Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T03:38:43.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concerning the Atlatl and the Bow: Further Observations Regarding Arrow and Dart Points in the Archaeological Record

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dale Walde
Dale Walde*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4 (walde@ucalgary.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hildebrandt and King (2012) propose a new method for distinguishing between archaeologically obtained atlatl darts and arrow points, suggesting their dart-arrow index identifies specimens more accurately than previously developed multivariate approaches. They assert that use of their index supports conclusions that the bow was a superior technology and replaced the atlatl quickly. I use their index, as well as Shott’s (1997) equations, to analyze southern Saskatchewan archaeological point specimens. My results suggest that the proposed dart-arrow index performs poorly for Canadian Plains specimens and that atlatl and bow technology coexisted for an extended period of time.

Resumen

Resumen

Hildebrandt y King (2012) proponen un nuevo método arqueológico para distinguir entre dardos de propulsión y puntas de flechas para arco. Los autores sugieren que los índices de este método asignan correctamente los especímenes arqueológicos a sus correspondientes clases con mayor exactitud que los enfoques multivariantes empleados con anterioridad. Hildebrandt y King afirman que su método refuerza conclusiones previas sobre el carácter tecnológicamente superior de la flecha y el remplazo rápido del propulsor poco después de introducir el arco. Nosotros utilizamos el índice de Hildebrandt y King al igual que ecuaciones de función discriminate (Shott 1997) con el objetivo de analizar dardos y puntas del sur de Saskatchewan. Los resultados de tal análisis sugieren que el índice defendido por Hildebrandt y King no responde adecuadamente al caso de las Grandes LLanuras canadienses e indican que las tecnologías de propulsor y arco coexistieron durante largos periodos.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 156 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2014

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

References Cited

Ames, Kenneth M., Fuld, Kristen A., and Davis, Sara 2010 Dart and Arrow Points on the Columbia Plateau of Western North America. American Antiquity 75:287–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyea, Barbara 2000 A Year Inland: The Journal of a Hudson’s Bay Company Winterer. Wilfred Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Ontario.Google Scholar
Dawe, Bob 1997 Tiny Arrowheads: Toys in the Toolkit. Plains Anthropologist 42:303–318.Google Scholar
Dyck, Ian, and Morlan, Richrd E. 1995 The Sjovold Site: A River Crossing Campsite in the Northern Plains. Mercury Series Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 151. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Québec.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffrey, and Raymond, Anan W. 1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication, Experimentation, and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603–614.Google Scholar
De La Vega, Garcilaso 1951 Florida of the Inca: The Fabulous De Soto Story. Translated by John and Jeanette Varner. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, William H., and King, Jerome H. 2012 Distinguishing between Darts and Arrows in the Archaeological Record: Implications for Technological Change in the American West. American Antiquity 77:789–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjermstad, Ben E. 1996 The Fitzgerald Site: A Besant Pound and Processing Area on the Northern Plains. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.Google Scholar
Kehoe, Thomas F. 1973 The Gull Lake Site: A Prehistoric Bison Drive Site in Southwestern Saskatchewan. Milwaukee Public Museum Publications in Anthropology and History No. 1. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Nassaney, Michael S., and Pyle, Kendra 1999 The Adoption of the Bow and Arrow in Eastern North America: A View from Central Arkansas. American Antiquity 64:243–263.Google Scholar
Patterson, Leland W. 1992 Current Data on the Early Use of the Bow and Arrow in Southern North America. La Tierra 19:6–15.Google Scholar
Pyszczyk, Heinz W. 2003 Aboriginal Bows and Arrows and Other Weapons in Alberta: The Last 2,000 Years, or Longer? In Archaeology in Alberta: A View from the New Millennium, edited by Jack W. Brink and John F. Dormaar, pp. 46–71. The Archaeological Society of Alberta, Medicine Hat.Google Scholar
Ramsay, Allison M. 1991 The Melhagen Site: A Besant Bison Kill in South Central Saskatchewan. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1997 Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity 62:86–101.Google Scholar
Swanton, J. 1938 Historic Use of the Spear-Thrower in Southeastern North America. American Antiquity 4:356–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, David H. 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461–472.Google Scholar
Walde, Dale A. 2012 Finding and Not Finding Athapaskans in the Archaeological Record Using Percentage Stratigraphy. In From the Land of Ever Winter: Athapaskan Migrations from the Subarctic to the American Southwest, edited by Deni J. Seymour, pp. 198–224. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar