Search

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Archaeology in Oceania is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

ABSTRACT Roonka is one of the most complete excavations of an Aboriginal burial ground in south-eastern Australia. The chronology of the site and the nature of its use have proven difficult to interpret. Previous dating and chronological interpretations of the site have emphasised a chronology of changing use and burial practices, but the nature of the site and the dates obtained do not clearly support these interpretations. We report on the direct dating of human bone from a further ten burials from the main excavation. In order to further investigate the cultural chronology set out by Pretty (1977), samples were selected to cover a range of burial types and preservation states. Comparison of these dates with the previous conventional dates and early AMS dates not only shows the impact of improving technology but demonstrates that multiple burial styles were in use contemporaneously. Moreover, the results suggest that use of the site may have been discontinuous. Consequently, interpretations that assume a chronological sequence for Roonka based on burial practice are not supported, while analyses based on a synchronic interpretation may ignore significant temporal change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]