Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Science > History

June 26th, 2007, 08:12 GMT · By Stefan Anitei

MythBusters Solve the Mystery of Stone Age Arrowheads

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


Jamie Hyneman, left, and Adam Savage, with the two University of Wyoming anthropologists, Nicole Waguespack and Todd Surovell, middle.
Enlarge picture
When they found some odd looking stones dated tens of thousands of years ago, archaeologists already made a picture of the way people lived during Stone Age. Early people left a lot of projectile points made of stone which must have been affixed to arrow and spear shafts. Are those stones really projectile points? Which were the technological advantages or disadvantages of an arrowhead?

Two anthropologists of the University of Wyoming, Nicole Waguespack and Todd Surovell, started to question the purpose of arrowheads, long accepted as a main component of prehistoric weaponry.

"The concept that projectile points were used to advance
hunting has been perpetuated throughout history, but wasn't based on any meaningful evidence," they said.

"The importance of the arrowhead was a myth, so-to-speak," said Waguespack.

"Archaeologists are absolutely obsessed with (projectile points). They are some of the prettiest things we find from the Stone Age and exemplify some of the more difficult objects to make. Nicole proposed that perhaps you didn't even need an arrowhead because a sharpened wooden arrow would do the trick. In fact, attaching the chipped stone projectile point to the end of an arrow adds more work to the production of the arrow," Surrovell declared.

"It sounds really fundamental, but no one has ever explained why the projectile point makes an arrow or a thrown spear so much more effective. Is it the weight? Is it the fact it has a better cutting edge? We find (arrowheads) all over the world in all times and places. It seems like a very basic question and archaeologists should know why everyone made them." Waguespack added.

They thought that maybe Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage, the hosts of the "MythBusters", a successful show where truth is separated from urban legend, could light up the issue.

"It became very clear to us that this experiment was a pretty simple thing for them to do, they had all of the necessary equipment," said Surovell.

So, they contacted Hyneman and two weeks later, they were making the experiments in San Francisco.

"For the show, Adam sharpened arrow shafts and Jamie tried to make a chipped stone projectile point. They timed each process, and discussed the fact that the pointy stick was a lot easier and faster to make," said Waguespack.

The team shot arrows with and without arrowheads into a ballistics gel torso, with a consistence similar to the tissues of an animal. A rig was employed to shoot the bow automatically with controlled draw tension and the penetration of each shot was accounted.

"The segment might serve a dual purpose: to resolve the questions about arrowheads' significance to prehistoric cultures, and to peak public interest in archeology. We are trying to figure out how these things fit into the technological repertoire of prehistoric peoples." Waguespeak pointed out.

To see if the superiority of an arrowhead is a myth or a fact, watch MythBusters or search on discovery.com to find out when you can watch the show.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

5,443 hits · 9 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Human Sacrifice and Eugenics in the European Stone Age

An Irish Stonehenge Has Been Discovered

Sex, Alcohol, Smoking and Drugs Make You Feel Maturer

How Did Stone Age People Start to Make Agriculture?

Gyrochronology, a New More Effective Method of Determining the Stars' Age

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: William Kinter on 08 Mar 2009, 16:35 UTC reply to this comment

Arrowheads Vs Sharp Sticks
There was one item missed in this comparison. Penetration is important and the size of the wound - you mentioned these.. However what was missed is the amount of bleeding. Flint arrowheads are sharp, particularly those made from obsidian, which can be as sharp as a modern scalpel. The amount of bleeding is most important and is inversely proportional to the amount of trauma. Blood vessels that are cleanly cut with something sharp will bleed much more freely than if they are torn open with something dull. Just compare a wound made with a razor blade against one sawed open with a dull knife. Also, I think it possible that the "ballistic coefficient" of an arrow with a stone head might be superior to one made only of wood with a sharpened point. A better ballistic coefficent would cause it to lose less velocity over a given range.


Comment #2 by: Charlie Harvin on 26 Apr 2009, 19:19 UTC reply to this comment

Two other "points" they missed in their comparison are, firstly, the shape of the arrowhead: arrows seldom kill immediately, and an animal running through brush would quickly knock out a simple shaft. The triangular design of a hunting point allows it to lodge more securely in the tissue and makes the arrow far less likely to dislodge, not only increasing bleeding but also further weakening the animal.
Secondly, animals aren't made of ballistic gell: they also have quite a bit of bone. A hard, sharp hunting point has a much better chance of either penetrating a large bone to some degree or deflecting off it to lodge in tissue, whereas a simple wooden shaft would only blunt.
In my opinion the primary mistake was in approaching the question from an engineering perspective rather than from the practicle aspect of bringing down game as efficiently as possible.

Comment #2.1 by: Ronald the Donald Duck on 09 Sep 2011, 06:32 GMT

Hmmm interesting :P


Comment #3 by: Arttu Salonen on 03 May 2009, 01:47 UTC reply to this comment

I also thought they gave a bit of a hasty verdict. One more reason why stone headed arrows could be better is I believe cause those are heavier, which in turn could have meant better accuracy when hunting on windy weathers and better range?


Comment #4 by: David Crose on 08 Sep 2009, 18:50 UTC reply to this comment

I know im a bit late about this subject but i still want to give my opinion. Firt off William Kinter said right about the "Clean cut" but the size of the wound matters also. An incision that is a 1/2" wide isn't going to bleed as much as a 1" incision. Charlie Harvin and Arttu Salonen made a very valid points about hitting bone, the holding power of an arrow head, and the distance and accuracy. But another thing is that arrows weren't only used for hunting, they were also used for war and when protecting themselves. An arrowhead would be more likely to deter and attack. And also about being able to make the headless arrows quicker than making arrow heads not everyone is lazy and wants to make things quicker. if you use an arrow head then it means you put more effort in to it and you can show it off. plus when using an arrow head you can reuse your arrows without having to resharpen it. Any real, hardcore bowhunter would be able to give you this info.

Comment #4.1 by: Ronald the Donald Duck on 09 Sep 2011, 06:34 GMT

You spelt first wrong :P he he


Comment #5 by: Michael on 10 Oct 2010, 06:26 UTC reply to this comment

I'm no expert, but if you fire an arrow with an arrowhead into the air at an angle, the weight of the arrowhead will ensure that the tip hits the target. If you fire a sharpened stick into the air you can not ensure that the tip falls toward the target first. So I believe the most important effect is that the arrowhead weights the arrow during descent to allow impact with the tip.

Comment #5.1 by: Ronald the Donald Duck on 09 Sep 2011, 06:33 GMT

I agree:P


Comment #6 by: bodtech01 on 20 Nov 2011, 23:09 UTC reply to this comment

I have thought a lot about the arrowhead story and watched the myth busters show on it. Finally I have an opinion that has nothing to do with speed,performance,dislodging,straight flight,cutting etc. that may have thrown us all off. Hunting was not a sport back then. It was a way of daily life and survival of family and possibly trading. I believe the arrowhead was a signature,a brand,an identification,to authentofy your kill in the wild. If there was a dispute who's kill it was if another person said they shot the same game down the trail,your arrowhead was describable and extracted and proven it was yours......or not. I believe it was an ownership of game kill issue in the field. The arrowhead makers really seemed to have thier individual styles to identify themselves.

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM