Making a point: wood--versus stone-tipped projectiles.

Making a point: wood--versus stone-tipped projectiles. Introduction Wendell Oswalt's classic cross-cultural analysis of foragertechnology Habitat and technology: the evolution of hunting begins withthe following dedication: 'To the maker of man--THE STICK'(1973). Recognising the importance of simple implements to the humantechnological repertoire, Oswalt suggests that that the pointed wooden"missile stick" (1973: 176) provided the foundation forfurther elaboration into multi-component (i.e. tipped) hunting weapons.Modified wooden staves from Lehringen (Movius 1950; Thieme 1997),Clacton-on-Sea (Oakley et al. 1977) and Schoningen 13 (Thieme 1999) datefrom "~500 000-125 000 BP and are interpreted to have been used asthrusting spears. These wooden implements, and their association withlarge-bodied faunal remains, provide some evidence that the simplemodified 'stick' was utilised early in human prehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to as ahunting implement. While alternative functional explanations are alsoplausible (e.g. Gamble 1986), it has been argued, based on lithic lith��ic?1?adj.Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.Adj. 1. lithic - of or containing lithium2. lithic - relating to or composed of stone; "lithic sandstone" pointperformance and dimensional analysis dimensional analysisTechnique used in the physical sciences and engineering to reduce physical properties such as acceleration, viscosity, energy, and others to their fundamental dimensions of length, mass, and time. (Shea et al. 2001; Shea 2006), thathafted projectiles were not in use until c. 40 000 BP. Analyses of wearand breakage patterns resulting from hafting Hafting is a process by which an artifact, often bone, metal, or stone, is attached to a handle or strap. This makes the artifact more useful by allowing it to be fired (as in the case of an arrowhead), thrown (as a spear), or leveraged more effectively (as an axe or adze). and use have identified theuse of stonetipped spears from the Levantine Le��vant?1?The countries bordering on the eastern Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Egypt.Le Mousterian (Shea 1988;Borda et al. 1999), Crimean Middle Paleolithic Noun 1. Middle Paleolithic - the time period of Neanderthal man; ended about 35,000 years BCPalaeolithic, Paleolithic, Paleolithic Age - second part of the Stone Age beginning about 750,00 to 500,000 years BC and lasting until the end of the last ice age about (Hardy et al. 2001) andfrom the Middle Stone Age of South Africa South Africa,Afrikaans Suid-Afrika, officially Republic of South Africa, republic (2005 est. pop. 44,344,000), 471,442 sq mi (1,221,037 sq km), S Africa. (Donahue et al. 2002).Further, upper limb In human anatomy, the upper limb (also upper extremity) refers to what in common English is known as the arm, that is, the region of the shoulder to the fingertips. It includes the entire limb, and thus, is not synonymous with the term upper arm. asymmetry in Neandertal and Early Modern Humanssuggest that thrusting spears, as opposed to propelled weapons (Schmittet al. 2003), were predominately in use throughout the Middle and UpperPalaeolithic of Europe. These studies documenta shift from simplethrusting spears to multi-component propelled weaponry, However, twodistinct issues are relevant to this technological change: the shiftfrom thrusting to propelled weapons (either by hand or with the aid ofspear-throwers), and the shift from modified wooden staves to haftedpoints of stone, bone and ivory. The latter issue is our primaryconcern. The near global ubiquity of stone projectile projectilesomething thrown forward.projectile syringesee blow dart.projectile vomitingforceful vomiting, usually without preceding retching, in which the vomitus is thrown well forward. points in thearchaeological record The archaeological record is a term used in archaeology to denote all archaeological evidence, including the physical remains of past human activities which archaeologists seek out and record in an attempt to analyze and reconstruct the past. indicates that once developed/adopted, thetechnology endured. Few artefacts have the unique distributivecharacteristics of simultaneously being both relatively common in therecord, yet spatio-temporally distinct in morphology particularly in theAmericas. These features, of being both familiar and diverse, haveprovided the ideal medium for utilising artefacts as chronological andgeographic indicators. While these features may seem obvious, thearguably obsessive attention stone projectile points have received hasnot elucidated the reasons for their use. Numerous 'commonknowledge' explanations appear to be generally accepted regardingthe superiority of stone, and to a lesser extent, osseous osseous/os��se��ous/ (os��e-us) of the nature or quality of bone; bony. os��se��ousadj.Composed of, containing, or resembling bone; bony. point tipsrelative to sharpened staves (e.g. Guthrie 1983; Arndt & Newcomer1986). Assumptions concerning performance (e.g. durability of the tip),lethality (e.g. length of cutting edge, depth of penetration) andaerodynamics aerodynamics,study of gases in motion. As the principal application of aerodynamics is the design of aircraft, air is the gas with which the science is most concerned. (e.g. weight distribution, flight paths) abound.Unfortunately, few of these assumptions have been verifiedexperimentally. While stone has potential functional benefits, it also has costs.Experiments designed to test various functional (Bergman & Newcomer1983; Shea 1993), manufacturing (Odell & Cowan 1986; Broglio et al.1993) and morphological characteristics (Flenniken 1985; Titmus &Woods 1986; Shea et al. 2001; Cheshier & Kelly 2006) of stoneprojectile points converge upon one common conclusion; stone pointsbreak in use and break frequendy. While damage type and frequency arevariable between studies, it appears consistent that few stoneprojectile points remain in useable condition after multiple uses (Shea1993). For example, Odell & Cowan (1986: 207) found that in a sampleof 20 bifacially worked spearheads, they could be used on average threetimes before suffering catastrophic breakage, and averaged only 2.05shots for bifacial arrowheads. In a sample of replicated Levalloispoints 59 per cent exhibited damage after simulated use as a thrustingspear with 20 per cent irrevocably broken after a single use (Shea etal. 2001: 811). Of 50 projectile points Cheshier & Kelly (2006: 357)fired at a deer carcass, 42 per cent broke during their first use. Reworking/resharpening of broken edges can be accomplished withminimal effort but catastrophic break_s and point loss can be costly.While none of this is surprising, it is rather astonishing that solittle archaeological attention has been paid to identifying thebenefits of hafted stone points over sharpened wood tips considering howfrequendy stone projectiles break during use. While woodworking alsorequires time and effort, the additional costs associated with lithicraw material procurement, knapping, hafting and maintenance of stonepoints are costs that are presumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. offset by functional or otherbenefits. But what are these benefits--exactly? The ethnographic record of wooden projectile points Pointed wooden spears (Oakley et al. 1977) and arrows (Mason 1893;Ellis 1997) are well documented ethnographically. Their use by foragingpopulations from throughout the world suggests that common knowledgeexplanations of projectile point superiority over wooden tips cannot beassumed in all hunting contexts. In fact the abundance of wood onlyhunting implements in the ethnographic record suggests that theirprehistoric paucity is largely a function of preservation as opposed totechnological and/or economic reasons. Apache (New Mexico New Mexico,state in the SW United States. At its northwestern corner are the so-called Four Corners, where Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah meet at right angles; New Mexico is also bordered by Oklahoma (NE), Texas (E, S), and Mexico (S). ) "More commonly however, no flint is used;the wooden tip of the arrow is simply sharpened and fire hardened"(Opler 1996: 389). Yuma (Arizona) "Other arrows lacked stone points, the endmerely sharpened and hardened in some fashion ... "(Spier 1978:134). Winnebago (Wisconsin) "There were five types of arrows ... Thefirst two and the last were made entirely of wood, generally hickory thelast being merely a pointed stick" (Radin 1990: 62). Siriono (Bolivia) 'Athough arrows, like bows, vary in size,only two general types are made: one, called uba, with a chonta headcontaining a lashed barb barb-,a combining form used to indicate derivatives of barbituric acid.Barb1. originally a distinct line of black Australian kelpies, but now the term is generally applied to any black kelpie.2. ; the other called takwa, with a lanceolate LanceolateNarrow, leaf shape that is longer than it is wide, and pointed at the end.Mentioned in: Echinacea bamboo head but no barbs ... the bamboo-headed arrow is reserved forkilling the larger game on the ground" (Holmberg 1969: 30). Cahuilla (California) Arrows were made of cane, sagebrush, andarrowweed, and tipped with stone or wooden points of various sizes andshapes ... "(Bean 1972: 65). Mbuti (Democratic Republic of the Congo) 'It has been arguedthat the Mbuti hunt is dependent upon metal arrow-points, spear blades,and knife blades. It is not. We shall see that the Mbuti frequentlyprefer to use the poisoned arrows that have only a fire-hardened tip ...Old Mbuti assert that fire-hardened spears are effective even againstthe largest game." (Turnbull 1965: 36). Ute (Utah & Colorado) '... spears were made of wood, witha greasewoodpoint 6 to 8 inches long ... Bird arrows were made with asharpened end and ordinarily no point ... "(Smith 1974:110-11). Andaman Islanders (Andaman Islands An��da��man Islands?A group of islands in the eastern part of the Bay of Bengal south of Myanmar (Burma). They are separated from the Malay Peninsula by the Andaman Sea, ) A simple form of arrow is madein both the Great Andaman Great Andaman is the main archipelago of the Andaman Islands of India. It comprises five major islands. From north to south, these are North Andaman, Middle Andaman, South Andaman, Baratang and Rutland Island. and the Little Andaman Little Andaman is the fourth largest of the Andaman Islands with an area of 739 km2, lying at the southern end of the archipelago. It is home to the Onge tribe and has been a tribal reserve since 1957. consisting of a bambooshaft with a pointed wooden head, the point being hardened in thefire' (Radcliffe-Brown 1964: 436). Yuqui (Bolivia) "The Yuqui bow and upper shaft of the arrowsare made from black palm ... an extremely hard, dense wood that also hasgreat tensile strength tensile strengthRatio of the maximum load a material can support without fracture when being stretched to the original area of a cross section of the material. When stresses less than the tensile strength are removed, a material completely or partially returns to its , making it ideal not only for the arrow shaft andpoint, but also for the bow ... " (Stearman 1989: 42). We performed a brief survey of the ethnographic record to examinethe relative frequency of the use of wood versus other materials in themanufacture of projectile points. Our sample includes 59 groups,primarily hunter-gatherers, from Africa, Australia, Asia and theAmericas. For each group, we recorded the presence or absence of the useof metal, stone, wood, bone/antler, bamboo and hoof/horn in themanufacture of projectile points. We only included weapons used inhunting or warfare and excluded toys and items used exclusively inritual. A summary of these data is presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Briefly, wood is the single most frequently used material for themanufacture of projectile points, having been used by 64.4 per cent ofthe groups in our sample. Stone and metal projectile points are alsovery common and were used by 55.9 per cent and 45.8 per cent of huntersin our sample, respectively (Figure 1). Because metal projectile pointsreplaced stone in many parts of the world, it seemed prudent to examinethe relative frequency of the use of stone and/or metal. When these tworaw materials are combined, they are present in 83 per cent of thegroups in our sample. Therefore, projectiles tipped with stone or metalare slightly more common than those of wood ethnographically. Osseousmaterials (e.g. bone and antler) are also fairly common, occurring in42.37 per cent of groups, while bamboo and keratinous keratinous/ke��rat��in��ous/ pertaining to or containing keratin. ke��rat��i��nousadj.1. Relating to or resembling keratin.2. Horny.keratinouscontaining or of the nature of keratin. materials(hoof/horn) were relatively rare, having been used by only 6.7 per centand 5.1 per cent of groups in our sample, respectively. The simplefinding that wooden projectile tips are used by approximately two-thirdsof subsistence hunters would suggest that wood makes a perfectlyeffective weapon. It should be noted that there are numerous examples ofhunter-gatherers who prefer the use of metal- or stone-tipped weaponsfor the hunting of large game, and reserve wood-tipped weapons for smallmammals and birds, particularly in North America North America,third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. and Africa (Ellis1997). Although this could suggest that the benefits of stone arrowheadsonly outweigh their extra costs when used in the acquisition of largeprey, there are numerous hunter-gatherers, such as the Mohave (Stewart1947: 263-4), Mardudjara (Tonkinson 1978: 32), Bindibu (Thomson 1975:106), Ache (Clastres 1972: 146) and Yagua (Fejos 1943: 50) who use onlywooden projectile points and use them in the hunting of both large- andsmallbodied animals. There are also examples of the use of wooden-tippedweapons in warfare (e.g. Griffin 1997: 278). In sum, the ethnographicrecord of hunter-gatherers indicates that wooden-tipped arrows arecommonly used and are perfectly effective for a wide variety of prey. Ata minimum, these findings question the common assumption that haftedprojectile points of materials other than wood necessarily have superiorfunctional attributes. It seems that whatever benefits hafted stone,bone and metal points provide, wooden weapon tips are sufficient forhunting multiple types of prey in a diverse array of environmental andcultural contexts. Methods In order to establish the efficacy of wooden-tipped projectiles,two simple experiments were conducted. Importantly, our experiments weredesigned to establish penetration depths and accuracy of wooden- andstone-tipped arrows when fired under controlled conditions. Theexperimental arrows consisted of six with wooden tips and six withhafted stone projectile points. Woodotipped arrows consisted ofsharpened cedar target arrow blanks averaging 82.5cm in length andweighing an average of 22.7g (Table 2, Figure 2). Six sidenotchedprojectile points were hafted to cedar arrows (Table 2, Figure 2).Manufactured by expert flintknapper Allen Denoyer, the six chert chert:see flint. projectile points were consistent in length, width and thickness withfinished arrows averaging 84.3cm in length. Arrows were fired from aremotely triggered compound bow A compound bow is a modern bow that uses a levering system of cables and usually cams and pulleys to draw the limbs back.The limbs of a compound bow are usually much stiffer than those of a recurve bow or longbow. (Figure 3), maintaining a 60lbs drawweight. The draw weight is within the range of native bows used in NorthAmerica (Hamilton 1982). For the penetration experiments, we used a ballistics gel target1.1m distant from the arrow tip. The target, ballistic gel molded in theshape of a human torso, was used to simulate body tissue and was drapedwith caribou Caribou, town, United StatesCaribou(kâr`ĭb), town (1990 pop. 9,415), Aroostook co., NE Maine, on the Aroostook River; inc. 1859. hide for half of the shots to more accurately simulateanimal prey (Figure 4). Wooden- and stone-tipped arrows were shot twice(two arrows were fired an additional two times) at the ballistic geltarget with and without hide, and depth of penetration measured. Aftereach shot, the aim of the bow was slightly adjusted to ensure a freshtarget surface for each shot. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] For the accuracy experiment, the bow was fired at a target at adistance of approximately 16.75m. Each arrow was shot once for a totalof 12 shots, and vertical and horizontal deviations from a fixed pointon the target were measured. Accuracy was assessed as the amount ofspatial dispersion within the six shots of each arrow type. Results For both target types, chipped stone In archaeology, chipped stone refers to a method of manufacturing stone tools through lithic reduction, wherein lithic flakes are struck off a mass of tool stone with a percussor. projectile points, on average,exhibited greater penetration. For pure ballistics gel, arrows tippedwith chipped stone penetrated to a mean depth of 235mm compared to 213mmfor wood-tipped arrows (Figure 5), and this difference was significant(unpaired t-test: t=4.880, df= 12, p< 0.001). For ballistics geldraped with hide, stone-tipped arrows penetrated on average 225mm, andwood-tipped arrows penetrated a mean 206mm. Again, this difference wasstatistically significant (unpaired t-test: t = 3.180, df= 12, p =0.008). Although these results support the hypothesis that the additionof a chipped stone projectile point to an arrow improves its penetrationability, it is worth noting that both types of weaponry penetrated tosignificant depth (>200mm), and that stone points penetrated onaverage only 9-10 per cent deeper than wooden points. In fact, bothtypes of points in some tests managed to penetrate the entire thicknessof the ballistics gel torso (Figure 4). [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] Because the stone-tipped arrows have slightly greater mass than thewood-tipped arrows, it is possible that the greater penetration observedfor the former is due to greater momentum, rather than some propertyinherent to the stone tip itself. To test this hypothesis we examinedcorrelations between mass and penetration depth Penetration Depth is a measure of how deep light or any electromagnetic radiation can penetrate into a material. It is defined as the depth at which the intensity of the radiation inside the material falls to 1/e (about 37%) of the original value at the surface. for each group of shotsand found no significant relationship. These findings support thehypothesis that adding a chipped stone projectile point to arrows doesslightly improve the ability of the arrow to penetrate. [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] In the accuracy experiment, wood- and stone-tipped arrows performedvirtually identically (Table 3, Figure 6). Scatters of similar spatialscale were produced by both types of arrows. Wood-tipped arrows produceda scatter approximately 15cm in radius, and stone-tipped arrows produceda scatter with a radius of approximately 13cm. An un-paired t-test usingdistances from the centroid centroidIn geometry, the centre of mass of a two-dimensional figure or three-dimensional solid. Thus the centroid of a two-dimensional figure represents the point at which it could be balanced if it were cut out of, for example, sheet metal. of each group of shots showed no significantdifference in dispersion, providing no support for the hypothesis thatwood--and stoneotipped arrows differ in terms of accuracy (t = 0.018, df= 10, p = 0.986). [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] While the average difference between penetration depths (anadditional 21mm of depth for stone points fired without hide, and 18mmfor stone points fired through hide) are statistically significant, arethese differences significant from a hunters perspective? Put anotherway; is 10 per cent of extra depth, for a weapon already capable ofpiercing 20cm into a prey animal, worth the additional raw material,manufacturing and maintenance costs? Discussion In a more comprehensive ethnographic study of stone projectile usedelivered by bow and arrow bow and arrow,weapon consisting of two parts; the bow is made of a strip of flexible material, such as wood, with a cord linking the two ends of the strip to form a tension from which is propelled the arrow; the arrow is a straight shaft with a sharp point on one hunters, Christopher Ellis Chris Ellis is minister at West Bridgforth Baptist, Nottingham (2006-). He was previously principal of Bristol Baptist College (2000-2006). He is a Baptist theologian, who has written a lot on free church worship. He is the older brother of Rob Ellis, another Baptist theologian. found that'... stone-tipped projectiles are used almost exclusively on"large" game' (Ellis 1997: 40). With large game definedas prey in excess of 40kg, the additional penetration depth afforded bystone could be beneficial. Ellis further addresses the issue of stonepoint use by identifying a sample of ethnographic accounts in whichnative informants claim that stone points cause more lethal wounds(1997: 50-51). Ethnographic accounts are also provided, however, thatattest to the problematic issue of stone-point brittleness with regardsto breakage due to missed shots and the need to keep stone pointsprotected when not in use (1997: 56-9). [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] Based on our experiments and the work of others, a fewpossibilities regarding the use of hafted stone projectile points can beposited: 1) stone tips provide functional, yet currently unidentified,economic advantages that outweigh their added costs; 2) stone tips haveapproximately equivalent performance characteristics as wooden staves,but serve additional social/symbolic functions. While we began thisexperimental approach to projectile performance in an effort to avoidthe common assumption that stone points are somehow 'better'simply because they are present in many archaeological contexts (asimilar argument could be made suggesting faunal skeletal material isobviously 'better' than faunal tissue based on its presence inthe archaeological record), we will tentatively provide our ownspeculative comments regarding the above mentioned options. Thrusting and hand thrown spears are preferentially usedethnographically (and supported by limited archaeological evidence) todispatch large game at short-range (Churchill 1993). Stone-tippedprojectiles are preferentially utilised ethnographically to dispatchlarge game when used to tip bow-propelled arrows (Ellis 1997). If it isassumed that stone tips deliver more lethal wounds by enhancing the rateof blood loss, for example, their benefits may exceed their costs whenthe potential gain from dispatching a hunted animal is large. In otherwords Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , though technologically costly if the use of stone points evenmodestly increases the likelihood of successfully felling large game,their added costs may be worthwhile when large game are regularlypursued. Conversely, it is also worth considering the possibility that theubiquity and unique distributive features of stone (and alsobone/antler/ivory) projectile points in the archaeological record is theresult of their advantages over woodened staves in realms beyond lethalefficacy (i.e. as social signs/symbols). Because they require greatereffort and skill to produce, hafted projectiles provide a medium forexpressing self and/or