Advertisement

Stone Tools pp 229-243 | Cite as

When Is an Elko?

  • Michael F. Rondeau
Part of the Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology book series (IDCA)

Abstract

Perennial disagreements in the assignment of individual specimens to projectile point types and of general types to chronological placement are symbolized by the Flenniken-Thomas debate on the temporal utility of Great Basin point types. Microscopic inspection of use breakage and rejuvenation is used to evaluate the morphological stability of one collection of Elko Corner-notched points. Some claims from both sides of the debate are supported. It is concluded that the detailed analysis of additional collections could make the debate irrelevant and signal more useful avenues for projectile point research.

Keywords

Great Basin Basal Width Impact Damage Point Form Point Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alt, D. D., and D. W. Hyndman. 1975. Roadside Geology of Northern California. Mountain Press Publishing Co., Missoula.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, S. A., and E. W. Gifford. 1933. Miwok Material Culture. Indian Life of the Yosemite Region. Bulletin of Milwaukee Public Museum 2(4). Yosemite National Park Association, California.Google Scholar
  3. Bettinger, R. L. 1981. Archaeology of the Lee Vining Site, FS # 05-05-51-219 (CA-Mno-446), Mono County, California. Inyo National Forest, Bishop.Google Scholar
  4. Bettinger, R. L., J. F. O’Connell, and D. H. Thomas. 1991. Projectile Points as Time Markers in the Great Basin. American Anthropologist 93: 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, J. T. 1961. Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California. University of California, Archaeological Survey Reports 54, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  6. Elston, R. G., J. O. Davis, A. Leventhal, and C. Covington. 1977. The Archaeology of the Tahoe Reach of the Truckee River. Northern Division of the Nevada Archaeological Survey, University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  7. Flenniken, J. J., and A. L. Novic. 1984. Morphological Projectile Point Typology of the Great Basin: Replication, Experimentation and Technological Analysis. Paper presented at the Forty-Ninth Annual Society for American Archaeology Meetings, Portland.Google Scholar
  8. Flenniken, J. J., and A. W. Raymond. 1986. Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication, Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51: 603–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flenniken, J. J., and P. J. Wilke. 1986. The Flaked Stone Assemblage from Hogup Cave, Utah: Implications for Prehistoric Lithic Technology and Culture History in the Great Basin. Paper presented at the Twentieth Biennial Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  10. Keeley, L. H. 1982. Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47: 823–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Peak, A. S., and N. J. Neuenschwander. 1991. Cultural Resource Studies, North Fork Stanislaus River Hydroelectric Development Project, Vol. V. Northern California Power Agency, Roseville.Google Scholar
  12. Robertson, J. 1980. Chipped Stone and Socio-Cultural Interpretations. M. A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Chicago.Google Scholar
  13. Rondeau, M. F. 1979. Projectile Point Analysis for the Kahorsho Site, NA 10,937, Central Arizona. M. A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento.Google Scholar
  14. Rondeau, M. F. 1982. The Archaeology of the Truckee Site, Nevada County, California. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento.Google Scholar
  15. Rondeau, M. F., and V. L. Rondeau. 1989. Technological Investigations of Flaked Stone Assemblages from Eight High Sierran Sites, Alpine and Tuolumne Counties, California. Rondeau Archeological, Sacramento.Google Scholar
  16. Titmus, G. L., and J. C. Woods. 1986. An Experimental Study of Projectile Point Fracture Patterns. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8: 37–49.Google Scholar
  17. Thomas, D. H. 1981. How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3: 7–43.Google Scholar
  18. Thomas, D. H. 1984. Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Cultural Geography. Paper presented at the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Portland.Google Scholar
  19. Thomas, D. H. 1986a. Contemporary Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in America. In American Archaeology: Past and Present, edited by D. J. Meltzer, D. D. Fowler, and J. A. Sabloff, pp. 237–276. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D. C.Google Scholar
  20. Thomas, D. H. 1986b. Points on Points: A Reply to Flenniken and Raymond. American Antiquity 51: 619–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilke, P. J., and J. J. Flenniken. 1991. Missing the Point: Rebuttal to Bettinger, O’Connell, and Thomas. American Anthropologist 93: 172–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael F. Rondeau
    • 1
  1. 1.SacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations