Projectile Points and Material Types through Time

Temporally diagnostic projectile points can be used to look at changes in material type through time in the vicinity of the Chivay source using a time sensitive typology such as the projectile point typology developed by Klink and Aldenderfer (2005). Andeanists have observed that obsidian projectile points were more widely used with the advent of the small, triangular style recognized as belonging to later time periods (Burger, et al. 2000: 294). This style is referred to as the Series 5 point type and it is associated with the Terminal Archaic and onward. It is likely that the frequent use of obsidian for production of the smallest point styles, type 5D, was due to a change in technology, such as the adoption of bow and arrow technology (Klink 2005: 52). This interpretation is supported by the predictable knapping quality of obsidian and the ease with which pressure flaking can be used to produce small points that do not unbalance the arrow in flight, and because the precise pressure flaking also allows resharpening of arrow points with a minimum of loss of material.

Evaluating the entire Upper Colca Survey area, the diagnostic projectile points were found in the following material types. As described in chapter 5, the Series 5 points have not yet been analyzed as closely as the Series 1-4 points because the Series 5 points are not temporally sensitive to the same degree. Therefore Series 5 points are excluded from some tables below where these data are not yet available (as shown in Table 5-9).

Period

Point Type

Obsidian

Volcanics

Chalcedony

Chert

Quartzite

Archaic (General)

3d

489

449, 1019

394

Early Archaic

1a

355, 379, 380, 941, 1015, 1037, 1044.2

384

1b

398, 411, 493, 522, 945, 956.3, 1026.3

444, 514, 956.2

469, 1034

E. - M. Archaic

2a

512, 949

Middle Archaic

2c

517, 873, 953, 1016, 1023, 1035, 1036, 1044, 1062

822, 1021

790.3

3b

386, 820, 944

958, 1051

509, 942

951

3e

519

395

Latter part of M. Archaic

1002

Late Archaic

3f

490

390, 480

4d

960, 963, 964, 1017, 1018, 1024.4, 1024.5, 1048, 1067

94

38

Late2 - T. Archaic

4f

407, 450, 463, 818, 943, 954, 1031

364, 1057

486

Middle Horizon (?)

Poss.

4e

472

Table 6-13. ArchID numbers for diagnostic projectile points, Series 1-4 only.

Type

Obsidian

Volcanics

Chalcedony

Chert

Total

No.

mWt

s Wt

No.

mWt

s Wt

No.

mWt

s Wt

No.

mWt

s Wt

1

1

6.00

-

1

1a

7

3.14

1.68

7

1b

7

3.14

1.57

3

4.00

0.00

2

4.50

0.71

12

2a

3

2.67

1.53

1

8.00

-

4

2b

1

1.00

-

1

2c

12

4.55

1.92

3

4.00

1.73

1

3.00

-

16

3a

1

6.00

-

1

4.00

-

2

3b

9

7.78

6.08

2

7.00

0.00

5

4.40

0.89

16

3d

6

3.17

2.04

4

7.50

4.12

1

9.00

-

5

18.00

13.40

16

3e

2

5.50

2.12

1

4.00

-

3

3f

5

3.00

2.00

2

8.00

1.41

7

4d

3

11.00

8.54

11

6.27

3.35

1

4.00

-

1

9.00

-

16

4d / 3b or 3d

9

2.89

1.83

1

3.00

-

1

5.00

-

3

7.00

4.58

14

4e?

1

1.00

-

1

4f

11

3.45

2.54

2

2.50

0.71

1

2.00

-

14

Series 1-4 Totals

75

4.20

3.66

31

5.68

2.91

6

4.83

2.48

18

9.06

8.92

130

5

87

1.63

0.95

2

5.00

2.83

2

6.00

2.83

1

4.00

-

92

5a

6

2.17

1.60

1

7.00

-

7

5b

16

1.63

0.89

1

5.00

-

17

5c

2

2.50

0.71

2

5d

78

1.40

0.54

1

1.00

-

79

Other

35

3.06

2.31

7

4.29

1.98

4

7.25

2.36

5

9.20

7.40

52

Grand Total

299

2.39

2.38

41

5.39

2.73

12

5.83

2.52

26

8.50

8.14

379

Table 6-14. Projectile point mean weights by point type and material type for Upper Colca project. Two quartzite points were excluded.

Table 6-14 shows the weights of all projectile points found on the surface of the project area. It shows that obsidian points were much smaller and much more common in the Series 5 types, and that the few type 5 that are not made from obsidian are relatively heavy. Two quartzite points that were excluded from Table 6-14 include a quartzite point of type 3b that weighted 7g, the other was a probable type 4g (Cipolla 2005) with an excurvate haft and a convex base, and it weighed 14g.

