Bettinger, Robert L., O'Connell, James F., Thomas, David
Hurst. Projectile Points as Time Markers in the Great Basin. American
Anthropologist. Vol. 93. No. 1. pp. 166-172.http://www.jstor.org/stable/681484.
This
article discusses how Great Basin archaeologists use dart points specifically
dart points from the atlatl. The authors go on to examine and disprove Philip
Wilke and Jeffery Flenniken theory on
"The Rejuvenation Hypothesis", that Northern Side-notched and Elko
Corner-notched "both of these types were resharpened if broken in use, a
process that yielded a series of morphologically intergrading derivative forms"
(Bettinger 167). But, Bettinger and the other authors believe what is at stake
is "whether such resharpening actually accounts for enough of the latter
forms to vitiate survey their use as time markers" (Bettinger 167). In the
article it goes on to suggest that the Flenniken-Wilke hypothesis does not fare
well against the data that Bettinger and the other author's have gathered. An
example of this is "the so called rejuvenated forms are consistently as
large or larger than the so-called
archetypal forms" (Bettinger 171).
It goes on to suggest that "If Flenniken and Wilke were correct ,
then the largest of the two alleged archetypes-- here, Elko Corner-notched
points--should be the largest points found at the site; if they were
progressively whittled down into Elko Eared, Little Lake/Gatecliff, and
Humboldt series points, these types should be considerably smaller."
(Bettinger 171). Another main point in the article is that it Bettinger argues
that projectile points from the majority of the Great Basin sites behave
oppositely than what was predicted by Flenniken and Wilke. Finally, Bettinger
notes that "If empirical data pertaining pertaining to point weight are
judged relevant to Flenniken-Wilke argument , it is quite clear that formal
diversity in Great Basin atlatl point
types cannot be explained as resulting from the rejuvenation of Elko Corner-notched
and Northern Side-notched points. Finally, Bettinger concludes that it is still
okay to use atlatl dart points as time markers for Native American
civilizations who lived in the Great Basin.
Cameron, Catherine M. Pink Chert, Projectile Points, and the
Chacoan Regional System. American Antiquity. Vol. 66. No. 1, pp. 79-101.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694319.
In the
article Pink Chert Projectile Points and the Chacoan Regional System by
Catherine Cameron she discusses that the majority of materials used to make
projectile points were from materials outside of Chaco Canyon. Also it suggests
that the materials that were used to form
came from far away. An example of this is from "Narbona Pass chert
from the Chuska Mountains"(Cameron 80). Another important detail is that
they have found evidence for projectile points being used as weapons, and were
also used as ritual offerings. One site that is discussed in this article is
the Morrison Formation, and an example of this is "The recovery of 20
projectile points and only 6 pieces of debitage of this material suggests the
projectile points entered the canyon as finished objects" (Cameron 86).
Cameron discusses different studies that were conducted such as "Shelley's
study of chipped stone at Salmon Ruin suggests that Chacoan chipped-stone
producers were "more specialized" than their post- Chacoan
counterparts based on a comparison of technological skill" (Cameron 89).
Also, Cameron goes on to say that there are varying theories on how the
material got to Chaco Canyon. One theory proposed by Earle is "Chacoan
chiefs may have required residents of the Chuska Mountains to bring the pink
tool stone when they traveled to Chaco Canyon
with pots full of corn and heavy
roofing timbers to work on the great houses." (Cameron 94). Another theory is by Renfrew and he suggests
"pilgrims to Chaco Canyon may have brought Narbona Pass chert with them because
they were aware of the lack of good tool stone in the area or because they
planned to offer it to Chacoan priests or gods." (Cameron 94).
No comments:
Post a Comment