Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This 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
American Antiquity
Vol. 51, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 619-627
DOI: 10.2307/281758
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281758
Page Count: 9
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($9.95)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
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
Preview not available

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.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
619
    619
  • Thumbnail: Page 
620
    620
  • Thumbnail: Page 
621
    621
  • Thumbnail: Page 
622
    622
  • Thumbnail: Page 
623
    623
  • Thumbnail: Page 
624
    624
  • Thumbnail: Page 
625
    625
  • Thumbnail: Page 
626
    626
  • Thumbnail: Page 
627
    627