Society for American Archaeology

Stones and Shafts Redux: The Metric Discrimination of Chipped-Stone Dart and Arrow Points
Author(s): Michael J. Shott
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 86-101
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/282380 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 16:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STONES AND SHAFTS REDUX: THE METRIC DISCRIMINATION OF
CHIPPED-STONE DART AND ARROW POINTS

Michael J. Shott

MAany of the chipped-stonebifaces so common in the archaeological recordfunctioned as the haftedpoints of darts or arrows.
For archaeologists, these artifacts possess two salient properties: (1) theyformed 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., whetherdart or arrow-is not readily apparent. For various reasons, we may wish to know if stone bifacesfunctioned as
dart or arrow points. Often we rely on reasonable assumptions, but Thomass (1978) discriminantanalysis isis a more reliable
way to distinguish the possibilities. This study extends Thomass approach by increasing the dart sample and the rate of suc-
cessful classification. Shoulder width is the most importantdiscriminating variable.An independenttest on a set of arrows
,lso strengthensconfidence in the results.

AJuchosde los bifaces liticos encontradosen el registro arqueologicofuncionaron como puntas enmangadas de dardos ofle-
chas. Talesartefactos poseen dos propiedades salientes: (1) conformaronsolamenteparte del instrumentomds grande; pero,
(2) porque lo perecedero se descompone, a menudoson la iunicaparte preservada. Por lo tanto, la identidad del instrumento,
ya sea dardo oflecha, no se puede precisar. Por varias razones, quisieramossaber si los bifaces funcionaron como dardos o
flechas. A menudo, contamos con suposiciones justas, pero el andlisis discriminante de Thomas (1978) es un modo mds
seguro para distinguir las opciones. Este estudio amplifica su estrategia mediante una muestraperteneciente de dardos mds
grande y una tasa de su clasificacion mds alta. El ancho del hombrosurge como variable mds importante.Una prueba inde-
pendente en una colecion deflechas procedente de la Gran Cuenca de los Estados Unidos tambienfortalece la confianza en
los resultados.

From the earliest accounts in New Spain to
Hollywood's Golden Age, few items are as
central to their tradition-bound popular
image as Native Americans'bows and arrows.Yet
archaeologistsbelieve thatthe earliestAmericans
did not use them, the bow and arrow being a
comparatively recent innovation that replaced
earlier dart technology and spread across North
America from an arctic source. Most locate the
replacement in the first millennium A.D. (Beck
i995; Blitz 1988; Christenson 1986; Hall 1977;
Shott 1993; Troeng 1993). Everyone knows what
bows and arrows are; darts are weapons with
longer shafts, usually with foreshafts as well,
propelledby a device known as an atlatl, sling, or
spear-thrower.The last term in particular is a
misnomer (Perkins 1992:65), and "atlatl"is used
here for consistency. The broad archaeological
consensus begs importantquestions: how, why,
and exactly when did the bow and arrow replace
earliertechnology,and was the replacementcom-
Michael J. Shott * Departmentof Sociology and Anthropology,Universityof NorthernIowa,CedarFalls, IA 50614-0513
plete and wholesale? Although such questions
may seem unenlightening(Larralde1990:100) or
even tiresome (Corliss 1980), they bear on
important theoretical issues. Conventional
assumptionsof the bow and arrow'ssuperioreffi-
ciency in hunting are doubtful (Larralde 1990;
Shott 1993:435-438); other explanations invoke
political incentives and consequences (Blitz
1988; Maschner 1991; Shott 1996) or, from Old
Worldperspectives,the social dimensions of dart
(Cundy 1989:17-18; Rose 1960:238-242; Testart
1988:11) and arrow technology (Edmonds and
Thomas 1987; Vinnicombe 1972:201-202).
Darts may not have been abandoned at once
when the bow and arrowappeared(Chatterset al.
1995; Heizer 1938; Larralde 1990:6; Massey
1961; Shott 1996), but the timing of their proba-
bly gradual abandonmentbears on the persis-
tence of atlatls in ritual contexts and the rate at
which their formalattributeswere alteredin sym-
bolic representation(Hall 1977).

AmericanAntiquity,62(1), 1997, pp. 86-101.

Copyright? by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

86

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Shott] METRICDISCRIMINATION
OF CHIPPED-STONEPOINTS 87

Table 1. PreviouslyUnanalyzedDartPoints Used in the Study.

mm
Max. Thick- Neck Published
CatalogNo.a Length Width ness Width Provenience Source Museum
349188 41.1 17.4 3.4 8.3 White Dog Cave,Arizona Guernsey & Kidder 1921 SI
11/7254 35.8 24.2 7.2 15.3 Allred Shelter,Missouri Harrington1960 NMAI
D2429 81.7 20.1 6.4 21.9 Kimberley,NW Australia PM
97179 21.8 14.0 2.9 9.8 SteamboatCave, New Mexico Cosgrove 1947 PM
97179 39.5 20.5 4.3 11.2 SteamboatCave, New Mexico Cosgrove 1947 PM
A4515-1/6 55.8 22.6 4.2 13.6 Cave 2, San JuanCounty,Utah Woodward1930 LACMNH
A4515-1/7 70.4 20.0 4.2 14.9 Cave 2, San JuanCounty,Utah Woodward1930 LACMNH
A4515-1/8 60.4 20.2 4.0 13.9 Cave 2, San JuanCounty,Utah Woodward1930 LACMNH
A4515-1/9 54.1 20.3 4.9 15.3 Cave 2, San JuanCounty,Utah Woodward1930 LACMNH
A4515-1/10 60.4 20.5 4.6 10.4 Cave 2, San JuanCounty,Utah Woodward1930 LACMNH
A4515-1/11 60.7 24.9 4.5 18.8 Cave 2, San JuanCounty,Utah Woodward1930 LACMNH
A4515.30-47 34.3 20.4 4.8 13.4 Cave 2, San JuanCounty,Utah Woodward1930 LACMNH
A4515.30-48 26.5 23.7 5.2 16.7 Cave 2, San JuanCounty,Utah Woodward1930 LACMNH
NA-7031 42.3 16.2 5.4 11.4 Point Barrow,Alaska UMUP
SA-3758 38.0 18.0 5.0 16.5 Nazca vicinity, Peru UMUP
P29-30.4G1 44.1 24.0 5.2 17.5 Sand Dune Cave, Utah Lindsayet al. 1968 MNA
P29-30.4G2 54.6 27.5 4.8 15.6 Sand Dune Cave, Utah Lindsayet al. 1968 MNA
P29-30.4G3 49.2 24.6 5.7 19.1 Sand Dune Cave, Utah Lindsayet al. 1968 MNA
P29-30.4G4 48.5 17.4 4.6 13.3 Sand Dune Cave, Utah Lindsayet al. 1968 MNA
P29-30.4G5 57.4 23.4 5.4 17.7 Sand Dune Cave, Utah Lindsayet al. 1968 MNA
P29-30.4G6 63.0 23.1 5.1 19.1 Sand Dune Cave, Utah Lindsayet al. 1968 MNA
66.56.3.3 57.2 27.4 4.0 17.9 San JuanCounty,Utah Montgomery1894 BYUb
66.55.3.3 58.8 28.0 5.5 18.2 San JuanCounty,Utah Montgomery1894 BYU
66.56.5.1 60.4 30.0 5.8 19.2 San JuanCounty,Utah Montgomery1894 BYU
66.55.3.1 52.8 27.5 5.1 17.4 San JuanCounty,Utah Montgomery1894 BYU
66.56.3.1 85.3 32.0 5.8 19.3 San JuanCounty,Utah Montgomery1894 BYU
66.55.3.2 66.5 28.4 5.0 13.8 San JuanCounty,Utah Montgomery1894 BYU
66.56.5.2 67.1 29.7 5.5 19.9 San JuanCounty,Utah Montgomery1894 BYU
95.2.147.1 48.9 22.5 5.5 12.5 San JuanCounty,Utah Montgomery1894 BYU
95.2.115.1 61.3 24.6 6.0 16.8 San JuanCounty,Utah Montgomery1894 BYU
BYU=BrighamYoungUniversityMuseum of Peoples and Culture LACMNH=LosAngeles CountyMuseumof NaturalHistory
MNA-Museum of NorthernArizona NMAI=NationalMuseum of the American Indian PM=PeabodyMuseum SBCM=San
BernardinoCountyMuseum SI=SmithsonianInstitution UMUP=UniversityMuseum,Universityof Pennsylvania.
aSee Thomas (1978:Table3) for additionaldata.
bSpecimenswere taken in the 1890s from one or more caves located between Moab and Bluff City (Montgomery 1894:227).
Montgomery(1894:227--230)reportedspecimens from several caves, including "a number"from one burial in Cave No. 1 and
six from anotherburial there. He (1894:227) identified all as "crude,stone arrow-pointswith short, wooden . . . handles,"but
Pepper's(1905) account and direct examinationleave no doubt that the specimens were dart points. Pepper (1905:127-129)
described 13 specimens from Cave No. 1 or "CaveDwelling," only nine of which were received by BYU from the Deseret
Museum,where the collection originallywas housed.

Poor preservation often forces us to seek
answers from the only remaining component of
prehistoric weapons, their stone points. Under
these circumstances, we can distinguish darts
from arrowsonly by the size and form of the pre-
served stone point. Too often the distinction is
made by assumption (Christenson 1986; Shott
1993), which can be reasonabledependingon cir-
cumstances. But there are better ways to distin-
guish dart from arrow,and therebyto addressthe
importantquestionsposed above.
Nusbaum (1922:126) long ago proposed such
a method,but Thomas (1978) was the first to use
it. He summarized earlier attempts (see also
Chatterset al. 1995, Christenson1986) to distin-
guish dartsfrom arrowson the basis of attributes
such as weight and neck width (Thomas
1978:461). Thomas also noted experiments
demonstratingthat arrowspossessing large points
and dartspossessing small ones could fly. But he
recognized that the more importantquestion was
an empirical one: "what existentially is, rather

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
88 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
than what theoretically could be" (Thomas
1978:466 [emphasisin original];see also Fenenga
1953:319). He then examinedmuseumspecimens
known to be dart or arrow points because they
still were hafted to dartor arrow(fore)shafts.His
discriminant analysis produced encouraging
results; good metric discrimination of the two
point types was obtained, and virtually all 132
arrowswere identified correctlyby the resulting
classification functions (Thomas 1978). In addi-
tion, seven of 10 dartswere identified correctly.
Thomas's study was a valuable start marred
only by the "painfully small" (1978:468) dart
sample of 10 specimens. Fortunately,various
museums hold darts with hafted stone points.
Visits to 11 of them between 1990 and 1995
increasedthe sample from 10 to 39. Even this fig-
ure is modest, but stone points hafted to dart
shafts or foreshafts are comparatively rare.
Althoughmany museumshold one or a few spec-
imens, it is unlikely that the compiled data could
be substantiallyincreasedby visits to more North
Americanmuseums. Metric attributesand prove-
nience of these specimens are listed by museum
in Table 1.1
No point and foreshaftwas found haftedto the
largerdartshaft on which it presumablywas used.
Strictly speaking, then, I assume that they func-
tioned on dartsas opposed, for instance, to being
used handheld as knives. But ethnographic
sources (e.g., Nelson 1899) routinely report the
use of points hafted to foreshafts as detachable
elements of darts, and no known source reports
tools of this natureused as handheldknives. The
dart foreshafts found on Table 1 specimens usu-
ally are tapered,have circularor slightly elliptical
cross sections, and always are more finely made
than the broader handles, often flatter in cross
section, found on knife handles (e.g., Fowler and
Matley 1979; Nelson 1899; note also the speci-
mens from Canada'sPgHbl site describedin the
following paragraph). Also, knives rarely are
found in sets of four or more, while dartshafted
to foreshafts often are. General cutting purposes
rarelyrequiredthe use of severalspecimensat one
time, whereas dart points routinely were carried
in sets for the rapidrearmingof a single shaft.
Forseveralreasons,even the expandeddataset
demands critical treatment.First, museums are
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997
filled with specimens acquiredbefore the advent
of rigorous standardsregardingthe provenience
and documentation of collections. The market
spawnedby avid collectors may have encouraged
the fabricationof specimens not necessarilytypi-
cal-in manufacture,size and form, decoration,
manner of use-of those in common use by the
cultureto which specimens are attributed(Cundy
1989:76; see DeBoer 1985 for examples in pot-
tery). For instance, several University of
Pennsylvaniaspecimens may consist of archaeo-
logical bifaces hafted to then-modem shafts or
foreshafts (J. Cotter, personal communication
1994). Second, authentic archaeological speci-
mens can be of unknownfunction. Several from
PgHb at the CanadianMuseum of Civilization,
for example,bore stemmedchertbifaces haftedto
crude short split shafts roughlythe length of fore-
shafts.These certainlyresembledartpoints found
elsewhere but, unlike other specimens, their
shafts were flatterin cross section than the circu-
lar to slightly elliptical form found on virtuallyall
demonstrabledart shafts elsewhere. In one case
(cat. no. 14474c) a flake was hafted laterallyin a
slot at the end opposite the biface, while another
(cat. no. 14112a) bore bifaces at both ends of the
handle. These specimens could in fact be darts,
althoughit is hardto imagine how they were used
as such. They were not included in the analysis.
Third, authentic projectiles can be launched by
atlatls (i.e., genuine darts), be launchedby hand
(i.e., spears), or be held in the hand and used by
thrusting(i.e., lances or hand-held spears). Most
ethnographicspecimens lack the associateddocu-
mentation that could distinguish these alterna-
tives, althoughSmithsonianInstitutionspecimens
in particularoften are well documented ethno-
graphically (e.g., Nelson 1899). Lacking docu-
mentation, specimens cannot be identified
reliablyby function,and the performancerequire-
ments of the variousalternativescan differ signif-
icantly in ways that register in size and form of
the point (Cundy 1989). Fourth, even weapons
launchedby atlatl may differ in context and man-
ner of use in ways that bear on the size and form
of their points. Thomas (1978:468), for instance,
cautionedagainstthe facile equationof dartsused
in terrestrialvs. marinesettings.The diversityand
complexity of marine hunting equipmentindeed
Shott] METRICDISCRIMINATION
OF CHIPPED-STONEPOINTS
are remarkable(e.g., Nelson 1899). Harpoonsare
used commonly in marinehabitats,and handheld
spears and lances also seem to be more common
there than elsewhere. Especially in the North
Americanarctic, coastal settings also were popu-
lar among ethnographic collectors, such that
museum collections like those in Washingtonand
Ottawa disproportionately contain marine
weapons. Thomas's point is well taken, and
weapons used in marinesettings can be used only
with care. (For this reason, 11 Field Museum of
Natural History archaeological specimens from
coastal Peruwere omittedbecause they are hafted
as harpoon, not dart, points.) Fifth, many speci-
mens are tightly bound in sinew lashing or mastic
(e.g., sizable collections of AustralianKimberley
darts at the Field Museum and the Harvard's
Peabody Museum), making it difficult if not
impossible to measure attributes of the stem
because it is obscured by hafting. The sole
Kimberley point included in the study (Table 1)
could be measuredin its entirety only because it
had come loose from its mastic haft, although it
fit snugly when reinserted.In his study,Thomas
(1978:467) avoided this problem by x-raying
specimens, a measurethat, if used systematically,
would add many specimens to the database.2
Sixth, some specimens were found that were not
hafted to shafts or foreshafts, but retained sinew
lashing and/or resin adhesive on their haft ele-
ments, e.g., Newberry Cave specimens housed at
California's San Bernardino County Museum
(Davis and Smith 1981:Figures 6g,f, and 7d),
Shinner Site C cache (Hattori 1982:Figure
44c-f,i). These archaeological specimens were
found in dry caves that also yielded abundantper-
ishable remains of atlatls (e.g., Davis and Smith
1981:38-53). Unfortunately, the stone points
were not found attached to dart shafts or fore-
shafts; although perishable remains of bow and
arroware rareif not absent at these sites, the dis-
embodiedpoints can be identified as dartsonly by
an assumptionthatthis and an earlierstudy (Shott
1993) are at pains to avoid.
An uncritical approach easily could increase
the possible dart sample to 75 or more. But this
analysis includes specimens only if: (1) they were
hafted to a shaft or foreshaft; (2) all attributes
could be measured; (3) they were undoubtedly
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
89
authentic; and (4) they were not known to be
designed for use in marine hunting.Table 1 lists
the specimens that satisfy these conditions.
This data set is less than ideally representative
of the complete time and space range of dartuse.
Most specimens are archaeological, which is
unavoidableconsideringthe limiteduse of dartsin
the ethnographicpast (Massey 1961). Most are
from the American Southwest, equally unavoid-
able consideringthe vagariesof organicpreserva-
tion; southeastern Utah is especially well
represented.But perfect representativenessis a
chimera,and we must, for reasons set forth else-
where (Shott 1993:430-431), use all the evidence
thatprudentbut criticaltreatmentmakesavailable.
Not surprisingly,arrow points generally are
smaller than dartpoints. It is temptingto remove
large outliers from the arrow data set, and there
are good reasons to consider such a move.
"Unlocalized"stone-tippedarrows, for instance,
may not be authentic. The Menomini arrows
reported by Skinner (1921 :Figure 57) are con-
spicuous metric outliers (cases 12 and 38 in
Figure 1). Thomas'sMenomini specimens appar-
ently are ethnographic,perhaps acquired for the
AmericanMuseum of NaturalHistoryby Skinner
himself (1921:19), although not necessarily the
ones illustratedin Skinner'smonograph.Yet the
Menomini abandonedstoneworkinglong before
ethnographic study (Hoffman 1896:256, 274,
281; Skinner 1921:323), which suggests that the
tools were fashioned for donation or sale to col-
lectors. Indeed, Skinner describedthe making of
then-modem arrows using stone points retrieved
from archaeologicaldeposits and hafted to mod-
ern shafts using "instructions received in a
dream" (1921:323). Doubts can be entertained
aboutthe authenticityof such arrows,but they are
provisionallyretainedfor analysis.
Metric Analysis
This study uses Thomas's arrow-pointdata, so
thereis no need to repeathis analysiswhere it per-
tained to arrows only. For completeness,
Thomas's analysis of darts alone is reproduced
below using the newly expanded data set,
althoughThomas's arrow statistics differ slightly
from those reported here. Thomas (1978:469)
reporteda significant differencein dartand arrow
90 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

S
H
80U *80.? 0 *38
.12 U 30 20812 i
L L
E 60 D
E 53, 67
N
G R 20
T 40
H W
I
D 10-
T
H
20
0-
132 39 132 39
la ARROW DART lb ARROW DART

112 30

110 *12
T 038 N
H 8 E o12
020 C 20 038
I
C 055 K
K 6
N W
E I I

S 4 D
S T 10
H I l
2- I

OA' 0
132 39 132 39
1c ARROW DART 1d ARROW DART

Figure 1. Boxplots of arrow and dart variables.

foreshaftdiameters,and thatdifferencepersists in Thomas's very small dart sample probably

this data set. explains his results. On available evidence, there
n Mean S.D. are modest positive correlations between dart-
Arrow foreshaft 132 7.30 mm 1.45 point attributesand foreshaftdiameter.
Dart foreshaft 32 10.89 mm 1.56
Discriminant Analysis
t = 12.39,df= 162,p = .00
Thomas'smost significant contributionwas a dis-
Thomasalso calculatedthe correlationbetween criminant analysis that used length, width
dart-pointmetrics and dart-foreshaftlength and (assumed to be shoulder width in this study),
diameter.The expandeddata set does not include thickness, and neck width to distinguish arrow
foreshaftlength, but the curious if small negative and dartpoints. The newly expandeddata set fur-
correlationsfoundin Thomas'soriginaldatavanish nishes an opportunity to repeat that analysis.
on reanalysis,as Pearson'sr coefficients demon- Other variables also may help distinguish dart
strate (there are equally significant correlations from arrow(Hughes 1995), and their significance
betweenthese variablesin the arrowdata): will be studied in futureresearch.
Point ForeshaftDiameter Discriminant analysis assumes: (1) the exis-
Length .44 (p =.01) tence of discrete classes; (2) multivariatenormal
Shoulder width .40 (p= .02) distributionsof variables within classes; and (3)
Thickness .45 (p .01) equal covariance matrices between groups
Neck width .38 (p = .03) (Baxter 1993:185-191; Klecka 1975:9-16). In

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Shott] METRIC DISCRIMINATION OF CHIPPED-STONE POINTS 91

ARROWS DARTS
50-
Std. Dev = 3.91
Mean = 14.7
40 * N =132

30.

20

10

.. . . . .
10 14 18 22 26 30
2a WIDTH 2b WIDTH

Figure 2. Histograms of shoulder width.

this case, the first assumptionis completely valid. 1.0 for most arrowvariables(Table 2, Figure 1).
The second is unimportantif analysis is descrip- Removal of the two Menomini extreme outliers
tive only (Baxter 1993:188) but must be evaluated noted above reduces arrowskewness to below 1.0
when results are extended beyond the analyzed except for shoulder width. Normal plots and
cases. Results are robust under "mild skewness" Lilliefors tests (Norusis 1993:190) also demon-
(Baxter 1993:197; see also Klecka 1975:10) but stratethe normalityof dartvariables.Only length
can be sensitive to highly skewed distributions. among arrow variables tests as normal; again,
Technically,multivariatenormality requires nor- removing Menomini outliers produces normality
mal distributionsfor each variable around fixed in arrow variables except for shoulder width.
values of all others (Klecka 1975:10). The Thus, the assumptionof multivariatenormalityis
assumptionis evaluatedhere instead by examin- validated for darts and validated for arrow vari-
ing each variable's separate distribution. ables except shoulderwidth only with the removal
Skewness is modest for dart points, but exceeds of outliers. Figure 2 shows the distribution of
shoulderwidth for arrowsand darts.Box's M tests
Table2. Mean MetricAttributesof the for the violation of the thirdassumption,although
Arrow and Dart Samples.
it can exaggerate the probability of significant
Attribute Mean S.D. S.E. Skewness Kurtosis inequalityat large sample sizes and is sensitive to
Arrows(n = 132) skewed data (Baxter 1993:199).
Length 31.1 9.3 .8 1.0 3.1 It is importantthat any difference in results
Shoulderwidth 14.7 3.9 .3 1.7 4.4 fromThomas'sowes to the additionaldata,not the
Thickness 4.0 1.3 .1 1.4 4.1
Neck width 10.0 .2
analyticalmethods used. To ensure close similar-
2.9 .9 1.5
ity to Thomas's methods, therefore, his results
Arrows (less Menominioutliers)(n = 130) first were reproduced in relevant particulars.
Length 30.6 8.3 .7 .3 -.2 Thomas (1978:469) apparently used stepwise
Shoulderwidth 14.4 3.4 .3 1.2 2.3 variable entry, a practice that Baxter (1994)
Thickness 3.9 1.1 .1 .7 1.0
Neck width 9.8
recently suggested could bias results. Using the
2.6 .2 .5 -.2
same method, Thomas's result was indeed repli-
Darts(n = 39) cated in most particularsincluding Box's M sta-
Length 51.7 14.0 2.2 .1 .0 tistic, discriminant-function and
Shoulderwidth 23.1 4.6 .7 .0 -.9 classification-function coefficients, and classifi-
Thickness 5.0 1.0 .2 .1 .1 cation results.Functionconstantsdifferedslightly
Neck width 15.2 3.3 .5 -.2 -.8
from Thomas (1978:470), each being approxi-
Note. All dimensions in mm.
mately .7 higher in value. This difference did not

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 0

92 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

LENGTHVS. SHOULDER WIDTH NECK WIDTHVS. SHOULDER WIDTH

FOUR -VARIABLESECTION THREE-VARIABLESOLUTION
30-
* DART * DART
o ARROW o ARROW
80

8 I 20. ' S%,

- 60 % I.
a mg S* *
*
z * * * a ,b * i0 &
w
-i a00 *
40
0 6 zz
03 0
20 0 00

Or f * _ __
V"
10S 20 3o 40 10 20 30 40
3a SHOULDER
WIDTH 3b SHOULDER WIDTH

THICKNESS
VS. SHOULDERWIDTH
TWO-VARIABLESECTION

u)

z
'i
I-

3c SHOULDER WIDTH

Figure 3. Cross-plots of most important variable pairs in discriminant analysis.

alterany classification results. Simultaneousvari- actual rate of correct classification (Baxter

able entryproducednearlyidenticalresults in rel-
evant particulars, including exactly the same
classification results.
Consequently, analysis in this study was by
simultaneousvariableentry,to avoid the interpre-
tive problems that attend stepwise entry (Baxter
1994). Prior probabilitieswere set at .5 for both
dartand arrow,and analysis was performedusing
within-groupcovariancematrices. Unfortunately,
classification was carried out without cross-vali-
dation, which is unavailable in the version of
SPSS (StatisticalPackagefor the Social Sciences)
used (Norusis 1993), and so may exaggerate the
1993:187).
Results
All variablesenteredin analysis are important,to
judge from the attained significance of Wilk's
lambdastatistics(Table3). Box's M indicatesviola-
tion of the assumptionof equalcovariancematrices.
Baxter (1993) suggested the inspection of cross-
plots of the most significant discriminant-analysis
variablesto evaluatethe equal-covarianceassump-
tion. When valid, the "groupsmay have different
meansbut areotherwiseof similargeometricalsize
andshapein multivariatespace"(Baxter1993:197).

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Shott] METRICDISCRIMINATION
OF CHIPPED-STONEPOINTS 93

Table3. Summaryof AnalyticalResults.

ClassificationResults
Shoulder Thick- Neck Arrows Darts
Length Width ness Width Correct Incorrect Correct Incorrect
Four-variablesolution (Box's M=47.3, p=.000)
Coefficient .51 .67 -.30 .09 118 14 30 9
Wilk'sX .59 .57 .89 .64
(.00) (.00) (.00) (.00)

Three-variablesolution (Box's M=21.1, p=.002)

Coefficient .85 -.05 .21 118 12 33 6
Wilk'sX .50 .85 .59
(.00) (.00) (.00)

Two-variablesolution (Box's M=8.4, p=.04)

Coefficient -1.00 -.003 -116 14 33 6
Wilk'sX -.50 .85
(.00) (.00)
Note: Coefficient is the discriminant-functioncoefficient

Four-Variable Solution William Farabeeexpedition.Farabee'snotes iden-

The four-variablesolution is dominatedby shoul-
der width and length; Figure 3a shows modest
separationbetween dart and arrow and the sepa-
rate distributionsare roughly similar in size and
shape (admittedly, dart length is more variable
than arrowlength) despite the Box's M value.
Overall, the analysis successfully classifies
86.5 percentof cases, but only 76.9 percent(30 of
39) of darts. The latter figure only slightly
exceeds Thomas's (1978) 70 percent rate. (The
same results are obtainedusing Thomas'soriginal
function to classify the darts in this sample.) The
nine misclassified dart points include three from
Arizona'sWhite Dog Cave. Their identity as dart
points is beyond question (Guernsey and Kidder
1921:Plate 34). Interestingly, Guernsey and
Kidder (1921:86) noted that White Dog Cave
specimens are smaller than those from San Juan
County, Utah, reported by Montgomery (1894)
and Pepper (1905) and also analyzed here. At
least one White Dog Cave specimen is only a par-
tially worked flake ratherthan a complete biface
(Guernseyand Kidder 1921:Plate34g).
Specimen SA-3758 from Pennsylvania's
UniversityMuseum also is misclassified. It bears
an obsidian point and is among the smallest dart
points in the sample. SA-3758 was recoverednear
Nazca, Peru, in the University Museum's 1922
tify it as the sole intactpoint in a set of "8 or 10"
arrow points. There is no doubt, however, of its
status as a dartpoint; SA-3758 was found with a
"throwingstick" or atlatl, and its main shaft is
recessedat the unfletchedproximalend for seating
on the atlatl spur. The foreshaft is wooden. The
main shaft, however, is composed of reed rather
than solid wood, much more common in arrows
than darts, and the assembled piece measures
roughly 400 mm in length, more in the range of
arrows than darts. SA-3758 unquestionablyis a
dart point, but its size and design imply strong
continuitiesbetween dartand arrowtechnologies,
an observation consistent with other studies
(Cundy 1989; Hughes 1995; Perkins1992).
Classification functions from this analysis are
Dart:.18(length)+ .87(shoulder width)+ .72(thick-
ness) + .21(neck width) - 18.79
Arrow: .07(length) + .49(shoulder width) +
1.28(thickness)+ .14(neckwidth)- 8.60
From standardized function coefficients,
shoulder width is the most significant discrimi-
nating variable followed by length, thickness
(sign of the coefficient is irrelevantto its signifi-
cance [Klecka 1975:30]), and neck width (Table
3). The D-score histogram(Figure4a) shows that
arrowpoints form a reasonablydiscrete class but
that darts are somewhatmore dispersed.There is
considerableoverlapbetween the classes.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
94 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

Three-VariableSolution tool use. Its higher rate of successful classifica-

All else equal, the ideal solution uses the fewest
significantvariables(Baxter 1993:209).The four-
variablesolution producesadequateresults,but it
is worth considering the possibility that fewer
variablesalso produceacceptableresults.
Length undeniablyis importantbut it is prob-
lematic as well because points often experienced
resharpeningduringtheir use lives. This practice
could reducemetricattributeslike shoulderwidth,
but length is by far the most susceptibleto reduc-
tion (Larralde1990:62-65;Lorentzen1989:14-17;
Shott 1993:434; Thomas 1981:14-15). Also,
archaeologicalspecimensoften arebrokenbut oth-
erwise retainmeasurableattributes.With due cau-
tion, they can be classifiedjust as intactspecimens
can. Therefore,analysis was conducteda second
time using only shoulder width, thickness, and
neck width as discriminatingvariables.
All three variables are importantcontributors
to the result, although thickness has a low stan-
dardized coefficient (Table 3). Again, Box's M
indicates violation of the equal-covariance
assumption,yet there is good separationbetween
classes in the cross-plot of shoulder width and
neck width, and they are similarin size and shape
(Figure 3b). The successful classification rate,
89.4 percent,is slightly higher overall than in the
first analysis, and the rate for darts, 84.6 percent
(33 of 39), is considerablyhigher. Five of the six
misclassified dart points are similarly misclassi-
fied in the four-variablesolution; the sixth is the
smallest, especially the narrowest, of the Sand
Dune Cave specimens (Table 1; Lindsay et al.
1968:Figure42e).
Using these results,classification functionsare
Dart: 1.24(shoulderwidth) + 1.94(thickness)+
.38(neck width) - 22.7
Arrow: .69(shoulder width) + 2.05(thickness) +
.19(neck width) - 10.7
Standardized function coefficients identify 10.60
shoulderwidth as by far the strongestcontributor
to results, followed distantly by neck width and those for the four-andthree-variablesolutions but
thickness (Table3). A D-score histogram(Figure suggests greater separation between darts and
4b) resemblesthatproducedin the first analysis. arrows.
This solution is especially significant because
One- Variable Solution
it omitted extreme outliers among arrowsas well
as the variablemost susceptibleto change during Standardized coefficients in the two-variable
tion, especially of darts, makes it more suitable
than the first analysis and Thomas'soriginal one.
Two-VariableSolution
Neck width is unlikely to be affected by resharp-
ening but can be problematicfor a differentrea-
son. All the arrowpoints used in Thomas'sstudy
are side-notched,a form common to most ethno-
graphic collections (e.g., Fowler and Matley
1979) and archaeological ones from western
North America. In eastern North America and
elsewhere, by contrast, what we commonly
assume to be arrow points often are unnotched.
Many such specimens bear inflections on their
marginsas design attributesor thatmarkthe prox-
imal extent of resharpening (e.g., Shott
1993:Figure2), but some do not. Classification
functions are package deals; one cannot obtain
valid resultssimply by failing to insertneck width
values in them. This quality makes it difficult to
apply Thomas's classification functions to
unnotchedspecimens.
Therefore,analysiswas performeda thirdtime
using only shoulder width and thickness (Table
3). Again, the Menomini outliers were omitted.
Wilk's X values show that both variables con-
tribute significantly to the solution, although
shoulder width is much more important. The
Box's M value does not unequivocally indicate
violation of the equal-covarianceassumption;the
two variablesare modestly separatedand roughly
similar in size and shape (Figure 3c). As in the
three-variablesolution, 84.6 percent of darts are
classified accurately,althoughthe overall success
rate of 88.2 percentis slightly lower.The same six
darts are misclassified as in the three-variable
solution. Classification functionsare
Dart: 1.42(shoulder width) + 2.16(thickness) -
22.50
Arrow:.79(shoulderwidth) + 2.17(thickness)-
The D-score histogram(Figure4c) is similarto

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Shott] METRICDISCRIMINATION
OF CHIPPED-STONEPOINTS 95

solution clearly identify shoulderwidth as much width, and 81 of the 83 Numa points (97.6 per-
more importantthan thickness. When it alone is cent) are correctlyclassified by them. One of the
entered in analysis using the same data as in the two misclassified specimens (Fowler and Matley
three- and two-variablesolutions, similar results 1979:Appendix Table 1, Figure 51e [cat. no.
occur. 14540/5]) bears a strong resemblance to Ohio
Box's M yields insignificant results. Valley bifaces identified as dartpoints in an ear-
Classificationresults by specimen and overall are lier study (Shott 1993:433).
identicalto the three-variablesolution.The classi- As a very inadequatetest for dart points, the
fication functions are: partial metrics for a hafted dart from southern
Dart: 1.40(shoulderwidth) - 16.85 Nevada (Tuohy1982:85, Figure2) can be inserted
Arrow:.89(shoulder width)- 7.22. in the one- and two-variablesolutions. Both cor-
The D-score histogram resembles those for rectly classify the specimen as a dart point.
other solutions (Figure4d). Gunnerson (1969:101) reported width for two
The two- and one-variable solutions may be hafted darts;insertedin the one-variablesolution,
the most importantfor prediction. They include these too are classified correctly.
shoulder width, which consistently is the most
important contributor to results as it was in Problematics of Distinguishing Dart from
Thomas'sanalysis.The equal-covarianceassump- Arrow Points
tion is more reasonablein these cases, and their As Thomas (1978) noted, the size difference
successful classification rate matches the three- between dart and arrow points is an empirical
variable solution and exceeds the four-variable more than a theoreticalmatter.Small points could
one. Moreover,these solutions remove length and be used on darts,large ones on arrows.The possi-
neck width and so apply to many more archaeo- bility is exemplified in an earlier study (Shott
logical specimens. They can be applied to 1993:433) and in the persistentmisclassification
unnotched specimens and to broken ones that of some darts and arrows.It also is illustratedin
retain attributesexcept for length. Together,these GreatPlains data (Larralde1990) and a hafted
by
qualities make the solutions applicable to many dart point from Danger Cave (Jennings
more archaeological specimens than do the oth- 1957:Figure163e) examinedat the Utah Museum
ers. The only reservation is that arrow-point of NaturalHistory.This specimenbearsa massive
shoulder width is not distributed normally, an impact fractureoriginatingat the tip, so neither
inconvenient fact that must be assumed not to original length nor shoulder width can be mea-
prejudiceresults. sured. However, its neck and base width- 11.6
and 16.1 mm, respectively-are relativelynarrow.
Independent Tests Indeed, Jennings (1957:182-183) would have
Cross-validationof classification resultsis prefer- classified the point as an arrow had it not been
able to the resubstitution used in this study hafted to a dartforeshaft.
(Baxter 1993:201). In partialredressof this defi- Specimen SA-3758 is one of the misclassified
ciency, an independentsample of arrowpoints is darts.Besides its point, SA-3758's shaft composi-
classified to test the results. Even this measureis tion, size, and design strongly
suggest continu-
less than ideal, because arrowpoints are success- ities betweendartand arrow
technology remarked
fully classified at consistentlyhigh rates;it would on in other studies (Cundy 1989; Perkins 1992).
be betterto classify an independentdartsample if With such continuity, discriminant
analysis will
such existed. supplyhigh probabilitiesin identification,but not
Nevertheless, ethnographicGreatBasin Numa certainty.
arrowshoused at the SmithsonianInstitutionfur- Dartpoints may be similarin size to the points
nish the test. Fowler and Matley (1979:Appendix of harpoons and thrown and handheld
spears. A
Table 1) reportedlength, width, and thickness,but logical next step in
analysis is to compile suffi-
not neck width, for 83 stone arrow points. The cient data on these latter classes to
attempttheir
one- and two-variablesolutions do not use neck metric discriminationfrom both arrowsand darts.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
96 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997

20

F 111
r 15 111
e 1111
q 11111
u 11111
e 10o 11211
n 11111
c 1111111
y 11111111 1

1 1111111111
11111111111111 11 1
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill 11 1 1 I
---7 Ix .. I
tI
/I/ ouI
out -4X
-4.0 -2.0 .0 2.0 4.0 out
Class 1111111111111111111111111111111111222222222222222222222222222
Centroids 1
4a
4- +

F
r 3 + 22 2 222
e 22 2 222
q 22 2 222
u 22 2 222
e 2 - 22222 2222 222 2
n 22222 2222 222 2
c 22222 2222 222 2
y 22222 2222 222 2
1 - 22 22222 2222222222222 2
2 22222 2222222222222 2
2 22222 2222222222222 2
2 22222 2222222222222 2
X .- x----- + --
out -4.0 -2.0 .0 2.0 4.0 out
Class 111111111111111111111111111111111222222222222222222222222222
Centroids 2

