https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1878-4064
?Mathematical formulae have been encoded as MathML and are displayed in this HTML version using MathJax in order to improve their display. Uncheck the box to turn MathJax off. This feature requires Javascript. Click on a formula to zoom.Abstract
The replacement of the atlatl and dart weapon system with the bow and arrow system in the Basin-Plateau region was a significant technological event. Distinguishing dart points from arrow points is one component of understanding the timing of this event. Previous analyses demonstrated that size differences of shoulder widths distinguish dart from arrow points. However, neck width and thickness of a stone projectile point are better variables for differentiating arrow points from dart points because these variables directly relate to the attachment of a projectile point to a foreshaft or mainshaft. Because of overlaps in foreshaft diameters, projectile point neck widths, and thicknesses between darts and arrows, it is not always possible to separate projectile points into arrow points and dart points. In such cases, it is only possible to provide a probability estimate of correct classification for any individual specimen falling within the overlapping ranges.
La sustitución del sistema de armas atlatl y dardos por el sistema de arco y flecha en la región de la Cuenca-Meseta fue un acontecimiento tecnológico significativo. Distinguir los puntos de dardo de los puntos de flecha es un componente para comprender el momento de este evento. Análisis anteriores demostraron que las diferencias de tamaño de los anchos de los hombros distinguen las puntas de los dardos de las flechas. Sin embargo, el ancho del cuello y el grosor de la punta de proyectil de piedra son mejores variables para diferenciar las puntas de flecha de las puntas de dardo, ya que estas variables se relacionan directamente con la unión de una punta de proyectil a un eje delantero o principal. Debido a las superposiciones en los diámetros de las flechas delanteras, los anchos de los cuellos de las puntas de proyectil y los grosores entre los dardos y las flechas, no siempre es posible separar las puntas de proyectil en puntas de flecha y puntas de dardo. En tales casos, sólo es posible proporcionar una estimación de probabilidad de la clasificación correcta para cualquier espécimen individual que se encuentre dentro de los rangos superpuestos.
The introduction of the bow and arrow is a significant event in the prehistory of western North America (Whittaker Citation2012). The adoption of the bow and arrow in the region may have effected changes in warfare (Geib Citation2016; LeBlanc Citation1999), changes in social organization (Bettinger Citation2013; Reed and Geib Citation2013; VanPool and O’Brien Citation2013), migration and diffusion (Geib Citation1996), and technological organization (Lyman et al. Citation2008; Railey Citation2010).
Due to poor preservation of perishable remains, recognizing the beginning of the atlatl-bow transition and the overlap in the use of the bow and arrow and atlatl and dart weapon systems is primarily restricted to the study of stone projectile points. However, stone dart or arrow points are only one element of the sophisticated weapon systems upon which prehistoric hunters relied.
Both the atlatl and dart and the bow and arrow are complex weapon systems consisting of a propulsive device, the atlatl or the bow, and an appropriately-sized composite dart or arrow projectile consisting of two or three parts, a rear shaft, main shaft, and foreshaft often mounted with a stone projectile point (). Perishable remains of atlatls and bows, darts and arrows (Dalley Citation1970; Guernsey Citation1931; Hibben Citation1938; Kidder and Guernsey Citation1919; Sandberg Citation1950, etc.) can unequivocally demonstrate which weapon system (or both) is present at a site, but these discoveries are usually limited to dry caves, rockshelters, and overhangs which are relatively rare in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau (hereafter the Basin-Plateau region).
Figure 1. Schematic drawing of prehistoric composite dart and arrow projectiles with named elements. Not to scale.
Most of the significant sites with deposits of perishable remains in the Basin-Plateau region were either excavated decades ago or have been extensively looted (Geib Citation2011:135; Jennings Citation1980:3; Smith et al. Citation2022:789). The lack of perishable remains of these weapon systems at most sites forces researchers to rely on non-perishable stone dart and arrow points as proxy indicators of these two different weapon systems (Shott Citation1997:87). Relying solely on dart and arrow points, early researchers (Fenenga Citation1953; Shott Citation1997; Thomas Citation1978) demonstrated that there are size differences between stone dart and arrow points that are now recognized as a result of overall size differences between dart and arrow projectiles.
Size Differences between Dart and Arrow Projectiles
To understand the size difference between stone dart and arrow points noted by previous researchers, it is necessary to consider the size differences between the entire dart and arrow projectiles not just the projectile points. While the propulsive mechanism of the atlatl and the bow are significantly different, the projectiles of each system are superficially similar, but are scaled to different dimensions. Darts are correspondingly longer than arrows with a mean length of about 146 cm compared with a mean length of ethnographic arrows of about 62 cm (, Supplemental Tables). Longer dart main shafts have larger diameters and require larger diameter dart foreshafts than arrow main shafts and foreshafts. The length differentiation between darts and arrows reflects an overall size diminution in other variables for arrows relative to darts as well.
Table 1. Comparison of Dart and Arrow Projectile Measurements.
Because of the size differences between dart and arrow projectiles, the dart shaft requires relatively heavier, larger components than an arrow shaft. While the atlatl dart shaft length can vary according to the preferences of the hunter, arrows in the Basin-Plateau region are always much shorter than dart projectiles. The physical size of the bow, the bows’ full draw length, and the draw weight affect the length and size of the arrow relative to the reach of the archer’s bow hand (Sapir [Citation1910] in Fowler and Matley Citation1979:65–66). Pope (Citation1923:6) estimates that full draw of a prehistoric bow would be between 64 and 72 cm. In the Basin-Plateau region, ethnohistoric arrows only average 62 cm in length indicating an even shorter draw length. The characteristics of the bow as a propulsive device limit the size and weight of any arrow and the stone tip knapped to fit the arrow.
Consequently, larger stone points can be mounted on larger dart foreshafts providing additional weight for balancing the dart shaft in flight (Hughes Citation1998). Because of the smaller diameter of the arrow foreshafts, attached stone arrow points will be correspondingly smaller as well. Both the longer dart shafts and the shorter arrow shafts with appropriately-sized projectile points are crafted and finetuned to each work with their respective weapon system, either the atlatl or the bow (Lepers and Rots Citation2020).
The diminutive size of an arrow projectile compared to an atlatl dart projectile accounts for the size differences between stone dart and arrow points noted by early researchers. The size differences are a direct consequence of attaching differentially-sized stone dart and arrow points to the differentially-sized dart and arrow foreshafts.
Size Differences between Dart and Arrow Points
Fenenga (Citation1953) presented a bimodal distribution of weight of projectile points, supporting arguments from an earlier generation of archaeologists that smaller points were arrow points and larger ones were dart points. Later research and associated radiocarbon assays associated with stone projectile points in the Great Basin in the 1960s showed that larger dart-sized points chronometrically and stratigraphically predated later prehistoric and ethnographic arrow points (Hester and Heizer Citation1973).
In a 1978 analysis, Thomas (Citation1978) assembled a sample of stone projectile points that were attached to ethnographic arrows and prehistoric stone projectile points attached to prehistoric dart foreshafts to assess the size differences between stone dart points and stone arrow points. Using these two discrete data sets, he compared various metrics of length, width, thickness, neck width, and weight between the arrow points and dart points. Thomas used x-rays to measure the neck width of the mounted arrow and dart points, however, weight could not be directly measured because the points were mounted. Thomas used discriminant analysis of these variables to differentiate dart and arrow points with an 86% successful classification rate (Thomas Citation1978:471).
Almost 20 years later, Shott (Citation1997) repeated Thomas’ comparative analysis of dart and arrow points with an additional 30 prehistoric dart foreshafts with stone points. After multiple discriminant analyses, Shott (Citation1997:94) achieved a similar classification rate to Thomas with his three-variable discriminant function distinguishing dart points from arrow points. Thomas and Shott did not provide a working definition of arrow or dart points to distinguish these two groups, but rather presented two analytical groups based on known, different foreshaft sizes, dart-sized points mounted on foreshafts believed to represent atlatl darts and arrow points mounted on ethnographic arrow foreshafts. Because of sampling issues and bias in archaeological data in general, it is unknown how representative the curated Thomas’ and Shott’s collections are relative to the populations of all dart points and all arrow points in the Basin-Plateau region.
The discriminant analysis applied by both Thomas and Shott can only distinguish differences among predefined groups identified by the analysts, but the success of any discriminant analysis is highly dependent on the specific variables selected by the analysts for inclusion in the analysis. With the exception of neck width, all other variables selected to differentiate arrow and dart points were allometric variables associated with size – length, width, thickness, and weight. Because the points were mounted and could not be weighed directly, weight was not included in the analyses. Thomas (Citation1978:470) noted that weight was indirectly correlated with the other three variables of length, width, and thickness – intrinsic three-dimensional variables of any worked stone artifact. Importantly, weight, as an allometric variable of overall size, directly affected by rejuvenation, is a poor differentiator between dart and arrow points (Bettinger and Eerkens Citation1999).
Both Thomas’ and Shott’s analyses demonstrated a size difference along these variables between dart points and arrow points. Thomas (Citation1978:470) concluded: “Simply stated, the initial assumption seems valid on the basis of this sample: dart points are demonstrably larger than arrowheads.” According to Thomas and Shott, width or shoulder width is the most significant variable in a multivariate analysis of arrow points and dart points, but there is disagreement on the contribution of the other variables. Thomas states: “width is the single most important discriminator between arrowheads and dart points, and that length is the least important of the four variables considered” (Thomas Citation1978:470). In contrast, Shott notes: “The four-variable solution is dominated by shoulder width and length” (Shott Citation1997:93). Noting that a hafted projectile can be shorten by reworking while hafted, Shott removed length from a second discriminant analysis and concluded for a three-variable solution: “Standardized function coefficients identify shoulder width as by far the strongest contributor to results, followed distantly by neck width and thickness” (Shott Citation1997:94).
Discriminant analysis is a multivariate statistical technique that minimizes the dispersion among variables within each group while simultaneously maximizing the multivariate distance between the central tendencies (the centroids) of the arrow group and the dart group. The discriminant analyses of Shott and Thomas based primarily on size variables showed that width is the main variable differentiating dart points from arrow points as it maximized the multivariate distance between these two point groups.
However, it is important to note that width or shoulder width, as a size variable, is an independent variable unassociated with the actual attachment variables related to fitting a larger stone dart point to a larger dart foreshaft or attaching a smaller arrow point to a smaller arrow foreshaft. The two attachment variables, the neck width and the basal thickness of the point, are discussed below.
Size Difference between Dart and Arrow Foreshafts
The diameter of dart or arrow foreshafts determines the neck width of an attached stone point. Dart points have larger neck widths because they are attached to larger foreshafts. Neck widths of arrow points are smaller than dart points because they are attached to smaller diameter foreshafts. The diameter of the foreshaft also limits the width of the notch which directly affects the final basal thickness of the attached stone point. The width of the notch is fixed at the time of manufacture of the foreshaft.
Fields (Citation2013) suggests that notch depth might also be a differentiating variable between dart and arrow foreshafts, but this variable has not been directly measured nor can it be calculated from published data (e.g., Fowler and Matley Citation1979; Shott Citation1997; Thomas Citation1978). Although neck widths of stone projectile points are not perfectly determined by dart and arrow foreshafts diameters, other projectile point size variables such as width, length, or weight are unrelated to attaching a stone point to a dart or arrow foreshaft or mainshaft and thus are substantially less useful than neck width and thickness in differentiating dart from arrow points, as discussed below.
The Dart-Arrow Index
In contrast to the multivariate analyses distinguishing dart and arrow points by Thomas (Citation1978) and Shott (Citation1997), Hildebrandt and King (Citation2002, Citation2012) developed a composite variable they call the dart-arrow index. Hildebrandt and King believed this variable better differentiates between dart and arrow points in the Basin-Plateau region. Hildebrandt and King (Citation2002, Citation2012) ignored size metrics of blade width and length that are not controlled by the attachment of a point to a foreshaft and instead emphasized variables that are directly associated with attaching a projectile point to a foreshaft. Their dart-arrow index is computed using only the neck width and maximum thickness of the stone point by adding them together to obtain a composite value.
In testing their index, Hildebrandt and King (Citation2002, Citation2012) analysed several hundred dart and arrow points from the western Great Basin. compares the neck width and maximum thickness of the arrow points and darts from Hildebrandt and King’s data by grouping together the arrow points, Desert Side-notched, Gunter Series, Rose Spring Series, and the darts points, Elko Series, Gatecliff Split Stem, Northern Side-notched. These data demonstrate that arrow points have statistically narrower neck widths and that dart points are statistically thicker. It is likely that it is not the maximum thickness of the stone point but rather a thinned point base that determines its suitability for mounting in a foreshaft notch. Because the maximum thickness of a projectile point between the base and the blade is not usually reported in the literature, Hildebrandt and King (Citation2002) used maximum point thickness to compute their index.
Table 2. Comparison of Neck Width and Thickness of Dart and Arrow Points.
