UBM Laser Profilometry and Lithic Use-Wear Analysis: A Variable Length Scale Investigation of Surface Topography

Laser scanning confocal microscopy: a potential technique for the study of lithic microwear

“…Optical interferometry has also been applied to study stone working tools (Astruc et al, 2003) and again shows a limited but positive application. Stemp and Stemp (2001) introduced laser profilometry and experimented by measuring along 4 mm long transects at tool edges, recording surface roughness at 1 mm resolution. They showed that different stone types have different roughness and, by studying tools used to saw shell, pottery and antler, demonstrate the method's potential.…”

Practical quantitative lithic use-wear analysis using multiple classifiers

“…Surface area is a measure of surface complexity in that a more convoluted surface will have a larger surface area while a flat or polished surface will have a smaller surface area. Fractal dimension is a measure of how patterned details change with scale (see also Stemp and Stemp, 2001;Stemp and Stemp, 2003;Ungar et al, 2003). Its value for classification likely relates to the observation that certain aspects of use-wear are apparent at smaller scales while others require a large-scale overview (Vaughan, 1985).…”

“…This approach was explicitly implemented by Grace (1989) and Van den Dries (1998), who used a combination of polish and edge damage variables obtained by conventional microscopy in the construction of expert systems designed to identify tool functions. More recently, studies using sophisticated instrumentation including atomic force microscopy (Kimball et al, 1995), laser profilometry (Stemp and Stemp, 2001), and LSCM (Evans and Donahue, 2008) have demonstrated quantitative differences between different polish classes, but have used only single descriptors (e.g., Rq, or root mean square roughness) and have not incorporated other sources of data on tool function such as edge damage. Our aim was to combine quantitative data on usewear polishes (acquired at magnification equivalent to 1000Â, using the LSCM) with qualitative data on edge damage (observed at 20Âe100Â, using a stereomicroscope) to arrive at a multivariate approach to classification incorporating the best attributes of each.…”

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).…”