Testing Archaeological Approaches to Determining Past Projectile Delivery Systems Using Ethnographic and Experimental Data

Clarkson, C.

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7602-8_13

C. Clarkson⁵

Part of the book series: Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology ((VERT))

1174 Accesses
30 Citations

Abstract

TCSA and TCSP are often considered valuable measures of projectile performance, particularly in terms of penetration and overall design. Proponents of this view have also argued that TCSA/TCSP may also be useful for identifying the origins and spread of more complex projectile technologies such as the spear thrower and bow. The strength of these arguments will be tested against ethnographic data and new experiments. The results suggest that TCSA/TCSP statistics are not robust measures of projectile performance, or reliable proxies for inferring delivery systems. An alternative approach is developed using experimental data that compares impact fracture size for three different diagnostic impact fracture types. This approach, while found to be valuable, also presents problems for archaeological identification of projectile technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 99.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

Akerman, K. (1978). Notes on the Kimberley stone-tipped spear focusing on the point hafting mechanism. Mankind, 11(4), 486–490.
Google Scholar
Barton, R. N. E., & Bergman, C. A. (1982). Hunters at Hengistbury: Some evidence from experimental archaeology. World Archaeology, 14(2), 237–248.
Article Google Scholar
Blitz, J. H. (1988). Adoption of the bow in North America. North American Archaeologist, 9(2), 123–145.
Article Google Scholar
Boëda, E., Bonilauri, S., Connan, J., Jarvet D., Mercier, N., Toby, M., et al. (2008). Middle Palaeolithic bitumen use at Umm el Tlel around 70000BP. Antiquity, 82(318), 853–861.
Google Scholar
Buchanan, B., Collard, M., Hamilton, M. J., & O’Brien, M. J. (2011). Points and prey: A quantitative test of the hypothesis that prey size influences early Paleoindian projectile point form. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(4), 852–864.
Google Scholar
Catellan, P. (1997). Hunting during the Upper Paleolithic: Bow, spearthrower, or both? In H. Knecht (Ed.), Projectile technology (pp. 213–240). New York: Plenum Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Christenson, A. L. (1986). Projectile point size and projectile aerodynamics: An exploratory study. Plains Anthropologist, 31(112), 109–128.
Google Scholar
Costa, A. G. (2012). Were there stone-tipped armatures in the South Asia Middle Paleolithic? Quaternary International, 269, 22–30. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.01.044.
Article Google Scholar
Cundy, B. (1989). Formal variation in Australian spear and spear thrower technology (Vol. 546). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Google Scholar
Dockall, J. (1997). Wear traces and projectile impact: A review of the experimental and archaeological evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology, 24, 321–331.
Google Scholar
Fischer, A., Vemming Hansen, P., & Rasmussen, P. (1984). Macro and micro wear traces on lithic projectile points: Experimental results and prehistoric examples. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 3, 19–46.
Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. J., & Raymond, A. W. (1986). Projectile point typology: Replication experimentation and technological analysis. American Antiquity, 51, 603–614.
Article Google Scholar
Friis-Hansen, J. (1990). Mesolithic cutting arrows: Functional analysis of arrows used in the hunting of large game. Antiquity, 64(244), 494–504.
Article Google Scholar
Grünberg, J. M. (2002). Middle Palaeolithic birch-bark pitch. Antiquity, 76, 15–16.
Article Google Scholar
Hughes, S. S. (1998). Getting to the point: Evolutionary change in prehistoric weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 5, 345–408.
Article Google Scholar
Hunzicker, D. A. (2008). Folsom projectile technology: An experiment in design, effectiveness and efficiency. Plains Anthropologist, 53, 291–311.
Article Google Scholar
Hutchings, W. K. (1999). Quantification of fracture propagation velocity employing a sample of Clovis channel flakes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, 1437–1447.
Article Google Scholar
Hutchings, W. K., & Brüchert, L. W. (1997). Spearthrower performance: Ethnographic and experimental research. Antiquity, 71, 890–897.
Article Google Scholar
Knecht, H. (1997). Projectile points of bone, antler and stone: Experimental explorations of manufacture and use. In H. Knecht (Ed.), Projectile technology (pp. 191–212). New York: Plenum Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Lombard, M., & Clark, J. L. (2008). Variability and change in Middle Stone Age hunting behaviour: Aspects from the lithic and faunal records. In S. Badenhorst, P. Mitchell, & J. C. Driver (Eds.), Animals and people: Archaeozoological papers in honour of Ina Plug (pp. 46–56). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Google Scholar
