Raiders of the lost axe: on macropods, phalangers, where and why - comments on Sutton's comment on Morwood and Trezise (and Pleistocene Axes)
Although I agree with Sutton that we should take care to avoid presenting our data as 'fact' until suitably rigid procedures have been employed in the collection of data and in the testing of ideas, I think that Morwood and Tresize (1989) should be congratulated for presenting information on a poorly executed excavation undertaken over 20 years ago, the results of which may never have seen light of day were it not for their recent paper. Morwood and Tresize make it clear to the reader that uncertainties remain concerning the provenance of the lost axe and their broader discussion of the axe's implications should surely be read in the context of 'if' the axe indeed is of Pleistocene origin. It is only by discerned reading and testing of ideas that the line can be drawn between ' fact' and 'false fact' (although I think the line between them is finer than Sutton implies). The establishment of a 'fact' has to be argued at every level of information presentation from the statement that the axe once lay in situ in the gravelly deposits near bedrock at Sandy Creek 1, to the view that the item was in 'fact' an axe, to the dating of that level to over 30,000 years BP, and so on. For many of these levels of data presentation, it is often assumed that the reader is able to assess for him/herself whether or not the purported 'fact' contains enough information to withstand discerned testing (e.g. I accept that the item is indeed an axe/hatchet as defined by convention). In other cases, lack of sufficient data (other 'facts') precludes us from accepting other presented information (e.g. lack of adequate stratigraphic control in the original excavations have created a significant amount of doubt over the authenticity of a Pleistocene context for the axe). Morwood and Tresize's paper, it is felt, is no different from many other archaeological papers in that data is presented and theories are formulated. It is up to the reader to determine whether or not the data is of sufficient rigidity to warrant acceptance of ensuing theories (as is the case with other archaeological publications).
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors are responsible for ensuring that any material that has influenced the research or writing has been properly cited and credited both in the text and in the list of references. Contributors are responsible for gaining copyright clearance on figures, photographs or lengthy quotes used in their manuscript that have been published elsewhere.
2. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
4. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
5. An article will not be published until the signed Author Agreement has been completed and returned to the Editors by the contributor.