Search

This paper concerns C. William (Billy) Clewlow’s contribution to archaeological ideas and their development relative to the prehistory of the Sierra Nevada around Lake Tahoe and the western Great Basin between the mid­1960s and early 1970s. The work of Clewlow and his fellow U.C. Berkeley graduate student James F. O’Connell was crucial to the solution of typological problems I faced in trying to organize a large collection of projectile points from the east slope of the Sierra Nevada. Clewlow’s work with point typology was important far beyond the east slope, however; it contributed to the development of Great Basin/Sierran point keys still in use today. Clewlow was the rst Great Basin archaeologist to recognize in print the utility of named point types with known temporal ranges for the study of disturbed deposits and surface archaeology.

Experimental flintknappers have shown that it was possible for prehistoric hunters to repair basally damaged dart points by retouching the base to a different shape. Because dart points were highly curated tools and often manufactured of non-local, high utility toolstones, the lack of evidence in the archaeological record for basal retouch of one type into another is perplexing. We develop and test a hypothesis for the resistance of retouched bases to typological change, using a set of projectile point assemblages from northeastern Nevada. It is possible that the necessity of refitting repaired points to a limited supply of pre-prepared dart foreshafts constrained the retouch of broken points. If repair of a broken point required a hunter to modify its hafting element beyond limits feasible for reattaching it onto the foreshafts in hand, it was more economical for the hunter to simply replace the broken point. If so, such constraints to haft repair have implications for understanding why dart point base styles are spatially and temporally patterned.

An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint: Archaeological Research Tools 7. Barbara E. Luedtke, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1992, 172 pages, 2 appendices, bibliography, glossary, index, $18.75 (paper).

CRM is a rubric for the body of laws, regulations, and bureaucratic structure that regulates, and to a great extent supports, the practice of archaeology in the United States at the present time. Thus, CRM is not just a context for those who perform contract archaeology, or for those who toil in federal agencies. CRM is a context in which every archeologist who holds a federal, state, or local permit works. The sooner and more widely this is recognized, the sooner we will be able to shape CRM into a better environment for archaeological research.