I don't understand why they jumped to the conclusion that they were arrow tips just because of the presence of bone, blood, and glue.  Couldn't atlatl darts or even spears have been hafted at the ends with a resinous substance?  I understand that all of the research isn't reported here by the BBC but those don't even look like they would be efficient aerodynamically as arrow points. 

"This showed that they were very likely to have been the tips of projectiles - rather than sharp points on the end of hand-held spears."

Seems kind of a stretch to make a claim that something was part of an arrow and not a spear by the scars left from impact! How can someone tell the difference between a PP thrown from a spear impacting bone or rock from that of an PP on an arrow doing the same? Seems that the researchers are just attempting to 1) make a name for themselves, 2) make the find greater than what it is in order to obtain more funding, or 3) just making some assumptions.

It is only with the full published report that this can be reviewed with less bias.