Researchers have noted that cold temperatures may have had an impact on hunter-gatherer decisions concerning raw material selection for projectile points. This line of reasoning has been used to explain the phenomenon of projectile points of different materials occurring during the same time period in archaeological contexts that exhibit extreme seasonality. Cold temperatures are assumed to affect cryptocrystalline brittle solids adversely, whereas organic and composite projectiles are more resilient. Here, an experiment was designed to test the brittleness of stone and antler composite projectile points subjected to different temperatures. It was demonstrated that cold temperatures do not impact projectile point brittleness. However, differences in projectile raw material type were found to fracture differentially suggesting other probable factors associated with projectile point raw material selection.
AckermanR (2011) Microblade assemblages in Southwestern Alaska: An early Holocene adaptation. In: GoebelTBuvitI (eds) From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia.
Texas:
Texas A&M University Press, pp.255–269.
2.
AdamsJS (2018) ‘Tis the season: An experimental examination of toolkit variability, late Pleistocene-early Holocene interior Alaska. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
3.
AmesKMFuldKADavisS (2010)
Dart and arrow points on the Columbia Plateau of Western North America. American Antiquity74: 287–325.
4.
BettingerRWinterhalderBMcElreathR (2006)
A simple model of technological intensification. Journal of Archaeological Science33: 538–545.
5.
BeverM (2000) Paleoindian lithic technology and landscape use in late Pleistocene Alaska: A study of the mesa complex. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, University Park.
6.
BinfordLR (1979)
Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research35: 255–273.
7.
BleedP (1986)
The optimal design of hunting weapons: Maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity51: 737–747.
8.
BuchananBCollardMHamiltonMJ, et al. (2011)
Points and prey: A quantitative test of the hypothesis that prey size influences early Paleoindian projectile point form. Journal of Archaeological Science38: 852–864.
9.
CattelainP (1997) Hunting during the upper Paleolithic: Bow, spearthrower, or both? In: KnechtH (ed.) Projectile Technology: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology.
New York:
Plenum Press, pp.213–240.
10.
ChurchillSE (1993)
Weapon technology, prey size selection, and hunting methods in modern hunter-gatherers: Implications for hunting in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. In: PeterkinGLBrickerMMMellarsP (eds) Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia.
Washington, DC:
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association,
vol. 4, pp.11–24.
11.
ClarksonC (2016) Testing archaeological approaches to determining past projectile delivery systems using ethnographic and experimental data. In: IovitaRSanoK (eds) Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry.
Dordrecht:
Springer, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleonathropology Series, pp.1–13.
12.
ClarksonCHiscockPMackayA, et al. (2018). Small, sharp, and standardized: Global convergence in backed-microlith technology. In: O’BrienMJBuchananBErenM (eds) Convergent Evolution and Stone-Tool Technology.
Cambridge:
MIT Press, The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology, pp.175–200.
13.
ClarksonCShiptonC (2015)
Teaching ancient technology using “hands-on” learning and experimental archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology7: 157–172.
14.
CotterJL (1938) The occurrence of flints and extinct animals in pluvial deposits near Clovis, New Mexico: Part V1, report on field season of 1937. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 90: 113–117.
15.
DixonEJ (2013) Arrows and Atl Atls: A Guide to the Archaeology of Beringia. Report submitted to the National Park Service.
Washington, DC:
US National Park Service.
16.
EllisCJ (1997) Factors influencing the use of stone projectile tips: An ethnographic perspective. In: KnechtH (ed.) Projectile Technology: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology.
New York:
Plenum Press, pp.37–74.
17.
ElstonRGBrantinghamPJ (2002)
Microlithic technology in Northeast Asia: A risk minimizing strategy of the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. In: ElstonRGKuhnS (eds) Thinking Small: Global Perspectives on Microlithization.
Arlington:
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association12, pp.103–116.
18.
FitzhughB (2001)
Risk and invention in human technological evolution. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology20: 125–167.
19.
GrafKBigelowN (2011)
Human response to climate during the Younger Dryas chronozone in central Alaska. Quaternary International242: 434–451.
20.
GuthrieRD (1983a) Osseous projectile points: Biological considerations affecting raw material selection and design among Paleolithic and Paleoindian peoples. In: Clutton-Brock J and Grigson C (eds) Animals and Archaeology, Vol. 1: Hunters and Their Prey. London: Council for Archaeozoology, BAR International Series 163, pp.273–294.
21.
GuthrieRD (1983b) Appendix B: Composite bone-stone tool reproduction and testing. In: Powers WR, Guthrie RD and Hoffecker JF (eds) Dry Creek: Archeology and Paleoecology of a Late Pleistocene Alaskan Hunting Camp. Report submitted to the National Park Service. Washington, DC: US National Park Service, pp.348–374.
22.
HaydenBFrancoNSpaffordJ (1996) Evaluating lithic strategies and design criteria. In: OdellG (ed.) Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory.
New York:
Plenum Press, pp.9–49.
23.
HaynesG (1964)
Fluted projectile points: Their age and dispersion. Science (New York, N.Y.)145: 1408–1413.
24.
Hirasawa Y and Holmes C (2016) The relationship between microblade morphology and production technology in Alaska from the perspective of the Swan Point Site. Quaternary International 442: 1–14.
25.
HughesS (1998)
Getting to the point: Evolutionary change in prehistoric weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory5: 345–408.
26.
IovitaRSanoK (2016) Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry.
Dordrecht:
Springer.
27.
KnechtH (1997a) Projectile Technology: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology.
New York:
Plenum Press.
28.
KnechtH (1997b) Projectile points of bone, antler, and stone: Experimental explorations of manufacture and use. In: KnechtH (ed.) Projectile Technology: Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology.
New York:
Plenum Press, pp.191–212.
29.
KunzMBeverMAdkinsC (2003) The Mesa Site: Paleoindians Above the Arctic Circle. BLM-Alaska Open File Report 86: Prepared by the Bureau of Land Management.
30.
Lee C and Goebel T (2016) The Slotted Antler Points from Trail Creek Caves, Alaska: New Information on Their Age and Technology. PaleoAmerica 2: 1–8.
31.
MyersA (1989) Reliable and maintainable technological strategies in the Mesolithic of mainland Britain. In TorrenceR (ed.) Time, Energy, and Stone Tools.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp.78–91.
32.
PargeterJ (2011)
Assessing the macrofracture method for identifying stone age hunting weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Science38: 2882–2888.
33.
PétillonJMBignonOBoduP, et al. (2011)
Hard core and cutting edge: Experimental manufacture and use of Magdalenian composite projectile tips. Journal of Archaeological Science38: 1266–1283.
34.
PétillonJMPlissonHCattelainP (2016) Thirty years of experimental research on the breakage patterns of stone age osseous points: Overview, methodological problems, and current perspectives. In: IovitaRSanoK (eds) Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry.
Dordrecht:
Springer, pp.47–63.
35.
PotterBA (2011) Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene assemblage variability in Central Alaska. In: GoebelTBuvitI (eds) From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia.
College Station:
Texas A&M University Press, pp.215–233.
36.
PowersWRGuthrieDRHoffeckerJF (1983) Dry Creek: Archaeology and Paleoecology of a Late Pleistocene Alaskan Hunting Camp.
Washington, DC:
US National Park Service.
37.
RasicJT (2008) Paleoalaskan adaptive strategies viewed from Northwestern Alaska. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
38.
RobinsonBS (2008)
Microblades and seasonality: Settlement patters in the Tangle lakes region of Alaska. The Review of Archaeology29: 21–40.
39.
SchifferMB (2011) Studying Technological Change: A Behavioral Approach.
Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
40.
SchifferMBSkiboJM (1987)
Theory and experiment in the study of technological change.Current Anthropology28: 595–622.
41.
ShottM (1997)
Stones and shafts redux: The metric discrimination of chipped-stone darts and arrow points. American Antiquity62: 86–101.
42.
ThomasDH (1978)
Arrowheads and atlatl darts: How the stones got the shaft. American Antiquity43: 461–472.
43.
TorrenceR (1989) Time, Energy, and Stone Tools.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
44.
WaberN (2011) The development of the microblade industry at the Richardson Island Site, Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Unpublished Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
45.
WoodJFitzhughB (2018)
Wound ballistics: The prey specific implications of penetrating trauma injuries from osseous, flakes stone, and composite inset microblade projectiles during the Pleistocene/Holocene transition, Alaska U.S.A.Journal of Archaeological Science91: 104–117.
46.
WygalBT (2009) Prehistoric colonization of Southcentral Alaska: Human adaptations in a post glacial world. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno.
47.
WygalBT (2010)
Prehistoric upland tool production in the Central Alaska range. Alaska Journal of Anthropology8: 107–119.
48.
WygalBT (2011) The microblade/non-microblade dichotomy: Climatic implications, toolkit variability, and the role of tiny tools in Eastern Beringia. In: GoebelTBuvitI (eds) From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia.
College Station:
Texas A&M University Press, pp.234–254.
49.
WygalBT (2018)
The peopling of Eastern Beringia and its archaeological complexities. Quaternary International466: 284–298.
