Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:09:57.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A remote analogy?: from Central Australian tjurunga to Irish Early Bronze Age axes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Jane Dickins
Jane Dickins*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our interpretation of Bronze Age metalwork is based, for the most part, on common-sense ideas of what is functional and what is not, which items were intended to be recovered, which were gifts to other worlds. A more considered source of analogy than our limited experience is available at a certain distance. Remote in terms of measured miles, the analogy is nevertheless effective in expanding current definitions of how ritual is expressed through material culture.

Type
Notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 70 , Issue 267 , March 1996 , pp. 161 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C. & Dussart, F.. 1989. Dreamings in acrylic: western desert art, in Sutton, P. (ed.), Dreamings: the art of aboriginal Australia: 89–142. South Yarra: Viking.Google Scholar
Berndt, R.M. 1974. Australian aboriginal religion. Netherlands: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1990. The passage of arms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Childe, C.V. 1958. Valediction, Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 1(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Coonky, C. & Grogan, E.C., 1994. Irish prehistory: a social perspective. Bray: Wordwell.Google Scholar
Dickins, J. In press. Shielding the dreaming: a formal analysis of Central Australian shield designs. Canberra: National Museum of Australia.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1881. Ancient bronze implements of Britain. London: Longman, Croon.Google Scholar
Gould, R.A. 1971. The archaeologist as ethnographer: a case from the western desert of Australia, World Archaeology (3): 14:1–75.Google Scholar
Gould, R.A. 1980. Living archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harihson, P. 1969. The axes of the early Bronze Age in Ireland. München: C.H. Beck. Prähistorische Bronzefundo. Abteilung IX, 1 Band.Google Scholar
Hawkns, C. 1954. Archaeological theory aud method: some suggestions from the old world, American Anthropology 56(2): 155-68.Google Scholar
Levy, J 1982. Social and religious organisation in Bronze Age Denmark: an analysis of ritual hoard finds. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S124.Google Scholar
Needllam, S. 1988. Selective deposition in the British early Bronze Age, World Archaeology 20: 229-48.Google Scholar
O'Brien, W. 1995. Ross Island – the beginning, Archaeology Ireland 9(1): 24-7.Google Scholar
O'Brien, W. et al. 1992. An early Bronze Ago metal hoard from a wedge tomb at To ormo re, co. Cork, Journal of Irish Archaeology 5: 9–17.Google Scholar
O'Flaherty, R. 1992. Early Bronze Age hoards in Ireland. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Archaeology, University College Dublin.Google Scholar
Ramsly, G. 1995. Guaranteed Irish, Archaeology Ireland 9(1): 14–17.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M. & Gledhill, J.. 1977. The relation between archaeology and anthropology, in Spriggs, M. (ed.), Archaeology and anthropology: areas of mutual interest: 143-58. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series $19.Google Scholar
Strehlow, T.C.H. 1947. Arando traditions. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Ucko, P.J. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. World Archaeology (1): 262-77.Google Scholar
Wilmskn, E. 1970. Lithic analysis and cultural infermino: a Paleo-Indian case, Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 16: 87–102.Google Scholar