Journal of Archaeological Science (2003) 30, 103–114

doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0814, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Experimental Evidence Concerning Spear Use in Neandertals

and Early Modern Humans
Daniel Schmitt* and Steven E. Churchill
Department of Biological Anthropology & Anatomy, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, U.S.A.

William L. Hylander
Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy and Primate Center, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, U.S.A.

(Received 24 August 2001, revised manuscript accepted 22 January 2002)

Can a bimanual activity such as thrusting a spear during hunting produce bilateral asymmetries in the strength of the
upper limbs? This question is important to arguments about the predatory capabilities of Neandertals and early modern
humans. To address this question, we determined the magnitude and direction of reaction forces on the upper limbs
during thrusting spear use. We collected lateral video records of eight adults thrusting an instrumented aluminum rod
into a padded target. This ‘‘spear’’ was instrumented with two sets of four strain gauges placed at two positions along
the shaft to register the force along the shaft and the distribution of those forces relative to the two limbs. From the
gauge output and video we were able to calculate loads experienced by the trailing limb (holding the proximal spear)
and the leading limb (holding the distal spear) as well as approximate bending moments along the trailing limb. The
trailing limb provides a significantly greater portion of the force during spear impact and when the spear is held
forcefully on the target. The loads on this limb at spear impact are twice body weight and the bending moments on the
trailing humerus are large and appear to occur primarily in the parasagittal plane. These data, in combination with
fossil humeral cross-sectional data and the lack of evidence for throwing spears among Eurasian Neandertals, suggest
that previously documented humeral strength asymmetries in Eurasian Neandertals and early Upper Paleolithic
Modern human males can be plausibly linked to spear thrusting.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY, SPEARS FORCES, BONE MODELLING,

ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS, MOUSTERIAN, UPPER PALEOLITHIC.

Introduction bow-and-arrow projectile weaponry remains hazy

(Shea, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1997; Knecht, 1993; Bergman,
t what point did long range projectile weaponry 1993; Cattelain, 1997).

A become a component of human predatory tac-

tics? Hunters limited to close range weapons
(such as hand-held spears) likely faced physical and
economic constraints on their choice of prey types,
prey size, and hunting methods (Churchill, 1993; Shott,
1993). The adoption of projectile weapons undoubt-
edly relaxed these constraints somewhat, and certainly
must have had important consequences for evolving
human subsistence strategies. Pin-pointing the advent
of long range technology and the human capacity for
‘‘killing at a distance’’ (see Binford, 1984) has, how-
ever, proven difficult. Despite innovative experimental
research over the last few decades (allowing us to better
determine the function of possible weapon armatures),
the timing of the adoption of both throwing-based and
*Tel.: 919-684-5664; Fax: 919-684-8034; e-mail:
schmitt@baa.mc.duke.edu
0305–4403/03/$-see front matter
Structural analysis of fossil human upper limb bones
may provide an additional source of data for delineat-
ing the development of projectile weaponry. Eurasian
Neandertals and early modern human males were both
characterized by high levels of bilateral strength asym-
metry of the humerus (Table 1) (Trinkaus, Churchill &
Ruff, 1994; Churchill, Weaver & Niewohner, 1996;
Churchill & Formicola, 1997; Trinkaus & Churchill,
1999). Given the well-documented plasticity of diaphy-
seal cortical bone in response to loading regimes (see
reviews in Ruff, 1992; Bridges, 1996), the observed
asymmetry has caused some to speculate that both
groups regularly engaged in some sort of unimanually
stressful behaviour, sufficient to stimulate a relative
increase in bone modelling in one limb. Since forceful
throwing generates substantial forces in the throwing
daniel– limb, could this pattern of asymmetry reflect habitual
employment of throwing-based projectile weaponry in
103
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
104 D. Schmitt et al.

Table 1. Humeral mid-distal diaphyseal shape and asymmetry in male samples1

% Asymm CA2 % Asymm J2 Right Ix/Iy3 Left Ix/Iy3

Neandertals 16·5 53·1 1·274 1·301

12·8–33·2 35·7–77·5 0·152 (6) 0·156 (5)
11·5–47·4 (4) 21·9–98·5 (4)
Early Upper Paleolithic 13·1 21·7 1·310 1·217
0·8–29·6 2·4–68·0 0·178 (5) 0·112 (6)
0·8–29·6 (3) 2·4–68·0 (3)
Late Upper Paleolithic 31·7 50·9 1·160 1·121
28·9–34·0 39·5–97·4 0·133 (9) 0·189 (7)
18·9–50·7 (6) 8·5–101·9 (6)
Georgia Coast foragers — — 1·001 (6)4 1·003 (6)4
Aleuts (maritime foragers) 9·5 16·4 1·037 1·016
2·6–15·3 6·3–21·8 0·135 (19) 0·780 (16)
0·2–23·9 (24) 1·1–40·1 (24)
Jomon (foragers) 6·7 6·4 0·897 0·891
5·1–7·6 3·2–10·7 0·127 (10) 0·132 (10)
0·4–15·0 (10) 1·6–16·7 (10)
Georgia Coast agriculturalists — — 1·125 (11)4 1·049 (11)4
Pueblo Amerindian (agricultural) 6·8 16·8 0·885 0·871
4·0–9·1 8·8–23·6 0·152 (16) 0·135 (19)
0·4–33·4 (14) 5·5–37·8 (14)
Euroamerican (autopsy sample) 5·9 7·5 1·209 1·189
3·2–11·6 3·1–21·8 0·105 (19) 0·171 (20)
0·7–26·5 (19) 1·6–41·6 (19)
Afroamerican (autopsy sample) — — 1·156 1·151
0·150 (14) 0·157 (11)

1
Based on cross-sectional properties of the humeral diaphysis as measured at 35% of length from the distal end: All
data from Churchill et al., 1996.
2
CA: cortical area (mm2: a measure of the thickness of the diaphyseal cortical bone and resistance to compressive
and tensile loads); J: polar moment of inertia (mm4: a measure of diaphyseal rigidity to bending and torsional
moments). Percent asymmetry calculated as [(max–min)/min]*100. Median, quartile range, range, and sample n
provided.
3
Ratio of the second moment of inertia (I; mm4; a measure of diaphyseal rigidity to bending moments in a single
plane) in the anteroposterior plane (Ix) to that of the mediolateral plane (Iy). Mean, SD, sample n provided.
4
Ratio calculated using mean Ix and Iy values: data from Fresia et al., 1990.

the Middle and early Upper Paleolithic of western
Eurasia?
Background
Consideration of humeral diaphyseal cross-sectional
shape in Neandertals and early modern Europeans led
Churchill and colleagues (1996) to argue against
throwing as the source of the mechanical loads respon-
sible for the observed asymmetry. They considered the
implications of size asymmetry in Neandertals and
early Upper Paleolithic modern humans and the
shape differences between this group and late Upper
Paleolithic humans.
Neandertal and early Upper Paleolithic (Aurigna-
cian and Gravettian) modern human males are
characterized by humeral shafts that are wider antero-
posteriorly than mediolaterally. In addition, the right
humeri in these specimens are considerably more
robust, and therefore are likely to be stronger in all
directions compared to left humeri (Table 1)
(Churchill, Weaver & Niewoehner, 1996). Late Upper
Paleolithic males, on the other hand, tend to have
humeral shafts that are rounder in section, and hence
that were roughly equally resistant to bending
moments in both directions. The rounded shaft cross-
sections seen in the humeri of the late Upper Paleo-
lithic sample are consistent with resistance to torsional
loads as produced during throwing (Tullos & King,
1973; Gainor et al., 1980; Pappas, Zawacki & Sullivan,
1985). The greater anteroposterior bending strength of
the Neandertal and early Upper Paleolithic male
humeri has been argued to reflect resistance to large
bending moments engendered by thrusting spear use
(Churchill, Weaver & Niewoehner, 1996). Further-
more, Churchill et al. suggested that forceful employ-
ment of a thrusting spear, although seemingly
bimanual in nature, may in fact generate greater reac-
tion forces and larger bending moments in the ’’trail-
ing’’ limb (the limb holding the proximal end of the
spear) than in the ‘‘leading’’ limb (on the distal spear).
General observations suggest that the dominant limb
(the right-hand in most people) is usually employed as
the trailing limb. Thus, they argued, that regular
close-range hunting with thrusting spears may have
produced the pattern of right-dominant humeral
strength asymmetry seen in these groups.

