Received: 14 October 2016 Accepted: 17 November 2017

DOI: 10.1002/oa.2638

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The same or different? Experimenting with the influence of

peat environment on use‐wear traces on antler tools
J. Orłowska

Institute of Archaeology, Nicolaus Copernicus

University, Toruń, Poland
Correspondence
J. Orłowska, Institute of Archaeology,
Nicolaus Copernicus University, Szosa
Bydgoska 44/48 87‐100 Toruń, Poland.
Email: orlowskajustyna@wp.pl
Funding information
Narodowe Centrum Nauki, Grant/Award
Number: 2016/20/T/HS3/00469; National
Science Centre, Grant/Award Number: 2016/
20/T/HS3/00469
Abstract
Postdeposition issues are one of the most important factors that must be considered during study
of all archaeological osseous artefacts, especially if our analysis involves technological or
use‐wear traces. In order to better understand the possible changes on the worked, polished
surfaces of antler tools resulting from the latter being deposited in peat environment, an
experiment was conducted, in which experimentally made antler tools were deposited inside a
container with humid peat for a period of 3 months. The results of the study provide numerous
interesting observations and information on the state of preservation of various kinds of wear
traces and emphasise the need for further in‐depth research in this regard.

KEY W ORDS

antler tools, experimental archaeology, peat bog, postdeposition, use‐wear

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N working surface of the implement used to perform the processing.

Organic finds in the form of various products made of osseous raw
materials that are one of the most valuable and unique manifestations
of prehistoric material culture. The meaning of secondary factors that
can significantly affect the state of preservation of these materials
and their possible impact on the observed technological and use‐wear
traces is commonly emphasised in the literature on this type of arte-
facts (e.g., Alvarez, Mansur, & Pal, 2014; Évora, 2015; Vercoutère,
Patou‐Mathis, & Giacobini, 2007). Owing to long‐term research on
taphonomic issues and their role in bone degradation, damage of
this sort has been relatively well characterised in reference books
(e.g., Fisher, 1995). This includes both changes caused by various post-
depositional factors, for example, the type of sediment and the acidity/
alkalinity of the soil in which the artefacts were deposited (Gordon &
Buikstra, 1981; Griffitts, 2001; High, Milner, Panter, & Penkman,
2015; Nicholson, 1996), as well as changes related to the so‐called
trampling (induced by both humans and wild animals; e.g., Olsen &
Shipman, 1988) and other changes caused by plants and animals (e.g.,
Jin & Shipman, 2010; Olsen, 1989). Despite the relatively extensive
research, the knowledge about the impact of this sort of phenomena
remains incomplete, that is, in the context of the effect of the deposi-
tional environment on use‐wear traces present on worked surfaces of
prehistoric artefacts made of bone or antler.
One of the key assumptions of the use‐wear methodology is that
processing of any raw material will leave characteristic traces on the
Experimental benchmarks are, therefore, an inherent part of the use‐
wear analysis, as they provide data for identification and verification
of the observations made for historical artefacts (e.g., Christensen,
1999; Korobkova, 1999). However, the analysis of experimental mate-
rials mainly applies to replicas made nowadays, which are not affected
by potential changes resulting from the impact of postdepositional
factors. Still, little is known about the connection between changes
in bone structure resulting from the use of given artefacts, and the pro-
cessing of various types of organic materials, including the impact of
plant acids—polishes, arising as a result of chemical erosion (Le Moine,
1994, 320), and the changes in geochemistry of bone formed during its
diagenesis in the sediment (Krajcarz, 2017; Nielsen‐Marsh & Hedges,
2000; Pate & Hutton, 1988; Smith, Nielsen‐Marsh, Jans, & Collins,
2007; Trueman, 1999), and possible mutual interaction of these two
factors.
One of the most favourable conditions for preservation of osseous
products is a peat environment. This is due to the fact, that items
deposited in peat are isolated in the surrounding humid environ-
ment without oxygen (Hogan, Jones, Simpson, & Maltby, 2006). Peat
consists of partly decomposed plant debris found in some
heaps occurring in long‐term or permanent conditions of swampy
reservoirs of water. For this reason, their properties depend largely
on the geomorphology of peatlands, botanical composition of the
peat‐forming plant heaps related to water and thermal heat, in which
the remains are decomposing (Ilnicki, 2002, pp. 30–31). pH (usually

Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2017;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/oa Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 ORŁOWSKA
between 2.5 and 6.5) plays an exceptionally important role in the
chemical processes that take place in a peat environment (Ilnicki,
2002, p. 432). Artefacts obtained from peat sites are characterised
by the so‐called “peat” patina, which takes the form of a distinctive
change in the color of artefacts deposited in peat from light brown
to even black. This pertains to both stone and organic products. The
patina is due to the effect of tannic acids that occur in several plant
species, including sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum sp.; Painter, 1991a,
1991b).
To better understand the possible changes on the surface of
osseous artefacts, primarily in relation to wear traces, as a results of
deposition in peat environments, an experiment was conducted in
which specially prepared replicas of antler tools (used to work in
different materials) were deposited for a 3‐month period inside a con-
tainer with humid peat. A detailed description of the experimental
works before deposition phase including the characteristics and
classification of the observed wear traces will be presented in an inde-
pendent publication (Orłowska & Osipowicz, 2017). Therefore, this
article provides a closer look only at the essential information
concerning the characteristics of the observed wear traces, which
constitute the end result of the experiments. The time duration of
the deposition experiment was not long, especially when compared
to fossil materials, which have spent hundreds or thousands of years
in sediment. However, the results of the study provided numerous
interesting observations and information on the state of preservation
of various kinds of wear traces.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
Microscopic observation and photographic documentation of
macrowear and microwear traces were carried out using low (<100×)
and high magnifications (typically from 100× to 500×). Each method
has its advantages and disadvantages, which are widely described in
the literature (Aimar, Cilli, Giacobini, & Malerba, 1998; Christensen,
1999; d'Errico, 1993; d'Errico & Giacobini, 1985; Le Moine, 1997;
Semenov, 1964; Sidéra & Legrand, 2006). Most recent studies, there-
fore, combine both low‐ and high‐power microscopy (Buc, 2011;
Évora, 2015; Van Gijn, 2014). The observed use‐wear traces were
analysed under three different microscopes: a stereomicroscope‐com-
puter set Zeiss™ SteREO Discovery V8, a metallographic microscope‐
computer set Zeiss‐Axiotech, and a scanning electron microscope
SEM/FIB Quanta 3D FEG. All samples were observed with the same
light conditions (contrast and bright).
In order to fully comprehend the differences and similarities
between the tools used in the experiment before and after placing
them in the peat, the wear traces observed on their working surfaces
were characterised in detail at both stages of the experimental
program (before and after deposition). The criteria considered for
use‐wear descriptions were based on a findings existing in the litera-
ture (i.e., Buc, 2011; Legrand, 2007; Legrand & Sidera, 2007; Semenov,
1964; Sidéra, 1993), which was adapted to the needs and require-
ments of my analysis. The description of use‐wear traces considered
macrotraces, micropolish, and striations. Analysis of micropolish
involved the description of its distribution, invasiveness, microrelief,
texture, and brightness. Striations were classified according to their
distribution (relative to the tool axis), arrangement, length, width,
depth, number, form, and internal features.
2.1 | Experimental material
In the study so‐called heavy bevel‐ended tools (sensu, David, 2005;
Jensen, 2001; Riedel, Pohlmeyer, & Rautenfeld, 2004, 68–69) made
of antler were employed. Antler used for producing the tools was split
with a modern saw and finished according to prehistoric methods
(grinding against an abrasive rock). The raw material originated from
adult farmed red deer (Cervus elaphus).
The replicas were used in the processing of three types of
materials: wood, soil, and hide. Each experiment lasted 60 min.
General data about performed activities and worked materials are
given in Table 1.
During the experiments involving testing the influence of peat
environment on use‐wear traces, fragments of mentioned above
experimental tools were put into a container with a humid peat (degree
of humidity 85,03% ± 0,45%), sealed hermetically and stored at room
temperature in shade. The peat employed in the experiment was acidic
high moor peat (salinity 0.5 g/dm3; ash values below 20%) of dark
brown color, highly humified and decomposed. Its pH (in H₂O) was cal-
culated at 4,72 ± 0,08. The peat pH was determined potentiometrically
with the use of a glass electrode. The measurement was performed by
means of a pH/conductivity meter CPC‐501.
The total time of deposition in peat was 3 months. The tools were
then removed from the container and thoroughly cleaned by rinsing
with warm water. They were dried at room temperature.
3 | CHARACTERISTICS OF WEAR TRACES
O N R E P LI C A S
Numerous variables were recorded after the experiment (Figure 1),
whose characteristics may constitute a significant source for a better
understanding of the impact of peat environment on products made
of osseous raw materials. More detailed data about all observed
changes before and after deposition are given in Table 2.
3.1 | Replicas prior to being deposited in peat
3.1.1 | Wood‐processing tools
The observed striations are multidirectional, intersecting, and
scattered all over the working edge. Their occurrence is connected
with the areas covered by micropolish. They are smooth and straight.
The micropolish that formed on the tools used for processing wood is
very clear at the macroscopic level (Figures 2a and 3a). Use‐wear
traces damaged the primary surface of the antler in a highly invasive
manner that covers both high and most of the low points of antlers
microtopography. The microrelief is regular with flat high points. Its
texture is smooth. It is also quite dull, even metallic (Figures 2c,e
and 3c,e).
The varying intensity and character of the observed polish can be
undoubtedly attributed to varying hardness and humidity of the raw
material. Here, another important factor is the destructive effect of
ORŁOWSKA 3

TABLE 1 Experimental database

Number Activity Working material Hafting Kind and state of the material Working angle Movement Use time (min)

1 Chopping Wood Wooden handle Hard, young broadleaf High Back and forth 60
2 Chopping Wood Wooden handle Soft, maturity coniferous High Back and forth 60
3 Digging Soil Wooden handle Loose sand High Back and forth 60
4 Digging Soil Wooden handle Clay High Back and forth 60
5 Scraping Hide None Fresh deer hide Low Back and forth 60
6 Scraping Hide None Dry deer hide Low Back and forth 60

FIGURE 1 The tools used in the experiment, before and after contact with peat. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/
journal/oa [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

polyuronic acids present in juvenile wood in higher concentration
(Krzysik, 1975). In the course of the analysis at high magnifications
(metallographic microscope and SEM), a relatively clear osteons were
observed on the tools used in the above described manner, which
are osseous plates situated cylindrically around Haversian canals.
Microbends and microcracks are also observed. Detailed SEM photo-
graphs can be found in the Supporting Information (Figure S1).
3.1.2 | Tools for working the soil
The characteristics of traces observed on the tools used for digging
soil depend to a considerable extent on soil granularity and com-
pactness. Striations are oriented close and parallel to each other.
They are straight and mostly coarse. The micropolish observed
on tools used for digging in clay and sand takes the form of a
polish/abrasion and covers almost the entire working surface that
4 ORŁOWSKA
TABLE 2 Characterization of the use‐wear traces observed on the experimental samples examined for this study
Main characteristics of observed use‐wear traces
Before contact with peat
Worked material and activity Micropolish
Chopping Hard, young wood Distribution: spread
Invasiveness: high and
low points
Microrelief: regular, flat
high points
Texture: smooth
Brightness: dull, metallic
Other: microbends and
microcracks, exposed
osteons
Soft, maturity wood Distribution: spread
Invasiveness: high and
low points
Microrelief: regular, flat
high points
Texture: smooth
Brightness: dull
Other: microbends and
microcracks, exposed
osteons
Digging Clay Distribution: spread, streaks
Invasiveness: high points
Microrelief: irregular,
rounded high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: bright
Other: microbends and
microcracks
Loose sand Distribution: spread, streaks
Invasiveness: high points
Microrelief: irregular,
rounded high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: bright
Other: microbends and
microcracks
Scraping Fresh deer hide Distribution: spread
Invasiveness: high and
low points
Microrelief: regular, both
flat and round high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: dull
Other: exposed osteons
Dry deer hide Distribution: spread, streaks
Invasiveness: high points
Microrelief: irregular, flat
high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: dull
Other: microbends and
microcracks
comes in contact with the processed material (Figures 4a and 5a). It
is visible mainly on high points of the antler microtopography.
Microrelief of analysed replicas is irregular, with rounded high
points. Observed polish takes the form of bright linear streaks of
rough texture (Figures 4c,e and 5c,e). Microbends and microcracks
are also visible.
Striations
Distribution: spread
Arrangement: crossed
Length: diverse
Width: diverse
Deepness: diverse
Number: dense
Arrangement: crossed
Form: straight
Internal features: smooth
Distribution: spread
Arrangement: crossed
Length: diverse
Width: narrow
Deepness: diverse
Number: single
Arrangement: crossed
Form: straight
Internal features: smooth
Distribution: dense, spread
Arrangement: parallel
Length: diverse
Width: diverse
Deepness: diverse
Number: dense
Arrangement: parallel
Form: straight
Internal features: coarse
Distribution: dense, spread
Arrangement: parallel
Length: diverse
Width: narrow
Deepness: diverse
Number: dense
Arrangement: parallel
Form: straight
Internal features: coarse
Distribution: spread
Arrangement: diverse
Length: diverse
Width: narrow
Deepness: shallow
Number: single
Arrangement: crossed
Form: straight
Internal features: smooth
Distribution: dense, spread
Arrangement: parallel
Length: diverse
Width: narrow
Deepness: diverse
Number: dense
Arrangement: parallel
Form: straight
Internal features: coarse
3.1.3 | Hide‐processing tools
Tool, which was used to scraping the fresh hide, is characterised by a
spread micropolish, which covers the entire worked surface (Figure 6
a). In this case, both high and low points of tools microtopography
are affected by use. Microrelief is regular with both flat and rough high
points. Brightness of observed micropolish is pretty dull (Figure 6c,e).
After contact with peat
Micropolish
Distribution: spread
Invasiveness: high and
low points
Microrelief: irregular, flat
high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: bright
Other: larger and denser
microbends and microcracks,
exposed osteons, improved
polish contrast
Distribution: spread
Invasiveness: high and
low points
Microrelief: regular, flat
high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: bright
Other: larger and denser
microbends and microcracks,
exposed osteons, improved
polish contrast
Distribution: spread, streaks
Invasiveness: high points
Microrelief: irregular, rounded
high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: bright
Other: larger and denser
microbends and microcracks,
improved polish contrast
Distribution: spread, streaks
Invasiveness: high points
Microrelief: irregular, rounded
high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: bright
Other: larger and denser
microbends and microcracks,
improved polish contrast
Distribution: spread
Invasiveness: high and
low points
Microrelief: regular, both flat
and round high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: bright
Other: exposed osteons,
improved polish contrast
Distribution: spread, streaks
Invasiveness: high points
Microrelief: irregular, flat
high points
Texture: rough
Brightness: bright
Other: microbends and
microcracks, improved
polish contrast, exposed
osteons
Striations
Distribution: spread
Arrangement: crossed
Length: diverse
Width: diverse
Deepness: diverse
Number: dense
Form: straight
Internal features: coarse
Distribution: spread
Arrangement: crossed
Length: diverse
Width: narrow
Deepness: diverse
Number: single
Arrangement: crossed
Form: straight
Internal features: coarse
Other: less legible
Distribution: dense, spread
Arrangement: parallel
Length: diverse
Width: diverse
Deepness: diverse
Number: single
Arrangement: parallel
Form: straight
Internal features: coarse
Distribution: dense, spread
Arrangement: parallel
Length: diverse
Width: narrow
Deepness: diverse
Number: single
Arrangement: parallel
Form: straight
Internal features: coarse
Distribution: spread
Arrangement: diverse
Length: diverse
Width: narrow
Deepness: shallow
Number: single
Arrangement: crossed
Form: straight
Internal features: coarse
Distribution: dense, spread
Arrangement: parallel
Length: diverse
Width: narrow
Deepness: diverse
Number: dense
Arrangement: parallel
Form: straight
Internal features: coarse
ORŁOWSKA 5

