Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface and Acknowledgments
- List of Contributors
- PART I INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND REVIEW
- PART II PRODUCTION, REDUCTION, AND RETOUCH
- 3 Comparing and Synthesizing Unifacial Stone Tool Reduction Indices
- 4 Exploring Retouch on Bifaces: Unpacking Production, Resharpening, and Hammer Type
- 5 The Construction of Morphological Diversity: A Study of Mousterian Implement Retouching at Combe Grenal
- 6 Reduction and Retouch as Independent Measures of Intensity
- 7 Perforation with Stone Tools and Retouch Intensity: A Neolithic Case Study
- 8 Exploring the Dart and Arrow Dilemma: Retouch Indices as Functional Determinants
- PART III NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LITHIC RAW MATERIAL AND TECHNOLOGY
- PART IV EVOLUTIONARY APPROACHES TO LITHIC TECHNOLOGIES
- Index
- References
8 - Exploring the Dart and Arrow Dilemma: Retouch Indices as Functional Determinants
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 August 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface and Acknowledgments
- List of Contributors
- PART I INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND REVIEW
- PART II PRODUCTION, REDUCTION, AND RETOUCH
- 3 Comparing and Synthesizing Unifacial Stone Tool Reduction Indices
- 4 Exploring Retouch on Bifaces: Unpacking Production, Resharpening, and Hammer Type
- 5 The Construction of Morphological Diversity: A Study of Mousterian Implement Retouching at Combe Grenal
- 6 Reduction and Retouch as Independent Measures of Intensity
- 7 Perforation with Stone Tools and Retouch Intensity: A Neolithic Case Study
- 8 Exploring the Dart and Arrow Dilemma: Retouch Indices as Functional Determinants
- PART III NEW PERSPECTIVES ON LITHIC RAW MATERIAL AND TECHNOLOGY
- PART IV EVOLUTIONARY APPROACHES TO LITHIC TECHNOLOGIES
- Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
Measuring retouch location and intensity on hafted bifaces is shown to be an effective technique for assessing artifact function. Unlike other areas of North America, where dart technology is replaced by arrow technology, Coalition Period occupations on the Pajarito Plateau of New Mexico contain both hafted biface forms used simultaneously. A stylistic analysis of dart points shows that hafted biface forms found in Coalition Period contexts were recycled from Middle and Late Archaic surface scatters. Furthermore, retouch location and intensity show that Coalition Period dart points were used for cutting and sawing activities and not as projectile technology.
INTRODUCTION
In the American Southwest, and throughout North America, dart-sized hafted bifaces identified as projectile points, normally associated with sites dating to the Paleoindian and Archaic time periods, are regularly found on sites dating to the past thousand years (cf. Kohler 2004; Turnbow 1997). Late period points were likely small and designed to be attached to the smaller arrow foreshaft. Although researchers have noted the presence of dart-sized points in settings where the bow and arrow were likely used, few have addressed the question of the context of manufacture or use of these larger hafted bifaces. In the Northern Rio Grande, the presence of Scottsbluff, Jay, Bajada, and other large dart points dating to the Late Paleoindian and Archaic in Coalition and Classic period sites rarely elicits more than a description as a “curated” item or “heirloom,” or as a knife replicating an older style.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Lithic TechnologyMeasures of Production, Use and Curation, pp. 175 - 192Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
- 4
- Cited by