Hildebrandt and Kings’ metric is better able to distinguish dart points from arrow points than multivariate analyses or point classification keys (cf. Hockett et al. Citation2014) because it only incorporated variables that directly relate to mounting stone points on differentially sized foreshafts. Other parameters of the stone points, i.e., weight, blade width, and length (cf. Thomas Citation1978; Shott Citation1997) are not directly determinative of the attachment of a projectile point to a dart or arrow foreshaft, but such variables, along with other plan view morphological variables, may be useful in distinguishing different types of both arrow points and dart points.
Distinguish Dart Foreshafts from Arrow Foreshafts
As noted in , dart foreshafts have a mean foreshaft diameter that is greater than arrow foreshaft diameters and the foreshaft diameter is what constrains the size of the attached stone projectile point. While there are statistical differences between the two groups of foreshaft diameters in aggregate, there are overlapping values in the diameters of the upper tail of the arrow foreshaft distribution and the lower tail of dart foreshafts. graphically depicts the normal distribution of dart and arrow foreshaft diameters showing the region of overlap of the tails of each distribution. Any individual specimen falling within this overlapping area, a region of uncertainty, cannot unequivocally be identified as either a dart foreshaft or an arrow foreshaft based solely on the measurement of the diameter. Large diameter arrow foreshafts could be mistaken for small diameter dart foreshafts and conversely small diameter dart foreshafts could be misinterpreted as large diameter arrow foreshafts.
Figure 2. Comparison of the density distribution of the diameter of ethnographic arrow foreshafts with prehistoric dart foreshafts.
In the Great Basin, Blair and Winslow (Citation2006:67) suggest a cut point of .8 cm for foreshaft diameters to separate arrow foreshafts from dart foreshafts while Buck and Dubarton (Citation1994:231) indicate that foreshafts with diameters larger than .9 cm are dart foreshafts. However, makes it clear there is no single cut point in foreshaft diameters that can be used to separate dart and arrow foreshafts into two statistically separate groups without causing uncertainty in the classification of specimens falling within the overlapping tails of the curves.
When a single foreshaft is assigned to either the dart or arrow category, the normal probability distribution for each foreshaft type can be used to estimate the probability of correctly or incorrectly identifying the specimen as either a dart foreshaft or an arrow foreshaft based on the z-score because a foreshaft falling in the overlap range does not have 50% probability of being either an arrow or a dart foreshaft. Rather, because of differences in the variances in dart and arrow foreshaft diameters, the probability of inclusion in one group or the other varies in proportion to the relative z-scores by only using the upper tail of the arrow distribution for foreshafts assigned to the arrow foreshaft category and by only using the lower tail of the dart distribution for the foreshafts assigned to the dart foreshaft category. In summary, the perishable remains of dart and arrow foreshafts cannot be completely differentiated based on diameter, leading to the conclusion that dart and arrows points knapped to fit such foreshafts cannot be differentiated either, whether by multivariate classification equations or by the dart-arrow index.
displays a normal distribution of the neck width data presented in showing a range of overlap in neck widths among dart and arrow points. The range of uncertainty in distinguishing neck widths of arrow and dart points parallels the range of uncertainty or overlap for dart and arrow foreshafts. There is a direct correspondence between the overlap in neck widths between dart and arrow points and the overlap of dart and arrow foreshaft diameters because of the need of the knapper to match specific points to specific foreshafts.
Figure 3. Comparison of the density distribution of the neck width of stone arrow points with stone dart points (data from Hildebrandt and King Citation2012).
Summary
The physical dimensions of a stone point do not dictate the form or nature of the arrow or dart projectile or any other elements of the atlatl and dart or bow and arrow weapon systems (Thomas Citation1978:468). Rather, the attachment characteristics of the stone projectile point, specifically neck widths and basal thicknesses, are directly constrained by the size and nature of the hafting notch and the diameter of the foreshaft. While extremely small projectile points and exceptionally large projectile points may be classified correctly as arrow or dart points, there is no single cut point among any metric measurements of stone projectile points or foreshaft diameters that can unequivocally differentiate all stone dart points from all stone arrow points or all arrow foreshafts from all dart foreshafts.
