Identifying Weapon Delivery Systems Using Macrofracture Analysis and Fracture Propagation Velocity: A Controlled Experiment (original) (raw)
Related papers
TCSA and TCSP are often considered valuable measures of projectile performance, particularly in terms of penetration and overall design. Proponents of this view have also argued that TCSA/TCSP may also be useful for identifying the origins and spread of more complex projectile technologies such as the spear thrower and bow. The strength of these arguments will be tested against ethnographic data and new experiments. The results suggest that TCSA/TCSP statistics are not robust measures of projectile performance, or reliable proxies for inferring delivery systems. An alternative approach is developed using experimental data that compares impact fracture size for three different diagnostic impact fracture types. This approach, while found to be valuable, also presents problems for archaeological identification of projectile technologies. Abstract TCSA and TCSP are often considered valuable
Journal of Archaeological Science, 2013
Identifying the use of stone-tipped projectile weapons in prehistory is important for understanding hominin strategic behavior and cognitive capacities. Such identifications are based on 'diagnostic impact fractures' (DIFs), assumed to form as a result of collisions between the tips and organic materials in the prey body. However, demonstrating weapon use requires documenting an impact speed and/or kinetic energy beyond those likely to occur accidentally or as a by-product of other tasks. We present a new experiment aimed at investigating the influence of speed on impact fracture formation in controlled conditions. Using an air-gun, we fired 234 nearly identical spears tipped with copies of a Levallois point cast in soda-lime glass into a composite target made of polyurethane bone-like plates, ballistic gelatin, and leather. The impact speed ranged from ≈7 to ≈30 m/s and the impact angle (IA) varied in increments of 15o, from 90o-45o. We show that realistic DIFs can be produced under these controlled conditions. The frequency of longitudinal tip macrofractures is directly proportional to the impact speed but inversely proportional to the IA. The relationship between the tip fracture type and the type of damage left on the target explains the contact conditions for the formation of different DIFs. No relationship between either initiation or termination type and speed could be established. Therefore, we conclude that 'step-terminating bending fractures' should not be considered diagnostic of weapon use without further supporting evidence. Further, although fracture length increases with speed when IA is held constant, a great deal of overlap exists between trials with different IAs. Given the expected high variance in IA in real hunting situations, large longitudinal macrofractures on the tips of archaeologically recovered lithics should not automatically be interpreted as resulting from the use of high-speed projectiles. We discuss the study's implications for the differentiation of prehistoric weapon-delivery systems, especially regarding recognizing stone- tipped weapon use by Neandertals.
Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology, 2020
Recent zooarchaeological and isotope analyses have largely settled the debate surrounding Neanderthal hunting capacities, repeatedly demonstrating their successful acquisition of large ungulates. Nevertheless, the functional identification of individual tools as hunting weapons remains a methodological challenge. In-depth studies have focussed mainly on small subsets of lithic artefacts from selected assemblages assessing features of breakage patterns, retouch, shape and use wear. Studies focussing on associated hunting lesions are rarer and often focus on reconstructing very specific bone surface marks encountered in the archaeological record. This study aims to add to our understanding of the formation and characteristics of projectile impact marks (PIMs) on bone through a series of highly monitored, replicative experiments, using thrusting and throwing spears with replica Levallois points into two wild pig carcasses. In total, 152 shots were made, and for each a series of attributes was recorded, including velocity and location of impact. Subsequent quantitative analyses focussed on understanding the various factors underlying the formation of different types of projectile impact marks. These experiments demonstrate that PIM formation results from the properties of both the impacting projectile and bone element. PIMs can signal impacts caused by different delivery methods but only on some parts of the skeleton. These results are contextualised in relation to the occurrence and recognition of Palaeolithic PIMs and patterns of Neanderthal behaviour. These experiments are only a first step in improving the recognition of these signatures in the archaeological record and providing better insights into understanding of the mechanisms of Neanderthal hunting.
An introduction to the experimental study of prehistoric projectile points
Recreating artefacts and ancient skills: from experiment to interpretation, 2022
The experimental study of prehistoric projectile points has been an active field of research over the last forty years. This contribution is an introduction to the discipline and presents an overview of its main issues, methods and results. Experimental protocols are routinely designed to address a particular archaeological question. This normally involves the reconstitution of a prehistoric delivery system, which can be done either in "replicative" or "controlled" conditions, both approaches presenting advantages and drawbacks. The main goals of projectile experiments are fourfold: determining whether certain artefacts are projectile weapons based on the identification of diagnostic traces of projectile impact; reconstructing their hafting arrangement, identifying the propulsion system, with a special emphasis on the appearance of the spear-thrower and bow; and assessing the performance of different types of weapon tips in terms of efficiency, solidity and maintenance. Future projectile research should include increased feedback between "replicative" and "controlled" experiments and more frequent meta-analyses, both of which require more standardised data collection and publication.
New light oN Palaeolithic, Mesolithic aNd Neolithic Projectile weaPoN
2000
Stone or bone, transverse heads or points, barbs, foreshafts, harpoon heads... Projectile weapon elements are found in many forms in prehistoric sites, at least from the beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic. These artefacts first attract archaeologists with their great numbers, often dominating proportions in tool assemblages, but they are also interesting due to their clearly dynamic role in prehistoric material