The solutrean shouldered point with abrupt retouch: hafting and propulsion systems

Abstract

The Solutrean shouldered point with abrupt retouch is one of the most characteristic hunting tools at the end of Solutrean period in the outer-Cantabric area. Its morphological and volumetric variability permitted a large variety of hafts with the intention of creating composed projectiles. For that reason, our main aim is to carry out an experimental programme to find out which hafting systems are most effective for the hunting of medium sized ungulates. In order to achieve this, some replicas of shouldered points with abrupt retouch have been attached with birch tar and, in some cases, strengthened by means of gut in hafts of different lengths and diameters in order to create arrows with one, two or three shouldered points. These arrows were shot by three different types of bows at two deer previously taken down in order to test their effectiveness. The results have enabled us to establish four basic models of hafting shouldered points, and to test their hunting eficiency and perfect ballistic behaviour to be mounted on arrow shafts.

Full text

PLAYING
WITH THE TIME.
EXPERIMENTAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
AND THE STUDY
OF THE PAST
Editors: Rodrigo Alonso, Javier Baena & David Canales

Playing with the time. Experimental archaeology and the study of the past
Rodrigo Alonso, David Canales, Javier Baena (Eds.).
Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. 2017.
Coordinación editorial: Rodrigo Alonso, Javier Baena y David Canales.
Asesoramiento científico y revisores de la publicación: Diego Arceredillo (Universidad Isabel I), Javier Baena
(Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Alfonso Benito (Centro Nacional Investigación sobre Evolución Humana),
Isabel Caceres (Institut de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social), Amalia Canales (Universidad de Cantabria),
Ángel Carrancho (Universidad de Burgos), Ignacio Clemente (Institut Milá i Fontanals, CSIC), Gema Chacón (Institut
de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social. UMR7194, MNHN, París), Felipe Cuartero (Fundación Atapuerca,
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Carlos Díez (Universidad de Burgos), Paola García Medrano (Institut de
Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social), Millán Mozota (Institut Milá i Fontanals, CSIC), Marta Navazo (Universidad
de Burgos), Roeland Paardekooper (EXARC), Francesca Romagnolli (Institut de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució
Social), Claudia Santamaría (Universidad de Burgos), Marta Santamaría (Universidad de Burgos), Marcos Terradillos
(Universidad Isabel I) y Josep Maria Verges (Institut de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social).
© De la edición: Rodrigo Alonso, Javier Baena y David Canales.
Primera edición: Octubre 2017.
Diseño y maquetación: M de Martola.
Edita: Servicio de Publicaciones de la UAM.
Imprime: Estugraf.
ISBN: 978-84-8344-594-5
Depósito legal: M-29873-2017
Organization
Experimenta (Asociación española de Arqueología Experimental)
Museo de la Evolución Humana, Junta de Castilla y León
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
EXARC
Cooperación institutions
Fundación Atapuerca
Universidad de Burgos
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas - IMF, Barcelona
Asociación Española para el Estudio del Cuaternaro (AEQUA)
Organizing committee
Alejandro Sarmiento (Museo de la Evolución Humana, Junta de Castilla y León)
Rodrigo Alonso (Museo de la Evolución Humana, Junta de Castilla y León)
Javier Baena Preysler (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)
Felipe Cuartero (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid)
David Canales (Fundación Atapuerca)
Susana Sarmiento (Fundación Atapuerca)
Roeland Paardekooper (EXARC)
Scientific committee
Carlos Díez (Universidad de Burgos)
Marta Navazo(Universidad de Burgos)
Ángel Carrancho (Universidad de Burgos)
José A. Rodriguez Marcos (Universidad de Burgos)
Diego Arceredillo (Fundación Atapuerca)
Marcos Terradillos (Fundación Atapuerca)
Millán Mozota (Institut Milá i Fontanals, CSIC)
Xavier Terradas (Institut Milá i Fontanals, CSIC)
Ignacio Clemente (Institut Milá i Fontanals, CSIC)
Antonio Morgado (Universidad de Granada)
Gema Chacón (Institut de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social)
Josep Maria Verges (Institut de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social)
Isabel Caceres (Institut de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social)
William Schindler (Washington College)
Aidan O’Sullivan (University College Dublin)
Joseba Ríos (Centro Nacional Investigación sobre Evolución Humana)
Alfonso Benito (Centro Nacional Investigación sobre Evolución Humana)
Antoni Palomo (Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona)
4th. International Experimental Archaeology Conference
8-11 may 2014, Museo de la Evolución Huma. Burgos, Spain.
Experimenta (the Spanish Experimental Archaeology Association) is a non-profit association created, among other proposes, to organize international
experimental archaeology conferences. Previous conferences were successively held in Santander (2005), Ronda (2008) and Banyoles (2011).

