chapter 8

Bone Awls of the St.Lawrence Iroquoians: A Microwear Analysis

Christian Gates St-Pierre
Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

Introduction less than 1,210 objects were identified as bone awls

on the Roebuck site in Ontario, representing 61% of
This article presents some results of a post-doctoral the assemblage from that site. The Beckstead site,
research project aimed at a better understanding of still in Ontario, provides another clear example, with
the function and classification of the bone tools made 81.3% of the bone objects identified as awls.
by the St. Lawrence Iroquoians, in Northeastern North
America. More precisely, this study uses microwear
Table 1: Number (N) and proportion (%) of bone awls in various
analysis to identify the precise function of one very
bone tool assemblages from St.Lawrence Iroquoian village sites
specific and problematic category of bone tools
Site N %
conventionally referred to as “awls”. This contributes
Beckstead (Ontario) 61 81.3
to filling in a lacuna which Odell (1998: 39) succinctly Salem (Ontario) 161 68.2
but very clearly presents as follows; “The awl Mailhot-Curran (Quebec) 4 66.7
presumably was used for piercing holes in leather or McDonald (Quebec) 15 62.5
other malleable substances, though little microscopic Roebuck (Ontario) 1210 61.0
support for this contention through use-wear is Summerstown Station (Ontario) 57 53.3
Lanoraie (Quebec) 9 47.4
available”. Bourassa (Quebec) 29 43.3
McIvor (Ontario) 88 41.7
Glenbrook (Ontario) 120 39.0
The Problem Droulers (Quebec) 34 38.6
Grays Creek (Ontario) 5 38.5
Dawson (Quebec) 14 31.1
Awls are by far the most frequent type of bone tools
Mandeville (Quebec) 4 30.8
found on St. Lawrence Iroquoian sites (see Gates St-
Pierre 2001). They are always there, ubiquitous. Yet,
their precise function remains somewhat problematic. The second reason is the morphological variability of
When we name these tools “awls” we make a these tools, which is noticeable despite the same
functional identification which is usually and primarily basic shape; some of these awls are very long and
based on morphology. However, it is well known that norrow, while others are much shorter or larger; some
equating form and function can be misleading. Using have a worked base, others do not; some were
morphological criteria alone, awls are simply defined probably hafted, others were probably not; some are
as tools having a narrow and pointed distal end. very well made, others look more like expedient tools;
However, tools having this morphological trait could in some cases the distal end is pointed, while in other
have many different functions. It is true that they could cases it is more rounded; and so on.
have been used to drill holes in skin or hide, which is
the most common definition of an awl, but some In sum, the classification of all these numerous and
could also have been used to drill holes in bark, as morphologically variable tools in the bone awls
hair pins or cloth pins, as sticks to pick up food, as functional category is questionable, at least in some
pieces of the cup-and-pin game, as tools used to cases. It is a problem which was recognized early (cf.
engrave clay vessels, as tattooing instruments, or as Beauchamp 1902: 254-256; Wintemberg 1936: 55)
corn husking pins, among many other possibilities. and which is still frequently addressed today among
Iroquoianists (for example, see Berg and Bursey
These bone awls are intruiging for two other reasons. 2000: 8, 16; Chapdelaine 1989: 206; Gates St-Pierre
First, they are so numerous on St. Lawrence 2001, 2004, 2006: 9; Jamieson 1993; Lennox 2000:
Iroquoian sites that one could wonder why these 112; Neusius 1996: 84; Timmins 1997: 143-145).
Iroquoians would need so many of these specific However, it has never been solved completely.
tools and so few of the bone tools of other functional
categories. In fact, awls always represent the most The most serious attempt was presented by
abundant category of bone tools discovered on St. Andersen (1981) who tried to differentiate true awls
Lawrence Iroquoian villages (tab. 1). For example, no from other pointed implements often included in the

107
 BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

same functional category: often confuse one with the other although, as we
have just seen, there may be significant differences
“[…] I intend to make a step toward ameliorating regarding maximum length and point angle.
this deplorable situation by proposing a
morphologically-defined typology and taxonomic
system for the class of bone artifacts, the awls and
awl-like implements, which appears to be the most
commonly misunderstood and abused, and which
tends, in the litterature, to be a catch-all category
for any and all modified bone artifacts which
possess some form of point at either one or both
ends.” (ibid.: 4).

He used a sample of over 700 artifacts from 12

archaeological sites located in Southern Ontario
covering a large time-span and geographical area.
What appears to be the most interesting finding of
his study – but not necessarily the most convincing
one – is the possibility to distinguish true awls (and
splinter-awls) from corn hunsking pins on the basis of
length and point angle measurements, awls having
longer maximum lengths and lesser point angles than
husking pins. However, and as Anderson admitted;

“[…] the vital statistics of bone husking pins tend to
be quite different from those of long bone awls,
although there is a substantial degree of overlap.
[…] Because of the substantial degree of overlap in
the range of lengths of long bone awls and
presumed corn husking pins this measurement can
not be used as a reliable indicator for differentiating
between the two types.” (Anderson 1981: 24).
However, he notes that the distribution of these tools
according to their point angles do not overlap as
much as it does according to length, concluding that
point angle is a much more discriminating attribute,
thus a more reliable one for distinguishing between
the two types of tools.
More recently, Jamieson also suggested, from his
comparative study of St. Lawrence Iroquoian and
Huron bone tools that the main difference between
bone awls and husking pins is the shape of the tip,
apparently because “the wider tips of husking pins
would be unsuitable for the perforation of hides or
other similar materials.” (Jamieson 1993: 53). In
contrast to Anderson, however, Jamieson did not
measure the tip angles of awls and husking pins in
his sample of bone tools, and his conclusion seems
to be entirely derived from intuitive observations and
common sense.
A few words must be said about husking pins for the
reader unfamiliar with these specific bone tools. As it
is evidently suggested by their name, husking pins are
implements used to separate the husks from ears of
corn (fig. 1). They are morphologically very similar to
awls and this is why archaeologists in the Northeast
Figure 1: Corn husking pins; upper and middle specimens from
Waugh (1916), lower specimen from Parker (1910).
One could wonder why such an implement would
have been needed; to peel down the husks from the
corn ear is a task which can easily be done
barehanded. It may be that the variety of corn that
was cultivated by Iroquoian populations in prehistoric
times was harder to husk, especially when harvesting
unripe (“green”) corn. Another possibility is that corn
was harder to husk because it was allowed to dry
before it was husked. This is what one of the only two
ethnographic references to this tool suggests, a
description from Waugh among the New York
Iroquois;
“A very common method [of harvesting] at present
is to tie the stalks, with the ears attached, into large
bundles, sometimes with strings of hickory bark.
These are allowed to stand in the field until the corn
dries slightly, after which the ears are plucked and
husked. The old style of husking was to sit upon the
ground with the legs straight, or with one knee
slightly elevated. […] The husks are torn apart by
means of a husking pin of hickory or other
hardwood, although bone is sometimes used. […] It
is possible that many of the stout awl-like
implements, which are found on ancient village
sites, were used for this purpose. The bones of the
bear seem to have been a popular material, and the
young people sometimes practiced a species of
divination by bending these articles slightly, an
easily broken pin indicating a short life. Chief Gibson
had frequently seen husking-pins made from the
ribs of animals, such as the deer. The husking-pins
employed at present have a groove around the

108
 BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE

middle, affording attachment to a leather loop,
which is slipped over the middle finger. The pin is
grasped in the palm, then stuck, with a vigorous
sweep, into the leafy covering, the thumb closed
down tightly and the husks torn back in preparation
for braiding.” (Waugh 1916: 39-40).
Here is the other ethnographic description of the form
and usage of a husking pin, from Parker, also among
the Iroquois of New York State;
“Husking pins are shaped much like the ancient
bone and antler awls but generally have a groove
cut about a third of their length about which is
fastened a loop, through which it is designed that
the middle finger be thrust. The point of the husking
pin is held against the thumb. In husking the hand is
held slightly open, the ear grasped in the left hand,
ear butt downward, the point of the husker thrust
into the nose of the ear and under the husk, by a
sidewise shuttle motion, the thumb closes quickly
over the pin and tightly against the husk, and a pull
of the arm downward and toward the body tears
away the husk. Many of the ancient bone awls
found in refuse pits may be husking pins as well as
leather awls.” (Parker 1910: 32-33).
Jamieson (1993: 53) notes that archaeological
specimens of husking pins may show some polishing
and/or flaking along the lateral edges, but they do not
have a groove for the attachment of a thong as
described by Parker and Waugh. Interestingly, he also
maintains that corn husking pins had a higher
incidence among the St. Lawrence Iroquoian bone
tool assemblages than among those of the Hurons
where deer mandibles used as corn scrapers were
more frequent.
while Jamieson does not offer any specific method
nor does he provide any quantitative results at all. In
sum, although both Anderson and Jamieson are
certainly right about the importance of differentiating
awls from husking pins, neither one nor the other
provide a reliable and satisfactory method of
establishing such a valid distinction. However, such a
method exists: microwear analysis. The basic
principles and methods of microwear analysis have
been presented elsewhere many times in great detail
(see Cook and Dumont 1987; Grace 1996; Keeley
1974, 1980; LeMoine 1997; Semenov 1964; among
others), and for the sake of brevity only the
methodological aspects that are specific to this study
will be presented here.
The first part of the research project was the
production of a series of experiments where bone tool
replicas were used on a variety of materials to
accomplish some simple but specific tasks. Preforms
of the replicas were all obtained from breaking the
lower leg bones of a buck deer with a basalt
hammerstone and then cutting the larger fragments
lengthwise with chert and flint flakes. Shaping of the
tip was made either by grinding with sand and water
on a sandstone slab or, more often, by shaving or
whittling with a flint tool. Most of these tools had a
narrow pointed end, but some others had a wider
distal end more similar to the tips of corn husking pins
(fig. 2).

Objectives and Methodology

The objectives of this study were the following; 1) to

verify the possibility that awls, as a general morpho-
functional category regrouping a large number of
bone tools presenting a large variety of forms, may in
fact represent a vague category containing tools
having different functions, and; 2) to verify the
possibility that a single bone awl may have been used
for different purposes, to accomplish different tasks.
In other words, the objective was to test the
hypothesis of the multifunctionality of these bone
awls, both as a category and individually.
Figure 2: Bone tool replicas used in the experiments.

Anderson (1981) and Jamieson (1993) undertook the

first steps toward this objective with their proposition
that it is possible to distinguish awls from husking
pins on the basis of maximum length and point angle
measurements and distributions, as we have seen
earlier. However, we have also seen in Anderson’s
case that these two attributes are not entirely reliable,
A total of 16 experiments were conducted (tab. 2).
Given the possibility that corn husking pins may often
be confused with bone awls, it was imperative to
include piercing holes into pieces of hide and husking
corn cobs among the tasks and materials involved in
the experiments. Thus, six experimental tools were

109
 BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

used to pierce holes in pieces of smoked cowhide for
periods of time ranging from 15 to 130 minutes,
during which a range of 230 to 1,400 holes were
made (fig. 3). Three tools were used to husk 25 to 60
corn cobs during a range of 25 to 45 minutes (fig. 4).
Five other experiments were conducted where pieces
of dry or wet birch bark were pierced between 300 to
1,800 times, during a range of 15 to 75 minutes (fig.
5). The last two experimental tools were used to
smooth leather-hard clay coils during periods of 30
and 45 minutes (fig. 6).
length of the striations. At 400X and even 200X
magnification most of the topography of the bone
surface is out of focus since bone awls rarely present
flat surfaces. Mircowear characteristics that were
noted include primarily striations and polishing, but
also rounding, flattening, and flaking or chipping.
Examination before use allowed the distinction of
microwear produced during manufacture from
microwear resulting from use. Cleaning of the
experimental bone tools and artifacts was done buy
immersion in an ultrasonic cleaning tank containing

Table 2: Experiments with bone awl replicas

Tool No Material Thickness Duration Task Remarks
E1 Dry hide 1.5 mm 55 min. Piercing 1000 holes Distal end broken during use
E2 Bark 1.5 mm 55 min. Piercing 500 holes Birch bark
E3 Dry hide 0.7 mm 40 min. Piercing 700 holes
E4 Bark 0.7 to 1.5 mm 15 min. Piercing 300 holes Birch bark
E5 Corn - 45 min. Husking 60 corn cobs During harvest season
E6 Corn - 30 min. Husking 40 corn cobs During harvest season
E7 Clay - 45 min. Smoothing clay coils With sand temper
E8 Clay - 30 min. Smoothing clay coils No temper
E9 - - - - Not used: manufacturing traces only
E10 Bark 0.7 to 1.5 mm 75 min. Piercing 1200 holes Birch bark
E11 Dry hide 0.7 mm 65 min. Piercing 1400 holes With rotation movement
E12 Dry hide 1.5 mm 25 min. Piercing 375 holes Distal end broken during use
E13 Bark 0.4 mm 60 min. Piercing 700 holes Birch bark, slightly humid
E14 Dry hide 3.5 mm 130 min. Piercing 235 holes
E15 Dry hide 2.2 to 3.5 mm 15 min. Piercing 350 holes Distal end broken during use
E16 - - - - Not used: manufacturing traces only
E17 Bark 0.7 to 1.5 mm 115 min. Piercing 1800 holes Distal end broken during use
E18 - - - - Not used: manufacturing traces only
E19 Corn - 25 min. Husking 25 corn cobs During harvest season

warm water and a few drops of an ammonia-based

dishwashing liquid during about 30 seconds.
Photographs were taken with a digital camera
installed on the microscope.

Figure 3: Perforating dry hide experimentally.

All the experimental bone tools were examined before
and after use with an Olympus BHM microscope with
incident light at 50X, 100X, 200X and 400X
magnifications. However, it was found that 100X
magnification was very often the most useful,
especially when it came to differentiating the various
kinds of polishing. Magnification of 50X can be useful
to see such things as the extent of the polish and the
Figure 4: Husking corn cobs experimentally.
The second part of the project was a comparison of
the microwear patterns identified on the experimental
tools with those from the archaeological sample in
order to determine the function of the latter. Through
analogical reasoning, similar mircowear patterns on
experimental and archaeological tools were

110
 BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE
interpreted as being the result of the application of the
tools to similar materials with similar movements. The
same characteristics as those observed for the
experimental tools were recorded using the same
equipment with the specimens from the
archaeological sample. The results of very similar
experiments conducted previously by other
researchers (i.e. Griffitts 1997, 2001; Griffitts and
Bonsall 2001; Mobley-Tanaka and Griffitts 1997;
LeMoine 1989, 1994, 1997), but sometimes involving
different tasks and materials (piercing fresh hide,
basketmaking, or shell collecting, for example), were
also used to identify microwear patterns on the
archaeological tools. Only the microwear visible on
the active part of the tool is considered here. Wear
visible on the shaft or proximal end of the tools,
generally resulting from hafting or handling – the latter
being known to produce microwear similar to that
produced by hide working (Griffitts 2001: 186) – was
noted but was not included in the results presented
here.
Figure 5: Perforating bark experimentally.
Figure 6: Smoothing clay experimentally.
The archaeological sample contains a total of 100 awl
or awl-like bone tools selected among five
assemblages from prehistoric sites located in
111
Southeastern Ontario (fig. 7 and 8); 37 are from the
Glenbrook site (Pendergast 1981); 26 from the Salem
site (Pendergast 1966); 22 from the Roebuck site
(Wintemberg 1936), 12 from the McIvor site
(Chapdelaine 1989); and 3 from the Summerstown
Station site (Pendergast 1968). These five sites are St.
Lawrence Iroquoian village settlements dating from
the 15th or 16th centuries AD. The tools were
selected according to two criteria; 1) the active part
(i.e. distal end) must not be broken; and 2) they
should be representative of the morphological
variability mentioned earlier. All of the tools are
housed at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in
Gatineau (Quebec).
Figure 7: Location of the five archaeological sites from which awl-like
bone tools were selected. 1: Roebuck; 2: McIvor; 3: Glenbrook;
4: Summerstown Station; 5: Salem.
Results of the Experiments
The tips of awls used on smoked hide appeared to be
somewhat rounded, even if they were also prone to
micro-flaking and breaking off. The polish is bright
and follows the topography of the surface (fig. 9 and
10). At the beginning the polish appeared to be matte
and had a linear or directional appearance, but later it
would lose that directional appearance and become
brighter. Groups of long, fine and parallel striations
appeared on every awl used on smoked hide. These
striations tended to have an orientation that was
parallel to the main axis of the awls, except when a
twisting motion was applied, in which case they
would tend to be perpendicular to the main axis.
The polish on awls used on bark is very slow to
develop, and some experiments did not produce any
wear at all. When it does develop it is very bright
(brighter than the polish resulting from hide working),
very smooth, and is generally limited to the high
points of the topography (fig. 11). Like the wear
produced by hide it can also have a directional
 BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

apparence in the beginning. Striations are rare but flattened (except in the deeper furrows created during
when present they would tend to occur near the tip. the manufacturing process). Striations were
There was no significant chipping or flaking and the numerous on every tool, but there were some
tip had a rounded appearance. differences between clay and corn. First, striations

Figure 8: The sample of 100 bone tools analysed from the Salem, Summerstown Station, Roebuck, McIvor and Glenbrook sites.

were more frequent and larger on tools used on clay,

especially when sand temper was added. And
second, the striations resulting from processing silica-
rich plants were more randomly oriented compared to
those visible on “clay smoothers” where they were
perpendicular to the working edge.

Figure 9: “Light” microwear produced experimentally by punching

holes in dry hide (100X magnification).

Awls used on corn and clay had a very similar

microwear pattern, probably because they are both
silica-rich materials (fig. 12 and 13). In both cases, the
edges became rapidly rounded or beveled, and that
could be seen with the naked eye. A bright polish Figure 10: “Heavy” microwear produced experimentally by punching
appeared very quickly and the whole surface became holes in dry hide (100X magnification).

112
 BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE
Figure 11: Microwear produced experimentally by drilling holes in
birch bark (100X magnification).
Figure 12: Microwear produced experimentally by husking corn cobs
(100X magnification).
Figure 13: Microwear produced experimentally by smoothing coils of
clay (100X magnification).
In sum, initial results indicate that it might be difficult
to distinguish microwear produced by corn and clay,
although some differences do exist. However, there
are significant differences in microwear patterns
between this group of materials and those resulting
from use on hide and bark. Thus, it should be
113
possible to distinguish true awls from husking pins in
archaeological assemblages from their mircowear
patterns.
Results of the Analyses
It was not always possible to identify the contact
material on the bone artifacts in the sample, either
because the microwear was poorly developed,
because it was altered by post-depositional
processes, or because the contact material involved
was not included in this study. In many occasions it
was only possible to identify to a very general
category such as undetermined hard material (wood,
bark, bone, antler, shell) or undetermined soft material
(dry hide, fresh hide, plant, clay). However, a relatively
high number of awls had a more precise microwear
pattern.
Dry hide was the most easily recognizable contact
material (fig. 14 and 15). It was clearly identified on
one third of the tools in the total sample and is
present in each of the five bone tools assemblages
(tab. 3). Bark was also identified in many cases,
although the microwear was not as easily
recognizable as it was in the case of dry hide (fig. 16).
This is certainly because microwear is very slow to
develop with bark, and because of that one might
wonder if bark could be under-represented in the
contact materials identified in the sample.
Figure 14: Microwear on artifact resulting from hide working (X50
magnification).
Some tools from the Glenbrook, Salem and Roebuck
assemblages were put into contact with an
unidentified silica-rich plant, possibly for
basketmaking or for splitting plant fibers (fig. 17).
Basketry and fiber splitting were not included in the
replication experiments, but some comparisons with
published results from other researchers (Griffitts
1997, 2001; Griffitts and Bonsall 2001; Mobley-
 BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES

Tanaka and Griffitts 1997) revealed many similarities,
especially the flattened surfaces characteristic of
contact with silica-rich plants, or the large number of
fine and parallel striations resulting from fiber splitting.
There is also one tool with a polish limited to the high
points of the surface and with some fine striations
within the polished areas (fig. 18), which is
characteristic of shell polish (Griffitts and Bonsall
2001). However, this tool does not have a beveled
end like the bone tools described by the latter to
collect and process shellfish; it has an awl-like
morphology and it thus becomes very difficult to
imagine the exact function of this tool.
definitely not used as corn husking pins (fig. 8 and
21). Thus, morphological criteria alone are insufficient
to distinguish husking pins from true awls; it is only
with the aid of microwear analysis that such a
distinction can be valid. Another tool from the
Glenbrook site is very similar to the two husking pins
identified, in terms of morphology and manufacture,
except for the distal end which is narrower (fig. 22)
and shows microwear diagnostic of use on dry hide.
However, the distal end looks like it has been heavily
resharpened, if not reshaped, and it seems highly
possible that this tool was a corn husking pin
transformed into an awl.

Table 3: Contact materials identified from microwear on artifacts

Site (with Borden code) N %
GLENBROOK (BgFp-5)
Dry hide 15 40.5
Bark 7 18.9
Unknown material 5 13.5
Unknown hard material 3 8.1
Corn 2 5.4
Silica-rich plant 2 5.4
Silica-rich plant + dry hide 2 5.4
Two unknown materials 1 2.7
Sub-total 37 99.9
SALEM (BgFp-4)
Bark 7 26.9
Unknown material 6 23.1
Dry hide 5 19.2
Figure 15: Microwear on artifact resulting from working dry hide Unknown hard material 4 15.4
(X100 magnification). Silica-rich plant 1 3.8
Silica-rich plant 1 3.8
+ unknown hard material
Unknown material 1 3.8
Two unknown materials 1 3.8
Sub-total 26 99.8
ROEBUCK (BeFv-4)
Bark 7 31.8
Dry hide 5 22.7
Silica-rich plant 4 18.2
Unknown hard material 4 18.2
Unknown soft material 1 4.5
Unknown material 1 4.5
Sub-total 22 99.9
MCIVOR (BfFv-1)
Dry hide 4 33.3
Unknown hard material 4 33.3
Bark 2 16.7
Unknown material 2 16.7
Sub-total 12 100.0
Figure 16: Microwear on artifact resulting from working bark (X100 SUMMERSTOWN STATION (BgFp-1)
magnification).
Dry hide 2 66.7
Bark 1 33.3
Only two bone tools in the sample had a microwear Sub-total 3 100.0
pattern diagnostic of corn husking, and both are from
the Glenbrook site (fig. 19). What is particularly Another point of importance is that some bone awls
interesting here is that those two husking pins have were clearly multifunctional as indicated by the
high values in terms of length and width, and they presence of more than one microwear pattern.
also have a broad point angle (fig. 20), just as However, there are only five such multifunctional tools
Andersen and Jamieson predicted. However, it is very in the sample, suggesting that awls and awl-like bone
important to note that other tools in the sample that tools generally had a single, specific function, and
are long, large, and have a broad point angle were apparently may have had to be transformed if they

114
 BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE
were to perform other tasks. Other studies have
obtained different results, however. For example,
about 30% of the bone awls from prehistoric and
historic sites along the Missouri river in North Dakota
were apparently multifunctional (Griffitts, this volume).
Figure 17: Microwear on artifact resulting from processing silica-rich
plant, possibly fiber splitting (X100 magnification).
Figure 18: Microwear on artifact possibly resulting from contact with
shell (X100 magnification).
Figure 19: Microwear on artifact resulting from husking corn cobs
(X100 magnification).
115
Figure 20: Corn husking tools from the Glenbrook site.
Figure 21: Graphical distribution of the complete bone tools according
to their maximum length and point angle.
Conclusions
The analyses conducted in this study have
demonstrated that the use of bone awls by the St.
Lawrence Iroquoians involved many different tasks
and materials. Some are truly awls, i.e. pointed tools
for boring small holes, especially in leather or hide,
but also in bark. Others are not awls at all, but rather
corn husking pins, and possibly basketry pins and
fiber splitting tools. In addition, and as suggested
earlier, it can be reasonably suggested that some
other of these so-called bone “awls” might in fact be
tattooing instruments, food picks, pins of the cup-
and-pin game, hair pins or any other of these bone
tools often described in the ethnographic or
ethnohistoric documents regarding the St.Lawrence
Iroquoians and other Iroquoian groups in
Northeastern North America, but tools which have,
strangely enough, seldom – if ever – been found on
Iroquoian sites. It is also clear that more studies
 BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES
involving experiments with contact materials such as
meat, hair or bone should be conducted to
demonstrate this more conclusively.
Figure 22: Bone awl from the Glenbrook site, with distal end possibly
reshaped.
The results presented here confirm the hypothesis
that bone awl is a vague morpho-functional category
regrouping a very large number of bone tools which
have, in fact, different functions. In other words, the
“awl” category as actually defined – either implicitly or
explicitly – by many archaeologists is simply
inadequate; any bone tool with a narrow pointed end
is not necessarily an awl. The results also
demonstrate that a bone “awl” – as an individual tool,
not as a category – is usually not a multifunctional
tool, but rather a task-specific one.
The distinction between awls and husking pins
presented here illustrates how morphological criteria
alone can be misleading when trying to establish
functional categories and, as a consequence, these
should always be established in conjunction with
other lines of evidence such as the results of
microwear analysis. By doing so, not only will
archaeologists be able to establish more valid and
accurate classifications of bone tools (and possibly
typologies), but it could also allow them to identify a
wider and more precise range of activities conducted
at the sites they are investigating, activities which
would otherwise leave no other traces. The
116
manufacture of containers or canoes from birch bark
is an example of this. Likewise, the identification of
corn husking pins through microwear analysis could
allow one to recognize maize consumption on sites
where maize remains are not necessarily preserved
and found, especially in very early farming
settlements.
The St. Lawrence Iroquoians did not have a well
developed lithic industry; apparently, and for an
unknown reason, bone (and, to a lesser extent, antler
and ivory) was their preferred raw material for tool
manufacture. The quantity of bone objects found on
St. Lawrence Iroquoian sites can be very impressive,
especially on village settlements, and the range of
functional classes is quite wide; awls, husking pins,
fish hooks, barbs, projectile points, harpoons, knives,
chisels, needles, scrapers, spatulas, flakers, pins,
game pieces, pottery engravers, combs, beads,
pendants, gorgets, rattles, whistles, pipes, handles for
other tools, etc. Yet, it seems that their informative
potential has remained largely ignored by
archaeologists. However, this could change as the
unique and diverse contributions that microwear
analysis can contribute to the functional identification
of these bone objects is gradually realized.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank first Kevin Geier who generously made
the bone tool replicas used in this experimental study.
Thanks also to Jean-Luc Pilon and Stacey Girling-Christie of
the Canadian Museum of Civilization for their permission to
borrow and analyze all the archaeological specimens
included in the sample collection. I am very grateful to
Marie-Eve Brodeur, André Costopoulos and Thomas J.
Loebel for their constructive comments on various versions
of this article, and to Janet Griffitts for sharing some useful
informations with me. This study was supported by a post-
doctoral research grant provided by the Fonds Québécois
de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture (FQRSC) from
the Quebec Government. Finally, I would like to express all
my gratitude toward Lawrence H. Keeley for having taught
me the basics of microwear analysis during my post-
doctoral fellowship at the University of Illinois at Chicago;
being in the company of this brilliant and very jovial
archaeologist and his colleagues and students has been a
real pleasure.
References Cited
Andersen, C. J.
1981 A Preliminary Typology of Bone Awls and Awl-
Like Implements from Ontario Archaeological
Sites. Unpublished manuscript. Toronto:
Department of Anthropology, University of
Toronto.
 BONE AWLS OF THE ST.LAWRENCE IROQUOIANS: A MICROWEAR ANALYSIS – GATES ST-PIERRE
Beauchamp, W. M.
1902 Horn and Bone Implements of the New York
Indians. Bulletin No 50. Albany: New York State
Museum.
Berg, D. J. and J. A. Bursey
2000 The Worked Faunal Material from the Anderson
Site: A Uren Village on the Lower Grand River,
Ontario. Ontario Archaeology; No 69: 7-18.
Chapdelaine, C.
1989 Le site Mandeville à Tracy: Variabilité culturelle
des Iroquoiens du Saint-Laurent. Signes des
Amériques No 7. Montréal: Recherches
amérindiennes au Québec.
Cook, J. and J. Dumont
1987 The Development and Application of Microwear
Analysis Since 1964. In The Human Uses of Flint
and Chert, ed. G. de G. Sieveking and M. H.
Newcomer, 53-61. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gates St-Pierre, C.
2001 Variations sur un même thème: les objets en os
des Iroquoiens du Haut-Saint-Laurent.
Archéologiques; No15: 35-54.
2004 Use Wear Analysis of Bone Awls from Iroquoian
Sites. Paper presented at the 69 Annual Meeting
th
of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA),
Montreal, April 2004.
2006 Potières du Buisson: La céramique de tradition
Melocheville sur le site Hector-Trudel. Collection
Mercure, Archéologie No 168. Gatineau
(Quebec): Musée canadien des civilisations.
Grace, R.
1996 Use-Wear Analysis: The State of the Art.
Archaeometry; vol. 38, Part 2: 209-229.
Griffitts, J. L.
1997 Replication and Analysis of Bone Tools. In
Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification
Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, ed. L.
A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P. Winham, 236-
246. Occasional Publication No 1. Sioux Falls
(South Dakota): Archaeology Laboratory,
Augustana College.
2001 Bone Tools from Los Pozos. In Crafting Bone:
Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space.
Proceedings of the 2 Meeting of the (ICAZ)
nd
Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31
August – 5 September 1999, ed. A. M. Choyke
and L. Bartosiewicz, 185-195. BAR International
Series No 937. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports.
Griffitts, J. L. and C. Bonsall
2001 Experimental Determination of the Function of
Antler and Bone ‘Bevel-Ended Tools’ from
Prehistoric Shell Middens in Western Scotland.
In Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through
Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2 Meeting
nd
of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group,
117
Budapest, 31 August – 5 September 1999, ed.
A. M. Choyke and L. Bartosiewicz, 207-220.
BAR International Series No 937. Oxford: British
Archaeological Reports.
Jamieson, B. J.
1993 Preliminary Observations on the St.Lawrence
and Huron Bone, Antler and Ivory Artifacts. In
Essays in St. Lawrence Iroquoian Archaeology:
Selected Papers in Honour of J. V. Wright, ed. J.
F. Pendergast and C. Chapdelaine, 49-58.
Occasional Papers in Northeastern Archaeology,
No 8. Dundas (Ontario): Copetown Press.
Keeley, L. H.
1974 Technique and Methodology in Microwear
Studies. World Archaeology; vol. 5, No 3: 323-
336.
1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LeMoine, G. M.
1997 Use Wear Analysis on Bone and Antler Tools of
the Mackenzie Inuit. BAR International Series No
679. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
1994 Use Wear on Bone and Antler Tools from the
Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories.
American Antiquity; vol. 59, No 2: 316-334.
1989 Use Wear Analysis of Bone Tools.
Archaeozoologia; vol. 3, No 1.2: 211-224.
Lennox, P. A.
2000 The Molson Site: An Early Seventeenth Century,
First Nations Settlement, Simcoe County,
Ontario. Bulletin No 18. London (Ontario):
London Museum of Archaeology.
Mobley-Tanaka, J. L. and J. L. Griffitts
1997 Spatulate and Notched Tools from the American
Southwest: A Lesson in Function-Based
Typologies. In Proceedings of the 1993 Bone
Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South
Dakota, ed. L. A. Hannus, L. Rossum and R. P.
Winham, 247-255. Occasional Publication No 1.
Sioux Falls (South Dakota): Archaeology
Laboratory, Augustana College.
Neusius, S. W.
1997 Faunal Analysis and the Parker Collection. In
Reanalyzing the Ripley Site: Earthworks and Late
Prehistory on the Lake Erie Plain, ed. L. P.
Sullivan, 78-89. Bulletin No 489. Albany: New
York State Museum.
Odell, G. H.
1998 Awl. In Archaeology of Prehistoric Native
America: An Encyclopedia, ed. G. Gibbon, 39.
New York and London: Garland Publishing.
Parker, A. C.
1910 Iroquois Uses of Maize and Other Food Plants.
Bulletin No 144. Albany: New York State
Museum.
 BONES AS TOOLS: CURRENT METHODS AND INTERPRETATIONS IN WORKED BONE STUDIES
Pendergast, J. F.
1966 Three Prehistoric Iroquois Components in
Eastern Ontario: The Salem, Grays Creek, and
Beckstead Sites. Bulletin No 208. Ottawa:
National Museum of Man, National Museums of
Canada.
1968 The Summerstown Station Site. Anthropological
Papers, No 18. Ottawa: National Museum of
Man, National Museums of Canada.
1973 The Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site Rim Sherds
– An Attribute Analysis. Mercury Series, Paper
No 8. Ottawa: National Museum of Man,
National Museums of Canada.
1981 The Glenbrook Village Site: A Late St.Lawrence
Iroquoian Component in Glengarry County,
Ontario. Mercury Series, Paper No 100. Ottawa:
National Museum of Man, National Museums of
Canada.
Semenov, S. A.
1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study
.
118
of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of
Manufacture and Wear. (Translated, and with a
Preface by M. W. Thompson). London: Cory,
Adams and Mackay.
Timmins, P. A.
1997 The Calvert Site: An Interpretive Framework for
the Early Iroquoian Village. Mercury Series, Paper
No 156. Hull: Canadian Museum of Civilization.
Waugh, F. W.
1916 Iroquois Foods and Food Preparation. Memoir
No 86, Anthropological Series No 12. Ottawa:
Geological Survey of Canada.
Wintemberg, W. J.
1936 Roebuck Prehistoric Village Site, Grenville
County, Ontario. Bulletin No 83. Ottawa:
National Museum of Man, National Museums of
Canada.