Ballistic Study Tackles Kinetic Energy Values of Palaeolithic Weaponry

Abstract

The appearance of new projectile propulsion modes is viewed as an important element for understanding human behaviour during the Palaeolithic. Because the organic components of hunting weapons (the bow, spear-thrower and arrow, and spear shaft) are only rarely preserved archaeologically, some effort has been invested in experiments to explore how the projecting modes could be identified through the analysis of stone points. The kinetic energy developed by each mode of propulsion has been considered a key variable in these experiments. However, the data used in these studies generally come from a few ballistic studies, with varied results. We present the results of a systematic study conducted with a ballistic pendulum and combined with a classic ballistic analysis. We quantified and compared the kinetic energy developed by the four standard modes of propulsion known for the Palaeolithic. The kinetic energy values that we attained, especially those measured for thrusting spears, clearly differ from what has been assumed up to now, and thus challenge current models on the evolution of hunting technology.

A Review of Ethnographic Use of Wooden Spears and Implications for Pleistocene Hominin Hunting

“…• Their accuracy and velocities when thrown by skilled throwers (Milks, Parker & Pope 2019). • The forces and energies when utilized as thrusting weapons, with the aim to better evaluate their effectiveness as hunting weapons (Coppe et al 2019;Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al 2018;Milks et al 2016).…”

When Lithics Hit Bones: Evaluating the Potential of a Multifaceted Experimental Protocol to Illuminate Middle Palaeolithic Weapon Technology

“…4). Taken together, these experiments illustrate the difficulty in assigning DIFs on lithic points to a weapon delivery system and raise similar questions about whether the associated PIMs are suitable for distinguishing between them (Schlösser 2015;Coppe et al 2019).…”

“…These experiments have illustrated that the formation of lithic fractures and projectile impact marks on bones are the result of a complex interplay between the kinetic energy and how this is dispersed through a target medium (see also Coppe et al 2019). In these experiments, the target medium was a carcass composed of muscle and bone, only some of which preserve in the archaeological record.…”

“…This could have affected the kinetic energy recorded between these different delivery systems; future experiments should attempt to provide a setup that provides more resistance and replicates, as closely as possible, a realistic, anatomical setup to provide more accurate kinetic energy values. In order to more fully understand how differences in kinetic energy relate to PIM formation requires a more systematic comparative approach; ideally this would standardise the velocity, species and body parts in order to provide large scale quantitative data for comparison of PIM type and formation and how these relate to kinetic energy and, potentially, delivery system (Coppe et al 2019). Future experiments should focus on more manageable body portions to understand, in more detail, how different bone elements influence PIM formation in relation to different bone density and delivery methods (see Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al 2018).…”

“…Finally, while much of the debate has centred on the identification of Neanderthal lithic projectile technology, DIFs and associated PIMs, archaeologists must also consider Neanderthal use of wooden spear without lithic tips (Thieme 1997(Thieme , 2005Smith 2003;Schoch et al 2015;Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al 2018;Milks et al 2019). The presence of these artefacts within the Middle Palaeolithic archaeological record and the identification of PIMs, certainly for the last interglacial (Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al 2018), necessitate additional experimental protocols and another level of interpretive complexity (see also Coppe et al 2019). Taken together, this suggests that Neanderthal approaches to hunting technology and subsistence varied across space and through time, which seems to be emblematic of their behavioural repertoire as a whole (Ruebens 2013;Ruebens et al 2015).…”