View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by University of Johannesburg Institutional Repository

Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38

DOI 10.1007/s12520-013-0136-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Results of utilitarian and accidental breakage experiments

on bone points
Justin Bradfield & Tyrone Brand

Received: 30 October 2012 / Accepted: 15 March 2013 / Published online: 2 April 2013
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Abstract In this paper, we present the results of two new and Parsons 2008; Sisk and Shea 2009; Lombard and
experiments that assess the formation of macrofractures on Phillipson 2010; Lombard and Haidle 2012). One avenue
bone tools subject to non-hunting-related activities. Our of research that explores the issue of identifying past hunt-
experiments were designed to assess the formation of ing weapon components is use trace studies, and in partic-
macrofracture types that develop on bone tools that have ular macrofracture analysis. Macrofracture analysis is based
been accidentally dropped and those that have been used in on the principles of fracture mechanics and explores the
domestic activities, in this case, hide piercing. Whilst ac- breakage properties of brittle solids subject to use (Hayden
knowledging that macrofracture analysts should take into 1979; Odell 1981). It is used primarily in the examination of
account a margin of error when interpreting macrofracture stone tools thought to be part of ancient hunting weapons (e.g.
results, our results suggest that the classification criteria for Fischer et al. 1984; Odell and Cowan 1986; Lombard 2005a;
potential bone-tipped hunting weapons be refined to exclude Lombard and Pargeter 2008; Villa et al. 2009a, b, 2010), but
all fractures other than spin-off fractures larger than 6 mm. has been shown to be equally applicable to bone points
We concur with other researchers that macrofracture analy- (Bradfield 2011; Bradfield and Lombard 2011).
sis, while constituting a heuristically profitable tool, should The study of human-induced bone tool breakage is not new
be used as part of a multi-analytical approach. (e.g. Tyzzer 1936; Currey 1979; Guthrie 1983; Arndt and
Newcomer 1986; Knecht 1997; Choyke and Bartosiewicz
Keywords Macrofracture analysis . Bone tools . Hide 2001; Gates St-Pierre and Walker 2007; Legrand-Pineau et
piercing . Dropping damage . Use wear . Experimental al. 2010). Nevertheless, the majority of the bone tool studies
archaeology cited above focus on other use-wear indicators such as pol-
ishes and transverse striations rather than breakage patterns.
The study of fracture patterns is just as informative as other
Introduction use-trace indicators; yet, whereas there appears to be a
standardised nomenclature to refer to and describe polishes
The invention of bow-and-arrow technology, and with it the and striations, the same cannot be said of fractures. In contrast,
ability to hunt and kill dangerous animals from a safer the advances made in fracture mechanics of lithic tools and the
distance, would have significantly altered social relations associated standardised terminology (see Hayden 1979;
among human populations by allowing people to exploit a Fischer et al. 1984; Lombard 2005a; Lombard and Pargeter
wider variety of game, thereby broadening their trophic 2008; Bradfield and Lombard 2011) should be seen as an
niche (Shea 2011). For this reason, the advent of bow-and- achievement worth emulating in the study of bone tools.
arrow technology has received much attention in recent
Many of the techniques used to modify stone are also
archaeological discourse (e.g. Brooks et al. 2006; Lombard
used on bone and some morphological responses ap-
pear analogous, for example, flakes with a platform
J. Bradfield (*) : T. Brand and bulb.…Sharing a common approach and terminol-
Department of Anthropology and Development Studies,
ogy facilitates communication and standardises
University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park
Campus, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa methods and reinforces the relationship between the
e-mail: [email protected] two technologies.…The question of what constitutes
28 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38

anthropic use-wear on bones necessitates the same refer to the latter activity. Quartz segments (small segment-
rigorous, verifiable and demonstrable approach being shaped backed stone flakes) found in approximately 60,000-
taken as in lithic use-wear studies. (Johnson 1985, year-old deposits from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (Fig. 1),
pp. 164–165) have been interpreted as arrow armatures based on morpholo-
gy and use-wear studies (Wadley and Mohapi 2008; Lombard
We therefore apply the macrofracture method to our study of 2007, 2011; Lombard and Phillipson 2010). Together with a
replicated bone tools, as well as use-wear analysis, to bring a bone point from Sibudu (Backwell et al. 2008), these are
degree of comparability to the two approaches. Future bone tool currently thought to constitute the earliest evidence for me-
studies that seek to investigate past hunting function should chanically projected flight weaponry, such as a bow and arrow.
take into consideration the heuristic potential of macrofracture One of the reasons why research into the origins of
analysis. Likewise, macrofracture analysts would benefit from a mechanically projected weapon systems is so popular is that
consideration of other use-wear indicators. it speaks directly to what it means to be human. Three
The aim of this study was to examine the macrofractures features of the modern human mind are our ability to re-
and other use-trace indicators that develop on bone points member and relate subconscious thoughts and visions
that have been dropped ‘accidentally’ or used in hide- (Lewis-Williams 2002), our use of enhanced working mem-
piercing activities, such as would be expected of bone awls. ory (the ability to conceptualise multiple steps while
We conducted two experimental series to test for these performing tasks, e.g. Wadley et al. 2009; Wadley 2010)
breakage patterns: Experimental Series I, which consisted and our ability to conceptualise and simultaneously use
of bone point replicas that were dropped from a fixed height, multiple symbiotic technologies (Lombard and Haidle
and Experimental Series II, which consisted of bone point 2012). This is where each component in a technological
replicas that were used to pierce fresh and dry animal skin. system consists of multiple elements, each working together
The rationale for such a study is to provide a dataset com- to perform the required task and where the whole cannot
parable with previous experimental macrofracture studies on function without all the requisite parts. If we take the bow
bone points in order to better understand the nature of and arrow as an example, the arrow is made up of a number
breakage patterns that develop through longitudinal impact of discrete parts, each working synergistically to perform a
or pressure unrelated to hunting. Our results are assessed in single function. Likewise, the bow will consist of a wooden
light of a larger suite of experimental studies designed to test stave, knotted string and sinew binding, each serving, in its
the reliability of macrofracture analysis to identify ancient own unique way, to release the potential kinetic energy
hunting weapons. Although part of our study examined the stored in the wood, thus propelling the arrow through the
damage that would be expected to accrue on awls, our air. Neither can achieve on their own what they can when
replica points did not follow the standard morphological used together. The presence of symbiotic technologies sig-
descriptions of ‘awls’ in the southern African literature (e. nals a higher degree of cognitive flexibility compared to
g. Sampson 1974; Schweitzer 1979). Rather, we chose to non-symbiotic technologies such as a wooden spear (see
fashion our tools to resemble bone points usually associated Lombard and Haidle 2012).
with arrowheads. We did this in order to make our results The challenge for archaeologists is recognising these
comparable with previous macrofracture studies on bone weapon components and distinguishing between those tools
tools and because, hypothetically, such bone points could that were used as thrusting or throwing spears and those that
have been used in any activity, including leather work. were used with the aid of an intermediary mechanism like a
bow. One method that archaeologists have tended to focus
on is the macrofracture method. Macrofracture analysis is
Background based on the principles of the fracture mechanics of brittle
solids and constitutes one aspect of use-trace studies.
In search of ancient weapons Simply put, the theory of fracture mechanics states that
certain fractures will develop on brittle-solid tools used in
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of research into a specific activity (e.g. Hayden 1979; Lawrence 1979;
the origins of projectile technology, which, due to the poor Dockall 1997). Fischer et al. (1984) conducted experiments
preservation of organic materials, has tended to focus on the on stone tools to isolate and define macrofractures that could
better represented stone tools (e.g. Lombard 2005a, b, 2007, be considered diagnostic of the type of impact associated
2011; Lombard and Pargeter 2008; Sisk and Shea 2009; with hunting. They referred to these macrofractures as diag-
Yaroshevich et al. 2010). By ‘projectile technology’, we make nostic impact fractures (DIFs). These DIFs were step termi-
the distinction between that which is thrown by hand, for nating bending fractures, unifacial and bifacial spin-off
example a spear, and that which is projected via an intermedi- fractures and impact burinations. Later, the method was
ary mechanism, such as an atlatl or bow. We use the term to refined to exclude spin-off fractures smaller than 6 mm to
Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38 29

