Abstract
Prehistoric hunters weighed various factors when manufacturing, using, and maintaining projectile points. I use a model based on the Marginal Value Theorem to generate predictions about the conditions under which hunters should have rejuvenated broken obsidian points or replaced them with new ones. The model predicts that distance to obsidian sources was a major influence on hunters' decisions. I test the model using robust samples of obsidian points from the central and northwestern Great Basin, which I compare for quantitative and qualitative differences in size and evidence of resharpening. The results indicate that broken points in the obsidian-poor central Great Basin were commonly rejuvenated while broken points in the obsidian-rich northwestern Great Basin were simply replaced. These results build on recent studies of stone tool curation and Great Basin prehistory and help explain how and why lithic technological organization varied across time and space.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
