Comment on Welch’s ‘Thy Thylacoleo is a thylacine’, Australian Archaeology , 80

40–47

Datos Bibliográficos

ID22909237
AutoresDarrell Lewis (University of New England, autor de correspondencia)
Año2016
Volumen82
Número1
Páginas55-59
Fecha de publicación2016-01-02
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaAustralian Archaeology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0312-2417 • E-ISSN: 2470-0363
EditorialInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/03122417.2016.1169583
OpenAlexW2490296998
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas1
Referencias citadas8

In this paper, I review Welch’s critique (Australian Archaeology 80:40–47) of claims by Akerman, Akerman and Willing and Woodhouse that depictions of Thylacoleo exist in Kimberley rock art. I agree with his conclusion that these claims are unfounded and that the depictions probably represent thylacines. There are, however, problems with the methodology he employs to reach this conclusion, a number of factual mistakes and a failure to adequately acknowledge the work of previous researchers. An appropriate methodology for identifying species in rock art, developed by a number of researchers in the 1970s and 1980s, is outlined.

Archaeology · Art · Art history · Literature · Project commissioning · Publishing · Rock art · Sociology · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies · Archaeology and Rock Art Studies · History · Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology