The case for complex fishing technologies: a response to Anderson

Susan O'Connor, Rintaro Ono

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    For one who is so intent on factual accuracy and precision in others, Anderson is surprisingly lenient on himself, and misrepresents our arguments. Some points of clarification are required before we proceed to address the more substantive issues regarding Pleistocene fishing and fishing technology. In the introduction to his critique, Anderson (above) states that "in regard to Wallacea, O'Connell et al. (2010: 60) cite" the evidence for fishing at Buang Merabak and Kilu Cave (Papua New Guinea), and Jerimalai (Timor-Leste) and that they conclude that "these data are best read to indicate angling from boats well offshore". Firstly, as outlined in O'Connor et al. (2011) Wallacea is a strictly defined biogeographic region which comprises the Indonesian Islands lying to the east of Sundaland and to the west of Sahul and Near Oceania. Kilu Cave and Buang Merabak are in Near Oceania, not in Wallacea, and while the two island regions share depauperate terrestrial faunas the biota of the two are very different.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-4pp
    JournalAntiquity
    Volume87
    Issue number337
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The case for complex fishing technologies: a response to Anderson'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this