Mulga sword

[johnwelch]

Hullo
A skeleton dated to about 500 years ago has 2 cuts thought to be sword cuts until the dating made that "impossible". So they say a mulga blade did it. Do you believe that sharpened mulga weapons can cut wedges of bone 170mm long and cut through arm muscle?

[ian]

my first question is "how was the skeleton dated?"

second question would be how did "they" determine that the "cuts" were made with a slashing weapon -- i.e. a sword -- and not another sort of edge weapon -- i.e. a spear point

[dai sensei]

I decent sharped old piece of dry acacia could inflict such a cut. It wouldn't need to be necessarily need to be a sword though. Plus what makes them jump to conclusion it was Mulga??

[desert oak]

A piece of fire-hardened mulga can be quite strong and when shaped into 'number 7' fighting boomerangs and the like can inflict terrible wounds. But the wounds inflicted by these weapons would have been more akin to blunt force trauma as opposed to 'slicing' cuts which you may be referring to.

A quick look online revealed these swords:

http://australianmuseum.net.au/sydney-aboriginal-swords

Could these edges be sharpened to a degree that they could cut through muscle and etch the bone? Perhaps, especially with enough force behind the swing. But I would think the wound in the bone would still be 'blunt' compared to what a wound a metal blade would cause and there would be no mistaking that......

Do you have a photo of the cuts in the skeleton?

[ian]

second question would be how did "they" determine that the "cuts" were made with a slashing weapon -- i.e. a sword -- and not another sort of edge weapon -- i.e. a spear point

to add to the discussion

this reference

Identifying sword marks on bone: criteria for distinguishing between cut marks made by different classes of bladed weapons,
Jason E. Lewis

Abstract
Swords have been one of the major weapons used in violent conflicts for much of human history. Certain archaeological situations, especially those dealing with the recovery and analysis of battle casualties, may raise questions about what type(s) of bladed weapon was used in a particular conflict (e.g., the battle of Kamakura, Japan, AD 1333; the battle of Wisby, Sweden, AD 1361; the battle of Towton, England, AD 1461). Little work has been done, however, on developing criteria to differentiate sword cut marks from other types of cut marks, or to distinguish between marks created by different sword types. To develop such criteria, bovine tibiae (n = 7) were struck using six different types of bladed weapon and the resulting marks (n = 92) were analyzed. Eight traits describing the morphology of the cut mark – such as shape, the presence and unilateral/bilateral state of flaking and feathering, the presence of bone shards, associated breaks, etc. – are defined and related to blade type used. Sword marks were found to be easily distinguishable from knife marks. The variation in marks made by different sword types is significantly correlated with differences in blade weight (p < 0.0001), grip (p < 0.0113), and sharpness (p ≤ 0.0179). The criteria and analyses developed and implemented in this study will be of use to researchers in forensics and osteoarchaeology who want to infer bladed weapon type from marks on bones.

Reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...05440308000095

suggests that the type of bladed weapon that caused the cuts should be identifiable

[Toymaker Len]

I wonder if the cut marks could have been made by sharp stone, say volcanic glass. Or if the cuts could have been made by a metal sword traded down from the trepang fishermen who have been coming to the northern side of Australia for thousands of years.

[ian]

I think the short answer to the original question is no

The "experts" who classified the skeletal wounds as being made with a sword need to provide some evidence to support their supposition.
and also indicate if the "wounds" occurred before or after death

I've no doubt that a stone axe could cleave bone, but from what I've read as a result of this thread, I now doubt that the "experts" who classified the wounds as "sword cuts" have any clue of what they are talking about.

[Twisted Tenon]

I wonder if the cut marks could have been made by sharp stone, say volcanic glass. Or if the cuts could have been made by a metal sword traded down from the trepang fishermen who have been coming to the northern side of Australia for thousands of years.

Those were my thoughts too when I first heard this. I was thinking if not a traded sword then maybe flint. Have the xperts decided if the wounds were post-mortem? Maybe the wounds were made after death in the same way for Richard III.

TT

[bookend]

Just a thought. It seems that possibly some of you are assuming the marks were made by a sharp sword. In the days of suit armour, swords were often used as bludgeons as they became blunt quickly and did their damage by hammer force to the armour wearer. With force, on an unarmoured opponent, they could still cut but would do so with a blunt edge.

There would be scientific records of this type of cut and the damage to the skeleton could be consistent with this type of cut. Possibly, a mulga sword could do the damage.

[ian]

Just a thought. It seems that possibly some of you are assuming the marks were made by a sharp sword. In the days of suit armour, swords were often used as bludgeons as they became blunt quickly and did their damage by hammer force to the armour wearer. With force, on an unarmoured opponent, they could still cut but would do so with a blunt edge.

There would be scientific records of this type of cut and the damage to the skeleton could be consistent with this type of cut. Possibly, a mulga sword could do the damage.

Hi Greame

from what I've read as a result of this thread it appears fairly clear that the forensics around bone wounds are pretty clear cut (please forgive the pun)

A proper examination can distinguish between axe, sword and knife wounds, tell what sort of cutting edge is on the blade and even distinguish between left and right handed assailants. From what I've read, edge weapons hitting bone leave distinctive entry marks and shatter patterns. A bone wound caused by a blunt sword (aka a narrow club) would be completely different to one caused by a sharp sword -- with no possibility of confusion.

so either the initial classification of the bone wound was made in complete ignorance of forensics, or the wound was caused by a metal sword.

take your pick

[Larks]

Hullo
A skeleton dated to about 500 years ago has 2 cuts thought to be sword cuts until the dating made that "impossible". So they say a mulga blade did it. Do you believe that sharpened mulga weapons can cut wedges of bone 170mm long and cut through arm muscle?

Do you have any link to the story about this? Where was the skeleton found and why does the dating make it impossible? If it was in the NT, for example, the first written record of Dutch arriving there is in 1623 so it'd be reasonable to expect there were earlier visits that were not recorded and the Chinese, Malays and Portuguese all claim to have been there even earlier...

[johnwelch]

Janka hardness of buloke is about 1.5 times mulga hardness but some question that. Weight and sharpness of the blade is needed for this hinged avulsion ( wedge of bone attached by a shred ) but sharpness obviously weakens and blunts the edge when cutting bone. 2 butchers tell me they doubt that wood cuts bone.
A researcher in this doco will be bashing pig-skulls with heavy sharp wooden weapons to try to copy the cuts. Pics of the skull are shown : -
Catalyst: Toorale Man murder mystery - ABC TV Science

www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4211835.htm
Toorale Man murder mystery; TRANSCRIPT . ... Aboriginal people want to know if this is a fallen fighter from a frontier war. ... ‘Head injuries of Roman gladiators ...

[johnwelch]

To put my inquiry another way :
If mulga is sharpened to make a blade 2mm thick at 10mm back into the blade then how strong is the wood? Is it likely to snap when hitting bone?

[ian]

To put my inquiry another way :
If mulga is sharpened to make a blade 2mm thick at 10mm back into the blade then how strong is the wood? Is it likely to snap when hitting bone?

Hi John
with respect I don't think that is a useful question.
Whether the piece of Mulga you describe would shatter or "cut" when hitting a skull doesn't really matter. The conclusive evidence is in the wound.

The paper I referred to in post 5, seems quite clear. To quote from the Abstract

Sword marks were found to be easily distinguishable from knife marks. The variation in marks made by different sword types is significantly correlated with differences in
blade weight (p < 0.0001),
grip (p < 0.0113), and
sharpness (p ≤ 0.0179).

If experts examining damage to bone can differentiate between a knife and a sword, tell how heavy and sharp the sword was, then there should be no confusion between wounds made with a sword and those with a sharp piece of fire hardened Mulga. I would anticipate that a Mulga sword would act more like a club and break rather than cut bone.

There would appear to be only a limited number of possibilities
1. the carbon and fluorescent dating is wrong -- which implies the samples tested were contaminated with older material.
2. the cuts were not made with a metal sword -- which is implies limited forensic knowledge in the person making the diagnosis.
3. Toorale Man was killed with a metal sword -- which implies at least one metal edge weapon was available along the Darling at the time Toorale Man died.

[dai sensei]

Janka hardness of buloke is about 1.5 times mulga hardness but some question that. Weight and sharpness of the blade is needed for this hinged avulsion ( wedge of bone attached by a shred ) but sharpness obviously weakens and blunts the edge when cutting bone. 2 butchers tell me they doubt that wood cuts bone.
A researcher in this doco will be bashing pig-skulls with heavy sharp wooden weapons to try to copy the cuts. Pics of the skull are shown : -
Catalyst: Toorale Man murder mystery - ABC TV Science

www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4211835.htm
Toorale Man murder mystery; TRANSCRIPT . ... Aboriginal people want to know if this is a fallen fighter from a frontier war. ... ‘Head injuries of Roman gladiators ...

Ah now that video link puts things in a bit more perspective thank you, and really interesting actually. Obviously there have been many experts looking into this for a while, certainly more experts than this bunch of woodies .

Buloke breaks down, as do a lot of the casuarinas, so unlikely it was used for weapons and therefore the acacias far more likely. Acacias can also be fire hardened.

I have made and used japanese Bokkens (wooden practice swords), although from traditional oaks rather than acacias, but I am sure a decent weapon could be forged as such from acacia wood that could cut bone and muscle. I believe such a weapon could be used to form a wedge or triangular dint like impression from direct impact similar to the example in the roman injury in video. But I believe it unlikely such a weapon could slice through bone as exhibited in the skull in the video, especially given the length of cut over the full length of the skull.

The only way to see would be to get an aboriginal elder to fashion a sharpened heat treated weapon as shown on the video and give it a go. I am surprised it hasn't already been done given the amount of work that has gone into the investigation. I'm also surprised they didn't do some particle spectron microscrope (or whatever the proper tools is) to determine any metal/wood particles remained in the wound, but perhaps they did and found nothing