In the July 1978 issue of American Antiquity, David Thomas examined the differences between the points of actual arrows and darts, and concluded that in many cases individual artifacts can be correctly identified as belonging to one or the other category on the basis of a certain combination of length, width, thickness, and neck width. His study involved a search for correlations between measurements of projectile points and measurements of the actual shafts found attached to them. In the end he was able to present a method that selects the correct propulsion mode 86 out of 100 times.

In his analysis Thomas correctly points out how very little projectile points can tell us about the total arrow or dart, adding that certain investigators, myself included, should realize this. He suggests that we may be trying to reconstruct entire weapons from arrowheads; but to that charge I must plead not guilty for I confess that in my study I was perpetrating an even greater heresy than might have been dreamed of in Thomas’ philosophy.

It is argued that the citation analysis of changing aims in archaeology by Sterud (1978) may not reflect the only or the most significant developments over the period studied. There is still considerable disagreement on the aims of archaeology, and there remains a tendency for archaeologists to split into competing schools. The interactions of these schools provide much of the impetus to growth and change in the discipline and are themselves potentially susceptible to citation analysis.