Experimental projectile impact marks on bone: implications for identifying the origins of projectile technology

Abstract

a b s t r a c tThe ability of Homo sapiens to kill prey at a distance is arguably one of the catalysts for our current ecological dominance. Despite the importance of projectile technology in human hunting strategies, there is still no consensus on when it first emerged. Most evidence has stemmed from analysis of the lithic projectiles themselves, not the trauma left on the bones of hunted prey. There is a growing body of research focused on zooarchaeological projectile impact marks in European assemblages; however, comparable investigations are rare in the African Middle Stone Age (MSA), where it has been suggested that simple hafted projectile technology first arose. There are no standardised criteria for identifying projectile impact marks on bone and no large experimental studies exist that examine marks left by MSA points specifically. This paper defines the various forms of stone-tipped projectile impact marks on bone using a large and variable experimentally-produced sample, and then applies this system to description of marks left by replica MSA Levallois and Howieson's Poort points. The differences between projectile impact marks and slicing cut marks, marks created by different projectile modes (spear and arrow), lithic typologies (Levallois and Howieson's Poort), and distances (long versus short range) are examined. It is shown that although most projectile marks do not resemble slicing cut marks, the projectile mode, point type, and distance cannot be differentiated based on mark morphology.

Getting to the point: An experimental approach to improving the identification of penetrating projectile trauma to bone caused by medieval arrows

“…However, for the purposes of this study, it is the morphology of the bony lesions resulting from projectile impacts that are of. Recent years have seen several experiments focusing on the marks made on bone by prehistoric projectiles from bows and spearthrowers, with arrowheads made of stone (Castel, 2008;O'Driscoll and Thompson, 2014;Smith et al, 2007;Yeshurun and Yaroshevich, 2014), antler (Letourneux and Pétillon, 2008), and composite materials (Pétillon et al, 2011). Although these mostly focus on a prehistoric, zooarchaeological perspective, there are no similar studies on medieval projectile impacts, and so these experiments provide the only available comparable experimental data for the present article.…”

“…A puncture indicates that the arrow has impacted the bone and gone partly or all the way through, a drag is a cut-like mark, and a fracture is recorded when the bone has been partially or completely fractured (O'Driscoll and Thompson, 2014). Secondary traits: length, shape, flaking, feathering, cracking, and breakage, were also scored according to O'Driscoll and Thompson (2014), who utilised the traits developed by Lewis (2008) for recording characteristics of sword marks, but found them useful and comprehensive for projectile impacts (see Supplementary data for details). Several observations were added: maximum width and maximum depth and bone thickness, an average of 3-5 measurements taken along the sides of the lesion.…”

The origins and early elaboration of projectile technology

“…There has been an intensification in research over recent years into projectile impact marks (PIMs) on bones, both experimentally and archaeologically . A PIM is the resulting trauma or mark from a projectile weapon contacting bone.…”

“…A PIM is the resulting trauma or mark from a projectile weapon contacting bone. PIMs have been shown to overlap in morphology with other taphonomic signatures such as stone‐tool cut marks, but also have to have diagnostic features that can be used to separate them . Much of this work was initiated in Europe, where Neo‐Nygaard pioneered the systematic identification of PIMs.…”

“…This case presents possible evidence of intra‐specific violence. However, O'Driscoll and Thompson noted that the size of the animal used in experiments can have an impact on the types and severity of impact marks, showing that much further work is needed in this promising area.…”