Some sort of dates at Malakunanja II: A reply to Roberts et al

23rd May 2014

Sandra Bowdler

Introduction*

It is unfortunate when scholars feel the need to resort to illogical and personal vituperation, in lieu of being able to present a case which can stand on its merits. Roberts et al. (1990a) ask, what has caused me to change my mind? The answer is, nothing; I have not changed it, nor was there any need to do so. In  1989 it was my view that we need not, on present evidence, go beyond 40,000 years ago for the initial date of colonization of Australia. I also thought then, although 1 did not say so, that there would indeed not be anything especially surprising were earlier evidence to be demonstrated. That is still my view, on both counts.  I did (Bowdler 1989) mention two forthcoming papers in that context. Search made an editorial decision not to include the names or any other details of those papers. Obviously Roberts et al. can know absolutely nothing about them, except the fact that they contained a view similar to the one quoted above. Clearly, ‘sadly out of date’ is the new bullyspeak for ‘not in agreement with me/us’.

*Note that an abstract was not included with this paper, and so the introductory paragraph has been included here instead of the abstract.

Davidson, I.
Some sort of dates at Malakunanja II: A reply to Roberts et al
June 1991
32
50–51
Backfill
Download
You must be a member to download the attachment ( Login / Sign up )