Odell Odell

8/2/2019 Odell Odell

1/35

Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments by 'Blind Tests': The Low-Power

ApproachAuthor(s): George Hamley Odell and Frieda Odell-VereeckenSource: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1980), pp. 87-120Published by: Boston UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529584Accessed: 14/09/2009 21:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=boston.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Boston University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Field

Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/529584?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bostonhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bostonhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/529584?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/35

IntroductionThe analysis of the edgesandsurfacesof stonetoolsforthepurposeof ascertainingheirpatternsof damage(i.e., use-wearanalysis)hasbeenhighly outedas being

capableof providingvalid and instructivensightsforthe study of lithicartifacts.'This contention,howevertrue,is becominga littlehackneyed.WhereasTringhamet al.2could termtheirarticleon the subject,"Experi-mentation n the Formationof EdgeDamage:A NewApproachto Lithic Analysis" (emphasisours), Elveyearslater,and 15yearsafter he English ranslation fSemenov'sfamouswork, the subject s no longernas-1. S. A. Semenov, Prehistoric Technology, translated by M. W.Thompson (London, 1964); S. A. Semenov, "The Forms and Func-tions of the Oldest Tools, " Quartar 21 (1970) 1 20. F. Bordes,"Conside'rations sur la typologie et les techniques dans le Pale'o-lithique," Quartar 18 (1967) 25-55; S. A. Ahler, "Projectile PointForm and Function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri," A{issouriArchaeo-logical Society ResearchSeries 8 (1970); J. D. Nance, "Functional In-terpretations from Microscopic Analysis," AmAnt 36 (1971) 361-366;Ruth Tringham, "Analysis of Patterns in the Analysis of StoneTools," (paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology,Annual Meetings, 1972); L. H Keeley, "Technique and Meth-odology in Microwear Studies: A Critical Review," WA 5 (1974) 323-336.2. Ruth Tringham, Glenn Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Voytek,and Anne Whitman, "Experimentation in the Formation of EdgeDamage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis," JFA 1(1974) 171-196.

cent. It is thereforegermane o ask what has beenac-complishedrecently,and whetheror not any advanceshavebeenmade ntheEleld.In one sense that questionis easy to answer.Therehas beenan increasingrequency f articleson thesub-ject;at leastthreedoctoraldissertations avebeenwrit-ten dealingprimarilywithit, allof which ncludemajorprogramsof experimentation;3 conferencehas beenheld to disseminatedeasand standardize ertainpro-cedures;4ndanentiresessionof theSociety orAmeri-can Archaeology in Tucson, 1978)was devotedto thesubject.There s a greatdealof activity.Whether rnotpeopleoutsidethe fieldcaninterpret ndusethismate-rial in any meaningful ashion s debatable, incetherestill exists no easily availablecompendiumof detailedpatternsof use-wear exceptSemenov's,which is not3. Johan Kamminga, "Blood from a Stone: an Inquiry into the Func-tions of Australian Prehistoric Stone Tools," unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Sydney (1977); L. H. Keeley, "An Experi-mental Study of Microwear Traces on Selected British PalaeolithicImplements," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oxford University(1977); G. H. Odell, "The Application of Micro-WearAnalysis to theLithic Component of an Entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods,Problems and Functional Reconstructions," unpublished doctoraldissertation, HarvardUniversity (1977).4. Brian Hayden, ed., Lithic Use-Wear Analysis (New York, SanFrancisco and London, 1979).

VerifyingheReliability f LithicUse-WearAssessments y 'BlindTests': heLow-PowerApproach

GeorgeHamleyOdellFriedaOdell-VereeckenFoundation for Illinois ArchaeologyKampsville, Illinois

Severalfreshly nappediecesoff ne-grainedasaltwereutilizedbyanexperi-menteror a largevariety f tasks.The oolswere hen ubmittedo ananalyst,whowas gnorant f theusesto which achof theobjectshadbeenpat.Employ-ing ow-powermicroscopicechniques,ewasable to identifywithreasonablec-curacy heusedpart(s)of theimplements,heprehendedart(s), heactivitiesnwhichhepieceshadbeenengaged, ndtherelative esistance f thematerialsworked.t isarguedhat ow-powermicro-wearechniquesave everal dvan-tages,amongwhich reeaseandspeedof analysisandavailabilityf equipment.Themethodselectedforanyuse-wear nalysisofstonetools,however,mustbeadaptedo theparticularituation ndthequestionsobeaskedof thedata.


3/35

88 Reliability f LithicUse-WearAssessment/Odellnd Odell-Vereeckencomprehensive n its treatmentof edge and surfacedamage).In addition,we have sensed a reluctanceonthe part of severalprehistorianso acceptthe resultsofstudies based on assessments of use-wear, on thegrounds hat the basicanalytical ramework asnot yetbeen establishedand that the judgementsof the func-tion analysts have neverbeen tested. In this regard herecent article by Keeley and Newcomer,s in whichKeeleywas asked to identifythe activitiesand workedmaterials in which 15 stone tools made and used byNewcomerhadbeenengaged, s a signiElcantdvance nthat it has perhapshelped to make use-wearanalysis"believable"o at least part of the archaeologicalom-munity.As in skinningcats, however, here is more thanoneway to do use-wearanalysis.6 f Keeley'smethodsap-pear reasonably eliable, hat does not mean that othermethods have attaineda comparabledegree of relia-bilityor are reliable n the samesense.The purposeofthe presentarticle is to communicate he resultsof asimilarseries of tests, using techniquesdifferent romthose employedby Keeley,andto evaluate heseresultsin the light of what can reasonablybe expectedfromeither ype of analysis.The"High-PowerApproach"