We provide here the results of experimental research
aimed at testing the claims that (1) bimanual spear
thrusting produces asymmetrical loads in the two limbs
(and thus could be the basis for differential modelling
responses in the two humeri and ultimately, bilateral
strength asymmetry) and (2) thrusting spear use
engenders relatively large anteroposterior bending
moments on the humerus of the dominant (trailing)
limb.
Close range weapons of the Middle and Early Upper
Paleolithic
The earliest direct evidence of long range projectile
weaponry comes in the form of the remains of spear-
throwers (atlatls or propulseurs) from Solutrean con-
texts at La Placard (Breuil, 1913) and Combe-Saunière
(Cattelain, 1989), dating to c. 19–17,000 years ago.
There is presently only indirect evidence suggesting
that the spear-thrower (or other forms of long range
projectiles) may have come into common use earlier.
From the late Middle Paleolithic through the Early
Upper Paleolithic certain design features occur with
increasing regularity in lithic (and in some cases
osseous: Gaudzinski, 1999) points. These include
relatively small size, symmetry about the long axis,
basal modification to facilitate hafting (including the
use of stems and shoulders), and size standardization
of the proximal end—traits that can be variously
seen in points that predate the earliest known
atlatls—including Aterian, Teyjat, Font Robert,
El-Wad (Font Yves) and Gravette points (see Straus,
1990a; Peterkin, 1993). These design elements may
reflect a concern for projectile aerodynamics and pen-
etrating capabilities (see Guthrie, 1983; Christenson,
1986; Odell & Cowan, 1986; Shea, Davis & Brown,
2001), and hence their appearance in the Pleniglacial
may herald the advent of real projectile weaponry.
Thus sometime during the late Middle Paleolithic,
early Upper Paleolithic or earliest late Upper Paleo-
lithic, hunters increasingly employed long range
projectile weaponry. Prior to this hunters were
probably equipped with hand-held, close range
hunting technology, which likely included an arsenal of
sticks, clubs and stones (see e.g., Thieme, 1999),
but which undoubtedly emphasized hand-delivered,
as opposed to spear-thrower-delivered (i.e. atlatl),
spears.
Large, heavy pointed staves have been recovered
from a number of Middle and early Late Pleistocene
sites in Europe. The most remarkable of these was the
discovery, between 1995 and 1997, of seven largely
intact wooden spears from the c. 400,000 year old (OIS
11) level 4 of Schöningen 13, near Helmstedt, Germany
(Thieme, 1997, 1999). These spears range in length
from 1·8–2·5 m and in maximum thickness from 29–
47 mm (Thieme, 1999). Based on design attributes
(namely, distal positioning of the centre of mass and
tapering of the proximal end [as with modern track and
Spear Use in Pleistocene Homo 105
field javelins]), Thieme (1997, 1999) has argued that
these spears were designed for aerodynamic stability
and hence projectile use, and that they were used to kill
horses, as represented by the remains of at least 15
animals in this level. Similar artifacts have been recov-
ered from Hoxnian Interglacial (OIS 13) aged deposits
at Clacton-on-Sea, England (the distal 39 cm of a
sharpened Yew stave: Warren, 1911; Oakley et al.,
1977) and from Eemian Interglacial (OIS 5) deposits at
Lehringen, Germany (a 2·4 m long, broken spear of
Yew, found between the ribs of a elephant skeleton:
Movius, 1950; Tode, 1954).
There is lithic-use wear evidence that during Middle
Paleolithic times humans began to haft lithic points to
spears or handles to make composite weapons (Shea,
1988, 1989; Beyries, 1990; Shea et al., 2001). The
recovery of a broken Levallois point embedded in a
cervical vertebra of a wild ass at Umm El Tlel (Boëda
et al., 1999) further testifies to the use of lithic weapon
armatures in the Mousterian. However, the extent to
which this innovation reflected a concern for projectile
penetration versus the overall effectiveness (or reliabil-
ity sensu Bleed, 1986) of a hand-delivered weapon
is not clear (see Shea, 1997). Edgewear damage on
Mousterian and Levallois points also supports the
notion that they were sometimes used as weapon
armatures (Shea, 1989, 1990, 1997), but is insufficient
for differentiating projectile (javelin) versus hand
thrust (lance) modes of deployment (Shea, 1993). Thus,
while analysis of lithic armatures may better elucidate
the characteristics of the hunting weapons themselves,
they do not speak to the question of how these
weapons were deployed. Shea, Davis & Brown (2001)
has recently shown the effectiveness of Levallois
points of the Levantine Mousterian in piercing goat
carcasses in simulated calibrated thrusting conditions.
Shea, Davis & Brown (2001) noted in particular that
the lack of data on thrusting forces hinders analyses of
the use of spears by Neandertals and early modern
humans.
While some of the recovered fossil spears exhibit
design elements that may reflect a concern for aerody-
namics, their overall size and shape is most similar to
that of ethnographically known thrusting spears (Table
2) (Oakley et al., 1977). The Schöningen and Lehringen
spears are relatively thick compared to recent throwing
spears (Table 2), as is the Clacton spear (the maximum
diameter of the preserved portion of the distal end is
39 mm: Oakley et al., 1977). Indeed, the average maxi-
mum diameter of four of the fossil spears (for which
published data are available) is almost 3·5 standard
deviations above the mean for eight recent thrusting
spears and is more than seven standard deviations
above the mean for 28 modern throwing spears
reported by Oakley et al. (1977) (Table 2). When
maximum diameter is taken relative to spear length
(thickness index: Table 2), the fossil spears fall between
ethnographically known thrusting spears and digging
sticks. While the published data on the mass of the
106 D. Schmitt et al.
Table 2. Dimensions of fossil and modern spears
Length
(mm)
Lehringen 2400
Schöningen I 2250
Schöningen II 2300
Schöningen III 1820
Mean of fossil spears (n=4) 2193256
Modern thrusting spears (n=8) 2170308
Modern throwing spears (n=28) 2161284
Modern digging sticks (n=16) 1189385
1
100*Maximum diameter/length.
fossil specimens is not available, the great length and
width of the fossil spears suggests that they would have
been heavy relative even to modern thrusting spears,
and easily four to five times the weight of modern
throwing spears (Table 2). Clearly, if these were
designed to be projectile weapons, they were larger
and heavier than any comparable projectile used by
modern foragers.
We should note at the outset that, with respect to
hand-delivered spears, the distinction between thrust-
ing and throwing spears is largely artificial: recent
(historically known and extant) hunter-gatherers use
hand-held spears in both manners (Churchill, 1993;
Hitchcock & Bleed, 1997). It is also the case that
human use of hunting technology is highly variable
from situation to situation (and hence highly adaptable
to circumstance), making it naive to talk about the
function of subsistence tools in any sort of absolute
terms (see, for example, Hill & Hawkes, 1983; Bleed,
1986; Greaves, 1997). However, among recent forag-
ers, hand-delivered spears tend to be thrust at prey
from close quarters and, in the much rarer cases in
which they are thrown, tend to be delivered from close
range (generally within 6 m: Churchill, 1993). Thus the
hand-delivered spear, whether thrust or thrown, is
essentially a close range weapon, and herein lies the
limitations that this weapon imposes on prey selection
and choice of hunting tactic (Churchill, 1993). Spear
thrower-delivered spears, on the other hand, allow an
effective hunting distance of 25–45 m (Churchill, 1993;
Cattelain, 1997), permitting greater flexibility in hunt-
ing method and prey choice (although this weapon
system has other limitations: see Churchill, 1993). Our
central question, then, is not when spear throwing first
occurred in human evolution (as this behaviour un-
doubtedly dates to the first spears!), but rather when
human hunters shifted from a focus on close range
predation with hand-held weapons to a focus on long
range hunting with projectile technology. The differing
emphasis of these hunting modes on bimanual thrust-
ing versus unimanual throwing provides hope that this
transition will be reflected in the bony architecture of
human fossil upper limb remains.
Maximum
Mass diameter Thickness
(g) (mm) index1 Source
— 34 1·417 Oakley et al., 1977
— 47 2·089 Thieme, 1999
— 37 1·609 Thieme, 1999
— 29 1·593 Thieme, 1999
— 39·36·8 1·6770·3
772386 26·83·6 1·2510·227 Oakley et al., 1977
258110 14·63·5 0·6850·181 Oakley et al., 1977
559387 28·48·6 2·5741·055 Oakley et al., 1977
Behavioural inferences from structural analysis of
human fossil remains
It bears mentioning why we expect either of these
behaviours (throwing or thrusting) to be reflected in
the skeletal morphology of the hominids themselves.
As mentioned, living bone tissue is known to adap-
tively model and remodel in response to biomechanical
stimuli (see references in Ruff, 1992; Trinkaus et al.,
1994). Thus variation in the relative amount and
distribution of cortical tissue in long bone diaphyses is
argued to reflect interindividual variation in the inten-
sity and patterns of bone loading, related to behav-
ioural variation in activity levels and activity patterns.
The relationship between behaviour, bone loading and
modelling/remodelling is a complex one (see for
example, Lanyon, 1990; Hylander & Johnson, 1997;
Daegling & Hylander, 1997; Demes et al., 1998) and
we agree with Daegling (1993: 247) that ‘‘. . . the
inference of . . . stress patterns from purely morpho-
logical criteria in the absence of experimental
corroboration is problematic’’. In this vein we
view behavioural models derived from analysis of
skeletal morphology as hypotheses that must be tested
by experimental studies of living animals. The results
presented here represent an attempt to evaluate
the inferences about hunting behaviour that have
been drawn for asymmetry and shape differences in
Eurasian Neandertals and early modern human
humeri.
There is still considerable debate among bone biolo-
gists concerning the critical stimulus that triggers adap-
tive modelling. Some argue that the critical stimulus is
the magnitude of the strain engendered in the bone
during loading, not the number of loading cycles (e.g.,
Rubin & Lanyon, 1984; Whalen, Carter & Steel, 1988;
Beaupre, Orr & Carter, 1990a,b, see also Skerry &
Lanyon, 1995). It is certainly the case that even single
episodes of highly stressful activities have been shown
to stimulate bone remodelling (Chamay & Tschantz,
1972; see also Lanyon, Rubin & Baust, 1986). On the
other hand many authors (e.g., Lanyon & Rubin, 1985;
Martin & Burr, 1989; Rubin et al., 1994) do not believe

that peak functional strains are the only stimulus, or
even the most important of the various stimuli, to have
osteoregulatory capabilities (see Hylander & Johnson,
1997: 215). In addition to strain magnitude Rubin et al.
(1994) describe other stimuli including the fabric
tensor, strain frequency, strain rate, strain gradients,
electrokinetics, piezoelectricity, strain history, and
strain energy density that may have osteoregulatory
effects. Many of these variables are often linked di-
rectly to strain magnitude, and much work remains to
be done to understand the role of each of these stimuli
and the way they interact in osteoregulation. We take
as our working hypothesis that strain magnitude, or
some combination of magnitude and frequency
(Jacobs et al., 1998; Robling et al., 2000), functions as
important stimuli for osteogenic response.
Despite our incomplete understanding of osteo-
regulation, there is a general consensus among bio-
archeologists that behavioural inferences can be made
by analysing variation in diaphyseal robusticity (par-
ticularly strength asymmetry) and that such studies
offer a unique source of information about the behav-
ioural characteristics of prehistoric humans. The obser-
vation of humeral asymmetry itself suggests a
particularly clear link between limb robusticity and
biomechanical loads (Trinkaus et al., 1994). In this
paper we are specifically testing the hypothesis that
high magnitude loads engendered during spear thrust-
ing could lead to the pattern of humeral asymmetry in
Eurasian Neandertals and early modern humans
(Churchill et al., 1996).
Both projectile throwing and close-quarters spear
use must have generated substantial loads on the upper
limb, although the nature of these loads would have
been markedly different. Throwing generates torsional
moments in the humeral shaft (Tullos & King, 1973;
Gainor et al., 1980; Pappas et al., 1985) as the large,
powerful muscles inserting on the proximal humerus
(namely M. pectoralis major and M. latissimus dorsi)
internally rotate the bone, while the inertia produced
by the mass of the projectile and the forearm result in
an external rotary moment at the elbow (and hence the
distal end of the humerus). Although spear thrusting is
generally a bimanual action, in an underhand thrust
the majority of the force may be generated by the
dominant limb (with the non-dominant limb serving to
guide the spear and trailing limb). High bending forces
would be expected in the trailing (generally the domi-
nant) humerus as the proximally-inserted flexors of the
humerus (M. pectoralis major and the anterior portion
of M. deltoideus) pull the proximal end of the bone
forward while the resistance offered by the object being
speared exerts a posteriorly directed force (via the
spear and forearm) on the distal humerus. Thrusting,
then, should generate bending forces in the parasagittal
(anteroposterior) plane of the trailing humerus, while
throwing would generate torsional loads. Since the
nature and direction of these stresses differ, we might
expect to see concordant differences in humeral shaft
Spear Use in Pleistocene Homo 107
Figure 1. A still frame of video of one subject at the point of impact
of the spear with the target. Reflective markers are located on the
shoulder, elbow, wrist, and two points on the spear.
cross-sectional shape, but similar magnitudes of
bilateral strength asymmetry, between habitual spear
thrusters and throwers.
Currently no data exist to address the relationship
between load magnitude and distribution and humeral
strength asymmetry. Shea, Davis & Brown (2001:
809–810) recently noted that ‘‘An exhaustive literature
search failed to discover specific information on the
force levels involved in the use of two-handed thrusting
spears’’.
Materials and Methods
We test the hypothesis that during bimanual spear
thrusting the trailing arm supplies the ‘‘driving’’ force,
whereas the leading arm serves mainly to guide the
spear. We also document the magnitude of the load
and provide some data on the plane of bending along
the upper limb during spear-thrusting. Our sample
consisted of eight subjects (3 men and 5 women)
between 24 and 50 years old, 1·55–1·85 m tall, and
weighing between 48–95 kg. There was a substantial
overlap in weight, height, and age between male and
female subjects. All were healthy and reported no
significant upper limb injuries or disability. No subjects
had any special experience with throwing or thrusting
spear-like objects (i.e. javelins or bayonets). We pro-
vided no guidance and allowed people to use the spear
as they wished. Below we provided information on
variability in load and posture across subjects. In
future studies we look forward to exploring this issue
with ‘‘trained’’ subjects.
Subjects were asked to bimanually drive the instru-
mented ‘‘spear’’ into a padded target (Figure 1). The
spear was a 1·8 m long hollow aluminum rod with an
outside diameter of 25·6 mm and inside diameter of
22·47 mm. We recognize that hollow, non-tipped,
aluminum rods are not spears. Our goals were to
108 D. Schmitt et al.
determine the contribution made by each limb to
propelling the spear, to determine forces operating
along the spear shaft that are imparted to the limbs,
and to determine the limb positions of the subjects
during and after peak impact. These data are used to
test the hypotheses, outlined above, derived from ob-
servation of humeral diaphyseal cross-sectional mor-
phological patterns in fossil humans. Essentially,
we endeavour here to provide middle range research
(Binford, 1981; see also Churchill & Schmitt, 2001)
that provides an empirical link between structural
analysis of fossil long bones and inferences of prehis-
toric behaviour. As stated above and in previous
publications (Churchill & Schmitt, 2001), we do not
assume that structural analysis of humeri will lead to
accurate behavioural inferences. Instead, we are testing
hypotheses derived from previous structural analyses.
Because the results reported here deal only with exter-
nal loads our data represent a first step in testing the
validity of these hypotheses.
Two sets of four single element strain gauges were
positioned at two locations on the pole. The front set
was placed 240 mm from the distal end of the pole, the
back gauges were placed 750 mm from the distal end.
Each set of four gauges were bonded around the shaft
equidistant from each other (such that if one were to
look at the pole in section, the gauges would be
positioned at 12 o’clock, 3 o’clock, 6 o’clock and 9
o’clock) using cyanoacrylate and covered with plastic
insulation (M-Coat D; Micromeasurements Corp.).
The gauges were connected in series and formed one
arm of a Wheatstone bridge in a Vishay strain signal
conditioner (Vishay #2110, #2120). The arrangement
of the strain gauges allowed us to collect only measures
of axial (compressive) strains along the shaft. Bending
moments produce strains of equal magnitude but
opposite sign on opposite sides of the shaft. Thus by
arranging pairs of gauges opposite one another and
summing the strain signals, the tension and compres-
sion aspects of bending cancelled each other out. To
confirm this we forcefully bent the pole by gripping on
either side of the gauges. Even with high bending forces
the microstrain values were negligible.
Subjects were asked to grip the shaft in a fashion
that was comfortable for them with one hand placed
between the front and back gauges and the other
behind the back gauges (Figure 1). Subjects were
allowed to hold the spear in any posture they chose and
were not instructed as to which limb should be in back.
Seven subjects reported being right-handed and all
seven used their right limb as the trailing limb. One
subject was left-handed, and for three trials she used
her right limb as the trailing limb (the video camera
was positioned for right-handed subjects, and initially
our left-handed subject conformed to this arrange-
ment). However, after a few trials our left-handed
subject reported that it was uncomfortable to use her
right hand as the trailing hand. Thus the camera was
repositioned and for the remaining trials she used her
left limb in the trailing position. All subjects were
asked to thrust the shaft into a 1·25 cm thick stiff
gymnastics cushion mounted on a wooden frame. The
frame was secured against a wall so that it moved
minimally. The 1·3 m2 cushion allowed a wide target
area and thus provided the subjects considerable
latitude in their posture and movement.
Subjects were videotaped from a lateral view during
spear thrusting with a single Panasonic CCD camera
(WV-D5100). Subjects were recorded from the right or
left side depending on which limb was the trailing limb.
This camera was electronically shuttered at 1/1000 s
and images were recorded on a Panasonic AG-7350 at
60 images per s. Subjects wore bright reflective markers
at the wrist, elbow, and shoulder of the trailing limb
(Figure 1). The spear was also marked with bright
white markers just behind the gauges. These markers
were used later for digitizing limb and spear position.
Subjects were asked to perform three different thrust
types. A single brief strike followed by rapid with-
drawal (strike-withdrawal: SW), a series of repeated
short thrusts and withdrawals (repeated strike-
withdrawal: RSW), or a strike followed by a holding
period between one and three seconds (strike-hold:
SH). Subjects were allowed to thrust the spear in any
way that they felt comfortable and were not restricted
concerning angle of attack and limb or body position.
Signal output was in volts. The gauge output was
calibrated after each trial using a known 1000 micros-
train signal. These calibrations provided a value of 348
(2·28) microstrain/volt. The calibration output from
the back gauge were slightly lower (99·660·12%)
than the values for the front gauge, but these values
were not significantly different. This reflects small
differences in the amplifiers. The voltage signals from
each set of gauges were passed through an analogue-
digital converter (Peak Performance Technologies,
Englewood, CO) and then read into Motus motion/
kinetic analysis software (Peak Performance Tech-
nologies, Englewood, CO). Data from the gauges were
recorded prior to beginning the thrust and until the
strike(s) and the holding period(s) were complete and
the spear was pulled off of the target.
Since in linearly elastic materials there is a consistent
relationship between stress and strain (at least in the
range of elastic deformation), we were able to estimate
reaction forces (in Newtons) from observed micro-
strain values. To do so, we placed the spear perpen-
dicular to the platform of a Kistler force plate (Kistler
Corporation) and applied loads with steady, strong,
rhythmic pushes. We collected 5294 paired measures of
microstrain and compressive force using this approach.
The maximum voltage we achieved through this
method was 0·4 volts (139·2 microstrain), lower than
the voltage outputs commonly achieved during
the trials (mean=0·56, max of 1·157 volts). Addition-
ally, this method did not entirely simulate the sharp
dynamic stabs our subjects used. Since estimating the
forces associated with our highest observed microstrain
 Spear Use in Pleistocene Homo 109

(a)
Red gauges (front), Raw analog data Green gauges (back), Raw analog data
Subject #3: Strike and hold
0.1

–0.1
Volts

–0.2 Front = –0.107 V

Back = –0.059 V

–0.3 Front = –0.444 V

Back = –0.283 V
–0.4

–0.5
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time (sec)

(b)
Subject #3: Limb position at strike

Shoulder to x-axis angle

Elbow angle
Moment arm
of spear force
at elbow Wrist angle
Hand to spear angle

Figure 2. (a) Raw analogue output from the front and back strain gauges during a strike and hold period. (b) A stick figure diagram produced
by digitizing reflective markers on the trailing limb at the point of impact. The angles calculated are indicated. In addition one moment arm
is illustrated. The moment arms for the shoulder, midshaft humerus, and wrist are not included in this figure.

values requires extrapolation beyond our empirical
regression, we also calculated the expected stress and
compressive force for a given strain based on Young’s
modulus of aluminum (70 Gpa) and the area of the
metal within the cross section of the spear (121·7 mm).
The values for the equation from this approach yield
force values in Newtons that are close to, but slightly
higher than those of the empirically determined values
up to 139 ms (ratio of actual/predicted values=
89·96%). Based on these procedures we are able
to provide some sense of the magnitude of load
experienced during spear thrusting.
Typical kinetic and kinematic data are illustrated in
Figure 2. The video data were recorded synchronously
with the strain data using an Event and Video Control
Unit (Peak Performance Technologies, Englewood,
CO). The peak value for the front and back gauges
were recorded for each strike and during each holding
period (Figure 2a). The ratio of back/front gauge
output was recorded at spear strike and during the
holding period.
The ratio between the front and back gauges is a
convenient way to express which limb is providing
most of the force of the thrust. If the force is applied
from a single point behind both gauges then the output
from both the front and back set of gauges will remain
equal. Tests of force applications to the pole in this
fashion confirmed this result. If the force is applied
only from behind the front gauges, the back gauges will
record no strain.
During spear thrusting postures the force is applied
behind both sets of gauges; one hand behind the front
gauges only and the other behind the front and
back gauges (Figure 1). Thus the output from the front
gauges will always be larger than the output from the
back gauges. If the force applied by both limbs (one
behind the front and one behind the back gauges) is
equal then the output of the front set of gauges will be
twice as large as that of the back gauges (back gauge/
front gauge ratio=0·5). In this situation, because of the
alignment of the trailing limb with the spear and the
elevation of the forearm and arm from the spear
110 D. Schmitt et al.

Table 3. Gauge output in microstrain and Newtons

Strike Hold period

Microstrain Newtons Microstrain Newtons

Front gauges
Mean (..) 194·88 (73·1) 1660 (622·7) 37·9 (20·9) 3228 (178·0)
Range 57·8–402·6 492–3430 5·2–104·4 45–889
Back gauges
Mean (..) 123·54 (45·2) 1052 (385·4) 20·8 (10·6) 178 (90·4)
Range 44·2–248·1 377–2113 1·7–52·2 15–445
Back/front ratio
Mean (..) 0·647 (0·119) 0·585 (0·203)
Range 0·344–0·869 0·128–1·0

surface (Figure 1) we would predict that the trailing Results

limb will experience higher bending moments than
the leading limb. If more force is applied behind the
front gauges than the back gauges (i.e., when the
leading limb is providing most of the force) then
the output of the front gauges will be more than twice
as large as that of the back gauge (back gauge/front
gauge ratio <0·5). In this case the leading limb would
experience higher bending moments than the trailing
limb. When the back limb is providing the pre-
dominant ‘‘driving’’ force (more force is applied be-
hind the back gauges than the front gauges) then
the ratio of back/front gauges will be greater than
0·5. This value will approach 100% as more and
more of the force is applied from behind the back
gauge. Under these conditions the trailing limb would
most certainly experience relatively higher bending
moments.
Limb position during thrusting, striking, and hold-
ing were recorded by digitizing the markers on the
spear and limb. Quantitative kinematic data were
available only for the spear and trailing limb in the
sagittal plane. Future studies will include video records
from other angles in order to quantify the limb angles
of the leading limb. The angles calculated (Figure 2b)
were: (1) spear-hand angle, (2) posterior wrist angle, (3)
anterior elbow angle, and (4) angle of shoulder to
X-axis (as defined by a horizontal plane running
through the shoulder marker). These values were cal-
culated using the calibrated X, Y coordinates in
We collected data for 76 spear strikes and 56 hold
periods (during some trials subjects withdrew the spear
with no hold period). The results for the 76 strikes were
very clear (Table 3). No statistically significant individ-
ual or gender variation was observed. The data from
the subject who used her left limb as the trailing limb
was not statistically different from the values when she
used her right limb in the rear position or from those of
any other subjects. The average ratio of the peak
output of the back/front gauges at the moment of
impact was 0·65 (0·12) with a maximum of 0·87.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of those ratios with
91% of the ratios greater than 0·50 and 64% greater
than 0·60. Of the seven strike ratios that were below
50% the average value was 0·44 with a minimum value
of 0·34. The distribution of ratios was very even across
subject with no one subject showing significantly
higher or lower values than others. No significant
differences existed between any subjects.
The average back/front gauge ratio during the hold
period was lower (Table 3) than during the strike. The
Force ratio distribution
14
12
Number of strikes

10
Motus. We were able to calculate estimates of the
magnitude of bending moments associated with the 8
spear reaction force at the wrist, elbow, shoulder, and 6
midshaft humerus. Moments were derived using the
limb and spear angles, the known lengths of the limb, 4
and by treating the spear as a force vector whose 2
orientation is given by the position of the spear and
0
whose magnitude is given by the compressive force (N)
5

5
5

.6

0
0
0

.6

.7

.8
.5

.7

.8
.5
.5

>0

estimated from the strain data. An example of such a

>0

>0

>0
>0

>0

>0
>0
<0

calculation is shown in Figure 2b. Because the highest Back gauge output/front gauge output
magnitude forces occurred at the instant of spear Figure 3. The distribution of gauge ratios (back gauge output/front
strike, the moments were calculated for this instant gauge output) for our 76 spear strikes. Note that only 7 of 76 were
only. less than 0·50 and 47 of 76 were equal to or greater than 0·60.

Table 4. Trailing limb and spear angles at spear strike
Angle (degrees) Mean (..)
Shoulder to X-axis 140·3
Elbow 101·6
Wrist 171·0
Spear to hand 114·4
average ratio during the hold period was 0·58 with a
minimum of 0·13 but a maximum of 1. Unlike strike
ratios, hold ratios did vary across subjects. Individuals
shifted their weight over the leading limb to different
degrees as they leaned into the spear during the hold.
Some moved their bodies so far forward that the
shoulder of the trailing limb was above the hand of the
leading limb. This allowed some subjects to relieve
the trailing limb almost entirely. Other subjects leaned
back a bit during the hold and in that way relieved the
leading limb.
The mean absolute value of the strike force is
substantial (Table 3)—1660 N, with a maximum of
3430 N. The axial force along the spear is on average
twice the body weight of our subjects, and reached
values four times body weight in some cases. The loads
during the hold period are significantly lower (Table 3),
averaging about 22% of the strike loads. Nonetheless,
they average approximately 40% of body weight and
can be as high as body weight.
The following limb positions were observed during
all strikes and all hold periods (Table 4). The long axis
of the trailing limb aligned closely with long axis of the
spear, while the hand of the trailing limb was held in
mid-pronation and was mildly deviated to the ulnar
side. The elbow was deeply flexed. The olecranon
process of the ulna projected posteriorly in line with
the long axis of the spear. The humerus was aligned in
such a way that the long axis of the spear was roughly
perpendicular to the epicondylar plane. We did not
have clear images of the leading limb from which to
calculate angles. In general, the hand of the leading
limb was fully supinated and the wrist was in neutral
position. As with the trailing limb, the elbow was
deeply flexed. The elbow was lateral to the spear.
Subjects were very consistent in the strike posture of
the trailing limb (Table 4). We calculated moments
of the spear force around the wrist, elbow, shoulder,
and midshaft humerus of the trailing limb (Table 5).
Values in Newton-Meters (NM) vary strongly with the
magnitude of the strike.
Discussion
The results of this study provide clear support for the
proposition that bimanual spear thrusting yields asym-
metrical loads on the upper limbs. During both strike
and hold periods the trailing limb (Figure 1) applies
forces that are on average 1·7 times larger than those of
Spear Use in Pleistocene Homo 111
Table 5. Moments of the spear force (Newton-meters) in the trailing
limb
Mean (..) Range
(7·1)
(7·3) Wrist 137·0 (45·4) 103–223
(8·6) Elbow 524·8 (152·8) 357–788
(9·8) Mid-shaft humerus 732·5 (214·3) 500–1118
Shoulder 888·4 (309·6) 574–1374
the leading limb. Forces operating on the trailing limb
can be as much as 6·6 times that of the leading limb
during the strike. The axial loads along the spear are
on average two times body weight and can be as high
as four times body weight. Loads of similar magnitude
are common in the lower limb during walking and
running and are well known to be a cause of lower limb
joint damage (Radin et al., 1973; Voloshin, Wosk &
Brull, 1981; McMahon, Valiant & Frederick, 1987;
Lafortune, 1991). This suggests that spear thrusting is
likely to engender loads of sufficient magnitude to
stimulate modelling responses in the bones of the upper
limbs. An activity that likely generates reaction forces
of similar (or smaller) magnitude in one limb—tennis
playing—has been shown to result in often substantial
humeral strength asymmetry when conducted habitu-
ally (Trinkaus, Churchill & Ruff, 1994). The loads
during the holding period of a thrust are lower than
during the strike. Nonetheless, they are on average
40% of body weight and they are applied over longer
periods.
As discussed in the introduction we are exploring the
possibility that spear thrusting generates higher peak
loads on the trailing versus the leading limb. These
peak loads are one of several important stimuli that
promote bone modelling. Thus we explored the force at
the moment of impact—when reaction forces are at
their peak—rather than during the longer yet less
stressful holding period.
Obviously the task we had our subjects perform was
artificial, and the reaction forces engendered likely
differ from those encountered in actual hunting. The
soft tissue of a prey animal is clearly more compliant
than our padded target, and the movement of the
animal must certainly generate off-axis forces that must
be resisted by the hunter. Our spears were thrust into
the target at speeds ranging from 1·7 m/s to 4·5 m/s.
These are considerably higher than the loading speeds
(1·0–1·5 m/s) reported by Shea, Davis & Brown (2001)
but lower than the speeds (18–22 m/s) estimated for
throwing spears (Cottrell & Kamminga, 1990; Hughes,
1998). The energy at impact of our spears must be
higher than those of Shea, Davis & Brown (2001).
Thus we expect that, had our spears been tipped with
stone points, we would have penetrated a goat carcass
easily to a depth greater than 20 cm. It would be
interesting to compare lithic-use wear and damage
under higher force conditions.
112 D. Schmitt et al.
It is likely that hunters would often encounter resist-
ance from bone during penetration. We anticipate that
impact forces when a spear encounters bone or other
substantial resistance are similar to those generated by
our subjects in the lab, and that our experimental
approach provides an initial understanding of the ways
that forces are imparted to the two limbs during
bimanual spear use.
During the strike period the subject must resist
moments tending to retract the shoulder, extend the
elbow, and ulnarly deviate the wrist of the trailing
limb. Subjects generally must recruit muscles to resist
turning moments at these joints. The insertion sites of
muscles that resist the reaction forces generated by
spear thrusting, notably the humeral flexor M. pecto-
ralis major and the forearm flexors Mm. biceps brachii
and brachialis, are hypertrophied in Neandertals
(Trinkaus, 1983a,b) and in some early modern Euro-
peans (Churchill & Formicola, 1997; Churchill &
Smith, 2000). Subjects may also rely on osteoligamen-
tous structures to help resist turning moments at the
shoulder, elbow and wrist. Along these lines it is
interesting that at the moment of spear strike (and
hence peak reaction forces) our subjects had partially
flexed elbows (average angle 101·6: Table 4). As
Trinkaus & Churchill (1988: 20) noted in reference
to the morphology of the ulnar trochlear notch in
Neandertals:
Most of the Neandertal ulnar trochlear notches are more
anteriorly oriented than those of more recent humans
(Trinkaus, 1983a). This proximal ulnar articular orien-
tation of the Neandertals would provide greater resistance
to joint reaction forces in partial flexion of the elbow (by
maximizing the effective joint surface area perpendicular
to the joint reaction force and the ability of the joint to
resist proximodistal shear stress), whereas the more proxi-
moanterior orientation of recent human ulnar trochlear
notches would more effectively resist such forces in exten-
sion (this in no way implies any difference in ranges or
patterns of elbow movement, only a frequency difference
in the habitual position of peak loading).
Another way that a subject may control bending
moments on long bones and compressive and shear
forces at joints is by positioning the limb such that the
bones are more in line with the force vector and joint
surfaces are perpendicular to it. We found our subjects
to be fairly conservative in the postures chosen to
strike the target (both between trials of the same
subject and between subjects). This suggests that the
best posture for generating thrusting force and resist-
ing reaction forces may fall within a fairly narrow
range of posture. Regardless, subjects still engendered
large bending moments in the trailing limb. The high
loads along the long axis of the spear were coupled
with long moment arms, some of which were greater
than 75% of the length of the fully extended limb
segment. This resulted in bending moments as high or
higher than those seen in the lower limb during walk-
ing and distance running (Andriacchi, Natrajan &
Hurwitz, 1997). The bending moments we observed
about the shoulder (Table 5) are a little more than half
those experienced in torsion during throwing—
approximately 890 Nm during thrusting versus
1665 Nm of torsional force during throwing (Gainor
et al., 1980). Nonetheless, the loads during thrusting
are likely more than adequate to stimulate osteogenic
activity to a greater degree in the dominant (trailing)
limb versus the nondominant (leading) limb.
The most salient point about the moments during
spear thrusting in the dominant limb is the orientation
of the bending moments. The moments along the
forearm occur in the mediolateral plane because the
volar surface of the forearm faces medially. However,
the bending moments along the humerus appear to
occur primarily in the anteroposterior plane, consistent
with the pattern of bone cross-sectional anatomy seen
in Eurasian Neandertals and Early Upper Paleolithic
modern humans.
It should also be noted that the guiding (leading)
limbs may also experience high moments. This limb
projects somewhat laterally from the long axis of the
spear and as a result the humerus of this limb may have
experienced considerable torsion. On the other hand,
because the limb is held strongly flexed, the action of
biceps and triceps along the shaft may lead to relatively
higher anteroposterior loads. This may explain the
similar shape of the right and left humeri (Table 1)
whereas the strength asymmetry is arguably
explained by the asymmetry in the magnitude of loads
applied.
Taken together, the asymmetry of load and the
orientation of the bending moments support in-
ferences drawn from skeletal anatomy that Eurasian
Neandertals and Early Upper Paleolithic hunters relied
heavily on thrusting spears and close-range hunting.
The humeri of males from Mousterian and Early
Upper Paleolithic contexts exhibit a right-dominant
pattern of strength asymmetry, and appear to have
been well prepared to withstand bending moments in
the parasagittal (anteroposterior) plane. Coupled with
the lack of direct evidence for projectile weaponry
during this time, we feel the most parsimonious con-
clusion is that thrusting spear use was one of the
principle sources, if not the principle source, of osteo-
genic stimuli in Neandertal and Early Upper Paleo-
lithic modern human male humeri. Males of the Late
Upper Paleolithic tend to be characterized by humeri
that are more equally resistant to bending moments in
multiple directions (and torsion, as generated during
throwing) as well as right-dominated strength asym-
metry. In conjunction with artifactual evidence of
projectile weaponry in the Late Upper Paleolithic, we
suggest that torsional moments generated during hunt-
ing with long-range projectile weapons was one of the
principle sources of osteogenic stimuli in males of this
period. Thus we feel, based on current evidence, that
long-range projectile weaponry did not become a regu-
lar part of human predatory methods until the early
part of the Late Upper Paleolithic (Solutrean), roughly

coincident with the first appearance of spear-throwers
in the archeological record.
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful for all the help we had with this
project. Chris Vinyard, Kai-Jung Chi, Jandy Hanna,
Chris Wall and Kirk Johnson all provided critical
insight on calibration of the spear as well as providing
important comments and advice throughout. We thank
the following people for important comments and
criticisms during the experiments and on the manu-
script: Laura Gruss, Chris Kirk, Pierre Lemelin,
Patricia Vinyard, Janet Vaglia, and Susan Williams.
References
Andriacchi, T. P., Natrajan, R. N. & Hurwitz, D. E. (1997).
Musculoskeletal dynamics, locomotion, and clinical applications.
In (C. V. Mow & W. C. Hayes, Eds) Basic Orthopaedic Bio-
mechanics. 2nd Ed. New York: Lippincott-Raven, pp. 37–68.
Beaupré, G. S., Orr, T. E. & Carter, D. R. (1990a). An approach for
time-dependent bone modeling and remodeling—theoretical devel-
opment. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 8, 651–661.
Beaupré, G. S., Orr, T. E. & Carter, D. R. (1990a). An approach for
time-dependent bone modeling and remodeling—application: a
preliminary remodeling situation. Journal of Orthopaedic Research
8, 662–670.
Bergman, C. A. (1993). The development of the bow in western
Europe: a technological and functional perspective. In (G. L.
Peterkin, H. M. Bricker & P. A. Mellars, Eds) Hunting and Animal
Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Europe.
American Anthropological Association Archaeological Papers
Vol. 4, pp. 95–105.
Beyries, S. (1990). Problems of interpreting the functional results for
ancient periods. Aun 14, 71–76.
Binford, L. R. (1981). Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. New
York: Academic Press.
Binford, L. R. (1984). Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth.
New York: Academic Press.
Bleed, P. (1986). The optimal design of hunting weapons. American
Antiquity 51, 737–747.
Boëda, E., Geneste, J. M., Griggo, C., Mercier, N., Muhesen, S.,
Reyss, J. L., Taha, A. & Valladas, H. (1999). A Levallois point
embedded in the vertebra of a wild ass (Equus africanus): hafting,
projectiles and Mousterian hunting weapons. Antiquity 73, 394–
402.
Breuil, H. (1913). Les subdivisions du Paléolithique supérieur et leur
signification. XIV Congrès International d’Anthropologie et
d’Archéologie Préhistoriques 1, 165–238.
Bridges, P. S. (1996). Skeletal biology and behavior in ancient
humans. Evolutionary Anthropology 4, 112–120.
Cattelain, P. (1989). Un crochet de propulseur solutréen de la grotte
de Combe-Saunière 1 (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société Préhis-
torique Française 86, 213–216.
Cattelain, P. (1997). Hunting during the Upper Paleolithic: Bow,
spearthrower, or both? In (H. Knecht, Ed.) Projectile Technology.
New York: Plenum Press, pp. 213–240.
Chamay, A. & Tschantz, P. (1972). Mechanical influences in bone
remodeling. Experimental research on Wolff’s Law. Journal of
Biomechanics 5, 173–180.
Christenson, A. L. (1986). Projectile point size and projectile aero-
dynamics: an exploratory study. Plains Anthropologist 31, 109–128.
Churchill, S. E. (1993). Weapon technology, prey size selection, and
hunting methods in modern hunter-gatherers: implications for
hunting in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. In (G. L. Peterkin,
H. M. Bricker & P. A. Mellars, Eds) Hunting and Animal
Spear Use in Pleistocene Homo 113
Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Europe.
American Anthropological Association Archaeological Papers,
vol. 4, pp. 11–24.
Churchill, S. E. & Formicola, V. (1997). A case of marked bilateral
asymmetry in the upper limbs of an Upper Paleolithic male from
Barma Grande (Liguria), Italy. International Journal of Osteo-
archaeology 7, 18–38.
Churchill, S. E. & Smith, F. H. (2000). A modern human humerus
from the early Aurignacian of Vogelherdhöle (Stetten, Germany).
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 112, 251–273.
Churchill, S. E. & Schmitt, D. (in press). Biomechanics in palaeo-
anthropology: engineering and experimental approaches to the
study of behavioural evolution in the genus Homo. In (C.
Harcourt & R. Crompton, Eds) Primate Evolution and Behavior.
London: Linnean Society of London.
Churchill, S. E., Weaver, A. H. & Niewoehner, W. A. (1996). Late
Pleistocene human technological and subsistence behavior: Func-
tional interpretations of upper limb morphology. In (A. Bietti &
S. Grimaldi, Eds) Reduction Processes (‘‘Chaines Opératoires’’) in
the European Mousterian. Quaternaria Nova 6, pp. 18–51.
Cottrell, B. & Kamminga, J. (1990). Mechanics of Pre-Industrial
Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Daegling, D. J. (1993). The relationship of in vivo bone strain to
mandibular corpus morphology in Macaca fascicularis. Journal of
Human Evolution 25, 247–269.
Daegling, D. J. & Hylander, W. L. (1997). Occlusal forces and
mandibular bone strain: Is the primate jaw ‘‘overdesigned’’?
Journal of Human Evolution 33, 705–717.
Demes, B., Stern, J. T. Jr, Hausman, M. R., Larson, S. G., Mcleod,
K. & Rubin, C. T. (1998). Patterns of strain in the macaque ulna
during functional activity. American Journal of Physical Anthro-
pology 106, 87–100.
Fresia, A. E., Ruff, C. B. & Larsen, C. S. (1990). Temporal decline in
bilateral asymmetry of the upper limb on the Georgia Coast. In
(C. S. Larsen, Ed.) The Archaeology of Mission Santa Catalina de
Guale: 2. Biocultural Interpretations of a Population in Transition.
Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural
History, pp. 121–132.
Gainor, B. J., Piotrowski, G., Puhl, J., Allen, W. C. & Hagen, R.
(1980). The throw: biomechanics and acute injury. American
Journal of Sports Medicine 8, 114–118.
Gaudzinski, S. (1999). Middle Palaeolithic bone tools from the open
air site Salzgitter-Lebenstedt (Germany). Journal of Archaeological
Science 26, 125–141.
Greaves, R. D. (1997). Hunting and multifunctional use of bows and
arrows: Ethnoarchaeology of technological organization among
Pumé hunters of Venezuela. In (H. Knecht, Ed.) Projectile Tech-
nology. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 287–320.
Guthrie, R. D. (1983). Osseous projectile points: biological consid-
erations affecting raw material selection and design among Palaeo-
lithic and Palaeoindian people. In (J. Clutton-Brock & C. Grigson,
Eds) Animals and Archaeology. Volume 1. Hunters and their Prey.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, pp. 273–294.
Hill, K. & Hawkes, K. (1983). Neotropical hunting among the Aché
of eastern Paraguay. In (R. B. Hames & W. T. Vickers, Eds)
Adaptive responses of native Amazonians. New York: Academic
Press, pp. 139–188.
Hitchcock, R. & Bleed, P. (1997). Each according to need and
fashion: Spear and arrow use among San hunters of the Kalahari.
In (H. Knecht, Ed.) Projectile Technology. New York: Plenum
Press, pp. 345–368.
Hughes, S. S. (1998). Getting to the point: evolutionary change in
prehistoric weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 5, 345–408.
Hylander, W. L. & Johnson, K. R. (1997). In vivo bone strain
patterns in the zygomatic arch of Macaques and the signifcance of
these patterns for functional interpretations of craniofacial form.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102, 203–232.
Jacobs, C. R., Yellowley, C. E., Davis, B. R., Zhou, Z., Cimbala,
J. M. & Donahue, H. J. (1998). Differential effect of steady versus
oscillating flow on bone cells. J. Biomechanics 31, 969–976.
114 D. Schmitt et al.
Knecht, H. (1993). Early Upper Paleolithic approaches to bone and
antler projectile technology. In (G. L. Peterkin, H. M. Bricker &
P. A. Mellars, Eds) Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Europe. American Anthropological
Association Archaeological Papers, vol. 4, pp. 33–47.
Lafortune, M. A. (1991). Three-dimensional acceleration of the tibia
during walking and running. J. Biomechanics 10, 877–886.
Lanyon, L. E. (1990). The relationship between functional loading
and bone architecture. In (C. J. DeRousseau, Ed.) Primate Life
History and Evolution. New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc., pp. 269–284.
Layon, L. E. & Rubin, C. T. (1985). Functional adaptation in
skeletal structures. In (D. M. Bramble, K. F. Liem & D. B. Wake,
Eds) Functional Vertebrate Morphology. Cambridge: Belknap
Press, pp. 1–25.
Lanyon, L. E., Rubin, C. T. & Baust, G. (1986). Modulation of bone
loss during calcium insufficiency by controlled dynamic loading.
Calcified Tissue International 38, 209–216.
McMahon, T. A., Valiant, G. & Frederick, E. C. (1987). Groucho
Running. Journal of Applied Physiology 62, 2326–2337.
Martin, R. B. & Burr, D. B. (1989). Structure, Function, and
Adaptation of Compact Bone. New York: Raven Press.
Movius, H. L. (1950). A wooden spear of Third Interglacial age from
Lower Saxony. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 6, 139–142.
Oakley, K. P., Andrews, P., Keeley, L. H. & Clark, J. D. (1977). A
reappraisal of the Clacton spearpoint. Proceedings of the Prehis-
toric Society 43, 13–30.
Odell, G. H. & Cowan, F. (1986). Experiments with spears and
arrows on animal targets. Journal of Field Archaeology 13, 195–
212.
Pappas, A. M., Zawacki, R. M. & Sullivan, T. J. (1985). Biomechan-
ics of baseball pitching: a preliminary report. American Journal of
Sports Medicine 13, 216–222.
Peterkin, G. L. (1993). Lithic and organic hunting technology in the
French Upper Paleolithic. In (G. L. Peterkin, H. M. Bricker &
P. A. Mellars, Eds) Hunting and Animal Exploitation in the Later
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Europe. American Anthropological
Association Archaeological Papers, vol. 4, pp. 49–67.
Radin, E. L., Parker, H. G., Pugh, J. W., Steinberg, R. S., Paul, I. L.
& Rose, R. M. (1973). Response of joints to impact loading–III.
J. Biomechanics 6, 51–57.
Robling, A. G., Burr, D. B. & Turner, C. H. (2000). Partitioning of
a daily mechanical stimulus into discrete loading bouts improves
the osteogenic response to loading. J. Bone and Mineral Research
15, 1596–1602.
Rubin, C. T., Gross, T. S., Donahue, H. J. & Guilak, F. (1994).
Physical and environmental influences on bone formation. In (C.
Brighton, G. Friedlander & J. Lane, Eds) Bone Formation and
Repair. Am. Acad. Of Orthop. Surg., pp. 61–78.
Rubin, C. T. & Lanyon, L. E. (1984). Dynamic strain similarity in
vertebrates: an alternative to allometric limb bone scaling. Journal
of Theoretical Biology 107, 321–327.
Ruff, C. B. (1992). Biomechanical analyses of archaeological human
material. In (S. R. Saunders & M. A. Katzenburg, Eds) The
Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples: Advances in Research Methods.
New York: Alan R. Liss, pp. 41–61.
Shea, J. J. (1988). Spear points from the Middle Paleolithic of the
Levant. Journal of Field Archeology 15, 441–450.
Shea, J. J. (1989). A functional study of the lithic industries associ-
ated with hominid fossils in the Kebara and Qafzeh Caves, Israel.
In (P. A. Mellars & C. B. Stringer, Eds) The Human Revolution.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 611–625.
Shea, J. J. (1990). A further note on Mousterian spear points. Journal
of Field Archeology 17, 111–114.
Shea, J. J. (1993). Lithic use-wear evidence for hunting by Neander-
tals and early modern humans from the Levantine Mousterian. In
(G. L. Peterkin, H. M. Bricker & P. A. Mellars, Eds) Hunting and
Animal Exploitation in the Later Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of
Europe. American Anthropological Association Archaeological
Papers, vol. 4, pp. 189–197.
Shea, J. J. (1997). Middle Paleolithic spear point technology. In (H.
Knecht, Ed.) Projectile Technology. New York: Plenum Press,
pp. 79–106.
Shea, J. J., Davis, Z. & Brown, K. (2001). Experimental tests of
Middle Paleolithic spear points using a calibrated crossbow.
Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 807–816.
Shott, M. J. (1993). Spears, darts, and arrows: Late Woodland
hunting techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley. American Antiquity
58, 425–443.
Skerry, T. M. & Lanyon, L. E. (1995). Interruption of disuse by
short duration walking exercise does not prevent bone loss in the
sheep calcaneous. Bone 16, 269–274.
Straus, L. G. (1990). The original arms race: Iberian perspectives on
the Solutrean phenomenon. In (J. Kozlowski, Ed.) Feuilles de
Pierre: Les Industries à Pointes Foliacées du Paléolithique Supér-
ieur Européen. Liège: Université de Liège, pp. 425–447.
Thieme, H. (1997). Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from
Germany. Nature 385, 807–810.
Thieme, H. (1999). Lower Palaeolithic throwing spears and other
wooden implements from Schöningen, Germany. In (H. Ullrich,
Ed.) Hominid Evolution: Lifestyles and Strategies. Gelsenkirchen/
Schwelm: Edition Archaea, pp. 383–395.
Tode, A. (1954). Mammutjäger vor 100,000 Jahren: Natur und
Mensch in Nordwestdeutschland zur letzten Eiszeit, auf Grund der
Ausgrabungen bei Salzgitter-Lebenstedt. Brunswick: E. Appelhans.
Trinkaus, E. (1983a). The Shanidar Neandertals. New York:
Academic Press.
Trinkaus, E. (1983b). Neandertal postcrania and the adaptive shift to
modern humans. In (E. Trinkaus, Ed.) The Mousterian Legacy:
Human Biocultural Change in the Upper Pleistocene. British
Archaeological Reports S164, 165, pp. 165–200.
Trinkaus, E. & Churchill, S. E. (1988). Neandertal radial tuber-
osity orientation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 75,
15–22.
Trinkaus, E. & Churchill, S. E. (1999). Diaphyseal cross-sectional
geometry of Near Eastern Middle Paleolithic humans: The
humerus. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 173–184.
Trinkaus, E., Churchill, S. E. & Ruff, C. B. (1994). Postcranial
robusticity in Homo. II: Humeral bilateral asymmetry and bone
plasticity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 93, 1–34.
Tullos, H. S. & King, J. W. (1973). Throwing mechanism in sports.
Orthopaedic Clinics of North America 4, 709–720.
Voloshin, A., Wosk, J. & Brull, M. (1981). Force Wave Transmission
Through the Human Locomotor System. Journal of Biomechanical
Engineering 103, 48–50.
Warren, S. H. (1911). First published report and exhibition of the
specimen, May 10th, 1911. Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society 67, xcix.
Whalen, R. T., Carter, D. R. & Steel, C. R. (1988). Influence of
physical activity on the regulation of bone density. Journal of
Biomechanics 21, 825–837.