Arrow heads and spear points : an experimental study of projectile points

158 Pages·2005·1.91 MB·English

by  Holmberg, Daniel

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
Arrow Heads and Spear Points an Experimental Study of
TITLE
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 1 2 4
..................................................................................................................
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 1 8
. ....................................
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. P enetration of Pig in the Rib Area, by Point Form ...................................3. 4
. ..............
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 Form 61
. ...............................
Figure 23 Damage done by Point Form. when shot into Straw 62
. ..............
Figure 24 Depth of Penetration. by Point Form. when shot into Pig Ribs 64