MythBusters question

[Bigguy]

I was watching an episode of MythBusters where they were doing myths suggested by fans. One they decided to do wasn’t so much a myth as simply a question. The guy noted that it took quite a bit more time and effort to make a stone tip for an arrow, compared to simply sharpening the wood at the tip of the arrow. His question was, “was it worth the extra effort, and if so why?” In typical MythBusters fashion, they set up some test and came up with what I considered some surprising results.
The first test was for penetration. They shot into a block of ballistic gel covered with a fur hide. They only gained about an inch of penetration with the flaked stone tip as compared to sharpened wood.
They then tested for accuracy and found virtually no difference.
Adam did notice that the stone tip made a substantially bigger wound and hypothesized that the animal would bleed out faster. From what I could see, the wound made by the stone tip was more than 3 times wider in one direction and the same width in the other direction as the wound made by the sharpened stick. In my mind, they question had been answered.
But Jamie discounted that as a significant gain and they continued researching. I don’t think they ever came up with an answer they liked.
I even found a blog by an archaeologists Julien Riel-Salvatore who concured with their findings and suggested that the flintknapping served more of a social status function that a utilitarian purpose.
Frankly I’m surprised. To me, it seems obvious that a wound 3 times the volume per inch of penetration, with an added inch thrown in for good measure, would greatly increase the lethality.
Fortunately for me, I know just the group of folks to ask.

[will_1400]

Not sure about arrows, but I do know that a spear with a carved and blackened (fire hardening) tip is viable as a crude improvised weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_hardening

[LHS]

Not sure about arrows, but I do know that a spear with a carved and blackened (fire hardening) tip is viable as a crude improvised weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_hardening

That's a given, but the time and effort involved in flaking stone or obsidian arrow/spear heads had to be worthwhile, or else it wouldn't be so widespread across stone age peoples. Somehow I doubt they were much given to wasting all the time and effort for little or no gain.

[JodyH]

There's a reason modern bow hunters use broadheads instead of field tips for hunting game.
Cutting > poking
A well knapped flint edge is as sharp or sharper than a honed steel edge.

[NETim]

Tanned hide vs live skin? Is there a difference? I would expect the live skin to be more elastic and therefore more difficult to penetrate. (Stretches more on impact.)

Also, I would expect a flint arrow that didn't pass all the way through to do much more damage internally as the animal flees through brush and otherwise flops around.

[TCinVA]

Pass through shots with ancient equipment were probably pretty rare on medium sized game and up. I would imagine that the arrow still in the animal while running with a stone broad head slicing everything up would be quite advantageous.

[RevolverRob]

Well - for starters - there are multiple types of stone arrowheads, some much better than others. For instance wide, long, Clovis points probably didn't make good arrows. Meanwhile, corner notch points do make good arrow heads. They are also most commonly made from obsidian, chert, or quartz. The obsidian and chert tips are capable of being very sharp. I can attest to this, I accidentally cut myself excavating chert points during a central Texas dig (way back in my archeology days). The benefits of these types of points are not just wound channel size or even wound capability. The heavier points actually tend to balance an arrow better and produce arrows that can fly further, but still penetrate. Additionally, frequently arrow shafts break at the tip. Hafting an arrowhead onto the shaft gives an easily repaired "break point".

I would have to disagree with your linked archeologist. While, I agree that empirical tests of point effectiveness are rare, he ignores the plethora of data from the record itself. In situ findings of points embedded/broken within animal bones, for instance. These finds are extremely common. Microwear analyses that suggest stone points were used to effectively butcher kills, which while not necessarily arrows, counters his more general "lithics are important sociological markers". Finally, the archeological record is just DIRTY with lithics, arrow and spear points made of stone. Effectiveness of them aside, one cannot ignore that they are literally everywhere.

-Rob

[Don Gwinn]

They should have called Rob.

[David Armstrong]

Frankly I’m surprised. To me, it seems obvious that a wound 3 times the volume per inch of penetration, with an added inch thrown in for good measure, would greatly increase the lethality.

That might be part of the equation. How much lethality do you need? We tend to think about the mighty hunter bringing down the buffalo or the deer, but much more hunting was probably for things like rabbit, birds, squirrels, etc. For that you don't need much lethality. While overseas I spent some time in an area where the locals still did a fair amount of subsistence hunting for protein, and while there were plenty of metal arrowheads they tended to be saved for special occasions. The younger kids in particular used just sharpened tips on the arrows.

[Slavex]

I would guess it also depended on the materials available to the hunter at the time, if the wood for the shaft was not good for taking a point and surviving 1 or 2 uses it might make sense to use the stone point, worst case if the arrow broke you'd still have a point once you cut the animal up. Then you just stick it back on another arrow for next time. I also think the idea of the wound size definitely would have played a significant role in their decision making process. It might have taken 100 years before they clued in, but eventually someone would have. The added weight of the tip might also have helped in increasing the weight of the shaft to help with penetration without increasing the shaft diameter of the arrow.