Experimental assessment of obsidian versus chert lanceolate projectile point durability and robusticity
Semi‐static fracture strength and dynamic impact
Bibliographic Data
Stone‐tipped weaponry was important for the survival of past peoples, and many functional and non‐functional factors likely influenced their design. Two functional factors that past peoples likely considered in the design of their stone tips are durability (whether or not a stone tip breaks) and robusticity (how much damage is incurred upon breakage). Many factors have been shown experimentally to influence stone tip influence durability and robusticity, including stone raw material. Here, we further explore the relationship between stone raw material and stone tip durability and robusticity via controlled experiments comparing chert and obsidian. We first demonstrate with semi‐static fracture strength analyses that obsidian stone tips require less force to break than do chert stone tips. We then show with dynamic ballistics impact testing that obsidian stone tips are less durable and robust than chert stone tips. Our results are entirely consistent with previous experimental comparisons of chert versus obsidian stone tips, and support the hypothesis that past peoples, when presented with multiple raw materials, likely weighed their costs and benefits in the process of selection
Archaeology · Breakage · Composite material · Durability · Fracture (geology · Geotechnical engineering · Lithic technology · Projectile point · Stone Age · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies · Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies · Geology · History · Materials Science · Paleontology · Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Geological Approach to Lithic Landscape During the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in the Southern Puna of the Atacama Desert (25°–27° S, 3200–5000 m a.s.l.)
Late Pleistocene-Early Holocene Fishtail Points from Southernmost Patagonia (South America)
Toolstone characterization, description, morphometrics, and microwear of a lithic sample from Uptar, Magadan Oblast, Northeastern Siberia, Russia
North American Clovis Point Form and Performance IV
Chipped-Stone Crescents from the Terminal Pleistocene–Early Holocene of Far Western North America and the Transverse Projectile Point Hypothesis
Clovis bone versus stone weapon tip penetration
Comparison of four ballistic and thrusting target materials
Controlled comparative tensile tests of backed versus non‐backed edges’ adhesion
Flintknapping
Factors Influencing the Use of Stone Projectile Tips
Atlatl Dart Velocity
Neutron activation analysis of 12,900-year-old stone artifacts confirms 450–510+ km Clovis tool-stone acquisition at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), northeast Ohio, U.S.A
Identifying Weapon Delivery Systems Using Macrofracture Analysis and Fracture Propagation Velocity
Cultural Evolution
When Lithics Hit Bones
Developing a stable point
Early Paleoindian big-game hunting in North America
Experimental assessment of lanceolate projectile point and haft robustness
The non-invention of the ceramic arrowhead in world archaeology
Extending Experimental Control
Using Porcelain Replicas for Precision Control in Flintknapping Experiments
Getting to the point
Wound ballistics
Asphaltum hafting and projectile point durability
Rock type variability and impact fracture formation
Raw material impact strength and flaked stone projectile point performance
Cultural evolutionary approaches to artifact variation over time and space
The Effect of Isometric Scaling on Flaked Stone Projectile Point Impact Durability
North American Clovis Point Form and Performance II
An Ethnoarchaeological Inquiry into the Functional Relationship between Projectile Point and Armor Technologies of the Northwest Coast
Do projectile points get cold? An experimental approach examining composite and stone projectile technology
Clovis Blades at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Ohio
Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets
Projectile point technology
Modeling the influences of raw material availability and functional efficiency on obsidian projectile point curation
The performance of heat-treated silcrete backed pieces in actualistic and controlled complex projectile experiments
Functional efficiency and life history of Late Holocene lithic points from southern Patagonia
Understanding Decision—Making Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers Via the Study of Lithic Technological Organization
Controlled ballistics tests of ground, percussion-flaked, and pressure-flaked projectile point impact durability
Projectiles Under a New Angle
Knapping quality of local versus exotic Upper Mercer chert (Ohio, USA) during the Holocene
Toolstone Selection and Lithic Technology in Early Great Basin Prehistory
Quartz backed tools as arrowheads and hand-cast spearheads
Projectile impact fractures and launching mechanisms
Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use
Design and performance of microlith implemented projectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant
Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry
Explaining the origin of fluting in North American Pleistocene weaponry
The role of raw material differences in stone tool shape variation
The origins of lithic projectile point technology
Raw material quality and Oldowan hominin toolstone preferences
Experimental use and quantitative performance analysis of triangular flakes (Levallois points) used as arrowheads
Experimental Tests of Middle Palaeolithic Spear Points Using a Calibrated Crossbow
Hunting with Howiesons Poort segments
Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics
Folsom Projectile Technology
Ballistic Study Tackles Kinetic Energy Values of Palaeolithic Weaponry
The northern fluted point complex
Building experimental use-wear analogues for Clovis biface functions
Making a point
Unnotched Triangular Points on Village Sites
Projectile Point Shape and Durability
Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology
Morphological Projectile Point Typology
The Three Sides of a Biface
Projectile Point Reworking
| Unique citing works | 8 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,67 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |