Barbed Points
Barbed Points
复制标题
倒刺点
DOI：
10.22599/book2.k
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Aimée Little
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ben Elliott;Aimée Little
在整个中石器时代的欧洲，有倒刺的骨头和鹿角的抛射点是普遍存在的，代表了早全新世狩猎采集群体的“化石”（Chatterton 2003）。星星卡尔已经生产了英国中石器时代骨和鹿角单刺尖（沿沿着有倒钩的抛射尖）总数的92%（Elliott 2012）。因此，关于英国旧石器时代晚期和中石器时代的单刺尖制造和类型学的讨论都参考了这个数据集（表25 - 1）（Clark 1954; Clark and Godwin 1956; Wymer et al. 1975; Jacobi 1978; Lord 1998; Griffitts and邦索尔2001;大卫2005; Elliott and米尔纳2010）。克拉克在星星卡尔的挖掘工作中发现了191块骨头和鹿角的组合。在1950年被Tot Lord发现之前，从遗址中发现了一个倒钩点（Dark等人，2006年），另一个完整的点在20世纪80年代被挖掘出来（Mellars和Dark，1998年）。其中，58个被描述为“完整或几乎完整”，而其余135个是破碎的碎片。克拉克最初确定其中两个是骨头，两个是无法确定的，剩下的187个是由红鹿鹿角制成的，因此与现场红鹿鹿角的凹槽和碎片工作的证据有关。最近的分析组合已重新确定克拉克的两个骨点作为红鹿鹿角（埃利奥特和米尔纳2010）。克拉克最初对倒刺尖的讨论被证明有些矛盾：首先强调组合中的类型学变化;然后继续定义五个不同的类型学群体;最后认为这些群体中至少有两个在地层上足够离散，以支持对该遗址的两阶段占领。后一种建议被后来的作者采纳，并与该地点微炭剖面中的峰值相关联（Mellars和Dark，1998年; Dark，2000年; Dark等人，2006年）。克拉克最初定义了5个类型学单位（见表25.2），将44个倒刺点分配给这些组，然后指出，“可以区分那些具有精细密集倒刺的倒刺，那些具有中等间距倒刺的倒刺，以及那些相对粗糙，间距较宽且通常突出的倒刺[倒刺]”适合组合中的大多数倒刺点（Clark 1954，125）。
Barbed bone and antler projectile points are ubiquitous across Europe throughout the Mesolithic period, representing a ‘type fossil’ for Early Holocene hunter-gatherer groups (Chatterton 2003). Star Carr has produced 92% of the total number of bone and antler uniserial barbed points (projectile points with barbs along one side) attributed to the British Mesolithic (Elliott 2012). As such, discussions of uniserial barbed point manufacture and typology for both the British Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic have referred to this dataset (Table 25.1)(Clark 1954; Clark and Godwin 1956; Wymer et al. 1975; Jacobi 1978; Lord 1998; Griffitts and Bonsall 2001; David 2005; Elliott and Milner 2010). Clark’s excavations at Star Carr recovered an assemblage of 191 bone and antler uniserial barbed points. A barbed point was recovered from the site prior to backfilling by Tot Lord in 1950 (Dark et al. 2006), and another intact point was excavated in the 1980s (Mellars and Dark 1998). Of these, 58 were described as ‘intact or nearly so’, whilst the remaining 135 were broken fragments. Clark originally identified two of these as bone, two as undeterminable and the remaining 187 as being made from red deer antler, and thus linked to the evidence for the groove-and-splinter working of red deer antler at the site. More recent analysis of the assemblage has re-identified Clark’s two bone points as red deer antler (Elliott and Milner 2010). Clark’s original discussion of the barbed points has proven somewhat contradictory: first highlighting the typological variation within the assemblage; before going on to define five distinct typological groups; and finally arguing that at least two of these groups are sufficiently stratigraphically discrete to support a two-phase occupation of the site. This latter suggestion has been adopted by subsequent authors and linked to peaks in the micro-charcoal profiles from the site (Mellars and Dark 1998; Dark 2000; Dark et al. 2006). Clark initially defined five typological units (see Table 25.2), allocating 44 barbed points to these groups before stating that ‘a distinction may be drawn between those with fine closely-set barbs, those with medium-spaced barbs, and those with relatively coarse, widely spaced and often prominent ones [barbs]’ suited the majority of the barbed points in the assemblage (Clark 1954, 125).