PLAYING
WITH THE TIME.
EXPERIMENTAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
AND THE STUDY
OF THE PAST
Editors: Rodrigo Alonso, Javier Baena & David Canales

Introduction
01. EXPERIMENTA. A tool for the consolidation of experimental archaeology.
Rodrigo Alonso, Javier Baena y David Canales ..................................................................................................11
Technical and technological experimentation, Paleolithic
02. Replicating the handaxe shaping strategies from Boxgrove (Sussex, UK).
Paula García-Medrano. ......................................................................................................................................19
03. Experiments with valve shells - Retouching Callista chione to understand neanderthal technical
behaviour.
Francesca Romagnoli, Javier Baena Preysler, Lucia Sarti. ..............................................................................25
04. Dimensional analysis of assemblages generated by experimental discoid, levallois and laminar flaking
with flint and quartz.
Par Michel Brenet, Mila Folgado, Laurence Bourguignon ................................................................................31
05. Specialist and learners: solutrean pedunculated points at El Higueral-Guardia Cave (Málaga, Spain).
Concepción Torres Navas, Estefanía Pérez Martín, Javier Baena Preysler......................................................39
06. The solutrean shouldered point with abrupt retouch: hafting and propulsion systems.
Francisco Javier Muñoz Ibáñez, Juan Antonio Marín de Espinosa Sánchez, Belén Márquez Mora, Ignacio
Martín Lerma, Javier Síntes Peláez ...................................................................................................................47
Technical and technological experimentation, Postpaleolithic
07. Making sickles: blade industry and her productivity in different types of sickles.
Víctor Lamas, Daniel Martínez ............................................................................................................................55
08. Experimental program: Neolithic awls and spatulas.
Millán Mozota, Antoni Palomo, Ignacio Clemente, Juan F. Gibaja ....................................................................61
09. The experiment in the service of archaeology. Pieces of osseous materials processed in the
experimental workshop developed on the archaeological site from Bordușani-Popină (Romania).
Monica Mărgărit, Dragomir Nicolae Popovici, Valentin Radu, Cătălina Cernea ...............................................67
Index
5

