When humans were the hunted: bone-tipped arrow points in Prehispanic Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina

ABSTRACT This paper presents the techno-typological study of seven bone projectile points closely associated with a burial assemblage excavated from El Alto 5 (~550 cal BP, Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina). The bone points provide a comparative model for interpreting the function of arrow points, primarily concerning how archaeologists can accurately differentiate the arrow tips used for warfare or hunting. Bone points have barbed shoulders to resist removal from the wound and serrated stems for secure hafting. They required shafts a few millimeters thicker than stone-tipped arrows for hafting, involving more kinetic energy to inflict severe injuries. Identifying a dark residue spattered over the blades opens the possibility that poison was applied to enhance the effectiveness of the shoot. The study is considered a starting point to build more accurate models to identify interpersonal violence during the Late Prehispanic Period, where most bone points occurred as domestic refuse of campsites.


Introduction
Projectile points are one of the most commonly preserved artefacts at archaeological sites worldwide (Christenson 1986;Churchill 1993;Hughes 1998;Knecht 1997;Langley 2016;Loendorf et al. 2015;Lyman, Vanpool, and O´brien 2009).The Late Prehispanic Period of Sierras of Córdoba (~1220-330 cal BP, Argentina) was not an exception, and arrow points made on stone and bone constitute one of the most numerous artefacts generated by people who were neither wholly foragers nor wholly farmers involved in what Smith (2001) defined as low-level food production (see Medina, Pastor, and Recalde 2016).There, bone arrow points are well preserved and show a wide range of morphological and size diversity, even at the same assemblage, probably involving different and insufficiently explored functional tasks (Berberián 1984;González 1943;Marcellino, Berberián, and Pérez 1969;Medina and Balena 2021;Medina, Buc, and Pastor 2014;Outes 1911;Serrano 1945).It was argued, for example, that the diversity of arrow tips was crucial for shooting small-to-large games at different distances and cover structures, including dangerous animals as humans that are more difficult to kill and require long-distance shooting (Medina and Balena 2021).However, little attention has been paid to the functional characteristics of bone projectile technology and the role that performance plays in morphological variation, a topic that needs further research (see Medina and Balena 2021;Medina and Pastor 2021;Medina, Balena, and Rivero 2019;Pastor, Rivero, and Pautassi 2005;Pautassi and Rivero 1999;Rivero and Recalde 2011).
If it is possible to identify the differences in design that are associated with the intended use, then this will provide an important analytical method for inferring warfare or subsistence practices that are frequently invisible in the archaeological record.In this regard, ethnographic and ethnohistoric observations from around the world indicate that projectile points were often made differently for warfare from hunting (see Christenson 1997;Loendorf et al. 2015).Hunting and warfare projectile points differ in that the former is undertaken to obtain meat on a day-to-day basis, while the primary intent of the latter is to kill or wound enemies during raids.As a result, different constraints exist for these two tasks.Hunting points were made to kill as rapidly as possible to avoid the effort of tracking the prey (Loendorf et al. 2015).In contrast, warfare points were designed to maximize the probability that injury or death resulted, regardless of how long this might take (Loendorf et al. 2015;Luik 2006).Thus, arrow points that participate in warfare -including those ethnographic ones described in or close to Sierras of Córdoba -are narrow types, invariably barbed and generally poisoned to produce more serious wounds (see Berón 2018;Bixio and Berberián 2017;Christenson 1997;Dobrizzhofer 1967;Falkner [1774] 2008; Heath and Chiara 1977;Jones 2007;Loendorf et al. 2015;Lozano 1754;Rosales 1877).Nevertheless, such classification of warfare and hunting weapons is subjective, and if necessary, warfare arrowheads could be used in hunting and vice-versa (Loendorf et al. 2015;Luik 2006;Petrequin and Petrequin 1990).
To improve the discussion over the functional role of late prehispanic bone arrow points, this paper presents the techno-typological study carried out on seven bone projectile points closely associated with a burial assemblage excavated from El Alto 5 (Pampa of Achala, Córdoba Province) Figure 1(a,b).The study assumes that the design of the bone points used to kill an adult male provides a useful comparative model for interpreting the function of arrow points where this contextual data is unavailable, concerning primarily the question of how archaeologists can accurately differentiate the arrow tips used for defence or attack from those used for hunting.While the sample is small, the study is considered a starting point to shed light on the causes of bone arrow points variability and build more accurate models to identify interpersonal violence during the Late Prehispanic Period, where most bone points occurred as domestic refuse of campsites and they were not directly associated to human skeletal remains.

