Toothy

[lostlake88]

IMO this is a knife. A cut stone used to process food. I just read a post on an archaeology forum ( edu site) that serrations were optimal for penetration. I think they would slow the projectile. I think a frictionless (if thats a word) projectile was used.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Th3rty7]

I could see how serrations would be optimal for arrowpoints shot from a bow, to increase damage once it penetrated the target. That one looks like it would be good for cutting meat off the bone. Prehistoric steak knife. Nice pinetree btw, is that Carter?

 

[naturegirl]

"cutting meat off the bone", like this?

 

[lostlake88]

"cutting meat off the bone", like this?

YEP.

 

[lostlake88]

I could see how serrations would be optimal for arrowpoints shot from a bow, to increase damage once it penetrated the target. That one looks like it would be good for cutting meat off the bone. Prehistoric steak knife. Nice pinetree btw, is that Carter?
[/quote
yes

 

[Tnmountains]

Man serious serrations. Nice saw,,,, Killer material.

 

[joshuaream]

It seems like it would take a lot of force for that to penetrate muscle/lung tissue given the size, serrations, and width. I'd call it a very nice knife.

Most of the complete darts (atlatl shafts) from American caves, as well as examples from Central & South America show relatively small .5" to 2" points being used, the same with arrowheads. It would be an interesting experiment to haft up some larger points (2", 3", 4") and see how they fly on an atlatl dart. My guess is that the bigger points would be a lot less accurate.

 

[archer66]

It seems like it would take a lot of force for that to penetrate muscle/lung tissue given the size, serrations, and width. I'd call it a very nice knife.

Most of the complete darts (atlatl shafts) from American caves, as well as examples from Central & South America show relatively small .5" to 2" points being used, the same with arrowheads. It would be an interesting experiment to haft up some larger points (2", 3", 4") and see how they fly on an atlatl dart. My guess is that the bigger points would be a lot less accurate.

As a bowhunter I completely agree with this. There is a lot to discuss when it comes to the effectiveness of archery equipment including accuracy (predictable arrow flight), kinetic energy (effect on penetration/reaching vital organs), arrowhead perfomance due to design (effect on penetration/tissue damage and blood flow).

I could write a book but to paraphrase:

--Accuracy: Since large broadheads have greater surface area they are more greatly affected by wind resistance which would require large feathers to stabilize the arrow. Since they weigh more the hunter would have needed a heavier spined arrow to prevent enourmous arrow flex so that the arrow would not only shatter upon leaving the bow but also would fly true to the target time after time.

--Kinetic energy: A function of arrow weight and velocity. A lighter arrow travels faster leaving the bow but also loses energy faster when it encounters resistance from gravity, wind, and hopefully the vitals of a game animal. The number one thing when hunting with archery tackle is arrow penetration on the target and there is a fine line between light and fast and slow and heavy where the resulting kinetic energy is optimized. Modern archers today debate whether it is better to have a light arrow that is fast or a heavy arrow that is slow. My thought is that the most important thing would be accuracy which with primitive equipment would be easier to achieve with lighter arrows.

--Arrowhead performace on game: This is actually what the original post was about. The number one thing for any arrowhead would be sharpness. I agree with the op that a razor sharp projectile without serrations would penetrate deeper into the vitals or hopefully go all the way through the animal. If your goal was to cause pain and suffering then a serrated point designed to lodge in the animal or enemy would be the way to go. As far as size goes a smaller arrowhead would be more likely to slip between the ribs of a game animal thus improving it's chances of deep penetration into or through the target.

So yeah...that's my long way of saying that I think the artifact shown is a saw or knife rather than an arrowhead, spear point, or atlatl dart point.

 

[uniface]

Whoever posted that at your edu. site was, IMHO, FOS.

Serration, like beveling, is a re-sharpening strategy to minimise width loss.

With serration, the outside edge was dulled from use. And, in your case, still is. The serrations created new, sharp edges that were only usable if it were pressed down into the work and used in a sawing (cutting) motion, along the axis of the point.

My two cents' worth.

(PS : REAL pretty point !!!)

 

[SoIll]

Nice point but I disagree. Do you think that Cahokia on the banner was a knife?
IMO there's no difference in a knife and a projectile in the early archaic because of the foreshaft.

 

[uniface]

Notice -- in addition -- that the point of it was not resharpened. This tells you something about its intended use. (You can use a dictionary for a doorstop if you want, but it's still a dictionary).

There are tiny, serrated arrowheads from the Woodland and Mississippian eras. This was still a re-sharpening strategy but, in the case of something that small going that fast, the penetration loss from increased surface area would have been negligible.

 

[archer66]

Notice -- in addition -- that the point of it was not resharpened. This tells you something about its intended use. (You can use a dictionary for a doorstop if you want, but it's still a dictionary).

There are tiny, serrated arrowheads from the Woodland and Mississippian eras. This was still a re-sharpening strategy but, in the case of something that small going that fast, the penetration loss from increased surface area would have been negligible.

Maybe I'm hard headed and making this difficult so forgive me. I'm learing as I go....so bear with me. I can see what you mean about that cahokia....it is truly small and thin and I'm sure was razor sharp but the larger point in the pic at the top of the thread would be heavy by comparison. It would take quite an arrow and quite a set of fletching to balance that extra weight. Modern primitive weapons don't shoot particularly fast and I find it hard to believe that ancient primitive weapons shot any faster. For comparison....I shoot a modern compound bow. My arrow velocity is 260 foot per second..my arrows weigh 325 grains, the broadead...made of razor sharp SURGICAL STEEL weighs 100 grains. The cutting diameter on my broadhead is 1.25 inches. Even with that velocity and the KE that comes with it, I have had arrows fail to make it all the way through a deer.

I understand that primitive weapons weren't as efficient as my compound and I understand that an arrow doesn't need to go all the way through a deer to kill it, but I'm trying to understand how what arrow flight, accuracy, and penetration would have been like with a point like the one in the pic above?? I also understand that game recovery was probably pretty hit and miss.

Hey lostlake....would you mind weighing that point for me? Weight in grains would be great but if you don't have a scale with units in grains then grams would do. I just want to get an idea how that would have worked.

Also...who was it on here that was building arrows using found arrowheads? If you see this could you tell me what your arrows weighed...complete with point hafted, as well as what your arrowhead weighed?

 

[artorius]

For what it is worth, last month I found the bottom half of a point very much like yours in Southeastern Pennsylvania. The break clearly was ancient, and just as clearly was an impact fracture. The point was broken while in use as a projectile point.

artorius