Projectile point

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clovis point , the characteristic tool of the earliest widespread culture in America
Various shapes of projectile points with English-language names

As a projectile tip ( ger .: projectile point ) prehistoric stone are manufactured tools Indian cultures in America called. They were the first and are still the most common finds of Paleo-Indian cultures and their partly characteristic shapes serve to delimit the epochs.

It is typical that the tools could be attached to a stick to serve as a throwing spear or, in later epochs, as an arrowhead , as well as being wielded by hand as a knife . Almost all projectile tips are hammered into blades on both sides . For attachment, early forms were fluted at the base with surface retouching on both sides so that they could be inserted into split rods. Later the shapes became more detailed and had an extended handle with notches in the middle, while barbs on the sides were intended to reinforce the effect of the point.

Typing

The previously undisputed assignment of projectile points to types and the definition of archaeological cultures based on it has been viewed more critically since the 1950s and the methodology has been questioned. Instead of the delimited types, a continuum of forms was discussed and each type was only accepted as an analytical tool for concrete questions. From the 1970s, the previous types were checked by means of extensive empirical studies and for the first time with mathematical models. The concepts were largely confirmed. More recent evaluations of mass recordings with neural networks showed new methods for the formation of types and at the same time confirmed the validity of the previous typology.

Concept development and delimitation

Originally, the term projectile point was used functionally by American archaeologists for the tips of throwing spears and arrows , until the examination of signs of use revealed that the supposed spearheads were also wielded by hand and used like a knife. As a formal term, biface (usually translated as hand ax in German ) was introduced to describe stone tools that had been worked on on both sides ( bi face ), as opposed to only on the edges. However, the terminology was not kept strictly, some scientists referred to any object machined on both sides as biface , including projectile points and even drilling tools, while others only used the term as a catch-up category , for objects that are not referred to as points , knives or anything else could.

The definition of cores , an originally purely formal term for every stone from which parts had been cut off to make a tool, was also blurred . The term was based on the assumption that prehistoric cultures in America carried stones made of particularly suitable material with them as a reserve in order to be able to produce blades and scrapers from chips if necessary . In the 1980s, however, it was recognized that stones were used in multiple functions: A stone hewn as a large biface (also known as a hand ax ) made of high-quality material could not only be used for rough work, but was also a stock of material from which the blades were cut could become. Or it could be processed in whole or in part into projectile points . Worn or damaged tools were also often made usable again by means of flat cuts or cut into other shapes. Larger tools were also reworked into smaller, completely different types, such as large stone knives into smaller projectile points.

A sharp demarcation is not possible today, but must remain speculative in individual cases. The term projectile point is common for artifacts that were suitable for attachment to a spear by retouching the side surfaces or a handle.

literature

  • William Jack Hranicky: Prehistoric projectile points found along the Atlantic coastal plain , 3rd ed., Universal-Publishers, Boca Raton 2011. ISBN 978-1-6123-3022-8
  • Kim Darmark: Surface Pressure Flaking in Eurasia: Mapping the Innovation, Diffusion and Evolution of a Technological Element in the Production of Projectile Points , in: Pierre M. Desrosiers (Ed.): The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making Springer 2012, Part 2, Pp. 261-283.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Brendan S. Nash, Elton R. Prewitt: The Use of Artificial Neural Networks in Projectile Point Typology . In: Lithic Technology Volume 41, Issue 3 (2016), pp. 194-211. doi: 10.1080 / 01977261.2016.1184876
  2. ↑ George H. Odell: Biface . In: Guy Gibbon: Archeology of Prehistoric Native America , New York, Garland Publishing, 1998, ISBN 0-8153-0725-X , p. 67
  3. ↑ George H. Odell: Core . In: Guy Gibbon: Archeology of Prehistoric Native America , New York, Garland Publishing, 1998, ISBN 0-8153-0725-X , p. 176 f
  4. ↑ Wolfgang Haberland: American Archeology . Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1991, ISBN 3-534-07839-X , p. 87