Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:00:03.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Projectile Point Reworking: An Experimental Study of Arrowpoint Use Life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2019

Chris Loendorf ,
Thatcher Rogers ,
Theodore J. Oliver ,
Brian R. Huttick ,
Allen Denoyer  and
M. Kyle Woodson
Chris Loendorf*
Affiliation:
Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, AZ 85147, USA
Thatcher Rogers
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA
Theodore J. Oliver
Affiliation:
Desert Archaeology, Inc., 3975 N. Tucson Blvd, Tucson, AZ 85281, USA
Brian R. Huttick
Affiliation:
Archaeological Consulting Services Ltd., 424 W. Broadway Rd., Tempe, AZ 85282, USA
Allen Denoyer
Affiliation:
Archaeology Southwest, 300 North Ash Alley, Tucson, AZ 85701, USA
M. Kyle Woodson
Affiliation:
Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, AZ 85147, USA
*
([email protected], corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article summarizes the results of controlled experiments in which flaked-stone points that varied in impact strength by a factor of almost three were shot at media that were increasingly inelastic and therefore likely to break the points. Broken tips were reworked if possible, and used again under the same conditions. Our results show that all damage to low impact-strength materials, especially obsidian, was generally catastrophic, and, consequently, these points could only rarely be reworked. The fact that low-strength stones were commonly used to make small arrowpoints suggests that reworking was not a primary concern for their designers. Furthermore, in those instances when broken tips could be reworked, their performance declined. In addition, reworking broken points also resulted in shapes that are uncommon in many arrowpoint assemblages. Our results suggest that the original design attributes of arrowpoints may have been less affected by reworking, and, consequently, may more accurately suggest temporal and behavioral associations.

Este artículo resume los resultados de los experimentos controlados en los que puntas de proyectil de piedra que varían en la resistencia al impacto en un factor de casi tres se dispararon a materiales que eran cada vez más inelásticos y, por lo tanto, que podían romper las puntas. Las puntas rotas se reformaron si era posible y se volvieron a usar en las mismas condiciones. Nuestros resultados muestran que el daño a los materiales de baja resistencia al impacto, como la obsidiana, fueron generalmente catastróficos, y, en consecuencia, estas puntas rara vez se podian volver a trabajar. El hecho de que piedras de baja resistencia se usaran comúnmente para hacer pequeñas puntas de flecha sugiere que los diseñadores no pensaban en reacondicionarlas. Además, en aquellos casos en que las puntas rotas se pudieran reacondicionar, su rendimiento disminuía. En consecuencia, la reformatización de puntas rotas también dio lugar a formas que son poco comunes en muchos conjuntos de puntas de flecha. Nuestros resultados sugieren que los atributos de diseño originales de las puntas de flecha pueden haberse visto menos afectados por el retoque, y, en consecuencia, pueden sugerir con mayor precisión asociaciones temporales y de comportamiento.

Keywords

projectile point reworkinguse damagedesignperformanceraw material constraintscontrolled experimentreformación de puntas de proyectildaño debido al usodiseñorendimientorestricciones de materia primaexperimento controlado
Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 84 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 353 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by the Society for American Archaeology 