20 1
1
1
F 1
r 15 1
e 11
q 111
u 1 111
e 10o 11111
n 111111 1
c 111111 1 1
y 111111 11 1
5 111111111 11
1111111111111
111111111111111 1 1
I 111111111111111111 1 1 I
x i~ i I11111211
I
--- I
71 Class
out -4.0
-
-2.0
I
.0 2.0
-I.....x

1111111111111111111111111111111111222222222222222222222222222
4.0
I
out

Centroids 1
4b
4 - 2
2
2
F 2
r 3 - 222 22 2
e 222 22 2
q 222 22 2
u 222 22 2
e 2 222 2 222 2 22
n 2 222 2 222 2 22
c 2 2 222 2 222 2 22
y 2 2 222 2 222 2 22
1 2 22 2222222 222222222 2
2 22 2222222 222222222 2
2 22 2222222 222222222 2
2 22 2222222 222222222 2
iI
out -4.0 -2.0 .0 2.0 4.0 out
Class 1111111111111111111111111111111111222222222222222222222222222
Centroids 2

Figure. 4. Histograms of Arrow and Dart D-scores (l=arrow, 2=dart).

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Shott] METRIC DISCRIMINATION OF CHIPPED-STONE POINTS 97

20 -
1
1
F 11
r 15 - 111
e 111
q 111
u 111
e 10 - 1111
n 1111 1
c 111111 111
y 1111111 111
5 - 11111111111
111111111111
-TI7~~~ ~1111111111111111111 1
/\z~~ 1111~111111111111111 1 1 1
X | i | i - ! X
out -4.0 -2.0 .0 2.0 4.0 out
Class 1111111111111111111111111111111111222222222222222222222222222
4c Centroids 1

2
F 2
r 6- 2
e 2
q 2
u 2
e 4 2 2
n 2 2
c 2 2 2 2
y 2 2 22
2 - 2 22 2222 22 2
2 22 2222 22 2
2 22222222 222222 2222 2
2 22222222 222222 2222 2
X I I I X
out -4.0 -2.0 .0 2.0 4.0 out
Class 111111111111111111111111111111111222222222222222222222222222
Centroids 2

20 -
1
F 11
r 15 111
e 111
q 111
u 111
e 10- 1111
n 1111 1
c 11111 1 1 1
y 1111111 111
5 - 111111111111
111111111111
11111111111111111 1
7I1 x I
11111111111111111
I i
1 1
I
1
x
out -4.0 -2.0 .0 2.0 4.0 out
Class 111111111 111111111
1111111111111111 222222222222222222222222222
Centroids
4d 1

8- 2
2
2
F 2
r 6- 2
e 2
q 2
u 2
e 4 -2 2 2
n 2 2 2
c 2 2 22
y 2 2 2 2
2 - 2 22 22 2 22 2
2 22 22 2 22 2
2 2222222 222222 2222 2
2 2222222 222222 2222 2
X I I x
out -4.0 -2.0 .0 2.0 4.0 out
Class 1111111111111111111111111111111111222222222222222222222222222
Centroids 2