Lombard, M., & Phillipson, L. (2010). Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64,000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Antiquity, 84, 635–648.
Article Google Scholar
Lombard, M., Wadley, L., Jacobs, Z., Mohapi, M., & Roberts, R. G. (2010). Still Bay and serrated points from Umhlatuzana Rock Shelter. Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 1773–1784.
Google Scholar
Mackay, A. (2010). History and selection in the late Pleistocene archaeology of the Western Cape, South Africa. PhD dissertation, Australia: Australian National University.
Google Scholar
McCall, G. (2007). Behavioral ecological models of lithic technological change during the later Middle Stone Age of South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34, 1738–1751.
Article Google Scholar
Moncel, M.-H., Chacón, M. G., Coudenneau, A., & Fernandes, P. (2009). Points and convergent tools in the European Early Middle Palaeolithic site of Payre (SE, France). Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 1892–1909.
Article Google Scholar
Newman, K., & Moore, M. (2013). Ballistically anomalous stone projectile points in Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2614–2620.
Article Google Scholar
Pargeter, J. (2007). Howiesons poort segments as hunting weapons: Experiments with replicated projectiles. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 62, 147–153.
Google Scholar
Pétillon, J.-M., Bignon, O., Bodu, P., Cattelain, P., Debout, G., Langlais, M., et al. (2011). Hard core and cutting edge: Experimental manufacture and use of Magdalenian composite projectile tips. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 1266–1283.
Article Google Scholar
Schoville, B. J. (2010). Frequency and distribution of edge damage on Middle Stone Age lithic points, Pinnacle Point 13B, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 59, 378–391.
Article Google Scholar
Shea, J. (1997). Middle Palaeolithic spear technology. In H. Knecht (Ed.), Projectile technology (pp. 79–106). New York: Plenum Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Shea, J. J. (2006). The origins of lithic projectile point technology: Evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33, 823–846.
Article Google Scholar
Shea, J. J., & Sisk, S. M. (2010). Complex projectile technology and Homo sapiens dispersal into Western Eurasia. PaleoAnthropology, 2010, 100–122.
Google Scholar
Sisk, M., & Shea, J. J. (2009). Experimental use and quantitative performance analysis of triangular flakes (Levallois points) used as arrowheads. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 2039–2047.
Article Google Scholar
Sisk, M., & Shea, J. J. (2011). The African origin of complex projectile technology: An analysis using tip cross-sectional area and perimeter. International Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 2011, 1–8.
Article Google Scholar
Thomson, D. F. (1949). Arnhem Land: Explorations among an unknown people part III: On foot across Arnhem Land. The Geographical Journal, 114, 53–67.
Article Google Scholar
Thieme, H. (1997). Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature, 385, 807–810.
Article Google Scholar
Towner, R. H., & Warburton, M. (1990). Projectile point rejuvenation: A technological analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology, 17, 311–321.
Google Scholar
Villa, P., & Lenoir, M. (2009). Hunting and hunting weapons of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. In J.-J. Hublin & M. P. Richards (Eds.), The evolution of hominin diets: Integrating approaches to the study of Palaeolithic subsistence (pp. 59–85). Dordrecht: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Villa, P., Soressi, M., Henshilwood, C. S., & Mourre, V. (2009). The Still Bay points of Blombos Cave (South Africa). Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 441–460.
Article Google Scholar
Wadley, L., & Mohapi, M. (2008). A Segment is not a Monolith: evidence from the Howiesons Poort of Sibudu, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 2594–2605.
Article Google Scholar
Yaroshevich, A., Kaufman, D., Nuzhnyy, D., Bar-Yosef, O., & Weinstein-Evron, M. (2010). Design and performance of implemented projectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant: Experimental and archaeological evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 368–388.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The invitation to participate in the International Symposium on Prehistoric Weapons in Mainz in September 2011 turned my long held interest in points into the chance to conduct my own projectile experiments, for which I am most grateful to Radu Iovita and Katsuhiro Sano. The workshop was a great success, and certainly much more than “a marriage of dogs”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia
C. Clarkson

Authors

C. Clarkson
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Clarkson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution,, MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre, Neuwied, Germany
Radu Iovita
University Museum, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Katsuhiro Sano

Appendix

Details of the 105 points used in the experiment

ID	Type of projectile	Retouch type	Typology	Penetration depth (cm)	TCSA	TCSP	Total projectile weight
1	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	29	292.5	103.94	216.4
2	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	24	292.5	103.94	211.4
3	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	29	292.5	103.94	201.4
4	Arrow	Unifacial	Unifacial point	30	288	84.16	86.1
5	Arrow	Unifacial	Mousterian point	26.5	287	90.64	91.1
6	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	33.5	287	99.29	81.1
7	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	24	287	99.29	211.4
8	Arrow	Unifacial	Mousterian point	35	287	90.64	81.1
9	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	21	286	102.21	211.4
10	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	24.5	273	98.79	211.4
11	Dart	Unifacial	Unifacial point	24	273	87.01	201.4
12	Dart	Unifacial	Mousterian point	19	266.5	89.54	216.4
13	Arrow	Unifacial	Mousterian point	28	264	94.11	91.1
14	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	32	260	95.41	86.1
15	Dart	Unifacial	Mousterian point	20.5	258	92.24	221.4
16	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	20.5	255	109.56	201.4
17	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	29	255	109.56	91.1
18	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	47.5	252	96.74	81.1
19	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	30.5	246	95.01	221.4
20	Dart	Unifacial	Mousterian point	34.5	240.5	82.22	201.4
21	Arrow	Unifacial	Bifacial point	33.5	240	86.64	81.1
22	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	31	231	94.82	196.4
23	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	24.5	222	88.2	211.4
24	Arrow	Unifacial	Mousterian point	36.5	220.5	101.2	81.1
25	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	32.5	220	85.65	221.4
26	Arrow	Unifacial	Unifacial point	34	217	72.77	81.1
27	Dart	Unifacial	Mousterian point	25.5	216	79.26	211.4
28	Dart	Unifacial	Mousterian point	22	216	79.26	201.4
29	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	22	210	84.87	201.4
30	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	34	210	84.87	81.1
31	Arrow	Unifacial	Bifacial point	32.5	209	81.9	86.1
32	Arrow	Unifacial	Mousterian point	32.5	209	81.9	81.1
33	Arrow	Unifacial	Leilira	21.5	208	73.23	111.1
34	Arrow	Unifacial	Levallois point	25	203.5	80.04	76.1
35	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	23.5	198	95.07	206.4
36	Dart	Unifacial	Leilira	31.5	198	73.8	211.4
37	Dart	Unifacial	Mousterian point	29	196	67.59	196.4
38	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	33	195	87.65	91.1
39	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	24.5	192.5	82.68	211.4
40	Dart	Unifacial	Mousterian point	31.5	190	80.94	191.4
41	Arrow	Unifacial	Unifacial point	31.5	190	80.94	81.1
42	Dart	Bifacial	Leilira	19.5	187	80.99	211.4
43	Arrow	Unifacial	Unifacial point	28.5	187	74.49	91.1
44	Dart	Unifacial	Levallois point	29.8	180	77.18	201.4
45	Arrow	Bifacial	Stemmed Bifacial point	33.5	175.5	85.9	71.1
46	Arrow	Unifacial	Mousterian point	35.7	175	75.31	76.1
47	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	22	175	80.62	201.4
48	Arrow	Unretouched	Levallois point	25.3	170	73.44	76.1
49	Arrow	Unifacial	Mousterian point	41.5	166.5	78.14	91.1
50	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	30.5	162	80.49	191.4
51	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	32.5	154	92.34	76.1
52	Arrow	Unifacial	Mousterian point	44.5	152	79.23	71.1
53	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	32	148.5	75.17	81.1
54	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	39	147	88.54	71.1
55	Dart	Unifacial	Unifacial point	25.5	140	73.48	186.4