10. Experimental programme on resistance/durability of prehistoric adhesives.
Juan Luis Fernández-Marchena, José Ramón Rabuñal, Gala García-Argudo ................................................73
11. Scan the archaeo-experiment! Computer science as analytical and interpretive way about
3d lithic refitting.
Alfredo Maximiano Castillejo ..............................................................................................................................81
Archaeological experimention by means of use wear analysis
12. Artefacts or geofacts? The role of experimentation and functional analysis in the determination
of tools at Pleistocene sites in Serra da Capivara (Piauí, Brazil).
Ignacio Clemente-Conte, María Farias, Eric Boëda ..........................................................................................89
13. Approach to the variability of macro-wear on two isotropic materials: flint and limestone.
Viallet Cyril ..........................................................................................................................................................95
14. Experimental and functional analysis of rock crystal projectiles.
Juan Luis Fernández-Marchena, José Ramón Rabuñal, Gala García-Argudo ..............................................101
15. Experimentation and traces analysis of macro-lithic tools: the case of Grotta della Monaca Cave
(Sant’Agata di Esaro-Cosenza, Italy).
Isabella Caricola, Cristina Lemorini .................................................................................................................107
16. Experimenting with prehistoric sickles: a traceological approximation.
Mª Cristina López-Rodríguez ...........................................................................................................................113
17. Manufacturing techniques of greenstone mosaics from Teotihuacan and Palenque.
Emiliano Ricardo Melgar Tísoc .........................................................................................................................119
18. Technological analysis of greenstone objects from the structures surrounding the Great Temple
of Tenochtitlan.
Reyna Beatriz Solís Ciriaco, Emiliano Ricardo Melgar Tísoc ..........................................................................125
19. Working pottery with flaked stone tools: a preliminary experimental approach.
Niccolò Mazzucco, Ignacio Clemente-Conte, Juan Francisco Gibaja .............................................................131
20. Traces of textile technology in the Early Neolithic lakeside settlement of La Draga (Banyoles, Catalonia)
from an experimental perspective.
Miriam de Diego, Raquel Piqué, Antoni Palomo, Xavier Terradas, Ignacio Clemente, Millán Mozota ..........139
21. Experimenting with wrist-guards. Preliminary results.
Alejandro Muñoz Martínez, Iván Curto Encabo, Pedro Muñoz Moro, Carmen Gutiérrez Sáez ......................145
22. New Aterian stone tool research perspectives using experimentation and use-wear analysis.
Serena Falzetti, Elena Garcea ...........................................................................................................................151
Experimentation of cut marks, diet and bioenergy
23. Walking with carnivores: experimental approach to hominin-carnivore interaction.
Edgard Camarós, Marián Cueto, Luis C. Teira, Andreu Ollé, Florent Rivals...................................................159
24. Human breakage of bird bones during consumption.
Antonio J. Romero, J. Carlos Díez, Diego Arceredillo ......................................................................................165
25. Experimental cut marks characterization using a Confocal Laser Profilometer.
Daniel Fuentes-Sánchez, María Ángeles Galindo-Pellicena, Rebeca García-González, José Miguel
Carretero, Juan Luis Arsuaga ...........................................................................................................................171
26. Absorption and degradation of fatty acids in prehistoric ceramics: a preliminary study.
Olga Ordoñez Santaolalla, Cristina Vega Maeso, Isabel Jaime Moreno, Susana Palmero Díaz, Eduardo
Carmona Ballestero ..........................................................................................................................................177
PLAYING WITH THE TIME
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF THE PAST
6

