Reverse Engineering Stone Atlatl Dart Points

References

• Ahler, S. A., & Geib, P. R. (2000). Why flute? Folsom point design and adaptation. Journal of Archaeological Science, 27, 799–820. doi: 10.1006/jasc.1999.0503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amick, D. S., Mauldin, R. P., & Binford, L. R. (1989). The potential of experiments in lithic technology. In D. S. Amick, & R. P. Mauldin (Eds.), Experiments in lithic technology (pp. 1–14). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British Archaeological Reports International Series 528.
   Google Scholar
• Bebber, M. R., Lycett, S. J., & Eren, M. I. (2017). Developing a stable point: Evaluating the temporal and geographic consistency of late prehistoric unnotched triangular point functional design in Midwestern North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 47, 72–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2017.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bettinger, R. L., & Eerkens, J. (1999). Point typologies, cultural transmission, and the spread of bow-and-arrow technology in the prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity, 64, 231–242. doi: 10.2307/2694276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blitz, J. H. (1988). Adoption of the bow in prehistoric North America. North American Archaeologist, 9, 123–145. doi: 10.2190/HN64-P1UD-NM0A-J0LR
   Google Scholar
• Blitz, J. H., & Porth, E. S. (2013). Social complexity and the bow in the Eastern Woodlands. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 22, 89–95. doi: 10.1002/evan.21349
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradbury, A. P. (1998). The bow and arrow in the eastern woodlands: Evidence for an archaic origin. North American Archaeologist, 18, 207–233. doi: 10.2190/F5CX-0PBD-EUPJ-D7NT
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, B. (2015). Clovis intentional bifacial overshot flaking: Two replica examples. Journal of Lithic Studies, 3, 51–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, D. P. (1983). Pots as tools. In J. Moore, & A. Keene (Eds.), Archaeological hammers and theories (pp. 107–134). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cambron, J. W., & Hulse, D. C. (1975). Handbook of Alabama archaeology, part I: Point types. Huntsville, AL: Alabama Archaeological Society.
   Google Scholar
• Cheshier, J., & Kelly, R. L. (2006). Projectile point shape and durability: The effect of thickness: Length. American Antiquity, 71, 353–363. doi: 10.2307/40035908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chikofsky, E. J., & Cross, J. H., II (1990). Reverse engineering and design recovery: A taxonomy. IEEE Software, 7(1), 13–17. doi: 10.1109/52.43044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarkson, C. (2016). Testing archaeological approaches to determining past projectile delivery systems using ethnographic and experimental data. In R. Iovita, & K. Sano (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to the study of stone Age weaponry (pp. 189–202). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Coppe, J., & Rots, V. (2017). Focus on the target. The importance of a transparent fracture terminology for understanding projectile points and projecting modes. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 12, 109–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.010
   Google Scholar
• Cotter, J. L., & Corbett, J. L. (1951). Archeology of the Bynum Mounds, Mississippi. Archeological Research Series 1. Washington, DC: National Park Service.
   Google Scholar
• Cotterell, B., & Kamminga, J. (1979). The mechanics of flaking. In B. Hayden (Ed.), Lithic use-wear analysis (pp. 97–112). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couch, J. S., Stropes, T. A., & Schroth, A. B. (1999). The effect of projectile point size on atlatl dart efficiency. Lithic Technology, 24(1), 27–37. doi: 10.1080/01977261.1999.11720943
   Google Scholar
• Cundy, B. J. (1989). Formal variation in Australian spear and spearthrower technology. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 546. Oxford, U. K.
   Google Scholar
• Deter-Wolf, A. (2004). The Ensworth School site (40DV184): A Middle Archaic Benton occupation along the Harpeth River drainage in middle Tennessee. Tennessee Archaeology, 1, 18–35.
   Google Scholar
• Dockall, J. E. (1997). Wear traces and projectile impact: A review of the experimental and archaeological evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology, 24, 321–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunnell, R. C. (1978). Style and function: A fundamental dichotomy. American Antiquity, 43, 192–202. doi: 10.2307/279244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunnell, R. C., & Feathers, J. K. (1991). Late Woodland manifestations of the Malden Plain, southeast Missouri. In M. S. Nassaney, & C. R. Cobb (Eds.), Stability, transformation, and variation: The late woodland southeast (pp. 21–45). New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Engelbrecht, W. (2015). Interpreting broken arrow points. American Antiquity, 80, 760–766. doi: 10.7183/0002-7316.80.4.760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ensor, H. B. (1981). Gainesville Lake area lithics: Chronology, technology and use. University of Alabama Office of Archaeological Research, Report of Investigations 13. Tuscaloosa, AL.
