ARROW HEADS AND SPEAR POINTS AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PROJECTILE POINTS by Daniel Holmberg B .A., University of Alberta, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Archaeology O Daniel A. Holmberg 1994 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY December 1994 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or by other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL NAME Daniel Arthur Holmberg DEGREE TITLE Arrow Heads and Spear Points an Experimental Study of Projectile Points EXAMINING COMMITTEE: Chair Dr. Jon Driver - - - Dr. Jack 'Nance Senior Supervisor Archaeology -- Dr. Brian Hayden Professor Archaeology Dr. David Pokotylo Assistant Professor Dept. of Anthropology and Sociology University of British Columbia Date Approved: December 6,1994 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT I ICFNSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis or dissertation (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Title of ThesisIDissertation: Arrow Heads and Spear Points an Experimental Study of Projectile Points Author: Signature Daniel Arthur Holmberg Name December 6, 1994 Date ABSTRACT Projectile points are found in most cultures and often have distinctive shapes and / or are made of special materials. It is suggested that these differences in form and material will affect the performance of projectile points when used against specific targets, and different points will have different optimal applications. Points were manufactured from several common materials including different kinds of wood and stone, and in some of the most common forms found in the archaeological record. These were then tested in controlled experiments to ascertain differences in finctional effectiveness when shot into targets such as straw bales, the carcass of a small pig, and the chest of a reconstructed moose. The results of these experiments were then tested statistically, and show far less significant variation than would be expected. This suggests that, within limits, functional effectiveness is not the ruling criteria in the choice of projectile point forms. Alternative possibilities are suggested. iii DEDICATION To Libby, with thanks for a lifetime of support QUOTATION "What is obvious may not be relevant, and what & relevant may not be obvious" Winston Churchill ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Jack Nance, for his good advice, and for exhibiting the patience of Job during a project that went on for far far too long. I would also like to thank Marvin Entz for his help during the experiments and Lorenz Bruechert for his ongoing interest and generous support throughout the length of this project. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page .. APPROVAL ....................................................................................................................... 11 ... ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 11.l DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. iv QUOTATION .......................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. vi ... LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vm LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................................ix INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1 . METHODS AND MATERIALS ................................................................16 CI-MTER 2. RESULTS ...................................................................................................26 CHAPTER 3 . ANALYSIS .................................................................................................38 CHAPTER 4 . DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 79 CHAPTER 5 . CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................87 APPENDIX A ....................................................................................................................90 APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................91 APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................99 APPENDIX D ..................................................................................................................103 APPENDIX E ..................................................................................................................109 APPENDIX F ................................................................................................................124 APPENDIX G ..................................................................................................................126 APPENDIX H ..................................................................................................................128 APPENDIX I ....................................................................................................................130 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................143 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1. Projectile point types used in study ......................................................... 18 Table 2. Brief description of points used in the experiment .................................... 24 Table 3. Depth of Penetration into Straw .................................................................30 Table 4 . Depth of Penetration into Pig Ribs .............................................................30 Table 5. Depth of Penetration into Moose ............................................................... 30 Table 6. Penetration of Pig in the Rib Area, by Point Form ....................................34 Table 7 . Penetration of simulated Moose in the Rib Area, by Point Form ..............34 Table 8. Damage Frequency for All Points. against all targets ................................ 37 Table 9. Regression Formulae for Stone points ....................................................... 50 Table 10. Frequency of damage to points. by material ............................................. 54 Table 11. Percent damage to points. by material ...................................................... 55 ... Vlll LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page Figure 1. Depth of Penetration vs.Energy. for all points. into Straw .......................27 Figure 2. Summary of Depth of Penetration for all points ....................................... 28 Figure 3. Summary of Damage done by all points ................................................... 29 Figure 4 . Summary of Average Penetration by Point Form ..................................... 31 Figure 5 . Summary of Average Damage done by Point Form .................................33 Figure 6. Average Depth of Penetration. by Point Material .....................................35 Figure 7. Average Damage done. by Point Material ................................................36 Figure 8. Correlation of Draw Weight and Kinetic Energy ...................................... 39 Figure 9. Correlation of Kinetic Energy and Penetration into Straw Bales. by All Points ........................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 10. Penetration of all Wooden Points shot into Straw ..................................43 Figure 11 . Penetration of Steel points into Straw .....................................................45 Figure 12. Penetration of all Stone points into Straw ...............................................46 Figure 13 . Penetration by Flint points into Straw .....................................................48 Figure 14 .Penetration by Obsidian points into Straw .............................................. 49 Figure 15 . Penetration by Basalt points into Straw ..................................................50 Figure 16 . Penetration by Slate points into Straw .................................................... 51 Figure 17 . Penetration by Chert points into Straw ................................................... 52 Figure 18 . Median Depth of Penetration by Point Material. into all targets ............53 Figure 19 . Median Depth of penetration by point form. into all targets ...................57 Figure 20 . Depth of Penetration by Point Form. into all targets. by level of Force .58 Figure 21.Damage done by point form. against all targets. by level of Force .......... 59 Figure 22 . Depth of Penetration into Straw. by Point