Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:02:49.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Projectile Point Shape and Durability: The Effect of Thickness: Length

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph Cheshier  and
Robert L. Kelly
Joseph Cheshier
Affiliation:
2458 N 9th St #19, Laramie, Wyoming 82072 ([email protected])
Robert L. Kelly
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe an experiment that tests the hypothesis that projectile points with high thickness: length ratios are more durable than points with low thickness: length ratios. Fifty obsidian projectile points were manufactured to specific lengths, widths, and thicknesses. These were then fired into a deer carcass with a bow repeatedly until each point broke. None of the points were resharpened. The hardness of the material struck was a significant predictor of a point's durability. Controlling for this variable, however, we found that points with a high thickness: length ratio (>.121) were slightly albeit significantly more durable than those with a low ratio. No other attribute of size or shape was a significant predictor of durability.

Describimos un experimento diseñado para probar la hipótesis que las puntas de proyectil con cocientes altos espesor:largo son más durables que las puntas con cocientes bajos espesor:largo. Cincuenta puntas de proyectil de obsidiana fueron fabricadas con longitudes, anchos y espesores específicos. Estas fueron luego disparadas reiteradamente contra una carcasa de ciervo con un arco, hasta que cada una de las puntas se fracturó. Ninguna de estas puntas fue reafilada. La dureza del material impactado fue un indicador significativo de la durabilidad de una punta. Controlando esta variable, sin embargo, encontramos que las puntas con un cociente alto de espesor:largo (>.121) eran leve, aunque no significativamente más durables que aquellas con un cociente bajo. Ningún otro atributo de tamaño o de forma fue un indicador significativo de la durabilidad de las puntas.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 353 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2006

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

Bergman, Christopher A., and Newcomer, Mark H. 1983 Flint Arrowhead Breakage: Examples from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:238–243.Google Scholar
Browne, James 1940 Projectile Points. American Antiquity 5:209–213.Google Scholar
Butler, W.B. 1975 The Atlatl: the Physics of Function and Performance. Plains Anthropologist 20:105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, Andrew L. 1986 Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory Study. Plains Anthroplogist 31:109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer. W., and Bettinger, Robert L. 2001 Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66:493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Anders 1985 Hunting with Flint-Tipped Arrows: Results and Experiences from Practical Experiments. In The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh 1985, edited by Charles Bonsall, pp. 29–39. John Donald Publishers, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Flenniken, Jeffrey J., and Raymond, Anan W. 1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication, Experimentation, and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frison, George C. 1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Frison, George C. 1989 Experimental use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on African Elephants. American Antiquity 54:766–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, George J. 1933 The Aerodynamics of an Arrow. Journal of the Franklin Institute 216:91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knecht, Heidi 1997 The History and Development of Projectile Technology Research. In Projectile Technology: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, edited by Heidi Knecht, pp. 3–35. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Mau, Clayton 1963 Experiments with the Spear Thrower. New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin 29:1–13.Google Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C. 1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory 3, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 57–100. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Odell, George H., and Cowan, Frank 1986 Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:195–212.Google Scholar
Pope, Saxton 1923 A Study of Bows and Arrows. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(9):329–414.Google Scholar
Thomas, David H. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3(1):7–43.Google Scholar
Titmus, Gene L., and Woods, James C. 1986 An Experimental Study of Projectile Point Fracture Patterns. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8(1):37–49.Google Scholar
Towner, Ronald H., and Warburton, Miranda 1990 Projectile Point Rejuvenation: A Technological Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:311–320.Google Scholar