Backed point experiments for identifying mechanically-delivered armatures

Were tanged points mechanically delivered armatures? Functional and morphometric analyses of tanged points from an Upper Paleolithic site at Jingeuneul, Korea

“…In addition to the high frequency of DIFs, at Jingeuneul site, numerous tanged points showed multiple DIFs. Projectile experiments with backed points indicate that a complex fracture pattern is a reliable marker for the use of mechanically assisted armatures because such multiple DIFs occurred only in spear-thrower and bow experiments (Sano and Oba 2015). Furthermore, the relatively large number of spin-offs confirmed on the Jingeuneul (Thomas 1978;Shott 1997) tanged points could also be a sign of the use of spearthrowers or bows (Sano and Oba 2015).…”

“…The use-wear analysis confirmed that 20 out of the 95 analyzed tanged points from the Jingeuneul site show DIFs. Taking into account the fact that a considerable number of experimental stone tips did not leave any diagnostic impact scars (Sano and Oba 2015;Sano et al 2016); quite a large number of the Jingeuneul tanged points must have been used as hunting weapons. Even though the results do not exclude the possibility that tanged points from other Korean sites were used differently, this study demonstrates that Korean tanged points indeed functioned as hunting armatures as has been assumed morphologically (Chang 2002;Lee and Kong 2002;Seong 2008;Lee and Jang 2011).…”

“…Because numerous impact fractures were observed, the fracture patterns were analyzed based on projectile experiments (Barton and Bergman 1982;Moss and Newcomer 1982;Bergman and Newcomer 1983;Fischer et al 1984;Odell and Cowan 1986;Geneste and Plisson 1993;Sano and Oba 2015;Sano et al 2016). It is experimentally known that pseudo-impact fractures can occur throughout production and post-depositional processes (Sano 2009;Pargeter 2011;Pargeter and Bradfield 2012).…”

“…Based on a comparative study of the fracture patterns of backed points in production and post-depositional experiments (Sano 2009), we considered crushing, flute-like fractures, burin-like fractures, transverse fractures with step, hinge, and feather terminations that obviously formed after lateral retouch, bifacial spin-offs, and unifacial spin-offs larger than 6 mm to be reliable diagnostic impact fractures (DIFs). We use the morphologically labeled term Btransverse fracture^as a broadly equivalent term to Bbending fracture^because all the impact fractures excluding the spin-offs show a bending initiation (Ho Ho Classification and Nomenclature Committee 1979) and therefore Bbending fracture^is a confusing term (Sano and Oba 2015). The tip cross-sectional area (TCSA) and the tip crosssectional perimeter (TCSP) are considered to be useful proxies to distinguish dart tips from arrowheads (Hughes 1998) and have been applied to identify delivery modes of archeological hunting weaponry (Shea 2006;Shea and Sisk 2010;Sisk and Shea 2011).…”

Hunting High and Low: Gravettian Hunting Weapons from Southern Italy to the Russian Plain

“…The classification scheme for the analysis of lithic point impact fractures is based on the position of the two principal types of complementary fracture, "cone" and "bending" (convex/concave, en languette/en plume - Perpère, 2000) which are formed at the moment of impact and tend to have a complementary disposition ( fig. 3) (Fischer et al, 1984;Geneste & Plisson, 1989;Soriano, 1998;Perpère, 2000;Borgia, 2008;Duches, 2012, Sano & Oba, 2015. , a:cone/languette; b: bending/plume.…”