The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Experiments with Spears and Arrows on Animal Targets
Abstract
Despite the considerable attention that archaeologists have given the formal and typological aspects of prehistoric projectile points, relatively little research has been done concerning their functional aspects. To better understand the effectiveness and penetrating characteristics of, and damage to, different projectile tips, an extensive experimental program was conducted. Both shaped and unmodified chert tips were hafted onto arrow- and spear-shafts and propelled into dead animals. The results led to recognition of differences in damage patterns, the importance of certain variables for projectile point longevity, and the penetration potential of specific kinds of projectile heads.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The low values of penetrating abilities shown by double oblique points, a design providing considerable width of the projectile head, can be explained by the wide angle of their frontal tip.
“The low values of penetrating abilities shown by double oblique points, a design providing considerable width of the projectile head, can be explained by the wide angle of their frontal tip (Friis-Hunsen, 1990;Odell and Cowan, 1986).”
From Design and performance of microlith implemented projectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant: experimental and archaeological evidence (2010) · cites this paper as Odell and Cowan, 1986
Experiments with both weapon types have shown that spear and arrowheads receive similar types of fractures diagnostic of projectile impact.
“While no direct evidence of preserved weapons from the Late Pleistocene in the region were found (Valla, 1987), experiments with both weapon types have shown that spear and arrowheads receive similar types of fractures diagnostic of projectile impact (Fischer et al., 1984;Odell and Cowan, 1986;Cattelain, 1997).”
From Design and performance of microlith implemented projectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant: experimental and archaeological evidence (2010) · cites this paper as Odell and Cowan, 1986
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Yaroshevich, A., Kaufman, D., Nuzhnyy, D., Bar-Yosef, O., & Weinstein-Evron, M. (2010) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.09.050 · Cited by 164
Metadata
- Authors
- Odell, G. H., & Cowan, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Field Archaeology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1986-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-212
- ISSN
- 0093-4690
- 2042-4582
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
