Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep
Six experiments to understand the use of stone battle-axes and axe-hammers from northern Britain and the Isle of Man through experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis
Amber Sofia Roy
Stockholm University & Newcastle University, Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Wallenberglaboratoriet, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Experimental archaeology
Use-wear analysis
Bronze age
Ground stone tools
Woodworking
Land clearance
Animal slaughter

A combined approach of use-wear analysis and experimental archaeology can be highly beneficial when assessing the functionalities and itineraries of artefacts and has huge potential for analysis of bladed ground and polished stone artefacts. Despite this, their application to bladed ground and polished stone artefacts is limited. The function of bladed ground stone artefacts, such as British and Manx Early Bronze Age (EBA) ground and polished stone battle-axes and axe-hammers, are often based on form and the damage which is visible macroscopically. This approach can lead to productive hypotheses, but only when methods are devised which can test such propositions. This paper presents the first application of experimental archaeology combined with use-wear analysis to question the non-functional hypotheses of northern British and Manx battle-axes and axe-hammers. Successful comparison with the archaeological records was enabled by analysis of use-wear development throughout the experiments. The experiments included chopping and splitting wood, land clearance and animal slaughter. The research determines that these implements were utilitarian tools, which could be used easily when hafted correctly. As such, the application of the experimental and use-wear methodology created a reference collection of use-wear formations which can be comparable to other types of bladed stone tools and has been used to successfully infer the function of the archaeological assemblage of battle-axes and axe-hammers.

1.		Introduction
The potential for combining experiments with use-wear analysis for more accurate comparability with, and interpretations of, the archaeological record is demonstrated by their frequent use together, which has enhanced our understanding of flint and chipped and ground stone artefact (flint tools, axes and adzes; ground stone querns, grinding stones, and abraders) functions (e.g., Semenov, 1964; Adams, 1993; Fullagar, 1991; Hamon, 2008; Keeley, 1982; Mills, 1993; Yerkes et al., 2003; Adams, 2010; Dubreuil, 2004). This article offers a further example of the use of such studies and presents nuanced and much- needed data on the utilitarian uses of bladed ground and polished stone artefacts.
The article describes the novel experiments carried out to test functionality and efficiency of British battle-axes and axe-hammers, previously interpreted as non-functional symbols of power (e.g., Roe, 1966). The experiments aimed to assess whether these objects could be used functionally as well as to create a reference collection of use-wear development. In doing so, it presents the first recording of use-wear development throughout chopping and splitting wood, land clearance and animal slaughter experiments using battle-axe and axe-hammer replicas. By analysing the development of use-wear over time, this data is highly valuable in observing use-wear on the archaeological specimens, which are often highly variable and used for variable periods. The results provide essential data on the functionality battle-axes and axe-hammers, challenging previous assumptions and offering a robust reference for the analysis of the archaeological assemblage of battle-axes and axe-hammers. The data presented in this paper is also valuable for research on similar bladed stone artefacts across time and space, which lack a scientific assessment of their use-lives or biographies.
Indeed, it is part of a wider PhD project, assessing the use and significance of these objects (Roy, 2019; 2022). The results of this paper were instrumental in assessing the use-wear of the archaeological assemblage of Northern British and Manx Early Bronze Age stone battleaxes and axe-hammers as part of the auhors PhD, but separate to the study presented here (see Roy, 2022).
Battle-axe and axe-hammers are perforated, bladed ground and polished stone artefacts, distinguished from one another by length, with battle-axes being less than 170 mm and axe-hammers more than 170

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2026.105650
Received 8 August 2025; Received in revised form 5 January 2026; Accepted 14 February 2026
Available online 23 February 2026
2352-409X/© 2026 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
mm (Roe, 1966). Based on their polished form and presence in structured burial contexts, battle-axes have been interpreted as purely ceremonial, non-functional and symbols of an elite (Roe, 1966; 1967), although early interpretations also include their use as weapons and symbols of a warrior male elite (Mortimer, 1905, 159; Anderson, 1942, 80; Evans, 1897, 185; Greenwell and Rolleston, 1877, 159, 298; Smith, 1926, 80). It has also been suggested that the larger axe-hammers were non-functional due to their size and crude form (Leahy, 1986; Pegge, 1773), yet these characteristics have also been used to suggest their utilitarian function, such as, as wedges to split wood (Bradley 1978, 13). However, their functions are not properly or accurately characterized and have not previously been evaluated scientifically.
As such, this paper aims to address these issues by answering the following research questions through the application of experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis:
Were battle-axes too fragile for utilitarian use?
Did the large size of axe-hammers inhibit utilitarian use?
Were battle-axes and axe-hammer effective tools?
How do the use-wear formations develop and change with different uses?
1.1.		Experiments aids the assessment of function, but it is only one step
Development over the past 100–150 years has seen the application of experimental archaeology to test hypothesis and create and enhance the link between evidence and interpretation. Of the known bladed stone artefacts, experimental archaeology have mostly been used in the research of global Neolithic stone axes and adzes, testing the hypothesis that they were used to fell trees and chop wood, as well as hafting, skill and expenditure (Sehested, 1884; Montelius, 1906; Pond, 1930; Morris, 1939; Potratz, 1941; Townsend, 1969; Bordaz, 1970; Heider, 1970; Semenov, 1964; Saraydar and Shimada, 1971; Stelcl and Malina, 1970; Kozak, 1972; Coles, 1973 & 1979; Carneiro, 1979a & 1979b; Harding and Young, 1979; Steensberg, 1957; 1980; Jørgensen, 1985; Meier, 1990; Choulot et al., 1997; Elburg et al., 2015). Early experiments were often undertaken by non-professional archaeologists (e.g., Pond, 1930). In some cases, experiments initially used original axes from the archaeological records, which would have negatively impacted future research of these artefacts (Jørgensen, 1985; Potratz, 1941), before common use of modern replicas in the 90′s (Choulot et al., 1997; Meier, 1990). Early experiments also assumed that axes were linked with the agricultural revolution with a tree felling role due to their form and ethnographic parallels (Montelius, 1906; Mills, 1993; Semenov, 1964). Later experiments used a wider range of evidence to understand potential axe function, such as assessing felling notches in trees (Elburg et al., 2015).
Since, experimental archaeology has progressed to include more accurate control of variables, such as Mathieu and Meyer (1997) who used strict protocols to control many variables for more accurate comparisons of efficiency between experimental axes. Today, archaeologists frequently use experimental archaeology to test a wide variety of hypotheses which contributes to our understanding of the life history of artefacts and those who used them (Dolfini and Collins, 2018, 36; Mathieu and Meyer, 2002). However, this is only one step in testing hypothesis.
1.2.		Comparing traces on replicas used in experiments with ancient objects
Stone axes and adzes are the bladed ground stone artefact which have seen the application of experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis, taking the vast history of experiments that one step further. The incorporation of use-wear analyses into experiment methodologies has enabled an understanding use-wear formation associated with specific actions and contact materials. These have provided clear images of microwear on the analysed axes which is beneficial for future comparable research (Lunardi, 2008; Masclans Latorre et al., 2017; Masclan et al., 2017; Yerkes et al., 2003). For example, the Neolithic house construction experiments by Leiden University used replica axes and adzes to chop trees and strip bark. These were analysed with usewear analysis periodically before being re-ground for continued use (Gijn and Pomstra, 2017). These experiments have also revealed that the stone axes were effective and fast tools when chopping trees (Wijnen et al., 2018; Gijn and Pomstra, 2017).
While stone axes have received increased attention, it is apparent that use-wear has very rarely been used to assess other perforated and bladed ground stone artefact. For instance, experimental archaeology has been used to test the function of perforated adzes (Raemaekers et al., 2010; van de Lagemaat et al., 2010). These have been useful for assessing the potential utilitarian uses of implements which, due to their large size, are sometimes regarded as non-functional. Yet, to date, there are no published analyses of use-wear traces on either the experimental or archaeological artefacts such as these which is valuable for confirming the experiment results. Furthermore, with the exception of this project (Roy, 2020a; 2020b; 2023) and a recent study of a small sample of Dutch battle-axes (Wentink, 2020) and two fragments of southern British battle-axes (Crellin et al., 2022), European and British battle-axes and axe-hammers lack interpretations based on their experimental use or direct analysis of use-wear and residues. Further research, comparing the reference collection with the archaeological assemblages of bladed and perforated stone tools, would close the hermeneutic loop and provide accurate interpretations of their functions (Fig. 1). This article offers a valuable example of this and presents nuanced and much-needed data on the utilitarian uses of battle-axes and axe-hammers which can be compared to and enhance understandings of other bladed ground and polished stone artefacts.
2.		Method
Experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis were employed to assess the function of Northern British and Manx battle-axes and axehammers. The actualistic experiments employed the controlled use of replica battle-axes and axe-hammers by following fixed parameters for manufacture, petrology, hafting, number of strikes and analysis. The aim was to investigate the formation of use-wear, such as, but not limited to, edge scarring and rounding; fractures; striations; grain removal and polish, and its development over time, to define the wear attributes and combinations which form throughout different types of use (Adams, 1993; Fullagar, 1991; Hamon, 2008; Keeley, 1982; Mills, 1993; Yerkes et al., 2003; Adams, 2010; Dubreuil, 2004; Gijn, 1990; Semenov, 1964; Adams et al., 2006; 2009). Another goal was to establish the efficiency of these implements during use to test previous claims that they were too unwieldy and fragile to be used (Pegge, 1773; Saville and Roe, 1984). The elements that were considered to reflect efficiency include whether the axes were used without breakage across the perforation and the ability to use the axes for the intended task, i.e. does the axe chop wood without difficulty?
The experiments (Fig. 2) were designed to answer the research questions, they included:
•		Chopping wood (pine tree branches)
•		Splitting birch logs
•		Creating planks by splitting wood with a wedge
•		Clearing undergrowth and roots
•		Digging through soil
•		Slaughtering animals by striking pig skulls
As part of the wider PhD project, a comparison of the experimental findings with the use-wear data of archaeological battle-axes and axehammers was applied to better understand the use-life of these implements (See Roy, 2022).
The experiments presented in this article were carried out with

Fig. 1. A hermeneutic spiral demonstrating how experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis can enhance understanding.

Fig. 2. Images of the experiments taking place. A) Splitting wood into firewood; B) split wood from the splitting wood experiment; C) chopping wood; D) the soaking of a hafted battle-axe to secure the axehead to the haft; E) splitting wood using an axe-hammer as a wedge; F) the indentation made when using an axe-hammer as a wedge; G) digging and clearing soil containing stones; H) bone-breaking experiment to test animal slaughter; I) digging and clearing soil and roots; J) roots chopped into pieces during the digging and clearing of soil and roots experiment.

Manufacture
Petrology
Hafts
Analysis
Pauses for analysis
Strikes

Variable Experiment
Replica
Duration

replicas of British battle-axes and axe-hammer types to provide a more accurate reference collection for assessments of the British dataset. They build upon previous experiments using replica stone axes and adzes (see above discussion).
To create comparable experiments, several parameters (Table 1) were controlled for every experiment.
The experiments were undertaken by myself with guidance from a craftsman and builder with skills and knowledge of wood properties and carpentry. This allowed for more accurate replication of use. Regular breaks were taken, every 50 strikes, to mitigate the effect of fatigue on performance. Each replica was wrapped in bubble wrap and kept in a cardboard box when it was not being used in an experiment to minimise contact and damage. Before each experiment took place, the replicas were drawn to scale and photographs were made to record their form and preservation. They were also gently cleansed before each experiment phase with mild soap and water and a non-abrasive cloth to remove residue left from manufacture; 10% hydrochloric acid (HCL) on a cotton pad was dabbed onto residue that could not be removed. Dabbing of blue-tac was also be used to remove wood and bone residue.
Each experiment was conducted outdoors in similar weather conditions, dry with variable cloud cover, to maintain the same environment. To ensure that the parameters were controlled throughout the experiments the procedures for each test were followed exactly. It was
Table 1
The experiment parameters and variables.
Parameters and variables
Parameter/	Description controls
All replicas were manufactured in the same way, using the same power tools to ensure that the surface texture and manufacture wear was the same at the start of the experiments. See section 5 for a discussion on the effect of manufacture.
Each replica was made of dolerite stone, a common stone used to manufacture battle-axes and axe-hammers, from the same source in the Isle of Man.
All replicas had a haft made of the same hardness of wood by the same person. All hafts for battle-axes were the same length. Likewise, the hafts used for the axe-hammers were also the same. The size of the haft will change the force and motion required to use the implement; therefore, it was important for it to remain constant.
The replicas were analysed with a Huvitz HSZ-600 stereomicroscope (x8 – x45) at the same points prior to, during and after the experiment. Casts using acetate and President Jet replicative material were also taken and analysed later under a Leica DM2700 M metallographic microscope (x40 – x400). The method of analysis remained the same throughout.
Pauses for analysis of the wear formation were taken after a set number of strokes/hits of the replica: 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000.
Each experiment ended after 2000 strikes to ensure that the usewear on each replica could be comparable at the end of the experiments. Due to time constraints, the strikes could not be more numerous, however, by 2000 strikes the use-wear density and quantity were well-developed. Development was recorded at a scale of wear intensity as undeveloped, less developed, moderately developed and well developed, with undeveloped being sparse wear, few in quantity and well developed as dense, overlapping wear, impacting the form of the surface signifantly (Vaughan 1985; Iba´n˜ez and Mazzucco, 2021).
Description
Each experiment tested a function hypothesis, therefore the experiment designs differed in that they involved different contact materials and motions of use.
A different replica was used for each experiment so that the usewear traces from each experimental use could be compared.
A different battle-axe type was used for each experiment to test whether they were too fragile to be used. The replica axehammers represent the most common axe-hammer type: Class I. The duration of each experiment varied depending on the length of time needed for wear to develop sufficiently, set at 2000 strikes. Each experiment took between 18 and 28 h.

Fig. 3. Illustrations of three replicas after use. The illustration at the top left shows replicas one, the top right illustration shows replica three and the illustration at the bottom shows replica five (by author).

essential to maintain the parameters, such as the length of each experiment at 2000 strikes, to mitigate the effects of the variables, in particular the form of each replica changed with every experiment. At specific points (after 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 strikes) during each experiment pauses were taken to allow for analysis of use-wear formation. A Huvitz HSZ-600 stereomicroscope with an x8 – x45 magnification range and a GXCAM microscope camera with GXcapture 7 as well as a Leica DM2700 M metallographic microscope, x40 – x400 magnification range, and a Leica DMC6200 camera were used for low and high power maginifcation analysis. Casts using acetate and President Jet replicative material were taken of the area in contact during the experiments to analyse the microwear at low and high magnifications (see S1 for further information on use-wear development). Replicas were cleansed before casts were taken and microwear analysed. During each pause, a description of the experiment and the state of the replica were recorded. This included a description of the activity, the effectiveness of the tools and the tool deterioration. Using a Panasonic Lumix DMC- TZ80, macroscopic images were taken of the replica before and after each pause. Video footage and images were also taken throughout each experiment. No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.
2.1.		Replicas
The replicas (Fig. 3) were analysed microscopically before each experiment to understand the wear created from mechanical production and to ensure that this wear could be differentiated from the experimental wear. Six replicas - four battle-axes and two axe-hammers were manufactured with power tools only (the replicas and casts are stored with the author and can be accessed through email). “An angle grinder with a cutting disc was used to cut the stone into shape, followed by the combination of a grinder, with sanding discs, and a Dremel, a rotary grinding tool, to finish the surface. The perforation was drilled using a pillar drill with a hole corer.” The power tools did not weaken the stone (Roy, 2022). Unfortunately, the replicas were not ground with stone; see section 5 for further details of this impact on the results.
Each replica battle-axe represented a development in the battle-axe typology so that the functionality of each type was tested, from stages I through to V of Roe’s typology (1966); (Stage IV is not represented as the shape of the blade is similar to Stage V). A stage I battle-axe replica, 11.5 cm long and 4.9 cm wide, was used to split wood; a stage II battleaxe, 11.5 cm long and 6 cm wide, was used for tree felling; a stage III battle-axes, 9.5 cm long and 4.2 cm wide, for clearing soil with stone and stage V battle-axe, 12 cm long and 5 cm wide, for clearing soil with roots. The replica axe-hammers were based on the more numerous Class I axe-hammers, convex in profile and were 22 cm in length and 7 cm in width. These were used as a wedge to split wood and in the bonebreaking experiment. The replicas were used for a single task each so that they could be compared, and the microwear formation was not changed by overlaying uses.
The replicas were hafted using freshly cut ash and pine, present in EBA northern Britain (Dumayne-Peaty and Barber, 1998, 124; Dark, 2005, 608; Fyfe et al., 2003), branches with a slight curve and a diameter matching the diameter of the perforation. Limited availability of wood meant the species could not be the same for all hafts, but all proved to be effective. Their form was based on the few examples of hafted axe-hammer and battle-axes discovered in situ (Harding and Young, 1979). The battle-axe hafts were 700 mm in length, and the axehammer hafts were 760 mm, both with a slight curve (Fig. 4). Due to time constraints, the bark was not removed from the hafts although the rougher areas, which made handling uncomfortable, were removed to ensure a secure grip.
3.		Results
3.1.		Pre-experiment use-wear
The manufacture traces on each replica were analysed microscopically before the experiments so that these traces could be taken into consideration when interpreting the use traces. The manufacture traces covered all edges and surfaces of the replicas. Every replica was made in the same way and had the same traces (See S 1 and S2 for a description of

Fig. 4. Hafted replica battle-axes and axe-hammer.