27. Performing Paleolithic daily activities: an experimental project on bioenergy.
Olalla Prado-Nóvoa, Marco Vidal-Cordasco, Ana Mateos, Marcos Terradillos-Bernal, Jesús Rodríguez ....183
Experimental models of fire, music and rock art
28. Combined archaeomagnetic and Raman spectroscopy study of experimentally burnt
limestones from the Middle-Palaeolithic site of Pinilla del Valle (Madrid).
Ángel Carrancho, Susana E. Jorge Villar, Laura Sánchez-Romero, Theodoros Karampaglidis, Alfredo
Pérez-González, Enrique Baquedano, Juan Luis Arsuaga .............................................................................191
29. “Getting out the best in you”: observations of heat treatment on flint from the
Iberian Central System.
Sara Díaz Pérez, Paloma de la Sota Blanchart, Foivos Michos Rammos .......................................................197
30. Experiments on digital lighting simulation applied to rock art production and visualization.
Alfredo Maximiano Castillejo, Camilo Barcia García .......................................................................................203
31. Analysis of the perforated batons functional hypothesis.
Redondo Sanz, Francisco José ........................................................................................................................209
32. Experimental reproduction of the aerophone of Isturitz.
Carlos García Benito, Marta Alcolea Gracia, Carlos Mazo Pérez ....................................................................215
33. Recovering the ring-ring of the bells from various archaeological sites in the lower Ebro area
(3rd – 1st century B.C.). The results of an experimental procedure.
Margarida Genera i Monells, Fernando Guarch Bordes, José Ramon Balagué Ortiz ....................................223
Technical and technological experimentation, kilns and pottery
34. Experiments with clay: approaching technological choice in pottery production.
Daniel Albero Santacreu ...................................................................................................................................231
35. Iberian cooking pots from els Estinclells (Verdú, Catalonia): new approach and experimental
possibilities.
Rafel Jornet Niella, Eva Miguel Gascón ...........................................................................................................237
36. Some results of the technical analysis of the Late Bronze Age ceramic material
of the Southern
Urals tribes.
Nikolai Shcherbakov, Liudmila Kraeva, Patrick Sean Quinn, Iia Shuteleva, Tatiana Leonova,
Alexandra Golyeva ............................................................................................................................................243
37. Experiments with surface decoration on Castelluccio pottery (Sicilian Early Bronze Age).
Giovanni Virruso, Valentina Amonti, Serena Tonietto ......................................................................................249
38. Firing pits and pottery production at Lugo di Grezzana (VR): using experimental archaeology
for the interpretation of archaeological processes.
Annalisa Costa, Fabio Cavulli, Annaluisa Pedrotti ...........................................................................................255
39. Which way? Handedness in ceramic decoration.
Aixa Vidal ...........................................................................................................................................................261
Technical and technological experimentation, metallurgy
40. Experimental reconstruction of copper metallurgy based on archaeometallurgical remains from the
Peñalosa Bronze Age site.
Auxilio Moreno Onorato, Charles Bashore Acero, Alberto Dorado Alejos, Juan Jesús Padilla Fernández ..269
41. Iron production in the Iberian culture from an experiential perspective.
José Miguel Gallego, Manel Gómez, Josep Pou ..............................................................................................275
PLAYING WITH THE TIME
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF THE PAST
7

8
42. Silver ore smelting process in reverberatory furnace (Santa-Isabel mine, 17th c., Potosi, Bolivia):
experimental approach to a South American invention.
Florian Téreygeol, Pablo Cruz, Ivan Guillot, Jean-Charles Méaudre .............................................................281
Technical and technological experimentation, agriculture
and architecture
43. Reproducing Cato: experimental preparation of a sulphur mixture for viniculture.
Claudia Speciale, Luca Zambito ......................................................................................................................289
44. Architectural and agricultural experimentation (2012-2013) at the Experimental Camp of Protohistory
(CEP) (Verdú, Urgell, Catalonia).
Ramon Cardona Colell, Borja Gil Limón, Jordi Morer de Llorens, David Asensio Vilaró, Josep Pou Vallès ....295
45. L’Esquerda, archaeological experiments in medieval and ancient building techniques.
Imma Ollich-Castanyer, Montserrat de Rocafiuera, Joan-Albert Adell, David Serrat, Maria Ocaña,
Oriol Amblàs, Carme Cubero ............................................................................................................................301
46. Looking for a scientific protocol in prehistoric daub experimental project.
Alessandro Peinetti, Giorgia Aprile, Kati Caruso, Claudia Speciale ................................................................307
47. Roman tegulae and imbrices manufacturing workshop.
Joaquim Tremoleda, Josefia Simon, Pere Castanyer, Andrea Ferrer, Adriana Clé, Josep Matés..................313
48. The archaeology of wine in Italy: a sicilian experiment.
Mario Indelicato, Daniele Malfiana, Giuseppe Cacciaguerra ..........................................................................321
Experience and experiment in learning, teaching and heritage
interpretation
49. Clays, fire and wait! Prehistoric ceramic production explained to children 5 to 14 years old.
Alberto Dorado Alejos .......................................................................................................................................329
50. Sharing archaeological practice among schoolchildren: three groups, one experience.
Aixa Vidal, Paola Silvia Ramundo, Sol Mallía-Guest ........................................................................................335
51. The EduCEP programme: a didactic interdisciplinary approach to the scientific method drawing
on experimental archaeology.
Natàlia Alonso, Ramon Cardona, Victòria Castells, Borja Gil, Rafel Jornet, Daniel López,
Jordi Morer, Ariadna Nieto ................................................................................................................................ 341
52. Experimental and experiential archaeology in Spain: Atapuerca (Burgos) and Arqueopinto (Madrid).
Raúl Maqueda García-Morales, Manuel Luque Cortina ..................................................................................349
53. The role of the experimental archaeology in the scientific spreading as developer
of prehistorical empathy.
M. Pilar López-Castilla, Marcos Terradillos-Bernal, Rodrigo Alonso Alcalde ...............................................355
PLAYING WITH THE TIME
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF THE PAST

