Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-4
Another tool in the experimental toolbox: On the use of aluminum as a substitute for chert in North American prehistoric ballistics research and beyond
Experimental archaeology continues to mature methodologically and theoretically. Around the world, practitioners are increasingly using modern materials that would have been unavailable to prehistoric people in archaeological experiments. The use of a modern material substitute can offer several benefits to experimental method, design, control, replicability, feasibility, and cost, but it should be directly compared to its “traditional” analogue to understand similarities and differences. Here, aluminum is introduced as a substitute for chert in prehistoric ballistics research because, critically, aluminum is safe, inexpensive, easy to process, and it and chert possess densities that differ by less than 4%. The aluminum casting process for replicating stone artifacts is presented, and it is shown that the aluminum castings are essentially identical in form, flake-scar patterning, and mass to their stone counterparts. We then present a proof-of-concept ballistics experiment that demonstrates no difference between aluminum and stone points in terms of target penetration.
BebberMR (2017) Tempered strength: A controlled experiment assessing opportunity costs of adding temper to clay. Journal of Archaeological Science86: 1–13.
2.
BebberMRKeyAJFischM, et al. (2019a) The exceptional abandonment of metal tools by North American hunter-gatherers, 3000 BP. Scientific Reports9(1): 1–4.
3.
ClarksonC (2017) Teaching Complex flint knapping strategies in the classroom using “potato knapping”. Lithic Technology42: 155–160.
CoppeJLepersCClarenneV, et al. (2019) Ballistic study tackles kinetic energy values of palaeolithic weaponry. Archaeometry61: 933–956.
6.
DibbleHLPelcinA (1995) The effect of hammer mass and velocity on flake mass. Journal of Archaeological Science22: 429–439.
7.
DibbleHLRezekZ (2009) Introducing a new experimental design for controlled studies of flake formation: Results for exterior platform angle, platform depth, angle of blow, velocity, and force. Journal of Archaeological Science36: 1945–1954.
8.
DibbleHLWhittakerJC (1981) New experimental evidence on the relation between percussion flaking and flake variation. Journal of Archaeological Science8: 283–296.
9.
Diez-MartinFBuchananBNorrisJD, et al. (2021) Was welling, ohio (33–Co-2), a Clovis basecamp or lithic workshop? Employing experimental models to interpret Old collections. American Antiquity86(1): 183–198.
10.
DogandžićTAbdolazadehALeaderG, et al. (2020) The results of lithic experiments performed on glass cores are applicable to other raw materials. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences12: 1–14.
11.
ErenMIBebberMR (2019) The cerutti mastodon site and experimental archaeology's quiet coming of age. Antiquity93: 796–797.
12.
ErenMIBebberMRWilcoxD, et al. (2021a) North American Clovis point form and performance II: An experimental assessment of point, haft, and shaft durability. Lithic TechnologyIn Press.
13.
ErenMILycettSJPattenRJ, et al. (2016) Test, model, and method validation: The role of experimental stone artifact replication in hypothesis-driven archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology8: 103–136.
14.
ErenMIMeltzerDJStoryB, et al. (2021b) On the efficacy of Clovis fluted points for hunting proboscideans. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports39: 103166.
15.
ErenMIRomansJBuchananB, et al. (2021) Validating chronograph photo sensor measurement accuracy of stone-tipped projectile velocity. Measurement: Sensors13: 100037.
16.
ErenMIStoryBPerroneA, et al. (2020) North American Clovis point form and performance: An experimental assessment of penetration depth. Lithic Technology45(4): 263–282.
17.
FergusonJR (ed) (2010) Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology: Examining Technology Through Production and Use. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.
18.
HechtEEGutmanDAKhreishehN, et al. (2015) Acquisition of paleolithic toolmaking abilities involves structural remodeling to inferior frontoparietal regions. Brain Structure and Function220: 2315–2331.
19.
IovitaRSchönekeßHGaudzinski-WindheuserS, et al. (2014) Projectile impact fractures and launching mechanisms: Results of a controlled ballistic experiment using replica levallois points. Journal of Archaeological Science48: 73–83.
20.
IovitaRSchönekeßHGaudzinski-WindheuserS, et al. (2016) Identifying weapon delivery systems using macrofracture analysis and fracture propagation velocity: A controlled experiment. In: IovitaRSanoK (eds) Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp.13–27.
21.
JenningsTASmallwoodAMPevnyCD (2021) Reviewing the role of experimentation in reconstructing paleoamerican lithic technologies. PaleoAmerica7: 53–67.
22.
JohnsonLL (1978) A history of flint-knapping experimentation, 1838-1976. Current Anthropology19: 337–372.
23.
KeyAYoungJFischMR, et al. (2018) Comparing the use of meat and clay during cutting and projectile research. Engineering Fracture Mechanics192: 163–175.
24.
KeyAJLycettSJ (2011) Technology based evolution? A biometric test of the effects of handsize versus tool form on efficiency in an experimental cutting task. Journal of Archaeological Science38: 1663–1670.
25.
KeyAJLycettSJ (2014) Are bigger flakes always better? An experimental assessment of flake size variation on cutting efficiency and loading. Journal of Archaeological Science41: 140–146.
26.
KeyAJLycettSJ (2015) Edge angle as a variably influential factor in flake cutting efficiency: An experimental investigation of its relationship with tool size and loading. Archaeometry57: 911–927.
27.
KeyAJLycettSJ (2017) Reassessing the production of handaxes versus flakes from a functional perspective. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences9: 737–753.
28.
KeyAJM (2019) Handaxe shape variation in a relative context. Comptes Rendus Palevol18: 555–567.
29.
KhreishehNNDaviesDBradleyBA (2013) Extending experimental control: The use of porcelain in flaked stone experimentation. Advances in Archaeological Practice1: 38–46.
30.
KletterRDe-GrootA (2001) Excavating to excess?: The last decade of archaeology in Israel and its implications. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology14: 76–85.
31.
KozowykPRSoressiMPomstraD, et al. (2017) Experimental methods for the palaeolithic dry distillation of birch bark: Implications for the origin and development of neandertal adhesive technology. Scientific Reports7(1): 1–9.
32.
KruschkeJ (2013) Bayesian Estimation supersedes the t testJournal of Experimental Psychology: General142: 573–603.
33.
Lamdin-WhymarkH (2009) Sir john evans: Experimental flint knapping and the origins of lithic research. Lithics30: 45–52.
34.
LinSCPremoLS (2021) Forager mobility and lithic discard probability similarly affect the distance of raw material discard from source. American Antiquity86(4): 845–863.
35.
LinSCRezekZDibbleHL (2018) Experimental design and experimental inference in stone artifact archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory25: 663–688.
36.
LipoCPDunnellRCO’BrienMJ, et al. (2012) Beveled projectile points and ballistics technology. American Antiquity77: 774–788.
37.
LoendorfCBlikreLBryceWD, et al. (2018) Raw material impact strength and flaked stone projectile point performance. Journal of Archaeological Science90: 50–61.
38.
LoweCKramerAWilsonM, et al. (2019) Controlled ballistics tests of ground, percussion-flaked, and pressure-flaked projectile point impact durability: Implications for archaeological method and theory. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports24: 677–682.
39.
LycettSJChauhanPR (2010) Analytical approaches to palaeolithic technologies: An introduction. In: LycettSJChauhanPR (eds) New Perspectives on Old Stones. New York: Springer, pp.1–22.
40.
LycettSJErenMI (2013) Levallois lessons: The challenge of integrating mathematical models, quantitative experiments and the archaeological record. World Archaeology45(4): 519–538.
41.
MagnaniMGrindleDLoomisS, et al. (2019a) Evaluating claims for an early peopling of the americas: Experimental design and the cerutti mastodon site. Antiquity93: 789–795.
42.
MagnaniMGrindleDLoomisS, et al. (2019b) Experimental futures in archaeology. Antiquity93: 808–810.
43.
McPherronSPAbdolahzadehAArcherW, et al. (2020) Introducing platform surface interior angle (PSIA) and its role in flake formation, size and shape. PLoS ONE15: e0241714.
44.
MeltzerDJ (2015) The Great Paleolithic War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
MesoudiA (2011) Cultural Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
MilksAChampionSCowperE, et al. (2016) Early spears as thrusting weapons: Isolating force and impact velocities in human performance trials. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports10: 191–203.
47.
MrazVFischMErenMI, et al. (2019) Thermal engineering of stone increased prehistoric toolmaking skill. Scientific Reports9: 1–8.
48.
MullenDMatneyTMorrisonA, et al. (2021) Experimental assessment of Neo-assyrian bronze arrowhead penetration: An initial study comparing bilobate versus trilobate morphologies. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports35: 102765.
49.
NashSEColwellC (2020) NAGPRA At 30: The effects of repatriation. Annual Review of Anthropology49: 225–239.
50.
O’SullivanAPowersMMurphyJ, et al. (2014) In: Kelly, B., Roycroft, N., Stanley, M. (Eds.), Fragments of Lives Past: Archaeological Objects from Irish Road Schemes, Archaeology and the National Roads Authority Monograph Series No. 11, pp. 115-126.
51.
OutramAK (2008) Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology40: 1–6.
52.
PargeterJ (2007) Howiesons poort segments as hunting weapons: Experiments with replicated projectiles. The South African Archaeological Bulletin62: 147–153.
53.
PettigrewDBWhittakerJCGarnettJ, et al. (2015) How atlatl darts behave: Beveled points and the relevance of controlled experiments. American Antiquity80: 590–601.
54.
RademakersFVerlyGTéreygeolF, et al. (2021) Contributions of experimental archaeology to excavation and material studies. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports38: 103036.
55.
RezekZLinSIovitaR, et al. (2011) The relative effects of core surface morphology on flake shape and other attributes. Journal of Archaeological Science38: 1346–1359.
56.
SchifferMB (2013) Contributions of experimental archaeology. In: SchifferMB (ed) The Archaeology of Science. Heidelberg: Springer, pp.43–52.
57.
SchillingerKMesoudiALycettSJ (2015) The impact of imitative versus emulative learning mechanisms on artifactual variation: Implications for the evolution of material culture. Evolution and Human Behavior36(6): 446–455.
58.
SchillingerKMesoudiALycettSJ (2016) Copying error, evolution, and phylogenetic signal in artifactual traditions: An experimental approach using “model artifacts”. Journal of Archaeological Science70: 23–34.
59.
SchillingerKMesoudiALycettSJ (2017) Differences in manufacturing traditions and assemblage-level patterns: The origins of cultural differences in archaeological data. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory24: 640–658.
60.
SchillingerKMesoudiALycettSJ (2014b) Considering the role of time budgets on copy-error rates in material culture traditions: An experimental assessment. PLoS ONE9: e97157.
61.
SchillingerKMesoudiALycettSJ (2014a) Copying error and the cultural evolution of “additive” vs.“reductive” material traditions: An experimental assessment. American Antiquity79: 128–143.
62.
SchmidtPBlessingMRageotM, et al. (2019) Birch tar production does not prove neanderthal behavioral complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(36): 17707–17711.
63.
SchmidtPBuckGBertholdC, et al. (2019) The mechanical properties of heat-treated rocks: A comparison between chert and silcrete. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences11(6): 2489–2506.
64.
SchovilleBJWilkinsJRitzmanT, et al. (2017) The performance of heat-treated silcrete backed pieces in actualistic and controlled complex projectile experiments. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports14: 302–317.
65.
SittonJStoryBBuchananB, et al. (2020) Tip cross-sectional geometry predicts the penetration depth of stone-tipped projectiles. Scientific Reports10(1): 1–9.
SpeerCA (2018) Using porcelain replicas for precision control in flintknapping experiments. Advances in Archaeological Practice6: 72–81.
68.
StoutD (2005) The social and cultural context of stone-knapping skill acquisition. In: RouxVBrilB (eds) Stone Knapping: The Necessary Conditions for a Uniquely Hominin Behaviour. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp.331–340.
69.
StoutDHechtEKhreishehN, et al. (2015) Cognitive demands of lower paleolithic toolmaking. PLoS ONE10: e0121804.
70.
SurovellTATooheyJLMyersAD, et al. (2017) The end of archaeological discovery. American Antiquity82: 288–300.
71.
ThomasDH (1986) Points on points: A reply to flenniken and raymond. American Antiquity51: 619–627.
72.
TsirkA (2014) Fractures in Knapping. Oxford: Archaeopress.
73.
WhittakerJC (1994) Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin: University of Texas Press.
74.
WhittakerJC (2004) American Flintknappers: Stone Age Art in the Age of Computers. Austin: University of Texas Press.
75.
WhittakerJC (2010) Weapon trials: The atlatl and experiments in hunting technology. In: FergusonJ (ed) Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology: Examining Technology Through Production and Use. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pp.195–224.
76.
WilkinsJSchovilleBJBrownKS (2014) An experimental investigation of the functional hypothesis and evolutionary advantage of stone-tipped spears. PLoS ONE9(8): e104514.
77.
WilsonMPerroneASmithH, et al. (2021) Modern thermoplastic (hot glue) versus organic-based adhesives and haft bond failure rate in experimental prehistoric ballistics. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives104: 102717.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
