ABSTRACT
Fierce criticism was levelled at the political implications of some of Jones conclusions, such as his contention that Tasmanian society was 'doomed to a slow strangulation of the mind'. Other critics questioned his interpretation of the archaeological data, in particular arguing that loss of fish from the Tasmanian diet did in fact make economic sense. Almost all contributors to the Tasmanian fish debate have taken Jones results at face value, ignoring any associated methodological problems. The Inner Cave samples contain many types of fish remains which are absent in the samples recovered by Jones from the main midden sequences. Findings from such a unique site as the Inner Cave are interesting in themselves. Most of the porcupinefishes and boxfishes originate from the Inner Cave, represented almost exclusively by dermal spines or dermal plates. Bones of other fishes, represented by vertebrae and a few jaw bones, are found occasionally in both the main sequence and the Inner Cave.
