83 ABSTRACT Journal of Arizona Archaeology 2017,Volume 4, Number 2:83-98 Copyright © 2017 by the Arizona Archaeological Council Chris Loendorf R. Scot Plumlee Shari Tiedens Chris Loendorf / Gila River Indian Community / Chris.Loendorf@gric.nsn.us R. Scot Plumlee / Gila River Indian Community / Scot.Plumlee@gric.nsn.us Shari Tiedens / Gila River Indian Community / Shari.Tiedens@gric.nsn.us This paper applies arifact design theory to the study of laked- stone projecile points. The role of human engineering in the point producion process is emphasized in this analyical perspecive. as developed here, this research paradigm postulates that people make highly-shaped arifacts, such as laked-stone projecile points, with the intent of performing one or more speciic tasks. Both available materials and known manufacturing techniques limit the design process, while the producion and performance of projeciles is con- strained by the laws of physics. although physical parameters limit variability, considerable room remains for individual or group expres- sion, and projecile point characterisics are the product of both cul- tural idenity and performance requirements. Projecile point design theory as developed here is not a replacement for previous analyical approaches including typological methods, and instead compliments this research. INTRODUCTION This paper examines the physical laws, theory, and conceptual maters needed for understanding the func- ional and stylisic properies of laked-stone projecile points. North American archaeologists have previously ofered many explanaions for why the form of laked- stone projecile points changed over ime and varied across space (Shot 1996). Suggested sources of ap- parent synchronic or diachronic variaion include: dif- ferences among cultural or social groups; raw material constraints; use-wear or reworking ater breakage; vari- aion in propulsion technology (e.g., atlatl verses bow); diferences in the motor skills of the makers; low stan- dards of conformity to ideals; random drit as a funcion of ime or space; measurement or classiicaion error by researchers; toy point variants (Bonnichsen and Key- ser 1982); variaion in prey size (Buchanan et al. 2011); pragmaic modiicaions to facilitate hating (Flenniken and Raymond 1986:606); change in mechanical stress factors (Shot 1996:281); non-uilitarian points (Sedig 2014); durability concerns (Cheshier and Kelly 2006); variaion in cultural transmission modes (Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008); diferences related to funcional re- quirements such as huning or warfare (Loendorf et al. 2015a); and change in ballisic performance require- ments (Loendorf 2016). These factors that may afect changes and diferenc- es in shape are not mutually exclusive. Instead, many if not most of them must have condiioned variaion among stone points. Unil relaively recently, however, prehistorians generally analyzed these arifacts using the assumpion that paterns they could describe were es- senially a direct relecion of diferences among cultur- al groups (Mason 1894:655; Whitaker 1994:260–268). Comparaively litle atenion was paid to funcional as- pects of projecile points and the role that performance played in technological variaion. However, during the last thirty years much of the research has shited, and analysts now recognize that many factors afect point appearance (Azevedo et al. 2014; Bryce and Bailey 2015; Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Loendorf 2012; Mesoudi and O’Brien 2008; O’Brien et al. 2014; Shot 1996; Shot and Ballenger 2007; Sliva 2015; Walde 2014). There are both physical and cultural aspects to tech- nology (Carr 1995; Nelson 1997; Hichcock and Bleed 1997). When designing an arifact, such as a projecile point, physical parameters provide deined boundaries to the available design space. Within these limits, the funcional requirements for the arifact further con- strain design possibiliies. Concurrently, cultural norms mean that designs also incorporate stylisic elements, including expressions of individual or group idenity. In order not to conlate these design domains, researchers studying arifacts such as projecile points need to take into account how atributes, such as those used in typo- logical classiicaion systems, afect performance. PROJECTILE POINT DESIGN: FLAkED-STONE PROJECTILE TIP SELECTION, FUNCTION, AND STYLE