FIGURE 2 The experimental tools used to

chopping young, hard wood (Acacia Mill.).
Micrographs of use‐wear traces visible with
small (a, b; >100×) and high (c–f)
magnifications (<100×) before and after
contact with peat. This figure is available in
colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/
journal/oa [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 3 The experimental tools used to

chopping maturity, soft wood (Betula L.).
Micrographs of use‐wear traces visible with
small (a, b; >100×) and high (c–f)
magnifications (<100×) before and after
contact with peat. This figure is available in
colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/
journal/oa [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
6 ORŁOWSKA

FIGURE 4 The experimental tools used to

digging in loose sand. Micrographs of use‐
wear traces visible with small (a, b; >100×) and
high (c–f) magnifications (<100×) before and
after contact with peat. This figure is available
in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/
journal/oa [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 5 The experimental tools used to

digging in clay. Micrographs of use‐wear
traces visible with small (a, b; >100×) and high
(c–f) magnifications (<100×) before and after
contact with peat. This figure is available in
colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/
journal/oa [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
ORŁOWSKA 7

FIGURE 6 The experimental tools used to

scraping fresh deer hide. Micrographs of use‐
wear traces visible with small (a, b; >100×) and
high (c–f) magnifications (<100×) before and
after contact with peat. This figure is available
in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/
journal/oa [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Striations are scattered across the whole surface of the working edge.
They are mostly straight and smooth. As in the case of tools used for
processing wood, clear osteons were noticed on blades of the tool
used for the above described function.
Damage of different characteristics than in the case of fresh raw
material is observed on tool used for processing dry hide. The said dif-
ferences became clear already at the macroscopic level (Figure 7a). The
polish observed on this tool is invasive and spreads in linear streaks.
Unlike polish observed on the tool used for scraping fresh hide, only
high points of the tool's microtopography are altered. Microrelief is
irregular with flat high points. But, this variable is not so clear due to
a considerable impact of abrasive factors that damage the texture of
polish. Brightness of polish is pretty dull (Figure 7c,e). Observations
made with SEM revealed a lot of microbends and microcracks, which
were not clearly visible under metallographic microscope. Osteons
are poorly visible (because of the abrasive factors). Detailed SEM pho-
tographs can be found in the Supporting Information (Figure S2).
3.2 | Replicas after peat deposition
As was mentioned in Section 1, artefacts originating from peat sites are
characterised by a brown, dark color, so‐called “peat patina.” A similar
effect was observed on the experimental tools despite the seemingly
short time of deposition. All samples changed their color to light brown
or dark brown. On some specimens, poorly tinted areas in the form of
small spots were noticed. The varying intensity of color and its uneven
distribution on individual replicas remain as yet unexplained, though
similar changes have been reported in taphonomic literature (Turner‐
Walker & Peacock, 2008). Importantly, it seems that polished surfaces
characterised by intensely abraded microrelief of the antler changed
color to a lesser degree than the surfaces without polish or those
polished to a considerably lower degree.
3.2.1 | Wood‐processing tools
On implements used for processing wood that had contact with peat,
the use traces were somewhat domed. The change in the color of ant-
ler into brown as a result of its deposition occurred in this particular
case by increasing contrast between the polished surface and the
nonpolished areas (Figures 2b and 3b). The invasiveness of the
observed micropolish is very good readable, even better than before
deposition. What interesting, the microrelief looks much more irregu-
lar. High points are still quite flat, but their texture is considerably
rough. The polish become bright (Figures 2d,e and 3d,e). When one
takes a closer look at striations, one sees that their internal features
changed and become coarser.
The changes detected at higher magnification (both metallo-
graphic and SEM) involved numerous microscopic cracks around
osteons and a significant erosion of the entire surface, which affected
the clarity of the wear traces.
3.2.2 | Tools working in soil
In this group of tools, the abovementioned polish/abrasion is
characterised by bright linear streaks. The tools that had contact with
peat displayed no change to the polish (Figures 4b,d,f and 5b,d,f).
The antler surface had a non‐uniform microtopography of rough
8 ORŁOWSKA
texture and irregular, rounded high points. Observation made using
SEM revealed numerous microcracks dispersed on the entire surface.
In the case of observed striations, they did not change much with
respect to the original state.
3.2.3 | Hide‐processing tools
Similar to wood‐processing tools, implements used for working fresh
hide developed an invasive micropolish (Figure 6b). It appears that
after deposition in peat, the microrelief of the antler surface, which is
still regular and characterised by both flat and rough high points,
became more clearly visible (Figure 6d,f). Importantly, the polish
become very bright. The main observed change in striations is that
they become coarser. Osteons are very clear and domed.
As for the tools used for scraping dry hide, an effect similar to that
observed on tools used for working the soil was noticed, that is, the
morphology of polish remains basically unchanged. These characteris-
tics could be observed already at the macroscopic level (Figure 7b). The
described polish/abrasion is bright and clearly visible (Figure 7d,f).
Many microbends and microcracks were visible on tools used to pro-
cess both fresh and dry hide. Linear traces have not changed much.
Osteons viewed at higher magnifications are domed, and their contrast
and visibility increase after contact with peat.
4 | DISCUSSION
Research on processing and use of artefacts made of bone and antler
requires continuous verification and expansion of research apparatus,
FIGURE 7 The experimental tools used to
scraping dry deer hide. Micrographs of use‐
wear traces visible with small (a, b; >100×) and
high (c–f) magnifications (<100×) before and
after contact with peat. This figure is available
in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/
journal/oa [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
including the employment of more and more new analytical methods
that could improve understanding of the processes that took place
during the lifetime of the artefact and after its deposition. We must
be aware of the multitude of factors that may affect our current per-
ception of artefacts that may be several thousand years old. Despite
the small‐scale nature of this investigation, the results presented here
show that the environment in which sedimentation occurs (in this case,
peat) can affect the morphology of use wear traces on bone artefacts.
Bone deposition in humid, highly acidic environments can result in
changes in the organic matter that comprises these bones, for example,
loss of minerals manifested in shrinking, cracking, and surface erosion
(Nicholson, 1996; Turner‐Walker & Peacock, 2008). An interesting
conclusion was made by Pineda et al. (2014), who conducted an exper-
iment testing the impact of strong acidic environments on the state of
preservation of intentional incisions and linear marks resulting of tram-
pling. Low pH level noticeably changed the morphology of both types
of marks mainly causing blurring, the consequence of which was diffi-
culty distinguishing them from each other as well as from prior marks.
Due to its acidic nature, the peat used in the experiment (pH 4.7) had a
similar effect also on the presented experimental material, which was
well shown by means of SEM imaging of worked surfaces. The erosion
of antler surfaces manifested mostly as roughened texture in polished
areas. The most notable changes and damage of the original working
surfaces of tools in the form of numerous microbends and microcracks
were observed on the tool used for processing wood. This can be
related to the polish resulting not only from friction but also from
chemical erosion (Le Moine, 1994). Therefore, it seems that in this
case, a certain type of chemical reaction might have taken place
ORŁOWSKA
between plant acids (which initially eroded the surface of the said tool
as a result of processing) and acids found in peat. However, at the time,
due to the lack of a more in‐depth analysis, this hypothesis remains a
speculation.
On all tools used in the study, a change in the color of antler from
light to dark brown was noticed, which could be associated among
others with different kinds of enzymes present in plants and many
chemical catalysations that take place in the soil when plant material
degrades (Dupras & Schultz, 2014; Krajcarz, 2017; Painter, 1991a,
1991b). In most cases, as a result of the said darkening properties, peat
environment intensified the contrast and emphasised a polished area
against the nonpolished, making it more visible. What worth noticing,
as it was mention before, antler surface that was polished or intensely
abraded changed color to a lesser degree than the surfaces without
polish or those polished, abraded to a considerably lower degree. This
could be connected with a reduced porosity of antler surface. The less
porous the surface, the less likely it will be to absorb tannins and other
discoloring agents present in the soil.
On most tools exposed to peat, the microtopography on the antler
surface was also observed to become dome‐shaped (clear osteons
including osseous plates), which from a histological point of view must
be probably associated with acids contained in the peat primarily
responsible for such changes (Le Moine, 1994). In all cases, the general
morphology of observed striations was similar before and after deposi-
tion in peat. The main difference was noticed in its internal feature
which in all cases became coarse.