microwear development through the experiments).
3.2.		Splitting wood with battle-axe replica 1
The splitting wood experiment used battle-axe replica 1 to split logs of semi-dried birch into smaller pieces ideal for firewood. The logs were cut into 300 mm lengths using a modern saw and placed upright on short grass to protect the axe in case a strike was missed. From a position held just above shoulder height, the hafted axehead was swung down onto the top face of each log with a vertical chopping motion. The action inserted the axehead into the log 10–20 mm. This action was repeatedly used to split each log into four to six segments, depending on the diameter of the log. The diameters ranged between 100 and 250 mm. Semi-fresh wood which had been stored outside, uncovered, for two months was used for this experiment due to the difficulties in sourcing a large quantity of fresh wood.
The effectiveness of using a battle-axe to split wood parallels that of the chopping wood experiment. Over a short period, approximately two minutes for 50 strikes, the logs were successfully split into smaller pieces ideal for firewood. Smaller logs, c.100 mm diameter, were split with one to three strikes while those up to 300 mm diameter took between 14 and 25 strikes. The logs with knots required a greater number of strikes. Those with greater strength than myself would easily split the logs in fewer strikes, causing the act to be more effective and quicker. After 2000 strikes the blade remained sharp despite the well-developed wear, including dense pitting (Fig. 5b).
The axehead was soaked in water overnight to secure it to the haft. With the correct hafting method, the performance of this axe-head was impressive; it spilt wood effectively and easily and did not spin on the haft. Nor did the axehead break during use. This was the case for all experiments, making them more effective. Shaping the top of the haft to the same diameter as the perforation and gently forcing the axe onto it followed by soaking the hafted implement in water in between use, ideally overnight, created the maximum possible pressure to hold the axehead in place. Simple physics dictates that when force is applied to a wooden haft by forcing a perforated implement over it, the action will compress the wood and cause friction, thus holding the implement onto the haft. It is important to acknowledge the effect of the hysteresis of wood, which is that when placed under pressure, it will deform and not fully return to its original shape when the pressure is removed. Over time any friction exerted by compression on the haft will lessen, in addition to shrinkage when the wood further dries. So, placing the hafted implement into water ensures the wood remains fully saturated with water and thus fully expanded and continues to create friction.
3.3.		Chopping wood with battle-axe replica 2
The chopping wood experiment removed four branches off a pine tree. Due to accessibility issues, a tree could not be sourced to fell; however, the same motions were used for chopping branches, 200–300 mm in diameter. Battle-axe replica 2 was used for this experiment. The axe was hafted on a fresh pine haft, 700 mm in length. It was secured to the haft by soaking it in water overnight. Horizontal chopping motions were used to chop through branches to remove them from the tree. The haft was held with two hands, one at the end and the other in the centre and was held at a 90-degree angle to the branch so that the blade met the branch at the same angle. The branches were just below shoulder height and, therefore, were easily accessible. The casts, taken at each pause using President Jet, were analysed under a stereomicroscope as the experiment was carried out in the field with no access to a microscope during the pauses.
This battle-axe proved extremely effective at chopping wood, particularly when hafted efficiently. The branches were easily chopped through in around 10 min without any excess force. Three branches were felled. The efficiency and rate of ‘chopping through’ was maintained throughout each branch. Although, a flake negative at the top corner of the blade occurred when the axe-head became loose and fell off the haft, hitting a hard stone; continued use rounded the edges of this flake negative. Placing the hafted axe in water re-secured the axe. The wear at 2000 strikes was well developed and dense (Fig. 5d, e), but despite this, the blade remained functional and did not need to be resharped to maintain this.
3.4.		Digging soil containing stones with battle-axe replica 3
The experiment dug a hole 1.3 × 0.7 m with a 0.25 m depth using

Fig. 5. Use-wear analysed after 2000 strikes for all experiments. A selection of micrographs at low and high power demonstrating the use-wear analysed after 2000 strikes for all experiments. Images A to C show replica 1, D to F show replica 2, G to I show replica 3, J to L show replica 4, M to O show replica 5, and P to R show replica 6. See S1 for further information on use-wear development.
replica 3. The implement was hafted on a 700 mm haft made from an ash branch. The battle-axe was used to dig through soil containing 15% stones, the stones were small flint pebbles, 20–50 mm in diameter, and the soil was loamy with sparse scatterings of large clumps of clay and no roots. The axehead was swung from just below the shoulder and into the soil, using a vertical oblique chopping motion. On contact with the earth, the axe-head was dragged back towards the user for between 100 and 200 mm, with the blade inserted up to 30 mm in the soil.
The effectiveness of using a battle-axe to dig through soil containing stones was less than the replicas used to chop and split wood. The orientation of the blade, set at a right angle to the haft, cut through the soil easily, creating a v-shaped furrow and breaking it up just as a hoe or ard point would. However, such orientation was impractical for removing the soil. The implement was most effective at breaking apart soil when it hit a wall of the earth head-on. A battle-axe with an expanded blade was used for this experiment, but straight, un-expanded blades would likely produce similar results due to their shared orientation at a right angle to the shaft.
By 500 strikes, the axe-head had begun to spin on its haft, so small wooden wedges, approximately 40 mm long, were hammered into the gaps between the haft and the perforation and the hafted implement was soaked in water to secure it. Due to an error, a pause was not taken after 1500 strikes to analyse the use-wear development. The experiment ended after 2000 strikes when the wear was well-developed and the blade was truncated in several areas, taking the appearance of a wave (Fig. 5g, h).
3.5.		Digging soil containing roots with battle-axe replica 4
Digging/clearing soil and roots used battle-axe replica 4 to clear undergrowth around the base of a birch tree. This included chopping through the roots of the tree as well as clearing the grass and moss around it. The soil was loamy silty soil and contained very sparse, small stones of approximately 2 mm diameter. Thin roots from the undergrowth ran through the soil as well as thicker, 50 mm diameter, roots; all were chopped through. The axehead was swung from just below shoulder height and into the soil, using a vertical oblique chopping motion. On contact with the earth, the axe-head was dragged back towards the user for between 100 and 200 mm, with the blade inserted up to 30 mm in the soil. The casts, taken during each pause using President Jet, were analysed under a stereomicroscope as the experiment was carried out in the field with no access to a microscope.
The experiment effectively broke apart the roots between 5 mm and 30 mm in diameter and soil. As such, the implement was in contact with soil, roots and root splinters (for wear at 2000 strikes see Fig. 5j, k). The small roots were chopped through instantly while the larger roots required approximately 50–80 strikes. By 2000 strikes, the axehead had excavated a 1 m by 0.5 m area at an average depth of 30 cm.
Similar to the digging soil and stones experiment, this experiment was also less effective at removing soil from the area due to the angle of the blade. The experiment revealed that battle-axes could effectively break apart undergrowth and thick roots which would aid land clearance roles. Other tools would be required to remove the broken-up soil, such as shovels.
3.6.		Breaking bone with axe-hammer replica 5
The bone-breaking experiment was created to test animal slaughter using an axe-hammer. The experiment hit pig heads with an axehammer to replicate the modern cattle bolt gun used in abattoirs. Cow heads could not be acquired due to the restrictions in place regarding disease transmission when handling bovine body parts and so the experiment was restricted to pig heads only. Axe-hammer replica five was used to hit 40 pig heads across the skull until they were fragmented. The axe-head only came into contact with the unbroken areas of the skull: i.e., once an area of the skull had been broken, the axe-head was used against another unbroken part. One pig head was used for every 50 strikes. The skulls were placed on a wooden board, to aid the cleaning of the area after the experiment, and a vertical chopping motion was used.
The weight of the axe-hammer was sufficient to crack or fracture the skulls on first contact with the implement the majority of the time. On three out of 40 occasions the skulls required 40 strikes for the first crack to be made, although dents were made with the first strike. These examples were thicker skulls. An axe-hammer would doubtless be able to stun and knock out a pig on initial contact; in many of these occasions, it would most probably kill the pig. It was, therefore, an effective implement in the slaughter of pigs. Indeed, the axe-hammer was heavy to use but its weight added to the effectiveness of each strike and did not hinder the user. Throughout the experiment residue from tissue and bone developed on the tip and blade edges, resulting in a smooth appearance seen after 1500 and 2000 strikes (Fig. 5m, n).
3.7.		Splitting wood with a wedge with replica 6
The experiment carried out to test the formation of wear on an axehammer used as a wedge to split wood along the grain was carried out with little success. A one-metre-long log was partially debarked in preparation for it to be split lengthways. A sharp flint was dragged along the surface, along the grain, to ensure there was a bite for the blade to grip during the percussive action. This experiment involved two people, myself using a thrusting percussive motion to hit the butt of the axe with a large ash branch, 300 mm diameter and was 1.5 m in length, chosen due to its weight, and another to hold the axe-hammer in place with the haft. The axe-hammer was hafted to ensure that it could be safely held in place during use. This method was carried out to split the log along the grain, a common technique used with modern tools, such as mauls, today. The plan was to create an initial split and then use another axehammer replica as a secondary wedge to spread the split along the log if needed (Darrah, 2006)..
This experiment determined that axe-hammers were not effective tools to be used as wedges to split logs. Wear was recorded at the various stopping points regardless of this (see Fig. 5p, q for an example of usewear after 2000 strikes). Over the 2000 strikes, the blade slowly created a linear hole with a V-shaped profile and crushed and removed wood grains, with a final depth of 30 mm and a length of 100 mm; increasing in width and depth throughout the experiment. But, it did not split the log or cause cracks or splits in the wood. The negative result from this experiment suggests that the hypothesis that battle-axes and axe-hammers were used as wedges to split logs into planks may be incorrect. However, the chance that the experiment was not a faithful reproduction means that repeated tests are needed. For instance, different types of wood should be used with minimal knots. Likewise, the material used to hit the butt of the axe percussively could be changed. Another axe-hammer could be used to hit the butt of the axe-hammer used as a wedge, with a piece of wood or leather in between to protect the stone. Additionally, a stronger user may prove more effective as they could provide greater force. If further tests are also ineffective, this may be due to the angle of the blade. The angle of modern axes is on average 30–40 degrees at the end, tapering to 15–20 degrees on the body of the axe. The angle of the axe-hammer was 60 degrees at the tip, tapering to 40 degrees.
4.		Key findings in use-wear development
Throughout each experiment, the use-wear was recorded during each pause to understand how the use-wear formations developed and changed throughout different uses (Fig. 6). The supporting information (S1, S2) document describes the detailed development of use-wear on experimental replicas across various activities. Key findings include:

4.1.		
Fig. 6. Examples of use-wear on all six replicas at different stages of use. A selection of micrographs at low and high power demonstrating the use-wear analysed at different stages of use during each experiment. Image A Replica 1 at 1000 strikes; Image B, Replica 2, 1500 strikes; Image C, Replica 3, 500 strikes; Image D, Replica 4, 1500 strikes; Image E, Replica 5, 200 strikes; Image F, Replica 6, 1000 strikes.

