Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T20:46:36.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beveled Projectile Points and Ballistics Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Carl P. Lipo ,
Robert C. Dunnell ,
Michael J. O’Brien ,
Veronica Harper  and
John Dudgeon
Carl P. Lipo
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and IIRMES, California State University Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840 (clipo@csulb.edu)
Robert C. Dunnell
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762 (deceased)
Michael J. O’Brien
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Veronica Harper
Affiliation:
Cardno JF New, 3901 Industrial Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46254
John Dudgeon
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Avenue, Pocatello, ID 83209
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Explanations for beveled blade edges on projectile points have been debated in North America archaeology since the first systematic description oflithic assemblages in the nineteenth century. Debate has centered around two opposing perspectives. One views beveled edges as features of projectile points that cause them to spin during flight. The other views beveling as a product of edge resharpening that is done unifacially to conserve scarce resources. Here we use a fluid-dynamics model to simulate the effect beveling has on projectiles. Expectations derived from this modeling are evaluated using windtunnel experiments. Our findings indicate that beveling produces in-flight rotation that serves as a means of increasing accuracy in relatively low-velocity flight paths.

Resumen

Resumen

Las explicaciones para biseló orillas de hoja en puntas de proyectil han sido debatidas en la arqueología de Norteamérica desde la primera descripción sistemática de colecciones de lithic en el siglo XIX. El debate ha concentrado en dos perspectivas opuestas. Uno ve biseló orillas como características de proyectiles que causan ellos girar durante vuelo. La otra perspectiva ve biseles como productos del afilado de orilla que es hecho para conservar unifacially recursos escasos. Para evaluar estas dos vistas, nosotros utilizamos un modelo de la líquido-dinámica para simular el efecto que bisela tiene en proyectiles. Las esperanzas derivadas de esta profesión de modelo son evaluadas utilizar experimentos de túnel aerodinámico. Nuestras conclusiones indican que biselando productos rotación en vuelo y que tal rotación de puntos arrojadizos, que sirve para precisión creciente en relativamente trayectorias de vuelo de bajo-velocidad.

Information

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 774 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2012

References

References Cited

Abbott, Charles. C. 1877 The Classification of Stone Implements. American Naturalist 9:495–496.Google Scholar
Abbott, Charles. C. 1881 Primitive Industry: Or Illustrations of the Handiwork, in Stone, Bone and Clay, of the Native Races of the Northern Atlantic Seaboard of America. Bates, Salem, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Acheson, David J. 1990 Elementary Fluid Dynamics. Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckwith, Hiram Williams 1879 Historic Notes on the Northwest. Hill, Chicago.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blitz, John H. 1988 Adoption of the Bow in Prehistoric North America. North American Archaeologist 9:123–145.Google Scholar
Carr, Lucien, and Shaler, Nathaniel Southgate 1876 On the Prehistoric Remains of Kentucky. Memoirs of the Kentucky Geological Survey 1(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, Andrew L. 1986 Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory Study. Plains Anthropologist 31:109–128.Google Scholar
Churchill, Steven E. 1993 Weapon Technology, Prey Size Selection, and Hunting Methods in Modern Hunter-Gatherers: Implications for Hunting in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. In Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Paleolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia, edited by G. L. Peterkin, H. M. Bricker, and P. Mellars, pp. 11–24. Archeological Papers No. 4. American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Collins, Michael. B. 2007 Discerning Clovis Subsistence from Stone Artifacts and Site Distributions on the Southern Plains Periphery. In Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene, edited by R. B. Walker and B. N. Driskell, pp. 59–87. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Corliss, David Williams 1972 Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of Culture Continuity and Change. Occasional Papers 29. Idaho State University Museum, Pocatello.Google Scholar
Fairbank, Frederick Royston 1864 On Some Flint Arrow-heads from Canada. Anthropological Review 2:lxiv–lxv.Google Scholar
Fowke, Gerard 1902 Archaeological History of Ohio: The Mound Builders and Later Indians. Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Columbus.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
Holmes, William Henry 1896 Prehistory Textile Art of Eastern United States. U.S. Bureau of American Ethnology, Thirteenth Annual Report, 1891–92. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Hughes, Susan S. 1998 Getting to the Point: Evolutionary Change in Prehistoric Weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:345–408.Google Scholar
Hutchings, Wallace Karl 2011 Measuring Use-related Fracture Velocity in Lithic Armatures to Identify Spears, Javelins, Darts, and Arrows. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:1737–1746.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles Colcok 1873 Antiquities of the Southern Indians, Particularly of the Georgia Tribes. Appleton, New York.Google Scholar
Kelly, John Edward, Ozuk, Steven J., Jackson, Douglas K., McElrath, Dale L., Finney, Fred A., and Esarey, Duane 1984 Emergent Mississippian Period. In American Bottom Archaeology, edited by Charles John Bareis and James Warren Porter, pp. 128–157. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Luchterhand, Kubet 1970 Early Archaic Projectile Points and Hunting Patterns in the Lower Illinois Valley. Reports of Investigations No. 19. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, O’Brien, Michael J., and Hayes, Virgil 1998 A Mechanical and Functional Study of Bone Rods from the Richey–Roberts Clovis Cache, Washington, U.S.A. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:887–906.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, VanPool, Todd. L., and O’Brien, Michael J. 2008 Variation in North American Dart Points and Arrow Points When One, or Both, Are Present. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2805–2812.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, VanPool, Todd. L., and O’Brien, Michael J. 2009 The Diversity of North American Projectile-Point Classes, before and after the Bow and Arrow. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:1–13.Google Scholar
Morgan, Lewis Henry 1851 League of the Iroquois. Sage, Rochester, New York.Google Scholar
Morse, Dan. F. 1971 The Hawkins Cache: A Significant Dalton Find in Northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeologist 12:9–20.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Michael J., and Raymond Wood, W. 1998 The Prehistory of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.Google Scholar
Packard, Alpheus Spring Jr. 1877 Anthropological News. American Naturalist 11:436–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Leland W., and Sollberger, John B. 1990 The Significance of Beveled Edges on Projectile Points. La Tierra 17(2):7–38.Google Scholar
Sellers, G.E. 1886 Observations on Stone-Chipping. Miscellaneous Papers Relating to Anthropology from the Smithsonian Report for 1885, pp. 871–891. Washington, D.C.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. 1997 Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Di scrimination 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
Smith, George Arthur 1953 Beveled or “Rotary” Points. American Antiquity 18:269–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sollberger, John B. 1971 A Technological Study of Beveled Knives. Plains Anthropologist 15–16:209–218.Google Scholar
Squier, Epraim G., and Davis, Edwin H. 1848 Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley. Contributions to Knowledge 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Tait, Lawson 1874 Feathering in Flint Weapons. Nature (July 30, 1874): 245.Google Scholar
Thomas, David H. 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461–472.Google Scholar
Wallace, Alfred Russel 1887 American Museums: Museums of American Pre-historic Archaeology. Fortnightly Review 42:665–675.Google Scholar
Wilson, Thomas 1898 Beveled Arrowheads. American Archaeologist 2:141–143.Google Scholar