The use-weartechnique propoundedby Keeley weshallcall the "high-power pproach" or lack of a moreaccuratedesignation.Although he discussionpresentedhere is primarilyconcernedwith Keeley's methods,itshould be rememberedhat Semenov,Semenovs Rus-sian colleagueG. F. Korobkova,and a numberof otherresearchersalso employ high-powertechniquesof aslightly differentnature. The most importantpiece ofequipmentemployed by researchers f this school is ahigh-powerbinocularmicroscope.Keeley's nstrumentpossesses an incident-light ttachmentand has a rangeof 24 to 400X magnification.He also utilizes wo othermicroscopes: stereomicroscopewitha rangeof 6-SOXmagnificationfor examinationof edge damage, andanother high-powermicroscope for use with thosepieces too awkwardlyshaped to fit under the first-mentionedapparatus.Scanning s usuallydoneat lOOXandidentification f functionat 200X.7Withthisequip-5. L. H. Keeleyand M. H. Newcomer,"MicrowearAnalysisof Ex-perimentalFlint Tools: A Test Case,"Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 4 ( 1977)29-62.6. G. H. Odell, "Micro-Wear n Perspective:A SympatheticRe-sponseto LawrenceH. Keeley,"WA 7 (1975)226-240;Keeley andNewcomer, p.cit. (in note 5) 29, 35.7. KeeleyandNewcomer, p. cit. (innote 5) 36-37. t shouldbe notedthat,althoughhigh magnificationsre frequentlymployed, o basic

ment the analystis able to observeboth removalsofmaterial roman edge (scarring) nd evidenceof abra-sion such as roundingand surfacescratches,or "stria-tions.\ But themost diagnostic lementof wearappearsto be polish, which Keeleystates was "takenas a cer-tain signal hatthat particulardgehad beenused."8The techniquesdeveloped by Keeley were tested inthe following manner:Newcomer manufactured15tools of Englishchalk flint and utilized14 of them invarious ways on various materials.These implementswere to be interpreted s havingcome froma EuropeanLoweror Middle Palaeolithiccontext.As interpretedby Newcomerduring heexperimentaleries, hismeantthat thetools would behandheld,withprotective over-ing used when performing trenuous asks. Activitieswould be non-agricultural nd generallyrestricted oone use per tool. Materialswouldbe thoseavailable oand probablyemployedby Lower or Middle Palae-olithic Europeans,and the test would permitthe oc-casional use of backingunder the material.Tools in-cluded both retouched and unretouchedvarieties.Results were as follows: used area of the piece: 14correct out of 16, or 87.5Yo; ctivity:12of 16, or 75%;and worked material:10 of 16, or 62.5%.The level ofreliabilityshown in these tests is quite acceptable ormost purposes,and it is evidentthat high-powerech-niquesoffer the potentialof rendering pecific nforma-tion on the functions of stone implementsused inprehistoric imes. It only remains o considerat whatexpense his informations acquired.The most obvious expenseis monetary.Keeley em-ployed three microscopes n his blind test seriesand,althoughonly one was absolutelynecessaryL. Keeley,personalcommunication1979),even the cost of thatone is considerable.Certaindepartmentswith whichweare familiarwould simplynot be able to affordsuchex-penditureat present budgetary evels.Nevertheless, tcan be argued hat for a techniquewithsuch apparenpotential,one can affordto spenda littlemore. Unfor-tunately, there is another drawback: t takes con-siderable imeto utilize2 or 3 microscopes,cana toolat lOOX,nvestigatecertainareas at up to 400X, andassess the pieceat 200X. Keeleyadmitsthis point,say-ing,"Fifteenwas chosenas thenumberof experimentatools only afterconsiderablediscussion,balancing hedesire o have as many ools as possibleagainst he con-siderable time necessary o recordand study the usewearon the tools."9Clearly he technique s not ideallyartifact scanning or functional assessment is performed with a scan-ning electron microscope.8. Ibid. 37.9. Ibid. 34.


4/35

Journal f FieldArchaeology/Vol. 7, 1980 89suited for use with large samples an unfortunatelimitation,giventhe considerable ize of severalof thelithiccollectionswith whicharchaeologists ave to deal.A few additionalpoints are worthconsidering.First,althoughuse polishhas becomea sortof "fossiledirec-teur" for wear assessments using high-powerequip-ment, it is not an infallible ndex. There are several n-stances n which Keeley mentionsan "uncertainty verthe interpretation of the microwear polish," aprobable result of the potentially large number ofvariablesthat can influencethe formationof damagetraces.Second, Keeley and Newcomer decidedagainst in-cluding"inorganicubstances ike stone and soil . . . asthere is little evidencefor their use before the UpperPalaeolithic.""They may well be correct, but imple-mentssuch as thehandaxehaveoccasionallybeen inter-preted as diggingtools.'2 In any case, it would appearimprudent to dismiss inorganic materials entirely inpostulatingLowerand MiddlePalaeolithic ctivities.Third, Keeley'swork so far has been exclusively on-cernedwith flints and chertsas rawmaterial, nd he hasbeen ustifiably autious n extendinghis results o othermaterials.He mentions that the flint he studies has avery fine-grained structure.3 In fact, flint is anamorphous, isotropic brittle solid that possesses thesame fractureproperties n all directions,'4making itideally suited for the observationof damage traces.There is no guarantee hat the techniques hat Keeleyhas developedwith flint will work with other raw mate-rials, whether hey be clearerand morebrittle,such asobsidian,or coarserand moregranular, uch as quartz-ite. A numberof new experimental ssays, controllingfor different ithic categories,are going to have to beundertaken sing high-power echniquesbeforeenoughconsistencies among types have been observed anddocumented o indicate the versatilityof the method.Until that happens, one must consideradaptability obe a potentialproblem.The study that follows suggeststhat this is not a severeproblemwhenemploying ow-powermethods.