group identity, essentially a form of costlysignaling (Bliege-Bird & Smith 2005). Numerous studies haveidentified hunting behaviour, expressed through differences in skill,capture rates, participation and subsequent distribution of resources,as a means of reinforcing and manipulating social relationships. Whyshould these inter- and intra-group differences not also extend tohunting technology? Considering the ease of sharpening a wooden arrow or spear tip,which requires no shaft preparation for hafting points, no haftingmaterials and no additional point materials, their frequent use inethnographic contexts is not surprising. Further, the results of ourexperiments dearly suggest that their use in prehistoric contexts shouldbe considered likely and that the use of the humble 'stick'does not necessarily reflect a lack of technological skill or limitedhunting ability. Depending on the hunting strategies utilised, preyspecies targeted and raw material economies of both past and presentsubsistence hunters, it is certainly possible to envision contexts inwhich the supplementary costs associated with projectile pointmanufacture might be worthwhile. However, the particular advantages ofhafted stone points remain unclear. We still cannot answer under whatconditions an additional 10 per cent of penetration depth, under ourexperimental conditions, matters. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Beyond Productions, the Discovery Channeland Scott Sorrenson for facilitating this research. Received: 21 October 2008; Revised: 10 December 2008; Accepteek 11February 2009 References ARNDT, S. & M. NEWCOMER. 1986. Breakage patterns on prehistoricbone points: an experimental study, in A. Hands & D. Walker (ed.)Studies in the Upper Paleolithic of Britain and Northwest Europe(British Archaeological Reports International Series 296): 165-73.Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. BAILEY, R.C. 1991. The behavioral ecology of Efe pygmy men in theIturi Forest, Zaire. Ann Arbor (MI): Museum of Anthropology, Universityof Michigan (body, education) University of Michigan - A large cosmopolitan university in the Midwest USA. Over 50000 students are enrolled at the University of Michigan's three campuses. The students come from 50 states and over 100 foreign countries. . BALIKCI, A. 1970. The Netsilik eskimo. Prospect Heights: Waveland. BARRETT, S.A. 1917. The Washo Indians (Milwaukee Public Museum The Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM) is a natural and human history museum located in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. The museum was chartered in 1882 and opened to the public in 1884; it is a not-for-profit organization operated by the Milwaukee Public Museum, Inc. Bulletin 2(1)). New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : AMS AMS - Andrew Message System Press. BARRETT, S.A. & E.W. GIFFORD. 1933. Miwok material culture:Indian life of the Yosemite region (Milwaukee Public Museum Bulletin2(4)). Yosemite (CA): Yosemite Natural History Association. BARTRAM, L.E. 1997. A comparison of Kua (Botswana) and Hadza(Tanzania) bow and arrow hunting, in H. Knecht (ed.) Projectiletechnology. 321-43. New York: Plenum Press. BEAN, L.J. 1972. Mukat's people: the Cahuilla Indians ofSouthern California. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press "UC Press" redirects here, but this is also an abbreviation for University of Chicago PressUniversity of California Press, also known as UC Press, is a publishing house associated with the University of California that engages in academic publishing. . BEAN, L.J. & EC. SHIPEK. 1978. Luiseno, in R. Heizer (ed.)Handbook of North Ameriean Indians. Volume 8: California: 550-63.Washington (D.C.): Smithsonian Institution. BERGMAN, C.A. & M.H. NEWCOMER. 1983. Flint arrowhead breakage:examples from Ksar Akil, Lebanon. Journal of Field Archaeology 10(2):238-43. BLIEGE-BIRD, R. & E.A. SMITH. 2005. Signaling theory, strategicinteraction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology 46(2): 221-48. BOAS, F. 1888. The Central Eskimo. Sixth Annual Repon of the Bureauof Ethnology ethnology(ĕthnŏl`əjē), scientific study of the origin and functioning of human cultures. It is usually considered one of the major branches of cultural anthropology, the other two being anthropological archaeology and , Smithsonian Institution. BOEDA, E., J.M. GENESTE, C. GRIGGO, N. MERCIER, S. MUHESEN, J.L.REYSS, A. TAHA & H. VALLADAS. 1999. A Levallois point embedded inthe vertebra vertebra/ver��te��bra/ (ver��te-brah) pl. ver��tebrae ? [L.] any of the 33 bones of the vertebral (spinal) column, comprising 7 cervical, 12 thoracic, 5 lumbar, 5 sacral, and 4 coccygeal vertebrae . of a wild ass IEquus africanus): hafting, projectiles andMousterian hunting weapons. Antiquity 73: 394-402. BROGLIO, A., G. CHEUDONIO & L. LONGO. 1993. AnalyseMorphologiqu et Fonctionelle des Pointes a cran de l'EpigravettienAncien, in P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte & H. Plisson (ed.)Traces et fonction: les gestes retrouves (ERAUL 50): 31-9. Liege liegeIn European feudal society, an unconditional bond between a man and his overlord. Thus, if a tenant held estates from various overlords, his obligations to his liege lord, to whom he had paid “liege homage,” were greater than his obligations to the other :University of Liege. CHESHIER, J. & ILL. KELLY. 