Site description
El Alto 5 is a rock shelter with a covered surface of 14 m 2 located at northern Pampa of Achala (−31° 23´47.616,−64° 44´ 12.695, 1680 m asl, Córdoba Province).During its excavation, two overlapping inhumations were discovered (see Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015;Pastor et al. 2012): Burial 1 (~550 cal BP [640-500, 95%], 593 ± 41 BP, human bone, AA-92443) and Burial 2 (~840 cal 95%], 972 ± 43 BP, human bone, AA-96770; calibrations from OxCal 4.3 using SHCal20 (Bronk Ramsey 2009;Hogg et al. 2020).Burial 1 is the focus of this research because it presents clear evidence of violent death, offering an excellent opportunity to assess the design of the weapons used to kill people during the Late Prehispanic Period.Burial 2 was impacted by Burial 1 when the latter was opened a few centuries after and it was not treated in depth in this paper.
Burial 1 corresponds to a young adult male buried in a flexed position Figure 1(c).The age of death was estimated at 25-35 years (see Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015).The inhumation presents bone lesions caused by the impact of projectile points and bone projectile points in close association with the body (see Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015).Six of the points were found in the rib cage where vital organs such as the lungs and heart are located.The internal haemorrhage caused by this type of wound makes it impossible to flee by running and were fatal.A bone projectile point was found embedded in the XI dorsal vertebra Figure 1(e), affecting severely the medullar cavity of the victim and its mobility (see Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015).Something similar occurred with the left humerus.This skeletal element presents an embedded fragment of a bone projectile point that crosses transversally from side-to-side the proximal diaphysis of the bone a few centimetres below the tubercles (see Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015).The projectile point is impacted on the lateral side of the bone, showing that the victim tries to present a smaller target in a lateral position to avoid a rapid kill shot to the heart and lung (see Loendorf et al. 2015, 944).Trauma was also identified on the skull Figure 1 (d).In this regard, the left sphenoid evidence of a bone injury is compatible with the flattened crosssection of most of the bone arrow points found in the burial (see Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015).However, the point was withdrawn after impact.Moreover, the broken tip of a bone point was recorded embedded on the lateral side of the right rib Figure 1(f).Finally, a perimortem trauma, interpreted as caused by the edge of a stone tool, was recorded in a right rib (see Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015).