10. Ibid.48.11. Ibid.34. ..12. hI. Quiring,Uber Zweck und Handhabung es Faustkeils,"PZ23 (1932) 277-280;L. S. B. Leakey,"Stone Implements:How TheyWereMadeand Used,"South A%rican rchaeologicalBulletin5 (1950)17;J. E. Pfeiffer,The Emergence of Man (NewYork 1969) 9, 56.13. KeeleyandNewcomer, p. cit. (in note 5) 37.14. R. Bonnichsen, Models or DerivingCultural nformationromStone Tools," National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeo-logicalSurvey f Canada,PaperNo. 60 ( 1977) 4.

Finally, there are several types of analysisthat aresatisfiedwith information f a lowerorder han that of-fered by high-powerapproaches. Although accurateassessmentof exact worked material s desired, cate-gories such as "hard," "medium" and "soft" areusually sufficient in answeringquestionsof environ-mentaland humanbehavioral mport.'5Activity,as willbe seen shortly,can be assessed airlyaccuratelyby us-ing eitherhigh- or low-power quipment.One does not,therefore, ose a greatdeal of informationf one decidesnot to pursuehigh-powermicro-wearmethods.These considerations uggest that, far from being acure-allor a functionalpanacea,as it maybe viewedbysome people, thehigh-power pproachhas definitedis-advantages.The most salient of theseare the excessiveamount of time expended and the possible lack ofreplicability romone raw material ategory o another.If methods employing ow-powermagniElcationan beshown to reduce the expenditure of time, improvereplicability i.e., be adaptive to a greatervariety ofraw-material ypes), and remain responsive o a largeand importantarrayof questions, henthese should berecognized as powerful reasons for adopting alter-natives o the approachoutlinedabove.The "Low-PowerApproach"

Use-wear techniques employing low-power micro-scopes have been practicedfor a long time.'6 Severalscholarsare responsible or the increased empo of ac-tivity in this field. Noteworthy are the experimentsbyCharles Keller'7and the interest kindled in Londonduringthe late 1960sby Ruth Tringham.'8Experimentation has continued during the 1970s at HarvardUniversity,'9 he University of Sydney,20 nd severalother ocalities.2'

15. M. B. Schiffer, "The Place of Lithic Use-WearStudies inBehavioralArchaeology," ithic Use-Wear Analysis, BrianHayden,ed. (New York, San Francisco nd London 1979)15-25;G. H. Odell,"Toward More BehavioralApproach o Archaeological ithicCon-centrations,"AmAnt, in press).16. Tringham t al., op. cit. (in note 2); Odell,op. cit. (in note 6); L.H. Keeley, "The Functionof PalaeolithicFlint Tools," SAm 237(1977) 108-126.17. C. M. Keller,"The Development f EdgeDamage PatternsonStoneTools,"Man I (1966)501 511.18. RuthTringham, TheFunction,Technology ndTypologyof theChipped Stone Industry at Bylany," Die aktuelle Fragen derBandkeramik,J F z, ed , Szekes ehervar1972)143148.19. Tringham t al., op. cit. (in note 2);Odell,op.cit. (in note 3).20. Kamminga, p. cit.(in note 3).21. Hayden, p. cit. (innote4).


5/35

90 Reliability f LithicUse-WearAssessment/Odellnd Odell-VereeckenDetailsof the methods involvedvary with the indi-vidual, but in generalresearchersuse one microscopewithcapabilitiesup to 40-lOOX.Preparation f the ob-ject with chemicals or metallization is usually notnecessary,and pieces are typicallyscanned at around10-20Xand assessed at 20-40X. All formsof wearare

observedand considered,but Keeley and Newcomer22are correct in assertingthat the most ubiquitousandfrequentlyusedindex is scarringalong the edges.Onceobserved,relevantdamageis usuallyassessed directlyaccording to its similarity o experimentalpieces,de-scribedaccording o type, or determinedndirectlybyrecording attributes and re-combining them statis-tically.23There has beensome criticismof certainpracticalas-pects of micro-wearidentificationusing low-powertechniques, particularlyby Keeley and Newcomer.They claim that the damage caused by intentionalretouch,manufacture amage o edgesproducedduringthe original removal of the piece (i.e., "spontaneousretouch"),24nd naturalmovementof soil sediment,asin solifluxion,areextremelydifElculto distinguish romuse-wearunderlow-powermicroscopesand are there-fore serious mpediments o the low-powerapproach.25Whileadmitting hat there s difficulty the natureandextent of that difficultywillbe discussed hortly therehave been studies that demonstratea clear differencebetween damage produced by utilization and thatcaused by other factors.26Differencesare oftensubtle,to be sure, but the moreexperimentationnd observa-tion an analyst does, the more competenthe or shebecomesat identifying hetracescorrectly.Anothercriticismof the low-powerapproach s "thelargenumberof variables o whichutilizationdamageresponds."27Keeley and Newcomer's ist (their p. 36)exaggerates he situation, or "edge hickness" s largelya functionof "edge angle,"alreadymentioned,andar-22. KeeleyandNewcomer, p. cit. (in note 5)35.23. G. H. Odell, "A New andImprovedSystem or the Retrieval fFunctional nformationrom MicroscopicObservations f ChippedStone Tools," Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, BrianHayden, ed. (NewYork,SanFrancisco ndLondon1979)329-44.24. M. H.Newcomer, SpontaneousRetouch," econd nternationalSymposium n Flint,Staringia 3, F. Engelen, d. (Maastricht1976)62-64;J. Brink,"Notes on theOccurrence f SpontaneousRetouch,"Lithic Technology7 ( 1 78) 31 33.25. KeeleyandNewcomer, p. cit.(in note 5)35.26. Tringham t al., op. cit. (in note 2);JeanneA. Schutt,"ArtifactRecoveryProcedures nd MicrowearPatterns," paperpresented tthe Society for AmericanArchaeology,Annual Meetings,Tucson1978).27. Keeleyand Newcomer, p. cit.(in note 5) 35.

