Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

More to the Point: Developing a Multi-faceted Approach to Investigating the Curation of Magdalenian Osseous Projectile Points

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry

Part of the book series: Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology ((VERT))

Abstract

The majority of osseous projectile points recovered from archaeological sites were intentionally discarded by their owners in prehistory because they were considered no longer usable. This usability being determined by both functional (physical ability to effectively penetrate game) and cultural (ideals about form and efficiency) constraints. While a significant amount of research into Magdalenian osseous projectile points has been undertaken, very few studies have considered the processes which lead to their discard. This paper highlights this underdeveloped avenue of research and outlines potential methods of investigating osseous projectile point reduction and curation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allain, J., & Rigaud, A. (1986). Décor et Fonction. Quelques exemples Tirés du Magdalénien. L’Anthropologie, 90, 713–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allain, J., & Rigaud, A. (1992). Les petites pointes dans l’industrie osseuse de La Garenne: Fonction et figuration. L’Anthropologie, 96, 135–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammerman, A., & Feldman, M. (1974). On the ‘making’ of an assemblage of stone tools. American Antiquity, 39, 610–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt, S., & Newcomer, M. H. (1986). Breakage patterns on prehistoric bone points: An experimental study. In D. A. Roe (Ed.), Studies in the Upper Palaeolithic of Britain and Northwestern Europe (pp. 165–173). International Series 269. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averbouh, A. (1999). Un fragment de percuteur sur partie basilaire de la grotte Magdalénienne d’Enlène (Ariège). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 96, 497–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Averbouh, A. (2001). Methodological specifics of the techno-economic analysis of worked bone and antler: Mental refitting and methods of application. In A. M. Choyke & L. Bartosiewicz (Eds.), Crafting bone: Skeletal technologies through time and space (pp. 111–121). Oxford: Archaeopress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averbouh, A. (2005). Collecte du bois de renne et territoire d’exploitation chez les groups Madgaleniens des Pyrenees Ariegeoises. In D. Vialou, J. Renault-Miskovsky & M. Patou-Mathis (Eds.), Comportements des hommes du paleolithqiue moyen et superieur en europe: Territoires et milieux (pp. 59–70). Liege: ERAUL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averbouh, A., & Cattelain, P. (2002). De l’analyse fonctionnelle des propulseurs par l’économie de leur production. Bulletin du Cercle Archéologique Hesbaye-Condroz, 26, 63–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baffier, D. (1990). Lecture technologique des représentations paléolithiques liées a la chasse et au gibier. Paléo, 2, 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahn, P. G. (1982). Inter-site and inter-regional links during the Upper Palaeolithic: The Pyrenean Evidence. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 1, 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamforth, D. B. (1986). Technological efficiency and tool curation. American Antiquity, 51, 38–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barandiaran, I. (1987). Industria ósea Paleolítica de la Cueva Del Juyo, excavaciones de 1978 y 1979. In I. Barandiaran, L. G. Freeman, J. G. Echegaray & R. G. Klein (Eds.), Excavaciones en la Cueva Del Juyo (pp. 161–194). Santander: Centro de Investigación y Museo de Altamira, Monografías 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betts, M. W. (2007). The Mackenzie Inuit whale bone industry: Raw material, tool manufacture, scheduling, and trade. Arctic, 60, 129–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1973). Interassemblage variability: The Mousterian and the “functional” argument. In C. Renfrew (Ed.), The explanation of culture change: Models in prehistory (pp. 227–254). London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1977). Forty-seven trips: A case study in the character of archaeological formation processes. In R. V. Wright (Ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers: Change evolution and complexity (pp. 24–38). New Jersey: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binford, L. R. (1979). Organization and formation processes: Looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 35, 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birket-Smith, K., & De Laguna, F. (1938). The Eyak Indians of the Copper River Delta, Alaska. Kolenhaven: Lenin and Munksgaard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buc, N. (2011). Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 546–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B. (2006). An analysis of Folsom projectile point resharpening using quantitative comparisons of form and allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33, 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. C. (1889). Exploration of the Kowak River Alaska. Ethnological notes. In M. A. Healey (Ed.), Report of the cruise of the revenue Marine Steamer Corwin in the Arctic Ocean 1884 (pp. 75–98). Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadelle, J. P., Geneste, J. M., & Plisson, H. (1991). Processus fonctionnels de formation des assemblages technologiques dans les sites du Paleolithique superieur. Les pointes de projectiles lithiques du Solutréen de la grotte de Combe-Saunière (Dordogne, France) (pp. 275–287). Juan-Les-Pins: APDCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, M., & Chollet, A. (2005). L’industrie sur bois de cervidé et os des niveaux magdaléniens et aziliens du Bois-Ragot: étude préliminaire. Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique Française XXXVIII (pp. 223–257).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christenson, A. L. (1986). Projectile point size and projectile aerodynamics: an exploratory study. Plains Anthropologist, 31, 109–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. G. D., & Thompson, M. W. (1953). The groove and splinter technique of working antler in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 19, 148–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conkey, M. W. (1980). The identification of prehistoric hunter-gatherer aggregation: The case of Altamira. Current Anthropology, 21, 609–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. (1954). Material culture of the Australian Aborigines. Records of the South Australian Museum, 11, 91–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, E. S. (1911). The North American Indian 8. Norwood: Plimpton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. S. (1934). Australian spear traits and their derivations. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 43, 143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deffarge, R., Laurent, P., & de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (1977). Sagaies et ciseaux du Magdalenien superieur du Morin, Girondi: Un essai de definition. In H. Camps-Fabrer (Ed.), Methodologie Appliquee a L'Industrie de L'Os Prehistorique (pp. 99–110). Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Laguna, F., & McClellan, C. (1981). Ahtna. In J. Helm (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 6, pp. 641–663). Subarctic Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibble, H. L. (1995). Middle Paleolithic scraper reduction: Background, clarification, and review of the evidence to date. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2(4), 299–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobres, M.-A. (1995). Gender and prehistoric technology: On the social agency and technical strategies. World Archaeology, 27, 25–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C. J. (1997). Factors influencing the use of stone projectile tips: An ethnographic perspective. In H. Knecht (Ed.), Projectile technology (pp. 37–74). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elston, R. G., & Brantingham, P. J. (2002). Microlithic technology in northern Asia: A risk-minimizing strategy of the Late Paleolithic and Early Holocene. In R. G. Elston & S. L. Kuhn (Eds.), Thinking small: Global perspectives on microlithization (pp. 103–116). Arlington: American Anthropological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmons, G. T. (1911). The Tahltan Indians. University of Pennsylvania, the Museum, Anthropological Publications, 4, 1–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J. (1977). Contemporary stone tools in Ethiopia: Implications for archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology, 4, 407–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geist, V. (1978). Life strategies, human evolution, environmental desight. Toward a biological theory of health. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddings, J. L. (1952). The artic woodland culture of the Kobuk River. Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. (1980). Living archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R., Koster, D., & Sontz, A. (1971). The lithic assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity, 36, 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graziosi, P. (1960). Palaeolithic art. London: Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimes, J. R., & Grimes, B. G. (1985). Flakeshavers: Morphometric, functional and life-cycle analyses of Paleoindian unifacial tool class. Archaeology of Eatern North America, 13, 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, R. D. (1983). Osseous projectile points: Biological considerations affecting raw material selection and design among Paleolithic and Paleoindian peoples. In J. Clutton-Brock & C. Grigson (Eds.), Animals and archaeology (pp. 273–294). International Series 163. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B. (1977). Stone tool function in the Western Desert. In R. Wright (Ed.), Stone tools as cultural markers: Change, evolution and complexity (pp. 178–188). Canberra: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, B. (1979). Paleolithic reflections: Lithic technology and ethnographic excavation among the Australia Aborigines. New Jersey: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, E. G., & Chiara, V. (1977). Brazilian Indian archery. Manchester: Simon Archery Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiscock, P. (2008). The Archaeology of ancient Australia. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Julien, M. (1977). Harpons unilatéraux et bilatéraux: Evolution morphologique ou adaptation differénciée? In H. Camps-Fabrer (Ed.), Méthodologie appliquée a l’industrie de l’os préhistorique (pp. 177–189). Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julien, M. (1982). Les harpons Magdaléniens. Supplement a Gallia Préhistoire 17. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julien, M. (1999). Une tendance créatrice au Magdalénien: à propos de stries d’adhérence sur quelques harpons. In M. Julien, A. Averbouh, D. Ramseyer, C. Bellier, D. Buisson, P. Cattelain, M. Patou-Mathis & N. Provenzano (Eds.), Préhistoire d’Os: Recueil d’Études sur l’industrie osseuse préhistorique (pp. 133–142). Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julien, M., & Orliac, M. (2003). Les harpons et les elements barbeles. In J. Clottes, H. Delporte, & D. Buisson (Eds.), La Grotte de La Vache (Ariège) (pp. 221–274). Paris: Reunion des Musees Nationaux/CTHS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L. (1982). Hafting and retooling: Effects on the archaeological record. American Antiquity, 47, 798–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knecht, H. (1991). Technological innovation and design during the Early Upper Paleolithic: A study of organic projectile technologies. Ph.D. Dissertation, New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knecht, H. (1993a). Splits and wedges: The techniques and technology of Early Aurignacian antler working. In H. Knecht, A. Pike-Tay & R. White (Eds.), Before Lascaux: The complex record of the Early Upper Paleolithic (pp. 137–162). London: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knecht, H. (1993b). Early Upper Paleolithic approaches to bone and antler projectile technology. In G. Larsen Peterkin, H. M. Bricker, & P. Mellars (Eds.), Hunting and animal exploitation in the later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Eurasia (pp. 33–47). USA: Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knecht, H. (1997). Projectile points of bone, antler, and stone: Experimental explorations of manufacture and use. In H. Knecht (Ed.), Projectile technology (pp. 191–212). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kniffen, F. B. (1940). Pomo geography (Vol. 36). Berkeley: University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langlais, M., Costamango, S., Laroulandie, V., Pétillon, J.-M., Discamps, E., Mallye, et al., (2012). The evolution of Magdalenian societies in South-West France between 18,000 and 14,000 calBP: Changing environments, changing tool kits. Quaternary International 272–273, 138–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, M. C. (2014). Magdalenian antler projectile point design: Determining original form for uni- and bilaterally barbed points. Journal of Archaeological Science, 44, 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, P. (1974). On the morphology of barbs: Observation préliminaires sur la morphologie des harpons du Magdalénien supérieur. In H. Camps-Fabrer (Ed.), Premier colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la Préhistoire (pp. 187–191). Aix-en-Provence: Universite de Provence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leechman, D. (1954). The Vanta Kutchin. National Museum of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Letourneux, C., & Pétillon, J.-M. (2008). Hunting lesions caused by osseous projectile points: Experimental results and archaeological implications. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 2849–2862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liolios, D. (1999). Variabilité et caractéristiques du travail des matiéres osseuses au début de l’Aurignacien: Approche technologique et économique. Paris: Université Paris X-Nanterre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liolios, D. (2006). Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the Early Aurignacian. In O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhao (Eds.), Towards a definition of the Aurignacian: Proceedings of the symposium Held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25–30, 2002 (pp. 37–51). Lisboa: Instituto Portugues de Arqueologia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, I. (1996). A history and ethnography of the Beothuk. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, A. G. (1985). Bone, antler, ivory and horn: The technology of skeletal materials since the Roman Period. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClellan, C. (1981). History of research in the Subarctic Cordillera. In J. Helm (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 6, pp. 35–42). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKennan, R. A. (1965). The Chandalar Kutchin. Arctic Institute of North America Technical Paper 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKennan, R. A. (1981). Tanana. In J. Helm (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indian (Vol. 6, pp. 562–576). Subarctic Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C. R., & Schmidt, C. W. (2009). Paleoindian and early Archaic organic technologies: A review and analysis. North American Archaeologist, 30, 57–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morice, A. G. (1894). Notes archaeological, industrial and sociological on the Western Denes. Transactions of the Canadian Institute, Session, 1892–93, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, J. (1892). Ethnological results of the point barrow expedition. Washington: Bureau of Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Ninth Annual Report.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, E. W. (1899). The Eskimo about Bering Strait. In 18th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1896–1897, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. C. (1997). Projectile points: Form, function, and design. In H. Knecht (Ed.), Projectile technology (pp. 371–384). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, M. H. (1974). Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon). World Archaeology, 6(2), 138–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, M. H. (1977). Experiments in Upper Paleolithic bone work. In H. Camps-Fabrer (Ed.), Méthodologie appliquée a l’industrie de l’os préhistorique (pp. 293–301). Paris: Editions du Centre National du Recherche Scientifique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuzhnyi, D. (1993). Projectile weapons and technical progress in the Stone Age. In P. C. Anderseon, S. Beyries, M. Otte & H. Plisson (Eds.), Traces et fonction: Les gestes retrouvés (pp. 41–54). Liege: Université de Liège, Service de Préhistoire (ERAUL, 50).

