Distinguishing Between Darts and Arrows in the Archaeological Record: Implications for Technological Change in the American West

Abstract

We propose a new method for differentiating archaeological atlatl darts from arrow points. Our dart-arrow index accurately distinguishes known (hafted) archaeological examples of darts and arrows. We find that ethnographic collections of hafted arrows used by previous researchers are problematic, and should not be used as control samples for differentiating darts from arrows. We use the dart-arrow index to reassess the projectile points described by Ames et al. (2010). The analysis shows that Hatwai Eared (4400–2800 B.P.) and Cascade (8500–4500 B.P.) points were darts, not arrows as Ames et al. argue, and that a major revision of the history of bow-and-arrow technology in western North America is unnecessary.

Effects of the Bow on Social Organization in Western North America

“…The advent of this revolutionary technology generated different responses in western North America depending on subsistence and sociopolitical organization at the time of its arrival, roughly 2300 -1300 B.P. 1 Its effect was substantial in California and the Great Basin, particularly on group size, which in many places diminished as a consequence of the bow's reliability. The counter-intuitive result was to increase within grouprelatedness enough to encourage intensification of plant resources, previously considered too costly.…”

“… The bow more than doubled, likely tripled, the success of individuals bent on killing animal or human targets (Box ). The advent of this revolutionary technology generated different responses in western North America depending on subsistence and sociopolitical organization at the time of its arrival, roughly 2300 ‐ 1300 B.P . Its effect was substantial in California and the Great Basin, particularly on group size, which in many places diminished as a consequence of the bow's reliability.…”

First results of the hunter-gatherer weapon system studies in the middle basin of the Salado creek (Pampas Region, Argentina)

“…This author states an equation with one variable (the width of the points) that can discriminate between darts and arrows in a given sample (Shott 1997). Many different techniques exist for estimating these proportions in a lithic assemblage (e.g., Hildebrandt & King 2012;Hughes 1998). We use the Shott´s proposal (1997) because this is one of most accepted methods for discriminating between different projectile propulsion systems (Okumura & Araujo 2015: 2364.…”

The introduction of the bow and arrow in the Argentine Andes (29–34º S): A preliminary metric approximation

“…There is a long history of research on quantitative methods for distinguishing darts and arrows (e.g., Bradbury 1997;Fenenga 1953;Hildebrandt & King 2012;Shott 1997;Thomas 1978). So far, there is not a consensus on which variables or method is best; the appropriate index and variables seem to vary by region.…”

“…There has been sustained interest in methods for distinguishing arrow and dart projectile points in North America (e.g., Ames et al 2010;Bradbury 1997;Erlandson et al 2014;Fenenga 1953;Hildebrandt & King 2012;Rorabaugh & Fulkerson 2015;Shott 1997;Thomas 1978;Walde 2014) and more recently in South America (De Souza 2011;Oliszewski et al 2018;Ratto 2003;Tomka 2013). Smaller arrows were most likely used with bows while darts were used with throwing spears or atlatls, so distinguishing point types can shed light on the weapon systems people designed and used.…”