The changing use of a particular material type in association with projectile points is informative in any study region with diagnostic point styles. In the vicinity of an obsidian source these data also have the potential to inform about whether obsidian was used for projectile points out of preference or out of need.

For example, there is a type 3B projectile point, diagnostic to the Middle Archaic, made out of quartzite found in Block 2. This point was found only 16.3 km from the obsidian source, and it was found in a zone rich in obsidian, andesite, and chert, yet the coarsest material in the region was used for producing this point. Heavy materials such as fine-grained volcanics and quartzites known to have been used for projectile when mass rather than sharpness and penetrating power was being prioritized (Ellis 1997), and this is perhaps the explains the use of quartzite in this instance.

Series 1-4

Series 5

Total

Block

No.

% Column

No.

% Column

1

8

10.67%

11

5.21%

19

2

44

58.67%

141

66.82%

185

3

8

10.67%

19

9.00%

27

4

8

10.67%

30

14.22%

38

5

4

5.33%

9

4.27%

13

6

3

4.0%

1

0.5%

4

Total

75

211

286

Table 6-15. All obsidian projectile points by survey block.

The evidence from all obsidian projectile points (survey and excavation) from the project area shows the prevalence of obsidian projectile points in Block 2. Proportionally, there are relatively few obsidian projectile points in Block 1 which suggests that obsidian was not undergoing advanced reduction in the quarry area. This pattern becomes even stronger in the Series 5 projectile points. While neither Series 1-4 nor Series 5 appear to be involved in advanced reduction in the proximity of the obsidian source, these data suggest that by Terminal Archaic, when Series 5 points were first produced, obsidian acquisition was perhaps more of a special purpose provisioning activity rather than an embedded activity.

Are the changes in material type for projectile points significant?

The degree to which material type is more commonly used in later time periods is informative and the counts of projectile point raw material type by time period can be used to explore whether the apparent patterns in raw material use through time are the result of random chance. The data from Table 6-14 above must be aggregated and simplified to allow a Chi-Squared test.

Periods

Obsidian

Fine-Grained Volcanics

Chert & Chalcedony

Total

Early Archaic

16

3

3

22

E-M & M. Archaic

26

8

9

43

Late Archaic

7

13

2

22

Term Archaic - Late Horizon

227

10

17

254

Total

276

34

31

341

Table 6-16. Aggregated Projectile Point Styles by Material Type for the project area.

The differences between aggregated cultural periods as indicated by diagnostic projectile points and their respective material types are extremely significant (c2= 85.959, p> .005). This analysis is complicated by the fact that obsidian projectile points were very small in comparison to the non-obsidian points because obsidian points were used predominantly to make very small types of projectile points: the Series 5 group of points (Klink and Aldenderfer 2005: 47-53). If Series 5 projectile points are excluded material types can be compared more consistently by weight and length throughout the Archaic and across space. Table 6-14 under row "Series 1-4 Only" displays the count and weight of the comparable more projectile point types. Error bars for size measures on these Series 1-4 points are shown below.


/Figs_Ch6/All_Archaic/Fig_Size_By_Mat_Type.jpg

Figure6-5. Complete projectile point weights and lengths by material type for the entire project area. Series 5 projectile points are excluded and chalcedony is combined with chert.

The significance of the differences in mean length and weight between material types was evaluated statistically. An analysis of variance was conducted on these distributions comparing obsidian, fine-grained volcanics, and chert projectile points. The ANOVA test revealed that the difference observed in the mean weight between the three material type groups was extremely significant (F=5.152, p> .0005).

Such comparisons between obsidian and other material types bring up a host of issues that may be influencing the analysis. These issues include the fine knapping quality of obsidian and the likelihood that the material would be retouched and recycled. Additionally, pressure flaking was most often observed on obsidian artifacts, and along with the fine conchoidal fracture of obsidian, allowed smaller pieces of obsidian to remain viable tools. Finally, a sampling bias during survey might have been introduced by the high observability of obsidian by archaeologists.

All things being equal, distance-decay models would predict that in the immediate vicinity of a source of raw material the artifacts that have complete scar coverage and are apparently "completed" would be larger, on average, than other material types. Curiously analysis shows that even close to the obsidian source obsidian projectile points are smaller than non-obsidian points. Distance-decay models also predict that far from the obsidian source obsidian tools and flakes will be consistently smaller than mean tool weights made from locally available lithic materials. Data from the consumption zone including the Qillqatani rock shelter (data presented in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.2), as well as other lithic evidence from the Ilave Valley (Section 3.4.4), show the expected pattern: obsidian tools are significantly lighter than tools of other, more locally available, material types.