I have noticed that the quality of points seems to be related to the size and type of animals hunted. The bigger/ tougher animal, the better quality, sharper, point.
I see very crude, obviously dull stone points that come from the East coast areas made in time periods where the climate was mild and lots of plant food and small game was available. I see very few crude or dull flint points from any Illinois times.
As a traditional Bowhunter; I know the value and effectiveness of a sharp point. It’s difficult for me to understand how one could kill anything with a dull stone point. A new, sharp, expertly knapped flint head will cut as good or better than the finest steel.
All this leads me to believe that, in areas where people had plenty of food from smaller game, fish, and plants; they did not produce fine quality, sharp points as often as did regions that depended on larger game like bison.
what do you think? Other reasons for quality differences?
I see very crude, obviously dull stone points that come from the East coast areas made in time periods where the climate was mild and lots of plant food and small game was available. I see very few crude or dull flint points from any Illinois times.
As a traditional Bowhunter; I know the value and effectiveness of a sharp point. It’s difficult for me to understand how one could kill anything with a dull stone point. A new, sharp, expertly knapped flint head will cut as good or better than the finest steel.
All this leads me to believe that, in areas where people had plenty of food from smaller game, fish, and plants; they did not produce fine quality, sharp points as often as did regions that depended on larger game like bison.
what do you think? Other reasons for quality differences?
Comment