Abstract
Characterizing use-wear traces quantitatively is a valid way to improve the capacity of use-wear analysis. This aim has been on specialists’ agenda since the beginning of the discipline. Micropolish quantification is especially important, as this type of trace allows the identification of worked materials. During the last decade, confocal microscopy has been used as a promising approach to address this question. Following previous efforts in plant microwear characterization (Ibanez et al. Journal of Archaeological Science, 48, 96–103, 2014; Journal of Archaeological Science, 73, 62–81, 2016), here we test the capacity of the method for correctly grouping experimental tools used for working eight types of materials: bone, antler, wood, fresh hide, dry hide, wild cereals, domestic cereals, and reeds. We demonstrate, for the first time, that quantitative texture analysis of use-wear micropolish based on confocal microscopy can consistently identify tools used for working different contact materials. In this way, we are able to move toward using texture analysis as part of the standard functional analysis of prehistoric instruments.
Highlights
Pioneering research on use-wear analysis of Prehistoric tools by S. Semenov (1964), based on the comparison of use traces on experimental tools with those observed on archaeological instruments, succeeded in opening a new way to achieve a better understanding of Prehistoric technology
Fresh and dry hide are well classified in the group of hide (90.5% of correct classification for fresh hide and 91.2% for dry hide) but the degree of overlapping between samples from both groups is important as 30.6% of the samples
Methodology of use-wear analysis is based on the comparison of experimental and archaeological use traces
Summary
Pioneering research on use-wear analysis of Prehistoric tools by S. Semenov (1964), based on the comparison of use traces on experimental tools with those observed on archaeological instruments, succeeded in opening a new way to achieve a better understanding of Prehistoric technology. Pioneering research on use-wear analysis of Prehistoric tools by S. Semenov (1964), based on the comparison of use traces on experimental tools with those observed on archaeological instruments, succeeded in opening a new way to achieve a better understanding of Prehistoric technology. The range of types of wear on lithic tools produced by their use is wide: microscarring, striae, edge rounding and micropolish (Semenov, 1964 ; Keeley, 1980). The traces of the lithic instruments depend, above all, on the characteristics of the material worked (hardness, flexibility, grain, 20 homogeneity, chemical composition, humidity) and the type of contact kinematics ; percussion / pressure, transversal or longitudinal positioning of the edge in relation to the worked material. The characteristics of the rock from which the tool is made (crystallinity and general structure, chemical composition) play an important role in the development and aspect of traces (Clemente et al, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