tifact raw materialand method of prehensionare nomore a problem probably ess so, as we shallsee) withlow-power techniques than with high-power ones.Nevertheless,there is a large number of variables oconsider, and work has only begun in isolating andevaluating hem. It might be relevant hat people whoemploythree microscopes nd a largerangeof magnifi-cation must also consider all of these variables, lusthosecontributing o thevariability f polishand stria-tions observed at the highermagnifications.The dif-ferencebetweentechniques n this regard ies with therelativeemphasisgiven each of the variables,and it isdifficultto see any greatadvantagepossessedby eitherapproachon thispoint. For theresolutionof this prob-lem, it should be sufficientat the presentstate of re-search o invokeKeeley'sown advice:"Therecognitionof a used edge depends heavily on the microwearanalyst'sown familiaritywith the use of stone imple-ments,gained n thecourseof experiments."28Finally,KeeleyandNewcomer tate that"Utilizationdamage . . . rarelyforms on steeply-angled dges."29Our work indicates that this statement s inaccurateFirst, the harder he materialworked, he more ikely tis that utilizationdamagewill occur and be observableat low magnifications.The authors'experiments n-dicate that, for most activities, use on hardmaterialsalmost always producesdamage, even on edges withvery high angles.Second, the amount that an edge isutilizedhas an effect on the damageproduced.That is,a piece employedfor 10 strokes on a weasel pelt willprobably result in an ostensiblyunused edge, whereasstroking t 10,000 imes oughtto produce omediscerni-ble damageto a tool edge.The use of the word "dam-age" is intentional,because he resultmay not be scarr-ing, orwhat Keeley erms"utilization amage."For ex-ample, experimentsby the authorsscrapinga seal skinfor 3000strokeswithfine-grained asalt on edges withhigh anglesproducedonly a moderateamountof scarr-ing, but a considerableamount of edge rounding-discernible t some locationseven to the nakedeye. Tosay that "utilization damage" failed to form to anygreat extent, therefore, misses the real point of rele-vance to low-power echniques: nother ort of damagediddevelop, and it developed n a fashiondiagnosticoftheactivityandmaterialworked.TheExperiments: ulesof theGame

The reliabilityof methodsusinglow-powermagnifi-cations hasbeentested n a manner imilar o that out-lined by Keeley and Newcomer. Most of their rules28. Ibid. 37.29. Ibid.


6/35

Journal f FieldArchaeology/Vol.7, 1980 91have been retained,assuringa certainamount of com-parabilitybetween he two seriesof tests.The materialfrom which the tools were fashionedconsistsof a black, fine-grainedubstance hat was dis-covered n the vicinity of Cache Creek, BritishColum-bia, and has been classified as a sideromelane, r ba-salt.30 t was selected for use for two reasons. First, itwas available in the area in which the authors wereworking, whereas European chalk flint was unob-tainable.Andsecond, t is definitely ranular n texture,as the photographs ccompanying hisarticle llustrate.Striations,polishand otherevidenceof abrasionare noteasily discernibleand had been rarely encountered npreviousexperimentation. t was felt that to use such amaterialwould, if successful, ndicate he utility of thescarring ndex andillustrate hat the principles n whichthis use-wearstudy is based are applicable o a widerangeof substances ther thanEuropean halk flint, onwhich most of the authors' previous experimentshadbeen conducted.A series of 40 flakes, blades, spalls, and core toolswere knappedfrom this materialby Odell with a ham-merstone. Some were then retouched, using a ham-merstoneand/or deer antler ine, andthe lot was givento Odell-Vereecken.Of these, 32 were to be selected oruse, the selection to be made at the time of utilization.One of the implementsbroke and was discarded, eav-ing a sampleof 31 pieces. From thedeliveryof the toolsto their returnfollowing utilization,Odell did not seethem outside the closed box in whichthey were kept,nor was there any communicationbetween the twoauthorsconcerning he content of theexperiments ntilafter hemicro-wear ssessments adbeen made.3130. The determination was made on the basis of a thin-section anal-ysis of the rock, performed by William K. Collins of the Departmentof Geology, Brown University. According to Collins, the rock has abasalt glass matrix with feldspar microlites and euhedral olivinephenocrysts, and a preferred orientation in the direction of the flow ofthe rapidly cooling igneous rock mass.31. The experiments were conducted in the spring of 1978, in Van-couver, British Columbia. It may be of interest to the more sociallyminded readers that the co-authors are indeed married and do inhabitthe same domicile. These facts had no effect on the secrecy in whichthe content of the experiments was maintained. It was only afterwardsthat the silence was broken (and divorce contemplated), proving onceagain that some people can keep a secret. Both Larry Keeley and JoKamminga (personal communication, 1979) have suggested that thesuccess rates of the experiments presented here would be morebelievable" if 1) the use-wear analyst had not knapped thestones himself and 2) the co-authors had not been conjugally re-lated. In answer to the first point, the stones were, for the most part,picked out of the debris pile rather than deliberately shaped, and thosethat were retouched were not shaped to any specific plan but weremodified to H1ll variety of potential forms and uses. Since severalmore pieces were knapped than were used and since more than two

