Projectile impact fractures and launching mechanisms: results of a controlled ballistic experiment using replica Levallois points

Identifying design and reduction effects on lithic projectile point shapes

“…However, recent controlled experiments have identified fracture type and size as a function of velocity and impact angle release (Iovita et al, 2013), as well as a relationship between "loading rate" of the impact event (estimated from the velocity of the fracture according to microscopic ripple marks on the fracture surface) and velocity launching (Hutchings, 2011). Both detailed studies have shown that high-speed projectile points (arrows and darts) can be distinguished from low-speed ones (hand-throwing and thrusting spears), although no difference between arrows and darts is evident based on both macroscopic and microscopic damage patterns (Hutchings, 2011;Iovita et al, 2013). Nevertheless, what is clear is that longitudinal macrofractures M A N U S C R I P T…”

Flaked-stone projectile point serration: A controlled experimental study of blade margin design

“…Furthermore, with the exception of studies that attempted to replicate prehistoric technology, few carefully controlled experiments were conducted using stone projectile points. However, archeologists are now increasingly employing controlled experiments to test stone point performance (Bergman and Newcomer, 1983;Cheshier and Kelly, 2006;Fauvelle et al, 2012;Frison, 1989;Hunzicker, 2008;Iovita et al, 2014;Lipo et al, 2012;Loendorf et al, in press;Shea et al 2001Shea et al , 2002Sisk and Shea, 2009;Tomka, 2013;Waguespack et al, 2009;Wilkins et al, 2014). Previous researchers have also largely employed typological approaches to study variation, and distinctive characteristics such as serration of the blade margin are commonly allowed to cross-cut categories in classification systems.…”

Test, Model, and Method Validation: The Role of Experimental Stone Artifact Replication in Hypothesis-driven Archaeology

“…The investigation of natural versus functional lithic fracture patterns, taphonomy, and use-wear studies has traditionally made use of "crash dummies"-replicates that are subjected to various processes such as butchering, projectile-shooting, and trampling and then compared to archaeological specimens (Andrefsky 2013;Bello, Parfitt, and Stringer 2009;Claud et al 2015;Driscoll et al 2015;Eren et al 2010aEren et al , 2011aIovita et al 2014;Jennings 2011;de Juana, Galán, and Domínguez-Rodrigo 2010;Key 2013;Lemorini et al 2014;Lombard and Pargeter 2008;MacDonald 2014;Miller 2015;Pargeter and Bradfield 2012;Pevny 2012;Price 2012;Smallwood 2013;Tallavaara et al 2010;Temple and Lee Sappington 2013;Weitzel et al 2014aWeitzel et al , 2014b. Heat treatment or damage has also been examined through stone-tool replication as model (Brown et al 2009;Schmidt et al 2013), although there are also examples of heat-treatment studies conducted through replication as test, in which researchers were more concerned with understanding the general process and parameters of the effect of heat on stone (Mercieca and Hiscock 2008;Schmidt et al 2012Schmidt et al , 2013.…”