Even the variables that are most directly related to dart or arrow foreshaft mounting, i.e., neck width and thickness or basal thickness, result in statistical overlaps between dart and arrow projectile points. This overlap in neck widths corresponds with the overlap in foreshaft diameters because each projectile point is knapped and sized to fit a particular notched foreshaft that has already been carved for insertion into a main shaft. The foreshaft was not created nor was the notch modified to fit a finished point, rather the point was selected and reworked to fit the existing notch constrained by the diameter of the foreshaft. It was more efficient to reduce the basal thickness and neck width of a stone point than to widen the notch or create a new foreshaft.
The perishable elements of these weapon systems, including the foreshafts of compound darts and arrows, require a greater investment of time and effort to create than the knapping and sizing of one or more stone projectile points suitable for attaching to a particular dart or arrow projectile foreshaft (Keeley Citation1982:800). Thus, a foreshaft is not fabricated nor sized to accept the neck width or thickness of an existing finished arrow or dart point, rather, a stone point is sized and knapped to fit a specific existing notched foreshaft. As noted by Zeanah and Elston (Citation2001), a stone projectile point is the most disposable and replaceable element of a dart or arrow projectile. It is likely that many of the dart and arrow points that appear to be fully functional when recovered in archaeological contexts were discarded because the point did not have a suitably-sized neck width or basal thickness to fit the extant notched foreshafts possessed by the hunter.
For foreshaft specimens or stone projectile points that fall within these overlapping ranges, other contextual data from associated assemblages can be used to increase the likelihood of correct assignment to either the dart or arrow category. Stratigraphic association of diagnostic perishable remains of either weapon system would strengthen the specific assignment as would an assemblage of associated or differentially-sized dart or arrow points coupled with radiocarbon assays.
The implications of these previous analyses are clear, a projectile point lacking associated archaeological contexts cannot always be classified as either a dart point or arrow point based solely on the physical dimensions of the specimen. These analyses demonstrate that there is an overlapping size range of dart and arrow points that needs to be considered when making pronouncements about the earliest use of the bow and arrow or the latest use of the atlatl and dart by solely relying on size differences of stone projectile points.
Supplemental Material
Download MS Word (35.1 KB)Supplemental Material
Download MS Excel (10.5 KB)Supplemental Material
Download MS Excel (19.1 KB)Supplemental Material
Download MS Excel (20.6 KB)Supplemental Material
Download MS Excel (28.5 KB)Supplemental Material
Download MS Excel (21.6 KB)Acknowledgments
I thank Phil Geib and Michael Shott for providing information and sharing their unpublished dart foreshaft data. I thank Kelly Hays Gilpin for assistance on this paper and reviewers, including the editor, Tom Rocek, who commented on various earlier drafts of this paper and strengthen the contents of this version.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Supplemental Materials
For supplementary material accompanying this paper, visit doi:10.1080/00231940.2024.2377824.
References Cited
- Allely, Steve, and Jim Hamm 2002 Encyclopaedia of Native American Bows, Arrows, and Quivers; Volume 2, Plains and Southwest. Bose d’Arc Press, Goldthwaite, Texas.
- Bettinger, Robert L. 2013 Effects of the Bow on Social Organization in Western North America. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 22:118–123.
- Bettinger, Robert L., and Jelmer Eerkens 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64:231–242.
- Blair, Lynda M., and Diane L. Winslow 2006 Firebrand Cave (26CK5434/CRNV-05-7010): An Archaic Ceremonial Site in Southern Nevada. Harry Reid Center Report 1-1-48 (BLM Report 5-2516). Ms. on file, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada.
- Buck, Paul E., and Anne Dubarton 1994 Archaeological Investigations at Pintwater Cave, Nevada, During the 1963-64 Field Season. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16:221–242.
- Dalley, Gardiner 1970 Wooden Artifacts. In Hogup Cave, edited by C. Melvin Aiken, pp. 153–186. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 93, Salt Lake City.
- Fenenga, Franklin 1953 The Weights of Chipped Stone Points: A Clue to Their Functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 9:309–323.
- Fields, Ron C. D. 2013 Do Arrow Foreshafts differ from Atlatl Dart Foreshafts? MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
- Fowler, Don D., and John F. Matley 1979 Material Culture of the Numa: The John Wesley Powell Collection, 1867–1880. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, 26. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
- Geib, Phil R. 1996 Glen Canyon Revisited. University of Utah Anthropological Paper No. 119. Salt Lake City.
- Geib, Phil R. 2011 Foragers and Farmers of the Northern Kayenta Region: Excavations along the Navajo Mountain Road. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
- Geib, Phil R. 2016 Basketmaker II Warfare and Fending Sticks in the North American Southwest. PhD dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of New, Albuquerque., Mexico.
