Breakage Patterns on Fishtail Projectile Points: Experimental and Archaeological Cases

Abstract

Fishtail projectile points, also known as Fell 1, are dated between 11,000 and 9,500 14C yr B.P. in South and Central America and have been traditionally considered diagnostic of the early peopling of the continent. In this paper, experimental observations of impact breakage patterns on fishtail projectile point replicas are compared with archaeological points from the Cerro El Sombrero Cima site, in the Argentinian pampas, which exhibit a high breakage ratio and suggest that impact was a major cause of breakage in the assemblage. The position of these fractures is also briefly compared to patterns described by J. Bird (1969) for fishtail projectile points from Ecuador and Southern Chile.

The Technological Diversity of Lithic Industries in Eastern South America during the Late Pleistocene-Holocene Transition

“…Blade technology is also observable in some of these sites, even though the cores are not found. The Technological Diversity of Lithic Industries in Eastern South America during the Late… DOI: http://dx.doi.org /10.5772/intechopen.89154 The Fell point was initially defined only by its shape, but recent studies have been defining it based on more accurate technological aspects [81][82][83][84][85][86]. The Fell points are defined by the bifacial thinning reduction method by percussion technique followed by the fluting technique-the removal of a long flake from the base-and finished by retouch in order to form convex edges in the body and the typical "fish tail" shape of the stem that is usually ca.…”

Proyectiles Y Procesos De Intensificación: Una Aproximación Desde Boyo Paso 2, Ca. 1500-750 Ap (Sierras De Córdoba, Argentina)

“…También se empleó información de piezas que presentaban fracturas de importancia, pero solo de aquellos atributos no afectados por las mismas. En estas últimas, las fracturas se describieron de acuerdo con Weitzel et al (2014), intentando obtener información sobre las causas probables de rotura de los instrumentos.…”

“…En términos generales, se corresponden con un grupo tipológico que formó parte de un artefacto compuesto (arco y flecha, propulsor, entre otros) que sirve para la defensa y el ataque, provocando la muerte de una presa animal o de una persona a causa de una hemorragia masiva (Christenson 1997;Hughes 1998;Loendorf et al 2015). En las últimas décadas su estudio ha recibido un creciente interés, destacándose en Argentina los análisis dirigidos a determinar la funcionalidad de las puntas de proyectil, sus procesos de manufactura y reactivación, diseño y relación con las condiciones en las que operaban (Aschero y Martínez 2001;Banegas et al 2014;Castro 2017;Escola 1991Escola , 2002Escola , 2014Hocsman 2010;Martínez y Bozzuto 2011;Moreno 2011;Ratto 1989Ratto , 2013Restifo 2013;Sacur Silvestre et al 2013;Vigna et al 2014;Weitzel et al 2014).…”

Theoretical and Epistemological Thoughts on Archaeology and Experimental Lithic Technology

“…At that time, national archeology was mostly governed by the cultural history (sensu Dunnell, 1978) approach, and lithic artifacts were dealt with using strong descriptive, intuitionist, and sophistic views (Nami, 1988b(Nami, , 1991a(Nami, , 1991b. However, despite the attacks and destructive resistance from the more conservative and reactionary members of the archaeological establishment, fortunately, EA and ELT is now seen as a normal activity in archaeological research (Nami, 2001(Nami, /2002Sario & Pautassi, 2012;Weitzel et al, 2014;De Angelis et al, 2018; among many others). Since that time, a lot of water has passed under the bridge, and many diverse visions have been incorporated and/or discussed by archaeologists' worldwide (e.g., Moro Abadía, 2007), and particularly in Latin America (e.g., Politis, 1992).…”