Pleistocene Timor: Further corrections, a reply to Bednarik

Sue O'Connor*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    11 Citations (Scopus)


    This paper revisits a number of topics raised by Bednarik in his paper 'Pleistocene Timor: some corrections' and questions the validity of some of the claims he makes concerning the Pleistocene archaeology of East Timor. These claims are examined within the context of work undertaken by Ian Glover in the 1960s and more recent work carried out over the past few years by the East Timor Archaeological Project (by the author, Matthew Spriggs and Peter Veth). Some of Bednarik's assessments for a Pleistocene age for stone artefacts are shown to rest on redundant and inappropriate typological classifications where the geoarchaeological context of the finds clearly shows that they were deposited in the Holocene.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)46-51
    Number of pages6
    JournalAustralian Archaeology
    Publication statusPublished - 2002


    Dive into the research topics of 'Pleistocene Timor: Further corrections, a reply to Bednarik'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this