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell, G. H. (1996). Economizing behavior and the concept of “curation”. In G. H. Odell (Ed.), Stone tools: Theoretical insights into human prehistory (pp. 51–80). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. (1936). Contributions to the ethnography of the Kutchin. New Haven: Yale University Publications in Anthropology 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. (1937). The ethnography of the Tanaina. New Haven: Yale University Publications in Anthropology 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. (1940). Ingalik material culture. New Haven: Yale University Publications. in Anthropology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. (1971). The Han Indians. New Haven: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pétillon, J.-M. (2002). Typologie et utilisation: l’exemple des pointes à base forchue magdaléniennes. In M. Patou-Mathis, P. Cattelain & D. Ramseyer (Eds.), L’industrie osseuse pré- et protohistorique en europe. Approches techniques et fonctionnelles (pp. 53–62). Liege: Actes du Colloque 1.6 XIV Congres de l’UISPP 2–8 Septembre 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pétillon, J.-M. (2005). Tir expérimental de pointes à base fourchue en bois de renne. In V. Dujardin (Ed.), Industrie osseuse et parures du solutréen au Magdalénien en europe (pp. 243–256). Paris: Société Préhistorique Française.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pétillon, J.-M. (2006). Des Magdaléniens en arms. Technologie des armatures de projectile en Bois de Cervidé du Magdalénien superiéur de la Grotte d’Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). Treignes: Centre d’Études et de Documentation Archéologiques.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pétillon, J.-M. (2008). What are these barbs for? Preliminary study on the function of the Upper Magdalenian barbed weapon tips. Palethnologie, 1, 69–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pétillon, J.-M. (2016). Thirty years of experimental research on the breakage patterns of Stone Age osseous points. Overview, methodological problems and current perspectives. In R. Iovita & K. Sano (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to the study of Stone Age weaponry (pp. 47–63). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pétillon, J.-M., Bignon, O., Bodu, P., Cattelain, P., Debout, G., Langlais, et al. (2011). Hard core and cutting edge: Experimental manufacture and use of Magdalenian composite projectile tips. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 1266–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pokines, J. (1993). Antler points from El Juyo (Santander, Spain): Form, manufacture and parameters of use. Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pokines, J. (1998). Experimental replication and use of Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian antler projectile points. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25, 875–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pokines, J., & Krupa, M. (1997). Self-Barbed antler spearpoints and evidence of fishing in the Late Upper Paleolithic of Cantabrian Spain. In H. Knecht (Ed.), Projectile technology (pp. 241–262). London: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rausch, E. S. (1951). The Nunamuit Eskimo and mammals of the Anaktuvak Pass Region. Arctic, 4, 147–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, B. G., & Tankersley, K. B. (2005). Evidence of Early Paleoindian bone modification and use at the Sheriden Cave Site (33WY252), Wyandot Country, Ohio. American Antiquity, 70, 503–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigaud, A. (2004). Fiche débitage du bois de renne au Magdalénien. L’exemple de La Garenne (Indre, France). In D. Ramseyer (Ed.), Matières et Techniques, Industrie de l’Os Préhistorique, Cahier XI (pp. 79–87). Paris: Editions S.P.F.