I have made hunting with stone points and understanding paleo man's tools and big part of my life. although i havent been successful with stone on big game, I have collected a lot of info and theory on the subject. So many things come into consideration. No one has all of the answers and the "answers" differ from place to place. So I just wanted to share some of my thoughts with you.
depending on terrain, materials, and game species- we know people in every region had success with stone tools and weaponry, but the techniques and style vary a great amount depending on location. So with that in mind, i dont think there is any particular style of point that is vastly superior. one thing to keep in mind is the size of the point. Certainly most of us all know the difference in atlatl points and true arrow points. its important that we dont mix those. By modern legal measures the game commissions, by definition require us to use atlatl sized points on our arrows. Reasons for that is mainly ignorance regarding stone points and their effectiveness, and being primitive, we cannot expect the game commissions to understand or adjust laws for us, so that being said, throw modern game laws out the window in this discussion.
Local aboriginals in my new area (MT) had much different techniques and opinions about hunting than the aboriginals where i lived back in FL. when the modern bow and arrow hunters found larger atlatl points from their ancestors and very large preserved bones (mammoths, even dinosaur bones) the natives had no idea how old any of that stuff was and figured that those points were from a "Giant" race of man. Which makes sense if you looked at it from their prospective. larger points, evidence of larger animals, why not figure the people were larger too.
The way we think today is - larger animal= large points needed to kill....wrong. use the little bird points on deer and buffalo to get the penetration and puncture vital organs, use the larger clunky points on rabbits and birds. large clunky point = blunt force trauma and less meat loss and easier arrow retrieval.
Out here in the west with very large open areas, the idea of killing was much different than those of the wooded east. Out here we have found that a gut shot was a good shot back then. think about it, no fences or private property to worry about. paleo man was patient. shoot a mule deer in the guts, easy penetration, no bone. Watch gut shot deer run 300 yards to a patch of hawthorn, she feels sick and beds down. Man sits on hill and watched the patch of brush where the deer entered, to pass the time he knaps and sharpens his tools, a few hours pass and its safe to go looking for his deer. no need to even bloods trail out here if you shot the deer\ buffalo on the plains and hawthorn coulees. or worse case scenario he gets a few of his buddies and they surround the brush and start slinging arrows when it comes out. mule deer are so predictable, they bed down quick unlike eastern whitetails that will run 3 miles
now that technique would probably not serve you well in wooded tenn. perhaps faster kill shots were needed, so neck shots and close range lung and heart shots would have been more reasonable.
My theories on what the points should be are very basic. small fingernail sized points. sharp edges, very very light serrations and made from flakes. the more surface area of the point would mean more drag and also more chance of hitting bone. after hitting a rib with a stone point that arrow loses so much energy unlike steel. take a very short and narrow triangle point and haft it to a tapered shaft with a very smooth point-shaft transition and that would decrease the range b\c of the lack of arrow mass. I'd say keep it 12 yards and under and put it where it counts. neck\throat, heart lungs broadside, or quarting away and sneak it in behind the last rib up through the liver into lungs. I would try my best to take advantage of any organ or artery not protection by bone.
but lets face it, food was a priority then. if they wounded one and it got away there werent scolded for making an in-humane shot, true he may have been scolded for losing the bacon, but hunting ethics were not in effect like they are today. but that also opens the door for larger traps and snares not legal for use today. if i had to get a deer for food i would snare it first then shoot it. make a strong rope of cordage and string it over a well used trail and sit and wait for the deer to come by, perhaps even have drivers to push the deer down the trail at a fast pace. the deer runs through the rope and cinches around its neck or body, while temporarily held and struggling put an arrow in it, then drop your bow, grab your club, break its legs then break its head.
ok so, i explained theory that may not seem very relevant to " how to kill a deer with a stone point" but i think it shows, there are no set rules with hunting (as we know). find something that works for you an go with it. But we are playing on a whole new ball field than our ancestors. so its hard to compare ourselves to how they hunted. its very "majestic" for us to kill a deer with stone all by ourselves, but i figure to them it was like us going to the grocery store. no-one thought they were extra cool for "going the to grocery store" any more than your or I. so it didnt matter if you trapped it first or had 2 or 3 guys shoot it. In the end they probably took more game via traps and multiple people ambush and buffalo jumps than the single hunter loosing a well placed arrow.....although majestic by our standards, not very efficient by their standards.
So in conclusion, we are taking a hard method of hunting already (archery) and making it more difficult by using selfbows and stone points. WHY? because we love it, we dont know why. Perhaps that primeval quest inside some of us. So take my theories and speculation for what it is. Add to it, correct it, just my take on the whole situation. Am I going to still try to kill deer with stone?....You betcha! but I'm going to try keeping it simple and basic. heavy bow, small sharp points, well made arrow, and most of all, patients.