Figure 4. Continued.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Only such research can determine if dart points
are distinguishableon metric grounds from these
other classes of points.
Single-VariableAnalysis
Shoulder width emerges in all solutions as the
most significant discriminatorbetween dart and
arrowpoints, to the extent that using a discrimi-
nation function alone produces similar results to
multiple-variablesolutions.Figure2 suggests that
the shoulder-widththreshold between dart and
arrow lies near a value of 20 mm. Using this
value, 122 of 132 arrows (92.4 percent)but only
30 of 39 darts (76.9 percent) are correctlyclassi-
fied. These results are identical to the relatively
poor four-variablesolution for darts, but better
than any multivariatesolution for arrows. Darts
are the more difficult class to identify,which jus-
tifies use of the one-variable function over the
threshold value because of the function's higher
dart-classificationrate.
It bears emphasizing that Thomas's original
data yield similar results, althoughthe following
was not reportedin his study. The three-variable
solutionusing Thomas'sdatayields the same clas-
sification results as the four-variableone using
his data. The two-variable solution (shoulder
width and thickness) correctly classifies eight of
10 darts, and the one-variablesolution (shoulder
width alone) correctlyclassifies nine of 10 darts,
the lone exceptionbeing the narrowestWhite Dog
Cave specimen.
Thus, shoulderwidth is by far the most signif-
icant discriminator of dart and arrow points.
However, best classification results occur when
shoulderwidth is used in a one-variablediscrimi-
nant analysis, not as a simple threshold value.
Also, results closely resemble those obtained
using Thomas's original data. In both data sets,
classification success improves as length, neck
width, and thicknessareremovedin order,leaving
only shoulder width in the solution. A carefully
chosen single variable can distinguish dart from
arrow,but does it best when used in a discrimi-
nant analysis.
Otherstudies also stressed single variablesbut
did not use discriminant analysis or shoulder
width as the key variable.Fenenga(1953) andVan
Buren (1974:21-22, 34) proposed weight as an
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997
adequate discriminatorbetween dart and arrow
points. Although reasonable, their studies were
confined to archaeological specimens of
unknown status. Van Buren (1974:24) also
reported length and weight for several undocu-
mented dart points. Weighing hafted dart and
arrowpoints would requiretheirremovalfromthe
haft, damaging the larger specimen; it is not a
practicalprocedurefor the samples used here.
Corliss (1972) proposed a metric distinction
between dart and arrow points based solely on
neck width. He did not explicitly specify a thresh-
old value, but his Figure 3 showed a gap between
the classes ca. 8.5-9 mm. Beck (1995) and
Chatterset al. (1995) adoptedsimilarapproaches,
Beck explicitly using a thresholdvalue of 9 mm.
Fawcett and Kornfeld (1980:72) located the
thresholdat 10 mm.
Unfortunately,data do not validate such an
approach (cf. Corliss 1980:352). A neck width
threshold of 9 mm correctly classifies 38 of 39
dart points, but misclassifies as darts 82 of 132
arrowpoints (62.1 percent).A thresholdvalue of
8.5 mm produces identical results for darts but
misclassifies 89 arrow points (67.4 percent).
Even a thresholdvalue of 10.4 mm, one standard
deviation lower than Chatterset al.'s (1995:757)
mean for inferred dart points, misclassifies 57
arrows(43.2 percent).
These studies were reasonable attempts to
infer the status of archaeologicalunknowns.But
width at the shoulder,not the neck, is the best sep-
aratorof dartand arrowand then, contraCorliss's
(1980) claim, especially in a discriminantanaly-
sis. This study shows that other approachesare
prone to a higher risk of error.
Flake Points and the Antiquity of the North
American Arrow
Odell (1988) arguedthat flakes and bifaces were
used as arrow points as early as the Archaic
period,obviouslyproposinga much earlieradvent
for bow and arrowtechnology than most archae-
ologists would accept. Museum collections of
North American materials include few flake
points to supportone partof Odell'sview andper-
haps none dating to the time periods he proposed
for the arrow'sintroduction.Odell (personalcom-
munication1996) legitimatelystressedthe contin-
Shott] METRICDISCRIMINATION
OF CHIPPED-STONEPOINTS
uum that links unmodified flakes to marginally
retouched ones to completely modified bifaces.
There are reasons to question Odell's conclusion
that unmodified or marginally retouched flakes
functioned as arrow points and that both bifaces
and such flakes were used as arrow points well
before the first millennium A.D. (Seeman
1992:42; Shott 1993:435), but it is plausible and
deserves serious regard.
Amick (1994) and Patterson (1994) would
push back the bow and arrow'sNorth American
introductionto the first colonizers.Thomas'sclas-
sification functions identify some Folsom bifaces
as arrow, not dart, points (Amick 1994:24), an
intriguingfinding that Amick carefully qualified
and that also deserves closer study. It is not
implausible; small Early Archaic types such as
LeCroys probably would be classified as arrow
points. Yet no direct evidence for bow and arrow
technology has been found in a Paleoindiancon-
text, while atlatl equipmenthas been found there
(Heite and Blume 1995:53; Judge 1973:84)
The Siberian evidence that Pattersonadduced
(Chard 1974:37) involves tanged points that do
not resemble the North American archaeological
specimens with which he identifies them.
Patterson's (1994:20) criteria for flake arrow
points-deliberate retouch, "appropriateshape to
function as an arrowpoint,"symmetricaltip, and
basal retouch-are not sufficiently rigorous or
uniquely characteristicof use as arrowsto accept
his argument.Pattersonmay be right, but more
evidence is needed to supporthis view.
In the strictest sense, Odell's and Patterson's
argumentsare not relevantto this study despite
their possible merit because they concern flake
points as well as bifaces. Amick's argumentcan
be tested furtherwith the functionsreportedhere.
Only when we shift focus to the timing and nature
of the transition from dart to arrow (e.g., Blitz
1988; Shott 1993, 1996) do the arguments
become relevant, a shift in focus beyond this
study's scope.
Conclusion
A dart sample substantiallylargerthan Thomas's
(1978) improvesthe ability of discriminantanaly-
sis to distinguish dart from arrow points.
Separationis especiallygood when the problematic
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
99
variablelength,susceptibleto reductionduringuse
andprohibitingthe studyof brokenspecimens,and
the not-universalvariableneck width areremoved.
Shoulderwidth alone yields resultsas satisfactory
as any multiple-variablemodel. An independent
test of classification, practicallylimited to arrow
points, strengthensconfidence in results.
Leaving aside other possible uses of chipped-
stone bifaces, we cannot with certainty classify
archaeologicalunknownsas dart or arrowpoints,
and we will never attainsuch an impossible goal.
The technologies to producedartsand arrowsare
not as dramaticallydifferent as often supposed;
therefore, dart and arrow points are not as dra-
matically differentin size and form as often sup-
posed. Similarity,however,is not identity,and the
classes are different enough that we can reason-
ably distinguish them in 85 percent or more of
cases. Considering the problematicsof archaeo-
logical inference, that is not a bad average.
Acknowledgments.Thanks are due to Elaine Hughes and
Debbie Fenichel of the Museum of NorthernArizona, Robin
Laska and Carol Rector of the San Bernardino County
Museum, Charles Stanish and Christine Gross of the Field
Museumof NaturalHistory,Jane Ketchamof Beloit College's
Logan Museum of Anthropology,MargaretHardinand Chris
Coleman of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County, James Krakkerof the SmithsonianInstitution,Lucy
Fowler Williams and John Cotter of the UniversityMuseum,
University of Pennsylvania,Mark Clark and Kathleen Ash-
Milby of the NationalMuseumof the AmericanIndian,Margot
Reid and Rachel Perkins of the Canadian Museum of
Civilization, Joel Janetski of Brigham Young University's
Museumof Peoples and Cultures,and DuncanMetcalfe of the
Utah Museum of NaturalHistory.Reid, Perkins,Krakker,and
Janetski deserve special thanks for their kindnesses. I also
receivedassistancefromthe PeabodyMuseum.CharlotteBeck,
Andrew Christenson,George Odell, and David Thomas pro-
vided wise counsel.The Universityof NorthernIowasupported
the research with a 1992 College of Social and Behavioral
Sciences grantand a 1995 summerresearchfellowship.
References Cited
Amick, D. S.
1994 Technological Organization and the Structure of
Inferencein Lithic Analysis: An Examinationof Folsom
Hunting Behavior in the American Southwest. In The
Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped
Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P. Carr, pp. 9-34.
Archaeological Series No. 7. InternationalMonographs
in Prehistory,Ann Arbor,Michigan.
Baxter,M. J.
1993 ExploratoryMultivariateData AnalysisinArchaeology.
EdinburghUniversityPress,Edinburgh,Scotland.
100 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
1994 Stepwise DiscriminantAnalysis in Archaeometry:A
Critique.Journal ofArchaeological Science 21:659-666.
Beck, C.
1995 Projectile Point Types as Valid Chronological Units.
Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology,
HamiltonCollege, Clinton, New York.
Blitz, J. H.
1988 Adoption of the Bow in PrehistoricNorth America.
NorthAmericanArchaeologist9:123-145.
Chard,C. S.
1974 NortheastAsia in Prehistory.Universityof Wisconsin
Press, Madison.
Chatters,J. C., S. K. Campbell,G. D. Smith, and P. Minthorn,
Jr.
1995 Bison Procurementin the FarWest:A 2,100-Year-Old
