Digital Image Analysis and Use-Wear Accrual as a Function of Raw Material: An Example from Northwestern New Mexico

Abstract

The influence o/ raw maten"al properties on rates of use-related wear accrual has often been acknowledged_ but rarely assessed quantitatively. This paper offers such quantification regarding three van"etl"es if chert and one qfsz1icified wood exploited dunizg the occupatl"on of the Late Archaic FA2-I3 site ziz northwestern New Mexico. The results show significant differences between rates of wear accrual among these four matenals. Therefore, caution is necessary when malaizg assertions regardzizg too/function and use ziztensity on the basis o/ wear extent alone. This study also has implications for assessing use-related reduction if both short-and long-term use implements.

Testing Area‐Scale Fractal Complexity (Asfc) and Laser Scanning Confocal Microscopy (LSCM) to Document and Discriminate Microwear on Experimental Quartzite Scrapers

“…Therefore, the results of this experiment using LSCM and Asfc provide some support for observations made by Lerner (, ; Lerner et al . , ; see also Pedergnana et al .…”

Sickle blade life-history and the transition to agriculture: an early Neolithic case study from Southwest Asia

“…This is an important linkage as this concept has recently been at the forefront of lithic analysis at the macroscopic level (Andrefsky, 2008;Clarkson, 2002;Eren et al, 2005;Kuhn, 1990;Shott, 1996). This is also one of a growing body of literature beginning to provide quantitative measures of use-wear that are easily replicated (Evans and Donahue, 2008;Lerner, 2007aLerner, ,b, 2009Richter, 1996). This is in contrast to traditional approaches to amassing qualitative descriptive data that normally requires extensive analyst training to recognize polish types and accrual rates, striation direction to detect motion, or causes for certain breakage patterns (for the basis of stone tool use-wear analysis see Andrefsky, 2005;Grace, 1989;Hayden, 1979a;Keeley, 1977;Odell, 1977;Semenov, 1964).…”

Reaping the rewards: the potential of well designed methodology, a comment on Vardi et al. (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1716–1724) and Goodale et al. (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1192–1201)

“…There have been a number of attempts by archaeologists to develop objective methods that can quantitatively document stone tool use based on the differentiation of potentially characteristic surface textures. These have included the analysis of images (Barceló et al, 2001;Bietti, 1996;Dumont, 1982;Gonzalez-Urquijo and Ibañez-Estevez, 2003;Grace et al, 1985;Lerner, 2007;Vila and Gallart, 1993) and metrology (Kimball et al, 1995;Evans and Donahue, 2008;Stemp, 2001;Stemp and Stemp, 2003;Stemp et al, 2009;Stevens et al, 2010). Two recent examples of wear quantification in lithic studies are provided in the articles by Vardi et al (2010) and Goodale et al (2010).…”