Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T09:23:13.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. Jeffrey Flenniken  and
Anan W. Raymond
J. Jeffrey Flenniken
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Lithic Technology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4910
Anan W. Raymond
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Lithic Technology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4910
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphological typologies of projectile points in North America have often been employed as time-sensitive prehistoric cultural markers. This article demonstrates that the contingencies of point manufacture, hafting, use, and rejuvenation create morphological changes that may render questionable use of these morphological typologies as prehistoric cultural markers. Thirty projectile points were replicated according to the attributes of a commonly employed typological scheme for the Great Basin. Experiments with hafting, impact, and rejuvenation demonstrate that a single point-type may manifest more than one "time-sensitive" shape within its normal uselife.

Information

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , July 1986 , pp. 603 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1986

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Aikens, C. M. 1970 Hogup Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Paper No. 93. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, C. B. 1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 24(2).Google Scholar
Dalley, F., and Peterson, K. L. 1970 Appendix X, Additional Artifacts from Hogup Cave. In Hogup Cave, edited by Aikens, C. M., pp. 283–286. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 93. Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Deetz, J. 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. J. 1978 Reevaluation of the Lindenmeier Folsom: A Replication Experiment in Lithic Technology. American Antiquity 43: 473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flenniken, J. J. 1981 Replication Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the Hoko River Site. Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology, Reports of Investigations No. 59. Pullman.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. J. 1985 Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by Plew, Mark, Woods, Jim, and Max, Pavesic. University of New Mexico Press, pp. 265–276.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. J., and Stanfill, A. 1980 A Preliminary Technology: Examination of 20 Archaeological Sites Located During the Cultural Resource Survey of the Whitehorse Ranch Public Land Exchange. Contract Abstracts and CRM Archaeology 1(1): 23–30.Google Scholar
Ford, J. A. 1954 The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56: 42–53.Google Scholar
Frison, G. C, Wilson, M., and Wilson, D. J. 1976 Fossil Bison and Artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period Arroyo Trap in Wyoming. American Antiquity 41: 28–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodyear, A. 1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeastern Arkansas. Arkansas Archeology Survey Research Series No. 7. Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Guernsey, S. J. 1931 Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 8(2).Google Scholar
Guernsey, S. J., and Kidder, A. V. 1921 Basketmaker Caves of Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 8(8).Google Scholar
Hattori, M. 1982 The Archaeology of Falcon Hill, Winnemuca Lake, Washoe County, Nevada. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers, No. 18. Reno.Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F. 1938 A Complete Atlatl Dart from Pershing County, Nevada. New Mexico Anthropologist 11(4 and 5): 69–71.Google Scholar
Hester, T. R., Mildner, M. P., and Spencer, L. 1974 Great Basin Atlatl Studies. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History No. 2. Ramona, California.Google Scholar
Kreiger, A. D. 1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9: 271–288.Google Scholar
Martin, P. S., Rinaldo, J. B., Bluhm, E., Cutler, H. C., and Grange, R. Jr., 1952 Mogollon Cultural Continuity and Change: The Stratigraphic Analysis of Tularosa and Cordova Caves. Fieldiana: Anthropology, vol. 40.Google Scholar
McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Study. American Antiquity 4: 301–313.Google Scholar
Miller, P. A. 1980 Archaic Lithics from the Coffey Site. In Archaic Prehistory on the Prairie-Plains Border, edited by Johnson, A. C., pp. 107–111. University of Kansas Publication in Anthropology No. 12.Google Scholar
Minor, R., and Toepel, K. A. 1982 Lava Island Rockshelter: An Early Hunting Camp in Central Oregon. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 11. Eugene.Google Scholar
Rouse, I. 1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25: 313–323.Google Scholar
Spaulding, A. C. 1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18: 305–313.Google Scholar
Spencer, L. 1974 Replicative Experiments in the Manufacture and Use of a Great Basin Atlatl. In Great Basin Atlatl Studies, edited by Hester, T. R., Mildner, M. P., Spencer, and L., pp. 37–60. Ballena Press Publications in Archaeology, Ethnology, and History No. 2. Ramona, California.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1981 How to Classify Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1): 7–43.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1983 The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2. Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 59, Part 1.Google Scholar
Tuohy, D. R. 1982 Another Great Basin Atlatl with Dart Foreshafts and Other Artifacts: Implications and Ramifications. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(1): 80–106.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. 1899 Arrowpoints, Spearheads, and Knives of Prehistoric Times. Report of the United States National Museum, Part 1, pp. 811–988.Google Scholar