Pre-projectile Point Complex

Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 437-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Loendorf ◽  
Theodore J. Oliver ◽  
Shari Tiedens ◽  
R. Scott Plumlee ◽  
M. Kyle Woodson ◽  
...  

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 361-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. Nance

AbstractFor many years, small, serrated, obsidian artifacts characteristic of late central California cultural manifestations (Late Horizon), have been regarded as projectile points (arrow and dart points). A functional analysis of a number of these tools based on examination with a binocular microscope revealed evidence of wear patterns including striations which makes it quite clear that these artifacts were used for other purposes. This brings the projectile point interpretation up for serious questioning, at least for the area under consideration. It is suggested that further investigation of artifact assemblages, using similar methods, will in all likelihood alter many existing ideas regarding the functional significance of many artifact types. It is further pointed out that many times discrepancies exist between ethnographic accounts and other sources of data relative to the functional significance of artifacts.


Author(s):  
Jesse Ballenger ◽  
Vance Holliday ◽  
Guadelupe Sanchez

Paleoindian occupations across the Southwest are known largely from surface artifact collections because relatively few in situ sites are known. Clovis is the exception, with one of the world’s highest concentrations of Clovis mammoth kills occurring in southeast Arizona (Murray Springs, Naco, and Lehner). Otherwise Clovis is thinly scattered across New Mexico, Chihuahua, and Sonora. Folsom is the most common Paleoindian projectile point type in the Southwest in terms of numbers, but is largely concentrated in the basins of the Upper Rio Grande valley in New Mexico and Colorado. Unfluted Paleoindian artifact styles are widely scattered throughout the region, but most are concentrated along the Upper Rio Grande valley.


2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 2802-2809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikael Fauvelle ◽  
Erin M. Smith ◽  
Sean H. Brown ◽  
Matthew R. Des Lauriers

2013 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey M. Smith ◽  
Pat Barker ◽  
Eugene M. Hattori ◽  
Anan Raymond ◽  
Ted Goebel

AbstractTypological cross-dating is the primary means by which archaeological sites are placed into chronological frameworks. This approach relies on the assumption that artifacts at undated sites—usually projectile points—are coeval with similar artifacts found at Other, dated sites. While typological cross-dating is necessary in regions dominated by open-air lithic scatters, the approach can be problematic when undated and dated sites are separated by significant distances. Here, we present radiocarbon dates on projectile points with organic hafting material still attached or found within organic storage bags. Our results provide unequivocal ages for various morphological projectile point types at several Great Basin locales and should be useful to researchers seeking local age estimates for those point types, which often involves relying on chronological data from more distant sites. The results also highlight potential issues with uncritically applying typological cross-dating using typologies based on metric attributes, and in two cases, suggest the need to revise the age ranges for certain point styles in the western Great Basin.


Author(s):  
Thomas R. Hester ◽  
Thomas C. Kelly ◽  
Giancarlo Ligabue

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document