Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T13:13:30.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. Shott
Michael J. Shott*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0513
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many of the chipped-stone bifaces so common in the archaeological record functioned as the hafted points of darts or arrows. For archaeologists, these artifacts possess two salient properties: (1) they formed only part of a larger apparatus; but, (2) because perishables decompose, they ordinarily are the only part preserved. Consequently, the identity of that apparatus-i.e., whether dart or arrow-is not readily apparent. For various reasons, we may wish to know if stone bifaces functioned as dart or arrow points. Often we rely on reasonable assumptions, but Thomas's (1978) discriminant analysis is a more reliable way to distinguish the possibilities. This study extends Thomas's approach by increasing the dart sample and the rate of successful classification. Shoulder width is the most important discriminating variable. An independent test on a set of arrows also strengthens confidence in the results.

Muchos de los bifaces liticos encontrados en el registre arqueológico funcionaron como puntas enmangadas de dardos o flechas. Tales artefactos poseen dos propiedades salientes: (1) conformaron solamente parte del instrumenta más grande; pero, (2) porque lo perecedero se descompone, a menudo son la unica parte preservada. Por lo tanto, la identidad del instrumenta, ya sea dardo о flécha, no se puede precisar. Por varias razones, quisiéramos saber si los bifaces funcionaron como dardos о fléchas. A menudo, contamos con suposiciones justas, pero el análisis discriminante de Thomas (1978) es un modo mus seguro para distinguir las opciones. Este estudio amplifica su estrategia mediante una muestra perteneciente de dardos más grande y una tasa de su clasificación más alta. El ancho del hombro surge como variable más importante. Una prueba independente en una colecion de fléchas procedente de la Gran Cuenca de los Estados Unidos también fortalece la confianza en los resultados.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , January 1997 , pp. 86 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1997

