Abstract
Blind-testing is an important tool that should be used by all analytical fields as an approach for validating method. Several fields do this well outside of archaeological science. It is unfortunate that many applied methods do not have a strong underpinning built on, what should be considered necessary, blind-testing. Historically lithic microwear analysis has been subjected to such testing, the results of which stirred considerable debate. However, putting this aside, it is argued here that the tests have not been adequately exploited. Too much attention has been focused on basic results and the implications of those rather than using the tests as a powerful tool to improve the method. Here the tests are revisited and reviewed in a new light. This approach is used to highlight specific areas of methodological weakness that can be targeted by developmental research. It illustrates the value in having a large dataset of consistently designed blind-tests in method evaluation and suggests that fields such as lithic microwear analysis would greatly benefit from such testing. Opportunity is also taken to discuss recent developments in quantitative methods within lithic functional studies and how such techniques might integrate with current practices.
Highlights
Blind tests are standard methodology for testing archaeological scientific method and have, to provide just a few examples, been used in faunal analysis (Blumenschine et al, 1996; Gobalet, 2001), palynology (Pearsall et al, 2003), human osteology (Donnelly et al, 1998; Hill, 2000), and radiocarbon dating (Olsen et al, 2008)
Tests have been conducted in lithic microwear analysis to a limited degree on the majority of individual techniques (Gendel and Pirnay, 1982; Knutsson and Hope, 1984; Newcomer et al, 1986; Newcomer and Keeley, 1979; Odell and OdellVereecken, 1980; Rots et al, 2006; Shea, 1987; Unrath et al, 1986; van den Dries, 1998; Vaughan, 1985, 1981), though it should be noted that testing has never been applied to the widely applied use of scanning electron microscopy
This paper has focused on the lithic microwear analysis as a specific example of how blind-testing frameworks can be used to improve rather than critique technique; the principles apply to all areas of approach in archaeological science
Summary
Blind tests are standard methodology for testing archaeological scientific method and have, to provide just a few examples, been used in faunal analysis (Blumenschine et al, 1996; Gobalet, 2001), palynology (Pearsall et al, 2003), human osteology (Donnelly et al, 1998; Hill, 2000), and radiocarbon dating (Olsen et al, 2008). With standardization of method and technique calibration, one can enable comparability of results between laboratories and individual analysts. This can lead to robust theory building due to the increased size of useful datasets. Do analysts need to ensure that techniques provide useful data, they need to ensure comparability between laboratories Such a need has already been identified in other major fields of research, the best example being radiocarbon dating where inter-laboratory comparisons and discussion surrounding calibration are commonplace As remarked elsewhere the variable design, the variable marking, the room for interpretation of results and the low sample sizes, all contribute to the fact that at present the blind-test database for microwear analysis isn't useful for exploitation in the manor described below
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