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

References Cited

Ahler, Stanley A. 1971 Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri. Research Series No. 8. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.Google Scholar
Ahler, Stanley A. 1992 Phase Classification and Manufacturing Technology in Plains Village Arrowpoints. In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by Hofman, Jack L. and Enloe, James G., pp. 36–62. BAR International Series 578. Archaeopress, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
Anderson, Philip S. L., LaCosse, Jennifer, and Pankow, Mark 2016 Point of Impact: The Effect of Size and Speed on Puncture Mechanics. Interface Focus 6(3): 20150111.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2006 Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–757.Google Scholar
Azevedo, Soledad de, Charlin, Judith, and González-José, Rolando 2014 Identifying Design and Reduction Effects on Lithic Projectile Point Shapes. Journal of Archaeological Science 41:297–307.Google Scholar
Baker, Tim 2001 The Causes of Arrow Speed. In Primitive Technology II: Ancestral Skills, edited by Wescott, David, pp. 107–114. Society for Primitive Technology, Gibbs Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah.Google Scholar
Bettinger, Robert L., and Eerkens, Jelmer 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-And-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231–242.Google Scholar
Bill, J. H. 1882 Sabre and Bayonet Wounds; Arrow Wounds. In International Encyclopedia of Surgery: A Systemic Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Surgery by Authors of Various Nations, edited by Ashhurst, John, pp. 101–117. William Wood, New York.Google Scholar
Blades, Brooke 2008 Reduction and Retouch as Independent Measures of Intensity. In Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation, edited by Andrefsky, William Jr., pp. 136–149. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bonnichsen, B. Robson, and Keyser, James D. 1982 Three Small Points: A Cody Complex Problem. Plains Anthropologist 27(96):137–144.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Briggs, Eren, Metin I., Boulanger, Matthew T., and O'Brien, Michael J. 2015 Size, Shape, Scars, and Spatial Patterning: A Quantitative Assessment of Late Pleistocene (Clovis) Point Resharpening. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3:11–21.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Briggs, Collard, Mark, Hamilton, Marcus J., and O'Brien, Michael J. 2011 Points and Prey: A Quantitative Test of the Hypothesis that Prey Size Influences Early Paleoindian Projectile Point Form. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:852–864.Google Scholar
Charlin, Judith and González-José, Rolando 2012 Size and Shape Variation in Late Holocene Projectile Points of Southern Patagonia: A Geometric Morphometric Study. American Antiquity 77:221–242.Google Scholar
Cheshier, J., and Kelly, R. L. 2006 Projectile Point Shape and Durability: The Effect of Thickness:Length. American Antiquity 71:353–363.Google Scholar
Christenson, Andrew L. 1997 Side-Notched and Unnotched Arrowpoints: Assessing Functional Differences. In Projectile Technology, edited by Knecht, Heidi, pp. 131–142. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Cotterell, Brian, and Kamminga, Johan 1992 Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology. Cambridge University Press. New York.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher J. 1997 Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips: An Ethnographic Perspective. In Projectile Technology, edited by Knecht, Heidi, pp. 37–74. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., and Sampson, C. Garth 2009 Kuhn's Geometric Index of Unifacial Stone Tool Reduction (GIUR): Does It Measure Missing Flake Mass. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1243–1247.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Raymond, Anan W. 1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603–614.Google Scholar
Frison, George C. 1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33:149–155.Google Scholar
Goodyear, Albert C. 1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Research Series No. 7. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Charles M. 1985 Projectile Point Maintenance and Typology: Assessment with Factor Analysis and Canonical Correlation. In For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory, edited by Carr, Christopher, pp. 566–612. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Charles M. 1997 Alliance Formation and Social Interaction During the Sedentary Period: A Stylistic Analysis of Hohokam Arrowpoints. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Hughes, Susan S. 1998 Getting to the Point: Evolutionary Change in Prehistoric Weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 5(4):345–408.Google Scholar
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1996 War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Klopsteg, Paul E. 1993 The Physics of Bows and Arrows. In Physics of Sports, edited by Armenti, Angelo, pp. 9–28. American Institute of Physics, New York.Google Scholar
Knecht, Heidi 1997 Projectile Points of Bone, Antler, and Stone: Experimental Explorations of Manufacture and Use. In Projectile Technology, edited by Knecht, Heidi, pp. 191–212. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kooi, Bob W. 1983 On the Mechanics of the Bow and Arrow. PhD dissertation, Mathematisch Instituut, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1990 A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:585–593.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1994 Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59:426–442.Google Scholar
Lerner, Harry J. 2015 Dynamic Variables and the Use-Related Reduction of Southern Huron Projectile Points. In Contemporary Perspectives on Lithic Analysis, edited by Shott, Michael J., University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Lerner, Harry J., Du, Xiangdong, Costopoulos, Andre, and Ostoja-Starzewski, Martin 2007 Lithic Raw Material Physical Properties and Use-Wear Accrual. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:711–722.Google Scholar