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

Amick, D. S. 1994 Technological Organization and the Structure of Inference in Lithic Analysis: An Examination of Folsom Hunting Behavior in the American Southwest. In The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by Carr, P., pp. 9–34. Archaeological Series No. 7. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. J. 1993 Exploratory Multivariate Data Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. J. 1994 Stepwise Discriminant Analysis in Archaeometry: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Science 2 1: 659–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, C. 1995 Projectile Point Types as Valid Chronological Units. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York.Google Scholar
Blitz, J. H. 1988 Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America. North American Archaeologist 9: 123–145.Google Scholar
Chard, C. S. 1974 Northeast Asia in Prehistory. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Chatters, J. C, Campbell, S. K., Smith, G. D., and Minthorn,, P. 1995 Bison Procurement in the Far West: A 2,100-Year-Old Kill on the Columbia Plateau. American Antiquity 60: 751–763.Google Scholar
Christenson, A. L. 1986 Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory Study. Plains Anthropologist 31: 109–128.Google Scholar
Corliss, D. W. 1972 Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of Culture Continuity and Change. Occasional Papers No. 29. Idaho State University Museum, Pocatello.Google Scholar
Corliss, D. W. 1980 Arrowpoint or Dart Point: An Uninteresting Answer to a Tiresome Question. American Antiquity 45: 351–352.Google Scholar
Cosgrove, C. B. 1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in New Mexico and Texas. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 24 No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Cundy, B. J. 1989 Formal Variation in Australian Spear and Spearthrower Technology. BAR International Series 546. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Davis, C. A., and Smith, G. A. 1981 Newberry Cave. San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California.Google Scholar
DeBoer, W. R. 1985 Pots and Pans Do Not Speak, Nor Do They Lie: The Case for Occasional Reducationism. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Nelson, Ben, pp. 347–357. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Edmonds, M., and Thomas, J. 1987 The Archers: An Everyday Story of Country Folk. In Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory: Some Problems and Approaches, edited by Brown, A. and Edmonds, M., pp. 187–199. BAR British Series 162. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fawcert, W. B., and Kornfeld, M. 1980 Projectile Point Neck-Width Variability and Chronology on the Plains. Wyoming Contributions to Anthropology 2: 66–79.Google Scholar
Fawcert, W. B., and Kornfeld, M. 1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to Their Functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9: 309–323.Google Scholar
Fowler, D, and Matley, J. 1979 Material Culture of the Numa: The John Wesley Powell Collection, 1867-1880. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 26. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
Guernsey, S. J., and Kidder, A. V 1921 Basket-Maker Caves of Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 8 No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Gunnerson, J. H. 1969 77ie Fremont Culture: A Study in Cultural Dynamics on the Northern Anasazi Frontier. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 59 No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hall, R. L. 1977 An Anthropocentric Perspective for Eastern United States Prehistory. American Antiquity 42: 499–518.Google Scholar
Harrington, M. R. 1960 The Ozark Bluff-Dwellers. Indian Notes and Monographs Vol. 12. Museum of the American Indian, New York.Google Scholar
Hattori, E. M. 1982 The Archaeology of Falcon Hill, Winnemucca Lake, Washoe County, Nevada. Anthropological Papers No. 18. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.Google Scholar
Heite, E. R, and Blume, C. L. 1995 Data Recovery Excavations at the Blueberry Hill Prehistoric Site (7K-C- 07). Archaeological Series No. 130. Department of Transportation, Wilmington, Delaware.Google Scholar
Heizer, R. F. 1938 An Inquiry into the Status of the Santa Barbara Spear- Thrower. American Antiquity 4: 137–141.Google Scholar
Hoffman, W. J. 1896 The Menomini Indians. In Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, vol. 14, pp. 11–328. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Google Scholar
Hughes, S. S. 1995 Getting to the Point: Evolutionary Change in Prehistoric Weaponry. Unpublished manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Jennings, J. 1957 Danger Cave. Anthropological Papers No. 27. University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Judge, W. J. 1973 Paleoindian Occupation of the Central Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Klecka, W R. 1975 Discriminant Analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California.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
Lindsay, A. J., Ambler, R. A., Stein, M. A., and Hobler, P. M. 1968 Survey and Excavation North and East of Navajo Mountain, Utah, 1959-1962. Bulletin 45. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Lorentzen, L. H. 1989 Form and Function of the Chodistaas and Grasshopper Spring Projectile Points. Unpublished manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Maschner, H. D. 1991 The Emergence of Cultural Complexity on the Northern Northwest Coast. Antiquity 65: 924–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, W C. 1961 The Survival of the Dart-Thrower on the Peninsula of Baja California. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, W C. 1894 Pre-Historic Man in Utah. The Archaeologist 2(8): 227–234.Google Scholar
Massey, W C. 1899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait. In Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, vol. 18, pp. 19–518. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Norusis, M. J. 1993 SPSS for Windows Base System User's Guide, Release 6.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago.Google Scholar
Nusbaum, J. L. 1922 A Basket-Maker Cave in Kane County, Utah. Indian Notes and Monographs No. 29. Museum of the American Indian, New York.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. 1988 Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices through Stone Tool Analysis. American Anthropologist 90: 335–356.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
Patterson, L. W 1994 Identification of Unifacial Arrow Points. Journal of the Houston Archaeological Society 108: 19–24.Google Scholar
Pepper, G. H. 1905 The Throwing-Stick of a Prehistoric People of the Southwest. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Americanists: 107–130.Google Scholar
Perkins, W. 1992 The Weighted Atlatl and Dart: A Deceptively Complicated Mechanical System. Archaeology in Montana 33: 65–77.Google Scholar
Rose, F. G. G. 1960 Classification of Kin, Age Structure and Marriage amongst the Groote Eylandt Aborigines: A Study in Method and a Theory of Australian Kinship. Akademie Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Seeman, M. F. 1992 The Bow and Arrow, the Intrusive Mound Complex, and a Late Woodland Jack's Reef Horizon in the Mid- Ohio Valley. In Cultural Variability in Context: Woodland Settlements of the Mid-Ohio Valley, edited by Seeman, M., pp. 41–51. MCJA Special Paper No. 7. Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1993 Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late Woodland Hunting Techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 58: 425–143.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1996 Innovation in Prehistory: A Case Study from the American Bottom. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights Into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, G., pp. 279–309. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, A. 1921 Material Culture of the Menomini. Indian Notes and Monographs Vol. 20. Museum of the American Indian, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testart, A. 1988 Some Major Problems in the Social Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers. Current Anthropology 29: 1–31.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43: 461–472.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3: 7–43.Google Scholar
Troeng, J. 1993 Worldwide Chronology of Fifty-Three Prehistoric Innovations. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series 8, No. 21. Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Tuohy, D. R. 1982 Another Great Basin Atlatl with Dart Foreshafts and Other Artifacts: Implications and Ramifications. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4: 80–106.Google Scholar
Van Buren, G. E. 1974 Arrowheads and Projectile Points with a Classification Guide for Lithic Artifacts. Arrowhead Publishing, Garden Grove, California.Google Scholar
Vinnicombe, P. 1972 Myth, Motive, and Selection in Southern African Cave Art. Africa 42: 192–204.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. J. 1930 Report of the Activities of the Van Buren-Los Angeles Museum Field Party on Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of Navajo Mountain, San Juan County, Utah. Manuscript on file, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles.Google Scholar