Accepted: 26 October 2017

DOI: 10.1002/evan.21560

ARTICLE

The origins and early elaboration of projectile technology

Corey A. O’Driscoll1 | Jessica C. Thompson2

1
School of Earth and Environmental Science,
University of Wollongong, Wollongong,
NSW, Australia
2
Department of Anthropology, Emory
University, Atlanta, GA
Correspondence
School of Earth and Environmental Science,
University of Wollongong, Northfields
Avenue, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.
Email: corey.odriscoll@outlook.com
Abstract
The ability of Homo sapiens to kill prey at a distance is arguably one of the catalysts for our current
ecological dominance. Many researchers have suggested its origins lie in the African Middle Stone
Age or the European Middle Palaeolithic (
300-30 thousand years ago), but the perishable compo-
nents of armatures rarely preserve. Most research on this subject therefore emphasises analysis of
armature tip size, shape, and diagnostic impacts or residues. Other lines of evidence have included
human skeletal anatomy or analyses of the species composition of faunal assemblages. Projectile
Impact Marks (PIMs) on archaeofaunal remains offer an ideal complement to this work, but their
potential has been restricted mainly to the later Eurasian zooarchaeological record. A review of
current evidence and approaches shows that systematic PIM research could add much to our
understanding of early projectile technology, especially in Africa.

KEYWORDS
zooarcheology, hunting lesions, technological adaptations, Pinnacle Point, taphonomy, projectile
impact marks, killing from a distance

1 | INTRODUCTION
When hunting large-bodied prey, one of the most significant advan-
tages H. sapiens has over other predators is the use of projectile tech-
nology. The ability to inflict injury and death from a distance mitigates
much of the risk that comes with close confrontations and increases
the range of opportunities for taking prey.1–3 Despite the importance
of projectile technology in human hunting strategies, and the possibility
that its elaboration may have been a key adaptation specific to our spe-
cies there is no consensus as to when or where it first emerged. Initial
research emphasized the direct analysis of armature size, shape, and
diagnostic impacts or residues on lithic artifacts. The addition of projec-
tile impact marks (PIMs) and ancient skeletal morphology to an ever-
expanding empirical record enable new insights into the use of projec-
tile technology — especially from Africa.
Understanding how early H. sapiens acquired their food through
coordinated foraging activities, such as hunting, enables insights into
the development of social, organizational, and planning skills, as well as
the ability of ancient hunters to share the knowledge and technologies
required to obtain resources.4 Compared to their hand-held counter-
parts (thrusting and short-range spears), projectiles like the long-range
hafted javelin, spear thrower, and bow broadened subsistence opportu-
nities by relaxing physical and economic constraints on prey choice.
They increase both the safety of the hunter and the distance from
which hunters can target their prey.5–7 However, investment in the
technology itself can also be prohibitively expensive and it is not a solu-
tion for every foraging situation.8,9
Understanding patterns in the conditions of the emergence of pro-
jectile technology gives insights to greater cultural, evolutionary, and
behavioral cognitive flexibility.10,11 One obstacle to this understanding
has been its inherent diversity, as it potentially encompasses solutions
that range from relatively simple modification of single materials to
complex, multicomponent systems. Elaboration in projectile weaponry
also gives insight into other elements of the technological system,
because within each projectile system there is an operational sequence
that can be used for the creation of other tools.10 For example, the
innovation of hafting allows the creation of composite tools like a
stone-tipped spear, a knife, an axe, and a hammer. Once the concept of
hafting is understood, it opens the range of potential technological
adaptations and combinations that past people may have used.
Terminology has also proven problematic. Some researchers have
used “projectile” and “projectile points” to refer to weapons launched
by hand or device; others have preferred to use the term only for those
weapons launched through a device like a spear thrower or bow.1,4 Still
others have broken them down into ‘simple’ (spears) and ‘complex’
(bow and spear thrower) or ‘hand delivered’ (thrusting and throwing

30 | V
C 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/evan Evolutionary Anthropology. 2018;27:30–45.
O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON
spears) and mechanically-projected (bow and spear thrower).9,12 Here
we define projectile weapons as those that are thrown or projected
over long ranges (>5m), as are the throwing spear (javelin), spear
thrower (darts), and arrows. It can become difficult to clearly differenti-
ate thrusting and throwing spears, as even ethnographically-known
spears were often used as multi-purpose and multi-range hunting
tools.3 However, it is clear that longer-range tools demand greater
degrees of elaboration in terms of the number of components involved
12
and the amount of work that must be invested in their manufacture.
Therefore, their deployment can provide much valuable information
about the cognitive, technological, and subsistence constraints that
were present in a past population.
The use of one projectile system over another can offer various
adaptive advantages.13 Preferences for different forms, functions, and
styles over time may be influenced by environmental pressures such as
landscape, vegetation, prey availability, types of prey (large or small,
terrestrial or marine), availability of raw materials, and foraging dis-
tance. Cultural pressures such as intercultural variations and innovation,
diffusion or replacement of people and ideas, or choice of prey may
influence the final product. Thus, projectile forms can offer much infor-
mation about the nature of the decisions a foraging group must make
on a day-to-day basis. For example, if people are quite mobile and
move across the landscape regularly, it can be cumbersome to carry
large, heavy spears, so lightweight spears or darts may be preferred.14
Sisk and Shea6 theorize that the use of projectiles should corre-
spond to a change in foraging strategies and prey choice. In Europe,
this shift occurred around 40 ka; although foraging strategies may have
been an important part of this shift, it likely was also related to the
wide-scale replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans.9 With no
similarly identified population replacements in Africa, the appearance
of projectile technologies was arguably more gradual and variable, and
15
thus difficult to pinpoint in space and time. Shea also notes that
Levantine modern humans in the early Late Pleistocene, such as those
at Skhul/Qafzeh, lack associated evidence of complex projectile use.
Similarly, tanged Aterian points dating to the early Late Pleistocene of
northern Africa show clear evidence of hafting, but no clear evidence
for use as projectiles.16 This could indicate how important projectile
technology was in determining the foraging decisions (or even foraging
success) of earlier and later modern human populations, or populations
17
living in different parts of the African continent.
A more controversial perspective is that the development of pro-
jectile systems was not exclusively within the context of hunting ani-
mals. Inter-personal violence using projectile systems is attested to by
the Holocene hunter-gatherer archeological record at, for example, the
18
early Holocene site of Nataruk, Kenya ; the Early Natufian site at
Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel19; and the Nubian site of Jebel Sahaba,
Sudan.20 Because most of the evidence derives from human skeletal
remains, which are rare in the Pleistocene (rarer than faunal material)
such studies cannot be approached in the same way for deeper time
periods. Although in this paper we frame projectile systems within the
context of foraging strategies, it is important to note that research on
projectile use in interpersonal conflict is also an area of emerging
research.
| 31
Although ethnographic data are extremely useful in understanding
how projectile systems operate within the larger foraging system, we
also caution that such data likely capture only a small proportion of the
variability represented by ancient propulsion systems, and that these
systems were not static and unchanging entities. Some combinations
of haft types, shaft components, lithic elements, and throwing aids may
have been in use that have simply not yet been replicated or even
imagined-much less discovered. The murky nature of our understand-
ing of these past systems is illustrated by the fact that the ancient use
of a spear thrower anywhere in Africa has no direct archaeological evi-
dence, but has still been inferred for the African record based on point-
size data and ethnographic observations from outside of Africa.4
Five forms of evidence are currently used to identify if and when
projectile technology was employed: lithic, faunal, human skeletal mor-
phology, armature usability, and preserved armatures. Because of prob-
lems with preservation, the majority of studies that have addressed the
origins of projectile technology have been based on lithic data. Many
researchers hypothesize that the origins for projectile technologies, and
certainly their subsequent elaboration, lie somewhere in the African
Middle Stone Age (MSA) or Middle Palaeolithic (MP).11,13
2 | LITHIC TECHNIQUES FOR IDENTIFYING
PROJECTILES
As the dominant approach to identifying past projectile technologies,
lithic analysis has included quantification of morphology (tip cross-
section area or perimeter), edge damage (use-wear and diagnostic
impact fractures), and residues. Identification of hafting has also been
important, although hafted artifacts may have had multiple uses, result-
ing in damage from both cutting and impact. Hutchings21 identifies sev-
eral underlying assumptions that traditionally have been made using
lithic data. These assumptions include the conflation of anything
termed a “point” as equivalent to a projectile point, especially points
when they are relatively thin and triangular or foliate in shape. It is
argued that the size of the “point” indicates the size of armature, the
assumption being that spear/javelin points were large and heavy, spear
throwers smaller, and arrows the smallest and lightest. These base
assumptions, along with the diffusionist idea that once a more “com-
plex” technology is adopted (spear thrower to bow) it will remain in use
until a more complex technology replaces it,10 can fail to capture the
complete suite of past human cultural and behavioral adaptability.
Morphological analysis using tip cross-sectional area (TCSA) and
tip cross-sectional perimeter (TCSP) was first proposed by Hughes13
and later tested by Shea,11 who compares archeological examples to
ethnographically collected samples of known use. Following these ini-
tial studies, Shea15 tested the TCSA on possible projectile points from
several contexts in Africa, the Levant, and Europe to argue that projec-
tile weapons were most likely first developed in Africa between 50 and
100ka. Sisk and Shea7 later refined this approach by using TCSP and
TCSA analysis on several pointed artifact types from African MSA con-
texts. They found that while all MSA points were larger than ethno-
graphic arrow heads, TCSP showed that all but the points from Klasies
River Mouth (in South Africa) and some subsamples of Aterian points
32 | O’DRISCOLL
(from northern Africa), fit within the upper and lower quartile area of
dart tips. However, the TCSA analysis had only the Porc Epic (Ethio-
pian) and some subsamples of Aterian points within the upper and
lower quartile areas for dart tips. Although this analysis showed that at
least some classes of MSA points would have worked as effective pro-
jectiles, the approach relies on the assumption that it is possible to
determine if a lithic artifact or typological group, as a whole, could have
been a projectile. Presumably because of the advantages conferred by
killing from a distance, the further assumption is that if it could have
been used as a projectile then it likely would have been. However,
recent work on ethnographically known projectiles used in spear
throwers has challenged the utility of the TCSA approach in identifying
archeological projectiles, and suggests that it must be paired with other
lines of evidence to determine the origins and elaboration of long-
range weaponry.21–23
Edge-damage analysis assesses fracturing along the edge of a tool
to determine if it was random (taphonomic) or non-random (from spe-
cific actions). The edge damage distribution model derived from experi-
mental data and analyzes archeological data in a GIS environment to
predict the dominant cause of edge damage across an entire lithic
assemblage.24–28 If the damage is random then it is likely taphonomic,
if it is concentrated along the sides then it is inferred to have been pro-
duced through repetitive actions such as cutting, and if damage is con-
centrated at the tips then the inference is that it is from use as a
projectile.
Diagnostic impact fractures (DIFs) have also been used as evidence
for projectile technology, as they are traces left from high velocity
impacts on the points.21,29–32 However, these traces, once thought to
be specific to projectile use, have recently been questioned by a num-
ber of authors who suggest that they can be the result of the manufac-
21,33
turing process and not just projectile impacts. The Middle
Paleolithic site of Oscurusciuto (southern Italy) had six DIFs present on
Middle Palaeolithic points, which the authors presented along with
TSCA/TSCP values to show that Neanderthals at the site had the abil-
34
ity to use stone-tipped spears to hunt and kill large animals. Although
this evidence confirmed that Neanderthals had the ability to create
both wooden and stone-tipped spears to hunt and kill large animals,
the range of those weapons was not clear.
Finally, the analysis of micro-residues aids in understanding the
function and use of stone tools. When a stone tool encounters blood,
bone, ochre, hafting materials, hairs, and other such substances, micro-
residues remain behind. However, it is only in well-preserved and well-
excavated assemblages that these residues survive. 35
Although it can
be useful in conjunction with other lines of evidence, the analysis of
residues alone it cannot determine identify if a point was used as a pro-
jectile because the same residues may be present from a number of
activities.
3 | FAUNAL TECHNIQUES FOR
IDENTIFYING PROJECTILES
Faunal approaches to the identification of projectile technology have
received less emphasis than have lithic artifacts, partially because there
AND THOMPSON
are fewer sites with preserved faunal remains than with stone tools,
and partially because of a lack of research emphasis. Using faunal
assemblage composition and taphonomic signatures, faunal analyses
have mainly focused on the ability of early humans and their close rela-
tives to hunt large game, rather than explicitly exploring the mode of
that hunting.36–40 In Europe, that debate centered on if Neanderthals
acquired prey through hunting or scavenging, with some authors argu-
ing that they alternated these strategies over time.41 In Africa, early
debates centered on whether early anatomically modern humans were
obligate scavengers, “less-effective” hunters, or formidable hunters (for
an overview, see Marean and Assefa37). Much of the latter debate
played out in the context of the South African MSA.
There has since been agreement that both Neanderthals and mod-
ern humans had the ability to hunt large animals.37 However, there is
no consensus about how each hominin hunted42 or how to best inter-
pret variability in faunal exploitation strategies.43–45 Early modern
human sites such as Sibudu Cave and Klipdrift Shelter in South Africa
show an abundance of smaller ungulates that may have been acquired
through traps or snares,46–48 while others show either a preponderance
of large ungulates49 or a shift over time in accumulation patterns of
small and large fauna.50–52 The demand to explain this variation has
steered zooarcheological work toward understanding the processes
underlying the adoption of new technological solutions, one of which is
the use of projectile technology.
There has been an intensification in research over recent years
into projectile impact marks (PIMs) on bones, both experimentally and
archaeologically.53–55 A PIM is the resulting trauma or mark from a pro-
jectile 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.3,53–58 Much of this work was initiated in Europe, where
Neo-Nygaard59,60 pioneered the systematic identification of PIMs.
They have since been recognized in different time scales and cultural
periods across the world, including the Mesolithic,59,61 Upper Palaeo-
lithic,62 Magdalenian,63,64 Hamburgian,63 and Aurignacian.63 Although
hunting lesions have been described from the Middle Pleistocene,65,66
it is unclear if a thrusting or throwing spear was responsible. PIMs also
have been identified in Early Natufian contexts of the Levant,67 as
have a small number of cases from the South African LSA68 and
MSA.40
PIMs have been used to investigate the effectiveness of hunting
practices and seasonal foraging practices, mobility of large groups, vari-
ation of foraging strategies, identification of hunted prey, and the tech-
nology used to hunt prey.40,58,59,61,63,67 The evidence presented to
investigate these foraging behaviors has included the size and shape of
mark, healed and unhealed marks, the number and location of PIMs,
and what animals have such evidence.40,53,61,63,67. Recent work has
focused on classifying the characteristics of PIMs and how different
lithic raw materials, lithic technologies, and projectile modes affect the
marks (Tables 1 and 2). There is far less attention given to the potential
for PIMs to contribute to investigations of the origins and development
of projectile technology.
O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON | 33

T AB LE 1 List of definitive characteristics of PIMs

Defining Characteristics References

Embedded stone point fragments (ranging Castel 200856; Churchill et al. 200957; Duches et al. 201658;
between 16%-50% of experimental marks) Morel 2000113; O’Driscoll and Thompson 201454;
Smith, Brickley, and Leach, 20073

Flaking of lateral margins (
30% of O’Driscoll and Thompson 201454

experimental marks)

Cracking originating from the PIM Castel 200856; Duches et al. 201658; Morel 2008113;
(
30% of experimental marks) O’Driscoll and Thompson 201454;
Parsons and Badenhorst 2004114

Large-scale feathering of lateral margins Duches et al. 201658; O’Driscoll and Thompson 201454
(
30% of experimental marks)

Puncture wounds Churchill et al. 200957; O’Driscoll and Thompson 201454;

Parsons and Badenhorst 2004114

Puncture wounds exhibiting internal beveling Churchill et al. 200957; Smith et al. 20073
(like that seen in gunshot wounds)

Double drag; i.e., a drag mark that generally has O’Driscoll and Thompson 201454
either two marks running in a line or two drag
marks originating from a single origin

4 | SKELETAL TECHNIQUES FOR
IDENTIFYING PROJECTILES
The rarity of fossil human skeletons has relegated this line of evidence
to a minor role in projectile research, although there is growing evi-
dence of its potential. The habitual act of thrusting or throwing imparts
different loads on the arm and shoulder, and will result in different
modeling responses to the bones. The resistance met when using a
thrusting spear is argued to cause morphological changes to muscle
insertion sites, with greater force applied to the arms for a thrusting
motion than the force applied to the shoulder when throwing. Rhodes
and Churchill2 found that both Neanderthals and Early Upper Palaeo-
lithic (40-50 ka) humans engaged in low levels of throwing and thus
relied heavily on thrusting spears. Evidence from the humeri of males
in the Late Upper Paleolithic (10-17 ka) lends itself to hunting with
long-range projectiles, roughly at the same time that the spear-thrower
appears in the archeological record. This raises the possibility that pro-
jectile technology only came into regular use quite late in the Pleisto-
cene or there was independent invention in several different times and
places. However, there are insufficient MSA skeletal remains to test
this hypothesis using skeletal data from Africa.
Another form of skeletal data are lesions, or indeed PIMs, on human
bones. The Shanidar 3 Neanderthal skeleton exhibited a probable stab
wound in the ribs (Figure 1).69 Churchill et al.57 conducted experiments
aimed at determining whether the wound was a result of a low- or high-
kinetic-energy weapon, which offers a useful quantitative framework for
assessing PIMS. Projectile weapon systems vary in velocity, kinetic
energy, and momentum. Kinetic energy has the greatest impact on
wound severity.57 High-kinetic-energy weapons are thrusting spears
because their mass imparts a large force. Low-kinetic-energy weapons

T AB LE 2 List of researchers and the subjects of their research

Article Armature Points used

113
Morel, 2000 Bow and calibrated crossbow Mixed points used
115
Stodiek, 2000 Calibrated crossbow Osseous and lithic
114
Parsons and Badenhorst, 2004 Thrusting and throwing spears Lithic
3
Smith, Brickley, and Leach, 2007 Yew bow and Charpy impact Flint arrow heads
testing machine

Castel, 200856 Bow and calibrated crossbow Mixed points used

tillon, 2008
Letourneux and Pe 53
Bow and spear thrower Osseous points (antler and ivory)

Churchill et al., 200957 Calibrated crossbow Mousterian and Levallois

Petillon et al., 2011116 Spear thrower Osseous and lithic

O’Driscoll and Thompson, 201454 Spear, spear thrower, bow, MSA Levallois, Howiesons
and calibrated crossbow Poort, and mixed points.

Yeshurun and Yaroshevich, 201467 Bow Flint arrow heads

58
Duches et al., 2016 Bow Flint arrow heads
34 | O’DRISCOLL
FIGURE 1 Shanidar 3 Neandertal Rib damage57
include spear throwers and arrows, which have a low mass but travel at
greater speeds.57 However, the study did not assess the kinetic energy
of throwing spears, leaving it unclear if the resulting marks are more akin
to low- or high-kinetic impacts. High kinetic energy wounds will result in
massive damage and usually involve multiple wounds, whereas low
kinetic energy wounds result in isolated lesions. These often occur on
trunk elements such as ribs. Churchill et al.57 argued that the injury to
Shanidar 3 is most consistent with an injury from a low-kinetic-energy
weapon traveling along a ballistic trajectory. This case presents possible
54
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.
AND THOMPSON
5 | EARLIEST EVIDENCE OF PROJECTILE
TECHNOLOGY
There is a presumption that technologies progress from less to more
complex over time, and that spears and darts should therefore precede
bow-and-arrow technology. Although, in general, this appears to be the
case, it is important to remember that these are not “steps” in a techno-
logical chain, but independent solutions that each operated within its
own environmental and cultural context.10 There is no inevitability to
one succeeding the next and no guarantee that any specific technologi-
cal system would have been retained once it was first developed. How-
ever, the advantages of killing from a distance are so significant that it
is reasonable to expect that projectile technology in some form would
O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON
FIGURE 2 € ningen 13 II-4 spear I, II, III, VI (graphics, E. Behrens; photo, C. S. Fuchs. Lower Saxony State Office for Cultural Heritage)
Scho
[Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
have been retained after its initial introduction. In some cases, the evi-
dence is equivocal for individual projectile forms (e.g. a javelin may
have similar characteristics to a dart), and so it will not always be cer-
tain which specific system was present. Thus, there is some overlap in
the categories discussed below.
5.1 | Spears
‘Simple’ projectiles rely solely on the user’s mechanical energy for pro-
pulsion, and these are the thrusting and throwing spears. Complete
armatures offer the most compelling direct evidence for the use of pro-
jectile technology. Preservation conditions in continental Europe have
yielded the earliest examples, with Middle Pleistocene spears from
€ ningen, Germany (Figure 2). These date to
300–337 ka and have
Scho
forms similar to modern hand-cast javelins.70–72 Their age and lack of
hafted elements suggests that the earliest technology that served to
distance the predator and prey were manufactured from perishable
materials, making them largely invisible in the archeological record. The
spears range from 1.85 m and 2.25 m and were associated with more
than 10,000 bones, 90% of which are horse. They appear to have been
too large to have been achieved distances comparable to a modern jav-
elin when thrown, although experiments will clearly define their ranges.
To date, there has been no identification of similar preserved material
in Africa.
These spears predate H. sapiens and thus we were not the only spe-
cies to place distance between ourselves and our prey. However, current
evidence indicates that only H. sapiens and Neanderthals modified their
weapons with stone components.10 What is not clear is if both hominins
combined long-distance weaponry with hafting.
In the absence of preserved armatures, several lithic point forms
from the Middle Paleolithic or Middle Stone Age (MP/MSA) have been
presented as suitable for tipping spears. These include forms such as
Levallois points (also used by Neanderthals), Nubian points, Still Bay
points, and Aterian points.7,11,15,29,73,74 Although these were most cer-
tainly hafted, they were not found to universally fit the aerodynamic
11,16
requirements of projectile technology. The earliest convergent
points date to
500 ka from Kathu Pan 1 (Figure 3). 26,75
These points
| 35
were likely hafted and used as short-range (thrusting or throwing)
spears as early as
500ka, but not within a more complex projectile
system.26 The convergent Levallois points of the MSA (40-280 ka) and
the MP (45-300 ka) are often inferred to have been used as thrusting
or throwing spears. However, this is only one of many other potential
uses, with butchery a strong potential candidate.6,11 Elaborately flaked
stone points such as Still Bay bifaces were present by at least ca. 70 ka
at sites such as Blombos Cave and Sibudu on, respectively, the south-
ern and eastern coasts of South Africa. These show a significant invest-
ment in composite tool technology. Although they range in size, they
are generally outside the TCSA range for ethnographically known dart
tips - rather fitting into the range for spear tips.11 Similarly, although
Aterian points were certainly hafted, they do not fit the lithic criteria
for projectile points.17
When expanding analysis from form and hafting to include DIFs,
projectile technology does appear to have been a relatively early inno-
vation in some parts of Africa, occurring by at least 279 ka from stone
points that were likely javelin tips found in the Gademotta Formation
of the Ethiopian Rift.76 There is further evidence of hafting of projec-
tiles at Sai Island, Sudan, at around 180-220 ka.77 However, the spread
of these systems and their evolution into more complex composite
technologies is essentially unknown.
Faunal evidence from Eurasia and Africa indicate that both ana-
tomically modern humans and Neanderthals had the ability to acquire
meat from large mammals, but the mode of acquisition is largely open
to debate. The earliest direct faunal evidence for hunting with projec-
tile technology comes from PIMs identified at two sites in South Africa
(Klasies River Mouth and Pinnacle Point 13B). The earliest such evi-
dence from outside of Africa comes from the Near East (Umm el Tlel).
Again, all cases appear to have involved the use of long-distance spears
rather than more complex composite technologies such as the spear-
thrower or bow and arrow.
Notably, the Near Eastern example is a fragment of a stone point
in the vertebrae of a wild ass (Equus africanus) recovered from late
Neanderthal Middle Palaeolithic levels at Umm el Tlel in Syria (
50
ka).36 The mark exhibits cracking, a large displacement of bone, and is
embedded quite deep in the vertebra, thus fitting the criteria well as a
36 | O’DRISCOLL
FIGURE 3 Sample of Kathu Pan 1 retouched points26 [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
PIM rather than a butchery mark (Figure 4).54 Shea, Davis, and
Brown,73 while testing an earlier hypothesis on the durability and likeli-
78
hood of Levallois points as projectile points and multipurpose tools,
€da’s et al.’s36 conclusion that the embedded lithic frag-
confirmed Boe
ment at Umm el Tlel was from a projectile. They concluded the points
were best suited for low-speed, heavy weapons and therefore more
likely used as thrusting spears, rather than projectiles. However, while
these points may have been best suited to use on thrusting spears,
11,54,73
they are viable for use in other projectile modes. Thus, the evi-
dence of Neanderthal use of more complex hafted projectiles is equivo-
cal, and occurs quite late in time - close to when modern humans are
known to have begun expanding out of Africa.
40
In a widely cited case from South Africa, Milo identified two
marks as PIMs in his reassessment of the faunal material at Klasies
River Mouth (KRM), Cave 1. One mark contained an embedded stone
fragment in the cervical vertebrae of a Pelorovis (now Syncerus) antiquus
(giant extinct buffalo) (Figure 5). Milo argued that this embedded stone
was from a projectile point, a claim disputed by Marean and Assefa on
AND THOMPSON
the basis that its location immediately under the neck is an impractical
location for dispatching a dangerous animal.37 The embedded point is
that of a quartzite piece, with the exposed portion measuring 10.59 x
4.39 mm. While Milo did not state the age of the specimen, it can be
established, using information from Klein79 and Wurz,80 that the bone
is likely to have come from the MSA layers of either 14, 17a, 17b, or 37.
All of these date between 85-101 ka (85-101 ka, 88-93 [layer 17
grouped together] and 90 ka, respectively). Current experimental evi-
dence supports Milo’s claims that the fragment embedded in the verte-
bra of the giant Cape buffalo is a projectile point. That evidence includes
the depth at which the point is embedded, the fractured section of bone
and associated flaking, the location of the mark on a cervical vertebra,
and the lack of more typical butchery cut marks within the same area on
the bone.54,57 Using experimental reference PIMs, these attributes are
also the most consistently expressed and diagnostic in specimens cre-
ated through a range of projectile modes (Figure 6).
The final example is also potentially the oldest. Three drag marks,
two with embedded stone fragments, were reported by Thompson81
O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON
36
FIGURE 4 Potential PIM from Umm El Tlel
from Pinnacle Point 13B (PP13B) (Figure 7). Like the other two exam-
ples, their identification was before the availability of a large body of
experimental PIM research, and it is likely the other PIMs types were
not identified during analysis. All three marks occurred on elements
from size 3 mammals (70-300 kg82). The marks were on a vertebral
centrum (Figure 7a), the zygopophysis of a cervical vertebra (Figure
7b), and a rib (Figure 7c). When compared to experimental sample
marks, 7a and 7b most closely resemble PIMs and 7c is a possible PIM
that lacks shoulder flaking but has been eroded and smoothed by post-
depositional processes (Figure 8). All three marks are unhealed wide
drag marks. The stones embedded in marks 7a and 7b are both quartz-
ite, although 7c lacks this diagnostic feature. All three marks come from
dated sediments, with marks 7a and 7b (both on vertebrae) from the
Shelly Brown Sand/Upper Roof Spall (SBS/URS), a stratigraphic layer
dated to 91-98 ka.83 Mark 7c, on the rib, dates to 153-174 ka, and
derives from the Lightly-Consolidated MSA deposits excavated from a
variably cemented matrix.83 The morphology of the marks, together
| 37
with what is currently known from lithic data, strongly indicates that
these marks were the result of spears rather than spear throwers or
arrows.
5.2 | Spear thrower
The spear-thrower and bow are defined as “complex” or “mechanically
delivered projectile” systems as they achieve a higher velocity by stor-
ing or enhancing energy in non-projectile components of the arma-
ture.1,12,13 Europe has the earliest direct evidence of spear throwers,
with the earliest preserved portion from Combe Saunière (Dordogne),
France, dating to 17.5 ka, in the Solutrean.84 The fragments recovered
are of only the distal extremities, as they were made of bone, antler, or
ivory and show signs of working that fits with ethnographically known

n
spear throwers.84 A more complete sample was identified at El Miro
Cave, Cantabria, Spain. This spear thrower, dated to between 15.2-
15.9 ka (Figure 9), is made of engraved antler with the hook still intact.
85
The use of both spears and spear throwers are both known ethno-
graphically in Australia. Some groups used the spear and spear thrower
interchangeably, while other chose one over the other for specific pur-
poses.86 The ethnographically known spears and darts ranged any-
where between 1.45-4.6m, depending on use. There is some overlap in
size, but the smaller spears and darts were used for fishing and hunting
birds, while the larger were used as hand-held throwing spears both for
hunting larger game and warfare.84 Australian projectile points range
from very large to microliths. The spear thrower has been argued to be
present at 15 ka through its depiction in rock art, at 8.99-10 ka through
preserved spears, and between 7-15 ka with the spread of microliths
across the continent.86,87 However, the evidence of spear throwers
dating to 42 ka at Lake Mungo is indirect, with one burial exhibiting
severe osteoarthritis in the right elbow that has been linked to exces-
sive use of a spear thrower.88–90
There is no direct evidence in Africa of the use of the spear-
thrower. Shea11 argued that TCSA values do not support the use of
tipped projectiles anywhere in the world before 50 ka. However, some
MP and MSA lithic industries in northern, southern, and eastern Africa
produced points that fall within the size ranges of ethnographically
documented dart points.6,7,9 Backed artifacts from Howiesons Poort
(HP) have been argued to be used as arrow tips, but could have been
used as spear or spear-thrower tips.35,91,92 Points from 6¼Gi, Botswana
(
77 ka) and Aduma, Ethiopia (<70 ka) fit within the size range of
spear- thrower darts.4
5.3 | Bow
The innovation of the bow, potentially an exclusively by H. sapiens,7
was a light-weight, portable, and niche-broadening adaption.10 The
bow requires an understanding of latently stored energy and the con-
struction of cords with tensile strength.10 The earliest recovered frag-
ments of the bow and arrow are from Europe, with possible fragments
from Mannheim-Vogelstang, (17.5-18 ka, Figure 10)93 and Stellmoor,
38 | O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON

FIGURE 5 Potential PIM from KRM. (Photo credit, Benjamin Marais and the Iziko Museums of South Africa.) [Color figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

both in Germany (11 ka).64,94 Holmegaard, Denmark, has several bows
84,95
dating to 8 ka.
The arrows at Stellmoor are of pine, approximately 15-20 cm in
length and tipped with flint.64,94,96 The Holmegaard bows are of elm,
84,95
1.5 m in length with a biconvex central section. No such armatures
have been found in African archeological contexts, although the tech-
nology is used by hunter-gatherers in both eastern and southern
Africa.4 The bows of the southern African San Bushmen varied in size
and utility relative to those of the Hadza, with the San use of poison-
tipped arrows enabling the hunting of medium to large animals without
the need for the large, powerful bows of the Hadza.97
Microlith technology, such as backed pieces, facilitated the incep-
tion of multicomponent complex projectiles for use as arrow tips or for
spear-thrower darts.12,35,58,91,92,98 The earliest inferred lithic evidence
of arrows and/or spear-throwers is significantly older than the earliest
direct evidence in the form of recovered armatures. This evidence
comes from South Africa, notably the backed microliths known from
the HP industry. The backed pieces of the HP levels at Sibudu Cave
(ca. 64 ka) retain residues of bones, meat, and resin, and are similar in
size to ethnographically known arrowheads from the region.92 HP
backed artifacts have been experimentally tested, proving that they
make effective projectile points.33,35,91,98 There is evidence of DIFs
present at Sibudu Cave, KRM Cave 2, and Umhlatuzana Rockshelter as
early as 50-64 ka.99,100 Although microlithic technologies in the MSA
are typically associated with Howiesons Poort and later MSA industries
in eastern Africa and the horn,101 such technology in South Africa also
appears slightly earlier at Pinnacle Point Cave 5-6. At this site,
backed microliths date to ca. 71 ka and fall within the size range of
inferred Holocene arrow tips.102 There are very few surviving
organic signs of the bow and arrow before the Holocene in Africa.

FIGURE 6 Experimental matches to Milo’s sample [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON | 39

FIGURE 7 Potential PIMs from PP13B.81 – a) Vertebral centrum, specimen 89509’ b) Cervical vertebra, specimen 62965; c) Rib fragment,
specimen 81976 [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 8 Experimental matches to the PP13B samples [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
40 | O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON

who state that the lack of armature damage may be a consequence of

broken points being discarded in the landscape.
At PP13B, lithic data show that the stratigraphic units that yielded
putative PIMs 7a and 7b had 75 convergent flakes- and that two exhib-
ited DIFs demonstrating their use as some form of projectile between
ca. 91-98 ka.24,107 The stratigraphic unit that contained mark 7c had
48 convergent flakes, but none exhibited DIFs.24 Because mark 7c was
the least definitive of the three potential PIMs from PP13B evaluated
here, the evidence of projectile use as early as 153-174 ka remains
equivocal.
The faunal assemblage, while very fragmented, is dominated by
large mammals, followed by tortoises and small mammals (Table 3).49,81
Because of this fragmentation, there is very limited genus- and species-
level classification. The dominant accumulator is humans, with little
input from carnivores or raptors. Percussion marks are the most preva-
lent anthropogenic mark, while cut marks are less common.49,81,111 The
faunal data indicate a similar pattern to the lithic data, with the final
stage of butchery (marrow extraction) occurring on site and not primary
disarticulation. Taphonomic data are highly relevant to the issue of
FIGURE 9 Spear thrower found at El Miro
n Cave, Cantabria,
85 PIMs, as they provide context for the other kinds of marks that are
Spain [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
present within the faunal assemblage. Subsistence strategies at the site
included the collection of shellfish, capture of small mammals, and hunt-
However, bone point fragments that are similar to ethnographic ing of larger mammals, showing that people at the site used flexible for-
arrows are present at Border Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, aging strategies in the face of changing environmental conditions.49,109
around
43 ka 103
and at White Paintings Rock Shelter, Botswana, The three PIMs from PP13B tie together the lithic and faunal data
by
37 ka.104 to present evidence of the predation of large mammals using projectile
technology. While there are only three PIMs, it must be remembered
6 | A CASE STUDY IN THE INTEGRATION that the assemblage was not systemically assessed for PIMs and that
OF LITHIC AND FAUNAL DATA these three were noted as they were markedly different from other
taphonomic marks.81
The MSA site of PP13B (90-164 ka) on the southern coast of South
Africa offers the opportunity to assess the presence and use of projec-
tiles within the framework of many of the lines of evidence described
above. The site and its faunal and lithic collections, have been exten-
sively documented, although no residue studies have yet been
done.49,83,102,105–109 PP13B also contains the earliest evidence of sys-
tematic shellfish exploitation, as well as bladelet production at 164612
ka.83,102,107
The lithic assemblage is typical of coastal pre-Still Bay (pre-70 ka)
with quartzite the dominant raw material (78.6%), containing points
and blades, and very little retouch (
1.4%) (Table 3).107,110 Points com-
prise 8% of the lithic assemblage.107 The marine isotope stage (MIS) 5
assemblage (80-130 ka) contains 203 complete points, with 35% exhib-
iting evidence of edge damage.107,108,110 Of these 71 points, armature
damage was attributed to 15%.110 The MIS 6 assemblage (130-195 ka)
had 89 complete points with 18% of having evidence of edge dam-
age.24,108,110 Of these, armature damage was present on 16%.24,108,110
These low numbers of retouch and edge damage may be a result of the
people at PP13B using a relatively expedient strategy of technological
organization in where flakes were produced for immediate use and not
maintained or transported.107,110 This could mean that many of the FIGURE 10 Bow found at Mannheim-Vogelstang, Germany.93
activity signatures on lithics occurred offsite and only the final stages (Photo credit, V
C Reiss-Engelhorn-Museen, W. Rosendahl) [Color fig-

of butchery occurring onsite. This is reiterated by Schoville et al.,110 ure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON | 41

Based on point-size data, artifacts that may have been arrows are

PIMs
not obviously represented in the PP13B assemblage. Most convergent

3
points have been interpreted as either cutting tools or -very rarely-
Marksc
Tooth
spear tips.24,25,110 It should be noted, however, that there is consider-
152

201

140

558
57
able size variation within the “complete points” category at PP13B, with

2
some points having a maximum length as small as 10 mm and ranging
Percussion

up to 96 mm.107 This, combined with the early presence of bladelets at

Marksc

1852
310

892

130

470
the site, suggests that different hunting systems may have been in use
37

13
over time and potentially even by different groups as they alternately
Cut Marksc

occupied the cave. It also shows that even at the same site convergent
points should not, perhaps, all be treated as part of the same category
130

273
41

21

73 within the apparently monotonous rubric of unretouched MSA techno-

8

logical systems.80 The same can be argued for retouched tools having
Tortoiseb

similar shapes but that likely had multiple uses (for example Aterian
2443
536

701

292

825

points).7 At PP13B the PIM evidence suggests the presence of projec-

65

24

tiles — most likely spear tips — in use where lithic data do not obviously
Mammalb

point to this result, and this raises the possibility of a similar result at
Small

other sites where PIM research has not yet been carried out.
101

250
54

49

41
3

2
Fauna49,81

Mammalb

7 | CONCLUSION
11089
Large

2449

4423

1283

2537

Lithic artifact counts are for complete and incomplete pieces. “Flakes” are all complete; broken flakes not coded as Levallois.
277

120

Recent compilations of work on the origins of projectile technology

show that research focused on understanding past projectile sys-
Retouched

tems has, and will, continue to be an area of intense interest.112 This

107

will be best advanced through an integrated approach that does not

43

34

14

12
0

prioritize the projectiles themselves. Data from sites such as PP13B

Blades

show the complexity of the activities that occurred in the past, and
106

185

121

453
20

20

Raw counts of all mammal body size class 1-5 fragments bearing at least one of this type of mark.

how lithic and faunal data may offer different windows into the
1

same activities. While there are low numbers for DIFs and armature
Points

138

116

100

406

damage on points at the site, the faunal evidence augments this rare
20

31
1

evidence to demonstrate that projectiles were most likely in use in

Levallois

southern Africa as early as 91-98 ka and possibly even by 153-174

Flakes

ka. As the emergence and development of projectile technology may

19

15

14

60
0

have taken different pathways across Africa, the integration of fau-

Raw counts are NISP for identifiable fragments for all body size classes.
Flakes

nal and lithic data provides the most plausible avenue for identifying
2730
514

887

120

225

961
23

this variation.
Overview of PP13b lithic and faunal assemblages

The origins and subsequent elaboration of projectile technology

Dominant Raw

quartzite (80.8)

quartzite (84.9)

quartzite (88.1)

quartzite (77.9)

quartzite (85.1)

quartzite (78.8)
24,107

Material (%)

are based deep in the human past and presents a complicated web of
evidence that is often compromised by taphonomic factors. To under-
Lithicsa

stand how and when projectile technology was employed by humans,

there is a need for a multidisciplinary approach. The ability of our
Range (ka)

ancestors to hunt is an area that has been dominated by certain lithic

106-114

120-130

164-159

153-174
94-134

forms that may have performed as projectile points, whereas faunal

91-94
Age

approaches have largely focused on using assemblage composition.

Faunal data can now be exploited in new ways to address this problem,
Overall
PP13B aggregate levels109

and the first step is simply to begin systematically looking for such
MIS

5d

5e
5c

5c

traces in the zooarchaeological record.

Lower Rood Spall

LC-MSA Middle/

LC-MSA Lower

ACKNOWLE DGME NTS

SBS/URS

The authors thank John Shea and Michael Chazan, as well as John Flea-
Upper
T AB LE 3

UDBS

LDBS
Layer

gle, for their insightful comments and critique of the original manu-
script. We also thank Ben Schoville, Kyle Brown, Chris Clarkson, Aaron
b
a

c
42 | O’DRISCOLL
Kelly, and Jared Brindley for providing some of the faunal remains for
the initial examination. Thanks must go to Curtis Marean for earlier
input on the manuscript as well as to Janette Deacon and Lawrence G.
Straus for advice on other site locations. We also thank a number of
people for providing permission to republish their figures as well as
sending through original copies. This includes Steve Churchill, Jayne
€da, Manuel R. Gonzalez Morales, and Lawrence G.
Wilkins, Eric Boe
Straus. Several museums also provided figures so thanks is owed to
Wendy Black, Benjamin Marais and Wilhemina Seconna at the Iziko
Museum, Gaelle Rosendahl and Luisa Reiblich at Reiss-Engelhorn-
Musseen, and finally Thomas Terberger and Elke Behrens at Lower
Saxony State Office for Cultural Heritage.
R E FER E NCE S
[1] Knecht H. 1997. The history and development of projectile
technology research. In Knecht H, editor. Projectile technology.
New York: Plenum Press. p 3–36.
[2] Rhodes JA, Churchill SE. 2009. Throwing in the Middle and Upper
Paleolithic: inferences from an analysis of humeral retroversion.
J Hum Evol 56:1–10.
[3] Smith MJ, Brickley MB, Leach SL. 2007. Experimental evidence for
lithic projectile injuries: improving identification of an under-
recognised phenomenon. J Archaeol Sci 34: 540–553.
[4] Brooks AS, Nevell L, Yellen JE, et al. 2006. Projectile technologies
of the African MSA: implications for the modern human origins. In
Hovers E, Kuhn SL, editors. Transition before the transition: evolu-
tion and stability in the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age.
New York: Springer. p 233–255.
[5] Schmitt D, Churchill SE, Hylander WL. 2003. Experimental evi-
dence concerning spear use in Neandertals and early modern
humans. J Archaeol Sci 30:103–114.
[6] Sisk ML, Shea J. 2009. Experimental use and quantitative perform-
ance analysis of triangular flakes (Levallois points) used as arrow-
heads. J Archaeol Sci 36:2039–2047.
[7] Sisk ML, Shea J. 2011. The African origin of complex projectile
technology: an analysis using tip cross-sectional area and perime-
ter. Int J Evol Biol 2011:1–8.
[8] Bright J, Ugan A, Hunsaker L. 2002. The effect of handling time on
subsistence technology. World Archaeol 34:164–181.
[9] Shea J, Sisk ML. 2010. Complex projectile technology and
Homo sapiens dispersal into western Eurasia. PaleoAnthropology:
100–122.
[10] Lombard M. 2016. Mountaineering or ratcheting? Stone Age hunt-
ing weapons as proxy for the evolution of human technological,
behavioral and cognitive flexibility. In Haidle MN, Conard NJ,
Bolus M, editors. The nature of culture: based on an interdiscipli-
nary symposium “The Nature of Culture,” Tu €bingen, Germany.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. p 135–146.
[11] Shea JJ. 2006. The origins of lithic projectile point technology: evidence
from Africa, the Levant, and Europe. J Archaeol Sci 33:823–846.
[12] Lombard M, Haidle MN. 2012. Thinking a bow-and-arrow set: cog-
nitive implications of Middle Stone Age bow and stone-tipped
arrow technology. Cambridge Archaeol J 22:237–264.
[13] Hughes S. 1998. Getting to the point: evolutionary change in
Pprehistoric weaponry. J Archaeol Method Theor 5:345–408.
[14] Whittaker JC. 2016. Levers, not springs: how a spearthrower
works and why it matters. In Iovita R, Sano K, editors.
AND THOMPSON
Multidisciplinary approaches to the study of Stone Age weaponry.
Dordrecht: Springer. p 65–74.
[15] Shea J. 2009. The impact of projectile weaponry on Late
Pleistocene hominin evolution. In Hublin J-J, Richards MP, editors.
The evolution of hominin diets: integrating approaches to the
study of Palaeolithic subsistence. Netherlands: Springer Science. p
189–199.
[16] Iovita R. 2017. Shape variation in Aterian tanged tools and the ori-
gins of projectile technology: a morphometric perspective on stone
toolf. PloS One 6 (12):.e29029
[17] Scerri EM. 2013. The Aterian and its place in the North African
Middle Stone Age. Quaternary Int 300:111–130.
[18] Lahr MM, Rivera F, Power RK, et al. 2016. Inter-group violence
among early Holocene hunter-gatherers of West Turkana, Kenya.
Nature 529:394–398.
[19] Bocquentin F, Bar-Yosef O. 2004. Early Natufian remains: evidence
for physical conflict from Mt. Carmel, Israel. J Hum Evol 47:19–23.
[20] Wendorf F. 1968. Site 117: a Nubian final Paleolithic graveyard
near Jebel Sahaba, Sudan: the prehistory of Nubia 2:954–1040.
[21] Hutchings K. 2016. When is a point a projectile? Morphology,
impact fractures, scientific rigor, and the limits of inference. In
Iovita R, Sano K, editors. Multidisciplinary approaches to the study
of Stone Age weaponry. Dordrecht: Springer. p 3–12.
[22] Clarkson C. 2016. Testing archaeological approaches to determin-
ing past projectile delivery systems using ethnographic and experi-
mental data. In Iovita R, Sano K, editors. Multidisciplinary
approaches to the study of Stone Age weaponry. Dordrecht:
Springer. p 189–201.
[23] Newman K, Moore MW. 2013. Ballistically anomalous stone pro-
jectile points in Australia. J Archaeol Sci 40:2614–2620.
[24] Schoville BJ. 2010. Frequency and distribution of edge damage on
Middle Stone Age lithic points, Pinnacle Point 13B, South Africa.
J Hum Evol 59:378–391.
[25] Schoville BJ, Brown KS. 2010. Comparing lithic assemblage
edge damage distributions: examples from the Late Pleistocene
and preliminary experimental results. vis-a-vis Explor Anthropol 10:
34–49.
[26] Wilkins J, Schoville BJ, Brown KS, et al. 2012. Evidence for early
hafted hunting technology. Science 338:942–946.
[27] Wilkins J, Schoville B. 2016. Edge damage on 500-thousand-year-
old spear tips from Kathu Pan 1, South Africa: the combined
effects of spear use and taphonomic processes. In Iovita R, Sano
K, editors. Multidisciplinary approaches to the study of Stone Age
weaponry. Dordrecht: Springer.
[28] Bird C, Minichillo T, Marean CW. 2007. Edge damage distribution
at the assemblage level on Middle Stone Age lithics: an image-
based GIS approach. J Archaeol Sci 34:771–780.
€ nekeß H, Gaudzinski-Windheuser S, et al. 2014. Pro-
[29] Iovita R, Scho
jectile impact fractures and launching mechanisms: results of a
controlled ballistic experiment using replica Levallois points.
J Archaeol Sci 48:73–83.
[30] Sano K. 2009. Hunting evidence from stone artefacts from the
Magdalenian cave site Bois Laiterie, Belgium: a fracture analysis.
Quartär 56:67–86.
[31] Fisher A, Hansen V, Rasmussen P. 1984. Macro and microwear
traces on lithic projectile points: experimental results and prehis-
toric examples. J Danish Archaeol 3:19–46.
[32] Coppe J, Rots V. 2017. Focus on the target. The importance of a
transparent fracture terminology for understanding projectile
points and projecting modes. J Archaeol Sci Rep 12:109–123.
O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON
[33] Pargeter J. 2011. Assessing the macrofracture method for identify-
ing Stone Age hunting weaponry. J Archaeol Sci 38:2882–2888.
[34] Villa P, Boscato P, Ranaldo F, et al. 2009. Stone tools for the hunt:
points with impact scars from a Middle Paleolithic site in southern
Italy. J Archaeol Sci 36:850–859.
[35] Lombard M. 2005. Evidence of hunting and hafting during the
Middle Stone Age at Sibidu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a
multianalytical approach. J Hum Evol 48:279–300.
€da E, Geneste JM, Griggo C, et al. 1999. A Levallois point embed-
[36] Boe
ded in the vertebra of a wild ass (Equus africanus): hafting, projectile
and Mousterian hunting weapons. Antiquity 73:394–402.
[37] Marean C, Assefa Z. 1999. Zooarcheological evidence for the fau-
nal exploitation behavior of Neandertals and early modern humans.
Evol Anthropol 8:22–37.
[38] Klein R. 2000. Archaeology and the evolution of human behavior.
Evol Anthropol 9:17–36.
[39] Binford L. 1984. Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth.
Orlando: Academic Press.
[40] Milo R. 1998. Evidence for hominid predation at Klasies River
Mouth, South Africa, and its implications for the behaviour of early
modern humans. J Archaeol Sci 25:99–133.
[41] Stiner MC. 1994. Honor among thieves: a zooarchaeological study
of Neandertal ecology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[42] Rios-Garaizar J. 2016. Experimental and archeological observations
of northern Iberian peninsula Middle Paleolithic Mousterian point
assemblages: testing the potential use of throwing spears among
Neanderthals. In Iovita R, Sano K, editors. Multidisciplinary
approaches to the study of Stone Age weaponry. Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands. p 213–225.
[43] Clark JL, Kandel AW. 2013. The evolutionary implications of
variation in human hunting strategies and diet breadth during the
Middle Stone Age of Southern Africa. Curr Anthropol 54:S269–
S287.
[44] Thompson JC. 2010. Variability in Middle Stone Age faunal exploi-
tation and use of the physical and social landscapes in the south-
western cape, South Africa. In Conard NJ and Delanges A, editors.
Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone
€bingen, Germany: Kerns Verlag.
Age III. Tu
[45] Hardy BL, Moncel M-H, Daujeard C, et al. 2013. Impossible Nean-
derthals? Making string, throwing projectiles and catching small
game during Marine Isotope Stage 4 (Abri du Maras, France). Qua-
ternary Sci Rev 82:23–40.
[46] Collins B. 2016. Foraging strategies during the final Middle Stone
Age occupation at Sibudu Cave, South Africa. J Archaeol Sci Rep
5:61–70.
[47] Wadley L. 2010. Were snares and traps used in the Middle Stone
Age and does it matter? A review and a case study from Sibudu,
South Africa. J Hum Evol 58:179–192.
[48] Reynard JP, Discamps E, Wurz S, et al. 2016. Occupational inten-
sity and environmental changes during the Howiesons Poort at
Klipdrift Shelter, southern Cape, South Africa. Palaeogeogr, Palaeo-
climatol, Palaeoecol 449:349–364.
[49] Thompson JC. 2010. Taphonomic analysis of the Middle Stone
Age faunal assemblage from Pinnacle Point Cave 13B, Western
Cape, South Africa. J Hum Evol 59:321–339.
[50] Thompson JC, Henshilwood CS. 2014. Tortoise taphonomy and
tortoise butchery patterns at Blombos Cave, South Africa.
J Archaeol Sci 41:214–229.
[51] Discamps E, Henshilwood C. 2015. Intra-site variability in the Still
Bay fauna at Blombos Cave: implications for explanatory models
| 43
of the Middle Stone Age cultural and technological evolution. PloS
One 10:e0144866.
[52] Armstrong AJ. 2015. Small mammal taphonomy and utilization by
Middle Stone Age humans in the Cape Floristic region of South
Africa. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
[53] Letourneux C, Pe
tillon J-M. 2008. Hunting lesions caused by osse-
ous projectile points: experimental results and archaeological impli-
cations. J Archaeol Sci 35:2849–2862.
[54] O’Driscoll CA, Thompson JC. 2014. Experimental projectile impact
marks on bone: implications for identifying the origins of projectile
technology. J Archaeol Sci 49:398–413.
[55] Gaudzinski-Windheuser S. 2016. Hunting lesions in Pleistocene
and early Holocene European bone assemblages and their implica-
tions for our knowledge on the use and timing of lithic projectile
technology. In Iovita R, Sano K, editors. Multidisciplinary
approaches to the study of Stone Age weaponry. Dordrecht:
Springer. p 77–100.
[56] Castel J-C. 2008. Identification des impacts de projectiles sur le
squelette des grands ongule
s. Ann Pale

ontol 94:103–118.
[57] Churchill SE, Franciscus RG, McKean-Peraza HA, et al. 2009. Sha-
nidar 3 Neandertal rib puncture wound and Paleolithic weaponry.
J Hum Evol 57:163–78.
[58] Duches R, Nannini N, Romandini M, et al. 2016. Identification of Late
Epigravettian hunting injuries: descriptive and 3D analysis of experi-
mental projectile impact marks on bone. J Archaeol Sci 66:88–102.
[59] Neo-Nygaard N. 1989. Man-made trace fossils on bones. Hum
Evolut 4(6):461–491.
[60] Neo-Nygaard N. 1974. Mesolithic hunting in Denmark illustrated
by bone injuries caused by human weapons. J Archaeol Sci 1(3):
217–248.
[61] Leduc C. 2012. New Mesolithic hunting evidence from bone inju-
ries at Danish Maglemosian sites: Lundby Mose and Mullerup
(Sjaelland). Int J Osteoarchaeol 24:476–491.
[62] Nikolskiy P, Pitulko V. 2013. Evidence from the Yana Palaeolithic
site, Arctic Siberia, yields clues to the riddle of mammoth hunting.
J Archaeol Sci 40:4189–4197.
[63] Bratlund B. 1996. Hunting strategies in the Late Glacial of northern
Europe: a survey of the faunal evidence. J World Prehist 10:1–48.
[64] Rust A. 1943. Die air- and mittelsteinzeitlichen Fande yon Stell-
moor. Neumu€nster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag.
[65] Gaudzinski S, Roebroeks W. 2000. Adults only: reindeer hunting at
the Middle Palaeolithic site Salzgitter Lebenstedt, northern Ger-
many. J Hum Evol 38:497–521.
[66] Roberts MB, Parfitt SA. 1999. Boxgrove: a Middle Pleistocene
hominid site at Earthen Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. London:
English Heritage.
[67] Yeshurun R, Yaroshevich A. 2014. Bone projectile injuries and Epi-
paleolithic hunting: new experimental and archaeological results.
J Archaeol Sci 44:61–68.
[68] Dewar G, Halkett D, Hart T, et al. 2006. Implications of a mass kill
site of springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) in South Africa: hunting
practices, gender relations, and sharing in the Later Stone Age.
J Archaeol Sci 33:1266–1275.
[69] Trinkaus E. 1983. The Shanidar Neandertals. New York: Academic
Press.
[70] Richter D, Krbetschek M. 2015. The age of the Lower Palaeolithic
€ ningen. J Hum Evol 89: 46–56.
occupation at Scho
[71] Thieme H. 1997. Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany.
Nature 385:807.
44 | O’DRISCOLL
[72] Schoch WH, Bigga G, Bohner U, et al. 2015. New insights on the
wooden weapons from the Paleolithic site of Schoningen. J Hum
Evol 89:214–25.
[73] Shea J, Davis Z, Brown K. 2001. Experimental tests of Middle
Palaeolithic spear points using a calibrated crossbow. J Archaeol
Sci 28:807–816.
[74] Iovita R. 2011. Shape variation in Aterian tanged tools and the ori-
gins of projectile technology: a morphometric perspective on stone
tool function. PLoS One 6:e29029.
[75] Wilkins J, Chazan M. 2012. Blade production
500 thousand
years ago at Kathu Pan 1, South Africa: support for a multiple ori-
gins hypothesis for early Middle Pleistocene blade technologies.
J Archaeol Sci 39:1883–1900.
[76] Sahle Y, Hutchings WK, Braun DR, et al. 2013. Earliest stone-
tipped projectiles from the Ethiopian Rift date to >279,000 years
ago. PloS One 8(11): e78092.
[77] Rots V, Van Peer P, Vermeersch PM. 2011. Aspects of tool pro-
duction, use, and hafting in Palaeolithic assemblages from North-
east Africa. J Hum Evol 60:637–664.
[78] Shea JJ. 1988. Spear Points from the Middle Paleolithic of the
Levant. J Field Archaeol 15:441–450.
[79] Klein R. 1976. The mammalian fauna of the Klasies River Mouth
sites, Southern Cape Province, South Africa. S Afr Archaeol Bull
31:75–98.
[80] Wurz S. 2002. Variability in the Middle Stone Age lithic sequence,
115,000–60,000 years ago at Klasies River, South Africa.
J Archaeol Sci 29:1001–1015.
[81] Thompson JC. 2008. Zooarchaeological tests for modern human
behaviour at Blombos Cave and Pinnacle Point Cave 13B, South-
western Cape, South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, Arizona.
[82] Brain CK. 1981. The hunters or the hunted? An introduction to
African cave taphonomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[83] Marean CW, Karkanas P, Goldberg P, et al. 2010. The stratigraphy
of the Middle Stone Age sediments at Pinnacle Point Cave 13B
(Mossel Bay, Western Cape Province, South Africa). J Hum Evol
59:234–255.
[84] Cattelain P. 1997. Hunting during the Upper Paleolithic: bow, spear-
thrower, or both? Projectile Technology. Boston: Springer. p 213–240.
[85] Morales MRG, Straus LG. 2009. Extraordinary Early Magdalenian finds

n Cave, Cantabria (Spain). Antiquity 83(320): 267–281.
from El Miro
[86] Hiscock P. 2008. Archaeology of ancient Australia. London: Routledge.
[87] Walsh GL, Morwood MJ. 1999. Spear and spearthrower evolution
in the Kimberley region, N.W. Australia: evidence from rock art.
Archaeol Ocean 34:45–58.
[88] Bowler JM, Johnston H, Olley JM, et al. 2003. New ages for
human occupation and climatic change at Lake Mungo, Australia.
Nature 421:837–840.
€n R, Mortimer G, et al. 1999. Australia’s oldest
[89] Thorne A, Gru
human remains: age of the Lake Mungo 3 skeleton. J Hum Evol
36:591–612.
[90] Webb S. 1989. The Willandra Lakes hominids. Canberra: Depart-
ment of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Austra-
lian National University. Occasional Papers in Prehistory (16).
[91] Lombard M, Pargeter J. 2008. Hunting with Howiesons Poort seg-
ments: pilot experimental study and the functional interpretation
of archaeological tools. J Archaeol Sci 35:2523–2531.
[92] Lombard M, Philipson L. 2010. Indications of bow and stone-
tipped arrow use 64,000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Antiquity 84:635–648.
AND THOMPSON
[93] Rosendahl G, Beinhauer K-W, Lo € scher M, et al. 2006. Le plus vieil
arc du monde? Une pièce inte
ressante en provenance de Mann-
heim, Allemagne. L’Anthropologie 110:371–382.
[94] Weinstock J. 2000. Osteometry as a source of refined demo-
graphic information: sex ratios of reindeer, hunting strategies, and
herd control in the Late Glacial site of Stellmoor, Northern Ger-
many. J Archaeol Sci 27:1187–1195.
[95] Becker CJ. 1945. En 8000-aarig stenalderboplads i Holmegaards
Mose. Nationalmuseets arbejdsmark 1945:61–72.
[96] Bratlund B. 1991. A study of hunting lesions containing flint frag-
ments on reindeer bones at Stellmoor, Schleswig-Holstein, Ger-
many. In Barton N, Roberts AJ, Roe DA, editors. The Late Glacial
in north-west Europe: human adaptation and environmental
change at the end of the Pleistocene. London: Council for British
Archaeology. p 193–207.
[97] Desmond Clark J. 1975. Interpretations of prehistoric technology
from ancient Egyptian and other sources. Part II : Prehistoric arrow
forms in Africa as shown by surviving examples of the traditional
arrows of the San Bushmen. Pale
orient 3:127–150.
[98] Lombard M. 2011. Quartz-tipped arrows older than 60 ka: further
use-trace evidence from Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
J Archaeol Sci 38:1918–1930.
[99] Lombard M. 2007. The gripping nature of ochre: the association of
ochre with Howiesons Poort adhesives and Later Stone Age mas-
tic. J Hum Evol 53:406–419.
[100] Wurz S, Lombard M. 2007. 70,000-year-old geometric backed
tools from the Howiesons Poort at Klasies River, South Africa:
were they used for hunting? South Afr Humanit 19:1–19.
[101] Ambrose SH. 2002. Small things remembered: origins of Early
Microlithic industries in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Elston RG, Kuhn
SL, editors. Thinking small: global perspective on micolithization.
Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.
[102] Brown KS, Marean CW, Jacobs Z, et al. 2012. An early and endur-
ing advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South
Africa. Nature 491:590–593.
[103] d’Errico F, Backwell L, Villa P, et al. 2012. Early evidence of San
material culture represented by organic artifacts from Border
Cave, South Africa. PNAS 109(33):13214–13219.
[104] H. Robbins L, C. Campbell A, A. Brook G, et al. 2012. The antiquity of
the bow and arrow in the Kalahari Desert: bone points from White
Paintings Rock Shelter, Botswana. J Afr Archaeol 10(1):7–20.
[105] Jerardino A, Marean CW. 2010. Shellfish gathering, marine paleoe-
cology and modern human behavior: perspectives from cave
PP13B, Pinnacle Point, South Africa. J Hum Evol 59:412–24.
[106] Schoville B. 2010. Frequency and distribution of edge damage on
Middle Stone Age lithic points, Pinnacle Point 13B, South Africa.
J Hum Evol 59:378–391.
[107] Thompson E, Williams HM, Minichillo T. 2010. Middle and late
Pleistocene Middle Stone Age lithic technology from Pinnacle
Point 13B (Mossel Bay, Western Cape Province, South Africa).
J Hum Evol 59:358–377.
[108] Schoville BJ. 2014. Testing a taphonomic predictive model of edge
damage formation with Middle Stone Age points from Pinnacle
Point Cave 13B and Die Kelders Cave 1, South Africa. J Archaeol
Sci 48:84–95.
[109] Marean CW. 2010. Pinnacle Point Cave 13B (Western Cape Prov-
ince, South Africa) in context: the Cape Floral kingdom, shellfish,
and modern human origins. J Hum Evol 59:425–443.
[110] Schoville BJ, Brown KS, Harris JA, et al. 2016. New experiments
and a model-driven approach for interpreting Middle Stone Age
O’DRISCOLL AND THOMPSON | 45

lithic point function using the edge damage distribution method. [116] Pe
tillon J-M, Bignon O, Bodu P, et al. 2011. Hard core and cutting
PLoS One 11:e0164088. edge: experimental manufacture and use of Magdalenian compos-
[111] Thompson JC, Henshilwood C. 2011. Taphonomic analysis of the ite projectile tips. J Archaeol Sci 38:1266–1283.
Middle Stone Age larger mammal faunal assemblage from Blombos
Cave, southern Cape, South Africa. J Hum Evol 60:746–767.
AUTHOR BIOG RAPH IES
[112] Iovita R, Sano K, editors. 2016. Multidisciplinary approaches to the
study of Stone Age weaponry. Dordrecht: Springer Nature. Corey O’Driscoll is Ph.D. candidate in the School of Earth and Environ-
[113] Morel P. 2000. Impacts de chasse et arche
ozoologie: quelques mental Sciences at the University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Aus-
observations expe
rimentales. In Bellier C, Cattelain P, Otte M, edi- tralia and a heritage consultant with South East Archaeology, Canberra,

histoire. Colloque international, Treignes,
tors. La chasse dans la Pre Australia.


Belgique, 3–7 Octobre 1990. Liège: Treignes: Edition du Centre


d’Etude et de Documentation Arche
ologique, Artefacts. p 54–59. Jessica Thompson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
[114] Parsons I, Badenhorst S. 2004. Analysis of lesion generation by Anthropology at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
replicated Middle Stone Age lithic points on selected skeletal ele-
ments. S Afr J Sci 100:384–387.
[115] Stodiek U. 2000. Preliminary results of an experimental investiga- How to cite this article: O’Driscoll CA, Thompson JC. The ori-
tion of Magdalenian antler points. In Bellier C, Cattelain P, Otte M, gins and early elaboration of projectile technology. Evolutionary
editors. La chasse dans la pre
histoire. Socie

te

royale belge d’An-
Anthropology. 2018;27:30–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.
thropologie et de Pre
histoire/ Service de Pre
histoire de l’universite



ge,. Bruxelles: Centre d’e’tudes et de documentation arche’
de Lie 21560
ologiques. p 70–78.