Material and methods
The seven complete or nearly complete bone projectile points from the Burial 1 of El Alto 5 were studied taking the position that particular characteristics of points are useful for inferring some aspects of the total implement from which the points came.Broken tips that continued to be embedded in bones were not analysed.The bones used to make the tools were anatomically and taxonomically identified using reference collections.Basic point shapes and features, as well as metric attributes (weight, length, neck width, blade width, thickness, angle of barbs, etc., Figure 2), were undertaken using the protocol described for projectile point technology (Buc 2012;Julien 1982;Langley 2018;Loendorf and Rice 2004;Petillon 2006).
Pieces were examined with a 10-20X hand lens.This approach was sufficient to identify the manufacturing techniques used to produce bone points, macro-wear traces (striation, rounding, fractures, etc.), and damage resulting from post-depositional processes (Buc 2012;Orłowska 2016;Zhilin 2015).During this analytical procedure, mastic and other residues observed on point were also documented.
The use and performance of bone projectile point as arrows, darts, or spears were based on the correspondence between the size of the proximal end for hafting and the diameter of the shaft (Christenson 1986;Odar 2011;Ratto 1991;Thomas 1978;Zhilin 2015).For stemmed projectile points as the ones studied here, the neck width was expected to be the same size or slightly larger than the shaft (Christenson 1986).In this regard, arrowhead bases or stems are no more than 10 mm wide, darts are about 15 mm wide and spears are about 20-25 mm wide (Zhilin 2015).Differences in arrow shaft diameters were related here to the range in which the projectiles would be used (see Christenson 1986).Smaller arrow shaft diameters were designed light to travel long distances with a flattened trajectory.Conversely, the larger diameters of arrow shafts were used when archers look for a high-impact force at a relatively close range (see also Witthoft 1968).
Gross weight was also considered for delivery-system identification, assuming that projectile points with a weight lighter than 4,49 g were used on arrows, 4,5-20 g on darts or throwing spears, and those with heavier weights than 20 g on thrusting spears (Fenenga 1953, 318).However, gross weight was taken with caution because long and thin bone arrow points weighting 5-20gr are not uncommon in the literature (Cattelain 1997;Fabra, González, and Robin 2015;Ikäheimo, Joona, and Hietala 2004;Luik 2006;Rousselo and Grahammer 2004;Zhilin 2014).Thus, the gross weight was considered as a secondary variable to reinforce the arguments of bone points as bow-delivered projectile points when distinction with darts was not easy.Moreover, the gross weight, complemented with the proxy data of shaft diameter, was also used to roughly assess the mass and velocity of the bone-tipped projectiles (Tomka 2013) in comparison to those tipped with the tiny lithic arrow points that dominated late prehispanic assemblages (Supplementary Figure S1).Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney tests were used for this comparison.The metric attributes of lithic arrow points were taken from the study of the collection of the Museo Arqueológico Numba Charava (Villa Carlos Paz, Córdoba) (see Supplementary Table S1).
The angles and the width of the barbs were used to assess the capacity of bone tips to resist removal from the wound (Julien 1982, 30).Shoulders were considered barbed when the angles were less than 70°, assuming that when the angle decreases, the capacity of the barb to resist removal increases.Finally, the system of hafting was hypothesized by the morphology of the proximal end, ethnographic technologies, and additional technological elements associated, such as serrated edges or traces of glue preserved at stems (Knecht 1993).

