It's a perfect match of public archaeology and popular science, and why nobody thought of it before University of Wyoming archaeologists Nicole Waguespack and Todd Surovell is beyond me.
Mythbusters Jamie Hyneman (L) and Adam Savage (R) attend the Natural Resources Defense Council's 11th Annual `Forces For Nature' Benefit
Photo Credit: Andrew H. Walker / Getty Images
In 2007, Waguespack and Surovell approached the quintessential popular science television team, MythBusters Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, with a proposition: is there a technological advantage to using a stone or metal arrowhead over a sharpened stick?
Archaeologists have long conducted replicative experiments—called experimental archaeology—for quite some time. Basically, we attempt to recreate situations in the past, whether flint knapping or farming techniques or even building entire villages.
Living history villages, like Colonial Williamsburg and Bede's World and Plimouth Plantation, to name just a few, are a very popular type of tourist attraction. Many of them are direct extensions of archaeological research. Archeon, a living history village in the Netherlands, holds an annual longbow competition.
8th Annual Archeon Longbow Competition. Photo by Hans Splinter
The MythBusters have been conducting their own brand of pop science research since 2002. While such studies are fairly rare on MythBusters, on occasion, they will dip into the archaeological realm. In this program, which first aired in February 2008, the MythBusters discovered that on average, arrow shafts with attached stone arrow points only penetrate about 10% further into ballistics gelatin dummies than do sharpened arrow shafts without stone arrowpoints. That's a bit surprising; stone tools are definitely more difficult to make than sharpening a stick and 10% is really not that much of an increase for all that work.
Waguespack and colleagues wrote up their results, which appear in this quarter's Antiquity. Coincidentally, an article reporting experimental studies on penetration of stone projectile points appeared this month in the Journal of Archaeological Science. Researchers Matthew Sisk and John Shea think that it's possible that what really increases the penetration is the width of the point, rather than the weight or thickness. Hmm.
Sisk, Matthew L. and John J. Shea 2009 Experimental use and quantitative performance analysis of triangular flakes (Levallois points) used as arrowheads. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(9):2039-2047.
Waguespack, Nicole M., et al. 2009 Making a point: wood- versus stone-tipped projectiles. Antiquity 83:786–800.
Some Related Stuff Here
- Top Myths about Arrowheads and Projectile Points
- Little Known Facts about Arrowheads and Projectile Points
- Experiments in Projectile Point Technology (bibliography): there have been quite a few experimental studies on arrow and spear point technology
I have to confess, I have not seen the MythBusters program on Waguespack and Surovell's research, but what I have seen are the long sets of discussion about the program in the public forums at the Discovery channel, garnering interest and input from the general public. I like it!
Comments
Seems to me as if there are 2 primary advantages of stone arrowheads not mentioned. The first is that 10% more penetration is very likely a big difference between wounded prey or enemy that limps away or dies on the spot. That extra 10% is likely the “tipping point” difference between failure and success in terms of hunting and/or killing. The second advantage has got to be reusability. Stone arrowheads can be retrieved from kills and reused. Even if the shafts are worn out the stone arrowheads can be remounted. Also, on any miss the stone arrowheads have got to outlast sharpened wooden points.
Jason
In addition to Jason’s comments, the additional tissue damage and bleeding caused by a stone point vs. a sharpened stick would seem to be other significant advantages of a stone point.
It can also be the other way around… considering how often broke points are found. If you loose or break your projectile point – you still have a perfectly good arrow shaft to which you can attach another one.
This is an advantage since it takes longer to make an nice arrow shaft than if does to make most simple projectile points.
While ballistic gelatin very probably mimics the properties, hides can be noticeably more difficult to penetrate. I did not see the program, nor did I read the Antiquity article, so I can only wonder if any hide component was simulated.
Rock tip was made for breaking ribs, so it could penetrate vital organs, like heart, lungs. Making animal die quicker
Did anyone ever consider those stone points could be a kind of money??
We did a Video on MythBusters Season 6 Epiosode 5 Viewers special 2 Ancient arrows and Busted Mythbusters myth they portrayed on the show about it not being worth the time to make lithic arrow heads.We released on Youtube.
MythBusters Ancient Arrows Busted By Thrand and Eldgrimr
http://youtu.be/WU8zbs4OJ0c
Our conclusion video Thanksgiving special to Mythbusters ancient arrows busted. http://youtu.be/fIQABHKyCpo
Our conclusion video Thanksgiving special to Mythbusters ancient arrows busted.
MythBusters Anchient Arrows Busted N Reloaded By Thrand and Eldgrimr
http://youtu.be/fIQABHKyCpo