Projectile point variability from a biogeographical approach in northwestern Patagonia, Argentina

Authors

  • Fernando Franchetti Institute of Evolution, Historical Ecology and Environment (IDEVEA), National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), National Technological University Universidad Tecnológica Nacional (UTN), San Rafael; Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, National University of Cuyo, Mendoza
  • María de la Paz Pompei Higher Institute of Social Studies (ISES), CONICET, National University of Tucumán, San Miguel de Tucumán
  • María Laura Salgán Institute of Evolution, Historical Ecology and Environment (IDEVEA), National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), National Technological University Universidad Tecnológica Nacional (UTN), San Rafael; Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, National University of Cuyo, Mendoza

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.50.1

Keywords:

Lithic tools, Projectile Points, Biogeography, Rock selection, Hunting strategies

Abstract

Our objective is to analyse the relationship among the availability, selection, and use of raw materials suitable for knapping with projectile points from the Late Holocene of northwestern Patagonia. We analyse differences in the raw material used to make projectile points according to the techno-morphological characteristics. Non-stemmed projectile points predominate in all the biogeographic units. The size and weight of the projectile points in Patagonia duplicate those from Altoandina and Monte. We conclude that there was a coexistence of two weapons systems related to hunting, the bow and arrow, together with the use of darts.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

9. 06. 2023 — Updated on 28. 12. 2023

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Franchetti, F., de la Paz Pompei, M., & Salgán, M. L. (2023). Projectile point variability from a biogeographical approach in northwestern Patagonia, Argentina. Documenta Praehistorica, 50, 314-327. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.50.1

Most read articles by the same author(s)