Author:
Yeshurun Reuven,Doyon Luc,Tejero José-Miguel,Walter Rudolf,Huber Hannah,Andrews Robin,Kitagawa Keiko
Abstract
AbstractShifts in projectile technology potentially document human evolutionary milestones, such as adaptations for different environments and settlement dynamics. A relatively direct proxy for projectile technology is projectile impact marks (PIM) on archaeological bones. Increasing awareness and publication of experimental data sets have recently led to more identifications of PIM in various contexts, but diagnosing PIM from other types of bone-surface modifications, quantifying them, and inferring point size and material from the bone lesions need more substantiation. Here, we focus on PIM created by osseous projectiles, asking whether these could be effectively identified and separated from lithic-tipped weapons. We further discuss the basic question raised by recent PIM research in zooarchaeology: why PIM evidence is so rare in archaeofaunal assemblages (compared to other human-induced marks), even when they are explicitly sought. We present the experimental results of shooting two ungulate carcasses with bone and antler points, replicating those used in the early Upper Paleolithic of western Eurasia. Half of our hits resulted in PIM, confirming that this modification may have been originally abundant. However, we found that the probability of a skeletal element to be modified with PIM negatively correlates with its preservation potential, and that much of the produced bone damage would not be identifiable in a typical Paleolithic faunal assemblage. This quantification problem still leaves room for an insightful qualitative study of PIM. We complement previous research in presenting several diagnostic marks that retain preservation potential and may be used to suggest osseous, rather than lithic, projectile technology.
Funder
the University of Bordeaux's IdEx "Investments for the Future" program / GPR "Human Past"
Austrian Science Fund
Leakey Foundation
University of Haifa
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference67 articles.
1. Badenhorst S (2012) Cause and effect: the impact of animal variables on experimentally produced bone lesions. In: Seetah K, Gravina B (eds) Bones for tools – tools for bones: the interplay between objects and objectives. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp 65–71
2. Ben-Dor M, Barkai R (2023) The evolution of Paleolithic hunting weapons: a response to declining prey size. Quaternary 6(3):46. https://doi.org/10.3390/quat6030046
3. Blumenschine RJ, Marean CW, Capaldo SD (1996) Blind tests of inter-analyst correspondence and accuracy in the identification of cut marks, percussion marks, and carnivore tooth marks on bone surfaces. J Archaeol Sci 23(4):493–507. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1996.0047
4. Bocquentin F, Bar-Yosef O (2004) Early Natufian remains: evidence for physical conflict from Mt. Carmel. Israel J Hum Evol 47:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.05.003
5. Bradfield J, Lombard M, Reynard J, Wurz S (2020) Further evidence for bow hunting and its implications more than 60 000 years ago: results of a use-trace analysis of the bone point from Klasies River Main site. South Africa Quat Sci Rev 236:106295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106295