The following rules were established.To maintaincomparabilitywith Newcomer'sexperiments, t was a-greed that all tools would be hand-held i.e., not haft-ed), although the user could employ whateverprotec-tion, such as gloves and leatherpads, that she deemednecessary in a given situation. Boards or other"natural"(non-synthetic) backing could be used ifnecessary.Tasks were to be non-agricultural nd fewtools were to have multiple uses. On this point theauthorsagreewithKeeleyand Newcomer,32hat is, thatthe large majorityof discarded ools on archaeologicalsites and the simple design of most stone implementsprecludemultipleusesfor the vast majorityof them. Inaddition, micro-wear tudies performedon large sam-ples from a single siteseem to support hiscontention.33Materialsworked,however,were not limited o organicsubstances.Not enough researchhas been done to es-tablish the relativeproportionsof inorganic o organicmaterialsutilized in antiquity and it is definitely pre-matureto preclude hem at this stage. The numberofstrokes to which each tool was to be subjectedwasneverspecified,but it was agreed hat every mplementwas to be utilizedfor a length of timesufElciento per-form a "reasonable"ask with the tool. Interpretationof this stipulationwas left to the tool user.A wide varietyof activitieswas performed n an evenwidervarietyof materials.Figure 1illustrates he use ofsome of these implements,while Table 1 presentsa listby species of the materialsworked.34 igures2-4 showthe individual ools and the locationof indicators f useon each piece. Letterspoint to specificareasexplained

months elapsed between the times of knapping and inspection, it isdifficult to conceive that any substantial bias-either subliminal orotherwise-would develop on this account.

In answer to the second point, it cannot be denied that some sub-liminal bias may have occurred as a result of the marital status of theauthors, but it is uncertain in what direction the results may have beenaltered. The guesses of yams, potatoes, celery, etc., were based onprevious experiments in an attempt to be as exact as possible in theassessments, and were not based on what we had for dinner theprevious evening (we rarely eat either yams or potatoes, anyway).Furthermore, this paper does not report one series of blind tests, buttwo. The first of these, described near the end of this article, was per-formed with a student who had no axe to grind (so to speak), ex-hibited a healthy skepticism of use-wear analysis, and knapped thetools himself. In fact, it was as a result of the first series of experimentsthat the present co-authors decided that their conjugality would notsigniElcantly lter the resultsof a second series.32. Keeley and Newcomer, op. cit. (in note 5) 34.33. Odell, op. cit. (in note 3); Henry G. Wylie, "Tool Microwear andFunctional Types from Hogup Cave, Utah," Tebiwa 17 (1975) 1-31.34. We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Joseph T. Eastman, Dept.Of Biology and Medicine, Brown University, who identified thePacific coast canary rockfish from a photograph.


7/35

92 Reliability f Lithic Use-WearAssessment/Odell nd Odell-Vereecken

Figure1. Someof the activities epresented y the blind ests:a) Tool no. 4 used o boresoakedantler.b) Tool no. 8 usedto cut freshporkskin.c) Tool no. 9 used o scrape reshporkskinon pine backing.d) Tool no. 12 used o crushhazelnutson pine backing. ) Tool no. 13 used o saw agedhemlock. ) Tool no. 24 used o gravecookedcowjoint. g) Tool no. 25used o graveagedhemlock.h) Tool no. 26 used o cut grass.a) to h) are eft to right, op to bottom.


8/35

Journal fFieldArchaeology/Vol.7, 1980 93

2

5 6

10

O 1 2 3 1 5cme

ll

Figure2. Experimentalieces1-11.Inthisandthetwofigures hatfollow,eachpiece sorientedwithproximalbulbar)endtoward hebottomof thepage,except orpiecenumbers and 9 whichareorienteddifferentlyorreasonsof space(locationof bulbof percussions suggested ya fullcircle). ntentional etouchs indicated ymarginal,tylized, egular,andcontiguous callop-shapedonfigurations, hereas ery arge haping emovals redrawn o scaleandto exactshape.Visible emovals ausedbyusehaveusuallynotbeenrendered,norder o avoidconfusionwith ntentional etouch,although xtremelyargeonesareshown.


9/35


10/35

Journal f FieldArchaeology/Vol. 7, 1980 95

a - - - z

li

280 1 2 3 4 Scm15 e

' W/


11/35

96 Reliability of Lithic Use-WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereeckenidentifyinguse-wearon a stone tool thanunderstandingfunctionmerely by recognizing, ay, the odd piece ofchickenskin fortuitously odged in a marginaldepres-sion.

