 1946 The stone implements of Australia. Memoirs of the Australian Museum 9:1-94.
McNiven, I. 1985 An archaeological survey of the Cooloola region, S.E. Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 2:4-37.
McNiven, I. 1988 Brooyar Rockshelter: A late-Holocene seasonal hunting camp from S.E. Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 5:133-60.
McNiven, I. 1990a Prehistoric Aboriginal Settlement and Subsistence in the Cooloola Region, Coastal Southeast Queensland. Ph.D. thesis. Brisbane: The University of Queensland.
McNiven, I. 1990b Blowout taphonomy: Non-cultural associations between faunal and stone artefact assemblages along the Cooloola coast, southeast Queensland. Australian Archaeology 31:67-74.
McNiven, I. 1991a The resharpening of bevel-edged tools from coastal southeast Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 30(3):493-504.
McNiven, I. 1991b Settlement and subsistence activities along Tin Can Bay, southeast Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 8:85-107.
McNiven, I. in press Mid-Holocene sandblow sites in the Great Sandy Region, coastal southeast Queensland: Implications for models of change in Australian prehistory. Queensland Archaeological Research 9.
McNiven, I. and P. Hiscock 1988 Small unifacial pebble cores from Fraser Island, S.E. Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 5:161-5.
Meltzer, D.J. 1989 Was stone exchanged among eastern North American Paleoindians? In C.J. Ellis and J.C. Lothrop (eds) Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, pp.11-39. Boulder: Westview Press.
Mitchell, S.R. 1949 Stone-Age Craftsmen. Melbourne: Tait Book Company Pty. Ltd.
Morrill, R., G.L. Gaile and G.I. Thrall 1988 Spatial Diffusion. Newbury Park: Sage.
Morwood, M.J. 1981 Archaeology of the central Queensland highlands: The stone component. Archaeology in Oceania 16(1):1-52.
Morwood, M.J. 1984a The Mt. Inglis cache: A new perspective on Aboriginal material culture in the central highlands of Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 21(2):541-59.
Morwood, M.J. 1984b The prehistory of the central Queensland highlands. Advances in World Archaeology 3:325-79.
Morwood, M.J. 1986 The archaeology of art: Excavations at Maidenwell and Gatton Shelters, southeast Queensland. Queensland Archaeological Research 3:88-132.
Morwood, M.J. 1987 The archaeology of social complexity in south-east Queensland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53:337-50.
Morwood, M.J. and P.J. Trezise 1989 Edge-ground axes in Pleistocene Greater Australia: New evidence from S.E. Cape York Peninsula. Queensland Archaeological Research 6:77-90.
Mulvaney, D.J. 1975 The Prehistory of Australia. Melbourne: Pelican.
Mulvaney, D.J. 1976 'The chain of connection': The material evidence. In N. Peterson (ed.) Tribes and Boundaries in Australia, pp.72-94. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Mulvaney, D.J. and E.B. Joyce 1965 Archaeological and geomorphological investigations on Mt. Moffatt Station, Queensland, Australia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31:147-212.
Neal, R. and E. Stock 1986 Pleistocene occupation in the southeast Queensland coastal region. Nature 323:618-21.
Nolan, A. 1986 Sandstone Point: Temporal and spatial patterns of Aboriginal site use at a midden complex, south-east Queensland. B.A. (Hons) thesis. Brisbane: The University of Queensland.
Noone, H.V.V. 1943 Some Aboriginal stone implements of Western Australia. Records of the South Australian Museum 7(3):273-80.
Pearce, R.H. 1974 Spatial and temporal distributions of Australian backed blades. Mankind 9(4):300-9.
Pearce, R.H. 1975 Reply. Mankind 10(1):46.
Pedersen, P.O. 1970 Innovation diffusion within and between national urban centres. Geographical Analysis 2(1): 203-54.
Petrie, C.C. 1904 Tom Petrie's Reminiscences of Early Queensland. Brisbane: Watson, Ferguson and Company.
Pickering, M. 1990 Backed blades from the McArthur River, Borroloola, Northern Territory. Australian Archaeology 31:83-5.
Pires-Ferreira, J.W. 1976 Obsidian exchange in Formative Mesoamerica. In K.V. Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village, pp.292-306. New York: Academic Press.
Pires-Ferreira, J.W. and K.V. Flannery 1976 Ethnographic models of Formative exchange. In K.V. Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village, pp.286-92. New York: Academic Press.
Polanyi, K. 1957 The economy as instituted process. In K. Polanyi, C.W. Arensberg and H.W. Pearson (eds) Trade and Markets in the Early Empires, pp.243-70. New York: Free Press.
Reeves, R.D. and G.K. Ward 1976 Characterization studies of New Zealand obsidians: Towards a regional prehistory. In R.E. Taylor (ed.) Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies: Archaeological and Geochemical Perspectives, pp.259-87. New Jersey: Noyes Press.
Renfrew, C. 1977 Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution. In T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson (eds) Exchange Systems in Prehistory, pp.71-90. New York: Academic Press.
