Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T05:36:46.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpreting Broken Arrow Points

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William Engelbrecht
William Engelbrecht*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, SUNY Buffalo State, 1300 Elmwood Ave, Buffalo, NY 14222 (engelbwe@gmail.com)
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.

This paper compares unnotched triangular arrow point refits (conjoined fragments) with whole points from the Eaton site in New York. The differences between the two samples are significant, suggesting that point typologies based on whole points may be misleading. Refits tended to have greater length to width ratios and lower thickness to length ratios, rendering them less durable. While lack of durability is generally considered to be a negative characteristic of stone points, fragmentation of a projectile in an enemy or hunting prey creates a large internal wound cavity, which is desirable. Also desirable is a point base that makes a cut wide enough to prevent drag on the arrow shaft, but narrow enough to have a good chance of passing through the ribs of the target.

Résumé

Résumé

En este trabajo se comparan las puntas de proyectil re-ensambladas (fragmentos que remontan) con las puntas enteras procedentes del sitio Eaton, New York. Los resultados muestran que las diferencias entre las dos muestras son significativas, lo cual sugiere que las tipologías basadas en puntas enteras pueden ser engañosas. Las puntas re-ensambladas suelen tener may ores proporciones de longitud y anchura y menores proporciones de longitud y espesor lo cual les hace menos duraderos. En general se considera una característica negativa lafalta de durabilidad de las puntas, sin embargo la fragmentación de un proyectil dentro del cuerpo de un enemigo o de la came de la presa crea una gran herida en la cavidad interna lo cual es deseable. Otra característica esperable es que la base de las puntas realicen un corte lo suficientemente ancho como para prevenir o evitar la fricción en el asta de la flecha, pero asimismo suficientemente estrecho para que tenga una buena probablidad de pasar por las costillas del blanco.

Information

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 80 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 760 - 766
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2015 

References

References Cited

Blitz, John H., and Porth, Erik S. 2013 Social Complexity and the Bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology 22:89-95.Google Scholar
Callahan, Errett 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7:1-180.Google Scholar
Cheshier, Joseph, and Kelly, Robert L. 2006 Projectile Point Shape and Durability: The Effect of Thickness:Length. American Antiquity 71:353-363.10.2307/40035908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher J. 1997 Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips: An Ethnographic Perspective. In Projectile Technology, Heidi Knecht, editor, pp. 37-74. Plenum Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, William 2003 Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World. Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, William 2014a Unnotched Triangular Points on Village Sites. American Antiquity 79:353-367.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, William 2014b Point Refits Table. Electronic database. The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), doi: 10.6067/XCV8T43V1J, http://core.tdar.org/dataset/392552, accessed January 3, 2015.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, William 2015a Madison Point Table. Electronic database. The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), doi: 10.6067/XCV88916ZF, http://core.tdar.org/dataset/394462, accessed January 23, 2015.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, William 2015b Point Base Table. Electronic database. The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), doi: 10.6067/XCV84J0G6V, http://core.tdar.org/dataset/394456, accessed January 23, 2015.Google Scholar
Engelbrecht, William 2015c Whole Points and Refits Compared. The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), doi: 10.6067/XCV8FN17BN, http://core.tdar.org/dataset/394782, accessed April 1, 2015.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 1985 Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by Mark G. Plew, Max G. Paresic, and James C. Woods, pp. 265-275. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey 1991 The Diamond Lil Site: Projectile Point Fragments as Indicators of Site Function. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13:180-193.Google Scholar
Frison, George C. 1978 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Friss-Hansen, Jan 1990 Mesolithic Cutting Arrows: Functional Analysis of Arrows Used in Hunting of Large Game. Antiquity 64:494-504.10.1017/S0003598X0007839XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, R. Dale 1983 Osseous Projectile Points: Biological Considerations Affecting Raw Material Selection and Design among Paleoindian Peoples. In Animals and Archaeology 1: Hunters and Their Prey, edited by Juliet Clutton-Brock and Caroline Grigson, pp. 273-294. BAR International Series 163, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hanson, Lee H. 1975 The Buffalo Site. Report of Archaeological Investigations No. 5. West Virginia 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
Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Knecht, Heidi 1997a The History and Development of Projectile Technology Research. In Projectile Technology, edited by Heidi Knecht, pp. 3-35. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Knecht, Heidi 1997b Projectile Points of Bone, Antler, and Stone: Experimental Explorations of Manufacture and Use. In Projectile Technology, edited by Heidi Knecht, pp. 191-212. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Robert D. 1996 A Comparison of Mohawk and Onondaga Projectile Point Assemblages. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 12:27-34.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Robert D., and Funk, Robert E. 2000 Boning Up on the Mohawk: An overview of Mohawk Faunal Assemblages and Subsistence Patterns. Archaeology of Eastern North America 28:29-62.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
Milner, George R. 2005 Nineteenth-Century Arrow Wounds and Perceptions of Prehistoric Warfare. American Antiquity 70:144-156.Google Scholar
Milner, George R., Anderson, Eve, and Smith, Virginia G. 1991 Warfare in Late Prehistoric West-Central Illinois. American Antiquity 56:581-603.Google Scholar
Nelson, Margaret C. 1997 Projectile Points: Form, Function, and Design. In Projectile Technology, edited by Heidi Knecht, pp. 371-384. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Odell, Geoge H., and Cowan, Frank 1986 Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13:195-212.Google Scholar
Pipes, Marie-Lorraine 2009 The Eaton Site Faunal Report. Electronic document, The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR), doi: 10.6067/XCV800015X, http://core.tdar.org/document/6046, accessed September 4, 2014.Google Scholar
Ritchie, William 1971 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin No. 384. University of the State of New York at Albany.Google Scholar
Ryan, Timothy M., and Milner, George R. 2006 Osteological Applications of High-Resolution Computed Tomography: Prehistoric Arrow Injury. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:871-879.Google Scholar
Salisbury, Roderick B. 2001 Lithic and Ceramic Cross-Mends at the Eaton Site. The Bulletin: Journal of the New York State Archaeological Association 117:49-56.Google Scholar
Scheck, Justin 2011 Armed With Stone-Tipped Arrows, Hunters Stalk Their Inner Cave Men. Wall Street Journal, May 12. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704810504576307192623476856.Google Scholar
Socci, Mary Catherine 1995 The Zooarchaeology of the Mohawk Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Titmus, Gene L., and Woods, James C. 2006 An Experimental Study of Projectile Point Fracture Patterns. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8:37-49.Google Scholar
Wilkens, Jayne, Schoville, Benjamin J., and Brown, Kyle S. 2014 An Experimental Investigation of the Functional Hypothesis and Evolutionary Advantage of Stone-Tipped Spears. PLos ONE 9(8): el04514. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104514.Google Scholar