Fig. 1 Map of South Africa

avoid confusion with accidental breakage patterns (Fischer (Pargeter 2011a, b) and on bone points trampled by small-
et al. 1984; Lombard 2005a). Although bone differs from to medium-sized bovids (Pargeter and Bradfield 2012). In
stone in many respects, both share the properties of brittle the case of stone tools, DIFs occurred in ≤3 % of the
solids and therefore follow similar fracture patterns (Lawn experimental sample and, in the case of bone points, <6 %
and Marshall 1979; LeMoine 1994), a fact that has been of the experimental sample. This margin of error should be
borne out in subsequent experimental studies (e.g. Griffitts taken into account when interpreting possible hunting
2006; Bradfield and Lombard 2011). Unfortunately, this weapons from archaeological contexts (Pargeter 2013).
method does not distinguish between hand-delivered and What is important to note from these studies is that, of the
mechanically delivered weapons, nor does it necessarily macrofractures originally considered to be diagnostic of
distinguish between other causes of longitudinal impact longitudinal impact by Fischer et al. (1984), there is one
(Lombard et al. 2004; Lombard 2005a). type that is consistently absent in all experiments save those
of hunting: spin-off fractures larger than 6 mm.
Testing the validity of a method
The current state of bone tool studies
The principle behind macrofracture analysis is remarkably
simple, and the idea that a particular fracture type can So far, we have focused on the stone tool studies. What then of
inform on the past function of a tool seems almost too good the bone points about which this paper is concerned? Pointed
to be true. To increase the heuristic potential of this method, bone artefacts play an important part in the material culture of
a series of control tests has been conducted in recent years many hunter-gatherer societies, yet, like most organic mate-
that test the degree to which macrofracture analysis can be rials, they rarely survive in archaeological deposits, resulting
used as a reliable indicator of hunting application. This was in little attention being afforded them in site reports. As a
done by looking at the formation of macrofractures that result, the way in which we frame our research and under-
occur on differing raw materials and tools used in varying standing of past hunter-gatherer material culture is based
activities unrelated to hunting (e.g. Lombard et al. 2004; almost exclusively on stone tool technology. However, a
Pargeter 2011a, b, 2013; Pargeter and Bradfield 2012). growing body of research in Europe and the Americas has
Some of these tests have included stone and bone raw focused on identifying use-wear and manufacturing traces on
materials, although, for the purposes of this paper, we con- the few bone and other organic tools that do survive (e.g.
centrate primarily on those studies involving bone tools. LeMoine 1994; Gates St-Pierre and Walker 2007; Legrand-
As mentioned above, macrofracture analysis is primarily Pineau et al. 2010; also see d’Errico et al. 2012a, b for
intended to identify fractures that occur through longitudinal comparable southern African studies).
impact, which may or may not be related to hunting. It has long been known that the types of breakage en-
Pargeter (2013) has noticed that knapping stone flakes pro- countered on bone tools have more heuristic potential than
duces macrofractures, including the so-called diagnostic simple morphology (see Tyzzer 1936), yet, where these
impact fractures, similar to those encountered on experimen- studies have focused on hunting-related fractures, they have
tal hunting tools. Post-depositional trampling produced tended to use a descriptive nomenclature different from that
DIFs on stone flakes trampled by humans and cattle of comparable stone tool studies (cf. Fischer et al. 1984;
30 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38