Splitting wood (Replica 1)
Strikes: Limited use-wear included small, narrow grain removal pits in three groups (centre and corners of the blade tip). Short parallel striations extend from the pits, perpendicular to the blade edge
100 Strikes: Slight increases in pits and striations were observed within the three groups, with sparse polished stone grains showing a granular appearance.
200 Strikes: Grain removal pits became more clustered remaining in three groups, and associated striations increased in number. Rounding of blade corners. Early domed polish patches appeared along the blade tip and edges.
500 Strikes: Pits and associated striations exist in six groups with the greatest density in the centre of the blade. Domed polish patches became partially connected, maintaining perpendicular directionality.
1000 Strikes: Densely clustered pits expanded across the blade tip, being the most dense in the centre, extending to the top corner, while striations spread more evenly along the blade edge. Partial linkage of domed polish.
1500 Strikes: Abrasion and edge damage extended up to 5 mm from the tip, previously confined to the blade tip, followed by rounding of the high topography on the blade edges. Polish coverage increased, with small to medium-sized patches forming, showing moderate density and directionality of use.
2000 Strikes: Dense pits and striations, including intermittent, extended 10 mm along the blade edges, being most dense along and closest to the tip. Rounding of high topography along the blade centre and corners with polish at the corners. Domed polish patches became more connected with a moderate development and a directionality clearly perpendicular to the blade edge.
4.2.		Chopping wood (Replica 2)
50 Strikes: Sparse, narrow grain removal pits with short parallel striations extending from them were observed on the blade tip in three groups in the centre and corners
100 Strikes: The three groups increased in size and rounded high topography appeared at the corners. Single domed polish grains formed sparsely.
200 Strikes: Pits expanded into clusters on the blade tip and edges, with striations appearing in parallel and diagonal overlapping arrangements, extending 2 mm. The sparse domed polish began to show directionality following the direction of use.
500 Strikes: The three groups of wear increased in size, extending further along and onto the blade edges. The high topography round the pits showed clear rounding. Domed polish occurred in small patches mostly restricted to the tip.
1000 Strikes: Striations and pits were continuous across the blade edges and tip with edge scarring visible within the larger pits and pit clusters on the tip. Moderately developed domed polish with a consistent directionality perpendicular to the blade edge, surrounded by singular less developed domed polish.
1500 Strikes: Grain removal pits expanded into larger clusters containing edge scarring, crushed grains, and high-topography damage. Striations increased in length and overlapped at the blade corners. Larger patches of domed wood polish also appeared, denser on the blade tip and edges.
2000 Strikes: Dense wear bifacially along blade edge with clusters of pits becoming wider and deep at the tip and prominent edge scarring and crushed grains in the tips centre. Perpendicular and diagonal striations on the blade edges. Smooth, dense patches of domed polish.
4.3.		Digging soil with stones (Replica 3)
50 strikes: Sparse striations, long and parallel, were present on the blade edges. Five clusters of small grain removal pits appeared along the blade edges and tip with sparse crushed stone grains and edge scarring
100 Strikes: Striations increased across the blade edges, with more striations on one side due. Clusters of pits became deeper, wider along the blade tip and containing microfractures. Rounding appears along the high topography of the blade and granular polish formed in separated patches.
200 Strikes: Pits became denser, forming wider clusters with associated parallel and diagonal striations. Crushing and microfractures more apparent, particularly in the centre of the blade. Sparse granular polish patches with overlapping striations.
500 Strikes: Abrasion in the top corner of the blade and pits, crushing and microfracture extend 20 mm. Multiple flake negatives and dense cluster of edge damage on the blade centre with rounding at the corners. Granular polish continued.
1000 Strikes: More developed wear with multiple overlapping flake negatives located at the centre and top corner of the blade, bifacial damage as crushed grains and microfractures and aggressive removal of stone grains. Variable length striations and scratches and rounding limited to the bottom corner of the blade. Granular polish became more developed, forming smooth, partially connected patches.
2000 Strikes: Truncation of the blade in several areas with edge damage density in the blade centre to the top corner. Long striations and wear extend 50 mm with rounding and polish extending to the perforation. A mixture or with plateaus of smooth polish and granular polish.
4.4.		Digging soil with roots (Replica 4)
50 Strikes: Superficial pits with minimal short striations running perpendicular from pits
100 Strikes: Pits extend across the blade tip and edge in six groups associated with sparse intermittent and varied length parallel striations; granular polish.
200 Strikes: Edge damage developing directly next to the tip, pits, and striations with a close density. Granular and sparse domed polish.
500 Strikes: Greater density of wear formation in the blade centre to top corner where striations and pits extended up to 10–12 mm onto the blade edges, compared to 1–2 mm towards the bottom corner. Semiconnected patches of granular polish with domed edges.
1000 Strikes: Smoothing and rounding of the bottom corner of the blade
Wear extended more evenly across the blade, with larger pits forming clusters. Clusters of pits and microfractures along the other half of the blade. Partially connected patches of domed polish with directionality, surrounded by granular.
1500 Strikes: Wear extends up to 15 mm with overlapping intermittent striations and rounded high topography. Edge scarring and microfractures within the clusters on the blade tip. Polish patches increased in size.
2000 Strikes: The tip is smooth with rounded high topography and shallow pits. Microfractures extend 20 mm onto blade edges with overlapping striation and a very smoothed higher topography. Large patches of domed polish with overlapping striations, surrounded by granular polish.
4.5.		Breaking bone (Replica 5)
50 Strikes: Narrow grain removal pits appeared in sparse groups on the blade tip and edges. Striations were faint, parallel, and perpendicular to the blade edge. Manufacture polish remained unchanged
100 Strikes: Limited superficial bifacial parallel striations in two patches, superficial grain removal in clusters along the tip and microfractures at the blade corners. Unconnected polished stone grains.
200 Strikes: Rounded high topography along the tip, superficial pits extending from the tip onto the blade edges 10 mm and accompanied by intermittent striations in parallel and diagonal arrangements. Large patches of smooth polish.
500 Strikes: Increased striations length, up to 20 mm and crushed grains and microfractures present on the tip and blade edges, associated with striations. Larger patches of smooth polish.
1000 Strikes: The wear extends across the blade edges and tip and high topography rounding spreads up to 5 mm on blade edges. Long striations started at 10 mm from the top and associated with small clusters of microfractures. Rounded edges of polish.
1500 Strikes: The wear seen at 1000 strikes extends up to 15 mm, new wide striations on the blade edges are diagonal, facing into the axe and the smoothed high topography continues. Smooth and rounded polish with micro-removals.
2000 Strikes: The wear extended up to 25 mm on the blade edges with variable length striations with variable orientations, scratches and 10 mm wide patches of microfractures. Rounding of edges of removals and grains. Large dense patches of smooth polish with dense parallel striations.
4.6.		Splitting wood with a wedge (Replica 6)
50 Strikes: Minimal and superficial pits on the tip corners with associated striations on the blae edges. The wear is denser of one side. A small patch of close, superficial grain removal pits present on the butt.
100 Strikes: Pits began to cluster and contain microfractures and striations increased slightly in quantity; they extended 10–15 mm along the blade edges, striations having multiple orientations. Few sparse pits were present on the butt. Early granular polish patches appeared on the bade and butt.
200 Strikes: Clusters of crushed stone grains became visible at the blade corners where the wear became denser, and edges rounded. Pits on the butt became wider and clustered but remained superficial. Domed and slightly granular polish on the blade and butt, close in density on and larger at the blade corners.
500 Strikes: Multidirectional striations and pit clusters extended up to 15 mm onto the blade edges with microfractures close to and on the tip and sparse rounded high topography on the tip. Five clusters of superficial pits on the butt containing microfractures and associated with sparse striations. More developed domed polish on the blade edges than the tip and partially connected domed polish on the butt centre.
1000 Strikes: Striations, pits, and microfractures extended 20 mm bifacially onto the blade edges, with dense wear at the tip and corners, where rounding and overlapping striations were most prominent. Striations also starting at 10 mm. The butt exhibited deeper and denser grain removal pits with microfractures and parallel striations extending across its surface. Patches of polish on the butt because closer, that on the blade showed verified directionalities.
1500 Strikes: Small pits extended up to 25 mm from the tip associated with overlapping striations, with larger, denser pits forming wide clusters at the tip, surrounded by rounded high topography and associated microfractures. The butt displayed larger clusters of pits with crushed stone grains and microfractures. Larger patches of domed polish with clear directionality on the blade tip, edges, and butt, consistent with previous striation patterns.
2000 Strikes: The blade tip and edges exhibited dense pits up to 30 mm from the tip, with larger pit clusters and microfractures near the tip and corners where overlapping striations and rounding were most prevalent. Two large clusters of removals and microfractures on the butt. Smaller patches of domed polish on the blade and a mix of small and large patches on the butt, with micro-removals of grains and clear directionality throughout.
5.		Wear development related to and alteration of the manufacture traces
5.1.		Low magnification wear development
At low magnification, contact with the contact materials during each use consistently smoothed and levelled the high topography left by manufacture, transforming the surface, and creating conditions for new wear to develop. This smoothing process occurred across all experiments, starting as early as 50 strikes, and gradually removing angular edges, pits, and striations associated with manufacture. For example, on Replica 1 (splitting wood), the angular pits and deep striations on the blade tip and edges were smoothed and reduced to limited or no visibility by 100 strikes. Similarly, in Replica 6 (splitting wood with a wedge), superficial manufacture pits and angular striations were highly rounded and smoothed, becoming almost indiscernible by 100 strikes.
Wear often developed in areas independent of manufacture traces. On Replica 3 (digging soil), for instance, pits and edge scarring formed in locations where no manufacture pits were present, indicating limited influence from initial traces. On Replica 1 the three groups of grain removals also developed independently of the manufacture pits. Moreover, the use-wear inside the flake negative on Replica 1 did not differ from the surrounding blade areas, demonstrating that wear developed in an analogous manner there as the rest of the blade.
However, in some cases, wear did interact with manufacture features. On Replica 2 (chopping wood), wear was initially concentrated around two central manfuacture fractures, smoothing their edges, and forming small pits within the fractures and in adjacent areas. Over time, these manufacture traces became less influential, and wear expanded uniformly across the surface.
The removal of stone grains during use also created new opportunities for wear to form on previously unmodified areas. This process, observed in multiple replicas, highlights how the initial reduction of manufacture features through grain removals resulted in “fresh” surfaces not influenced by manufacture traces, while rounding and smoothing of surfaces created more level surfaces that facilitated further wear development (see Fig. 6A and 6C). For example, on Replica 5 (breaking bone), manufacture pits on the tip were incorporated into broader areas of use pits, their edges rounded and smoothed to the extent that further removals were minimized. This process demonstrates how early manufacture traces, while, in some cases, initially influencing wear development, were gradually replaced, or absorbed into broader patterns of use-wear. Thus, creating surfaces for wear to develop irrespective of the initial manufacturing traces.
The manufacture traces left by pecking, grinding, and polishing with stone and sand or other granular materials also leaves traces that would have influence future use-traces. The differences between the traces left by the modern tools and ancient have several similarities that would have influenced use-wear development in the same or similar ways - i.e. both methods levelled the stone grains, creating flat surfaces for the wear to develop. Also, for both, the striations were in parallel arrangements with directions parallel and perpendicular to the tip which is common in axe manufacture. The difference is that the modern manufacture traces created deep V-shaped striations with some sparse crushing along the striations. Furthermore, grinding with stone to sharpen the blade can also create sparse, small pits on the tip, not unlike those seen on the replicas. These traces may be altered in similar ways during use. For instance, the deep V-shaped striations and pits from modern grinding in Replica 6 were smoothed and rounded by 100 strikes, just as the edges of pits and striations would have been smoothed from contact with the same materials and used in the same way.
5.2.		High magnification wear development
At high magnification, the progression of use-wear revealed distinct changes in polish morphology and distribution, influenced by use. Initially, the edges of manufacture polish became slightly smoothed and/or rounded. For example, on Replica 3 (digging soil with stones), the edges of manufacture polish were rounded by 50 strikes, and granular polish began to develop in unpolished areas and gaps between manufacture traces by 100 strikes. Similarly, in Replica 5 (breaking bone), singular grains of the manufacture polish were smoothed and domed by 100 strikes, with overlapping shallow striations further altering its appearance and manufacture traces completely disappearing along the blade edges by 500 strikes.
Despite these early interactions, the development of use-polish ultimately occurred independently of manufacture traces. By 500 strikes in Replica 1 (splitting wood), manufacture polish was no longer visible, having been replaced by smooth, domed polish with clear directionality. On Replica 6 (wedge), granular polish developed on top of and around the manufacture polish, connecting previously unpolished areas and creating wide patches of smooth, domed wear that bore no resemblance to the initial traces. These processes highlight how wear development was facilitated by the removal of stone grains and the creation of smoother surfaces, so that the subsequent form and orientation of the new polish were independent of the original manufacture features.
As with the wear visible under low magnifications, both modern and ancient manufacture techniques produced flat polished surfaces (see Fig. 7) that were altered by smoothing and doming during use. For example, the high topography of the flat, striated manufacture polish in Replica 2 was gradually smoothed and domed and incorporated with polish forming on natural stone around the manufacture traces until the manufacture traces were invisible by 1000 strikes. This same process occurs with use polish from medium hardness and soft contact materials altering the flat polish caused by grinding with stone. This continuity reinforces the idea that the mechanics of wear development were not significantly impacted by the manufacturing method.

5.3.		
Fig. 7. Examples of alteration to manufacture polish and development of use-polish. A selection of micrographs showing alteration to manufacture polish and the development of use-polish. Images A-C show polish on replica 1 being domed (A), granular polish developing (C) and replacement with use-polish (B). Images D-E shows smoothing of manufacture polish and incorporation with use-polish on replica 4. Image F shows replica 5 with highly polish and domed manufacture polish and removals causing interruptions.

Overall
Use-wear development (see, S1 for a more detailed explanation of use-wear development atop the manufacture traces on each replica) followed consistent patterns across all experiments, beginning with the smoothing or rounding of angular manufacture traces and transitioning to independent wear. While initial stages of wear were sometimes influenced by manufacture features, such as pits or striations, this influence diminished quickly as use progressed. The removal of stone grains and the creation of smoothed surfaces facilitated more uniform wear development, regardless of the initial manufacturing method. This underscores the usefulness of this experimental data in understanding wear development atop levelled striated surfaces with sparse superficial pits and some crushing.
Although the use of modern tools in the initial manufacture introduces differences in surface traces compared to ancient methods (deep V-shaped striations), the rapid transformation of these traces during use demonstrates their minimal influence on wear development. Based on my experience manufacturing axes (conducted after the experiment presented here), I also note that traditional methods, such as grinding, leave traces—such as levelled high topography, grain removal pits and dense striations—that can similarly influence use-wear development. Notably, these features share some similarities with the manufacture traces on the replicas, such as levelled high topography and flat polish, allowing analogies to the archaeological record to be made when accounting for variables like stone crystal structure, granularity, hardness, cleavage, and weathering extent.
We must also acknowledge that exact replication of archaeological artefacts is inherently impossible since differences in manufacture motions, applied force, material characteristics, and environmental factors, as well as the cumulative impacts of reshaping, re-use, and weathering over long periods, cannot be fully reproduced. Despite these challenges, analogies remain central to our interpretations. Therefore, I argue that the development of use-wear atop mechanical manufacture traces is not a hindrance but rather a tool to advance archaeological understanding when properly documented. By describing how manufacture traces influenced future wear development, as well as the independent development of wear, this reference collection remains a valid and valuable resource for interpreting archaeological artefacts.
6.		Discussion
The experimental results question the previous interpretations that battle-axes and axe-hammers were non-functional. The tests revealed that both battle-axes and axe-hammers could be easily and effectively used. It is probable, due to the more active nature of people during the EBA, that their ability and strength would be greater than my own and therefore they would be able to use battle-axes and axe-hammers with more ease and speed, thus requiring fewer strikes to complete an action. In all instances, the blades remained sharp enough for use and the replicas remained intact throughout, suggesting their capability of prolonged use. The experiments revealed that a secure haft made the use easier, the haft was secured effectively by soaking the hafted replica in water overnight, despite previous arguments that they were ineffective tools due to the lack of balance and secure fit (Wentink, 2020).
Contrary to previous experiment results using a battle-axe to chop wood (Wentink, 2020), the use of replica 2 (stage II battle-axe – Fig. 3) to chop branches proved extremely effective. Each branch, 200–300 mm in diameter, was easily chopped using a horizontal chopping motion in between 400 and 800 strikes depending on the diameter of the branch, and without excess force. Moreover, Replica 1 was also used effectively to split wood; smaller logs, approximately 100 mm diameter, were split with one to three strikes while those up to 250 mm diameter took between 14 and 25 strikes. The easy and effective nature of both tasks reflects the usefulness of the battle-axe in woodworking roles. The experiment using replica 3 to dig and clear soil with stones demonstrated that the orientation of the blade, parallel with the haft, was impractical for removing material. However, it was effective at breaking apart soil, like a mattock. A similar result was achieved with replica 4, used to dig and clear soil with roots. During this experiment, small roots were chopped through with one to two strikes while the larger roots required approximately 50–80 strikes. The effective use of replicas 3 and 4 in breaking apart soil containing stones and soil with roots compare with Wentink’s conclusion that battle-axes were used in land clearance (Wentink, 2020) and suggests that other tools would be required to remove the material. As such, these implements may have been part of a tool kit comprising of various items used together and separately. Furthermore, rather than a digging role, these implements would be much more effective being used as an ard point to create ard furrows for sowing seeds by tilling the soil, perhaps.
The size and weight of axe-hammer replica 5 was sufficient to crack the pig skulls on the first contact on most occasions. An axe-hammer would doubtless be able to stun and knock out livestock on initial contact; on many of these occasions, the force would most probably kill. Although the experiment was not able to be tested on a cow head, this experiment attests to the damage that can be inflicted with an axehammer. Considering the axe-hammer was able to break apart the larger and thicker pig skulls, it would not be unreasonable to assume it could also cause damage to a cow’s head. Additional experiments are required to test the use of an axe-hammer as a wedge since, over the 2000 strikes, replica 6 slowly created a linear indentation but did not split the log.
The experiments successfully answered the project’s research questions:
Were battle-axes too fragile for utilitarian use?
No, the evidence suggests they could be used for prolonged periods without breaking and maintaining blade sharpness.
Did the large size of axe-hammers inhibit utilitarian use?
No, the size of replicas 5 and 6 did not impede use, indeed the size and weight of replica 5 increased its effectiveness.
Were battle-axes and axe-hammer effective tools?
Yes, in all but one experiment the replicas proved to be effective at completing their task with ease and without breakage or when hafted correctly and soaked in water, movement of the axeheads on the haft was limited.
How do the use-wear formations develop and change throughout different uses of battle-axes and axe-hammers?
As the use-wear (S1, S2) indicates, analysis of the replicas throughout each experiment enabled an understanding of the changing use-wear patterns throughout the use which has created a reference collection of use-wear marks for comparative analysis with the archaeological record in this project and future analysis. It has allowed a greater understanding of use-wear development which is particularly important for ground stone artefacts since use-wear can differ far more frequently between ground stone lithologies compared to siliceous materials.
When analysing the use-wear formation throughout each experiment it was apparent that there was a difference in the formation of wear attributes between each experiment, particularly between the different contact materials, wood, bone, earth with roots and earth with stones (Table 2). For example, contact with the stone inclusions, a hard contact material, during the experiment clearing soil with stones, caused the most distinctive and damaging traces which developed more quickly than during the other experiments which were in contact with medium hardness materials, such as wood. The creation of a more substantial reference collection for battle-axe and axe-hammer use allowed more accurate interpretations of the use of the archaeological sample (Roy, 2020a; 2020b; 2022; 2023). Indeed, the amount of use was variable for implements in the analysed sample, so an understanding of wear development through time was imperative. Similarities with four of the replicas were used to infer a similar use for the samples: chopping wood, splitting wood, clearing soil and roots and bone breakage (animal slaughter). The experimental replica used to dig and clear earth with stones had no comparison within the sample, establishing that they were less likely to be used in this way.
The use-wear on the experimental replicas shows similarities with other experimental tools, indicating that certain contact materials and motions produce analogous wear patterns on ground and polished stone artefacts used similarly. For instance, the use of such blades in chopping motions against wood creates similar short to medium bifacial striations in a parallel arrangement, visible at low magnifications, and the distinctively smooth, domed polish with similar striations associated with contact with wood, visible at high magnifications (Masclans Latorre et al., 2017; Yerkes et al., 2003). Indeed, this is the case for use traces which I analysed, at both low and high magnifications, on the reference collection of stone axes used for chopping trees from the Leiden University Neolithic house construction experiment (analysis of reference collection, 2016).
Further to this, analysis of stone axes in earth working/land clearance experiments also share some use-wear similarities with this projects battle-axe used in the land clearance role, which stems from contact with the earth (Macdonald et al., 2019; Masclans Latorre et al., 2017). In particular, the use-wear formation from Masclan Lattore and co.’s hoeing experiment (Masclans Latorre et al., 2017, Fig. 4b), using a hornfels bladed tool for one hour on non-rocky land with a transverse motion, had the same use-wear as on replica 4 after 1000 strikes, during the earth and roots experiment; also used the same motion and contact material.
Having directly observed the use-wear on Wentinks experimental battle-axes (Wentink, 2020), it was also apparent that the use-wear formations were observed on the battle-axe used to chop tree branches and similar traces were also observed on the battle-axe used in contact with earth and roots, thus supporting the hypothesis that these traces could form on the archaeological assemblage when used in these ways. Furthermore, similar use-wear was analysed on Wentink’s battle-axe and this projects axe-hammer used against animal skills suggest that, despite a difference in size and weight, the cognate form and blade angle of battle-axes and axe-hammers increases the likelihood of similar usewear formations.
Such positive analogous use-wear attributes and the success of this project’s experiments, demonstrating the functional potential of battleaxes and axe-hammers, adds to the knowledge of use-wear formation on other ground and polished bladed stone artefacts. It is also a valuable resource of bladed stone tools which lack scientific assessment. For example, the interpretation of the function of European battle-axes is remarkably similar to their British counterparts, often being regarded as ceremonial, non-functional, and used as weapons or status symbols (Mauvilly and Kramer, 2021; Earle and Kristiansen, 2010, 4; Knutsson and Knutsson, 2003, 70; Lekberg, 2002, 68; Brumfield and Earle, 1987). The experiments demonstrate that these European battle-axes could have also been used in woodworking, land clearance or animal slaughter roles, due to the similar form. Use-wear analysis of these artefacts would also allow a comparable assessment, using the reference collection of wear marks, to accurately corroborate such hypotheses and supply scientific use interpretations to be used alongside contextual data for accurate functional interpretations.
Further experiments would provide information on any other potential uses which may result in similar wear patterns, for instance crushing bone to extract marrow, the use of an axe-hammer as an ard point to plough soil, and multiple use of a single implement. Indeed, the small experimental sample size poses some limitations to interpretation, thus, repeating the experiments presented, will address this limitation by creating a larger sample size and will allow testing of variance within the results; data on variance is important to understand variation in usewear. Other experiments must also be carried out to further test the use of battle-axes and axe-hammers as wedges to split wood into planks, and the use of their butt to hit wooden wedges or posts. Likewise, a comparative study of use-wear formation on replicas I to VI and battleaxes and axe-hammer replicas made using ancient methods, as opposed to with a machine, would confirm and enhance the use-wear formation presented in this study. While experiments using different bladed tools for the same task, with strict parameters and controls could further establish similar use-wear formations which develop on different bladed tools which would benefit the comparable research between reference collections and the archaeological record.
The results presented here demonstrate the utilitarian potential for battle-axes and axe-hammers through nuances and much-needed data from the use of a combined experiment and use-wear approach. They are
Table 2
A table to show the wear analysed at the end of each experiment, at 2000 strikes (Roy, 2022).
Experiment	Manufacture traces	Striations	Grain removal pits	Microfractures	Grain edge rounding	Edge scarring:
Flake negatives	Polish (high mag)	References to micrographs	
Chopping	Manufacture	Dense striations	Dense pits	The irregular	Rounded stone	One small,	Close density,	Use-wear	
wood	traces cover the	cover the blade	cover the blade	shape of the blade	grains along	shallow flake	varying sized	from working	
Replica 2	implement.	edges, bifacially.	tip and extend	tip is the result of	blade tip, at	negative on one	patches of domed	wood, Fig. 5d-	
	Close, shallow, v- shaped striations cover the implement. They	They are u- shaped in profile, 10 mm long and in a parallel	onto blade edges bifacially 10 mm, they are narrow and	microfractures of the stone grains amongst the groups of dense	corners and the edges of the pits of the blade tip. The	corner, its edges and high topography are rounded.	polish, with a clear
directionality, extend away from	f; S1	
	are long and intermittent and	arrangement, running	superficial.
Those closest to	grain removal pits directly on the	high topography		the blade tip.
There are parallel		
	in a parallel	perpendicular to	the tip are	blade tip and 2–5	and edges of		striations on the		
	arrangement,	the blade edge.	wider and	mm onto the blade	the flake		polish orientated		
	occasionally	Some at the	deeper.	edges. These	negative are		in the same		
	overlapping when the grinding direction changes. Very	corners are diagonal, pointing towards the centre of the blade. They are		groups of pits and microfractures had a slightly frosted appearance.
The fractures occur	also rounded.		direction.		
	small, superficial pits with a close density exist next to the striations.	interrupted by pits on the blade edge.		most frequently in the centre and towards the corners of the					
	The striations are associated with closely connected patches of levelled and polished stone grains, which cover the stone surface, with excepting of the tip.			blade.					
Wedge-	The manufacture	Close density,	Close density,	Irregular patches	The high	None	Close density,	Use-wear	
splitting	traces are the	parallel, extend	pits cover the	of fractured stone	topography of		patches of pitted,	from use as a	
wood	same as replica 2	up to 30 mm onto	blade tip and	grains, 5x5mm,	the grains on		domed polished,	wedge to split	
Replica 6		blade edge, interrupted by pits causing them to become intermittent, length varies from small to long, orientated perpendicular to the blade tip.	extend onto the bade edge 30 mm. They are narrow and superficial and surround and interrupts the striations on the blade edges.	create a frosted appearance. They are located centrally on the blade edges. Associated with deep striations.	the corners of the blade are rounded.		small to large in size, with a clear directionality.
Parallel striations on polish are orientated in the same direction.	wood, Fig. 5p- r; S1	
Splitting	The manufacture	Dense, u-shaped	Dense pits	The irregular	The high	None	Close density,	Use-wear	
wood	traces are the	in profile,	cover blade tip	shape of the blade	topography of		large patches of	from working	
Replica 1	same as replica 2	striations extend 10 mm onto blade edges, bifacially. They have a parallel arrangement orientated perpendicular to the blade tip.	and edge and extend 10 mm onto blade edge. They are narrow and superficial. The densest patches occur in three groups, the centre and towards the edges of the blade, surround striations.	tip in the centre of the blade is the result of grain removals and microfractures of grains.
Microfractures in small patches on the blade edges, in the centre and at the corners exist in relation to dense striations. Slight edge rounding of fractured grains.	the grains along the blade tip and the top of the pits on the blade edge, close to the tip, and at the
corners are rounded.		domed polish have a clear directionality moving away from the blade tip. The patches of polish are covered in dense parallel striations orientated in the same direction.	wood, Fig. 5a- c; S1	
Digging/	The manufacture	Dense, thin	Dense pits	Microfractures of	The high	None	Close density,	Use-wear	
clearing	traces are the	striations, u-	cover the blade	the stone grains	topography		large patches of	from working	
soil and	same as replica 2	shaped in profile,	tip and edge.	amongst the	and edges of		domed and	soil and roots,	
roots		have a parallel	They extend 20	groups of dense	pits on the tip		slightly granular	Fig. 5j-l; S1	
Replica 4		arrangement. They are orientated perpendicular to the blade tip. Those in the centre overlap	mm onto blade edges bifacially, close to striations.
The pits on the tip are wide, shallow and	grain removal pits directly on the blade tip, and 2–5 mm onto the blade edges, create a frosted
appearance.	and stone grains on the blade edge directly next to the tip are rounded.		polish. They are
covered in long
striations,
overlapping and
orientated in
multiple
directions. The
(continued on next page)	

Table 2 (continued)
Experiment	Manufacture traces	Striations	Grain removal pits	Microfractures	Grain edge rounding	Edge scarring:
Flake negatives	Polish (high mag)	References to micrographs	
		and are orientated diagonally, they extend up to 20 mm onto blade edges, bifacially.	with rounded edges. The pits on the blade edge are superficial and narrow.	Although, grain edge rounding of this area has lessened the appearance.
Linear patches of microfractures on the blade edges, create a frosted appearance amongst striations and grain removal pits. These patches extend in separated to close density up to 20 mm onto the blade			domed parts of the polish have a directionality.		
				edges.					
Digging/	The manufacture	Dense, u-shaped,	Dense, angular,	Microfractures and	Rounded high	Wide, multiple	Close density,	Use-wear	
clearing	traces are the	long and	superficial and	crushed stone	topography on	fractures along	large patches of	from working	
soil and	same as replica 2	intermittent	narrow pits	grains cover much	the blade	the blade tip and	granular and	soil and	
stones		striations are	extend up to 20	of the blade edges,	corners.	edge associated	smooth polish are	stones,	
Replica 3		interrupted by pits. They extend 20 mm from the tip in the centre of the blade edges and 50 mm towards to corners so that they meet the perforation, bifacially.	mm in the centre of the blade and 50 mm towards the corners so that they meet the perforation, bifacially. There are crushed and fractured stone grains within pits.	up to 20 mm from the tip in the centre and 50 mm towards the corners. They are associated with the long striations and dense grain removal pits in the same areas. The stone surface is rough and abraded.	Patches of rounded stone grains extend back from the blade to towards the perforation.	with the densest patches of pits, microfractures and crushed stone grains.	covered in long striations, orientated in multiple diagonal directions and overlapping.	Fig. 5g-i; S1	
Bone	The manufacture	Dense striations	Dense, wide	Separated patches	The high	None	Close density,	Use-wear	
breaking	traces are the	cover the blade	pits exist close	of microfractures,	topography of		large smooth	from bone-	
Replica 5	same as replica 2	edges and are spread up to 15 mm onto blade edges, bifacially. They have a parallel arrangement and are orientated perpendicular to the blade tip. They are a mixture of short and longer striations; the longer striations are orientated diagonally and overlap. There are also large scratches in multiple directions on blade edges, associated with fractured stone grains.	to the blade tip. They are superficial and narrow further from it and spread up to 15 mm onto blade edges, bifacially.	creating a frosted appearance, exist on the blade edge directly next to the tip. They are 10 mm wide and 2–4 mm deep. Small, close patches of micro-fractured grains, interrupted by grain removal pits, extend across the blade tip. The grain edge is rounded.	the stone grains and the edge of pits on the tip are rounded.		polish. The edges are slightly rounded giving a domed appearance. The dense striations on the patches overlap slightly.	breaking, Fig. 5m-o; S1	

