Building experimental use-wear analogues for Clovis biface functions
- PDF / 1,317,249 Bytes
- 14 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 44 Downloads / 202 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Building experimental use-wear analogues for Clovis biface functions Ashley M. Smallwood
Received: 13 February 2013 / Accepted: 22 April 2013 # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract This paper reports an experimental program designed to record microscopic use-wear traces obtained on replica Clovis points and bifaces used in impact, butchering, chopping, and scraping tasks. These experiments established the use-wear type, frequency, and distribution of use-wear traces acquired in bifacial tool tasks. Replica points and bifaces were photo-documented prior to use to monitor the use-wear accrued through multiple episodes and consider if a single tool used in multiple tasks could produce distinct wear patterns that were microscopically distinguishable. Ultimately, the experimental analogues served as the foundation to interpret use-wear traces detected on Clovis bifaces from the Gault site, Texas. Keywords Use-wear . Lithic technology . Bifacial tools . Clovis . Paleoindian
Introduction The purpose of this paper is to report an experimental program designed to monitor and document the microscopic traces acquired from the use of replica Clovis fluted points in impact and butchering activities and the use of bifaces in chopping and scraping tasks. Through the analysis of microscopic alterations on the stone surface, this study aims to reconstruct tool functionality and link stone tools to past human actions. Ultimately, the experimental analogues reported here help identify traces of utilization on a prehistoric assemblage of fluted points and bifaces from the Gault site. A. M. Smallwood (*) Antonio J. Waring, Jr. Archaeological Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Use-wear analysis began with the simple yet significant observation that flint implements accrued noticeable alterations from use (Curwen 1930). Partnered with technological advances in microscopy, these descriptive investigations developed to include questions of stone tool functionality. Semenov (1964) showed stone tools could contribute information beyond just a formal typological approach (Bordes 1967) to more directly link stone artifacts to tool functions through the analysis of microscopic traces of use wear. Guided by the momentum of processural archaeology, archaeologists turned to Semenov’s kinematic approach to interpret the functionally complex behaviors of prehistoric peoples. These early studies established the fundamental properties and principles of use-wear analysis (Grace 1989; Hayden 1979; Keeley 1980; Odell 1975). To overcome criticisms of descriptive subjectivity and better understand how natural processes affect stone tool surfaces, current research directions have focused on setting high standards for methods in analysis and documentation (Álvarez et al. 2012; Levi-Sala 1996; Odell 2001; Stemp and Stemp 2003). Controlled experiments have brought clarity to the effects of post-depositional processes on stone tools (Levi-Sala 1996; Pe
Data Loading...