2006. Projectile point shape anddurability: the effect of thickness:length. American Antiquity 71(2):353-63. CHURCHILL, S.E. 1993. Weapon technology, prey size selection, andhunting methods in modern hunter-gatherers: implications for hunUng inthe Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, in G. Peterkin, H. Bricker & P.Mellars (ed.) Hunting and animal exploitation in the later Palaeolithicand Mesolithic of Eurasia (Archaeological Papers of the AmericanAnthropological Association 4):11-24. Washington (D.C.): AmericanAnthropological Association. CLASTRES, P. 1972. The Guayaki, in M. Bicchieri (ed.) Hunters andgatherers today: socioeconomic study of eleven such cultures in thetwentieth century: 138-74. Prospect Heights: Waveland. DE LAGUANA, F. 1990. Tlingit, in W. Suttles (ed.) Handbook of NorthAmerican North Americannamed after North America.North American blastomycosissee North American blastomycosis.North American cattle ticksee boophilusannulatus. Indians. Volume 7: Northwest Coast: 203-28.Washington (D.C.):Smithsonian Institution. DONAHUE, R.E., M.L. MURPHY Mur��phy, William Parry 1892-1987.American physician. He shared a 1934 Nobel Prize for discovering that a diet of liver relieves anemia. & L.H. ROBBINS. 2002. Lithicmicrowear analysis of Middle Stone Age artifacts from White PaintingsRock Shelter, Botswana. Journal of Field Archaeology 29(1/2): 155-63. ELLIS, C. 1997. Factors influencing the use ofstone projectiletips: an ethnographic perspective, in H. Knecht (ed.) Projectiletechnology 37-74. New York: Plenum Press. EWERS, J.C. 1955. The horse in Blackfoot Indian culture withcomparative material from other western tribes (Bureau of AmericanEthnology The Bureau of American Ethnology (originally, Bureau of Ethnology) was established in 1879 by an act of Congress for the purpose of transferring archives, records and materials relating to the Indians of North America from the Interior Department to the Smithsonian Institution. Bulletin 159). Washington (D.C.): Smithsonian Institution. FEJOS, P. 1943, Ethnography of the Yagua. New York: Viking FundPublications in Anthropology. FELGER, R.S. & M.B. MOSER. 1991. People of the desert and sea:ethnobotany ethnobotany/eth��no��bot��a��ny/ (-bot��ah-ne) the systematic study of the interactions between a culture and the plants in its environment, particularly the knowledge about and use of such plants. of the Seri Indians. Tucson (AZ): University of AdzonaPress. FERG, A. & W.B. KESSEL 1987. Subsistence, in A. Ferg (ed.)Western Apache material culture: the Goodwin and Guenther collections:49-86. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona (body, education) University of Arizona - The University was founded in 1885 as a Land Grant institution with a three-fold mission of teaching, research and public service. Press. FLENNIKEN, J.J. 1985. Stone tool reduction techniques as culturalmarkers, in M. Plew, J. Woods & M. Pavesic (ed,) Stone toolanalysis: essays in honor of Don E. Crabtree: 265-76. Albuquerque (NM):University of New Mexico Press The University of New Mexico Press, founded in 1929, is a university press that is part of the University of New Mexico. External linkUniversity of New Mexico Press . FLETCHER, A.C. & F. LAFLESCHE. 1992. The Omaha tribe. Lincoln(NE): University of Nebraska Press. GAMBLE, C. 1986. The Paleolithic settlement of Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . GOODALE, J.C. 1971. Tiwi wives: a study of the women of MelvilleIsland North Australia. Seattle (WA): University of Washington Press, GREAVES greavescracklings, an edible raw fat from the meat trade. The skimmings from the preparation of this fat are also called greaves. They represent a low grade of meat meal. , R.D. 1997. Hunting and multifunctional use of bows andarrows, in H. Knecht (ed.) Projectile technology: 287-320, New York:Plenum Press, GRIFFIN, P.B. 1997. Technology and variation in arrow design amongthe Agta of northeastern Luzon, in H. Knecht (ed.) Projectile technology267-320. New York: Plenum Press. GRINNELL, G. 1923. The Cheyenne Indians: their history and way oflife. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press. GUTHRIE, R.D. 1983. Osseous projectile points: biologicalconsiderations affecting raw material selection and design amongPaleolithic and Paleoindian peoples, in A. Hands & D. Walker (ed.)Animals and archaeology 1: hunters and their prey (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 163): 273-94. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports. HAMILTON, T.M. 1982. Native American bows. Columbia (MO): MissouriArchaeological Society. HARDY, B.L., M. KAY, A.E. MARKS & K. MONIGAL. 2001. Stone toolgunction at the Paleolithic sites of Starosele and Buran bu��ran?n.A violent windstorm of the Eurasian steppes, accompanied in summer by dust and in winter by snow.[Russian, probably from Tatar.] Kaya III,Crimea: behavioral implications. Proceedings of the National Academy ofScience 98(19): 10972-7. HAWTREY, S.H. 1901. The Lengua Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco.Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland The Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland (RAI) (founded 1871) is the oldest anthropological society in the world. FellowshipThe Institute's members are lineal successors to the founding members of the Ethnological Society of London, who in 31: 280-99. HELM, J. 1981. The Dogrib, in J. Helm (ed.) Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians. Volume 6: The Subarctic: 291-309. Washington (D.C.):Smithsonian Institution. HITCHCOCK, R. & P. BLEED 1997. Each according to need andfashion: spear and arrow use among San hunters of the Kalahari, in H.Knecht (ed.) Projectile technology: 345-68. New York: Plenum Press. HOFFMAN, C. 1986. The Punan: hunters and gatherers of Borneo. AnnArbor (MI): UMI UMI University Microfilms InternationalUMI United States Minor Outlying Islands (ISO Country code)UMI University of MiamiUMI Universal Management Infrastructure (IBM)Research Press. HOLMBERG, A.R. 1969. Nomads of the long bow: the Siriono of easternBolivia, Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. HONIGMANN, J.J. 1981. West Main Cree, in J. Helm (ed.) Handbook ofNorth American Indians. Volume 6: Subarctic: 217-30. Washington (D.C.):Smithsonian Institution. HUGHES, C,C. 1984. Siberian eskimo, in D. Damas (ed.) Handbook ofNorth American Indians. Volume 5: Arctic. 247-61. Washington (D.C.):Smithsonian Institution. LILJEBLAD, S. & C.S. FOWLER. 