Principles ndProceduresA Characteristics of lVon-Use Damage

Functional dentiFlcations erebasedon experimentsperformedby Odell at HarvardUniversityand in theNetherlands.3s art of this experimentationoncernedfactorsthat causedamageto stone tools but arequitedivorcedfrom the utilizationof the implement.Thesefactorsmust be consideredand rejectedbeforedamagecan besafelyattributedo use.One importantconsideration oncerns he effects ofnatural orcessuchas hillwash,solifluxion, treamroll-ing, and frost heaving.36 ressures esulting romtheseactivitiescan be expected o produceall forms of wearrecognizedon intentionallyutilizedpieces,thoughpat-terning of the damage can usually be expectedto berandom, not favoringone part of the tool over theothers.Chippingfrom naturalcauses frequentlycon-sists of removalsspaced irregularly n all edges of apiece,thereby acking he concentration ndpatterningof usechipping.Striations, f present, end to be multi-directional and uncorrelatedwith particularedges.Polish and edge rounding are likewise usually un-associatedwith particular dgesand maybe a resultofextremebattering ndcrushing.Damagecan also be causedby post-depositionalac-tors involvingeither the prehistoricoccupants or ar-chaeologicalrecoveryand storagetechniques.Damagefrom trampling,for example,has been shown to becharacterizedy scarsthathaveno EIxedrientationorsize,butusuallya marked longationanda randomdis-tribution along the edge.37Similarly,the occasionalroughhandlingandcontactwithhardmaterialshat of-tenoccurs nstoringartifacts, ftentermed"labwear,"38has also produced randomness of distribution.Experimentationn this aspectof edge damageand intransportation has allowed the conclusion that:35. Tringhamt al.,op.cit. (innote 2);Odell,op. cit. (innote 3).36. See, forexample,J. D. Clark,"TheNaturalFracture f Pebblesfrom the BatokaGorge,NorthernRhodesia,and Its Bearing n theKafuan ndustries f Africa,"PPS 24 (1958)64-77;D. Stapert, Mid-dle PalaeolithicFinds from the NorthernNetherlands,"Palaeo-historia18 1976) 3-72.37. Tringham tal., op. cit. (innote2) 192.38. J. M. Gero, "Summary f Experimentso DuplicatePost-Exca-vationalDamage o Tool Edges,"Lithie Teehnology7 (1978) 34;seealso H. G. Wylie,"ArtifactProcessingand StorageProcedures:Noteof Caution,"NewsletteroSLithie Teehnology4 (1975)17-19.

"Althougha greatervariety of scars occurred,scarsweregenerallynot consistentenough to be interpretedasedgedamageresultingromuse."39Bagwearhas also beenconsidered asilydistinguish-ablefrom usewear"becauseof therandomdistributionof bagwear scars along both edges of a tool."40Likewise,damage by screeninghas beentestedexperi-mentallyand has produced"erraticand non-alignedshort grooves," irregularlyspaced crushed edges,and no discernibledamagepattern.4'Removalscausedby excavationequipmentsuch as trowelsand shovelsare characterized y one or morerows of contiguous,unifacialscars, roughlyequal in size and shape. Oc-casionally the scrapededge terminates n a V-shapednotch(thepointat whichthemassof theobjectbecametoo great for the forceapplied, herebyhaltingfurtherpenetration)and/or shows the metallicmark of thedigging mplement.42The manufacture f stone tools also causesdamagethat, in some cases,can be verydifficult o distinguishfromuse-wear.Severalauthorshavecommented n thegeneraldifferenceshat obtain,however,andthese canbe summarizedbriefly.Althoughthere is obviouslyacontinuumbetween ntentional etouchanduse-wear nthose variables hat characterizehem(e.g., size, loca-tion), retouchtends to be larger,more invasive,andmoreregularlyplaced.In addition, t usuallymanifestscrushing at the point at which the impactor orretouchercontactedthe edge, leavinguncrushedandunscarredareas between negativeimpactor pressurepoints.Use-wearon the otherhand, is usuallysmallerandless regularly paced,it is often concentratedon pro-jecting partsof theedgeand, if it occurson a retouchededge, it tends to nick, crush,or abradethose partsofthe largerscarsthat occurbetween mpactor pressurepoints.43This principlecan be demonstrated or mo-

39. J. A. Schutt,op.cit.(innote26) 3.40. S. Lewenstein, An Analysisof ExperimentallyroducedEdgeDamage:Its Potentialfor the FunctionalInterpretation f Meso-americanPrismaticBladeIndustries,"paperpresented t theannualmeetings f theSociety orAmericanArchaeology, ucson,Arizona,1978,p. 33).41. Gero, op. cit. (in note38);Schutt,op. cit. (in note 26)concurs nthelast-mentionedssessmentp. 3).42. C. H. Webb,J. L. Shinerand E. W. Roberts,"TheJohnPearceSite (16 CD 56): A San PatriceSite in CaddoParish,Louisiana,"BullTexArchSoc42(1971)24;Odell,op.cit.(innote3) 156-157.43. D. Crabtreeand E. Davis, "ExperimentalManufactureofWooden mplements ithTools of FlakedStone,"Seienee 159 1968)428; S. Kantman,"'Raclettes mouste'riennes':ne e'tudeexpe'ri-mentale ur la distinctionde retouche ntentionnelle t les modifica-tions du tranchant arutilisation,llQuaternaria3 1970)295-304;A.Rosenfeld,"TheExamination f Use Markson SomeMagdalenian


12/35

Journal-fFieldArchaeology/Vol.7, 1980 97

Figure 5. Small hinge-terminated scars (Rh) on the retouched edge(ventral surface) of experimental tool no. 20, illustrated in Figure 3,used for scraping across a branch of fresh bigleaf maple. Actuallength of photographed surface is 4 mm.