Arndt and Newcomer 1986; Griffitts 2006; Lombard 2005a,

b). For example, terms such as spiral fracture, hairline fracture,
snap or oblique fracture, bevelled fracture and transverse
fracture have been applied, which are themselves simply
morphological descriptions. Yet, several studies have noted
the similarity in breakage mechanics between bone and stone
(e.g. Lawn and Marshall 1979; Johnson 1985; Arndt and
Newcomer 1986; Knecht 1997; Bradfield and Lombard
2011). It seems only appropriate, then, to apply the same
terminology when it comes to use-related impact fractures.
Not all pointed bone tools would have functioned as weapon
components. There are many descriptions from ethnographic
and historical sources of pointed bone tools having been used
for piercing leather, fishing, weaving baskets and scraping
hides (see Deacon 1976, 1984; Schweitzer 1979; Mitchell
2002). As with putative hunting weapons, the functions as-
cribed to these tools are based on comparative morphology
and, sometimes, simply intuition. Yet, given the time and
energy needed to manufacture bone tools, it is quite possible
that some tools had multiple functions. Each function would
leave specific use traces on the tool, although, in the case of
bone, usually only the most recent use traces are preserved
(LeMoine 1994; Fisher 1995). Hide piercing, for example, is Fig. 2 Examples of bone points used in the experiments
easily identified through use-wear studies (e.g. d’Errico et al.
2003; Gates St-Pierre 2007; Legrand and Sidera 2007). The act
of piercing an animal hide with a bone point such as an awl experiments. To save time, we used a commercial Ryobi
involves a longitudinal motion. Given a long enough life span, HBG6E bench grinder for the manufacture. Once complete,
bone awls can be expected to fracture through use. In the the bone points were stained with an ochre paint following
present paper, we explore the nature of this breakage through Pargeter and Bradfield (2012) in order to increase the light
macrofracture analysis and relate the results back to previous absorption and visual contrast under a reflected light micro-
tests on the validity and reliability of this method. scope. Manufacturing striations were recorded as a control
prior to the commencement of the experiments. The average
lengths in the two experimental series were 93 and 86 mm,
Experimental protocol respectively. However, because length is a variable parameter
among archaeological bone tools, we focused on the width of
Eighty-eight bone points were manufactured for our exper- the specimens. The average width of the bone points for
iments (Fig. 2). These were divided into two groups of 44 Experimental Series I was 5.3 mm (Table 1), whilst the
each. The first group, which was used in Experimental average width of bone points in Experimental Series II was
Series I (the dropping experiment), consisted of 44 impala 4.8 mm (Table 2). In both cases, the bone points followed the
(Aepyceros melampus) long bones that had been defleshed dimensions of those previously used in hunting and trampling
and left to dry for 12 months. The second group, experiments (see Bradfield and Lombard 2011; Pargeter and
Experimental Series II, which was used in the hide- Bradfield 2012) rather than the dimensions typically associat-
piercing experiment, consisted of 22 impala long bones that ed with archaeological awls (e.g. Schweitzer 1979; Smith and
had been defleshed and left to dry for 12 months and 22 ox Poggenpoel 1988; d’Errico et al. 2003; Gates St-Pierre 2007).
(Bos taurus) long bones that had been defleshed and left to The reason for this was to better compare macrofracture re-
dry for 1 month. The impala bones were considered to be sults between these and previously published experiments.
dry bones due to the extent of desiccation, whilst the ox Both experimental series made use of thick and thinner
bones were considered to be still fresh or green as they bone points in order to see whether, and to what degree,
retained most of their grease and fat (see Nawrocki 1997). bone thickness is a factor in macrofracture formation.
The bone points were mechanically ground to the dimen- The thin points (<5 mm) averaged 4.3 and 4 mm,
sions commonly accorded to archaeological bone points respectively, and the thick points (>5 mm) averaged 5.8 and
(e.g. Vinnicombe 1971; Smith and Poggenpoel 1988) 5.7 mm, respectively. Wet bone was only used in Experimental
and which matched those used in previous macrofracture Series II.
Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38 31

Table 1 Experimental Series I (the dropping experiment)

Cat. no. Raw material Length Max. width Width at 10 mm Width at 30 mm Duration of use MFs

DRP01 A. melampus 130 4.9 2.8 3.8 1 X

DRP02 A. melampus 70 5 4.5 5 3 X
DRP03 A. melampus 89 6 2.3 4 2 X
DRP04 A. melampus 95 4.9 3.8 3.9 5
DRP05 A. melampus 98 6.1 2.3 4.2 5
DRP06 A. melampus 99 6.6 3.1 4.4 2 X
DRP07 A. melampus 91 6.7 4.7 5 5
DRP08 A. melampus 82 5.6 2.9 4.1 5
DRP09 A. melampus 89 5.6 3 4.8 5
DRP10 A. melampus 94 5.7 3.9 4.2 5
DRP11 A. melampus 56 4.6 2.5 3.4 5
DRP12 A. melampus 101 5.1 2.1 3.4 5
DRP13 A. melampus 95 5 2.9 4.8 1 XX
DRP14 A. melampus 54 5 3.2 4.3 5
DRP15 A. melampus 78 5.1 2.1 4.3 5
DRP16 A. melampus 70 4.1 3.1 4.1 5
DRP17 A. melampus 125 4.9 3.2 3.5 5
DRP18 A. melampus 93 5.2 1.9 2.8 5
DRP19 A. melampus 86 6.5 3.6 5 5
DRP20 A. melampus 116 8 4.6 4.9 5
DRP21 A. melampus 79 5.5 3.4 4.5 5
DRP22 A. melampus 87 7.4 4.4 4.6 5
DRP23 A. melampus 81 4.1 2.6 3.9 5
DRP24 A. melampus 78 5.2 2.1 3.3 5
DRP25 A. melampus 97 3.9 3 3 5
DRP26 A. melampus 92 6.1 3.6 5 5
DRP27 A. melampus 110 4.5 2.8 3 1 X
DRP28 A. melampus 52 5.1 2.6 3.9 5
DRP29 A. melampus 109 5.6 3.4 4.9 5
DRP30 A. melampus 88 5.5 3.7 4.5 5
DRP31 A. melampus 64 3.8 2.3 3.3 5
DRP32 A. melampus 110 6 2.9 3.2 5 X
DRP33 A. melampus 73 4.3 2.7 4 2 X
DRP34 A. melampus 85 5.5 3.1 4.1 5
DRP35 A. melampus 66 4.5 2.1 3.3 4 X
DRP36 A. melampus 78 5.4 3.3 4.5 5
DRP37 A. melampus 80 6.7 4.6 6.4 4 X
DRP38 A. melampus 60 3.9 2.3 3.4 5
DRP39 A. melampus 70 4.1 2.8 4 5
DRP40 A. melampus 55 3.6 3 4 1 XX
DRP41 A. melampus 115 6 3.4 5 5
DRP42 A. melampus 119 6 3.6 5.1 5
DRP43 A. melampus 85 5 2 3.9 2 XX
DRP44 A. melampus 56 5 3.7 4.6 5 XX
Mean 86.3 5.3 3 4.1 4.2

An ‘X’ in the MF column represents the presence of macrofractures; an ‘XX’ represents the presence of DIFs. Values are in millimetres
32 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38

Table 2 Experimental Series II (the hide-piercing experiment)

Cat. no. Raw material Length Max. width Width at 10 mm Width at 30 mm Duration of use Hide condition MFs Polish

F1 B. primigenius 130 5.4 2.8 4.8 80 Dry XX

F2 B. primigenius 123 5.1 3 4 80 Wet X
F3 B. primigenius 146 6 3.3 4.5 80 Dry X
F4 (n) B. primigenius 108 5.6 2.3 3.3 80 Wet XX
F5 B. primigenius 130 4.7 2.8 4.3 80 Dry X
F6 B. primigenius 139 5.9 3.4 4.3 80 Dry XX
F7 B. primigenius 122 5.1 2.5 4.5 27 Dry X XX
F8 B. primigenius 66 5.3 2.6 4 80 Wet
F9 B. primigenius 95 5.4 3.3 4 80 Wet XX
F10 B. primigenius 57 4.8 2.8 5 80 Wet
F11 (n) B. primigenius 99 4.3 2.1 3.3 80 Dry
F12 (n) B. primigenius 63 4.4 3.3 3.5 12 Dry X
F13 (n) B. primigenius 107 2.9 2.4 2.8 80 Wet X
F14 (n) B. primigenius 98 3.4 2.3 2.8 80 Wet
F15 (n) B. primigenius 91 3.7 2.6 3 6 Dry X X
F16 (n) B. primigenius 84 3.9 2.9 3.3 80 Dry XX
F17 (n) B. primigenius 99 4.1 2.4 2.5 1 Dry X
F18 (n) B. primigenius 74 3.5 2.5 3.4 80 Wet X
F19 (n) B. primigenius 67 3.4 2.4 2.8 27 Wet XX
F20 (n) B. primigenius 65 4.4 2.7 4.5 80 Wet
F21 B. primigenius 75 4.8 2.9 4.7 80 Wet X
F22 (n) B. primigenius 69 4.1 2.8 5.7 80 Dry X
D1 A. melampus 89 5.1 2.8 4 80 Wet XX
D2 A. melampus 112 6.7 3.7 4.2 80 Wet
D3 A. melampus 123 7 3.7 4.3 80 Dry XX
D4 A. melampus 138 6.6 3.1 4.2 80 Wet X
D5 A. melampus 96 6.2 3.6 4.3 24 Dry X XX
D6 A. melampus 88 5.5 3.2 4.4 80 Dry
D7 A. melampus 71 6.1 3.3 4.7 80 Wet X
D8 A. melampus 99 5.1 3.1 4.1 80 Dry XX
D9 A. melampus 122 6.6 2.8 3.9 18 Dry X X
D10 (n) A. melampus 92 5.4 3 4.1 80 Wet X
D11 (n) A. melampus 79 4.8 2.1 2.9 4 Dry X
D12 (n) A. melampus 82 4.1 2.5 2.9 7 Dry XX X
D13 A. melampus 97 5.2 2.7 3.4 80 Wet XX X
D14 A. melampus 91 5 2.9 3.9 5 Dry XX
D15 (n) A. melampus 81 3.9 2.1 2.4 1 Dry XX XX
D16 (n) A. melampus 78 4.1 2.5 3 1 Wet X X
D17 (n) A. melampus 42 3 2.3 3 3 Dry XX
D18 (n) A. melampus 90 4.2 2.6 3.3 50 Wet X XX
D19 (n) A. melampus 66 3.3 2.1 2.5 7 Wet XX
D20 (n) A. melampus 88 4.8 2.2 2.9 16 Wet X X
D21 A. melampus 93 4.9 2.4 3.2 1 Wet X
D22 (n) A. melampus 69 4.2 2 3.1 3 Dry XX XX
Mean 93 4.8 2.7 3.7 52.1

An ‘X’ under the MF column represents the presence of macrofractures; an ‘XX’ represents the presence of DIFs. The presence of an ‘X’ under the
polish column represents a weak presence, whilst ‘XX’ represents a higher degree of polish. Values are in millimetres, except for ‘duration of use’
which indicates the number of times used. F indicates wet bone, D indicates dry bone and (n) indicates thinner bone points akin to needles
Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38 33

In Experimental Series I, the 44 bone points were 6 mm. No bifacial spin-off fractures were present. These
suspended horizontally 1.3 m off the ground. The bone figures are presented in Table 5 in the discussion section; for
points were then dropped onto a slate floor a maximum of now, we confine ourselves to the different variables in-
five times or until a point broke. Impact against the floor volved in Experimental Series II.
was lateral to the points’ main axes. In Experimental Series The first variable is the condition of the bone tools. The
II, the 44 bone points were divided in half, each group dry bone developed twice as many macrofractures and DIFs
containing 11 thin points and 11 thicker points, and used as the green bone. These included two step terminating
in a ‘push-and-twist’ motion to pierce fresh (1-day-old) and fractures and the five unifacial spin-off fractures smaller
tanned gemsbok (Oryx gazella) hide. We held each awl at than 6 mm. The spin-off fractures terminated in hinge or
the proximal part—partly to increase the rate of breakage. If feather terminating fractures (Fig. 3). The fracture propaga-
the awls were held closer to the point, breakage would have tion in the green bones tended to follow a spiral pattern,
been reduced. Each hide was therefore penetrated by 22 typical of fracture properties in green bone. The dry hide
points. Each point was used for a maximum of 80 penetra- caused 13 points to develop macrofractures compared to
tions; those that fractured were retired. In both experiments, only seven on the fresh skin. In both cases, we had no
the maximum duration of use was chosen arbitrarily. We felt trouble penetrating the hides with our bone points, although
that five drops and 80 penetrations gave a reasonable chance the dry hide did provide more resistance than the fresh skin.
for macrofracture damage to occur whilst not exhausting the Diagnostic impact fractures developed more frequently on
individual specimens. tools used to pierce the dry hide. As expected, the thinner
All bone points in the experimental series were analysed points, or ‘needles’, accrued more than twice the number of
and use-wear traces recorded at ×10 to ×65 magnification macrofractures compared with the slightly thicker points.
using an Olympus SXZ16 stereomicroscope with a mounted This, however, was not the case in Experimental Series I.
DP72 digital camera. Although magnifications of up to Diagnostic impact fractures developed only on the ‘needles’
×200 may sometimes be necessary to examine lightly de- and not the slightly thicker points. In none of the cases
veloped volume deformation such as polishes (Legrand and where spin-off fractures were recorded did the fracture ex-
Sidera 2007), we follow van Gijn (2007) and Olsen (2007) tend more than 6 mm in length. Green bone was the only
in our use of equipment and magnification ranges as bone variable that did not accrue spin-off fractures of any sort.
develops abrasive features appreciatively quickly and, given Table 4 presents the results of fracture location in the two
the non-existence of taphonomic processes that may obscure experimental series as well as that of Bradfield and
results, a higher magnification was deemed unnecessary. Lombard’s (2011) hunting experiment for comparison. The
Macrofractures can be identified fairly accurately with the bone points used for hide piercing experienced an almost
naked eye, but low-powered magnification helps eliminate equal distribution of fractures along the points’ length. Not
potentially ambiguous fractures, such as small step and so with the dropping and hunting experiments, in which
hinge terminating fractures and spiral fracture terminations fractures tended to concentrate at the distal portion and tip
on wet bone. The higher powered magnification (although of the piece. Distal fractures were only present on tools used
still considered low power) was needed to identify other to pierce the dry hide, although tip crushing developed
use-wear indicators, such as polishing and edge rounding. mainly on the green bone. Five of the eight medial fractures
developed on ‘needles’, whereas proximal fractures
displayed a similar presence on ‘needles’ (5/6) and through
Results use on dry hide (4/6).
In all cases, the results confirmed our predictions: dry,
The macrofracture results from the two experimental series brittle bone was more susceptible to fracture; thinner points
are presented in Table 3. The three variables present in the broke more easily; and tools used on the drier, harder hide
hide-piercing experiment, namely the oil content of the bone fractured more frequently. Experimental Series I accrued
tools, the condition of the hide and the thickness of the tools, predominantly distal fractures as this is the thinnest part of
are presented separately in the table. Three DIFs, compris- the point and the most likely to fracture. Likewise, distal
ing step terminating fractures, developed in Experimental fractures occurred only on tools used to pierce the dry hide
Series I, whilst a single unifacial spin-off fracture, smaller in Experimental Series I, whilst ‘needles’ had the dominant
than 6 mm, also developed. Non-DIF hinge and feather fracture frequencies on the proximal and medial portions.
terminating fractures were the most prevalent in this exper- The results of the use-wear analysis, presented in Table 2,
imental series. Three tools used in Experimental Series II confirm the presence of polishing and tip rounding on 29
developed DIFs, with the majority (n=15) developing hinge (66 %) bone points from Experimental Series II; no polish or
and feather terminating fractures. Five points developed other signs of use wear were detected in Experimental Series
unifacial spin-off fractures, but these were all smaller than I. In general, polish was confined to the tip and did not
34 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38

Table 3 Results of the macrofracture analysis from the dropping and hide-piercing experiments (Experimental Series I and II)

EXPI thick (n=25) EXPI thin Green bone Dry bone Dry hide Fresh skin Points Needles
(n=19) (n=22) (n=22) (n=22) (n=22) (n=22) (n=22)

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Snap 3 12 – – 2 9.1 – – 2 9.1 – – 1 4.5 1 4.5

Step termination 1 4 2 10 1 4.5 2 9.1 2 9.1 1 4.5 – – 3 13.6
BF spin-off – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
UF spin-off <6 mm 1 4 – – – – 5 22.7 3 13.6 2 9.1 2 9.1 3 13.6
UF spin-off >6 mm – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Hinge/feather termination 4 16 2 10 3 13.6 14 63.6 9 9.1 6 27.3 5 22.7 10 45.4
Tip crushing 1 4 1 5.2 11 50 3 13.6 4 18.2 8 36.3 1 4.5 6 27.3
Tools with MFs 13 52 4 21 6 27.3 14 63.6 13 59.1 7 31.8 6 27.3 14 63.6
Tools with DIFs 1 4 2 10 1 4.5 2 9.1 2 9.1 1 4.5 – – 3 13.6

BF bifacial, EXPI experimental series I, UF unifacial, MFs macrofractures, DIFs diagnostic impact fractures

extend below 50 mm from the tip. In most cases, the polish

was faint, with manufacturing striations still clearly visible.
The polish, which forms through abrasive actions (see
LeMoine 1994), such as hide piercing, was not ubiquitous
enough to obliterate the manufacturing striations, except at
the tip, where 13 (30 %) bone points displayed a high degree
of polish (see Fig. 4b). Tip rounding, similar to that of
previous studies (e.g. Gates St-Pierre 2007; van Gijn 2007;
Buc 2010), was also observed on 15 (34 %) bone points
used during Experimental Series II.

Discussion

The macrofracture method as developed by Fischer et al.

(1984) describes two types of fractures that they thought to
be diagnostic of longitudinal impact, such as would result
from use during hunting. These DIFs were step terminating
bending fractures and spin-off fractures. These categories
were subsequently modified to exclude unifacial spin-off
fractures smaller than 6 mm (Lombard 2005a) in order
to avoid accidental fractures from obscuring interpreta-
tions. The results of the macrofracture analysis from the

Table 4 Results of macrofracture analyses on three experimental

series according to the location of the fractures

Hide piercing (n=44) Dropping (n=44) Hunting (n=28)

n % n % n %
Fig. 3 Examples of spin-off fractures, step and hinge terminating
fractures. a D12 step terminating fracture. b D7 step terminating Distal 7 16 10 23 11 39
fracture. c D22 step terminating fracture. d D9 hinge terminating
fracture. e D20 hinge terminating fracture. f D11 hinge terminating Medial 9 20 - - 5 18
fracture. g D19 spin-off fracture. h D14 spin-off fracture. i D13 spin- Proximal 6 14 1 2 3 11
off fracture. Arrows indicate the direction of force from initiation to
dissipation. Scale bar, 5 mm Hunting data are taken from Bradfield and Lombard (2011)
Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38 35

thicker bone points, as too did points used to pierce the harder
dry hide compared with those used to pierce the fresh skin.
Table 5 shows that in all cases, save that of trampling,
hinge and feather terminating fractures were most prevalent.
Step terminating fractures were present in all the experi-
ments, and we are inclined to drop them from the DIF
criteria for bone tools in the future. Likewise, unifacial
spin-off fractures were present in all but the trampling
experiment. Only the hunting experiment, however, devel-
oped spin-off fractures larger than 6 mm, which seems to
confirm the validity of the arbitrary metric assigned to this
category of fractures.
There was not much difference in the rate of breakage
between dry and green bone or between the dry leather and
the fresh skin. On average, dry bones fractured after 15.7
penetrations compared with 14.6 penetrations for the green
bone. The placement of fractures along the length of the
Fig. 4 Examples of polish on bone points used in Experimental Series
bone points in Experimental Series I was concentrated at the
II. a D18 light polish near the tip. b F1 heavy polish at the tip. c F12
light polish near the tip. d F7 light polish. White scale bars, 500 μm distal section of the piece, whereas in Experimental Series II
they were fairly evenly distributed. This difference might be
due to how we held the awls whilst performing the experi-
two experiments presented in this paper validate this ment. By comparison, fractures on bone points from south-
modification and serve to strengthen the interpretative ern African archaeological contexts and bone arrows from
potential of the method. No bifacial or unifacial spin-off historical collections tend to concentrate at the distal end (cf.
fractures >6 mm were recorded in either experimental Bradfield 2012a, b).
series presented here, nor were they present on previous The microwear traces that developed on our tools in
trampling experiments (Pargeter and Bradfield 2012). Experimental Series II matched those expected on bone
Spin-off fractures <6 mm developed only on dry bone. used to pierce animal hides (cf. Buc and Loponte 2007).
The presence of these spin-off fractures can be attributed to Most of our specimens developed light polish—although
the state of the bone; dry bone is more brittle than green bone this was more pronounced at the tips. As with similar
and therefore behaves more like an inorganic material hide-piercing experiments, polish did not extend farther than
(Johnson 1985, p. 169). Indeed, these fractures are very sim- 50 mm from the tip (cf. Buc 2011). Tip rounding, once the
ilar to the notches that developed on bones that had been most common use trace recorded on osseous materials to
experimentally trampled (Blasco et al. 2008). We noticed this have undergone impact (Tyzzer 1936; Arndt and Newcomer
potential in the dry bone prior to the experiments as in several 1986; Pokines 1998; Buc 2010), was present on 60 % of
cases there were numerous microfissures present in the bone tools in Experimental Series II. Tip rounding was not
that were caused by weathering. As expected, ‘needles’ de- recorded, however, on Bradfield and Lombard’s (2011)
veloped a higher incidence of fractures than the slightly experimental hunting weapons.

Table 5 Comparison of macrofracture results on bone points subject to four different activities

Hunting (n=28) Trampling (n=50) Hide piercing (n=44) Dropping (n=44)

n % n % n % n %

Snap 1 4 1 2 2 5 3 7
Step termination 6 21 3 6 3 7 2 5
UF spin-off <6 mm – – – – 5 11 1 2
UF spin-off >6 mm 3 11 – – – – – –
Hinge/feather termination 13 46 1 2 15 34 6 14
Tip crushing 4 14 2 4 14 32 2 5
Tools with DIFs 9 32 3 6 3 7 2 4

Data for the hunting experiment come from Bradfield and Lombard (2011) and for the trampling experiment from Pargeter and Bradfield (2012)
36 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38

Conclusion Backwell L, d’Errico F, Wadley L (2008) Middle Stone Age bone tools
from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. J
Archaeol Sci 35:1566–1580
The two experiments presented in this paper contribute to a Blasco R, Rosell J, Fernández Peris J, Cáceres I, Vergès JM (2008) A
growing body of experimental work that seeks to interrogate new element of trampling: an experimental application on the
the analytical reliability of the macrofracture method (see level XII faunal record of Bolomor Cave (Valencia, Spain). J
Archaeol Sci 35:1605–1618
Pargeter 2013). In essence, each of these experiments serves
Bradfield J (2011) Macrofracture analysis as a method for identifying
as a control for the original hunting experiments by testing for bone-tipped weapons: a functional approach to the recognition of
DIFs in non-hunting-related activities. Recent moves to drop Stone Age hunting points. Lambert Academic, Saarbruchen
the term ‘diagnostic’ when referring to macrofractures related Bradfield J (2012a) A comparison of three Later Stone Age bone point
assemblages from South Africa. South African Archaeol Bull
to hunting (Pargeter 2013) seems acceptable when given the
67:32–43
degree of reasonable doubt associated with the formation of Bradfield J (2012b) Macrofractures on bone-tipped arrows: analysis of
some of these fractures. The two experiments presented in this hunter-gatherer arrows in the Fourie collection from Namibia.
paper support suggestions to further modify the ‘diagnostic Antiquity 86:1179–1191
Bradfield J (2013) Investigating the potential of micro-focus computed
impact criteria’ to include only spin-off fractures larger than
tomography in the study of ancient bone tool function: results
6 mm for bone points (cf. Lombard 2005a; Pargeter and from actualistic experiments. J Archaeol Sci 40:2606–2613
Bradfield 2012). It should be noted, though, that even on bone Bradfield J, Lombard M (2011) A macrofracture study of bone points
points of known hunting function, spin-off fractures occur used in experimental hunting with reference to the South African
Middle Stone Age. South African Archaeol Bull 66:67–76
only on a minority of specimens (Bradfield 2012b). In other
Brooks S, Yellen J, Nevell L, Hartman G (2006) Projectile technolo-
words, while a spin-off fracture will indicate longitudinal gies of the African MSA: implications for modern human origins.
impact consistent with hunting use, its absence does not In: Hovers E, Kuhn S (eds) Transitions before the transition.
necessarily rule out this activity. Further analytical criteria Springer, New York, pp 233–256
are needed in conjunction with macrofracture analysis to Buc N (2010) Testing functional hypothesis of Late Holocene bone
bipoints from the Lower Parana Wetlands (Argentina). In:
isolate potential hunting weapons (e.g. Bradfield 2013). Use- Legrand-Pineau A, Sidera I (eds) Ancient and modern bone
wear analysis seems to hold much promise, even if its useful- artefacts from America to Russia: cultural, technological and
ness is only in ruling out other possible functions in a process functional signature. British Archaeological Reports,
of elimination strategy. International Series 2136, Oxford, B.A.R, pp 217–225
Buc N (2011) Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools. J
Finally, macrofracture analysis and other use-trace stud- Archaeol Sci 38:546–557
ies are integral for the interpretation of past functions of Buc N, Loponte D (2007) Bone tool types and microwear patterns:
tools and should not be used mutually exclusively of one some examples from the Pampa region, South America. In: Gates
another. In this paper, we have used both approaches, al- St-Pierre C, Walker RB (eds) Bones as tools: current methods and
interpretations in worked bone studies. British Archaeological
though our results of the use-wear analysis merely serve to Reports, International Series 1622, Oxford, B.A.R., pp 143–157
confirm results obtained through previous hide-piercing ex- Choyke A, Bartosiewicz L (2001) Crafting bone: skeletal technologies
periments. The method has its limitations, but these should through time and space. Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the
not obscure its potential to aid researchers’ understanding of (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest. BAR
International Series 937, Oxford
past hunting function. Ideally, macrofracture analysis should Currey JD (1979) Mechanical properties of bone tissues with greatly
form part of a synergistic multi-analytical research design differing functions. J Biomech 12:313–319
that considers other use traces. Deacon H (1976) Where hunters gathered: a study of Stone Age people
in the Eastern Cape. South African Archaeological Society
Monographs 1. South African Archaeological Society, Claremont
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Greg Nell from Aloe Deacon J (1984) The Later Stone Age of southernmost Africa.
Hills Game Farm for supplying the skin. Marlize Lombard, Justin Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology 12. British
Pargeter and two anonymous referees provided valuable suggestions Archaeological Reports International Series 213. Archaeopress,
for the improvement of the manuscript. JB acknowledges the financial Oxford
support provided by the South African National Department of Arts d’Errico F, Julien M, Liolios D, Vanhaeren M, Baffier D (2003) Many
and Culture, the South African Archaeological Society’s Kent Bequest awls in our argument. Bone tools manufacture and use in the
and the Palaeontological Scientific Trust (PAST) and its Scatterlings of Chatelperronian and Aurignacian levels of the Grotte du Renne
Africa programmes during various stages of this project. at Arcy-sur-Cure. In: Zilhao J, d’Errico F (eds) The chronology of
the Aurignation and of the transitional technocomplexes: dating,
stratigraphies, cultural implications. Instituto Portugues de
Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp 247–270
References d’Errico F, Backwell L, Wadley L (2012a) Identifying regional vari-
ability in Middle Stone Age bone technology. The case of Sibudu
Cave. J Archaeol Sci 39:2479–2495
Arndt SH, Newcomer M (1986) Breakage patterns of prehistoric bone d’Errico F, Backwell L, Villa P, Deganog I, Lucejkog J, Bamford M,
points: an experimental study. In: Roe D (ed) Studies in the Upper Higham T, Colombini MP, Beaumont P (2012b) Early evidence of
Palaeolithic of Britain and Northwest Europe. British Archaeological San material culture represented by organic artifacts from Border
Reports International Series 296, Oxford, pp 165–173 Cave, South Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(33):13214–13219
Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38 37

Dockall J (1997) Wear traces and projectile impact: a review of the Lombard M, Parsons I (2008) Blade and bladelet function and vari-
experimental and archaeological evidence. J Field Archaeol ability in risk management during the last 2000 years in the
24:321–331 Northern Cape. South African Archaeological Bull 63:18–27
Fischer A, Vemming Jansen P, Rasmussen P (1984) Macro and micro Lombard M, Phillipson L (2010) Indications of bow and stone-tipped
wear traces on lithic projectile points: experimental results and arrow use 64,000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
prehistoric examples. J Danish Archaeol 3:19–46 Antiquity 84:1–14
Fisher J (1995) Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. J Lombard M, Haidle M (2012) Thinking a bow-and-arrow set: cogni-
Archaeol Method Theory 2:7–68 tive implications of Middle Stone Age bow and stone-tipped
Gates St-Pierre C (2007) Bone awls of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: a arrow technology. Camb Archaeol J 22:237–264
microwear analysis. In: Gates St-Pierre C, Walker RB (eds) Bones Lombard M, Parsons I, van der Ryst MM (2004) Middle Stone Age
as tools: current methods and interpretations in worked bone lithic point experimentation for macro-fracture and residue anal-
studies. British Archaeological Reports, International Series yses: the process and preliminary results with reference to Sibudu
1622, Oxford, B.A.R., pp 107–118 Cave points. South African J Sci 100:159–166
Gates St-Pierre C, Walker RB (eds) (2007) Bones as tools: current Mitchell P (2002) The archaeology of Southern Africa. Cambridge
methods and interpretations in worked bone studies. British University Press, Cambridge
Archaeological Reports, International Series 1622. Archaeopress, Nawrocki S (1997) Cleaning bones. http://archlab.uindy.edu/
Oxford Documents/CleaningBones/. Accessed 27 August 2012
Griffitts J (2006) Bone tools and technological choice: change and Odell G (1981) The mechanics of use and breakage on stone tools:
stability on the northern plains. Unpublished PhD thesis, some testable hypotheses. J Field Archaeol 8:197–209
University of Arizona, Texas Odell G, Cowan F (1986) Experiments with spears and arrows on
Guthrie RD (1983) Osseous projectile points: biological considerations animal targets. J Field Archaeol 13:195–212
affecting raw material selection and design among Paleolithic and Olsen S (2007) Conclusions: bone artifacts and their importance to
Paleoindian peoples. In: Clutton-Brook J, Grigson C (eds) archaeology. In: Gates St-Pierre C, Walker RB (eds) Bones as
Animals and archaeology. 1. Hunters and their prey. British tools: current methods and interpretations in worked bone studies.
Archaeological Reports, International Series 163. Archaeopress, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1622,
Oxford, pp 273–294 Oxford, pp 175–182
Hayden B (ed) (1979) Lithic use wear analysis Academic, New York Pargeter J (2011a) Assessing the macrofracture method for identifying
Johnson E (1985) Current developments in bone technology. Adv Stone Age hunting weaponry. J Archaeol Sci 38:2882–2888
Archaeol Method Theory 8:157–235 Pargeter J (2011b) Human and cattle trampling experiments in Malawi
Knecht H (1997) Projectile points of bone, antler and stone: experi- to understand macrofracture formation on Stone Age hunting
mental explorations of manufacture and use. In: Knecht H (ed) weaponry. Antiquity 85. http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/
Projectile technology. Plenum, London, pp 193–212 pargeter327/. Accessed 3 May 2012
Lawn BR, Marshall DB (1979) Mechanisms of microcontact fracture Pargeter J (2013) Rock type variability and impact fracture formation:
in brittle solids. In: Hayden B (ed) Lithic use wear analysis. implications for probabilistic sampling of assemblages for micro-
Academic, New York, pp 63–82 level functional analyses. J Anthropol Archaeol Sci (under review)
Lawrence RA (1979) Experimental evidence for the significance of Pargeter J, Bradfield J (2012) The effects of class I and II sized bovids
attributes used in edge-damage analysis. In: Hayden B (ed) Lithic on macrofracture formation and tool displacement: results of a
use wear analysis. Academic, New York, pp 35–38 trampling experiment in a southern African Stone Age context. J
Legrand A, Sidera I (2007) Methods, means and results when studying Field Archaeol 37:238–251
European bone industries. In: St-Pierre C, Walker R (eds) Bones Pokines J (1998) Experimental replication and use of Cantabrian
as tools: current methods and interpretations in worked bone Lower Magdalenian antler projectile points. J Archaeol Sci
studies. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 25:875–886
1622. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 67–79 Sampson CG (1974) The Stone Age archaeology of Southern Africa.
Legrand-Pineau A, Sidera I, Buc N, David E, Scheinsohn V (eds) Academic, New York
(2010) Ancient and modern bone artefacts from America to Schweitzer F (1979) Excavations at Die Kelders, Cape Province, South
Russia: cultural, technological and functional signature. British Africa: the Holocene deposits. Ann South African Museum
Archaeological Reports, International Series 2136. Archaeopress, 78:101–233
Oxford Sisk ML, Shea J (2009) Experimental use and quantitative perfor-
LeMoine GM (1994) Use wear on bone and antler tools from the mance analysis of triangular flakes (Levallois points) used as
Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories. Am Antiq 59:316–334 arrowheads. J Archaeol Sci 36:2039–2047
Lewis-Williams D (2002) Mind in the cave. Thames & Hudson, Shea J (2011) Stone tool analysis and human origins research: some
London advice from Uncle Screwtape. Evol Anthropol 20:48–53
Lombard M (2005a) A method for identifying Stone Age hunting Smith A, Poggenpoel C (1988) The technology of bone tool fabrication
tools. South African Archaeological Bull 60:115–120 in the South-Western Cape, South Africa. World Archaeol
Lombard M (2005b) Hunting and hafting during the MSA at Sibudu 20:103–114
cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a multianalytical approach. J Tyzzer EE (1936) The “simple bone point” of the shell-heaps of the
Hum Evol 48:279–300 northeastern Algonkian area and its probable significance. Am
Lombard M (2007) Evidence for change in Middle Stone Age hunting Antiq 1:261–279
behaviour at Blombos Cave: results of a macrofracture Analysis. van Gijn A (2007) The use of bone and antler tools: two examples from
South African Archaeological Bull 62:62–67 the Late Mesolithic in the Dutch coastal zone. In: Gates St-Pierre
Lombard M (2011) Quartz-tipped arrows older than 60 ka: further use- C, Walker RB (eds) Bones as tools: current methods and inter-
trace evidence from Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J pretations in worked bone studies. British Archaeological
Archaeol Sci 38:1918–1930 Reports, International Series 1622, Oxford, pp 81–92
Lombard M, Pargeter J (2008) Hunting with Howiesons Poort seg- Villa P, Soressi M, Henshilwood CS, Mourre V (2009a) The Still Bay
ments: pilot experimental study and the functional interpretation points of Blombos Cave (South Africa). J Archaeol Sci 36:441–
of archaeological tools. J Archaeol Sci 35:26–41 460
38 Archaeol Anthropol Sci (2015) 7:27–38

Villa P, Boscato P, Ranaldo F, Ronchitelli A (2009b) Stone tools for the Wadley L, Mohapi M (2008) A segment is not a monolith: evidence
hunt: points with impact scars from a Middle Paleolithic site in from the Howiesons Poort of Sibudu, South Africa. J Archaeol
southern Italy. J Archaeol Sci 36:850–859 Sci 35:2594–2605
Villa P, Soriano S, Teyssandier N, Wurz S (2010) The Howiesons Poort Wadley L, Hodgskiss T, Grant M (2009) Implications for complex cogni-
and MSA III at Klasies River main site, Cave 1A. J Archaeol Sci tion from the hafting of tools with compound adhesives in the Middle
37:630–655 Stone Age, South Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(24):9590–9594
Vinnicombe P (1971) A Bushman hunting kit from the Natal Drakensberg. Yaroshevich A, Kaufman D, Nuzhnyy D, Bar-Yosef O, Weinstein-Evron
Ann Natal Museum 20:611–625 M (2010) Design and performance of microlith implemented pro-
Wadley L (2010) Compound-adhesive manufacture as a behavioural jectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant:
proxy for complex cognition in the Middle Stone Age. Curr experimental and archaeological evidence. J Archaeol Sci 37:368–
Anthropol 51:S111–S119 388