Why Are Clovis Fluted Points More Resilient than Non‐Fluted Lanceolate Points? A Quantitative Assessment of Breakage Patterns Between Experimental Models

For decades, archaeologists have wondered whether the Clovis Palaeoindian (c.11 600–10 800 radiocarbon years bp) practice of ‘fluting’, a flake removal technique that creates a distinctive shallow channel extending from the base of the projectile point towards the tip, bestowed a functional advantage over non‐fluted projectile points. Using analytical modelling and static engineering experiments, Thomas et al. (2017) found that points that more effectively redistribute stress and relocate damage can absorb significantly more energy, last longer and remain intact relative to points that do not experience these phenomena. In general, stress redistribution and damage relocation is significantly more likely to occur in fluted points, as opposed to non‐fluted points, suggesting that fluting acts as a ‘shock absorber’. Here, we present a comparative quantitative assessment of breakage patterns between Thomas et al.’s (2017) experimental points that shows those experiencing stress redistribution and damage relocation were also able to significantly better resist breakage, and to incur non‐catastrophic breaks, than points that less effectively redistribute stress and relocate damage. This more beneficial breakage pattern explains the material advantages provided by stress redistribution and damage relocation, and hence the potential motivation for fluting. This does not preclude the possibility that the process of fluting was accorded significance beyond its possible utilitarian value. Additional tests will be necessary to further resolve the ‘shock‐absorbing’ capabilities of fluting.