Kill on the Columbia Plateau. American Antiquity
60:751-763.
Christenson,A. L.
1986 ProjectilePoint Size and ProjectileAerodynamics:An
ExploratoryStudy.Plains Anthropologist31:109-128.
Corliss, D. W.
1972 Neck Widthof Projectile Points. An Index of Culture
Continuitvand Change.OccasionalPapersNo. 29. Idaho
State UniversityMuseum, Pocatello.
1980 Arrowpointor Dart Point:An UninterestingAnswer to a
TiresomeQuestion.AmericanAntiquity45:351-352.
Cosgrove, C. B.
1947 Caves of the Upper Gila and Hueco Areas in Nei'
Mexico and Texas. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 24 No. 2.
HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Cundy,B. J.
1989 Formal Variation in Australian Spear and
SpearthrowerTechnolog).BAR InternationalSeries 546.
BritishArchaeologicalReports,Oxford.
Davis, C. A., and G. A. Smith
1981 NewhberriCave. San Bernardino County Museum
Association, Redlands,California.
DeBoer, W. R.
1985 Pots and Pans Do Not Speak, Nor Do They Lie: The
Case for Occasional Reducationism. In Decoding
Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Ben Nelson, pp.
347-357. SouthernIllinois UniversityPress, Carbondale.
Edmonds,M., and J. Thomas
1987 The Archers:An EverydayStory of CountryFolk. In
Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistor.y Some
Problems and Approaches, edited by A. Brown and M.
Edmonds,pp. 187-199. BAR British Series 162. British
ArchaeologicalReports,Oxford.
Fawcett,W. B., and M. Kornfeld
1980 Projectile Point Neck-Width Variability and
Chronology on the Plains. WyomingContributionsto
Anthropology? 2:66-79.
Fenenga,F.
1953 The Weightsof ChippedStone Points:A Clue to Their
Functions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
9:309-323.
Fowler,D., and J. Matley
1979 Material Culture of the Numa. The John Wesley
Powell Collection, 1867-1880. Smithsonian
Contributions to Anthropology No. 26. Smithsonian
Institution,Washington,D.C.
Guernsey,S. J., and A. V Kidder
1921 Basket-MakerCaves of NortheasternArizona. Papers
of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 62, No. 1, 1997
EthnologyVol. 8 No. 2. HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Gunnerson,J. H.
1969 TheFremontCulture.A Studyin CulturalDvnamicson
the NorthernAnasazi Frontier Papers of the Peabody
Museumof AmericanArchaeologyand EthnologyVol. 59
No. 2. HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,Massachusetts.
Hall, R. L.
1977 An AnthropocentricPerspective for Eastern United
States Prehistory.AmericanAntiquity42:499-518.
Harrington,M. R.
1960 The Ozar/k Bluff-Dwellers. Indian Notes and
MonographsVol. 12. Museum of the American Indian,
New York.
Hattori,E. M.
1982 TheArchaeology of Falcon Hill, WinnemuccaLake,
WashoeCounty,Nevada. AnthropologicalPapersNo. 18.
Nevada State Museum,CarsonCity.
Heite, E. E, and C. L. Blume
1995 Data Recovery Excavations at the Blueberrn Hill
Prehistoric Site (7K-C- 07). Archaeological Series No.
130. Department of Transportation, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Heizer, R. F.
1938 An Inquiryinto the Statusof the SantaBarbaraSpear-
Thrower.AmericanAntiquity4:137-141.
Hoffman,W.J.
1896 The Menomini Indians. In Annual Report of the
Burealuof American Ethnology, vol. 14, pp. 11-328.
SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.
Hughes, S. S.
1995 Gettingto the Point:EvolutionaryChangein Prehistoric
Weaponry.Unpublishedmanuscripton file, Departmentof
Anthropology,Universityof Washington,Seattle.
Jennings,J.
1957 Danger Cave. Anthropological Papers No. 27.
Universityof Utah, Salt Lake City.
Judge, W. J.
1973 Paleoindian Occupation of the Central Rio Grande
Vallel in New Mexico. Universityof New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Klecka, W. R.
1975 Discriminant Analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills, California.
Larralde,S. L.
1990 The Design of Hunting Weapons. Archaeological
Evidence from Southwestern Wyoming. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Universityof New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Lindsay,A. J., R. A. Ambler,M. A. Stein, and P. M. Hobler
1968 Survey'and Excavation North and East of Navajo
Mountain, Utah, 1959-1962. Bulletin 45. Museum of
NorthernArizona, Flagstaff.
Lorentzen,L. H.
1989 Form and Function of the Chodistaas and
GrasshopperSpringProjectilePoints. Unpublishedman-
uscripton file, Departmentof Anthropology,University
of Arizona,Tucson.
Maschner,H. D.
1991 The Emergence of Cultural Complexity on the
NorthernNorthwestCoast. Antiquity65:924-934.
Massey,W. C.
1961 The Survivalof the Dart-Throweron the Peninsulaof
Baja California. SouthwesternJournal of Anthropology
17:81-92.
Shott] METRICDISCRIMINATION
OF CHIPPED-STONEPOINTS
Montgomery,H.
1894 Pre-Historic Man in Utah. The Archaeologist
2(8):227-234. Waterloo,Indiana.
Nelson, E. W.
1899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait.In Annual Report of
the Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, vol. 18, pp. 19-518.
SmithsonianInstitution,Washington,D.C.
Norusis, M. J.
1993 SPSSfor WindowsBase System User s Guide,Release
6.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago.
Nusbaum,J. L.
1922 A Basket-MakerCave in Kane County, Utah. Indian
Notes and MonographsNo. 29. Museumof the American
Indian,New York.
Odell, G. H.
1988 Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices through
Stone Tool Analysis. American Anthropologist
90:335-356.
Palter,J. L.
1977 Design and Constructionof AustralianSpear-Thrower
Projectiles and Hand-ThrownSpears. Archaeology and
Physical Anthropologyin Oceania 12:161-172.
Patterson,L. W.
1994 Identification of Unifacial Arrow Points. Journal of
the HoustonArchaeologicalSociety 108:19-24.
Pepper,G. H.
1905 The Throwing-Stick of a Prehistoric People of the
Southwest. Proceedings of the 13th International
Congress ofAmericanists:107-130.
Perkins,W.
1992 The Weighted Atlatl and Dart: A Deceptively
Complicated Mechanical System. Archaeology in
Montana33:65-77.
Rose, F. G. G.
1960 Classification of Kin, Age Structure and Marriage
amongst the Groole Eylandt Aborigines: A Study in
Method and a Theory of Australian Kinship. Akademie
Verlag,Berlin.
Seeman, M. F.
1992 The Bow and Arrow,the IntrusiveMound Complex,
and a Late WoodlandJack's Reef Horizon in the Mid-
Ohio Valley.In CulturalVariabilityin Context:Woodland
Settlementsof the Mid-OhioValley,editedby M. Seeman,
pp. 41-51. MCJA Special Paper No. 7. Kent State
University,Kent, Ohio.
Shott, M. J.
1993 Spears, Darts, and Arrows: Late WoodlandHunting
Techniquesin the UpperOhio Valley.AmericanAntiquity
58:425-443.
1996 Innovation in Prehistory: A Case Study from the
American Bottom. In Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights
Into HumanPrehistory,edited by G. Odell, pp. 279-309.
Plenum, New York.
Skinner,A.
1921 Material Cultureof the Menomini. IndianNotes and
MonographsVol. 20. Museum of the American Indian,
New York.
Testart,A.
1988 Some Major Problemsin the Social Anthropologyof
Hunter-Gatherers.CurrentAnthropology29:1-31.
Thomas, D. H.
1978 ArrowheadsandAtlatl Darts:How the Stones Got the
Shaft. AmericanAntiquity43:461-472.
1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:50:06 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
101
Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin
Anthropology3:7-43.
Troeng,J.
1993 Worldwide Chronology of Fifty-Three Prehistoric
Innovations. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series 8,
No. 21. Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.
Tuohy,D. R.
1982 Another Great Basin Atlatl with Dart Foreshaftsand
OtherArtifacts:Implicationsand Ramifications.Journal
of Californiaand Great Basin Anthropology4:80-106.
Van Buren, G. E.
1974 Arrowheads and Projectile Points with a
Classification Guide for Lithic Artifacts. Arrowhead
Publishing,GardenGrove, California.
Vinnicombe,P.
1972 Myth, Motive, and Selection in Southern African
Cave Art. Africa 42:192-204.
Woodward,A. J.
1930 Reportof the Activities of the Van Buren-LosAngeles
Museum Field Party on Archaeological Sites in the
Vicinity of Navajo Mountain, San Juan County, Utah.
Manuscripton file, Los Angeles County Museum of
NaturalHistory,Los Angeles.
Notes
1. By no means is Table 1 exhaustive.Travel was limited to
North American museums easily reached incidentalto other
traveland to one tripto majormuseumsthatpossess relatively
large holdings. Several other North American museums hold
one or more darts. Several British museums hold nearly 300
darts(Palter1977), althoughnot all may have stone points. No
doubt the sample could be increased even more by visiting
othermajormuseums in Europeand elsewhere.
Reluctantly,Thomas'sspecimen 97179 was removed. Several
PeabodyMuseum specimens bear that number,including two
intact ones. But the metric values Thomas (1978:Table 3)
reportedresemble each in some attributes,the other in other
attributes.Thus, Thomas's specimen could not be identified
reliablywith eitherexaminedduringthis study,so his entrywas
removedin favorof those two.
2. Specimens at Brigham Young University were thickly
wrappedin sinew lashing that made it impossible to measure
neck width and, in a few cases, otherattributes.Thicknesswas
measuredon all specimens. However,the specimens were x-
rayedthroughthe kind offices of Joel Janetski,and the result-
ing image clearly distinguishedthe stone points from foreshaft
and lashing. Plan-view metrics were measureda second time
from the image, neck width includedon this occasion. Results
then were comparedto originalmeasurements.Averagediffer-
ences were less than 1 mm and no statisticallysignificant dif-
ferences were found (2-tailed p values for length, shoulder
width, and base width were .88, .55, and .84, respectively).
Thomas (1978:467) reached a similar conclusion about the
accuracyof measurementsfrom X-ray images. Because neck
width could be measuredonly fromthe X-ray,all reportedmet-
ric values are taken from that image.
Received May 13, 1996; accepted July 10, 1996; revised
August 6, 1996.