Sort order:  

Status: 1 Treffer   •   Seite 1 von 1   •   10 Artikel pro Seite

2018-10-17 15:17:50   •   ID: 2033

A Possible Projectil Point from Mt Carmel; Israel

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 1,2,3: This is a Mousterian point made on a thick Levallois Point from Mt. Carmel / Israel with a burination bending fracture along the right lateral edge of near the tip, ending with a step termination.

Could it be a projectile? Standardized experiments with stone-tipped weapons have been applied as a methodological approach in the investigation of prehistoric flint points since the late 1970s.

The first experimentally based studies described diagnostic impact fractures (DIF) and con­firmed the function of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic points of various types as tips of projectile weapons.

Subsequent experiments involved point types characteristic of earlier periods (Mousterian Points, MSA Points) and extended the range of research objectives including such issues as invention of projectile weapons and human evolution.

Producing mechanically projected weaponry (bow and arrow) would imply that people were capable of constructing high-tensile strings and sometimes complex adhesives, both of which involve multi-stage planning and assembling.

These technologies may have assisted in niche broadening among modern humans expanding out of Africa after c. 50 k.a. or even earlier (70 k.a. BP; Howiesons Poort industry in South Africa), by providing a flexible technology allowing them to focus more intensely on certain foods while broadening their overall dietary base.

At present there are contentious issues around when and where different hunting weapon types appear in the archaeological record. Because organic components of hunting weapons rarely survive over extended periods of time, Archaeologists rely mostly on contextual evidence, such as macro-fracture patterns to interpret prehistoric hunting technologies.

A macro-fracture can be defined as a fracture that is visible with the naked eye or with a hand lens. DIF’s are macro-fractures that have been shown through experiments to be associated with stone artifacts used as weapon tips. The assumption is that these fractures are caused by longitudinal impact during use (e.g. hunting), and that variations of this use will leave different breakage patterns on the tools.

The characteristics of impact function, based on macro-fracture analysis,  are considered universal for hunting tools of flint and related raw materials (Fischer et al. 1984). There are several DIF breakage types, but only step terminating fractures , unifacial spin-off fractures larger than 6 mm, bifacial spin-off fractures and the very variable class of impact burination have been widely referred to as the primary DIF types to identify the potential use of stone tipped weaponry.

In a review and discussion Coppe and Rots (2017) point to various inconsistencies of the DIF concept. They ask for a more detailed description of probable impact fractures, namely of initiation, propagation and termination of breakage patterns.

Anyhow the question remains: what would happen, if the suggested projectiles were used for other tasks (grooving, boring…). They may occur on a stone projectile but unfortunately they are unspecific. Such damage can also result from a variety of other activities (such as trampling and knapping) and should not be used alone as potential indicators of projectile impact (Villa et al., 2009).

Rots highlighted that: "specific use-wear patterns can be defined for various actions such as cutting, scraping, whittling, grooving or boring, and various worked material such as wood, bone, antler, meat, hide, etc., the features of which are mainly microscopic". She also emphasized that the breakage pattern of different point morphologies is different (Rots 2008).

Only personal experience, that takes into account the lithic raw material, specific actions on specific worked material, macroscopic and microscopic wear patters, combined with large experimental body of evidence will settle the confusion, that seems to be existent in the actual discussions of the identification of lithic projectiles in Prehistory.

Surf the Blog: see here: 1608 , here: 1501 , here: 1500 , and here: 1361

Provenance: Collection Levenstein (ISR)