Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:49:29.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Arrowpoint or Dart Point: An Uninteresting Answer to a Tiresome Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Extract

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.

Type
Comments
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1980

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

Corliss, David W. 1972 Neck width of projectile points: an index of culture continuity and change. Occasional Papers of theIdaho State University Museum 29.Google Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst 1978 Arrowheads and atlatl darts: how the stones got the shaft. American Antiquity 43:461472.Google Scholar