47
TÍTULO DEL LIBRO
THE SOLUTREAN SHOULDERED POINT
WITH ABRUPT RETOUCH: HAFTING
AND PROPULSION SYSTEMS
Puntas de muesca solutrenses de retoque
abrupto: sistemas de enmangue y propulsión
Francisco Javier Muñoz Ibáñez*, Juan Antonio Marín de Espinosa
Sánchez**, Belén Márquez Mora***, Ignacio Martín Lerma****
y Javier Síntes Peláez*****
*Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología. Facultad de Geografía e Historia. Universidad
Nacional de Educación a Distancia.
Ciudad Universitaria. Paseo Senda del Rey 7. E-28040 Madrid.
fjmunoz@geo.uned.es.
**Sílex. Arqueología y Difusión del Patrimonio S.L.
info@tallarsilex.com
***Museo Arqueológico Regional. Plaza de las Bernardas s/n.
E-28801-Alcalá de Henares (Madrid).
belen.marquez@madrid.org
****Departamento de Prehistoria, Arqueología, Historia Antigua, Historia Medieval
y Ciencias y Técnicas Historiográficas. Facultad de Letras. Universidad de Murcia.
Campus de la Merced Calle Santo Cristo 1. E-30001 Murcia.
ignacio.martin@um.es
*****Advisor to the Environment and Territorial Planning Department, Madrid Regional
Government, and Madrid Hunting Federation.
yutada@telefónica.net
Abstract
The Solutrean shouldered point with abrupt retouch is one of the most characteristic hunting tools at the
end of Solutrean period in the outer-Cantabric area. Its morphological and volumetric variability permitted
a large variety of hafts with the intention of creating composed projectiles. For that reason, our main aim is
to carry out an experimental programme to find out which hafting systems are most effective for the hunting
of medium sized ungulates. In order to achieve this, some replicas of shouldered points with abrupt retouch
have been attached with birch tar and, in some cases, strengthened by means of gut in hafts of different
lengths and diameters in order to create arrows with one, two or three shouldered points. These arrows were
shot by three different types of bows at two deer previously taken down in order to test their effectiveness. The
results have enabled us to establish four basic models of hafting shouldered points, and to test their hunting
efficiency and perfect ballistic behaviour to be mounted on arrow shafts.
Keywords: solutrean shouldered point with abrupt retouch, Upper Evolved Solutrean, hafting, bow and
arrow, hunting, ballistic.
Resumen
La punta de muesca de retoque abrupto es uno de los elementos más característicos del instrumental
cinegético del final del Solutrense en la región extracantábrica. Su variabilidad morfológica y volumétrica
permite una importante diversidad de posibilidades de enmangue para crear proyectiles compuestos,
por lo que llevamos a cabo un programa experimental para establecer qué sistemas de engaste son los
más efectivos para la caza de ungulados de talla media. Para ello, se han realizado réplicas de puntas de
06

48
INTRODUCTION
The shouldered point with abrupt retouch (SP) is one of the most characteristic components
of the hunting tool kit used in the final Solutrean of the outer-Cantabric area. It was first
cited in 1912 when H. Breuil presented the systematization of the Upper Paleolithic at the
Congress of Geneva (Breuil, 1913), which he modelled on the basis of an item from the
collection of Federico de Motos from the Cueva de Ambrosio site (Vélez Blanco, Almería,
Spain). These points were manufactured from blades. They presented an abrupt, direct and
marginal retouch on the edge opposite the notch, which usually did not cover the whole
cutting edge. Some notch edges had semi-abrupt or simple retouch, others direct and
partial. The notch was formed by abrupt retouch with several series of impacts, (Muñoz,
2000), (Figure 1).
This projectile first appeared during the Upper Solutrean and at the same time, more tools
were elaborated from small blades. The SP became the most important projectile in the
Valencia area. In the meantime, in the rest of the outer-Cantabric area, barbed and tanged
points were the most abundant elements. This was the most characteristic element of
the Evolved Solutrean in all regions, and it has been found more frequently than any other
projectile from the Solutrean Group. This transformation of hunting tools could be due to
the increased efficiency of this type of points, related to the use of composite elements and
the consolidation and improvement of new methods of propulsion (the bow).
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
The morphological and volumetric variability of the SP allowed a
priori for a considerable range of handle possibilities for the creation
of composite projectiles. Therefore we proposed an experimental
programme in order to define which assembly methods were the most
effective for the purpose of hunting medium-sized ungulates.
We knapped a total of 45 flint SP, all replicas of archaeological artefacts
found in the Upper Solutrean and Evolved Upper Solutrean levels of the
Cueva de Ambrosio, (Figure 1). The experimental points were slightly
shorter, broader, thicker and therefore also heavier than the arithmetic
mean of those from Cova del Parpalló (Valencia) and Cueva de Ambrosio
(Almería), the only sites with significant lithic collections that could be used
for a diagnostic statistical comparison. Moreover, the angle of the point was
slightly greater than the one found in the archaeological artefacts, (Figure
2). We decided to create points which were less morphologically suitable in
order to correctly probe their use in hunting.
Figure 1. Solutrean
shouldered points
with abrupt retouch
knapped for the
experimental
programmme. 1-5:
Points for arrows
with 3 blades. 6-9:
Points for arrows
with 2 blades. 10-15:
Points for arrows
with 1 blade.
muesca de retoque abrupto que se han fijado con brea de abedul y en algunos casos con refuerzo de tripa
en astiles de diferentes longitudes y diámetros para crear flechas con una, dos y tres puntas. Para testar
su eficacia estas flechas fueron disparadas con tres tipos de arcos sobre dos gamos previamente abatidos
Los resultados obtenidos han permitido establecer cuatro modelos básicos de enmangue de las puntas de
muesca, corroborar su eficacia cinegética y su perfecto comportamiento balístico para ser montadas en
astiles de flecha.
Palabras clave: punta de muesca de retoque abrupto, Solutrense superior evolucionado, enmangue, arco
y flecha, caza, balística.
PLAYING WITH THE TIME
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF THE PAST

