Wear Traces and Projectile Impact: A Review of the Experimental and Archaeological Evidence
- 1 January 1997
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Field Archaeology
- Vol. 24 (3) , 321-331
- https://doi.org/10.1179/009346997792208113
Abstract
Experimental and archaeological researchers have identified a variety of fracture or breakage types associated with stone implements used as projectile points. The mechanics of formation of the fracture types are similar regardless of mode of use: bow, atlatl, or thrusting. Even so, there continues to be some confusion, and lack of standardization regarding terminology and the recognition of these fracture types. Identification of impact damage in lithic assemblages is facilitated by the isolation of both abrasive and fatigue wear and the adoption of standardized terminology. Impact-damaged artifacts can also provide relevant data pertaining to site function, patterns of weapons use and discard, and other aspects of subsistence behavior.This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Testing the Producer-Consumer Model for Santa Rita Corozal, BelizeLatin American Antiquity, 1993
- The Formation of FlakesAmerican Antiquity, 1987
- Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal TargetsJournal of Field Archaeology, 1986
- News and Short ContributionsJournal of Field Archaeology, 1983
- Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological RecordAmerican Antiquity, 1982
- The Mechanics of Use-Breakage of Stone Tools: Some Testable HypothesesJournal of Field Archaeology, 1981
- The Methodology of Microwear Analysis: A Comment on NanceAmerican Antiquity, 1974
- Edge Abrasion during Biface ManufactureAmerican Antiquity, 1973
- Functional Interpretations from Microscopic AnalysisAmerican Antiquity, 1971
- Artifacts with Mammoth Remains, Naco, ArizonaAmerican Antiquity, 1953