Deer awl "dagger?"

[johnnyvaldez7.jv]

So earlier today I went down to my usual small area to check out a gravel bank since the river level had dropped, and I found this in the mud and sand where the water receded. At first I thought it was a piece of rusted metal when I picked it up and then I realized it was a bone...an ulna. Having served in the Army and Marines I immediately grabbed it as it had a handle and thought to myself that this looks like a weapon...a dagger...not knowing anything about it. And also thinking it could still easily function as a weapon even with the river wear it has...it's still very capable of puncturing. So I went online and searched for what kind of ulna it might be and thinking it is pretty broken up...and i started finding images of deer ulnas used as awls...maybe even as daggers. Not sure by who might have used them....native american Indians or prehistoric ancestors.  So I can't figure out the age of this, if it might indeed be a tool such as an awl or a dagger, if it's even a deer ulna, or it's just a coincidentally fragment bone that resembles a tool? Any thoughts? Also the color lightens on the "blade" portion of this which makes me think it's due to usage. 

[HuckMucus]

Indians used wood pegs to hold down tipi covers but when I looked at that second to last photo, that's what came to mind.

Edited May 12, 2022 by HuckMucus

[JohnJ]

Appearances aside, it is not a tool.  The extended length of the ulna is too thin and brittle to be useable.  Ulna tools are typically ground and sharpened much closer to the proximal end.

 

The erosive river environment can often separate a fused radius-ulna.

[johnnyvaldez7.jv]

Were they ever used for weapon purposes besides as a tool? I do agree it is thin but when pushed up against a surface it seems it would have great puncturing capabilities against skin or a hide? I saw other 10 inch ulnas online that mention dagger purposes so I'm wondering if that could be a possibility as well. Thanks JohnJ.  

[Randyw]

I have to go with Johnj. Not a tool or dagger. It's too thin and fragile. One thrust and you'd be defenseless.

[johnnyvaldez7.jv]

Thanks guys. Not disappointed at all because I learned something new. 

[Harry Pristis]

For comparison:

 

 

[HuckMucus]

I found plenty of long thin deer ulna tools with a quick google image search for "deer ulna tool":

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/3-Deer-ulna-awl-FS-61-1_fig69_317689970

 

Far left verticle: http://staff.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Ulna-Bone-Tools-Midden-article-Keddie.pdf

 

Fifth row left: https://swvirtualmuseum.nau.edu/photos/index.php?/tags/170-deer

 

https://www.alamy.com/bulletin-ethnology-bureau-of-avierican-ethnology-bulletin-129-plate-1-various-types-of-bone-awls-made-from-ulna-and-cannon-bone-of-deer-scapula-of-deer-ulna-of-small-carnivore-and-femur-of-loon-site-luquot-59-please-note-that-these-images-are-extracted-from-scanned-page-images-that-may-have-been-digitally-enhanced-for-readability-coloration-and-appearance-of-these-illustrations-may-not-perfectly-resemble-the-original-work-smithsonian-institution-bureau-of-american-ethnology-washington-g-p-o-image234139743.html

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Various-awls-and-needles-1-fox-ulna-awl-2-dog-ulna-awl-3-cattle-size-long-bone_fig9_325814801

 

[johnnyvaldez7.jv]

Interesting. So the longer, thinner bones could indeed be used for a different purpose like puncturing holes in fur or leather vs the smaller thicker pieces. 

[HuckMucus]

11 minutes ago, johnnyvaldez7.jv said:

Interesting. So the longer, thinner bones could indeed be used for a different purpose like puncturing holes in fur or leather vs the smaller thicker pieces. 

Your bone just looks old and brittle now.  Having killed and butchered many deer, I can say fresh bones are tough and strong.  Yes, they can break, but still functional if used properly.  I'm not saying yours is a tool but it could be.  Use marks can be a clue but they can also be worn off in river gravel.

 

[JohnJ]

If Johnny's specimen was an artifact, it would still show evidence of grinding. 

 

@johnnyvaldez7.jv 

Given it's length and flare, what makes you rule out a partial cow or bison ulna?

[Randyw]

Yes they could and were. But compare those examples to yours. Those are all shaped and smooth and even without rough spots and fat/thin/fat areas. They are all from a narrow point to a thick base.

this example from from @HuckMucus is actually perfect for illestrating the differences. The top piece is an unmodified fresh bone with the below pieces are the worked pieces, you will notice that yours matches the unworked bone. Also almost all the wirked ends are “cone” ( think sharpened #2 pencil) shaped designed to pierce and evenly spread the material being worked. The round shape helps eliminate tearing andactually helps the material be worked retain its strength. There are a few “dagger” point tools out there but they are shorter and not as common. They were used more for seperating strands of material rather then piercing. And they are normally shorter then your piece. Most under 10 cm where yours is approximatly 22-23 cm long wich is almost full length if the bone.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Randyw
Added forgotten oicture

[HuckMucus]

1 minute ago, JohnJ said:

If Johnny's specimen was an artifact, it would still show evidence of grinding. 

 

@johnnyvaldez7.jv 

Given it's length and flare, what makes you rule out a partial cow or bison ulna?

Since it was found in river gravels, any grinding or signs of working could easily have been erased by the same natural forces alleged to have shaped it into a point.  I don't know what species it is.

[Randyw]

@JohnJ is also correct theres no grinding marks or signs of it being worked.

if it had been worked it would be shaped more like this. ( sorry for the bad drawing)

[JohnJ]

6 minutes ago, HuckMucus said:

Since it was found in river gravels, any grinding or signs of working could easily have been erased by the same natural forces alleged to have shaped it into a point.  I don't know what species it is.

That does happen in river gravels, but that kind of wear would have already splintered this delicate piece.  At least that's my experience from decades of time on Texas rivers.

 

I try to let the evidence lead me to a conclusion rather than jump to a conclusion struggling for evidence.

[HuckMucus]

3 minutes ago, JohnJ said:

That does happen in river gravels, but that kind of wear would have already splintered this delicate piece.  At least that's my experience from decades of time on Texas rivers.

 

I try to let the evidence lead me to a conclusion rather than jump to a conclusion struggling for evidence.

Both sides of this debate have a hypothosis (not a conclusion) in search of missing evidence.  It seems incongruous that any wear sufficient to remove evidence of work and render this peice delicate in the first place would necessarily splinter it.  It is obviously old, worn and delicate, yet not splintered.  Any conclusion that it is not a tool is missing it's newness to prove that point.

[johnnyvaldez7.jv]

When I posted it I still wasn't sure that it was a deer ulna...it was a question I asked. I figured a bison and cow would have been larger and not as small.  So when I began searching I came across the deer ulna awls and thought there was some resemblance.  Arrow points have been found here...perhaps something like a tool would be possible as well. I do agree the river can separate the bones...it's plausible it just broke where it did and has river wear. Believe me I've had my share of reaching down only to pick up a sandstone shaped into what I thought was gonna be my greatest discovery.  But if it is indeed deer...just maybe it had a different purpose at one-time.  But whatever it is...I'm happy any day where I get to find something.

[JohnJ]

I don't see a bone that has weathered excessively to "render" it delicate.  That's why I suggested it would still exhibit evidence of a ground tip. Not seeing any grinding leads me to discount any great probability of its use as an artifact.

 

This piece displays the curve of a previously fused radius-ulna.  That juncture becomes a weak point (especially in juveniles) when the bone starts to weather after exposure to the elements.  Once separated, it is a delicate piece of bone that the river gravels tend to shorten rather quickly.  Note it is missing the distal end.  It it not uncommon to find a radius with this small distal fragment still fused.

[HuckMucus]

Your OP says too thin and brittle and references an errosive river environment.  You also note the missing distal end.  All of that I agree with and combined with my view of the pics (which seems to me to be worn and spalling) leads me to believe that one cannot conclude it was not used any more than I could conclude that it was.  I've seen two definitive, conclusive statements that it was not a tool.  I find a lack of evidence to support that conclusion.  If it were a new bone or at least in better shape, I might agree it had never been worked.

[JohnJ]

2 hours ago, Randyw said:

.... The top piece is an unmodified fresh bone with the below pieces are the worked pieces, you will notice that yours matches the unworked bone. ....

Good point, @Randyw.  

[Randyw]

1 hour ago, HuckMucus said:

  I find a lack of evidence to support that conclusion.

Actually the original pictures and your own references you posted provide visual proof of it. Would you use a needle that you couldn’t apply force on to puncture a material? The curve would make it unwieldy and difficult to handle. Would you use a needle with bulge in it that would constantly be getting stuck in the material you are puncturing?. Your hypothesis is that a river tumbled it enough to erase all the worked marks and give it an unwieldy shape without breaking it. While  the piece exactly matches a natural river worn bone. Now its up to the original poster to decide wich is the most logical answer. And of course the original poster always has the option of taking it to a museum and getting an in hand appraisal. @JohnJ and I have given the original poster our views and our reasoning behind them. You have given yours. The next step is up to @johnnyvaldez7.jv who I applaud for starting this conversation with an open mind.

[Harry Pristis]

It seems to me that the most vulnerable parts of a stream-worn bone are the first to be lost.  Conversely, the most durable part is what remains.  I don't see any wear (apart from the fragmentation) on the original ulna fragment.  Stream-wear might smooth the bone, erasing sharp broken edges, but not necessarily obliterating the overall shape.  Of the two ulna tools I pictured, the black one was recovered from river gravel.  The human alteration of the river-found bone is unmistakable.  The light-colored tool is from a midden, protected by a stable burial. 

 

 

[HuckMucus]

1 hour ago, JohnJ said:

Good point, @Randyw.  

 That's only one of the five links I provided.  And notice the distal end is still attached, and not a sharp point.  It's also new.  And the one on the left, as I noted, is not short like all the stubs that have been referenced as the only use of an ulna.

[HuckMucus]

2 hours ago, Randyw said:

Actually the original pictures and your own references you posted provide visual proof of it. Would you use a needle that you couldn’t apply force on to puncture a material? The curve would make it unwieldy and difficult to handle. Would you use a needle with bulge in it that would constantly be getting stuck in the material you are puncturing?. Your hypothesis is that a river tumbled it enough to erase all the worked marks and give it an unwieldy shape without breaking it. While  the piece exactly matches a natural river worn bone. Now its up to the original poster to decide wich is the most logical answer. And of course the original poster always has the option of taking it to a museum and getting an in hand appraisal. @JohnJ and I have given the original poster our views and our reasoning behind them. You have given yours. The next step is up to @johnnyvaldez7.jv who I applaud for starting this conversation with an open mind.

My references do not provide proof of your point.  They provide proof of my point, by showing ulna tools that are longer than the stubs that you think are the only legitimate ways to work an ulna.  When you look at my references, don’t look at the stubs that match your point.  Look at the long ones that match my point.  When the bone was new you could indeed apply force to puncture a person, or stake a tipi or picket something to the ground or whatever else you could think of.  The curve is not so extreme as to interfere with many uses, nor is the bulge.  In fact, I wonder if the hour glass is caused by wear from a rope as opposed to a river.

Anyway, I’ve stipulated to my speculation.  This differs completely from definitive statements of non-use that are based on a lack of evidence.

[HuckMucus]

2 hours ago, Harry Pristis said:

It seems to me that the most vulnerable parts of a stream-worn bone are the first to be lost.  Conversely, the most durable part is what remains.  I don't see any wear (apart from the fragmentation) on the original ulna fragment.  Stream-wear might smooth the bone, erasing sharp broken edges, but not necessarily obliterating the overall shape.  Of the two ulna tools I pictured, the black one was recovered from river gravel.  The human alteration of the river-found bone is unmistakable.  The light-colored tool is from a midden, protected by a stable burial. 

 

 

The river bone you pictured was modified for a specific purpose, like all the other stubs used as examples.  So the modifications remain in overall shape, even if use marks are gone.  The subject ulna could easily have been used for another purpose.  Like a stake, or a dagger, or a picket or who knows what.  Not all ulnas have to be awls.

Edited May 13, 2022 by HuckMucus