You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Points on Points: A Reply to Flenniken and Raymond
David Hurst Thomas
Vol. 51, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 619-627
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281758
Page Count: 9
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
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.
American Antiquity © 1986 Society for American Archaeology