Response to Comment on Ward et al.'s 'Insights Into the Procurement and Distribution of Fossiliferous Chert Artefacts Across Southern Australia From the Archival Record'
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the arguments put forward by Bird et al. against the premise of a long-distance source and trade of bryozoan fossiliferous chert across southern Australia. Given the long-standing enigma of fossiliferous chert artefacts and their apparent offshore source, it is appropriate for there to be some debate when this enigma is challenged. However, it is difficult to understand why Bird et al. ignore the geological evidence that indicates unequivocally that the source of fossiliferous chert cannot be from the Perth Basin (O'Leary et al. 2017), and offer no alternative source. Bird et al. themselves seem to acknowledge, with reference to Glover (1975a), that 'no local sources [of fossiliferous chert] are known, but it most closely resembles chert from the Eucla area'.
Ward, Ingrid, Michael O'Leary, Marcus Key, and Annie Carson. "Response to Comment on Ward et al.'s 'Insights Into the Procurement and Distribution of Fossiliferous Chert Artefacts Across Southern Australia From the Archival Record'". Australian Archaeology (Article published online September 26, 2021). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03122417.2021.1975742