Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis

Abstract

The paper describes a series of experiments recently carried out to test the formation of edge-damage on jlaked stone tools which results from their being used in various tasks. Variables that were systematically tested include action, worked material, angle of the edge, and grip. The main criterion in distinguishing dzfferent patterns of damage was microjlaking rather than abrasion in the form of striations and polish.The results of these experiments may be applied to the identzfication of patterns of damage to the edges of prehistoric stone tools. The information gained from such microwear analysis may be used not only to provide details on the activities and settlement organization of prehistoric societies, but also to provide an important new dimension to lithic analysis in general. In lithic analysis, the main criteria of change have been the macromorphological features of the tools. It is our contention, however, that the additional information on the function of the tools, which is provided by microwear analysis, can contribute to the greater 00derstanding of the processes of change in lithic assemblages and culture change as a whole.The experimental program was designed to test the formation of edge-damage on implements manufactured in European chalkjlint. It was to aid in the identification of wear patterns on lithic assemblages from the neolithic period in Central and Eastern Europe, a project in which the authors were involved. Its relevance, however, includes directly those assemblages of the post-Pleistocene period in temperate and Mediterranean Europe. The results of the experiments may also be useful, it is hoped, for lithic analysis in general, both in the Old and New World.

Reality and confusion in the recognition of post-depositional alterations and use-wear: an experimental approach on basalt tools

“…None of the PDSM flakes showed step fractures. Many authors (e.g., Tringham et al 1974;Odell 1981;Richards 1988) have discussed difficulties in distinguishing micro-flake characteristics and their distribution in order to determine material used (e.g., hide, bone, meat, etc.) or actions applied (e.g., cutting, scraping, skinning, etc.).…”

“…Diverse experiments related to the functional patterns of different experimental stone tools made of various sedimentary (e.g., chert and flint), metamorphic (quartzite in particular) rocks, as well as quartz, have been made (among many others, see for example, Tringham et al 1974;Odell 1977;Toll 1978;Hayden 1979;Kamminga 1979;Keeley 1980;Vaughan 1985;Knutsson 1986;Sussman 1988;Grace 1989;Clemente & Gibaja 2009). The types of alteration evident on these rocks after use for different actions (e.g., cutting, scraping, chopping, sawing) and on different materials (e.g., meat, wood, hide, bone) is well described.…”

The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning

“…) Dispersal by both children and scuffage may also explain why nut-cracking stones (some of the most common large artifacts recorded by Yellen) were found to be so weakly associated with nut shel1s-an explanation that Gregg et al (Chapter 5 this volume) failed to consider. Constant exposure of artifacts to foot traffic on depositional surfaces might begin to result in the breakage of smaller objects and the incremental formation of edge damage on larger objects (Tringham et al 1974;Gifford-Gonzalez et al 1985). Secondary refuse deposits may even begin to form on the periphery of activity areas, as more systematic methods of refuse disposal, such as tossing and sweeping, are pressed into service to cope with the continuous production of refuse around hearths.…”

Traceological analysis of a singular artefact: The rock crystal point from O Achadizo (Boiro, A Coruña, Galicia)

“…Although the discipline has gone through several methodological stages, involving discussions on the most appropriate technical means for functional analysis (among others, Keeley 1974;1980;Odell 1975;1981;Odell & Odell-Vereecken 1980;Tringham et al 1974), it is true that there is no general agreement on certain limitations of the discipline. Despite methodological "conciliation" (e.g., Marreiros et al 2015;Olausson 1993), the inability, for instance, to distinguish the chipping caused by use from that resulting from postdepositional processes, or even small retouch removals, in our view lends more weight to the use of high magnifications.…”