Neolithic points from Africa
These would date from about 4000 BCE. There is patina on some but even the oldest stone points may not have patina if they lay in contact with sand. Presumably these were found in that context as these items are difficult to find in areas with vegetation.
Interesting how these are similar to ones in museum displays in Central Asia which I saw. A more specific provenience would be preferable. The big pale one is 46mm.
Interesting how these are similar to ones in museum displays in Central Asia which I saw. A more specific provenience would be preferable. The big pale one is 46mm.
The ones we find in North China and Mongolia are nearly identical to these. I guess there was only one way to do it...
As Steohhan told most of them built in a same manner.
archeologist call this tecnique LoaLoa which i've fogot the exact spell.
archeologist call this tecnique LoaLoa which i've fogot the exact spell.
It is quite interesting to see the similarities. Many of these are the same as we find here in Scandinavia too.
I guess this boils down to the technical side of the artefacts. Identical use + same material = usually the same shape. Many technical problems have one good solution, which results in independent development of objects that look the same.
I guess this boils down to the technical side of the artefacts. Identical use + same material = usually the same shape. Many technical problems have one good solution, which results in independent development of objects that look the same.
I was hoping that someone such as JJ or Andrew who has studied this period would chime in. Jan, have you done some work here? Here are some observations based on Texas flint types.
There is good reason to assume that possibly thousands of years separate the various point types here.
The point at the upper right was made on a flat flake with just enough retouching to define the profile and create a serrated edge. There is no stem per se.
Seven of the points were made on thicker, larger flakes where the flaking was more aggressive and precise; the flakes reach to the center of each pioint. Some of these have only a suggestion of a stem, one is triangular with a concave base and one is perfectly shaped with an ideal stem and point.
The one on the upper left and next to the lower right are made on prismatic blades where the point has been intentionally struck from a core piece and only the base has been worked for mounting.
Almost certainly a chronology of these manufacture shapes has been proposed.
Archery had been firmly established by the Mesolithic, 8000 or 10,000BCE. The first known composites, antler reenforced bows, date to the late neolithic. It is my understanding of later periods that a point is not an indication of what type of bow it was shot from.
There is good reason to assume that possibly thousands of years separate the various point types here.
The point at the upper right was made on a flat flake with just enough retouching to define the profile and create a serrated edge. There is no stem per se.
Seven of the points were made on thicker, larger flakes where the flaking was more aggressive and precise; the flakes reach to the center of each pioint. Some of these have only a suggestion of a stem, one is triangular with a concave base and one is perfectly shaped with an ideal stem and point.
The one on the upper left and next to the lower right are made on prismatic blades where the point has been intentionally struck from a core piece and only the base has been worked for mounting.
Almost certainly a chronology of these manufacture shapes has been proposed.
Archery had been firmly established by the Mesolithic, 8000 or 10,000BCE. The first known composites, antler reenforced bows, date to the late neolithic. It is my understanding of later periods that a point is not an indication of what type of bow it was shot from.
Actually, there points are not a guarantee that archery was involved. Microlithic fishing spear points are often indistinguishable.
Aren't they called projectile points instead of arrow points these days...
Guys; No disagreement.
There are literally hundreds of good flint knappers around here and one can experiment readily with various reproductions.
The red one belongs to a separate category of items which was discarded in manufacture. The game there was to reduce the thickness while whittling down the profile. There is a large hinge, a flaw, on the underside which precludes it making a good projectile of any type. It could however still make a kind of crude knife, with or without handle. Scanning electron microscopy can and has determined what kind of cutting was done with flint.
The pale one below the red one looks more like a finished knife to me, possibly a dart point for large fauna. Having mounted a lot of flint, I find it works best when the stem base is the same size as the haft diameter; not much larger nor smaller. Wide or thick stems are difficult to haft well to arrows .
Thick stems work better on thrown darts as do thicker points. Strangely, I do not know an archaeologist who is a superior flint knapper. Possibly this explains their difficulty identifying the differences between tools.
I do not find better made flint points inferior to metal points in penetration qualities.
There are literally hundreds of good flint knappers around here and one can experiment readily with various reproductions.
The red one belongs to a separate category of items which was discarded in manufacture. The game there was to reduce the thickness while whittling down the profile. There is a large hinge, a flaw, on the underside which precludes it making a good projectile of any type. It could however still make a kind of crude knife, with or without handle. Scanning electron microscopy can and has determined what kind of cutting was done with flint.
The pale one below the red one looks more like a finished knife to me, possibly a dart point for large fauna. Having mounted a lot of flint, I find it works best when the stem base is the same size as the haft diameter; not much larger nor smaller. Wide or thick stems are difficult to haft well to arrows .
Thick stems work better on thrown darts as do thicker points. Strangely, I do not know an archaeologist who is a superior flint knapper. Possibly this explains their difficulty identifying the differences between tools.
I do not find better made flint points inferior to metal points in penetration qualities.
I am actually curious about how they managed to sustain accuracy during hunting/fighting with such a variety of size and weight points. I know from personal experience that an arrow is a lot more than a stick with a sharp end attached to it. Every aspect of the arrow affects its trajectory and speed. If I am shooting with a set of different arrows, it is very unlikely I will have a neat group. Modifying ones shot for each arrow may work, however I cant imagine thinking of that in tense situations. Did every tribe have their own weapon manufacturer to standardise equipment? Or was every hunter/warrior responsible for his own gear?
These points, of which the exact provenance is not known, come probably from several regions and can represent a time span of several thousand years. Without detailled knowledge of the local neolithic, mesolithic and even bronze age cultures of these regions it is impossible to say something more specific on these points. A specialist in African stone age cultures could say more on these examples. So they don?t show the diversity of one archers gear, but samples of a very long development.
In the European Mesolithic and Neolithic there is normally only one dominant flint arrowhead type in a certain region in a specific period. Of course there were other types for specific tasks, e g. bone or antler heads for fishing and wooden or antler blunts for small game, too.
It is difficult to determine the type of weapon from the point alone. There are overlaps in dimesions and weight of dart and arrow heads. It is interesting that so far no evidence of spearthrowing technology was found in Africa. But they could have used all-wood atlatls, which would leave no remains at all in excavations. The earliest arrowheads come from the late paleolithic era, ca. 12000 bc, in Palestine, as far as I know...
JJ
In the European Mesolithic and Neolithic there is normally only one dominant flint arrowhead type in a certain region in a specific period. Of course there were other types for specific tasks, e g. bone or antler heads for fishing and wooden or antler blunts for small game, too.
It is difficult to determine the type of weapon from the point alone. There are overlaps in dimesions and weight of dart and arrow heads. It is interesting that so far no evidence of spearthrowing technology was found in Africa. But they could have used all-wood atlatls, which would leave no remains at all in excavations. The earliest arrowheads come from the late paleolithic era, ca. 12000 bc, in Palestine, as far as I know...
JJ