Points on Points: A Reply to Flenniken and Raymond
- 1 July 1986
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in American Antiquity
- Vol. 51 (3) , 619-627
- https://doi.org/10.2307/281758
Abstract
Three rather redundant papers (Flenniken 1984, 1985; Flenniken and Raymond 1986) recently questioned the efficacy and validity of my research on Great Basin projectile point types (especially Thomas 1970, 1981, 1983b). These articles reflect a distorted view of how lithic studies articulate with today's archaeology, betraying serious misunderstandings about the objectives and methods of contemporary archaeology. While I am generally sympathetic with experimental approaches, these particular interpretations and recommendations require rethinking.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Past, Present, and Future of Flintknapping: An Anthropological PerspectiveAnnual Review of Anthropology, 1984
- The Status of Archaeological Research Design in Cultural Resource ManagementAmerican Antiquity, 1978
- Hogup Cave. C. Melvin Aikens. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 93, Salt Lake City, April 1970. xiii + 286 pp., 18 tables, 129 illustrations, 10 appendices. No price given.American Antiquity, 1975
- An Empirical Test for Steward's Model of Great Basin Settlement PatternsAmerican Antiquity, 1973
- Huichol Ceremonial Reuse of a Fluted PointAmerican Antiquity, 1970
- Systematic, Intensive Surface CollectionAmerican Antiquity, 1970
- Quantitative Analysis of Upper Paleolithic Stone ToolsAmerican Anthropologist, 1966
- Fragile-Pattern AreasAmerican Antiquity, 1965
- A Consideration of Archaeological Research DesignAmerican Antiquity, 1964
- Age of the obsidian flow at Glass Mountain, Siskiyou County, CaliforniaAmerican Journal of Science, 1955