“What Do I Call Thee?” Projectile Point Types and Archaeological Interpretations: Perspectives from Texas

REFERENCES

• Adams, W.Y., and E.W. Adams 1991 Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectic Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Ahler, S.A. 1971 Projectile Point Form and Function at Rogers Shelter, Missouri. Research Series No. 8, Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.
   Google Scholar
• Bamforth, D.B. 1991 Flintknapping Skill, Communal Hunting, and Paleoindian Projectile Point Typology. Plains Anthropologist 36:309–322.
   Google Scholar
• Binford, L.R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binford, L.R. 1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Cultural Process. American Antiquity 31:203–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binford, L.R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51:737–747.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, B., and D. Stanford
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, B., and D. Stanford 1987 The Claypool Study. In Theb Horner Site: the Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex, edited by G. Frison and L. Todd, pp. 405–434. Academic Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J.A. 1982 On the Structure of Artifact Typologies. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J.A. Brown, pp. 176–190. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology vol. 1. Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston.
   Google Scholar
• Christenson, A.L. 1986 Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: an Exploratory Study. Plains Anthropologist 31:109–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Churchill, S.E., and B.K. Curran 1991 Weapon Technology, Prey Size Selection and Hunting Methods In Modern Hunter-Gatherers and Implications for Paleolithic Archaeology. Paper presented at 56th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
   Google Scholar
• Corliss, D. W. 1972 Neck Width of Projectile Points: an Index of Culture Continuity and Change. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum No. 29, Pocatello.
   Google Scholar
• Cowgill, G.L. 1982 Clusters of Objects and Associations between Variables: Two Approaches to Archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J.A. Brown, pp. 30–55. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology vol. 1. Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston.
   Google Scholar
• Deetz, J. 1967 Invitation to Archaeology. Natural History Press, Garden City.
   Google Scholar
• Fenenga, F. 1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Projectile Points. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:309–323.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn, J. 1975 Idiosyncratic Behavior In Chipping Style: Hypotheses and Preliminary Analysis. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson, pp. 1534. Mouton Publishers, The Hague.
   Google Scholar
• Jelinek, A.J. 1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic Analysis. In Culture Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by C.E. Cleland, pp. 19–33. Academic Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, L. 1989 Great Plains Interlopers in the Eastern Woodlands During Late Paleoindian Times. Office of the State Archeologist, Report 36, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.
   Google Scholar
• Justice, N.D. 1987 Stone Age Spears and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: a Modern Survey and References. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
   Google Scholar
• Keeley, L. 1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47:798–809.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krieger, A.D. 1944 The Typological Method. American Antiquity 9:271–288.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, S. L. 1991 “Unpacking” Reduction: Lithic Raw Material Economy in the Mousterian of West-Central Italy. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10:76–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, S. L. 1992 On Planning and Curated Technologies ln the Middle Paleolithic. Journal of Anthropological Research 48:185–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larralde, S.L. 1990 The Design of Hunting Weapons: Archaeological Evidence from Southwestern Wyoming. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
   Google Scholar
• McAnany, P.A. 1988 The Effects of Lithic Procurement Strategies on tool Curation and Recycling. Lithic Technology 17:3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Odell, G.H., and F. Cowan 1986 Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:195–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palter, J.L. 1977 Design and Construction of Australian Spear Thrower Projectiles and Hand-Thrown Spears. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 12:161–172.
   Google Scholar
• Perino, G. 1971 A Guide to the Identification of Certain American Indian Projectile Points. Special Bulletin No. 4, Oklahoma Anthropological Society, Norman.
   Google Scholar
• Prewitt, E.R. 1981 Cultural Chronology in Central Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 52:65–89.
   Google Scholar
• Prewitt, E.R. 1985 From Circleville to Toyah: Comments on Central Texas Chronology. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 54:201–238.
   Google Scholar
• Read, D. W. 1982 Toward a Theory of Archaeological Classification In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J.A. Brown, pp. 56–92. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology, vol. 1. Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse, I. 1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:313–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett, J. 1973 Style, Function, and Artifact Variability in Paleolithic Assemblages. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 317–325. Duckworth Publishing Co., London.
   Google Scholar
• Shott, M. 1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: an Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinopoli, C.M. 1991 Style in Arrows: a Study of an Ethnographic Collection from the Western United States. In Foragers in Context. Long-Term, Regional, and Historical Perspectives in Hunter-Gatherer Studies, edited by P.T. Miracle, L.E. Fisher, and J. Brown, pp. 63–88. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology, Hunter-Gatherer Studies, vol. 10. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
   Google Scholar
• Tomka, S.A. 1985 Identification of Skill Levels in Experimentally Produced Lithic Debitage. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas, Austin.
   Google Scholar
• Torrence, R. 1989 Re-tooling: Towards a Behavioral Theory of Stone Tools. In Time, Energy and Stone Tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 57–66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, E.S., and T.R. Hester 1993 A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians. 2nd ed. Texas Monthly Field Guide Series, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston.
   Google Scholar
• Whallon, R. 1982 Variables and Dimensions: the Critical Step in Quantitative Typology. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, edited by R. Whallon and J.A. Brown, pp. 127–161. Kampsville Seminars in Archaeology, vol. 1. Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston.
   Google Scholar
• Weir, F. 1976 The Central Texas Archaic. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
   Google Scholar
• Wiessner, P. 1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48:253–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wobst, H. M. 1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. Cleland, pp. 317–342. The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 61. Ann Arbor.
   Google Scholar