Comment on the Paleoindian Occurrence of Spurred End Scrapers as Reported by Rogers

Morris, Elizabeth A.; Blakeslee, Richard C.

doi:10.2307/281391

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, spurred or beaked scrapers represent a small percentage (one to 10 percent) of an assemblage, if they are present at all (see for example Bradley 1982;Byers 1954;Frison 1991;Goebel et al 1991;Goodyear 1974:48;Irwin and Wormington 1970;Warnica 1966). Furthermore, spurred or bee scrapers occur in later occupations in North America (Irwin-Williams 1973;Morris and Blakeslee 1998) and in Paleolithic contexts (Barton 1988:65;Barton et al 1996;Bordes 1961:Plates 35 and 41;Debenath and Dibble 1993:9). Thus, spurs are neither present at all Paleoindian sites nor restricted only to this temporal and spatial context.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone Scraper Morphology

Arthur

2002

Am. antiq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

North American archaeologists often designate spurs on scrapers as gravers or use them as temporal markers for the Paleoindian Period. The functional and stylistic aspects of spurred scrapers are explored here through an ethnoarchaeological study of stone scraper procurement, production, use, and discard among the Gamo of southern Ethiopia. This research demonstrates that the presence of so-called “graver” spurs does not have a functional significance, but is the result of inexperience and/or the waning strength of the hideworker. Furthermore, spurred scrapers occur in abundance at villages where breakage rates also are high, reflecting the presence of a number of inexperienced hideworkers. Lastly, this paper explores the relationship between the experience of the knapper and tool standardization. The analysis suggests that in lineage-based learning systems more-experienced hideworkers assist less-experienced hideworkers, and thus blur any relationship between experience and standardization.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone Scraper Morphology

Arthur

2002

Am. antiq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In more recent years, however, Paleoindian archaeologists have come to realize that while the study of bifacial implements is vital for answering numerous questions, constructing more holistic models of Paleoindian behavior requires the consideration of other stone tool classes ( [1] ; [2] ). Thus, while there were early exceptions to the priority given to the study of projectile points (e.g., [31] ; [32] ; [33] ), over the last 30 years there has been an increase of research focusing more heavily on other Paleoindian stone tool classes, especially unifacially flaked stone tools (e.g., [2] ; [34] ; [35] ; [36] ; [37] ; [38] ; [39] ; [40] ; [41] ; [42] ; [43] ; [44] ; [45] ; [46] ; [47] ; [48] ; [49] ; [50] ; [51] ; [52] ; [53] ; [54] ; [55] ; [56] ; [57] ; [58] ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paleoindian Unifacial Stone Tool ‘Spurs’: Intended Accessories or Incidental Accidents?

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Fox site (5WL8848): A Clovis occupation on the Kersey Terrace, northern Colorado

Meyer

2019

Plains Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comment on the Paleoindian Occurrence of Spurred End Scrapers as Reported by Rogers

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone Scraper Morphology

On the Spur of the Moment: Effects of Age and Experience on Hafted Stone Scraper Morphology

Paleoindian Unifacial Stone Tool ‘Spurs’: Intended Accessories or Incidental Accidents?

The Fox site (5WL8848): A Clovis occupation on the Kersey Terrace, northern Colorado

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About