Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:59:14.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on Folsom and Nepesta Points

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 1940

Robert F. Heizer
Robert F. Heizer*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Correspondence
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , July 1940 , pp. 79 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lillard, J. B., Heizer, R. F., and Fenenga, F. An Introduction to the Archeology of Central California, Sacramento Junior College Department of Anthropology Bulletin, 2. 1939.

Heizer, R. F. and Fenenga, F. “Archaeological Horizons in Central California.” American Anthropologist, Vol. 41, No. 3: 378–399. 1939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 In this bulletin (see also the American Anthropologist 41: 378–399, 1939) we make no claim of having found a Folsom culture complex. By the same token, had we used the term Nepesta as a type name, we should not have claimed that it indicated the existence of a Nepesta culture. In other words, the critical point it not what term one uses, but how he uses it.

3 In addition to the references in Mr. Scoggin's paper, there is a short summary in the Carnegie Inst, of Washington News Service Bulletin 4: No. 31: 258–261. entitled “Early Man at Borax Lake.” F. H. H. Roberts, Jr. (“The Folsom Problem in American Archaeology.” Smithsonian Inst. Ann. Rept. 1938:531–546, 1939) has stated clearly (p. 544) the problems raised by the California data.