SavedAdd your journal

Journals / MASROP E-Dergi / 2014 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 10

An Experimental Study on Pre-Pottery Projectile Points in Upper Tigris Basin

Yukarı Dicle Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem Fırlatma Uçlarının Deneysel Çalışması

Okan Doğuhan ASLANER
Pages
1–45
Publication Date
2014-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this article, projectile points of Pre-Pottery Upper Tigris Basin region were identified with experimental method, and contain information about the usage of bow & arrow by prehistoric human species.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, projectile points of Pre-Pottery Upper Tigris Basin region, which are unknown regarding their use-purposes with functional meanings, were reproduced and shoots were made by the experimental method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After the experimental shooting, replica projectile points were compared as for their pierced damaging.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this article, projectile points of Pre-Pottery Upper Tigris Basin region were identified with experimental method, and contain information about the usage of bow & arrow by prehistoric human species.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yukarı Dicle Havzası · Neolitik Çağ · Fırlatma uçları

Abstract

In this study, projectile points of Pre-Pottery Upper Tigris Basin region, which are unknown regarding their use-purposes with functional meanings, were reproduced and shoots were made by the experimental method. After the experimental shooting, replica projectile points were compared as for their pierced damaging. In this article, projectile points of Pre-Pottery Upper Tigris Basin region were identified with experimental method, and contain information about the usage of bow & arrow by prehistoric human species.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Yukarı Dicle Havzası Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem yerleşmelerinde ok ucu olarak kullanıldığı öngörülen ve kullanım alanları bilinmeyen alet tiplerinin taklitleri yapılarak, deneysel atışları gerçekleştirilmiştir. Gerçekleştirilen atışlarla uç tiplerinin delme performansına göre ok ucu olarak kullanılıp kullanılamayacağı gözlenmiştir. Bu yazıda, bölgedeki Çanak Çömleksiz Neolitik Dönem fırlatma uçları üzerine yapılan deneysel çalışmalar ve tarihöncesi insan topluluklarının yay ve okun kullanımına yönelik bilgiler yer almaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ASLANER, O. D. (2014). An Experimental Study on Pre-Pottery Projectile Points in Upper Tigris Basin. MASROP E-Dergi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 10, 1–45. https://ajindex.com/articles/789511

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Adams 1940:
  2. Adams, R. McCormick, “Diagnostic Flint Points”, American Antiquity, 6, 1940, 72-75. Akerman 1978:
  3. Akerman, Kim, “Notes on the kimberley stone tipped spear, focusing on the point hafting Mechanism”, Mankind 11, 1978, 487-489. Akerman 2007:
  4. Akerman, Kim, “To make a point: etnographic reality and etnographic and experimental replication of Australian macroblades known as leilira”, Australian Archaeology 64, 2007, 23-24. Altınbilek Algül 2013:
  5. Altınbilek-Algül, Çiler, “The lithic assemblages of Gusir Höyük (Turkey): the preliminary results”, F. Borrell, J. J. Ibáñez ve M. Molist (eds.), Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East, Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Servei de Publicacions, 2013, 289-297. Altınbilek Algül 2015:Altınbilek-Algül, Çiler, “Güneydoğu Anadolu Yontmataş Buluntularında Terminoloji Sorunu”, Anadolu Prehistorya Araştırmaları Dergisi (APAD), 2015, 73-87. Bailey 1913:
  6. Bailey, E.L., “Flint Arrow Points”, The Flint knapper’s Exhange, 3, 1913, 4-6. Christenson 1986a:
  7. Christenson, Andrew L., “Projectile Point Size and Projectile Aerodynamics: An Exploratory Study”, Plains Anthropologist 31, 1986,109-128. Christenson 1986b:
  8. Christenson, Andrew L., “Reconstructing Prehistoric Projectiles from Their Stone Points”, Journal of the Society of Archer-Antiquaries 29, 1986, 21-27. Clark 1969:
  9. Clark, D.J., The Mesolithic Settlement of Southern Europe, Greenwood Press, New York, 1969. Clark 1974:
  10. Clark, D.J., Philips, J.L., Staley, P.S., “Interpretations of prehistoric technology from Ancient Egypt and other sources, Part 1: Ancient Egyptian bows and arrows and their relevance for African prehistory”, Paleorient, 2, 1974 323- 388. Clark 1977:
  11. Clark, D.J., “Interpretations of prehistoric technology from Ancient Egypt and other sources, Part 2: prehistoric arrow forms in Africa as Shown by surviving examples in traditional arrows of San Bushment”, Paleorient, 3, 1977, 127 -150. Cumstock 2000:
  12. Cumstock, Paul, “Ancient European Bows”, The Traditional Bowsyer’s Bible: Volume II, The Lyons Press, 2000, 81-112. Fowler 2001:
  13. Fowler, B., Iceman: Uncovering the Life and times of a Prehistoric Man found in Alpine Glacier, Chicago III. University of Chicago, 2001, 105-106. Garlake 1987:
  14. Garlake, P.S., “Themes of the prehistoric art of Zimbabwe”, World Archaeology 19, 1987, 178-193. Gostner vd. 2011:
  15. Gostner, P., G. Bonatti, A. Graefen, A. R. Zink, “New radiological insights into the life and death of