56	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	30.5	136	75.15	191.4
57	Arrow	Unifacial	Mousterian point	35	130.5	63.13	76.1
58	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	39.5	130.5	68.26	76.1
59	Dart	Bifacial	Folsom point	21	126	77.25	201.4
60	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	32	121.5	64.89	61.1
61	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	30.6	120	68	201.4
62	Dart	Unifacial	Unifacial point	28	120	55.24	196.4
63	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	32.3	120	62.48	71.1
64	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	62	117.1665		186
65	Dart	Bifacial	Folsom point	31	116	66.24	201.4
66	Dart	Unifacial	Unifacial point	32.5	112.5	91.09	196.4
67	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	31.6	108.5	68.02	81.1
68	Dart	Bifacial	Kimberley point	30.6	104	61.05	211.4
69	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	37.5	103.5	58.41	61.1
70	Arrow	Unifacial	Levallois point	25.5	101.5	61.2	71.1
71	Arrow	Bifacial	Kimberley point	45.5	100	59.36	66.1
72	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	28.6	100	59.36	76.1
73	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	32	99	70.22	196.4
74	Dart	Unifacial	Mousterian point	27.5	98	59.3	191.4
75	Dart	Bifacial	Kimberley point	22	94.5	60.82	191.4
76	Dart	Unifacial	Indian MP Tanged point	34.5	93	64.24	191.4
77	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	26	87.5	57.3	181.4
78	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	31	87	62.76	191.4
79	Dart	Unifacial	Leilira	24.5	84.5	42.06	216.4
80	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	38.8	84	55.56	71.1
81	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	37.5	84	55.56	71.1
82	Arrow	Bifacial	Notched Bifacial point	37	80.5	53.85	76.1
83	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	39.5	78	57.27	71.1
84	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	28.5	77	52.15	186.4
85	Arrow	Unifacial	Indian MP Tanged point	34	72	50.83	76.1
86	Arrow	Unretouched	Pointed blade	45	70	44.41	61.1
87	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	17.5	69	51.88	181.4
88	Arrow	Bifacial	Notched bifacial point	27.5	52.5	46.51	86.1
89	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	43	51	41.61	56.1
90	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	36	48	40	186.4
91	Arrow	Bifacial	Kimberley point	34	45	41.18	66.1
92	Arrow	Bifacial	Stemmed Bifacial point	42	40	37.73	56.1
93	Dart	Bifacial	Stemmed Bifacial point	21	36	33.94	176.4
94	Arrow	Bifacial	Notched Bifacial point	35	35	34.4	61.1
95	Dart	Bifacial	Kimberley point	22	32.5	32.8	181.4
96	Dart	Bifacial	Kimberley point	38	32.5	32.8	181.4
97	Dart	Bifacial	Bifacial point	22	30	34	176.4
98	Dart	Bifacial	Stemmed bifacial point	28	30	34	176.4
99	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	52	28	32.24	61.1
100	Dart	Bifacial	Tanged bifacial point	29.5	28	32.24	176.4
101	Arrow	Unifacial	Unifacial point	43	26	28.26	56.1
102	Arrow	Bifacial	Stemmed bifacial point	50	26	30.52	56.1
103	Arrow	Bifacial	Bifacial point	38.6	19.5	28.63	56.1
104	Dart	Unretouched	Pointed blade	31.5	19.5	27.31	186.4
105	Arrow	Unretouched	Pointed blade	33.2	19.5	27.31	71.1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clarkson, C. (2016). Testing Archaeological Approaches to Determining Past Projectile Delivery Systems Using Ethnographic and Experimental Data. In: Iovita, R., Sano, K. (eds) Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7602-8_13

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7602-8_13
Published: 29 May 2016
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-7601-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-7602-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Testing Archaeological Approaches to Determining Past Projectile Delivery Systems Using Ethnographic and Experimental Data

Abstract

Access this chapter

References

Acknowledgements

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix

Appendix

Details of the 105 points used in the experiment

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Publish with us

Search

Navigation