Renfrew, C., J.E. Dixon and J.R. Cann 1968 Further analysis of Near Eastern obsidian. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34:319-31.
Ride, W.D.L. 1958 The edge-ground axes of south-western Australia. Western Australian Naturalist 6:162-70.
Rivers, W.H.R. 1926 Psychology and Ethnology. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.
Rogers, E.M. 1983 Diffusion of Innovations. London: The Free Press.
Roth, W.E. 1904 Domestic implements, arts, and manufacture. Brisbane: Queensland Government Printer. North Queensland Ethnography Bulletin 7.
Rouse, I. 1986 Migrations in Prehistory. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rowland, M.J. 1981 Radiocarbon dates for a shell fishhook and disc from Mazie Bay, North Keppel Island. Australian Archaeology 12:63-9.
Rowland, M.J. 1982 Keppel Islands marine specialists: An adaptation to the southern Barrier Reef province. In S. Bowdler (ed.) Coastal Archaeology in Eastern Australia. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University. Occasional Papers in Prehistory, No. 11.
Rowland, M.J. 1983 A note on corrections to radiocarbon dates from the Keppel Islands. Australian Archaeology 17:134-5.
Rowland, M.J. 1987 The distribution of Aboriginal watercraft on the east coast of Queensland: Implications for culture contact. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:38-45.
Sahlins, M. 1972 Stone-age Economics. London: Tavistock.
Schiffer, M.B. and J.M. Skibo 1988 Theory and experiment in the study of technological change. Current Anthropology 28(5):595-622.
Schortman, E.M. and P.A. Urban 1987 Modelling interregional interaction in prehistory. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:37-95.
Schrire, C. 1982 The Alligator Rivers. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University. Terra Australis 7.
Sheridan, G. 1979 Tulas and Triodia: A Multidisciplinary Investigation of the Mechanics and Antecedents of the Koondi Tuhla and their Implications for Prehistory. B.A. (Hons) thesis. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Smith, M.A. and B.J. Cundy 1985 Distribution maps for flaked stone points and backed blades in the Northern Territory. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2:32-7.
Smyth, R.B. 1878 The Aborigines of Victoria. 2 Vols. Melbourne: Government Printer.
Spencer, B. and F.J. Gillen 1899 The Native Tribes of Central Australia. London: Macmillan.
Spencer, B. and F.J. Gillen 1904 The Northern Tribes of Central Australia. London: Macmillan.
Sterling, E.C. 1896 Anthropology. In B. Spencer (ed.) Report on the Work of the Horn Scientific Expedition to Central Australia. Part IV - Anthropology, pp.1-157. Melbourne: Melville, Mullen and Slade.
Sullivan, H. 1977 Aboriginal Gatherings in South-east Queensland. B.A. (Hons) thesis. Canberra: Department of Prehistory and Anthropology, The Australian National University.
Thorpe, W.W. 1924 Some New Guinea cultural influences found amongst the Aborigines of Australia. Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science Report 17:491-4.
Tindale, N.B. 1974 The Aboriginal Tribes of Australia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Trigger, B.G. 1968 Beyond History: The Methods of Prehistory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Tylor, E.B. 1884 How the problems of American anthropology present themselves to the English mind. Science 4(98):545-51.
Valladas, H., J.L. Joron, G. Valladas, B. Arensburg, O. Bar-Yosef, A. Belfer-Cohen, P. Goldberg, H. Laville, L. Meignen, Y. Rak, E. Tchernov, A.M. Tillier and B. Vandermeersch 1987 Thermoluninescence dates for the Neanderthal burial site at Kebara in Israel. Nature 330:159-60.
Walters, I. 1987 Another Kettle of Fish: The Prehistoric Moreton Bay Fishery. Ph.D. thesis. Brisbane: The University of Queensland.
Walters, I. 1988 Fish hooks: Evidence for dual social systems in southeastern Australia. Australian Archaeology 27:98-114.
Walters, I. 1989 Intensified fishery production at Moreton Bay, southeast Queensland, in the late Holocene. Antiquity 63:215-24.
Weigand, P.C., G. Harbottle and E.V. Sayre 1977 Turquoise sources and source analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. In T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson (eds) Exchange Systems in Prehistory, pp.15-34. New York: Academic Press.
White, J.P. and J.F. O'Connell 1982 A Prehistory of Australia, New Guinea and Sahul. Sydney: Academic Press.
White, L.A. 1957 Evolution and diffusion. Antiquity 31:214-8.
Witthoft, J. 1968 Flint arrowpoints from the Eskimo of northwestern Alaska. Expedition 10(2):30-7.
Wolpoff, M.H. 1981 Paleoanthropology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Worsnop, T. 1897 The Prehistoric Arts, Manufactures, Works, Weapons, etc., of the Aborigines of Australia. Adelaide: Government Printer.

You are visitor to this page.

Author: Peter Hiscock, Dept. Archaeology and Anthropology
Feedback: peter.hiscock@anu.edu.au.
Date Last Modified: 13-August-97
URL: http://artalpha.anu.edu.au/web/arc/resources/papers/paapapers/mcn1993.htm