Focus on the target. The importance of a transparent fracture terminology for understanding projectile points and projecting modes

Coppe, Justin; Rots, Veerle

doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.010

Cited by 60 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…; Sano ), frequencies of ‘diagnostic impact fractures’(Pargeter et al . ) and descriptive attributes of impact‐related fractures (Coppe and Rots ). At present, none of these attempts has yet been translated into a commonly shared and formalized method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ballistic Study Tackles Kinetic Energy Values of Palaeolithic Weaponry

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The appearance of new projectile propulsion modes is viewed as an important element for understanding human behaviour during the Palaeolithic. Because the organic components of hunting weapons (the bow, spear-thrower and arrow, and spear shaft) are only rarely preserved archaeologically, some effort has been invested in experiments to explore how the projecting modes could be identified through the analysis of stone points. The kinetic energy developed by each mode of propulsion has been considered a key variable in these experiments. However, the data used in these studies generally come from a few ballistic studies, with varied results. We present the results of a systematic study conducted with a ballistic pendulum and combined with a classic ballistic analysis. We quantified and compared the kinetic energy developed by the four standard modes of propulsion known for the Palaeolithic. The kinetic energy values that we attained, especially those measured for thrusting spears, clearly differ from what has been assumed up to now, and thus challenge current models on the evolution of hunting technology.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ballistic Study Tackles Kinetic Energy Values of Palaeolithic Weaponry

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study of the impact fractures on the backed armatures of Paglicci did not allow any clear conclusion: a high percentage (from 30 to 40%) of fragments have fractures that can be related to impact (cone fractures on the proximal part of apical fragments or bending fracture on the distal part of proximal fragments), but these fractures can be also the result of post-depositional events and we are not able to say that 30-40% of the armatures were actually used. Impact fractures on Upper Palaeolithic armatures are, after all, a very debated question, (Rots & Plisson, 2014, Coppe & Rots, 2017. As for microwear, some polish has been detected on the materials from Paglicci; while the tools of Kostenki have not been analysed, but in both cases the conservation of the materials all together in small bags prevents us from considering any polish with confidence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Use wear analysis, also at low magnification, can be extremely important to identify recurrent traces due to the hafting or to distinguish armatures from tools used with a completely different purpose; there are, however, many criticism in the use of this methodology, mainly based on a terminology not shared by all scholars and a consequent confusion that was generated (Rots & Plisson, 2014;Coppe & Rots, 2017).…”

Section: Methodological Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Borgia

2017

Open Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The current paper aims at describing and analysing the backed tools found in two Early Gravettian sites separated geographically from each other: Grotta Paglicci (layer 23-22) in Italy, and Kostenki 8 (layer II) in Russia. A similarity between the lithic assemblages of the two sites, and other cultural aspects, has been reported by authors over many decades. The analysis of the backed tools has created the opportunity to apply the same methodological approach to verify the resemblance and potential causes for the similarity, and also to address broader considerations on Gravettian hunting strategies and the modalities and timing of the spread of new techniques, whether related to physical movement of people or assimilation of ideas. The perception is that, during the Gravettian period, shared symbolic behaviours and subsistence strategies linked people living in completely different environments with completely different resources, from the temperate regions of southern Italy, to the very cold Russian plains. This point of view cannot be questioned, but it tends to flatten an articulated palimpsest of human generations and to underestimate the very low demographic density of Prehistoric Europe.

show abstract

“…Diagnostic impact fractures (DIFs) have also been used as evidence for projectile technology, as they are traces left from high velocity impacts on the points . However, these traces, once thought to be specific to projectile use, have recently been questioned by a number of authors who suggest that they can be the result of the manufacturing process and not just projectile impacts .…”

Section: Lithic Techniques For Identifying Projectilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Diagnostic impact fractures (DIFs) have also been used as evidence for projectile technology, as they are traces left from high velocity impacts on the points. 21,[29][30][31][32] However, these traces, once thought to be specific to projectile use, have recently been questioned by a number of authors who suggest that they can be the result of the manufacturing process and not just projectile impacts. 21,33 The Middle Paleolithic site of Oscurusciuto (southern Italy) had six DIFs present on Middle Palaeolithic points, which the authors presented along with TSCA/TSCP values to show that Neanderthals at the site had the ability to use stone-tipped spears to hunt and kill large animals.…”

Section: T Hi C Tec Hn I Qu Es For I D En Ti F Yi N G P Roj E Ctmentioning

confidence: 99%

The origins and early elaboration of projectile technology

O’Driscoll

Thompson

2018

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of Homo sapiens to kill prey at a distance is arguably one of the catalysts for our current ecological dominance. Many researchers have suggested its origins lie in the African Middle Stone Age or the European Middle Palaeolithic (∼300-30 thousand years ago), but the perishable components of armatures rarely preserve. Most research on this subject therefore emphasises analysis of armature tip size, shape, and diagnostic impacts or residues. Other lines of evidence have included human skeletal anatomy or analyses of the species composition of faunal assemblages. Projectile Impact Marks (PIMs) on archaeofaunal remains offer an ideal complement to this work, but their potential has been restricted mainly to the later Eurasian zooarchaeological record. A review of current evidence and approaches shows that systematic PIM research could add much to our understanding of early projectile technology, especially in Africa.

show abstract

Focus on the target. The importance of a transparent fracture terminology for understanding projectile points and projecting modes

Cited by 60 publications

References 38 publications

Ballistic Study Tackles Kinetic Energy Values of Palaeolithic Weaponry

Ballistic Study Tackles Kinetic Energy Values of Palaeolithic Weaponry

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

The origins and early elaboration of projectile technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About