The findings presented here pertain largely to the analysis of
postdepositional changes observed as a result of macroscopic and
microscopic analyses. Nevertheless, the results of my experiments
and observations seem to suggest a significant correlation between
the processed raw material (plant, hide, etc.) and the sediment (in this
case, peat), in which a given tool was deposited. Here, this pertains to
changes caused by chemical reactions that took place in the osseous
raw material, resulting in this case from both the antler being exposed
to the processed material and its subsequent exposure to the
sediment. As stated above, the chemical composition of the surround-
ing sediment has a significant impact on the chemical composition of
deposited bones. A major role is played here by variables such as pH,
humidity, porosity, atmospheric conditions, or the time of deposition
(Nielsen‐Marsh & Hedges, 2000; Pate & Hutton, 1988; Smith et al.,
2007; Trueman, 1999). Due to such a wide range of organic deposits
in which bone artefacts are discovered, the variety of their impacts on
the state of preservation of bone material seems to be very evident,
even when only taking into account the impact of pH on the bone
structure. The time duration of my experiment was not long
but was still of sufficient duration to produce visible, macroscopic
signs of multidirectional alterations in antler structure. In view of
the results of presented here, it appears that the acidity and
chemical composition of peat was most important. But to verify this,
an in‐depth analysis of the chemical composition of antler with the
use of, for instance, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometers
(np. MacFadden, Labs‐Hochstein, Hulbert, & Baskin, 2007), appears
to be the next step vital in further research. Analyses of this sort
should be conducted with experimental tools both before and after
processing various raw materials by means of these implements,
9
which then ought to be deposited temporarily in different formations
and then reexamined.
5 | CO NC L U SI O NS A N D O U TL OO K
The results of the research have provided many interesting insights
and information on the state of preservation of the various types of
use‐wear traces, including
1. On all tools used in the study, a change in the color of antler from
light to dark brown was noticed. Importantly, it seems that
polished surfaces characterised by intensely abraded microrelief
of the antler changed color to a lesser degree than the surfaces
without polish or those polished to a lesser degree;
2. On most tools exposed to peat, the antler microtopography was
observed to become dome‐shaped (clear osteons including osse-
ous plates), which from a histological point of view must be asso-
ciated probably with acids contained in the peat primarily
responsible for such changes (Le Moine, 1994);
3. Due to the use of acidic peat, the erosion of antler surfaces man-
ifested mostly as roughened texture in polished areas and in
changing the internal features of observed striations that become
coarse. The most notable changes and damage of the original
working surfaces of tools in the form of numerous microbends
and microcracks were observed on the tool used for processing
wood.
Due to the specificity related to the varying chemical composition,
humidity, and acidity of various peats, the observations made in the
course of this study are of a preliminary nature and ought to be asso-
ciated (at least, for the time being) only with conditions and the type of
sediment in which the presented experimental materials were depos-
ited. Nevertheless, the observations made in the study seem highly sig-
nificant and make a contribution to the in‐depth research on the effect
of various postdepositional factors on artefacts made of osseous raw
materials, including the state of preservation of use‐wear traces.
Undoubtedly, the study requires further investigation with a con-
siderably wider range of various sediments, duration of deposition,
and its conditions taken into account. In the future, these results may
constitute a significant source for comparative analysis with the
archaeological materials, but above all may become a source for a bet-
ter understanding of the connection between the type of deposition
and our actual reception of analysed artefacts, and interpretation of
functional traces visible on their surfaces. This is of particular impor-
tance for the understanding of prehistoric societies, where the use‐
wear analysis is considered as an important element of research into
their way of life in changing environmental and cultural conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Here, the article author wish to give utmost thanks to Magdalena and
Maciej Krajcarz from the Institute of Geological Sciences, Polish
Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, for all comments on the earlier
draft of this manuscript and Przemysław Kosobucki from Faculty of
Chemistry, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland, for
10
performing pH and moisture analysis of peat used in the experiment.
Separate thanks goes to dr Grzegorz Osipowicz (Nicolaus Copernicus
University in Toruń) for constructive criticism and all valuable com-
