Abstract
As I understand it, the reason for publishing a comment (Beaton 1983) along with my own article was to highlight the growing differentiation in ideological approach to Australian prehistory, and to stimulate discussion along these lines. While I welcome the opportunity for this debate, I am disappointed that Beaton's comments appear to represent little more than a superficial reading of my paper. Indeed, Beaton's critique presents no deep analysis of the paper's detailed evidence and explanatory models and makes only a passing reference to its theoretical basis. In essence, however, Beaton appears to agree with the first model I have presented which describes the archaeological data of the mid to late Holocene in terms of expanding variables. It is the second model, which offers an explanation of the archaeological phenomena, that he objects to quite vehemently. A closer examination would indicate that the source of Beaton's dis-
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
