Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-r7xzm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T06:59:33.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Exploring the Dart and Arrow Dilemma: Retouch Indices as Functional Determinants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2009

William Andrefsky, Jr
Affiliation:
Washington State University
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Measuring retouch location and intensity on hafted bifaces is shown to be an effective technique for assessing artifact function. Unlike other areas of North America, where dart technology is replaced by arrow technology, Coalition Period occupations on the Pajarito Plateau of New Mexico contain both hafted biface forms used simultaneously. A stylistic analysis of dart points shows that hafted biface forms found in Coalition Period contexts were recycled from Middle and Late Archaic surface scatters. Furthermore, retouch location and intensity show that Coalition Period dart points were used for cutting and sawing activities and not as projectile technology.

INTRODUCTION

In the American Southwest, and throughout North America, dart-sized hafted bifaces identified as projectile points, normally associated with sites dating to the Paleoindian and Archaic time periods, are regularly found on sites dating to the past thousand years (cf. Kohler 2004; Turnbow 1997). Late period points were likely small and designed to be attached to the smaller arrow foreshaft. Although researchers have noted the presence of dart-sized points in settings where the bow and arrow were likely used, few have addressed the question of the context of manufacture or use of these larger hafted bifaces. In the Northern Rio Grande, the presence of Scottsbluff, Jay, Bajada, and other large dart points dating to the Late Paleoindian and Archaic in Coalition and Classic period sites rarely elicits more than a description as a “curated” item or “heirloom,” or as a knife replicating an older style.

Type
Chapter
Information
Lithic Technology
Measures of Production, Use and Curation
, pp. 175 - 192
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahler, Stanley A. 1971. Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Rockshelter, Missouri. Research Series No. 8. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 1997. Thoughts on Stone Tool Shape and Inferred Function. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 13:125–44.Google Scholar
Andrefsky, William Jr. 2006. Experimental and Archaeological Verification of an Index of Retouch for Hafted Bifaces. American Antiquity 71:743–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arakawa, Fumi. 2000. Lithic Analysis of Yellow Jacket Pueblo as a Tool for Understanding and Visualizing Women's Roles in Procuring, Utilizing, and Making Stone Tools. M.A. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.
Christensen, Andrew L. 1986. Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory Study. Plains Anthropologist 31:109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Andrew L. 1987. Projectile Points: Eight Millennia of Projectile Change on the Colorado Plateau. In Prehistoric Stone Technology on Northern Black Mesa, Arizona, edited by Parry, William J. and Christenson, Andrew L., pp. 143–98. Occasional Paper No. 12. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Center for Archaeological Investigations.Google Scholar
Corliss, David W. 1972. Neck Width of Projectile Points: An Index of Culture Continuity and Change. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, No. 29. Idaho State University Museum, Pocatello.
Fischer, A. 1989. Hunting with Flint-Tipped Arrows: Results and Experiences from Practical Experiments. In The Mesolithic in Europe, edited by Bonsall, C., pp. 29–39. John Donald, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Gunnerson, Dolores. 1959. Tabu and Navajo Material Culture. El Palacio 64(1):1–9.Google Scholar
Gunnerson, James H. 1969. Apache Archaeology in Northeastern New Mexico. American Antiquity 34(1):23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harro, Douglas R. 1997. Patterns of Lithic Raw Material Procurement on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
Haury, Emil W. 1975 (1950). Ventana Cave. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Head, Genevieve N. 1999. Lithic Artifacts. In The Bandelier Archeological Survey, Volume II, edited by Powers, Robert P. and Orcutt, Janet D., pp. 469–549. Professional Paper No. 57. Intermountain Cultural Resources Management, Santa Fe, NM.Google Scholar
Hill, W. W. 1938. The Agricultural and Hunting Methods of the Navajo Indians. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 18, New Haven.Google Scholar
Hill, W. W., and Lange, Charles H.. 1982. An Ethnography of Santa Clara Pueblo, New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Jolly, Fletcher III. 1970. Fluted Points Reworked by Later Peoples. Tennessee Archaeologist 26(2):30–44.Google Scholar
Kay, Marvin. 1996. Microwear Analysis of Some Clovis and Experimental Chipped Stone Tools. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, George, pp. 315–44. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Timothy A. 2004. Introduction. In Archaeology of Bandelier National Monument: Village Formation on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico, edited Kohler, Timothy A., pp. 1–17. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Kohler, Timothy A., Herr, Sarah, and Root, Matthew J.. 2004. The Rise and Fall of Towns on the Pajarito (A.D. 1375–1600). In Archaeology of Bandelier National Monument: Village Formation on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico, edited by Kohler, Timothy A., pp. 215–64. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Kohler, Timothy A., and Root, Matthew J.. 2004. The Late Coalition and Earliest Classic on the Pajarito Plateau (A.D. 1250–1375). In Archaeology of Bandelier National Monument: Village Formation on the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico, edited by Kohler, Timothy A., pp. 173–214. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Parry, William J., and Christenson, Andrew L.. 1986. Prehistoric Stone Technology on Northern Black Mesa, Arizona. Occasional Paper of the Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
Powers, Robert P., and Zandt, Tineke. 1999. An Introduction to Bandelier. In The Bandelier Archaeological Survey, Volume 1, edited by Powers, Robert P. and Orcutt, Janet D., pp. 1–31. Intermountain Cultural Resources Management Professional Paper No. 57, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Preucel, Robert W. Jr. 1990. Seasonal Circulation and Dual Residence in the Pueblo Southwest: A Prehistoric Example from the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. Garland Publishing, New York and London.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1996. Innovation and Selection in Prehistory: A Case Study from the American Bottom. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by Odell, George H., pp. 279–309. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst. 1976. A Diegueño Shaman's Wand: An Object Lesson Illustrating the “Heirloom Hypothesis.” Journal of California Anthropology 3(1):128–32.Google Scholar
Truncer, James J. 1990. Perkiomen Points: A Study in Variability. In Experiments and Observations on the Terminal Archaic of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Moeller, R. W., pp. 1–62. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem, CT.Google Scholar
Turnbow, Christopher A. 1997. Projectile Points as Chronological Indicators. In OLE. Volume II: Artifacts, edited by Acklen, John C., pp. 161–230. TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Vierra, Bradley J. and Foxx, Teralene. 2002. Archaic Upland Resource Use: The View from the Pajarito Plateau, New Mexico. Paper presented at the 67th Annual meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, March, 2002.
Wendorf, Fred, and Reed, Erik K.. 1955. An Alternative Reconstruction of Northern Rio Grande Prehistory. El Palacio 62:131–73.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×