On the efficacy of Clovis fluted points for hunting proboscideans

Changes in projectile design and size of prey reveal the central role of Fishtail points in megafauna hunting in South America

“…The latter weapon system is usually associated with hunting larger prey 65 and would have been appropriate in regions where megafauna was more abundant and diverse. Although it has been proposed that Paleoindian projectile points could have been knives 12 , 66 , experimental studies of fracture show that Fishtail points were mainly used as projectiles 62 . Moreover, the fact that the primary function of a type of point is a projectile does not imply that it could not also have been used as a knife 67 .…”

Static penetration assessment of stone weapon tip geometry metrics and comparison of static and dynamic penetration depths

“…The hafted projectile specimens were fired into blocks of moist potter's clay containing crystalline silica, which has been used as a substitute for meat and tissue in other studies (Caranta & Legrain, 1993; Key & Lycett, 2017; Key et al, 2018; McGorry, 2001; McGorry et al, 2004). When clay differs from meat, current evidence suggests it is less resistant, meaning that it can serve as a useful maximum threshold for penetration (Eren et al, 2021, p. 8; Eren, Meltzer, et al, 2022, pp. 4–5; see also Key et al, 2018; Mullen, 2021).…”

“…Attack strategy presumably played a role as well: single person or group; ambush, intercept, persistence, or tracking; and so on (e.g., Hitchcock et al, 2019; Liebenberg, 2006; Lombard & Churchill, 2022). The type of weapon system in use—whether it be thrown spears, the dart and atlatl, or bow and arrow—would have also impacted penetration efficacy (e.g., Clarkson, 2016; Coppe et al, 2019, 2022; Eren et al, 2021; Iovita et al, 2014, Iovita & Sano, 2016; Lombard, 2022; Lombard & Shea, 2021). Variations within a weapon system, such as projectile weight, use of poison, type of wood used for shafts, or lashings, would have affected the penetration of a launched projectile into a target, or even whether a projectile needed to penetrate a target as opposed to merely grazing it (e.g., Bergman et al, 1988; Bradfield et al, 2015; Cheshier & Kelly, 2006; Eren, Mukusha, et al, 2022; Milks, 2022; Osborn, 2016; see also Lombard, 2020).…”

On the (non)scalability of target media used in controlled archaeological projectile experiments

“…Last, in the experiment by Key et al (2018), stone points ground to shape on lapidary equipment and shot at a consistent velocity were found to penetrate similarly in clay and store-bought meat, while eld points penetrated better in clay than in meat. Similar experiments in clay have since been used to argue that atlatl darts were relatively ine cient for penetrating Pleistocene megafauna (Eren et al 2021), although the kinetic energy of the experimental projectiles in the latter study was much lower than can be achieved with an atlatl and much lower than is recommended for hunting animals as large as Pleistocene megafauna (Pettigrew 2021:117-121), an important point in considering these arguments.…”

“…Such a conclusion overlooks the greater importance of sharper tips and edges, variable kinetic energy and momentum within weapon technologies, and the general purpose of a cutting armature, to incise a su ciently large opening through skin and a su ciently large wound through vitals (Friis-Hansen 1990; Pettigrew 2021; Wood and Fitzhugh 2018). All of these homogenous targets tend to underestimate the penetration of darts and arrows with cutting tips through bodies, making their inclusion in an assessment of the penetrating abilities of darts for hunting megafauna(Eren et al 2021:Table 2) problematic.…”