sign in sign up
<<
Home , Harpoon

Anthropologieet Prdhistoire,I11, 2000, 114-1Zg

The Function of Bone and Antler Points

L6o B.M. VsnueRr

L. Introduction vital body parts and organs, but rather its Late and Mesolithic bone and fixation potential. Dependent on the position of antler points are artefacts that always receive a the fixation point three variants of use can be lot of attention in the study of European hunter- recognised (Thompsory 1954). gatherer communities. Often the question has been raised what these implements were used 2.2. Points for lances or for and a large number of possibilities have been In contrast to harpoons, points for a lance suggested. The aim of this paper is to offer or a are fixed permanently on to a shaft. the archaeological data for a functional inter- By lances are defined implements not used for pretation within an economic context (Verhar! throwing, but rather for stabbing a prey. Spears 1990). The available archaeological data will be cover a greater distance and are thrown at a prey examined critically. I will discuss the various animal. Both types are equipment with functional main types that can be distinguished, penetrating potential, aimed at bringing down the purpose to which these implements were a prey animal by hitting vital body parts and used and whaf if possible this implies for our organs, but a fixation function plays also a role. ideas concerning Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunting strategies. 2.3. The hunting implement that can be distin- 2. Functional classification guished hardly among points of bone and antler is the . By studying On the basis of morphological attributes and a large findgroup of bone and antler points from Europoort, statistical research three functional groups can this type could be inferred statistically (Verhar! be distinguished within the main group of bone 1988). and antler points: In metrical aspects the arrowheads of L. harpoons, Europoort can be characterisedas points with a maximum length 2. points for lances or spears, of 85 mm, a mean barb length 3. arrowheads. of 4.3 mm and a mean base width of 8.8 mm (fig. 1). Within the Europoort group most - heads demonstrate a tendency towards fixatiory 2.1. Harpoons somewhat comparable to the harpoon, whereas Harpoons are points with a thickening, notch others, like the simple plain points, show more or hole at the base, where a line can be attached. penetrating potential. These harpoons are affixed to the top of a javelin and the line, fixed to the base of the harpoory is connected to a shaft or held by the person 3. The function of bone and antler points throwing the harpoon. As it hits the prey animal, Graham Clark's ideas have been decisive the harpoon penetrates the body, the shaft is for our interpretation of bone and antler points released and the animal can be controlled by (Clark, 1948; 1975). He felt that this Vpe the line. Another possibility is to attach various of artefact was mainly used for . He objects at the end of the line, to hamper the supported this hypothesis by pointing at three prey in its movement. A known example finds of barbed points associatedwith skeletons is the inflated seal skin used by the in of pike (Kunda in Esthonia & Esperods Mosse hunting sea mammals. The major function of in Sweden; Clark, 1936:122) and comparisons "modern" the harpoon is not its penetrating poweq, hitting with fishing gear used by the Inuit of The Function of Mesolithic Bone and Antler Points 115

Cluster 1. Cluster 2 .l o1 o 2-3 o 4-5

foofoo I o. r OO aoao(Dil. oa e Oll .O o jQ3o o olQ Ooo o*lrr. of o' r o OOO r OOO

) 2 4 6 I 10 12 74 16 18 20 22 24 26 28m Mean Barblength

Fig. 1 - Europoort the Netherlands. Diagram of length in relation to mean barb length in cluster L (arrowheads) and cluster 2 (spearheads).

Canada and Greenland (Rau, 1884). Especially In direct association four harpoons have the ethnographic comparison led many scient- been found. TWo finds concern harpoons ists to the conclusion that barbed points were in skeletons of harp-seals (Phocagroenlandica; parts of leister prongs (fig. 2). This attribution Ndrpio, Finland [Leppiiaho, 19361; Skarvtjdrn, needs to be modified. Sweden [Cederschiold,1959]). The third find is a The problem to what purpose the three ringed seal (Phocahispida; Norrkopin& Sweden functional groups were used, can be approached [Lonnberg, 1908]). The fourth is also a harpoon in four ways: found in a ringed seal, but the identification L. which are found in the prey anim- of this last point as a harpoon is dubious, als: the direct associatiorL since only the upper part survived (Oulujoki, 2. which weapons are found in the aicinity of a Finland [Leppiiaho, 1936]). Furthermore, in the prey animal: the indirect associatiorU description a stick with a diameter of 3.5 cm 3. associationby way of weathering traces, is mentioned. It is not inconceivable that this 4. association by way of statistical analyses of point was fixed to a shaft and used as a large find groups. spear. On the other hand, the skeleton was 116 L6o B. M. VEnHanr

howeve4 a false impression. First of all, the 24 3 coastal settlements dating from the early phase of the Mesolithic have been coveredby deposits, obliterating finds from this period. Secondly,on a number of inland sites, far from the coast,harpoons have been found that could not be connected to the hunt for sea mammals. They might have been used in hunting large terrestrial mammals, but exactly which species is not clear. Usually reindeer is suggested, but settlements with many remains of reindeer FU rarely, if evet contain harpoons. These are only known from Meiendorf and Ahrensburg, three harpoons in all. The complete absence of harpoons at Pincevent (Leroi-Gourhan & Br6zilliory 1966) and the recent research into \',H the hunting techniques and hunting strategies of the Late Paleolithic in northwestern Europe (Gronnow, 1985; Bratlund, 1991), imply that must have been more important ll'fi in hunting than previously assumed. Spearsor lancesare more frequently directly associatedwith a wide range of animals. They have been found in direct associationwith fish, for example pike [a x] @sperodsmosse, Sweden [/ [Clark, 7948:58]; Kunda, Esthonia [Indreko, @ W 1948:49-50, 521; Abschrutery Poland [Gross, 1938:851)[fig. 3] and an unknown speciesof Fig, 2 The use of barbed points analogous to an fish (Zintery Poland [Engel, 1,935: 298-299]).Ter- ethnographic example. Left a pair of barbed points restrial animals represented are: two Mesolithic from Siretorp, Mjallby, Sweden (1-2) and right (3) bone (Klezewer Brticke, Poland IggS:299] leister prongs, mounted on wooden shaft, from the north- [Engel, and Friesack 27, ern Hudson's Bay region. (After Clark, I936:fig. 46). Getmany [Gramsclu 1990:211) and two red deer (Wehrstedt, East Germany [Hemprich, 1938:88];Kage, Denmark found approx. 30 km from the former coastline, [Andersen, 198I:98]), one elk (High Furlong, which suggestsan interpretation as a harpoon. Great Britain [Hallam et aL, 19731)[fig. 4], one These data suggest that harpoons have been wild boar (Ordrup mose, Denmark [Gramsctr, used exclusively for hunting seals, especially 1973:93; Mathiassery 1935:1351)and one dog in the last phase of the Mesolithic. This is (Allerum, Sweden [Lid6ru 1942:16-18]). Finally,

,/ e \ ,/ # ,// OO \', l \ -/ / n\ \"" o o

Fig. 3 - Skeleton of a pike with a barbed point in the region of the back from Kunda, Estonia. (After Indreko, 1948: fig. 15). The Function of Mesolithic Bone and Antler Points 117

30cm

Fig. a - Bones of the left leg of an elk from High Furlong, Lancashire, Great Britain. '1.973:fig. In black the barbed point shot into the animal. (After Hallam et al., 2). there is a direct association from the cemetery 1,987a;1987b) and Ulkestrup (Andersen et al., of Bogebakkery where a point was found in a 1982:fig. 68) [fig. 8] and the impressionsfrom body (Bogebakkery Vedbaek, Denmark bindings on points (Verhart, 1988),all prove the [Albrethsen& Petersen,7976:11]) [fig. 5]. There use of a single point. More oftery wooden fish are two examples from Denmark of an indirect spears as known from Aero (Jensery7982: 47) associationwith an elk (Skottemarke,Denmark ffig. 71, Siggeneben-Srid(Meurers-Balke, 1983) [Mohl, 1978]; Taaderup, Denrnark [Gramsch, and Bergschenhoek (Louwe Kooijm ans, 1987), 1973:931). The third type of association-the will have been used. Small fish will have weathering traces-suggests the use of points been caught mainly with traps and nets. These in fishing. On specimens from the Danish are known from Mesolithic sites in Denmark Amoset't traces of weathering have been found (MaglemosegArdVaenge []ensen, 1982:471;Ty- that could be connectedwith fishing (Andersery brind Vig [Andersen: 1985]) and the Early Neo- 1983:fig.24) [fig. 6]. The associationssuggest a lithic site at Bergschenhoek(Louwe Kooijmans, wide range of possibleuses. Fishing with spears, 7e87)[fig. e]. particularly for big fish, seems to have been Only one direct associationof an arrowhead limited almost exclusively to the Mesolithic. with a prey animal is known. This is a From the Neolithic hardly arry examples of Neolithic red deer from Trylleskovery Denmark this method of fishing are known. Hunting (Trylleskovery Denmark [Andersen, 1979: 98]). with the aid of a leister prong, derived from Using statistical analysis the occurrence of this ethnographical sources, can be substantiated type of implement could be demonstrated in only rarely in the Mesolithic. A single find from Europoort (Verhart, 1988) [fig. 1]. This concerns Siretorpin Sweden(Clark, 1936:123,pl. VI :1,2) small bone and antler points. Such points are might indicate this. The points still affixed to rare in northwestern Europe. Examples are the shaft, like those from Friesack (Gramsch, known from Svaerdborg (Petersen, 1971) and 118 L6o B.M. VsnHenr

... 't\ \'.. I r r\, \9 ttfr u!

\

) LEGENO:

@ Pebble

ff'I* Red ochrc

.:i., Oecomposed bonc

r - Bona point

looth pendonr ]f

- Fig. 5 Bagebakkeru Denmark. Grave 19, triple grave with two adults and a child. In the neck of the left individual a bone point is visible. (After Albrethsen & petersen" 1976:fig. 1S). The Function of Mesolithic Bone and Antler Points T19

\ \ i\

-@

,l' '|,l, t. J! 0, ll, lrt ,frt iill:l -'lllii; !lr i ,i;i!'l

O 5cm

Fig. 6 - Bone point with traces of weath- ering indicating the use for fishing. @glrde, Denmark. (After Anderser; 1983:fig. 31).

Friesack (Gramsch, 1990). It is hard to decide for which prey animals they were used. In the case of Europoort it has been suggested that they might have been used for fowling, as well as for fishing. Especially for fowling, the fixation potential of barbed points is of major importance.

4. Hunting strategy The available data only allow some general remarks on which hunting strategy was used. Fig. 7 - Reconstruction of a wooden Big terrestrial animals were hunted with spears fishspear. (After Andersery 1981:63). 120 L6o B. M. VenI-tanr

Fig. 8 - Bone point with preserved shaft fragment from Ulkestrup Lyng, Denmark. (After Andersen et al., 1982:fig. 58). The Function of Mesolithic Bone and Antler Points r27

Fig. 9 - Early Neolithic fishtrap from Bergschenhoek,the Netherlands. and with bow and arrow (Noe-Nygaard, 1974). in the aurochs of Prejlerup suggestparticipation The harpoon seems to have been of minor im- by severalhunters (Aaris Sorensery1984). Small portance, even for the Late Paleolithic reindeer terrestrial animals and birds will usually have hunters. Although a restricted number of har- been caught with bow and arrow and snares. poons has been found in Late Paleolithic con- Big and small fish can be caught with a wide text, the detailed study of the hunting strategy range of equipment, small fish mainly with nets for Ahrensburg and Meiendorf indicates that and traps. Only for big fish we may presume mainly bow and arrow were used (Gronnow, the additional use of harpoons, fish spears and 1985; Bratlund, 1991). The French sites in the bow and arrow Paris Basiry like Pincevent,where large amounts of bone material have been discovered, lack harpoons, too. Here a large number of flint 5. Conclusion arrowheads were found. The animals may The data presented clearly demonstrate the have been caught in communal drives, but solb need for circumspection when attempting a operations may have been possible as well. functional classification of bone and antler Very suggestive in this respect are the finds of points. The range of use is extremely wide. wounded aurochs in Danish bogs and Germany Furthermore, it is clear that many other types Vig, Denmark (Noe-Nygaard, 1973); Prejlerup, of implement, often made of very perishable Denmark (Aaris-Sorensery 1954); Schlaatz, Ger- material, like for example and wood, have many (Gramsch, 1987c).The many arrowheads been used as well for activities always supposed 122 L6o B.M. VsnHanr

to have been particular to points of bone and Gnavrscs 8., 1987b. Zwei mesolithische antler. Knochenspitzen-Depots von Friesack, Kr. Nauen. Ethnografisch-Archaologische Z eits chr ift, 28: 222-231,. References GnevtscH B., 1987c. Betrachtungen zum Ur- Anrs-SgRENSEN K., 1984. Om en uroksetyr Fund am Schlaatz ber, Potsdam. VerWnt- fra Prejlerup - og dens sammenstsd med Iichungendes Museums Ur- und Frilhge- Maglemosekulturen. Fra National Museets filr schichteP otsdam, 21: 69-74. Arbejdsmark:165-173. Gnavtscu 8., 1990. Die AreRErusEN S.E. & PSTERSENE. Brinch.,1976. frtihmesolithischen Knochenspitzen von Friesack, Excavation of a Mesolithic Cemetery at Kr. Nauery VerWntlichen des Museums Vedbak, Denmark. Acta Archaeologica,47: fiir IIr- und -26. 1-28. Frilhgeschichte P otsdam, 24: 7 ANoERSEN K., 1983.Stenalder bebyggelsen i den GnzNNow 8., 1985. Meiendorf and Stellmoor Vestsj aellandske Am o sen. Copenhigen. revisited. An Analysis of Late Palaeolithic Reindeer Exploitation. Acta Archaeologica, ArrrpERsENK., JoncnNsEN S. & RrcHrER J., 55:131,-166. 1982. Maglemose hytterne ved Ulkestrup Ly.g. NordiskeFortidsminder, Ser. 8, 7. Gnoss H., 1938. Die altesten Steinzeitfunde ANoensEN S.H., 1981.Danmarks historien, sten- Altpreussens (Stand vom 1.4.1998). Att- alderen.Copenhagen. PreussenIII, 3: 83-85. ANoSRSEN S.H., 1985. Tybrind Vig. A prelim- Hanevr J.S., EnwaRps B.I.N., BeRNss B. inary Report on a Submerged Ertebolle & SrueRT A.I., 1973. The Remains of a Settlementon the West Coast of Fyn. lournal Late Glacial Elk Associated with Barbed of DnnishArchaeology, 4:52-69. Points from High Furlong, Near Blackpoof Lancashire. BRapruruo 8.,1991. A study of hunting le- Proceedingstf the Prehistoric sions containing flint fragments on reindeer Society,3g:100-128. bones at Stellmooq, North Germany. ln: HnvpRrcH A., 1938.Neue Funde aus dem Sam- N. Bartoru A. Y. Roberts & D. A. Roe (eds), melgebiet des Halberstadter Heimatmu- The Late Glacinlin north-westEurope: human seums.N achrichtenblattfilr DeutscheVorzeit, adaptationand enaironmentalchange at theend XIV: 87-89. of the .Oxford: 193107. INoRsro R., 1948. Die mittlere Steinzeitin Est- CEoERScHIOLDL., 1959. Om tvA salharpuner Iand, Kungl. Vitterhets historie och antik- fran Halsinglands stenalder.F ornarinnen, 54: vitets akademiens handlinga4 66. Uppsala. 36-40. JENSTN 1982. The of Denmark. Cranr I.G.D., 7936.The Mesolithic Settlement of 1., London. N orthern Europe.Cambridge. - Cram I. G. D., 1948.The development of fishing LrpEN O ., 1942. D eflint aeg g ade b ensp et s ar nas nor diska Kulturfas, Skrifter in . Antiquarinn lournal, utgivna av Kungl. 28: 45-85. Humaniska Vetenskapssamfundeti Lund, XXXIII. Cranr I.G.D., 1975. The Earlier Settlementof Scandinaaia. Cambridge. LpppAerro 1., 1936. Narpion ja Oulujoen ENcnr C., 1935. Vorgeschichteder Altpreussische kivikauden hyljeloydot. SuomenMuseo, 43: Stamme,I. Koningsberg. 7-9. GnavscH B., 1973. Das Mesolithikum im Flach- LEnor-GoURHAN A. & BRpzrnoN M., 1966. Iand zutischenElbe und Oder.Berlin. L habitation magdal6nienne no 1 de pin- cevent prds de Montereau (Seine-et-Marne). GnavtscH 8., 1987a. Ausgrabungen auf dem GalliaPrdhistoire, mesolithischen Moorfun dplatzbei Friesack, 9: 263-385. Bezirk Potsdam. Verffintlichungen desMu- LOtrtNssRGE., 1908.Om nAgra fynd i Litorina- seums Ur- und Frilhgeschichte p fiir otsdam, 2I: lera i Norrkoprng 1907. Arkia. f. Zoologi., 75-100. a Q\:1,-27. The Function of Mesolithic Bone and Antler Points 123

LouwE KoouvraNs L. P.,1987.Neolithic Settle- Caused by Human Weapons. lournal tf ment and Subsistencein the Wetlands of the Archaeological Science,'1,:217 -248. Rhine/Meuse Delta of the Netherlands. ln: PErsRssN E. Brinch., 197L. Svaerdborg II. A J.M. Coles & A. J. Lawson (eds.),European Maglemose from Svaerdborgbog, Wetlandsin Prehistory.Oxford: 227-257. Zeal- and, Denmark . Acta Archaeologica,62: 43-77 . MerHressEN M. J., 1935. Om Mullerup Mose og Mullerup-Kulturen Fra Holbaek Amt Rau C., 1884.Prehistoric Fishing. Historiske Arboger. TI-lotvlpsoN M. W.,1954. Harpoons. Pro- Mrunsns-BALKE 1., 1983.Siggeneben-Sr.id. Ein ceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety, 2: 193-211. Fundplatz der fnihen Trichterbecherkultur VeRHaRr L. B. M., 1988. Mesolithic barbed an der holsteinische Ostseektiste. OffaBii- points and other implements from Euro- cher,50. poort, the Netherlands. OudheidkundigeMe- }}dgrtr U., 1978. Elsdyrskeletterne fra Skotte- dedelingenuit het Rijksmuseumuan Oudheden marke og Favrbo. Skikog brug ved bore- te Leiden,58: 1.45-194. altidens jagter. Arboger:5-32. VERrrnRT L. B. M., 1990. Stone Age Bone and Nos-NycAARD N., 1973. The Vig bull. New Antler Points as Indicators for "social information on the final hunt. Bulletin of the Territories" in the European Mesolithic. GeologicalSociety of Denmark,22:244-248. ln: P.M. Vermeersch & P. Van Peer (eds), Non-NvGAARD N., 1974. Mesolithic Hunting Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. in Denmark Illustrated by Bone Injuries Leuven: 1,39-1,51.

Author's address: L. B. M. VsnuaRr National Museum of Antiquities Post Box III4 NL-2301 EC Leiden (Netherlands)