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigaud, A. (2006). Étude technologique des baguettes demi-rondes de Labastide (Hautes-Pyrénées). Archaéologie des Pyrénées Occidentales et des Landes, 25, 229–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. S., & Smith, J. G. E. (1981). Environment and culture in the Shield and Mackenzie Borderlands. In J. Helm (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 6, pp. 130–145). Subarctic Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondeau, M. F. (1996). When is an Elko? In G. H. Odell (Ed.), Stone tools: Theoretical insights into human prehistory (pp. 229–243). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rozoy, J. G. (1992). Expérimentation de lancer de sagaies avec le propulseur. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d’Études Géologiques et Archéologiques – Les Chercheurs de la Wallonie, 32, 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saint-Périer, R. (1936). La Grotte d’Isturitz II: La Magdalénien de la Grande Salle. Paris: Masson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer, M. B. (1976). Behavioral archaeology. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieveking, A. (1987). A catalogue of Palaeolithic art in the British Museum. London: British Museum Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. (1989). Diversity, organization and behavior in the material record: An ethnographic examination. Current Anthropology, 30, 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J. (2016). Survivorship distribution in experimental spear points: Implications for tool design and assemblage formation. In R. Iovita & K. Sano (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to the study of Stone Age weaponry (pp. 245–258). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M., & Sillitoe, P. (2004). Modeling use-life distributions in archaeology using New Guinea Wola ethnographic data. American Antiquity, 69, 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M., & Sillitoe, P. (2005). Use life and curation in New Guinea experimental used flakes. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32, 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shott, M. J., & Weedman, K. J. (2007). Measuring reduction in stone tools: An ethnoarchaeological study of Gamo hidescrapers from Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34, 1016–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, A. (1911). Notes on the Eastern Cree and Northern Salteaux. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 9, 1–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefansson, V. (1914). The Stefansson-Anderson Expedition of the American Museum: Preliminary ethnological report. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 14, 1–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stodiek, U. (1990). Jungpaläolithische speerschleudern und speereein rekonstrucktionswersuch. Experimentelle Archäologie in Deutschland. Archäeologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, 4, 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stodiek, U. (1991). Erste Ergebnisse experimenteller Untersuchengen von Geweihgeschoßspitzen des Magdalénien. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Beiheft, 6, 245–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stodiek, U. (1993). Zur Technologie der jungpaläolithischen Speerschleuder. Eine Studie auf der Basis archäologischer, ethnologischer und experimenteller Erkenntnisse. Tübingen: Archaeologia Venatoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stodiek, U. (2000). Preliminary results of an experimental investigation of Magdalenian antler points. In C. Bellier, P. Cattelain & M. Otte (Eds.), La chasse dans la préhistoire (pp. 70–78). Bruxelles: Société Royale Belge d’Anthropologie et de Préhistoire/Service de Préhistoire de l’Université de Liege/Centre d’Études et de Documentation Archéologiques.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, L. G. (1992). Iberia before the Iberians. The Stone Age prehistory of Cantabrian Spain. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, N. (1965). Stone implement making among the Nakako, Ngadadjara and Pitjandjara of the Great Western Desert. Records of the South Australian Museum, 15, 131–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. B. (1981). Tanaina. In J. Helm (Ed.), Handbook of North American Indians 6 (pp. 623–626). Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyzzer, E. E. (1936). The “simple bone point” of the shell-heaps of the northeastern Algonkian Area and its probable significance. American Antiquity, 1, 261–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weedman, K. J. (2000). An ethnoarchaeological study of stone scrapers among the Gamo People of Southern Ethiopia. Gainesville: Department of Anthropology, University of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weedman, K. J. (2002a). An ethnoarchaeological study of stone-tool variability among the Gamo hide workers of southern Ethiopia. In S. Beyries & F. Audoin-Rouzeau (Eds.), Le Travail du Cuir de la Préhistoire (pp. 131–142). Antibes: Editions APDCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weedman, K. J. (2002b). On the spur of the moment: Effects of age and experience on hafted stone scraper morphology. American Antiquity, 67, 731–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weedman, K. J. (2002c). Gender and stone tools: An ethnographic study of the Konso and Gamo hideworkers of southern Ethiopia. In L. Frink & K. J. Weedman (Eds.), Gender and hide production (pp. 175–196). Walnut Creek: Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, D. M. (1996). Material culture in Kimberley rock art, Australia. Rock Art Research, 13, 104–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weniger, G.-C. (1989). The Magdalenian in Western Central Europe: Settlement pattern and regionality. Journal of World Prehistory, 3, 323–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weniger, G. C. (1992). Function and form: An ethnoarchaeological analysis of barbed points from northern hunter-gatherers. In F. Audouze (Ed.), Ethnoarchéologie: Justification, problèmes, limites (pp. 257–268). Juan-les-Pins: XIIemes reconctres internationales d’archaéologie et d’historie d’Antibes, Centre national de recherches archéologiques en Belgique.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weniger, G. C. (1995). Widerhakenspitzen des Magdalénien Westeuropas. Mainz: Ein Vergleich mit ethnohistorischen Jägergruppen Nordamerikas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weniger, G. C. (2000). Magdalenian barbed points: Harpoons, spears and arrowheads. In C. Bellier, P. Cattelain & M. Otte (Eds.), La chasse dans la préhistoire (pp. 79–87). Bruxelles: Société Royale Belge d’Anthropologie et de Préhistoire/Service de Préhistoire de l’Université de Liege/Centre d’Études et de Documentation Archeologiques.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiessner, P. (1983). Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity, 48, 253–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the valuable advice given to my from my PhD supervisor, Nick Barton, as well as that given by Sébastien Lacombe, Meg Conkey, Jean-Marc Pétillon, and Chris Clarkson. I am also appreciative for permission to study the collections curated in the British Museum and the Musée d’Archéologie Nationale, Saint-Germain-en-Laye. This research would be unable to be undertaken without this advice and also without the help of a Clarendon Scholarship (University of Oxford). Finally, I would like to thank Radu Iovita and Katsuhiro Sano for their invitation to participate in the Stone Age Weaponry workshop and the three anonymous reviewers for their most constructive and useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 PG1, UK

    Michelle C. Langley

  2. Archaeology and Natural History, School of Culture History and Language, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Michelle C. Langley

Authors
  1. Michelle C. Langley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle C. Langley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Museum for Human Behavioural Evolution,, MONREPOS Archaeological Research Centre, Neuwied, Germany

    Radu Iovita

  2. University Museum, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Katsuhiro Sano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Langley, M.C. (2016). More to the Point: Developing a Multi-faceted Approach to Investigating the Curation of Magdalenian Osseous Projectile Points. In: Iovita, R., Sano, K. (eds) Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Stone Age Weaponry. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7602-8_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation