Experimental evidence for lithic projectile injuries: improving identification of an under-recognised phenomenon

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

“…Smith et al (2007) also observed internal bevelling on some of the experimentally produced defects, a type of damage characteristic of cranial entrance wounds from gunshots, where a projectile impact results in a defect that is larger internally than externally (Berryman and Symes, 1998;İşcan, 1998, 1999). The ratio between internal and external defect area was found to be significantly larger for lithic projectile impacts than gunshot lesions (Smith et al, 2007). O 'Driscoll and Thompson (2014) recognised the need for a standardised method in order to make the results of different projectile experiments comparable.…”

“…Based on observations of projectile injuries in a 19 th century living population, it appears that the majority affected the soft tissues of the postcranial skeleton and not bone (Bill, 1862). Consequently, the observed frequency of such trauma in skeletal remains will invariably be an underestimate (Lambert, 1997;Milner, 2005;Smith et al, 2007). This makes consistent recognition of archaeological projectile trauma from all historical periods important, a process which requires adequate and reliable methods.…”

“…While prehistoric lithic projectile trauma is most often recognised as flint fragments embedded in bone, or arrowheads found in close association with remains (Lambert, 1997;Smith et al, 2007), medieval trauma analysis is almost exclusively based on wound morphology, except in rare circumstances such as that from Wisby in Sweden, where the preservation of metal artefacts was exceptional (Ingelmark, 1939;Thordeman, 1939: 124). Interpreting skeletal injuries based on wound morphology is not always straightforward, and it requires a great deal of both experience and research to be able to distinguish between different classes of trauma (Ubelaker and Montaperto, 2014).…”

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

“…Some of the terms used to describe the damage are notches (Letourneux and Pétillon, 2008;Pétillon et al, 2011;Yeshurun and Yaroshevich, 2014), striations (Yeshurun and Yaroshevich, 2014), cuts, crushing (Castel, 2008;Pétillon et al, 2011) scraping, splitting, dislocation (Castel, 2008), punctures and perforations (Castel, 2008;Letourneux and Pétillon, 2008;Pétillon et al, 2011), "penetration holes" (Yeshurun and Yaroshevich, 2014) or "full thickness punctures" (Smith et al, 2007), cracking (Castel, 2008;Letourneux and Pétillon, 2008) and embedded (or implantation of) a point or point fragments (Castel, 2008;Letourneux and Pétillon, 2008;Smith et al, 2007). Smith et al (2007) also observed internal bevelling on some of the experimentally produced defects, a type of damage characteristic of cranial entrance wounds from gunshots, where a projectile impact results in a defect that is larger internally than externally (Berryman and Symes, 1998;İşcan, 1998, 1999). The ratio between internal and external defect area was found to be significantly larger for lithic projectile impacts than gunshot lesions (Smith et al, 2007).…”