The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Australian Aboriginal biface reduction techniques on the Georgina River, Camooweal, Queensland
Abstract
A technological analysis was recently completed on a collection of stone artefacts recovered during bridge construction at Camooweal, northwest Queensland. The results indicate that various bifacial reduction techniques were an integral part of the Aboriginal stone-working repertoire. A sophisticated knowledge of biface flaking and a multi-staged approach to manufacture is suggested by large hand axe-like bifaces and small bifacial points. The reduction techniques used in manufacturing these bifaces were also used on other elements in the stone toolkit.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, some authors claim that the application of the alternating method generates more invasive flakes, that is to say, flakes that penetrate more deeply towards the inside of the blank, allowing for the extraction of more cortical surface42,49.”
From Teaching to make stone tools: new experimental evidence supporting a technological hypothesis for the origins of language (2017) · cites this paper as [49]
Citations
Cites
A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools
Frison, G. C. (1968) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/278516 · Cited by 218
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lombao, D., Guardiola, M., & Mosquera, M. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-14322-y · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, M. W.
- Venue
- Australian Archaeology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-34
- ISSN
- 0312-2417
- 2470-0363
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