Results
The main characteristics of bone projectile points from El Alto 5 are in Tables 1-3 and Figures 3-9.In brief, the projectile points have long triangular-shaped blades (isosceles type), barbed shoulders, and slightly contracted stems with serrated edges.The piece EA5-7 was the exception, having a slightly expanded stem (Figure 9).EA5-3 was the only point with incised decoration on the blade, mainly lines and small-sized triangles Figure 5(a) that resemble those observed on decorated pin-shaped subtype spatulas and ornaments (Marcellino, Berberián, and Pérez 1969;Pastor and Moschettoni 2018;Serrano 1945).The three near complete projectile points range 92,1-86,8 mm long, 3,3-3,9 mm thick, 17,3-23 mm in blade width, and 2,8-4.2gr in weight.Broken pieces show similar metric values in those attributes that were not affected by fragmentation.Flattened and biconvex crosssections dominate the assemblage.Barbs show angles ranging from 70° to 35°, with a median of 53°.EA5-3, EA5-4, and EA5-5 were the projectile points most capable to resist removal from the wound, creating a more serious internal haemorrhaging.
The anatomical and taxonomical identification of the bones used to shape the projectile points were not straightforward by the intense modifications that occurred during the manufacturing processes.Splinters from macrovertebrate long bones were commonly used to shape the tools (Table 1).The identification of element-diagnostic features of Lama sp.metapodials in EA5-1 and EA5-7 -nutrient foramina and the dorsal longitudinal groove of the anterior side of the diaphysis -indicates that this skeletal part of camelids was specially selected for point manufacturing because of their long and straight shape (Figures 3 and 9).The use of camelid bones is consistent with their relatively high frequency in faunal assemblages and certainly points to cultural attitudes to hunting prey, which was included in all segments of life and diverse aspects of consumption, including warfare.The set of long parallel, closely spaced striations across the blades and stems, clearly visible inclusive to the naked eye, suggests that pieces were shaped by scraping with the cutting edge of a stone tool in a longitudinal motion and abraded obliquely against an abrasive surface to smooth out irregularities.Whittling was used to fashion the barbs, stems and the small notches of the stems, removing small portions of material with the working edge of a lithic tool.The blade of EA5-5 was more finely abraded near the tip to increase the drag coefficient, reduce resistance and secure a deeper penetration on the target.A fine-grained abrasive was used to carry out this work, also obscuring an impact scar or notch probably produced during the cracking of bone to release marrow or obtain the blank for tool manufacture.
The width of the stems and the gross weight indicate that, once finished, the bone projectile points were hafted to a bow-and-arrow weapon delivery system.The width of the stems from EA5-4 and EA5-5 exceeds by 0,5 and 0,6 mm the criteria of Zhilin (2015) for arrow identification.However, their weight (4,9 and 4,3gr) supports that they were bow-delivered projectile points.Ethnographic examples from South America of arrow shafts of ≥10 mm in diameter tipped with organic points of similar size and shape confirm this assertion (Holmberg 1969;Kozák et al. 1979;Meyer 1898;Palavecino 1939;Politis 2007;Politis et al. 2013;Vivante and Gancedo 1972).The stem width and shape also indicate that hafting bone projectile points requires shafts a few millimetres thicker than stone-tipped arrows (Table 2), involving more kinetic energy (Table 3) and, in consequence, more capacity to inflict severe injuries once the projectile reaches the target, especially at close range (see Tomka 2013).The presence of adjacent small notches along the edge of the stems and the mastic residues (see below) show that arrowheads were firmly fastened to the distal end of shafts using sinew cords and glue (Figures 6(c),7 (d), and 10).This hafting method, in conjunction with barbed tangs, high kinetic energy, and penetration power at a short distance, favours that the projectile cannot be easily withdrawn from the wound, including with the point attached to the arrow shaft.Wounds in which projectile remains lodged in the body were potentially fatal, even if the lung or heart were not injured.
The mastic used for hafting was preserved on the stems of EA5-6 Figure 8(d), showing that notches were effective traps for glue preservation.Mastic is semitransparent, shiny, and looks like resin.Moreover, a relatively hard, dark brown, and shiny resinous residue is spattered over the surface of most of the blades (Table 1 and Figures 3-9).Surprisingly, neither Díaz et al. (2015) nor Pastor et al. (2012) remarked on the presence of these residues.The substance looks heterogeneous in its composition, with muscovite or biotite inclusions visible at low magnification.The residue is firmly adhered to the surface of the bone and does not penetrate the bone tissue as commonly occurred with manganese.The residue looks like as purposely applied on the blade surface and not accumulated incidentally by post-depositional processes, mostly when the bones of the inhumation were not affected by this substance.Moreover, it resembles the black tar-like poison used on bone arrow points by ethnographic foragers throughout the world (see Borgia, Carlin, and Crezzini 2017;Bradfield et al. 2020;Lombard 2020), including those described for neighbouring regions of Sierras of Córdoba (Heath and Chiara 1977, 89;Lozano 1754, 425).