Loendorf, Chris 2012 The Hohokam—Akimel O'odham Continuum: Sociocultural Dynamics and Projectile Point Design in the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. Anthropological Research Papers No. 5, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Loendorf, Chris, and Rice, Glen E. 2004 Projectile Point Typology, Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. Anthropological Research Papers No. 2, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Loendorf, Chris, Fertelmes, Craig M., and Lewis, Barnaby V. 2013 Hohokam to Akimel O'Odham: Obsidian Acquisition at the Historic Period Sacate Site (GR-909), Gila River Indian Community, Arizona. American Antiquity 78:266–284.Google Scholar
Loendorf, Chris, Simon, Lynn, Dybowski, Daniel, Kyle Woodson, M., Scott Plumlee, R., Tiedens, Shari, and Withrow, Michael 2015a Warfare and Big Game Hunting: Flaked-Stone Projectile Point Designs along the Middle Gila River in Arizona. Antiquity 89(344):1–14.Google Scholar
Loendorf, Chris, Oliver, Theodore J., Tiedens, Shari, Scott Plumlee, R., Kyle Woodson, M., and Simon, Lynn 2015b Flaked-stone Projectile Point Serration: A Controlled Experimental Study of Blade Margin Design. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 3:437–443.Google Scholar
Loendorf, Chris, Tiedens, Shari and Scott Plumlee, M. 2017 Projectile Point Design: Flaked-Stone Projectile Tip Selection, Function, and Style. Journal of Arizona Archaeology 4(2):83–98.Google Scholar
Loendorf, Chris, Blikre, Lowell, Bryce, William D., Oliver, Theodore J., Denoyer, Allen, and Wermers, Greg 2018 Raw Material Impact Strength and Flaked Stone Projectile Point Performance. Journal of Archaeological Science 90:50–61.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, VanPool, Todd L., and O'Brien, Michael J. 2009 The Diversity of North American Projectile-Point Types, before and after the Bow and Arrow. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:1–13.Google Scholar
Mason, Otis T. 1894 North American Bows, Arrows, and Quivers. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex and O'Brien, Michael J. 2008 The Cultural Transmission of Great Basin Projectile Point Technology I: An Experimental Simulation. American Antiquity 73:3–28.Google Scholar
O'Brien, Michael J., Boulanger, Matthew T., Buchanan, Briggs, Collard, Mark, Lee Lyman, R., and Darwent, John 2014 Innovation and Cultural Transmission in the American Paleolithic: Phylogenetic Analysis of Eastern Paleoindian Projectile-Point Classes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 34:100–119.Google Scholar
Odell, George H. and Cowan, Frank 1986 Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology, 13(2):195–212.Google Scholar
Parks, Justin T. 2017 Ancient Archery Practices of the Greater Southwest. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Ratzat, Craig 1999 Atlatls: Throwing for Distance. In Primitive Technology: A Book of Earth Skills, edited by Wescott, David, pp. 200–201. The Society of Primitive Technology. Gibbs Smith, Layton, Utah.Google Scholar
Rots, Veerle, and Plisson, Hugues 2014 Projectiles and the Abuse of the Use-Wear Method in a Search for Impact. Journal of Archaeological Science 48:154–165.Google Scholar
Sedig, Jakob W. 2014 An Analysis of Non-utilitarian Stone Point Function in the US Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 34(2014):120–132.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1989 Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54:9–30.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1993 Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 58:425–443.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996 Innovation and Selection in Prehistory: A Case Study from the American Bottom. In Stone Tools, Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, George H., pp. 279–309. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1997 Stone and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity 62:86–101.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Ballenger, Jesse A. M. 2007 Biface Reduction and the Measurement of Dalton Curation: A Southeastern United States Case Study. American Antiquity 72:153–175.Google Scholar
Sisk, Matthew L., and Shea, John J. 2009 Experimental Use and Quantitative Performance Analysis of Triangular Flakes (Levallois Points) Used as Arrowheads. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2039–2047.Google Scholar
Sliva, R. Jane 2015 Projectile Points of the Early Agricultural Southwest; Typology, Migration and Social Dynamics from the Sonoran Desert to the Colorado Plateau. Archaeology Southwest, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Stevens, Edward T. 1870 Flint Chips: A Guide to Pre-Historic Archaeology. Brown and Co., F.A. Blake, Salisbury.Google Scholar
Thomas, David H. 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461–472.Google Scholar
Tomka, Steve A. 2013 The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow: A Model Based on Experimental Performance Characteristics. American Antiquity 78:553–569.Google Scholar
VanPool, Todd L. 2003 Explaining Changes in Projectile Point Morphology: A Case Study from Ventana Cave. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Weedman, Kathryn J. 2002 On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone Scraper Morphology. American Antiquity 67:731–744.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 1994 Flintknapping Making and Understanding Stone Tools. 3rd ed. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C. 2016 Arrowheads, Folklore, and Documentary Sources. Plains Anthropologist 61(238):177–187.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C., Pettigrew, Devin B., and Grohsmeyer, Ryan J. 2017 Atlatl Dart Velocity: Accurate Measurements and Implications for Paleoindian and Archaic Archaeology. PaleoAmerica 3(2):161–181.Google Scholar
Wood, Janice, and Fitzhugh, Ben 2018 Wound Ballistics: The Prey Specific Implications of Penetrating Trauma Injuries from Osseous, Flaked Stone, and Composite Inset Microblade Projectiles during the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition, Alaska U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science 94:104–117.Google Scholar