2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-72276-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Functional analysis of sandstone ground stone tools: arguments for a qualitative and quantitative synergetic approach

Abstract: In the last few years, the application of quantitative methods in the field of use wear analysis has grown considerably, involving the use of different techniques. A development in surface measurements approaches has become necessary as standard assessments based upon qualitative functional analysis are often affected by a degree of subjectivity and a limited reproducibility. To advance the current methodological debate on functional analysis of ground stone technology, we present a combined methodological app… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The application of open source 3D point cloud analysis software has the capacity to quantify, in high resolution, the surface morphometry of percussive tools in their entirety [26], potentially overcoming the weakness of 2D and 2.5D methods. These analytical techniques can be powerful when assessing overall changes to use-wear in experimental datasets where surfaces are quantified before and after use [25][26][27][28]. However, this method does not differentiate between damaged and undamaged areas of a tool's surface and as such does not provide an accurate measure of the use-wear alone.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The application of open source 3D point cloud analysis software has the capacity to quantify, in high resolution, the surface morphometry of percussive tools in their entirety [26], potentially overcoming the weakness of 2D and 2.5D methods. These analytical techniques can be powerful when assessing overall changes to use-wear in experimental datasets where surfaces are quantified before and after use [25][26][27][28]. However, this method does not differentiate between damaged and undamaged areas of a tool's surface and as such does not provide an accurate measure of the use-wear alone.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The analysis of macro-wear from modern hammers and anvils among non-human primates to infer Oldowan tool function has become increasingly popular 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 . Inspired by these efforts, various researchers have focused on qualitative and (semi) quantitative analysis of wear proxies 47 , such as stone polish, damage location, and surface roughness. While the potential of centimetre-scale use-wear modifications on percussion tools is an evident first step, its applicability to study Oldowan plant use is limited, as it cannot isolate the residues needed to secure direct evidence and identify ancient extractive behavior.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We assess microbotanical remains on rock clasts from an outcrop known to have been the main source of raw material during the Early Stone Age 45 , 46 . We mapped this signal, and analysed it quantitatively to classify its spatial distribution objectively 47 , extracting microbotanical proxies for taxonomic identification and systematic comparison with freestanding plant microremains from local soils 35 , 48 . In addition, we used blanks to manufacture pounding tools during blind, controlled replication of plant processing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Oat grain grinding leaves a discontinuous smooth film adhering the stone surface, which connects the crystal grains into a smooth flat surface. Sometimes, the residues Yes merge with the stone matrix so that distinguishing the raw material from the residual substrate becomes difficult (Zupancich and Cristiani 2020). Depressions appear at low magnification within the residual layer, filled with starch-rich powder and other vegetal structures (Fig.…”
Section: Residue Morphologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%