Discussion
The arrowheads from El Alto 5 were part of a specialized mechanism system designed to wound enemies severely from a short distance.They have long blades, narrow tips, barbs, and the potential to inflict serious injuries, including if adversaries were wearing armour.If the head was able to penetrate to a sufficient depth, the barbs would keep it stuck in the wound, creating a lethal wound regardless of how long this might take.Even if the wound was not fatal, the removal of the arrow would take time and pain, immobilizing the enemies and making difficult the reuse of the arrows.Moreover, the weight of the bonetipped projectiles has a higher knock-down power at close range and the ability to open a more serious bleeding wound than the smaller stone-tipped arrow points that dominated Late Prehispanic Period assemblages.The lethality of the wound increases if the arrow is poisoned, which enhances the effectiveness of the shoot.In this regard, early colonial documents from central Argentina cited barbed and poisoned arrows, causing fear among the Spaniard's soldiers.For example, in 1544 Captain Diego de Rojas was wounded a few leagues north of Sierras of Córdoba 'with a poisoned arrow, and the wound was nothing more than a scratch, but on the third day the herb began to work and he started to hit himself and make headbutts' and finally died (Bixio and Berberián 2017, 66).Thus, the possibility that poison was applied to bone arrow points from El Alto 5 is open.However, residue analysis should be conducted before any decisive functional label is assigned to this substance (see Borgia, Carlin, and Crezzini 2017) and poison recipes also need to be closely explored (Jolís [1789(Jolís [ ] 1972, 103-104;, 103-104;Lozano 1754, 425;Politis 2007, 202;Rosales 1877, 118;Vivante and Palma 1966).
Although the raw material was the by-product of food consumption, the manufacturing of the bone projectile points required a high manufacturing effort, showing that late prehispanic groups elaborated costly, standardized, and reliable tools for warfare.Experiments carried out by Zhilin (2015) showed that, once the bone has been softened in water for 2 months, it took about 3-4 hours to produce a needle-like arrow point.Similar hours of manufacturing were proposed for the bone arrow points from El Alto 5, but this time is speculative and presented solely to provide a frame of reference for the ensuing discussion.Whatever, bone arrow points were more time-consuming for fashion than tiny lithic arrow points, moreover when suitable rocks for flaking were widely available across the mountain landscape (Balena and Medina 2021;Heider et al. 2020), and stone arrow points required from start-to-finish 8 minutes of knapping at most (Bourke 1890, 57).
Long triangular-shaped, barbed, and stemmed bone projectile points were collected widely across late prehispanic sites, always in low frequency, showing the adoption of a broad spectrum foraging and cultivation base ~1220 cal.BP was accompanied by the development of new types of weapons for warfare (Berberián 1984;González 1943;Marcellino, Berberián, and Pérez 1969;Medina and Balena 2021; Medina and Pastor 2021; Medina, Buc, and Pastor 2014;Pautassi and Rivero 1999;Serrano 1945).In this regard, the design of the bone projectile points from El Alto 5 is consistent with a period where social tensions increased across the Sierras of Córdoba, with clear evidence of physical violence (Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015;Fabra, González, and Robin 2015;González 1943;Paulotti 1943;Rivero and Recalde 2011;Weyenbergh 1880).
As mentioned above, the archaeological record from the Late Prehispanic Period also include arrowheads of different sizes, shapes and raw materials.The fact that the bone arrowheads analysed here had been found particularly from a burial context and embedded in human bones suggests their use for warfare.It is certainly possible that they were also used occasionally for some other purpose as hunting large game, but only if it does not alter the function it was originally designed for.Conversely, the small and light lithic arrowheads that dominated assemblages were probably used on a day-to-day basis for hunting, especially when projectile tips were not securely hafted and the main shaft will often come away from the tip once it struck the prey, enabling hunters to recover the shaft and use it again, avoiding the implication of the costly work involved in its manufacture (see Medina and Balena 2021).
According to the results, the classification of arrowheads based on their function is justified and it would be useful for future analysis.With the dynamism of society becoming more complex, it is expected that tools and weapons also became more specialized, especially when subsistence activities were diversified and interpersonal violence increased regarding previous archaic periods.The people who made bone projectile points with the characteristics described here had an idea of the purpose for which they were making them -i.e.defence or attack -which influenced their choice of the size of bone for obtaining the blank and the design of the arrowhead (Luik 2006).

Conclusion
The El Alto 5 bone arrowpoint assemblage provides direct evidence of the weapon system used to kill or injure enemies during the Late Prehispanic Period.Thus, the assemblage can therefore be used as a comparative model to identify interpersonal violence where this type of bone arrow points were collected but not in direct association with dead bodies.
Further contextual evidence supports the arguments.First of all, fragments of bone projectile points are always recorded in low frequency when compared to the easy-tomake stone arrow tips, probably because they were used intermittently or occasionally and not on a day-to-day basis as probably occurred with stone-tipped projectiles.Secondly, campsites show a complementary pattern to that seen in El Alto 5, with a bone point assemblage dominated by stems or fragments thereof, implying that even if barbed arrowheads or shafts were recovered from the enemy's dead bodies, they require reparation.This explains the frequency of isolated stems recovered on campsites, where complete bone arrowheads were rare or occasional (Medina and Balena 2021;Medina and  Pastor 2021; Medina, Buc, and Pastor 2014).Finally, the record of late prehispanic human skeletal remains with clear evidence of death caused by bone-tipped projectiles similar to those described here, reinforce the functional hypothesis that they were used in raids against other groups (Fabra, González, and Robin 2015;González 1943;Weyenbergh 1880).
Ethnohistorical and few archaeological observations indicate that village raids and punitive attacks were relatively common and may have played a crucial role in shaping the social and political landscapes of the Sierras of Córdoba at the end of the Holocene (Bixio and Berberián 2017;Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015;Fabra, González, and Robin 2015;González 1943;Paulotti 1943;Rivero and Recalde 2011;Weyenbergh 1880).The analysis of bone projectile points embedded on human bones makes available new archaeological insights into the intensification of social relations during the Late Prehispanic Period, enabling reconstruction not only of the method of warfare but also of technological level, social organization, and how late prehispanic groups expressed social identity by adding stylistic attributes to weapons.In this regard, results expand the frame of reference to identify interpersonal violence in those sites where barbed bone projectile points were found but not associated or embedded in human remains as also occurred in neighbouring regions (Buc 2012;Di Matteo et al. 2018;Lothrop 1932;Messineo et al. 2013;Reichlen 1940;Rusconi 1933;Wynveldt, Iucci, and Flores 2020).However, it remains for future research to focus on how the intensity or the frequency of warfare varied at the broad temporal scale of the Late Prehispanic Period.
Cristian Lallami is an undergraduate student of Anthropology from the National University of Rosario (Argentina).He is finishing his first-degree thesis focused on the lithic technology of semisedentary people from Sierras of Córdoba (Argentina), under the supervision of Ph.D. Sebastián Pastor.
Sebastian Pastor is an Independent Researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Researches (CONICET, Argentina) and of the Regional Institute of Socio-Cultural Studies (IRES-CONICET).He got the degree of Ph.D. in Anthropology from the National University of La Plata (Argentina) in 2007.He finished his postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Prehistory and Archaeology of the University of Sevilla and Institute of Heritage Sciences of Santiago de Compostela (Spain) in 2012, under the supervision of Leonardo Garcia San Juan and Felipe Criado Boado.He is primarily interested in the cultural evolution of mixed economies from central Argentina, including the Sierras of Córdoba and the Llanos of La Rioja, where led, co-leaded, and participated in different research projects since 1995.He also made significant contributions to the archaeological knowledge of early peopling of the Americas, rock art, and the early post-contact native people's life ways (XVI-XVII centuries AD). S. Pastor published about archaeology in books and peer-reviewed journals from Spain, Colombia, the United States, the UK, Slovenia, Chile, and Argentina.Moreover, he participated in numerous scientific meetings in Argentina and Europe.He is also a supervisor of Ph.D. Dissertations in the National Universities of Buenos Aires, Rosario, and Tucumán (Argentina), which are focused on the archaeology of Sierras of Córdoba.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Main characteristics of El Alto 5 (Sierras of Córdoba, Argentina): (a-b) geographic location; (c) Burial 1 dated at ~ 550 cal BP; (d) crania with an injury compatible with the bone arrow point found in the burial (modified from Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015); (e) projectile point embedded on the XI dorsal vertebra (modified from Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015); (f) broken tip of a bone point embedded on the lateral side of right rib (modified from Díaz, Barrientos, and Pastor 2015).

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Metric attributes of bone projectile points.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Bone projectile point EA5-2: (a-b) anterior view and details of the dark resinous residue spattered over the surface; (c-d) posterior view and details of the dark resinous residue spattered over the surface.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Bone projectile point EA5-4: (a) anterior view; (b) posterior views (c) details of the serrated edges of the stem.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Bone projectile point EA5-5: (a) anterior view (red dashed line indicates an impact scar); (b) posterior view; (c) details of the dark resinous residue spattered over the surface.

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Bone projectile point EA5-6: (a) anterior view; (b) posterior view; (c) details of the dark resinous residue spattered over the surface; (d) semi-transparent mastic residue on the notches of the stem.

Figure 10 .
Figure 10.Schematic model of the hafted method of the El Alto 5 bone projectile points (modified from Medina and Balena 2021).

Table 1 .
Main characteristics of bone projectile points from El Alto 5.

Table 2 .
Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney test of the neck width (mm) of the bone projectile points from El Alto 5 and the small-stemmed lithic triangular arrow points from museum collections of Sierras of Córdoba.

Table 3 .
Descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney test of the gross weight (g) of the bone projectile points from El Alto 5 and the small-stemmed lithic triangular arrow points from museum collections of Sierras of Córdoba.