ments concerning aspects of presented work. I would also like to
express my gratitude to Dr Justin Bradfield (University of the Witwa-
tersrand in Johannesburg) for all his comments, suggestions, and lan-
guage correction of this article.
ORCID
J. Orłowska http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7843-3506
RE FE R ENC E S
Aimar, A., Cilli, C., Giacobini, G., & Malerba, G. (1998). Scanning electron
microscopy and bone surface modification: A contribution to the study
of anthropic actions on animal hard tissues from archeological sites. In
A. Guarino (Ed.), Science and technology for the safeguard of cultural
heritage in the Mediterranean Basin (pp. 1437–1443). Rome and Paris:
CNR and CNRS.
Alvarez, M., Mansur, M. E., & Pal, N. (2014). Experiments in bone technol-
ogy: A methodological approach to functional analysis on bone tools.
In E. Mansur, M. Alonso Lima, & Y. Maigrot (Eds.), Traceology today:
Methodological issues in the old world and the Americas ()British Archaeo-
logical Reports International Series 2643 (pp. 19–26). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Buc, N. (2011). Experimental series and use‐wear in bone tools. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 38, 546–557 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2010.10.009.
Christensen, M. (1999). Technologie de l'ivoire au Paléolithique supérieur.
Caractérisation physico‐chimique du matériau et analyse fonctionnelle
des outils de transformation ()British Archaeological Reports International
Series 751. Oxford: Archaeopress https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003‐
5521(00)80054‐0.
d'Errico, F. (1993). Criteria for identifying utilised bone: The case of the
Cantabrian “tensors”. Current Anthropology, 34, 298–311 https://doi.
org/10.1086/204172.
d'Errico, F., & Giacobini, G. (1985). Approche méthodologique de l'analyse
del'outillage osseux: Un exemple d'étude. L'Anthropologie, 89, 457–472.
David, É. 2005. Technologie osseuse des derniers chasseurs préhistoriques
en Europe du Nord (X e. ‐VIII e millénaires avant J.‐C.) Le Maglemosien
et les technocomplexes du Mésolithique. Monographie de these. Ed.
Monique, Mergoil. [available at http://web.mae.uhparis10.fr/
recherche/mpEvaDavid.html.]
Dupras, T., & Schultz, J. (2014). Taphonomic bone staining and color
changes in forensic contexts. In J. Pokines, & S. Symes (Eds.), Manual
of forensic taphonomy (pp. 315–340). Florida: CRC Press.
Évora, M. A. (2015). Use‐wear methodology on the analysis of osseous
industries. In J. M. Marreiros, J. F. G. Bao, & N. F. Bicho (Eds.), Use‐wear
and residue analysis in archaeology (pp. 159–170). New York: Springer
https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐08257‐8_8.
Fisher, J. W. (1995). Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 7–68 https://doi.org/10.1007/
bf02228434.
Gordon, C. C., & Buikstra, J. E. (1981). Soil‐pH, bone preservation, and
sampling bias at mortuary sites. American Antiquity, 46, 566–571
https://doi.org/10.2307/280601.
Griffitts, J. (2001). Archaic period bone tools from the Los Pozos site in
southern Arizona. In A. Choyke, & L. Bartosiewicz (Eds.), Crafting bone:
Skeletal technologies through time and space ()British Archaeological
Reports International Series 937 (pp. 185–195). Oxford: Archaeopress.
High, K., Milner, N., Panter, I., & Penkman, K. E. H. (2015). Apatite for
destruction: Investigating bone degradation due to high acidity at Star
Carr. Journal of Archaeological Science, 59, 159–168 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jas.2015.04.001.
ORŁOWSKA
Hogan, D. V., Jones, A. M., Simpson, P., & Maltby, E. (2006). Reburial of
organic archaeological remains; protocol for the identification of
suitable sites. In Unpublished report, wetland ecosystems research group.
Royal Holloway Institute for: Environmental Research, London.
Ilnicki, P. (2002). Torfowiska i torf. AR: Poznań.
Jensen, G. (2001). Macro wear patterns on Danish Late Mesolithic antler
axes. In A. M. Choyke, & L. Bartosiewicz (Eds.), Crafting Bone: Skeletal
Technologies through Time and Space ()British Archaeological Reports
International Series 937 (pp. 165–170). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Jin, J. J. H., & Shipman, P. (2010). Documenting natural wear on antlers:
A first step in identifying use‐wear on purported antler tools.
Quarternary International, 211, 91–102 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
quaint.2009.06.023.
Korobkova, G. F. (1999). Narzędzia w pradziejach. Podstawy badania funkcji
metodą traseologiczną. Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika: Toruń.
Krajcarz, M. T. (2017). Alteration of the metal content in animal bones
after 2.5‐year experimental exposure to sediments. Archaeological
and Anthropological Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520‐017‐
0533‐2.
Krzysik, F. 1975. Nauka o drewnie. Warszawa
Le Moine, G. (1994). Use wear on bone and antler tools from the Macken-
zie Delta, Northwest Territories. American Antiquity, 59, 316–334
https://doi.org/10.2307/281935.
Le Moine, G. (1997). Use wear analysis on bone and antler tools of the
Mackenzie Inuit ()British Archaeological Reports International Series 679.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
Legrand, A. (2007). Fabrication et utilisation de l'outillage en matières
osseuses du Néolithique de Chypre: Khirokitia et Cap Andreas‐Kastros.
In British archaeological reports international series 1678. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Legrand, A., & Sidera, I. (2007). Methods, means, and results when studying
European bone Industry. In C. Gate, & R. Walker (Eds.), Bones as tools:
Current methods and interpretations in worked bone studies ()British
Archaeological Reports International Series 1622 (pp. 291–304). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
MacFadden, B. J., Labs‐Hochstein, J., Hulbert, R. C. Jr., & Baskin, J. A.
(2007). Revised age of the late Neogene terror bird (Titanis) in North
America during the Great American Interchange. Geology, 35,
123–126 https://doi.org/10.1130/g23186a.1.
Nicholson, R. A. (1996). Bone degradation, burial medium and species rep-
resentation: Debunking the myths, an experiment‐based approach.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 23, 513–533 https://doi.org/
10.1006/jasc.1996.0049.
Nielsen‐Marsh, C. M., & Hedges, R. E. M. (2000). Patterns of diagenesis in
bone I: The effects of site environments. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 27, 1139–1150 https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0537.
Olsen, S. (1989). On distinguishing natural from cultural damage on archae-
ological antler. Journal of Archaeological Science, 16, 125–135 https://
doi.org/10.1016/0305‐4403(89)90061‐7.
Olsen, S., & Shipman, P. (1988). Surface modification on bone: Trampling
versus butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science, 15, 535–553
https://doi.org/10.1016/0305‐4403(88)90081‐7.
Orłowska, J., & Osipowicz, G. (2017). Searching for the function of the early
Holocene heavy duty bevel‐ended tools. Remarks from experimental
and use‐wear studies. Archaeology of the Eurasian Steppes, 4, (in press).
Painter, T. J. (1991a). Lindow man, Tollund man and other peat‐bog bodies:
The preservation and antimicrobial action of sphagnan, a reactive
glycuronoglycan with tanning and sequestering properties.
Carbohydrate Polymers, 15, 123–142 https://doi.org/10.1016/0144‐
8617(91)90028‐b.
Painter, T. J. (1991b). Preservation in peat. Chemistry and Industry, 17,
421–424.
Pate, F. D., & Hutton, J. T. (1988). The use of soil chemistry data to address
post‐mortem diagenesis in bone mineral. Applied Geochemistry, 4,
30–31 https://doi.org/10.1016/0305‐4403(88)90062‐3.
ORŁOWSKA
Pineda, A., Saladié, P., Vergès, J. M., Huguet, R., Cáceres, I., & Vallverdú, J.
(2014). Trampling versus cut marks on chemically altered surfaces: an
experimental approach and archaeological application at the Barranc
de la Boella site (la Canonja, Tarragona, Spain). Journal of Archaeological
Science, 50, 84–93 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.06.018.
Riedel K., Pohlmeyer K., Rautenfeld D. B. von. 2004. An examination of
Stone Age/Bronze Age adzes and axes of red deer (Cervus elaphus L.)
antler from the Leine Valley, near Hannover. European Journal of Wildlife
Research 50; 197–206.
Semenov, S. A. (1964). Prehistoric technology: An experimental study of the
oldest tools and artefacts from traces of manufacture and wear. London.
Sidéra I. 1993. Les assemblages osseux en bassins parisien et rhénan du VIe
au IVe millénaire B.C. Histoire, techno‐économie et culture, thèse de
doctorat de l'université de Paris I, 636 p.
Sidéra, I., & Legrand, A. (2006). Tracéologie fonctionnelle des matières
osseuses:une méthode. Bulletin de la Société préhistoriquefrançaise,
103, 291–304.
Smith, C. I., Nielsen‐Marsh, C. M., Jans, M. M. E., & Collins, M. J. (2007).
Bone diagenesis in the European Holocene I: Patterns and mechanisms.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 34, 1485–1493 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jas.2006.11.006.
Trueman, C. N. (1999). Rare earth element geochemistry and taphonomy of
terrestrial vertebrate assemblages. PALAIOS, 14, 555–568 https://doi.
org/10.2307/3515313.
Turner‐Walker, G., & Peacock, E. E. (2008). Preliminary results of bone dia-
genesis in Scandinavian bogs. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
11
Palaeoecology, 266, 151–159 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.
2008.03.027.
Van Gijn, A. L. (2014). Science and interpretation in microwear studies.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 48, 166–169 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.024.
Vercoutère, C., Patou‐Mathis, M., & Giacobini, G. (2007). The importance
of the palaeontological and taphonomical analyses for the study
of bone industries. In C. Gate, & R. Walker (Eds.), Bones as tools:
Current methods and interpretations in worked bone studies ()British
Archaeological Reports International Series 1622 (pp. 23–34). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
SUPPOR TI NG INF ORMATI ON
Additional Supporting Information may be found online in the
supporting information tab for this article.
How to cite this article: Orłowska J. The same or different?
Experimenting with the influence of peat environment
on use‐wear traces on antler tools. Int J Osteoarchaeol.
2017;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2638