Figure 6. Predominantly small hinged removals on bifaciallyretouched edge at Rh on tool no. 27 (FIG. 4), used for graving freshbigleaf maple. Actual length = 8 mm.

tions both longitudinaland transverse o the workingedge. Figure 5 illustratesthe extent and location ofdamage on the retouchededge of tool no. 20 fromscrapingacrossa branchof bigleafmaple.It consistsofa row of small, nearly contiguous,hinge-terminatedscars, particularlyevident on the projectingparts.Graving a bigleaf maple branch longitudinalto thebifacially retouched working edge also producesnumeroushinged removals,especiallyon lateralpro-jections,asshown nFigure6.Abrasivedamage s oftencausedbypreparing strik-ing platformfor flake or bladeremovalor an edgeforthe removalof pressure lakes.44StriationscausedbyEnd Scrapers," BMQ 35 (1970) 178; Tringham, op. cit. (in note 18)145; P. D. Sheets, "Edge Abrasion during Biface Manufacture,"AmAnt38 (1973) 218.44. D. Crabtree, "Mesoamerican Polyhedral Cores and PrismaticBlades," AmAnt 33 (1968) 462-463; P. Sheets, op. cit. (in note 43); L.H. Keeley, "The Methodology of Microwear Analysis: A Commenton Nance," AmAnt 39 (1974) 126-128;I. Rovner, "Evidence for a Sec-

suchactionoften occuron strikingplatformsandcon-sist of fairly large, deep grooves, though this charac-teristicdependson the natureof theabrader mployed.Large,deep groovesalso occuron edges as a resultofmanufacture,and can sometimesbe distinguishedbythe presenceof utilizationscarring hat destroyspartsof them, eavingremnant triationsbetween cars.B. Characteristicsf UseDamage:Activity

Most of the experimentation onducted by the au-thorshas involvedtool utilizationand this informationservesas the basis for functionalassessments.Concep-tually,of course,worksof suchpeopleas SemenovandKeller45lso contributed o the informationpool avail-able at the beginningof theexercise.Althoughdescrip-tions of wearresulting romthe useof tools on varioustypes of activitiesand materialscan be found in theondaryObsidianWorkshopat Mayapan,Yucatan,"Newsletter ofLithic Technology 3 (1974)20.45. Semenov, p.cit. (innote 1);Keller,op.cit. (innote 17).


13/35

U-tuS98 Reliability f Lithic Use-WearAssessment/Odell nd Odell-Vereecken

Figure 7. Denticulated feather- and hinge-terminated removals onused edge of FIshknife (tool no. 5, FIG. 2). Actual length = 4 mm.

aforementionedpublications,the most basic elementscharacterizing ach majorcategory,as observedat low-power magnifications, are summarized below. Twopoints should be mentioned.First, exceptions o thesetraits can always be found, so they are to be viewed asaverages, rather than as discrete, mutually exclusivecharacteristics.And second, the opinions to be ex-pressedare exclusively hose of the authors.They reflectthe authors' particularmethods and biases, and neednot be representativeof the opinions of others whoworkwith low-power echniques.1. Motions ongitudinalo the working dge. Cuttingusuallyproduces scarringon both surfacesof an edge, alternatingfrom side to side and developingwith use into denticulationof the lateralmargin.This scarringpattern an be easily seenon the used edge of the fish knife FIG.7) that frequently amein contact with bone. If striationsare visible, hey occur nearthe edge and parallel o it. If the margin s utilizedenough obecomerounded, hat abrasion s evident irston projections,later (with continuinguse) on extensivecontiguousareas ofthe margin.Trueone-waycuttingmotionoften causesa direc-

Figure 8. Small, unidirectional feather-terminated scarring on dorsalsurface of meat knife (tool no. 29, FIG. 4). Actual length = 3 mm.

tionality in the scarring hat providesclues as to where andhow the tool was held and in which direction t moved. Thesmall, feather-terminatedemovalson the edge of the meatcutter n Figure8, for example,are deeperand more sharply-definedon their right sides than on their eft sides, a charac-teristic hat suggests hat the tool itself was movedfromrightto left, as pictured n the photograph.Sawing 2-waymotion)does not provide the uni-directionality f scarring,but theother basic characteristics re similar.Slicingand carving reviewed here as variationson a basic longitudinalmovement,although ransversemotion is also involved.46 s these activi-ties are conceivedhere, the operator irst makescontactwiththe worked materialat one end of the edge being employed,then draws the implement hroughthe material n a cuttingmotion as penetrationproceeds.The angle of the tool to theworked substanceand the directionof motion may changeduring the course of the stroke. In both of these activities,scarring ends to be located more on one surface han on theother and striations, f visible, are often unifacialand usuallyslanted,or diagonal o the edge.46. Odell, op. cit. (in note 3) appendix B. The motion described in thisappendix (pp. 604-605) includes "whittling," an activity described inthis report under motions transverse to the working edge.


14/35


Figure 9. Continuous row of uniform-sized and -shaped feather-terminated scars on ventral surface of used edge of knife used to whit-tle a point on a fresh hemlock branch (tool no. 15, FIG. 3). Actuallength = 4 mm.

2. Motions transverse o the working dge. In scrapingorpulling motions, the scarring is exclusivelyunifacial, oralmost so, and occurson a relativelywide area,although hisstipulationdependson the natureof the contactbetween ooland workedmaterial.The bark scraperphotographedn Fig-ure 5 typifies the damageresulting rom this activity. Stria-tions, if present,are perpendicularo the edge, on the surfaceopposite he scarring.Projections re again he firstand mostextensivelyworn. Planingis usually defined as a pushing,rather han a pullingmotion,but the wear characteristicsreverysimilar.There s, however,usuallymoreabrasivewearonthe surface n contactwith the workedmaterial han s evidentwith scrapingwear. Whittlings specifiedhere as a transversemotion n whichthat portionof the edge that firstmakescon-tact with the workedmaterial emains n contactthroughoutthe length of the stroke (i.e., is not moved longitudinally).Penetration nd horizontalmovementof the tool edge resultin theremovalof slices, or shavings, romthe substancebeingworked.This activityresults in predominantly nifacialre-movalssuch as those photographedn Figure9. Notice that,after1000strokeson a freshhemlockbranch, here s littleorno crushing f the. dge.3. Graving aselementsof either,or both, longitudinal ndtransversemotions, dependingon the particularcase. Theprincipaldifference s that it occurson a point, or tip, rather