- Guernsey, Samuel J. 1931 Explorations in Northeastern Arizona: Report on the Archaeological Fieldwork of 1920–1923. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 12 No. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge.
- Guernsey, Samuel J., and Alfred V. Kidder 1921 Basket-Maker Caves of Northeastern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 8 No. 8. Harvard University, Cambridge.
- Heizer, Robert F. 1938 A Complete Atlatl Dart from Pershing County, Nevada. New Mexico Anthropologist 2(4/5):70–71.
- Hester, Thomas R., and Robert F. Heizer 1973 Review and Discussion of Great Basin Projectile Points: Form and Chronology. Archaeological Research Facility. University of California, Berkeley.
- Hibben, Frank C. 1938 A Cache of Wooden Bows from the Mogollon Mountains. American Antiquity 4:36–38.
- Hildebrandt, William R., and Jerome H. King 2002 Projectile Point Variability along the Northern California-Great Basin Interface: Results from the Tuscarora Alturas Projects. In Boundary Lands: Archaeological Investigations along the California-Great Basin Interface, edited by Kelly R. McGuire, pp. 5–28. Nevada State Museum Anthropological Papers 24. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
- Hildebrandt, William R., and Jerome H. King 2012 Distinguishing Between Darts and Arrows in the Archaeological Record: Implications for Technological Change in the American West. American Antiquity 77:789–799.
- Hockett, Bryan, William R. Hildebrandt, and Jerome H. King 2014 Identifying Dart and Arrow Points in the Great Basin: Comment on Smith et al.’s “Points in Time: Direct Radiocarbon Dates on Great Basin Projectile Points”. American Antiquity 79:561–565.
- Hughes, Susan S. 1998 Getting to the Point: Evolutionary Change in Prehistoric Weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5:345–408.
- Jennings, Jesse D. 1980 Cowboy Cave. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 104, Salt Lake City.
- Keeley, Lawrence H. 1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47:798–809.
- Kidder, Alfred V., and Samuel J. Guernsey 1919 Archeological Explorations in Northeastern Arizona. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 66. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
- Leblanc, Steven A. 1999 Prehistoric Warfare in the American Southwest. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
- Lepers, Christian, and Veerle Rots 2020 The Important Role of Bow Choice and Arrow Fletching in Projectile Experimentation: A Ballistic Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 34:102613.
- Lyman, R Lee, Todd L. VanPool, and Michael J. O'Brien 2018 Variation in North American Dart Points and Arrow Points When One or Both Are Present. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2805–2812.
- Pope, Saxton T. 1923 A Study of Bows and Arrows. University of California Press, Berkeley.
- Railey, Jim A. 2010 Reduced Mobility or the Bow and Arrow? Another Look at “Expedient” Technologies and Sedentism. American Antiquity 75:259–286.
- Reed, Paul F., and Phil R. Geib 2013 Sedentism, Social Change, Warfare, and the Bow in the Ancient Pueblo Southwest. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 22:103–110.
- Sandberg Sigfred 1950 An Anthropological Investigation of the Correo Snake Pit. MA Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of New, Albuquerque., Mexico.
- Sapir, Edward 1910 Kaibab Paiute Notes. Manuscript. American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia.
- Shott, Michael J. 1997 Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points. American Antiquity 62:86–101.
- Smith, Geoffrey M., Sara Sturtz, Anna J. Camp, Kenneth D. Adams, Elizabeth Kallenbach, Richard L. Rosencrance, and Richard E. Hughes 2022 Leonard Rockshelter Revisited: Evaluating a 70-Year-Old Claim of a Late Pleistocene Human Occupation in the Western Great Basin. American Antiquity 87:776–793.
- Thomas, David H. 1978 Arrowheads and Atlatl Darts: How the Stones Got the Shaft. American Antiquity 43:461–472.
- VanPool, Todd L., and Michael J. O'Brien 2013 Sociopolitical Complexity and the Bow and Arrow in the American Southwest. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 22:111–117.
- Whittaker, John C. 2012 Ambiguous Endurance: Late Atlatls in The American Southwest? Kiva 78:79–98.
- Zeanah, David W., and Robert G. Elston 2001 Testing a Simple Hypothesis Concerning the Resilience of Dart Point Styles to Hafting Element Repair. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 23:93–124.