Department of Anthropology, Marlowe Building, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom ; Department of Archaeology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 13;8(11):e78419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078419. eCollection 2013.
Paleoindian unifacial stone tools frequently exhibit distinct, sharp projections, known as "spurs". During the last two decades, a theoretically and empirically informed interpretation-based on individual artifact analysis, use-wear, tool-production techniques, and studies of resharpening-suggested that spurs were sometimes created intentionally via retouch, and other times created incidentally via resharpening or knapping accidents. However, more recently Weedman strongly criticized the inference that Paleoindian spurs were ever intentionally produced or served a functional purpose, and asserted that ethnographic research "demonstrates that the presence of so called 'graver' spurs does not have a functional significance." While ethnographic data cannot serve as a direct test of the archaeological record, we used Weedman's ethnographic observations to create two quantitative predictions of the Paleoindian archaeological record in order to directly examine the hypothesis that Paleoindian spurs were predominantly accidents occurring incidentally via resharpening and reshaping. The first prediction is that the frequency of spurs should increase as tool reduction proceeds. The second prediction is that the frequency of spurs should increase as tool breakage increases. An examination of 563 unbroken tools and 629 tool fragments from the Clovis archaeological record of the North American Lower Great Lakes region showed that neither prediction was consistent with the notion that spurs were predominately accidents. Instead, our results support the prevailing viewpoint that spurs were sometimes created intentionally via retouch, and other times, created incidentally via resharpening or knapping accidents. Behaviorally, this result is consistent with the notion that unifacial stone tools were multifunctional implements that enhanced the mobile lifestyle of Pleistocene hunter-gatherers.
古印第安单面石器经常表现出明显的、锐利的突起，称为“刺”。在过去的二十年中，一种基于个体文物分析、使用痕迹、工具制作技术以及再磨刃研究的理论和经验支持的解释表明，刺有时是通过再磨刃故意制造的，而有时则是通过再磨刃或敲砸事故意外制造的。然而，最近 Weedman 强烈批评了古印第安刺曾经是故意制造的或具有某种功能用途的推断，并断言民族志研究“表明所谓的‘雕刻器’刺的存在没有功能意义。”虽然民族志数据不能直接检验考古记录，但我们利用 Weedman 的民族志观察结果，对古印第安考古记录提出了两个定量预测，以直接检验古印第安刺主要是通过再磨刃和再成型意外产生的假设。第一个预测是，随着工具的减少，刺的频率应该增加。第二个预测是，随着工具的破损增加，刺的频率应该增加。对北美大湖地区下的克洛维斯考古记录中的 563 件未破损工具和 629 件工具碎片的检查表明，这两个预测都与刺主要是意外产生的观点不一致。相反，我们的结果支持了这样一种观点，即刺有时是通过再磨刃故意制造的，而有时则是通过再磨刃或敲砸事故意外制造的。从行为角度来看，这一结果与单面石器是增强更新世狩猎采集者流动生活方式的多功能工具的观点是一致的。
