Abstract
Many of the chipped-stone bifaces so common in the archaeological record functioned as the hafted points of darts or arrows. For archaeologists, these artifacts possess two salient properties: (1) they formed only part of a larger apparatus; but, (2) because perishables decompose, they ordinarily are the only part preserved. Consequently, the identity of that apparatus-i.e., whether dart or arrow-is not readily apparent. For various reasons, we may wish to know if stone bifaces functioned as dart or arrow points. Often we rely on reasonable assumptions, but Thomas's (1978) discriminant analysis is a more reliable way to distinguish the possibilities. This study extends Thomas's approach by increasing the dart sample and the rate of successful classification. Shoulder width is the most important discriminating variable. An independent test on a set of arrows also strengthens confidence in the results.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Museology,Archaeology,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),History
Reference57 articles.
1. Arrowpoint or Dart Point: An Uninteresting Answer to a Tiresome Question
2. Another Great Basin Atlatl with Dart Foreshafts and Other Artifacts: Implications and Ramifications.;Tuohy;Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology,1982
3. Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory Study.;Christenson;Plains Anthropologist,1986
4. Stepwise Discriminant Analysis in Archaeometry: a Critique
Cited by
171 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献