Quartz backed tools as arrowheads and hand-cast spearheads: Hunting experiments and macro-fracture analysis

Pargeter, Justin; Shea, J.J.; Utting, Benjamin

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2016.08.001

Cited by 35 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…, ; Clarkson ; Pargeter et al . ; Sano ), potentially permitting the recognition of different modes of propulsion in an archaeological context, is understandably attractive. To explore this hypothesis, experimental studies with mechanical devices are important for assessing the relationship between the amount of energy developed by each weapon system and the characteristics, frequency and size of the impact fractures formed on stone points.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, ; Sano and Oba , ; Clarkson ; Pargeter et al . ). In this context, it has been examined whether certain projecting modes such as the bow and arrow or the spear‐thrower are exclusively associated with modern humans (Shea and Sisk ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Researchers have proposed methods relying on point morphology (Hughes ; Sisk and Shea ), Wallner lines (Hutchings ), impact fracture size (Clarkson ; Pargeter et al . ; Sano ), frequencies of ‘diagnostic impact fractures’(Pargeter et al . ) and descriptive attributes of impact‐related fractures (Coppe and Rots ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; 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%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ballistic Study Tackles Kinetic Energy Values of Palaeolithic Weaponry

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…small backed tools) (e.g. Pargeter et al 2016;Brown et al 2012;Lombard and Phillipson 2010). Might this spread be linked to lithic miniaturization in general?…”

Section: Could the Crystal Quartz Cores Have Been The Accidental By-pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lithic miniaturization in Late Pleistocene southern Africa

Pargeter

2016

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

versus accidental small tool production. This can be achieved by showing purposeful raw material selection for small core production, systematic technological intent to miniaturize production, and by conduction use-trace analyses on the resulting flakes. A fourth factor involves the use of middle range theoretical models derived from experimental and/or ethnographic research to demonstrate the use of small tools and cores. These middle range models guide discussions about why humans choose to miniaturize lithic production.Lithic miniaturization is a truly global phenomenon increasing during the Late Pleistocene in many regions of the Old World from Africa to East Asia (Elston and Kuhn 2002). By the Holocene, small stone tools were regular components of hunter-gatherer toolkits in Australia, Northern Asia and North America. Because lithic miniaturization (also sometimes called "microlithization") proliferated during the Late Pleistocene and the Later Stone Age (LSA), archaeologists associate it with "modern human behavior" (e.g. McBrearty and Brooks, 2000).However, lithic miniaturization is no more consistent a feature of Late Pleistocene assemblages than pointed bone production, rock art or engraved ochre. Lithic miniaturization was one of our Pleistocene ancestor"s many strategic options for making stone tools. Lithic miniaturization remains one of the most economically consequential developments inPleistocene lithic technology (Hiscock 2015b). Small tool technologies enabled humans to extract usable cutting edges from raw materials more effectively and efficiently and to do so on a wide range of rock types (Bamforth and Bleed 1997). Humans used multiple technological strategies for lithic miniaturization in various parts of the world, ranging from specialized pressure-based techniques to simpler bipolar techniques (Elston and Brantingham 2002; Desrosiers 2012; de la Peña 2015a). These strategies provided a range of flexible technological solutions to the problems posed by migration and diffusion into new territories (e.g. North America) and to the maintenance of these territories once established (e.g. East Africa) (Madsen

show abstract

Did Pleistocene Africans use the spearthrower‐and‐dart?

Lombard

Shea

2021

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Archeologists commonly suppose that among complex projectile weapons humans use as subsistence aids, the spearthrower‐and‐dart preceded bow‐and‐arrow use. And yet, neither ethnographic nor archeological records furnish any robust evidence for spearthrower‐and‐dart use in Africa. Instead, evidence grows apace for ever‐more ancient bow‐and‐arrow use. Here we explore these findings and their implications for models of early Homo sapiens behavior.

show abstract

Quartz backed tools as arrowheads and hand-cast spearheads: Hunting experiments and macro-fracture analysis

Cited by 35 publications

References 40 publications

Ballistic Study Tackles Kinetic Energy Values of Palaeolithic Weaponry

Ballistic Study Tackles Kinetic Energy Values of Palaeolithic Weaponry

Lithic miniaturization in Late Pleistocene southern Africa

Did Pleistocene Africans use the spearthrower‐and‐dart?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About