   Google Scholar
• Eren, M., Lycett, J., Patten, R. J., Buchanan, B., Pargeter, J., & O’Brien, M. J. (2016). Test, model, and method validation; The role of experimental stone artifact replication in hypothesis-driven archaeology. Ethnoarchaeology, 8, 103–136. doi: 10.1080/19442890.2016.1213972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eren, M., Patten, R. J., O’Brien, M. J., & Meltzer, D. J. (2014). More on the rumor of “intentional overshot flaking” and the purported Ice-Age Atlantic crossing. Lithic Technology, 39, 55–63. doi: 10.1179/0197726113Z.00000000033
   Google Scholar
• Fenenga, F. (1953). The weights of chipped stone points: A clue to their functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 9, 309–323. doi: 10.1086/soutjanth.9.3.3628702
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, A. (1989). Hunting with flint-tipped arrows: Results and experiences from practical experiments. In C. Bonsall (Ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe (pp. 29–39). Edinburg: John Donald.
   Google Scholar
• Friis-Hansen, J. (1990). Mesolithic cutting arrows: Functional analysis of arrows used in the hunting of large game. Antiquity, 64, 494–504. doi: 10.1017/S0003598X0007839X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnett, J. (2015). Practical atlatlry of the four corners. Kansas City, MO: Privately published..
   Google Scholar
• Goodyear, A. C., III. (1974). The Brand site: A techno-functional study of a Dalton site in northeast Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Research Series 7.
   Google Scholar
• Hayden, B., Franco, N., & Spafford, J. (1996). Evaluating lithic strategies and design criteria. In G. H. Odell (Ed.), Stone tools: Theoretical insights into human prehistory (pp. 9–43). New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Hildebrandt, W. R., & King, J. H. (2012). Distinguishing between darts and arrows in the archaeological record: Implications for technological change in the American West. American Antiquity, 77, 789–799. doi: 10.7183/0002-7316.77.4.789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, C. M. (1985). Projectile point maintenance and typology: Assessment with factor analysis and canonical correlation. In C. Carr (Ed.), For concordance in archaeological analysis (pp. 566–612). Kansas City, MO: Westport Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Huckell, B. B., & Kilby, J. D. 2014. Clovis caches: Recent discoveries and new research. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, S. S. (1998). Getting to the point: Evolutionary change in prehistoric weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 5, 345–408. doi: 10.1007/BF02428421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunzicker, D. A. (2008). Folsom projectile technology: An experiment in design, effectiveness, and efficiency. Plains Anthropologist, 53, 291–311. doi: 10.1179/pan.2008.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. (1997). Stone tools, politics, and the eighteenth-century Chickasaw in northeast Mississippi. American Antiquity, 62, 215–230. doi: 10.2307/282507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeley, L. H. (1982). Hafting and retooling: Effects on the archaeological record. American Antiquity, 47, 798–809. doi: 10.2307/280285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipo, C. P., Dunnell, R. C., O’Brien, M. J., Harper, V., & Dudgeon, J. (2012). Beveled projectile points and ballistics technology. American Antiquity, 77, 774–788. doi: 10.7183/0002-7316.77.4.774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipo, C. P., Hunt, T. J., Horneman, R., & Bonhomme, V. (2015). Weapons of war? Rapa Nui mata’a morphometric analyses. Antiquity, 90, 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGahey, S. O. (2000). Mississippi projectile point guide. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, K. R., & Hildebrandt, W. R. (2005). Re-thinking Great Basin foragers: Prestige hunting and costly signaling during the Middle Archaic period. American Antiquity, 70, 695–712. doi: 10.2307/40035870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meltzer, D. J. (1981). A study of style and function in a class of tools. Journal of Field Archaeology, 8, 313–326.
   Google Scholar
• Messler, R. W., Jr. (2014). Reverse engineering: Mechanisms, structures, systems, and materials. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Nassaney, M. S., & Pyle, K. (1999). The adoption of the bow and arrow in eastern North America: A view from central Arkansas. American Antiquity, 64, 243–263. doi: 10.2307/2694277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neiman, F. (1997). Conspicuous consumption as wasteful advertising: A Darwinian perspective on spatial patterns in classic Maya terminal monument dates. In M. C. Barton, & G. A. Clark (Eds.), Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary theory and archeological explanation. Archeological papers of the American anthropological association (pp. 267–290). Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, K., & Moore, M. (2013). Balistically anomalous stone projectile points in Australia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2614–2620. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.01.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odell, G. H., & Cowan, F. (1986). Experiments with spears and arrows on animal targets. Journal of Field Archaeology, 3, 195–212.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, W. R. (1994). Effects of stone projectile points as mass in the atlatl and dart system. www.onagocag.com/mass.html.
