Addressing Prehistoric Hunting Practices Through Stone Tool Analysis
George Hamley Odell
Abstract
George Hamley Odell
Abstract
Although archeologists have approached prehistoric hunting practices by studying “projectile points,” use‐wear analyses of nine components spanning 7,500 years of prehistory in the Lower Illinois Valley have shown that this approach is not accurate. The projectile point type is only one of several kinds of lithic artifacts, including other retouched types and debitage, employed in antiquity to tip projectiles. Assemblage comparisons indicate an earlier adoption of bow and arrow technology than most prehistorians have been willing to accept.
OpenAlex reports 77 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Although archeologists have approached prehistoric hunting practices by studying “projectile points,” use‐wear analyses of nine components spanning 7,500 years of prehistory in the Lower Illinois Valley have shown that this approach is not accurate. The projectile point type is only one of several kinds of lithic artifacts, including other retouched types and debitage, employed in antiquity to tip projectiles. Assemblage comparisons indicate an earlier adoption of bow and arrow technology than most prehistorians have been willing to accept.
Key concepts: Projectile point, Debitage, Prehistory, Archaeology, Assemblage (archaeology), Stone tool, Point (geometry), Spear