49
These points were attached to 25 cedar, oak and beech arrow hafts. Their diameter
measured between 9 and 10 mm and their length between 66 and 90.6 mm. Vulture
feathers were attached to the arrow hafts using lamb gut. Each arrow type had 2 or 3
stabilizers, placed at regular distances from one another. We decided to use rather large
feathers (13.12 cm) and a high fletching angle (42.36º). This reduced the arrow speed but
assured straight flight with great directional stability (Figure 3).
In order to attach the points to the shafts we defined 7 basic models, some with small
variations, based on the morphology of arrowheads which are nowadays used in archery
hunting, and experimental studies with prehistoric bows, ballistics and projectiles,
(Figure 4):
TYPE 1: Arrows with three blades on one end, symmetrically x-shaped (current hunting
archery and Muñoz, 2000).
TYPE 2: Arrows with two blades on one end, symmetrically x-shaped (current hunting
archery and Muñoz, 2000).
TYPE 3a: Arrows with three blades in the shaft near the end, symmetrically x-shaped
(current hunting archery).
TYPE 3b: Arrows with three blades in the shaft near the end, asymmetrically x-shaped
(current hunting archery).
TYPE 4a: Arrows with two blades in the shaft near the end, symmetrically x-shaped in the
style of backed blades (current hunting archery; Pétillon et al., 2011 and Taylor, 2012).
TYPE 4b: Arrows with two blades in the shaft near the end, asymmetrically x-shaped in the
style of backed blades (current hunting archery; Pétillon et al., 2011 and Taylor, 2012).
Figure 2.
Measurements
of the Solutrean
shouldered points
with abrupt retouch.
Re: Replicas. A&P:
Ambrosio and
Parpalló points. 1
SP: Points for arrows
with 1 blade. 2 SP:
Points for arrows
with 2 blades. 3 SP:
Points for arrows
with 3 blades.
Figure 3. Technical
data of the arrow
used in the
experiment.
PLAYING WITH THE TIME
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF THE PAST

50
TYPE 5a: Arrows with a single tip at the distal end, with the notch facing outwards and the
opposite edge partially incorporated into the shaft (Soriano, 1998).
TYPE 5b: Arrows with a single tip at the distal end, with the notch facing outwards and the
opposite edge completely incorporated into the shaft (Soriano, 1998).
TYPE 6: Arrows with a single tip at the distal end, with the notch facing outwards (Yaroshevich,
2012).
TYPE 7: Arrows with a single tip at the distal end, with the notch facing inwards (Geneste
and Plisson, 1989).
To insert the points, a groove was made in the shaft’s lateral side in order to insert the
edge opposite to the notch (TYPES 1-5), or at the distal end in order to insert the notch
(TYPES 6-7). The points were fastened with birch tar and, for at least one arrow of each
type, lamb gut in order to make it more resistant. In the same manner, at least one arrow
of type 3 and 4 which ended in a point was hardened using fire, (Figure 4).
The arrows were shot using three types of bows: two simple laminated bows of 40 and 50
lb and another simple bow made of a single piece of elm wood weighing 40 lb, which was
a replica of the Holmegaard bow (Rausing, 1967). Shooting was always at a distance of 8
m. In order to recreate the real hunting conditions as accurately as possible, two recently
killed deer were hung from a frame. One of them was an infant specimen of 22 kg with
an irreversible pathology, shot with a pulley bow and an arrow with a metal arrowhead.
The other one was an adult male specimen of 45 kg, shot with a firearm during selective
population control. In total 62 launches were made (Figure 5).
CONCLUSIONS
In spite of the great variety of hafting types used for these points, in order to create simple
and composite projectiles, the experiment has enabled us to restrict the possible mounting
models of SP in arrow shafts.
Type 1 and 2 are not functionally
viable options, as the projectiles
placed on the distal end do not
form a well-defined conical point.
Therefore the arrows bounced off
the target upon impact, (Figure
5). The theoretical hafting system
proposed by Muñoz (2000) would
not be plausible. Types 3a and 3b
were only effective when relatively
strong bows were used, from 50
lb and up, (Figure 5). Although
arrow with a strength similar to 50
lb may have existed at the end of
the Solutrean, similar examples
are more common only from the
Mesolithic onwards (Muñoz and
Ripoll, 2006). For this reason we
decided to discard this model.
Types 4a and 4b (without additional
gut reinforcement), 5a and 5b
showed good ballistic performance
Figure 4. Proposed
hafting systems
(1-7) and their
implementation (A).
PLAYING WITH THE TIME
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF THE PAST

