Fig 1.
Overview of the archaeological points analysed in the study.
Table 1.
Overview of the archaeological sample of osseous points and destructive and non-destructive techniques applied in this study.
Fig 2.
Finding locations of the analysed Dutch North Sea points (in the close-up) and locations of archaeological sites cited throughout the text.
From the north: Kunda (Estonia), Ulkestrup and Tåderup (Denmark), Star Carr and High Furlong (England), Friesack (Germany), Krzyż Wielkopolski 7 (Poland), Abri of Liesbergmühle (Switzerland), Odmut (Montenegro). The star represents the finding location of the Colinda point at Leman and Ower Banks.
Table 2.
Hafting arrangements tested during the experiment.
Table 3.
Results of the typological and morphometric analysis of the archaeological points. Barb incisions shapes as define by L. Verhart [27].
Fig 3.
Box and whiskers plot showing the relationship between hafting methods and hafting effectiveness.
Fig 4.
Selection of use-wear traces visible on the experimental bone points.
a-b) discolouration in parallel bands due to bindings (7.5x); c) tar residue at the haft limit and tar discolouration. Note the difference in colour between the hafted part and the non-hafted one (7.5x); d) greasy dull polish from sinew bindings (200x); e) smooth and matt polish from lime bast bindings (200x); f) smooth, domed polish on the mesial area probably from contact with the wooden shaft (200x).
Fig 5.
Location and distribution of use-wear traces and residue according to the different hafting methods tested in the experiment.
Fig 6.
Selection of macrowear traces documented on the archaeological points.
a) impact fracture on NSM29 (12x); b) reworked barb on NSM02 and tip fracture (10x); c) difference in barbs shape on NSM29 (7.5x); d) difference in surface preservation between the tip and the base on NSM09 (12.5x); e) binding impression on NSM26 (7.5x); f) edge-rounding and edge-removal caused by bindings on NSM06 (16x).
Table 4.
Results of use-wear and residue analysis on the archaeological points.
Fig 7.
Selection of microwear traces documented on the archaeological points.
1. NSM07; a-b) polish with corrugated texture likely resulting from contact with fish; c-d) polish and fine transverse striations from sinew bindings. 2. NSM22; a) bright smooth polish with longitudinal directionality likely resulting from contact with bone; b) post-depositional polish with long deep striations. 3. NSM17; a) polish and transverse striations from boring animal hide; b) smooth and bright polish from hafting. Magnifications 100x.
Fig 8.
Comparison between archaeological and experimental wear traces.
a) fish polish on NSM07 (100x); b) polish on an experimental bone point from shooting salmon (100x); c) polish on an experimental flint tool used to process fish (red snapper) d) bone polish on the second barb of NSM22 (100x); e) bone polish on an experimental point used to shot a carcass (100x); f) polish and short transverse striations on NSM17 from boring animal skin (100x); g) polish and short transverse striations on an experimental borer used to perforate deer skin (100x); h) polish and short transverse striations on the base of NSM08 from sinew bindings (100x); i) polish and short transverse striations from sinew bindings (200x); j) smooth bright polish on the base of NSM29 from plant bindings (100x); k) flat polish from lime bast bindings (200x).
Fig 9.
Adhesive residues documented on the archaeological points.
1. NSM18; a) black residue (10x); b) close-up of the possible fibre impressions (100x); c) detail of the orange semi-translucent inclusion (200x); d) granular rusty orange layer on top of the residue (200x). 2. NSM28; a) granular black residue (20x); b) close-up of a (100x); c) granular brownish residue with oblique orientation (200x); d) modern grey residue (200x).
Table 5.
Results of the destructive analyses on the archaeological barbed points.
Table 6.
Chemical compounds identified with GC-MS on each sample.