1986, Owens Valley Paiute, in W.d'Azevedo (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 11:Great Basin: 412-34. Washington (D.C,): Smithsonian Institution. LOWIE, R.H. 1935. The Crow Indians. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston. MASON, O.T. 1893. North American bows, arrows, and quivers.Washington (D.C.): Smithsonian Institution. MCCLELLAN, C. 1991a. Inland Tlingit, in J. Helm (ed.) Handbook ofNorth American Indians. Volume 6: Subarctic: 469-80. Washington (D.C.):Smithsonian Institution. --1991b. Tutchone, in J. Helm (ed.) Handhook of North AmericanIndians. Volume 6: Subarctic: 493-505. Washington (D,C.): SmithsonianInstitution. MCKENNAN, R.A. 1981. Tanana, in J. Helm (ed.) Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians. Volume 6: Subarctic: 562-76. Washington (D.C.):Smithsonian Institution. MEYER, C. 1971. The Yurok of Trinidad Bay, 1851, in R. Heizer &M. Whipple (ed.) The California Indians: a sourcebook: 262-71. Berkdey(CA): University of California Press. MOVIUS, H.L. 1950. A wooden spear of Third Interglacial in��ter��gla��cial?adj.Occurring between glacial epochs.n.A comparatively short period of warmth during an overall period of glaciation. age fromLower Saxony. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6(2): 139-42. MURDOCH, J. 1892. Ethnological eth��nol��o��gy?n.1. The science that analyzes and compares human cultures, as in social structure, language, religion, and technology; cultural anthropology.2. results of the Point BarrowExpedition. Washington (D.C.): Smithsonian Institution. NICHOLAS, F.C. 1901. The Aborigines aborigines:see Australian aborigines. of the province of Santa Marta,Columbia. American Anthropologist 3(4): 606-49. OAKLEY, K.P., P. ANDREWS, L.H. KEELEY & J.D. CLARK. 1977. Areappraisal of the Clacton spearpoint. Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety 43: 13-30. ODELL, G.H. & F. COWAN. 1986. Experiments with spears andarrows on animal targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 195-212. OSWALT, W.H. 1967. Alaskan eskimos. Scranton (PA): Chandler. --1973. Habitat and technology: the evolution of hunting. New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston. OPLER, M.E. 1996. An Apache life way: the economic, social, &religious institutions of the Chiricahua Indians. Lincoln (NE):University of Nebraska Press. PETTIT, J. 1990. Utes: the mountain people. Boulder (CO): JohnsonBooks. RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A.R. 1964. The Andaman Islanders. New York: FreePress. RADIN, P. 1990. The Winnebago tribe. Lincoln (NE): University ofNebraska Press. RENKER, A.M. & E. GUNTHER. 1990. Makah, in W. Suttles (ed.)Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 7: Northwest Coast: 422-30.Washington (D.C.): Smithsonian Institution. SCHMITT, D., S.E. CHURCHILL & W.L. HYLANDER. 2003. Experimentalevidence concerning spear use in Neandertals and Early Modern Humans.Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 103-14. SHEA, J.J. 1988. Spear points from the Middle Paleolithic of theLevant Levant(ləvănt`)[Ital.,=east], collective name for the countries of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean from Egypt to, and including, Turkey. . Journal of Field Archaeology 15(4): 441-50. --1993. Lithic use-wear evidence for hunting in the LevantineMiddle Paleolithic. Traces et Fonction: Les Gestes Retrouves 50: 21-30. --2006. The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidencefrom Africa, the Levant, and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science33: 823-46. SHEA, J.J., Z. DAVIS Davis,city (1990 pop. 46,209), Yolo co., central Calif.; settled in the 1850s, inc. 1917. It is an education center with light industry; machinery, processed foods, and computer equipment are produced. The extensive Univ. & K. BROWN. 2001. Experimental tests ofMiddle Paleolithic spear points using a calibrated crossbow. Journal ofArchaeological Science 28: 807-16. SILVER, S. 1978. Chimariko, in R. Heizer (ed.) Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians. Volume 8: California: 205-10. Washington (D.C.):Smithsonian Institution. SMITH, A.M. 1974. Ethnography of the Northern Utes. Albuquerque(NM): Museum of New Merco Press. SPENCER, B. & F.J. GILLEN. 1968. The native tribes of centralAustralia. New York: Dover. SPIER, L. 1978. Yuman tribes of the Gila River. New York: Dover. STEARMAN, A.M. 1989. Yuqui: forest nomads in a changing world. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. STEWART, K.M. 1947. Mohave warfare, Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology 3(3): 257-78. THIEME, H. 1997. Lower Paleolithic hunting spears from Germany.Nature 385: 807-10. --1999. Lower Paleolithic throwing spears and other woodenimplements from Schoningen, Germany, in H. Ullrich (ed.) Hominid hominidAny member of the zoological family Hominidae (order Primates), which consists of the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) as well as human beings. evolution: lifestyles and survival strategies: 383-95. Weimar: Archaea archaea:see Archaebacteria. archaeaA group of prokaryotes whose members differ from bacteria, the most prominent prokaryotes, in certain physical, physiological, and genetic features. The archaea may be aquatic or terrestrial microorganisms. . THOMSON, D.E 1975. Bindibu country. London: Thomas Nelson Ltd. TITMUS, G.L, & J.C. WOODS. 1986. An experimental study ofprojectile point fracture patterns. Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology The Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology is a leading regional source of scholarly information on the ethnography, archaeology, linguistics, and Native American history of the western United States. 8(1): 37-49. TOBEY, M.L. 1981. Carrier, in J. Helm (ed.) Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians. Volume 6: Subarctic: 413-32. Washington (D.C.):Smithsonian Institution. TONKINSON, R. 1978. The Marudjara Aborigines: living the dream inAustralia's desert. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. TOWNSEND, J,B. 1981. Tanaina, in J. Helm (ed.) Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians. Volume 6: Subarctic: 623-40. Washington (D.C.):Smithsonian Institution. TURNBULL, C.M. 1965. Wayward servants: the two worlds of theAfrican pygmies. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. WALLACE, W.J. 1978. Hupa, Chilula and Whilkut, in Heizer (ed.)Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 8: California: 164-79.Washington (D.C.): Smithsonian Institution. WARNER, W.L. 1969. A black civilization: a social study of anAustralian tribe. Gloucester: Peter Smith. WATANABE, H. 1972. The Ainu ecosystem: environment and groupstructure. Seattle (WA): University of Washington Press. WOODBURN, J. 1970. Hunters and gatherers: the material culture ofthe nomadic See nomadic computing. Hadza. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Nicole M. Waguespack (1), Todd A. Surovell (1), Allen Denoyer, (2)Alice Dallow (3), Adam Savage (3), Jamie Hyneman (3) & Dan Tapster(3) (1) Department of Anthropology University of Wyoming UW is a national research university prominent in the fields of environment and natural resource research, specializing in agriculture, energy, geology, and water resource related fields. , 1000 EastUniversity Avenue, Laramie, WY82071, USA (2) Desert Archaeology Inc., 3975 North Tucson Blvd., Tucson, AZ85716, USA (3) Mythbusters, Beyond Productions, 109 Reserve Rd Artarmon,NSW NSWNew South WalesNoun 1. NSW - the agency that provides units to conduct unconventional and counter-guerilla warfareNaval Special Warfare 2064, AustraliaTable 1. Use of raw materials in projectile points by recent huntingand gathering peoples.Group Region Stone Metal Wood Bamboo Antler BoneEfe Af *Hadza AF * *Kua Af *Mbuti Af * *Mikea Af *San Af * * * *Andamanese As * * *Agta As * * *Ainu As * *Punan As * *Bindibu Au *Central Au * *AustralianMardudjara Au *Murngin Au * *Tiwi Au * *Seri MA * * *Apache NA * * * *Blackfoot NA * *Cahuilla NA * *Cairier NA * * *Central NA * * *EskimoCheyenne NA * * * *Chimariko NA * *Chiricahua NA * *ApacheCree NA * * *Crow NA *Dogrib NA * * *Gila NA *Hupa NA *Luiseno NA *Makah NA *Miwok NA *Mohave NANetsilik NANorthern NA *UteOmaha NA * *Owens NA * * *ValleyPaiutePanamint NA *Point NA * * * *BarrowEskimoShasta NA * * *Siberian NA * *EskimoTanaina NA * * *Tanana NA * * *Tareumiut NA * * *Tlingit NA * * *Inland NA *TlingitTutchone NA * * * *Ute NA * * *Washo NA * *Western NA * * *ApacheWinnebago NA * *Yurok NA * *Ache/Guayaki SA * *Lengua SA * *Orejoncs SA * * *Pume SA * * *Siriono SA * *Yagua SA *Yuqui SA * *Frequency 33 27 38 4 9 24 Hoof/Group horn ReferenceEfe Bailey 1991:49Hadza Bartram 1997: 333; Woodburn 1970: 17-31Kua Bartram 1997:325-8Mbuti Turnbull 1965: 36, 153, 157Mikea Poyer Pers. Comm.San Hitchcock & Bleed 1997:346-50Andamanese Radcliffe-Brown 1964: 435-6Agta Griffin 1997:272-86Ainu Watanabe 1972:31Punan Hoffman 1986:27Bindibu Thomson 1975:106Central Spencer & Gillen 1968:Australian 575-8Mardudjara Tonkinson 1978:32Murngin Warner 1969: 139-43, 465Tiwi Goodale 1971:158Seri Felger & Moser 1991:126-8Apache Mason 1893:39Blackfoot Ewers 1955:156Cahuilla Bean 1972:65Cairier * Tobey 1981:424Central Boas 1888:96-100EskimoCheyenne * Grinnell 1923:178-84Chimariko Silver 1978:208Chiricahua Opler 1996:388-9ApacheCree Honigmann 1981:220Crow * Lowie 1935:84Dogrib Helm 1981:307Gila Spier 1978:133-4Hupa Wallace 1978:165Luiseno Bean 86 Shipek 1978: 552Makah Renker & Gunther 1990:427Miwok Barrett & Gifford 1933Mohave Stewart 1947:263-4Netsilik Balikci 1970:39Northern Smith 1974:109-11UteOmaha Fletcher & LaFlesche 1992:451Owens Liljeblad & FowlerValley 1986:429PaiutePanamint Mason 1893:28Point Murdoch 1892:201-7BarrowEskimoShasta Silver 1978:218Siberian Hughes 1984:250EskimoTanaina Townsend 1981:626Tanana McKennan 1981:569Tareumiut Oswalt 1967:158Tlingit De Laguana 1990:209Inland * McClellan 1991a: 473TlingitTutchone McClellan 1991b: 496Ute Pettit 1990:40Washo Barrett 1917: 16, Plate VIWestern Ferg & Kessel 1987:Apache 50-52Winnebago Radin 1990:62Yurok Meyer 1971:263Ache/Guayaki Clastres 1972:146Lengua Hawtrey 1901:294-5Orejoncs Nicholas 1901:620-1Pume Greaves 1997:297-9Siriono Holmberg 1969:26-34Yagua Fejos 1943:50Yuqui Stearman 1989:42-3Frequency 3Notes: Regional abbrcviations: Af = Africa, As = Asia, Au = Australia,MA = Mesoamerica, NA = North America, SA = South America.Table 2. Arrow attributes and experimental results. Arrow attributesArrow no. Projectile(Shot no.) point Mass (g) Length (cm) material 1 (1) Wood 22.1 82.7 2 (1) Wood 22.4 82.2 3 (1) Wood 19.2 82.6 4 (l) Wood 23.1 82.6 5 (1) Wood 24.6 82-2 6 (1) Wood 25.1 82.7 6 (2) Wood 25.1 82.7Mean[+ or -]s 22.7 [+ or -] 2.1 82.5 [+ or -] 0.2 7 (1) Stone 24.4 84.5 8 (1) Stone 21.8 84.3 9 (1) Store 26.2 84.3 9 (2) Stone 26.1 84.310 (1) Stone 24.1 84.111 (I) Stone 25.8 84.512 (1) Stone 23.6 84.0Mean [+ or -] s 24.7 [+ or -] 1.6 84.3 [+ or -] 0.2 Penetration depth (mm)Arrow no. Ballistics Hide-covered ballistics(Shot no.) gel (mm) gel (mm) 1 (1) 222 216 2 (1) 210 211 3 (1) 206 192 4 (l) 210 208 5 (1) 210 203 6 (1) 216 210 6 (2) 216 203Mean[+ or -]s 212.7[+ or -]5.5 206.1 [+ or -] 7.6 7 (1) 222 240 8 (1) 232 208 9 (1) 238 213 9 (2) 238 22510 (1) 222 23211 (I) 240 21412 (1) 252 240Mean [+ or -] s 235.0 [+ or -] 10.6 224.5 [+ or -] 13.1Table 3. Accuracy experimental results. Projectile point Distance fromShot no. material X-Coord (cYn) Y-Coord (cm) centroid (cm)1 Wood -6.6 0.7 9.32 Wood 1.4 23.1 16.73 Wood -3.1 -4.6 7.14 Wood -1.5 0.6 14.05 Wood -5.7 -1.5 1.06 Wood 3.5 -4.3 1.2Mean -2.00 2.32 8.12[+ or -]s [+ or -]3.9 [+ or -] 10.4 [+ or -] 6.77 Stone 10.7 -5:4 4.98 Stone 2.2 14.3 21.19 Stone 3.7 -9.2 7.010 Stone -9.1 -10.8 1.811 Stone 2.7 -1.7 5.412 Stone 1.7 -1.2 8.6Mean 2.00 -2.32 8.19[+ or -]s [+ or -] 6.3 [+ or -] 9.0 [+ or -] 6.4