Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
Science Daily mentions an interesting study on projectile points. The study is by R. Lee Lyman, T.L VanPool and M.J. O'Brien and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Archaeological Science. The study examines projectile points from an interesting angle.
Presumably, when the bow and arrow was first introduced into an area, there was a period of experimentation as people tried to find the optimum point. To look at this issue Lyman and coauthors looked at over 1,000 points from three different geographical areas. Their results indicate that:
...there is evidence of an initial burst of variation in projectile points at the time bow-and-arrow technology was introduced and that prehistoric artisans experimentally sought arrow points that worked effectively. Following that initial burst, less-effective projectile models were discarded, causing archaeologists to see a reduction in variation.
I can't wait to read the paper.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
I can't wait for the paper either. But what do they mean by the optimum point? Optimized for rabbits or optimized for bison? Or optimized for accuracy? Oh wait, I'll never know. It's behind a subscription wall. Damn.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD | June 15, 2008 4:23 AM
Sounds like bollocks. If pre-scientific humans had been technological optimisers, then all arrowheads would look the same.
Posted by: Martin R | June 15, 2008 5:28 AM
@Martin
I'm not sure if you said that in sarcasm or not. This being the internet, I'm going to assume not.
The key to that is the trial and error part.
Even now to optimize some form of technology still takes thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of attempts.
Most of the time that involves computer models and the scientific method applied by people with degrees in that field.
When your process of trial and error involves chipping the point out of whatever materials you have, it'd add a considerable amount of time to the process.
In fact, bowhunters *still* can't bloody agree on an optimal arrowhead even using computer simulations and field testing.
Especially since, as Blind Squirrel pointed out, different arrowheads would be more effective for different animals.
1500 years ago isn't "pre-scientific humans".
They still used the scientific method, to an extent, even if it wasn't called that.
After all, if you try to take down a bear, bison, boar, or deer with an arrow and it isn't an effective design to kill it within the first few shots, you're probably not going to get to try again.
"Incurious people get eaten by bears." would rock as a t-shirt.
Posted by: JT | June 15, 2008 7:01 AM
If pre-scientific humans had been technological optimisers, then all arrowheads would look the same.
And, just to pile on, there is also the materials enginering aspect. Not all rocks are the same.
You can't work obsidian the same way you work flint, etc.
Posted by: Graculus | June 15, 2008 9:51 AM
I feel compelled to point out that "optimum" was my contribution and was not used in the articles I have read about it. This was not, as far as I know, an exercise in optimization theory. Lyman is into importing evolutionary theory into the analysis of artifacts...
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | June 15, 2008 10:50 AM
So is this mainly about Darwinian archaeology and the evolution of projectile point morphology? And what time period do they use for the invention of the bow and arrow? Because that is under contention as well, when projectile dedicated technology first came into use.
Posted by: Dave | June 15, 2008 11:37 AM
I assume Dave is right and it IS about the evolution of projectile point morphology, since that's Lyman and O'Brien's big push. John Darwent, who was a student of Lyman's, did his Dissertation on "Late paleoindian-period and early archaic-period projectile-point phylogeny in the Salt River Valley, northeastern Missouri", so this may be something similar.
Posted by: Megan | June 15, 2008 3:41 PM
I would assume something like that as well. Hard to say though, because not much info is available other than the Science Daily piece which is basically a press release. The paper isn't published yet.
Posted by: afarensis, FCD | June 15, 2008 7:29 PM