Use-Wear Analysis Brings “Vanished Technologies” to Light

Bone Tool Proxy Evidence for Coiled Basketry Production in the North African Palaeolithic

“…Because of the relatively rapid deformation of bone surfaces during use, it is possible to interpret the uses of archaeological osseous tools through a comparison with diagnostic use-trace matches on ethnographic osseous tools (Desmond et al 2021). This method has been profitably applied to bone tools from southern African, Australian, North American, and European archaeological contexts (e.g., Olsen 1979;LeMoine 1994;Soffer 2004;Stone 2009;Langley et al 2016;Bradfield & Antonites 2018;Bradfield 2020), and the current study underscores the productivity of this line of enquiry. In particular, such comparative analyses are a useful way to obtain proxy evidence for perishable crafted forms which may not have otherwise been accounted for, or, as with Taforalt, whose presence was suggested (but not confirmed) through complementary lines of archaeological evidence (Barton et al 2019c).…”

Documenting Functional Use-Wear on Bone Tools: An RTI Approach

“…It is only recently that, by combining tribological principles (that is, the science of interacting surfaces in motion) with experimentation, archaeologists have been able to distinguish bone tool use-wear characteristic of different crafting processes. As such, bone tools can serve as a crucial proxy for otherwise archaeologically invisible activities (Bradfield 2020, Desmond 2018, 2019, Langley et al 2021, Soffer 2004, Soffer et al 2001, Stone 2013.…”

“…Though pioneered in the early/mid-twentieth century (e.g., Semenov 1964, Tyzzer 1936, experimental studies have only recently come to dominate how bone tools are interpreted, through the creation and use of replica bone tools for different tasks. Many early experiments were focused on functions of bone tools as weapons, and there is a wealth of contemporary literature surrounding weaponry and projectile uses of bone points (Arndt and Newcomer 1986, Bergman 1987, Bradfield and Brand 2013, Bradfield et al 2020, Iovita & Sano 2016, Langley et al 2020, Pokines 1998, Pétillon 2005, 2006, Rozoy 1992, Stodiek 1993. Here, we focus on non-weaponry functions, particularly everyday crafting practices used in a domestic context.…”

“…The interpretation of archaeological bone tool microtopographies has successfully revealed a number of wide-scale, yet formerly imperceptible practices and processes. These include evidence for termite digging associated with Paranthropus robustus nearly two million years ago D'Errico 2001, Gardner 2019), seasonality in Palaeolithic economies, such as seasonal labor practices evident in on-site hide processing (Akhmetgaleeva 2017), targeted exploitation of wetland areas for plant-based crafting material (Arrighi et al 2016), short-term occupation of special purpose camps devoted to shellfish processing (Griffits and Bonsall 2001), evidence for an advanced "maritime toolkit" -including fish gorges -among early California Palaeocoastal groups (Rick et al 2001), the presence of textile weaving with a loom in Upper Palaeolithic Europe (Soffer 2004), a marked fluorescence/expansion of bone technologies in the Late Upper Palaeolithic signaling diversification in craft production and changing ideologies, economy, and role-specialization (Stone 2009), a high density of plant-working and clothing/bedding manufacture activities, indicating the presence of women on-site at a Neolithic camp (Van Gijn 2005), tanning processes using oak bark peelings (Struckmeyer 2011), the use of bones as garment pins/fasteners in the Chalcolithic (Campana and Crabtree 2018), very early perishable crafting, resin collecting, and/or personal ornamentation in Australia (Langley et al 2016, Langley et al 2021, and early musical instruments (Bradfield 2020) to name a few.…”