a further example of the rewards such an approach can have when applied to understand the use-lives of stone artefacts. In particular, understandings of many bladed stone artefacts, internationally, would significantly benefit from the application and comparative analysis with projects such as this; including, but not limited to, Corded Ware battleaxes, perforated adzes, non-European axes and adzes, and ard points.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Amber Sofia Roy: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Dr Annelou van Gijn and the Material Culture Laboratory at Leiden University, and Profs Chris Fowler and Andrea Dolfini and Associate Prof Rachel Crellin for their support and guidance. For access to locations and material for the experiments, I thank Mr and Mrs Roy, Dr Marco Pitone and Glen Graham, Northumberland National Trust. I offer great thanks to those who supported this research project; it is greatly appreciated.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2026.105650.
Data availability
The data is available through the supplementary material attached to the manuscript.
References
Adams, J.L., 1993. Mechanisms of wear on ground stone surfaces. Pacific Coast
Archaeology Society Quarterly 29, 60–73.
Adams, J.L., 2010. Understanding grinding technology through experimentation. In:
Ferguson J, editor. Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology: Examining
Technology through Production and Use. Boulder: University Press of Colorado; 2010. p. 129-151.
Adams, J.L., Delgado, S., Dubreuil, L., Hamon, C., Plisson, H., Risch, R., 2009. Functional Analysis of Macro-Lithic Artefacts: A Focus On Working Surfaces. In: F. {Sternke, L. Eigeland, & L.-J. }. Costa (Eds.), Non-Flint Raw Material Use in Prehistory Old prejudices and new directions - Proceedings Of The Xv World Congress (Lisbon, 4-9 September 2006). Archaeopress, pp. 43-66.
Anderson R., 1942. Low A. A cinerary urn from Sandmill Farm, Stranraer, Wigtownshire. With a Note on the Associated Cremated Remains. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1942;76: 79-83.
Bordaz, J., 1970. Tools of the Old and New Stone Age. Garden City: Natural History Press; 1970.
Bradley, R., 1978. The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain. Henley-on-Thames: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Brumfield, E., Earle, T., 1987. Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1987.
Carneiro, R.L., 1979a. Tree Felling with the Stone Axe, in Kramer C, editor. Ethnoarchaeology. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 21–58.
Carneiro, R.L., 1979b. Forest clearance among the yanomamo: observations and implications. Antropologica 52, 3.
Choulot, S., Ernst, T., Joly, F., Lundstr¨om-Baudais, K., Maitre, A., L’abattage et le façonnage des bois d’œvre. In: P´etrequin P, editor. Les Sites Littoraux N´eolithiques de Clairvaux-les-Lacs et de Chalain (Jura) III, Chalain Station 3, 3200-2900 av, J.-C. Paris: E´ditions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme ; 1997. p. 187–210.
Cole, J.M., 1979. An Experiment with Stone Axes. In: Clough T, Cummins W, editors. Stone Axe Studies. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 23; 1979. p. 106-107.
Coles, J.M., 1973. Archaeology by Experiment. London: Hutchinson; 1973.
Crellin, R., Tsoraki, C., Standish, C., Pearce, R., Barton, H., Morriss, S., et al., 2022. Materials in movement: gold and stone in process in the Upton Lovell G2a burial. Antiquity 1–18.
Darrah, R., 2006. Wood Technology. In: Evans, C., Hodder, I.A., editors. Woodland Archaeology: Neolithic Sites at Haddenham. McDonald Institute Monographs, 2006. p. 118–130.
Dark, P., 2005. Mid- to late-Holocene vegetational and land-use change in the Hadrian's Wall region: a radiocarbon-dated pollen sequence from Crag Lough, Northumberland, England. J. Archaeol. Sci. 32 (4), 601–618.
Dolfini, A., Collins, R., 2018. Modelling physical and digital replication: bridging the gap between experimentation and experience. Open Archaeology 4, 36–49.
Dubreuil, L., 2004. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone tools. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2004;31(6):1613-1629.
Dumayne-Peaty, L., Barber, K.E., 1998. Late Holocene vegetational history, human impact and pollen representativity variations in northern Cumbria, England. J. Quat. Sci. 1998;13: 147-164.
Earle, T., Kristiansen, K., 2010. Organizing Bronze Age Societies: The Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandinavia Compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
Elburg, R., Hein, W, Probst, A, Walter, P. (2015). Field Trials in Neolithic Woodworking: (Re)Learning to use Early Neolithic stone adzes. In: Kelm R, editor. Archaeology and Crafts: Experiences and Experiments on Traditional Skills and Handicrafts in Archaeological Open-Air Museums in Europe. Husum: Husum Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft; 2015. p. 62-77.
Evans, J., 1897. Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain, 2nd ed. Longmans, Green and Co., London.
Fyfe, R.M., Brown, A.G., Rippon, S.J., 2003. Mid- to late-Holocene vegetation history of Greater Exmoor, UK: estimating the spatial extent of human-induced vegetation change. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 12, 215–232.
Fullagar, R., 1991. The role of silica in polish formation. J. Archaeol. Sci. 18 (1), 1–24.
Gijn, A.L. van, 1990. The wear and tear of flint. Principles of functional analysis applied to Dutch Neolithic assemblages [PhD thesis]. Universiteit Leiden, Leiden.
Gijn, A.L. van, Pomstra, D., 2017. “Huize Horsterwold” The reconstruction of a Neolithic house plan using Stone Age equipment. In: Hurcombe, L., Cunningham, P. (Eds.), The life cycle of structures in experimental archaeology an object biography approach. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp. 177–186.
Greenwell, W., Rolleston, G., 1877. British Barrows: a record of the examination of sepulchral mounds in various parts of England. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hamon, C., 2008. Functional analysis of stone grinding and polishing tools from the earliest Neolithic of north-western Europe. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35 (6), 1502–1520.
Harding A, Young R. Reconstruction of Hafting Methods and Function of Stone Implements. In: Clough T, Cummins W, editors. Stone Axe Studies. Council for British Archaeology Research Report 23; 1979. p. 102-105.
Heider, K.G., 1970. The Dugum Dani. Chicago: Aldine Publish; 1970.
Jørgensen, S., 1985. Tree-felling with original Neolithic flint axes in Draved Wood. Report on the Experiments in 1952-54. Copenhagen; 1985.
Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., 2003. Stone age transitions. Neolithisation in Central Scandinavia. Documenta Praehistorica. 30, 49–78.
Ib´a˜nez, J.J., Mazzucco, N., 2021. Quantitative use-wear analysis of stone tools: measuring how the intensity of use affects the identification of the worked material. PLoS One 16 (9), e0257266. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257266.
Keeley, L.H., 1982. Hafting and retooling: effects on the archaeological record. Am. Antiq. 47 (4), 798–809.
Kozak, V., 1972. Stone age revisited. Nat. Hist. 81, 14–24.
Leahy, K., 1986. A dated stone axe-hammer from Cleethorpes, South Humberside. Proc. Prehist. Soc 52, 143–152.
Lekberg, P., 2002. Lives of Axes, Landscapes of People: A Study of Landscape and Society in the Late Neolithic of Central Sweden (English). Uppsala: Institutionen f¨or arkeologi och antik historia; 2002.
Lunardi, A., 2008. Experimental testing of polished greenstone axes and adzes: technology and use. In: L. Longo L, Skakun NN, editors. Prehistoric Technology 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. Archaeopress, Oxford. p. 369–373.
