THE PALEOINDIAN FLUTED POINT: DART OR SPEAR ARMATURE? THE IDENTIFICATION OF PALEOINDIAN DELIVERY TECHNOLOGY THROUGH THE ANALYSIS OF LITHIC FRACTURE VELOCITY BY Wallace Karl Hutchings B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1987 M.A., University of Toronto, 1991 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Archaeology O Wallace Karl Hutchings 1997 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY November, 1997 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. National bbrary BiblioMque nationale I*I of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions 81 Bbliographic ~edices services bibliographiques 395 Wdllngton Street 3%. sue Welllngtor? CXtawaON KlAON4 OfiawaON KlAON4 , Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accord&une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pernettant a la National Library of Canada. to, Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, dstribute or sell regroduire, prster, dstnbuer ou copies of ths thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electromc formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier -ou sur format electso~que. I .. The author retams ownership of the L'auteur conserve la' propnete du copyright in thls thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thgsis nor substanhal extracts from it <Nila these 111 des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent @treimprimes reproduced without the author' s ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. </ f' .Approval NAME: W. Karl Hutchings DEGREE: PhD. 4 'Kr'LE OF THESIS: The Paleoindian Fluted Point: butor Spear Armature? The Identification of Paleoindian Delivery Technology Through the Analysis of Lithic Fracture Velocity EXAMINING COMMITTEE: 6 .Chair: Phil Hobler Roy ~arl'son Senior Supervisor Professor Emeritus Jack bance Professerf Dave Burley Professor J.D.Speth External Examiner Department of Anthropology University of Michigan Date Approved: October 31,1997 ABSTRACT One of the highest-profile, yet least known peoples in New World archaeology, are the Paleoindians. Despite the absence of supportive empirical data, archaeologists have long assumed that Paleoindians employed the spearthrower along with heavy, fluted- point-tipped darts, to hunt now extinct species of late Pleistocene mammoth and bison. This assumption is critical to our understanding of Paleoindian life-ways since the identification of exploitative technology, such as weapons systems, is often the first crucial step towards the interpretation of higher order information that contributes to our knowledge of prehistoric peoples. Without an accurate assessment of the basic tools with which people interacted with their environment, we cannot fully explore more complex issues such as technological and social organization, or settlement and subsistence strategies. Traditional analyses of weapon technologies generally rely on classification schemes to identify projectile points as spear, dart, javelin, or arrow armatures. The logical fallacy of such schemes is the assumption that the investigator knows, apriori, that the artifact in question served as a projectile armature. By adopting and applying a methodology based on the fracture mechanics of brittle solids, this research avoids such interpretive leaps of faith. Employing data derived from velocity-dependant micro-fracture features, a series of controlled experiments were conducted to explore the range of lithic fracture velocities associated with various manufacturing (reduction) techniques, projectile impacts, and accidental breakage. Manufacturing and weapon delivery technologies are differentiated based on the fracture velocity exhibited by damaged artifacts; high-speed projectile impacts are reliably distinguished from other sources of lithic fracture, thus providing a quantitative means for identifying projectile armatures. Data derived from Paleoindian artifacts reveal fracture rates associated with high-velocity impacts, indicating the use of the spearthrower. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported in part by a Simon Fraser University Doctoral Fellowship (1 99 1, 1992, 1994, 1W6), a President's Ph.D. Research Stipend (SFU) (1999, and a graduate research travel grant from the Department of Archaeology (SFU) (1 995). Many individuals contributed their time, energy, and assistance in various forms throughout this research. I especially thank Earl Hall and Brian McConaghy of the R.C.M.P. Forensic Laboratory (Vancouver) - Firearms Section; Tom Troczynski and Florin Esanu of the Department of Metals and Materials Engineering, University of British Columbia, and Larry Courchaine of Checkmate Archery (Abbottsford). Thanks also to Lorenz Briichert for endless ethnographic data concerning the spearthrower. I am indebted to Berkley B. Bailey for providing geological samples from numerous Great Plains Paleoindian tool-stone sources. The collection of data from institutions in Canada and the United States would not have been possible without the generous help of numerous people. I thank Mike Jacobs of the Arizona State Museum; Vance Haynes of the Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona; Bruce Huckell, Marianne Rodee, and Bobbi Hohman of the Maxwell Museum, University of New Mexico; Patricia Nietfeld of the Museum of New Mexico; James Dixon of the Denver Museum of Natural History; Jack Brink, and Bob Dawe of the Provincial Museum of Alberta; Don Tuohy, and Sue Ann Monteleone of the Nevada State Museum; Ken Hedges of the San Diego Museum of Man; John Fagan of Archaeological Investigations Northwest (Portland); Melvin Aikens and Pam Endsweig of the Oregon State Museum of Anthropology; and Elise V. LeCompte and David Webb of the Florida Museum of Natural History, for all the help they have provided me in this effort. I owe special thanks to Tony and Simone Baker, who not only provided access to their private collection, but extended the hospitality of their home during my visit to Denver. I express my sincere gratitude to the members of my supervisory committee, my senior supervisor Dr. Roy Carlson, and Dr. Jack Nance, for their support and guidance. Among the faculty of the Simon Fraser University Department of Archaeology, I also wish to thank Dr. David Burley for his constructive criticism as a member of my thesis examination committee, and Dr. Brian Hayden for the use of various microscopy equipment. I am delighted to have a newfoGd friend in Dr. John D. Speth (Professor of Anthropology, and Director of the Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan [Ann Arbor]), who served as my external thesis examiner. His extensive comments and suggestions have contributed immensely to the clarity of this thesis, though ultimately, any shortcomings are my sole responsibility. Finally, but most of all, the tremendous support provided by my wife, Lisa, and my parents, Wallace and Lillian, has been instrumental to my completion of this dissertation. I thank them from the bottom of my heart. TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ABSTRACT ..........................................................ill ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ......................................................1 Lithic Fracture Velocity Research in Archaeology ........................5 CHAPTER I1 AN OVERVIEW OF PALEOINDIAN TECHNOLOGY .....................10 Summary .......................................................20 CHAPTER I11 PROBLEMS CONCERNING PROJECTILE CLASSIFICATION AND IDENTIFICATION ....................................................21 Projectile Classification ............................................21 Projectile Identification ............................................26 CHAPTER IV THE QUANTIFICATION OF LITHIC FRACTURE VELOCITY .............32 Fracture Surface Features and the Determination of Fracture Velocity ........33 Fracture Velocity Data Collection ....................................37 Fracture Feature Configurations .....................................40 Correlation Between Lithic Fracture Velocity and Precursory Loading Rate ...46 Quasi-static and Rapid Loading Rates ...........................49 Dynamic Loading Rates ......................................57 Terminal Fracture Velocity .........................................58 Summary .......................................................61 CHAPTER V REPLICATION AND EXPERIMENTATION .............................63 Reconstruction of the Fluted-Point-Tipped Projectile .....................65 Reconstruction data based on Paleoindian-related research ..........65 Reconstruction Data Based on Non-Paleoindian Archaeological and Ethnographic Examples of Spearthrower Darts ..............71 Summary of Haft Diameter Data ...............................74 vii Effective Hunting Ranges ..............................77 Spearthrower Experiments ..........................................79 Dart and Javelin Velocity Measurements ..................80 Velocity Experiments ..................................80 Fracture Velocity Experiments ......................................86 Results of the Dart Armature Lithic Fracture Velocity Tests .........90 Results of the Javelin Armature Lithic Fracture Velocity Tests .......97 Results of the Spear Armature Lithic Fracture Velocity Tests ....... 100 Results of the Arrow Armature Lithic Fracture Velocity Tests ....... 103 Results of the Dropped Armature Lithic