An experimental research on dynamic formation of microwears on the shooting projectile points

doi:10.16359/j.cnki.cn11-1963/q.2019.0071

Abstract

Abstract:

Projectile point, appeared in the Upper Paleolithic, includes tips and barbs of a projectile composite weapon. It’s using strategies have gotten great attention in the paleoanthropological research. Based on the environmental background and lithic raw materials of the Shizatan Paleolithic site in Shanxi, this paper focus on the use-wear analysis to explore the dynamic formation process of microwear during the process of reuse of stone projectile points. Twenty-one experimental tools were shot for 337 times in different stages, while 121 times observed by use-wear analysis. It can be considered that the repeated use of stone projectile points can be recorded by microwear, but it still needed to combine with morphological characteristics. Viewing on the morphological change process, the change of tip is more significant, indicating that the shape of excavated artefacts and its implied human behavior should be considered by dynamic thinking. From the view point of measurement data, tools with sharp edge and moderate length have better affected of using and may be reused many times. Furthermore, from the view point of microwear analysis, if the tip produces clumped large and medium break and/or step scar termination and hafting part produces run-together small break or feather scar termination, resulting in some of part produce rounding and polishing which can be considered for re-use. This study provides important clue for the study on the hunting strategies and adapted behaviors implicated from the projectile point in the hunter-gathered living history.

Key words: Projectile points, Staged shooting, Dynamic observation, Microwear experiment, Shizitan site

CLC Number:

XU Zhe, ZHANG Xiaoling, PEI Shuwen. An experimental research on dynamic formation of microwears on the shooting projectile points[J]. Acta Anthropologica Sinica, 2020, 39(02): 208-222.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig.1 Hafting method of Projectile points 1.Abridged general view of hafting ; 2.Hafting method in this experiment

Tab. 1 Information of the experimented projectile points

编号No.	远端尖角（°）	边刃角（°）		长/宽/厚 (cm)	射击次数 n	射击效果（次）
编号No.	远端尖角（°）	左	右	长/宽/厚 (cm)	射击次数 n	“1”“2”	“3”“4”
U01	58	34	49	2.2/1.5/0.5	20	17	3
U02	93	85	35	2.5/2.1/0.5	15	9	6
U03	83	20	40	2.6/1.7/0.2	15	14	1
U04	83	78	37	2.9/1.8/0.2	20	17	3
U05	123	27	20	3.9/3.3/0.3	20	16	4
U06	85	21	26	3.4/2.2/0.7	4	4	0
U07	65	10	65	2.3/1.3/0.3	15	9	6
U08	近平	25	20	3.1/1.8/0.3	18	13	5
U09	86	5	74	3.3/1.9/0.3	20	15	5
U10	68	20	11	3/1.8/0.6	20	19	1
R01	69	72	82	3.6/2.4/0.4	20	11	9
R02	66	69	32	3.8/2.9/0.3	20	16	4
R03	71	71	45	3.7/2.3/0.6	20	17	3
R04	76	62	16	3.2/2.3/0.4	20	13	7
R05	62	76	74	4.1/2.4/0.5	20	20	0
R06	71	81	46	2.8/2.3/0.3	3	0	3
R07	65	33	30	5.4/2.3/0.8	20	17	3
R08	101	61	20	3.3/2.7/0.9	10	1	9
R09	71	61	46	4.4/2.6/0.8	15	9	6
R10	75	55	24	4/3.4/0.6	2	2	0
R11	71	55	58	3/2/0.5	20	17	3

Fig.2 The features of the experimental specimens

Fig. 3 Effect of shooting 1. The condition of the leg of sheep (total shot 193 times) after experiment; 2. The condition of the leg of sheep (total shot 144 times) after experiment

Fig.4 Photographs showing the dynamic microwear observation(1)

Fig.4 Photographs showing the dynamic microwear observation(2)

Fig.4 Photographs showing the dynamic microwear observation (3)

Fig. 5 Dynamic change of the tip shapes of projectile points

Fig.6 Variation tend of microwear analysis 1. Variation trend of the staged frequency resulting from hafting abrasion; 2. Variation trend of the staged scars frequency resulting from unretouched and retouched specimens

References 42

[1]	Andrefsky W. Lithics—Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 177-204
[2]	Rots V, Plisson H . Projectiles and the abuse of the use-wear method in a search for impact[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2014,48:154-165 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.027 URL
[3]	Iovita R . Shape Variation in Aterian Tanged Tools and the Origins of Projectile Technology: A Morphometric Perspective on Stone Tool Function[J]. PLoS ONE, 2011,6(12):e29029 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029029 URL pmid: 22216161
[4]	Sisk ML, Shea JJ . The African Origin of Complex Projectile Technology: An Analysis Using Tip Cross-Sectional Area and Perimeter[J]. International Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 2011,21(1):1-8
[5]	Benfer RA . A design for the study of archaeological characteristics[J]. American Antiquity, 1967,69:719-730
[6]	Fischer A, Vemming Hansen P, Rasmussen P . Macro and microwear traces on lithic projectile points. Experimental results and prehistoric examples[J]. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 1984,3(1):19-46 doi: 10.1080/0108464X.1984.10589910 URL
[7]	Wilkins J, Schoville B, Brown K S , et al. Evidence for early hafted hunting technology[J], Science, 2012,338(6109):942-946 doi: 10.1126/science.1227608 URL pmid: 23161998
[8]	Villa P, Boscato P, Ranaldo F , et al. Stone tools for the hunt: points with impact scars from a Middle Paleolithic site in southern Italy[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2009,36(3):850-859 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2008.11.012 URL
[9]	Villa P, Lenoir M. Hunting and hunting weapons of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe[A]. In: Hublin J J, Richards M eds. The Evolution of Hominid Diets: Integrating Approaches to the Study of Palaeolithic Subsistence[C]. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2009, 59-85
[10]	Iovita R, Schönekeß H, Gaudzinski-Windheuser S, et al. Projectile impact fractures and launching mechanisms: results of a controlled ballistic experiment using replica Levallois points[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2014,48:73-83 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.01.031 URL
[11]	Keeley L . Hafting and retooling: Effects on the archaeological record[J]. American Antiquity, 1982,47(4):798-809 doi: 10.2307/280285 URL
[12]	Odell GH, Cowan F . Experiments with spears and arrows on animal targets[J]. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1986,13(2):195-212
[13]	Rots V. Keys to the identification of prehension and hafting traces[A]. In: Marreiros JM, Gibaja Bao JF, Bicho NF, eds. Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology [C]. Switzerland: Springer Science & Business Media, 2015, 83-104
[14]	Rots V . Prehensile wear on flint tools[J]. Lithic Technology, 2004,29(1):7-32 doi: 10.1080/01977261.2004.11721011 URL
[15]	Shen C . The Tool Use-Patterning at the Grand Banks Site of the Princess Point Complex, Southwestern Ontario[J]. Northeast Anthropology, 2000,60:63-87
[16]	赵静芳, 宋艳花, 陈虹 , 等. 石器捆绑实验与微痕分析报告[A].见:高星,沈辰主编. 石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究[M]. 北京, 科学出版社, 2008, 145-176
[17]	Shott MJ . Spears, darts and arrows: late woodland hunting techniques in the Upper Ohio Valley[J]. American Antiquity, 1993,58(3):425-443 doi: 10.2307/282105 URL
[18]	Woods JC . Projectile point fracture patterns and inferences about tool function[J]. Idaho Archaeologist, 1988,11:3-7
[19]	Keeley LH . Technique and methodology in microwear studies: A Critical Review[J]. World Archaeology, 1974,5:323-336 doi: 10.1080/00438243.1974.9979577 URL
[20]	Odell GH . The Morphological express at function junction: Searching for meaning in lithic tool types[J]. Journal of Anthropological Research, 1981,37:319-342 doi: 10.1086/jar.37.4.3629831 URL
[21]	Nelson MC. The study of technological organization[A]. In: Schiffer MB eds. Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 3[M]. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1991, 57-100
[22]	Finlayson B, Mithen S. The microwear and morphology of microliths from Gleann Mor[A]. In: Kenecht H eds. Projectile Technology[C]. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 1997, 107-129
[23]	Hester TR, Heizer RE . Arrow points or knives? Comments on the proposed function of “Stockton Points”[J]. American Antiquity, 1973,38:220-221 doi: 10.2307/279372 URL
[24]	Greaves R D. Hunting and multifunctional use of bows and arrows: Ethnoarchaeology of technological organization among Pumé Hunters of Venezuela[A]. In: Kenecht H eds. Projectile Technology[C]. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 1997, 287-314
[25]	Patterson L W . The Significance of Dart Point Stem Breakage[J]. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 1980,51:309-316
[26]	Whittaker J C . Individual variation as an approach to economic organization: Projectile points at Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona[J]. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1987,14:465-479
[27]	陈虹, 张晓凌, 沈辰 . 石制品使用微痕多阶段成形轨迹的实验研究[J]. 人类学学报, 2013,32(1):1-16
[28]	张晓凌 . 石器功能与人类适应行为:虎头梁遗址石制品微痕分析[D]. 北京:中国科学院古脊椎动物与古人类研究所, 2009, 54-71
[29]	曲彤丽, 梅惠杰, 张双权 . 骨质加工对象实验与微痕分析报告[A].见:高星,沈辰主编.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究[M]. 北京, 科学出版社, 2008, 61-82
[30]	谢礼晔, 李意愿, 王强等. 钻孔运动方式实验与微痕分析报告[A]. 见:高星,沈辰主编.石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究[M]. 北京, 科学出版社, 2008, 107-144
[31]	Tringham R, Cooper G, Odell G , et al. Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis[J]. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1974,1:171-196
[32]	Lerner H, Du X, Costopoulos A , et al. Lithic raw material physical properties and use-wear accrual[J]. Journal of Archaeological Science, 2007,34(5):711-722 doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2006.07.009 URL
[33]	山西省临汾行署文化局.山西吉县柿子滩中石器文化遗址[J].考古学报, 1989(3):305-323
[34]	原思训, 赵朝洪, 朱晓东 , 等. 山西吉县柿子滩遗址的年代与文化研究[J].考古, 1998(6):57-62
[35]	陈虹 . 华北细石叶工艺的文化适应研究——晋冀地区部分旧石器时代晚期遗址的考古学分析[M]. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社, 2011, 83-100
[36]	高星, 沈辰 . 石器微痕分析的考古学实验研究[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2008
[37]	Odell G . Stone tools and mobility in the Illinois Valley: from hunter-gatherer camps to agricultural villages[M]. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, 1996
[38]	Bordes F . Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen[M]. Publications de I’ Insitut de Prehistorie de I’ Universite de Bordeaux, Memoire 1, Bordeaux, 1961
[39]	Trigger BG. Major Concepts of Archaeology in Historical Perspective. Time and Tradition[M]. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978, 96-114
[40]	Frison GC . A functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools[J]. American Antiquity, 1968,33(2):149-155 doi: 10.2307/278516 URL
[41]	Deetz J. Invitation to Archaeology[M]. New York: Natural History Press, 1967, 43-53
[42]	Dibble HL . The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Merphology[J]. American Antiquity, 1987,52:19-117