51
and good penetrating capacity
(Figure 5). However, upon impact,
the points were lost relatively
easily, staying behind inside the
animal. For type 4 this was due to
the lack of gut reinforcement. As
for type 5, the point experienced
a slight inclination towards the
exterior side of the cutting edge of
the notch on impact, the weakest
point of the hafting. In spite of being reinforced, the collision force caused the point to
become separated from the shaft. These hafting systems do not match the data in the
archaeological record: from the 707 analysed PM from Cova del Parpalló and Cueva de
Ambrosio, 597 were fractured, of which more than 1/3 were impact fractures (Muñoz,
2000).
Therefore, types 4a (with gut reinforcement on the hafting), 6 and 7 would be ideal for
correct hunting use of the SP. They best reproduced the use marks found on archaeological
material and also represented the best penetration (Figure 5). Type 4 needed to use small
points with a straight or slightly curved edge opposite the notch. Types 6 and 7 could
make use of bigger examples, using points with a rectilineal border opposite the notch
for type 6 and a curved border opposite the notch for type 7. A gradual reduction in the
size of the points can be observed moving through the Solutrean sequence towards the
end of this technocomplex. Also, there are more examples with two rectilineal edges
and a lengthened triangular morphology (Muñoz, 2000). Therefore, types 6 and 7 would
be the first to appear in the Upper Solutrean, being gradually replaced by type 4a. This
morphology would be similar to the composite projectiles formed by backed blades which
emerged in the Magdalenian.
This experimental programme, which is still running, will be completed by a use-wear
analysis of the replicas and their correlation with the archaeological material.
Figure 5. Efficiency of
the shots carried out
with different types
of arrows.
PLAYING WITH THE TIME
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF THE PAST

52
Breuil, H. (1913). Les subdivisions du Paléolithique supérieur
et leur signification. In Congrés International d’Anthropologie et
d’Archéologie Préhistoriques. Compte rendu de la XIVéme session:
165-238, Genéve, 1912. Ginebra. (2ª ed. 1937).
Geneste, J.M. y Plisson, H. (1989). Analyse technologique des
pointes à cran solutréennes du Placard (Charente), du Fourneau
du Diable, du Pech de la Boissiere et de Combe-Saunière
(Dordogne). Paleo. 1, 65-106.
Muñoz, F.J. (2000). Las puntas ligeras de proyectil del Solutrense
Extracantábrico. Serie Aula Abierta. UNED. Madrid. 357 pp.
Muñoz, F.J., Márquez, B. y Ripoll, S. (2012). La punta de aletas y
pedúnculo del Solutrense extracantábrico: de los “dimonis” al
arco. Espacio, Tiempo y Forma. Serie I. Nueva Época. 5, 477-489.
Muñoz, F.J. y Ripoll, S. (2006). Las primeras evidencias de
arcos en Europa: parámetros de diseño y construcción. Zona
Arqueológica. 7 (1), 463-472.
Pétillon, J.M.; Bignon, O.; Bodu, P.; Cattelain, P.; Debout, G.;
Langlais, M., Laroulandie, V., Plisson, H. y Valentin, B. (2011).
Hard core and cutting edge: experimental manufacture and
use of Magdalenian composite projectile tips. Journal of
Archaeological Science. 38, 1266-1283.
Rausing, G. (1967). The bow, some notes on its origins and
development. Acta Archaeologica. Lundensia. Papers of the Lunds
Universitets Historiska Museum. Series In 8 (6) Bonn, Allemagne
et Lund, Suede. 189 pp.
Soriano, S. (1998): Les microgravettes du Périgordien de Rabier
à Lanquais (Dordogne): analyse technologique fonctionnelle.
Gallia préhistoire. 40, 75-94.
Taylor, A. (2012): Armatures et pièces à dos du Magdalénien
supérieur de La Madeleine (Tursac, Dordogne), nouvelles
données de la technologie lithique. Paleo. 23, 277-312.
Yaroshevich, A. (2012): Experimentally obtained examples of
projectile damage: cases of similar fracture types on microlithic
tips and side elements. Bulgarian e-Journal of Archaeology. 1,
1-12.
REFERENCES
PLAYING WITH THE TIME
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF THE PAST