Figure 10. Unifacial stepped and hinged removals on tip of bonegraver(tool no. 7, FIG. 2). Actual length = 8 mm.

thanon an entire side of a piece.-Thisvariability f scarringcan be illustratedby two examples.One, a bone graver llus-trated in Figure 10, manifests he typical unifacialityof re-movals producedby drawing he tip transversely cross thesubstancebeing worked. The other, a wood graver seen inFigure6, showsbifacialityof scarring ypicalof drawing hetip longitudinallyacrossthe material.Strictlyspeaking, t isdebatablewhether he utilizedpartof tool no. 27 is an edgeora projection,but the localizedwearon the projecting onvexportion at Rh in the diagramargues hat graving s the moreaccurate erm. In any case, there can be littledebateover thewearproduced.4. Boring.A complexmotion involvingdownwardpressureand lateral twisting. The downwardpressure an usually beascertained rom "roughening" f the tip and scarring hatemanates from the tip. Twistingoften results in removalsfrom the lateraledges that lead to the point.This damage anbe unifacialor bifacial,depending n the configurationf theedges and the angle at which the tool was held. Most of thecharacteristics escribedhere can be witnessedon the tip oftool no. 3, a borer held at a 90 angle to the bone beingworked FIG. 11).5. Chopping.Damage is usuallybifacial f the edge is sym-metricalwhen viewed head-on (i.e., is not displaced o oneside or the other). If it is asymmetrical, amageof all kinds


15/35


Figure11. Bifacialmulti-shapedcarring n sidesand tip of tool no. Figure12. Irregularlyhaped tepped carring n ventral urface f3 (FIG. 2), used o drillholes n freshcow bone.Actual ength= 8 mm. usededgeof tool no. 11 FIG. 2), a freshhemlock hopper, r handaxe. Actual ength= 11 mm.

favors one side over the other. Heavy mpact ypicallyresultsin scars possessing well-defined terminations hinged andstepped),of the sort producedon the ventralsurfaceof toolno. 11 (FIG. 12). The chopping motion often producesstria-tions oblique o the cuttingedges, though hischaracteristicsnot reproducedin the present experiments.Adzing is abasically transversemotion that results n unifacialscarringand striations perpendicular o the edge. Wedging usuallyproduces scars similar to chopping, with striationsperpen-dicular o the cuttingedge rather han diagonal o it. On theend oppositethe cutting edge are pitting or chippingmarksresulting rompounding he wedge nto the workedmaterial.6. Projectile. Although neither Newcomer's nor Odell-Vereecken's xperiments nclude this activity, he latterwerenot restricted o reproducing Loweror MiddlePalaeolithiccultural stage. Nevertheless,since this activity would havenecessitatedhafting the implement,Odell-Vereeckenhosenot to includeit. Characteristics f wear on stone projectilepoints have been describedelsewhere,47 ut to summarize:there is often impact damage similar to that on an axe,resulting n removals of all sizes that usually have sharply47. Odell, op. cit. (in note 3); G. H. Odell, "Preliminaires 'uneanalyse fonctionnelledes pointes microlithiques e Bergumermeer,Pays-Bas," SPF75 (1978)37-49.

defined terminations.These sometimes ook like burin spallnegatives. f striaecan be observed, hey are typicallyparallelto the long axis of the piece(or sometimes he shortaxis, f theimplementwas hafted transversely) nd as often away fromthe edge as close to it. Hafting requently roducesdamageofeitheran abrasive rdislocatory scarring) ort, or both.7. Abrading.This activityincludesgrindingand polishinganother item, such as a bone point, axe handle, or arrowshaft, and reducing a substance such as pigment or phar-maceuticals o a powder. Typically he surfacesof the tool,not the edges, receivethe brunt of the pressure,and wear isprimarily brasive.The type of abrasionproduceddependsonthe hardnessand granularity f the workedmaterialand ofthe backing, f employed.8. Pounding.Use as a hammer,an activityemploying sur-face rather han an edge and usuallyresulting n pitting andcracking f that surface.

The eight basic types of use-weardescribedabove,with variations, nclude most of the activities hat oneencounterson a regularbasis in collections amiliar othe authors. Several functions have not been men-tioned, includingawls, "limpet scoops," and a host ofother possible activities.In the authors'opinion, these


16/35

Journal f FieldArchaeology/Vol.7, 1980 101actionseitheroccurvery nfrequentlyn archaeologicalsites (e.g., limpetscoops)or theycan be subsumedun-der one of the categoriesmentioned(e.g., awls anddrillswith theborers).One limitation of using low-powertechniques(orperhapsust a limitationof our useof them) s thatfre-quentlyit is difficultto distinguishbetweencertainofthe variationswithinthe groups.For example,slicing,cutting,andsawingoftenbearsimilar haracteristicsatleast to us), particularlyf themovementswerenot keptconstantduringuse. Of course, f conditionsare favor-able (i.e., thetool was usedfora longtime na constantmotion,abundantwearwasproduced, tc.)these activi-tiescan be distinguished, utwe do not feel particularlyconfident hat conditionsarefavorableoftenenoughtojustify trying to distinguishamong them in every in-stance.Therefore,no attemptwas madein the experi-mentsto differentiatebetween he variousspecificmo-tions that are longitudinalandtransverseo the work-ing edge. The otheractivitiesdo not present his prob-lem.In our opinion,thereis no greatloss of informationhere. For instance,if one assessesa particular mple-ment as possessing racesof wear ypicalof havingbeenutilizedlongitudinallyon a soft substance, t has thusbeen specified that the tool penetratedthe materialworked. