Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin

• Published in: American antiquity 1999-04, Vol.64 (2), p.231-242
• Main Authors: Bettinger, Robert L., Eerkens, Jelmer
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: America and Arctic regions; Antiquities; Archaeological sites; Archaeological surveys; Archaeology; Archery; Archery equipment; Arrowheads; Arrows; Bow and arrow; Ceramic cultures; Culture; Darwinism; Evolution; Hunter gatherers; North America; Paleoanthropology; Prehistoric era; Prehistory and protohistory; Projectile points; Projectile points (Archaeology); Projectiles; Technology; Typological classification
• ISSN: 0002-7316; 2325-5064
• DOI: 10.2307/2694276

Decrease in projectile point size around 1350 B.P. is commonly regarded as marking the replacement of the atlatl by the bow and arrow across the Great Basin. The point typology most widely employed in the Great Basin before about 1980 (the Berkeley typology) uses weight to distinguish larger dart points from smaller, but similarly shaped, arrow points. The typology commonly used today (the Monitor typology) uses basal width to distinguish wide-based dart points from narrow-based arrow points. The two typologies are in general agreement except in central Nevada, where some dart points are light, hence incorrectly typed by the Berkeley typology, and in eastern California, where some arrow points are wide-based, hence incorrectly typed by the Monitor typology. Scarce raw materials and resharpening may explain why dart points are sometimes light in central Nevada. That arrow point basal width is more variable in eastern California than central Nevada likely reflects differences in the cultural processes attending the spread and subsequent maintenance of bow-and-arrow technology in these two localities.