Macdonald, D.A., Xie, L., Gallo, T., 2019. Here's the dirt: first applications of confocal microscopy for quantifying microwear on experimental ground stone earth working tools. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 26, 1–10.
Masclan, A., Palomo, A., Gibaja, J., 2017. Functional Studies of Neolithic Stone Axes and Adzes. Experimental Programme and Archaeological Applications. Cuadernos de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Granada. 2017;27:177-210.
Masclans Latorre, A., Palomo Pe´rez, A., Gibaja-Bao, J.F., Remolins Zamora, G., G´omez- Gras, D., 2017. Use-wear analysis of Neolithic polished axes and adzes: the site of “Bobila Madurell-can Gambús-1-2” (Northeast Iberian Peninsula). Quat. Int. 427, 158–174.
Mathieu, J.R., Meyer, D.A., 1997. Comparing axe heads of stone, bronze, and steel: studies in experimental archaeology. J. Field Archaeol. 24 (3), 333–351.
Mathieu, J.R., Meyer, D.A., 2002. Reconceptualizing experimental archaeology: Assessing the process of experimentation. In: J.R. Mathieu, editor. Experimental Archaeology: Replicating past objects, behaviours, and processes. Archaeopress, Oxford, 2002. p. 73–82.
Mauvilly, M., Kramer, L., 2021. Essai sur les haches-marteaux et masses perfor´ees sans tranchant en roches tenaces de la Culture de Horgen du canton de Fribourg (Suisse). Bulletin De La Soci´et´e Pr´ehistorique Française. 118 (1), 77–98.
Meier, M., 1990. Das Arbeiten mit neolithischen Felsgesteinbeilen. In: Fansa M, editor. Experimentelle Arch¨aologie in Deutschland (Oldenburg: Arch¨aologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Beiheft 4; 1990. p. 273–278.
Montelius, O., 1906. Kulturgeschicht Sechwedens. Leipzig: E. A. Seemann; 1906.
Mortimer, J.R., 19052. Forty years' researches in British and Saxon burial mounds of East Yorkshire. London: A. Brown and Sons LTD; 1905.
Morris, E.H., 1939. Archaeological Studies in the La Plata District, Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. Carneg Institute at Washington Publication 519. Washington D.C.: The Carnegie Institution of Washington; 1939.
Mills, P.R., 1993. An axe to grind: a functional analysis of Anasazi stone axes from Sand Canyon Pueblo Ruin (5mt765), southwestern Colorado. Kiva 53 (3), 393–413.
Pegge, S., 1773. Observations on stone axe-hammers. Archaeologia 2.
Pond, A., 1930. Primitive methods of working stone based on experiments by H. L. Slavlen (Logan Museum, Beloit College; 1930;2.
Potratz, H.A., 1941. Baumf¨allen mit dem Steinbeil. Die Kunde 9/11. 1941:230–231.
Raemaekers, D.C.M., Geuverink, J., Schepers, M., Tuin, B.P., 2010. A biography in stone: typology, age, function and meaning of early neolithic perforated wedges in the Netherlands, volume 14 of Groningen archaeological studies. Eelde: Barkhuis.
Roe, F., 1966. The battle-axe series in Britain. Proc. Prehistoric Soc. 32, 199–245.
Roe, F., 1967. The battle-axes, mace-heads and axe-hammers from south-west Scotland. Trans Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History Antiquaries Society 44, 57–80.
Roy, A.S., 2019. The Use and Significance of Early Bronze Age Stone Battle-Axe and Axehammers. [PhD Thesis]. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Newcastle University; 2019.
Roy, A.S., 2020a. The use and significance of Early Bronze Age perforated stone battleaxes and axe-hammers. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society.
Roy, A.S., 2020b. Enhancing the accuracy of use interpretation: the discovering of new wear formation with the complementary methods of experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis. EXARC Journal.
Roy, A.S., 2022. Direct Analysis of Ground Stone Artefacts; A Study of the Use of Early Bronze Age Stone Battle-Axes and Axe-Hammers. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 46. 2022.
Roy AS. Early Bronze Age Stone Battle-axes and Axe-hammers of the Isle of Man. Isle of Man Studies; Proceedings of the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society. 2023;18:29-38.
Saville, A., Roe, F., 1984. A stone battle-axe from Wotton-under-Edge, and a review of battle-axe and mace-head finds from Gloucestershire. Trans. Brist. Gloucestershire Archaeol. Soc. 102, 17–22.
Saraydar, S., Shimada, I., 1971. A Quantitative Comparison of Efficiency between a Stone Axe and a Steel Axe. Am. Antiq. 36 (2), 216–217.
Sehested, N.F.B., 1884. Praktiske Forsog. Arkaeologiske Undersogelser 1878-1881. Copenhagen; 1884.
Semenov, S.A., 1964. Prehistoric Technology. Translated by M. W. Thompson. London: Cory, Adams, & Mackay; 1964.
Smith, R.A., 1926. The perforated axe-hammers of Britain. Antiqu. J. 75, 77–108.
Steensberg, A., 1957. Some recent Danish experiments in Neolithic agriculture. Agric. Hist. Rev. 5 (2), 66–73.
Steensberg, A., 1980. New Guinea Gardens. New York: Academic Press.
Stelcl, J., Malina, J., 1970. Anwendung der Petrographie in der Arch¨aologie. Folia Fac Sci Nat Univ Purkynianae Brunensis, Geologia. 1970;II(5).
Townsend, W.H., 1969. Stone and steel tool use in a New Guinea society. Ethnology 8, 199–205.
Van de Lagemaat, E., Meijer, R., Raemaekers, D.C.M., Woltinge, I., Matthews, S.G., 2010. Experimenteel onderzoek naar vroeg-neolithische brede wiggen 25 als houtbewerkingsgereedschap. Paleo-Aktueel 21, 25–29.
Wentink, K., 2020. Stereotype: The role of grave sets in Corded Ware and Bell Beaker funerary practices. Leiden: Sidestone Press; 2020.
Wijnen, J., Verbaas, A., Gijn A van, 2018. Mimicking the Neolithic: long-term experiments with polished stone axes and adzes. Paper presented to AWRANA 2018, Nice, 29-31/05/18. Viewed 29/05/18.
Yerkes, R.W., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Bar, Y.O., 2003. Microwear analysis of early Neolithic (PPNA) axes and bifacial tools from Netiv Hagdud in the Jordan Valley, Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci. 30 (8), 1051–1066.
Further reading
Beuker, J., 1990. Werken met steen, Assen. Archeologische Monografie¨en van het Drents Museum 2.
Cuo, Q., Zhang, J., Yang, Y., Sun, Y., 2017. Use-wear analysis of the stone tools from the Jiahu site in Wuyang county, Henan Province. Acta Anthropologica Sinica. 36 (4), 478–498.
Fenton, M.B., 1984. The nature of the source and the manufacture of Scottish battle-axes and axe-hammers. Proc. Prehist. Soc 50, 217–224.
Hurcombe, L., 2007. Archaeological Artefacts as Material Culture. London: Routledge.
Kielin, T., Ottoway, B., 1998. Flanged Axes of the North-Alpine Region: An Assessment of the Possibilities of Use Wear Analysis on Metal Artifacts. In: Mordant, C., Pernot, M., Rychner, V., editors. L'Atelier du bronzier en Europe du XXe au VIIIe si`ecle avant notre `ere. Paris: CTHS; 1998. p. 271-286.
Martellotta, E.F., Castangia, G., Lemorini, C., 2020. “Teste di mazza”: the Nuragic MaceHeads (Sardinia, Italy). Technol. Exp. Anal. Lithic Technology. 45 (2), 86–109.
O’Flaherty, R., 2007. A weapon of choice: experiments with a replica Irish Early Bronze Age halberd. Antiquity 81, 423–434.
Olausson, D. Battle. Axes: Homemade to order or factory products? In: Holm L, Knutsson K, editors. Proceedings from the Thirds Flint Alternatives Conference at Uppsala, Sweden. October 18-20, 1996, OPLA 16. Uppsala University: Uppsala; 1998:16-125.
Petrequin, P., Petrequin, A.N., 2016. The Production and Circulation of Alpine Jade AxeHeads during the European Neolithic: Ethnoarchaeological Bases of Their Interpretation. In: Biagetti S, Lugli F, editors. The Intangible Elements of Culture in Ethnoarchaeological Research. (Springer International Publishing: Switzerland; 2016: 47-76.
Roberts, B., Ottaway, B.S., 2003. The Use and Significance of Socketed Axes During the Late Bronze Age. European Journal of Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. 2003;6(2):119–140.