   Google Scholar
• Pettigrew, D. B., Whittaker, J. C., Garnett, J., & Hashman, P. (2015). How atlatl darts behave: Beveled points and the relevance of controlled experiments. American Antiquity, 80, 590–601. doi: 10.7183/0002-7316.80.3.590
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pluckhahn, T. J., & Norman, S. P. (2011). Typological, functional, and comparative contextual analyses of Woodland hafted bifaces from Kolomoki (9ER1). Florida Anthropologist, 64, 207–240.
   Google Scholar
• Rafferty, J. (2004). Explaining feature variability at Woodland, Mississippian, and Protohistoric sites, Oktibbeha County, Mississippi. Mississippi Archaeology, 39, 85–106.
   Google Scholar
• Rafferty, J., & Galaty, M. (2002). Point-counting, petrography, and context: Analysis of ceramics from a Middle Woodland site in eastern Mississippi. La Tinaja: A Newsletter of Archaeological Ceramics, 14(1), 2–6. Reprinted in Mississippi Archaeology (2013) 48:43–46.
   Google Scholar
• Ray, J. H. (2007). Ozark chipped-stone resources: A guide to the identification, distribution, and prehistoric use of cherts and other siliceous raw materials. Springfield, MO: Missouri Archaeological Society Special Publications 8.
   Google Scholar
• Ray, J. H. (2015). The Morgan cache: A Middle Woodland deposit in Benton County, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeologist, 54, 37–42.
   Google Scholar
• Rots, V. (2010). Prehension and hafting wear on flint tools: A methodology. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rots, V. (2016). Projectile and hafting technology. In R. Iovita, & K. Sano (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to the study of stone Age weaponry (pp. 167–185). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rots, V., & Plisson, H. (2014). Projectiles and the abuse of use-wear methods in a search for impact. Journal of Archaeological Science, 48, 154–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffer, M. B. (1983). Toward the identification of formation processes. American Antiquity, 48, 675–706. doi: 10.2307/279771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shea, J. (2006). The origins of lithic projectile point technology: Evidence from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33, 823–846. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2005.10.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shott, M. J. (1993). Spears, darts, and arrows: Late Woodland hunting techniques in the upper Ohio valley. American Antiquity, 58, 425–443. doi: 10.2307/282105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shott, M. J. (1996). Innovation and selection in prehistory: A case study from the American Bottom. In G. H. Odell (Ed.), Stone tools: Theoretical insights into human prehistory (pp. 279–309). New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Shott, M. J. (1997). Stones and shafts redux: The metric discrimination of chipped-stone dart and arrow points. American Antiquity, 62, 86–101. doi: 10.2307/282380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shott, M. J. (2002). Weibull estimation of use life distribution in experimental spear point data. Lithic Technology, 27, 93–109. doi: 10.1080/01977261.2002.11720993
   Google Scholar
• Shott, M. J. (2015). Works in stone: Contemporary perspectives on lithic analysis. In M. J. Shott (Ed.), Works in stone: Contemporary perspectives on lithic analysis (pp. 1–10). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shott, M. J., & Ballenger, J. A. M. (2007). Biface reduction and the measurement of Dalton curation: A southeastern United States case study. American Antiquity, 72, 153–175. doi: 10.2307/40035302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shott, M. J., Hunzicker, D. A., & Patten, B. (2007). Pattern and allometric measurement of reduction in experimental Folsom bifaces. Lithic Technology, 32, 203–217. doi: 10.1080/01977261.2007.11721048
   Google Scholar
• Sisk, M., & Shea, J. (2009). Experimental use and quantitative performance analysis of triangular flakes (Levallois points) used as arrowheads. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 2039–2047. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2009.05.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spindler, K. (1994). The man in the ice. New York, NY: Harmony Books.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. H. (1978). Arrowheads and atlatl darts: How the stones got the shaft. American Antiquity, 43, 461–472. doi: 10.2307/279405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Titmus, G. L., & Woods, J. C. (1986). An experimental study of projectile point fracture patterns. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 8(1), 36–49.
   Google Scholar
• Whittaker, J. C. (2010). Weapon trials: The atlatl and experiments in hunting technology. In J. Ferguson (Ed.), Designing experimental research in archaeology: Examining technology through production and use (pp. 195–224). Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado.
   Google Scholar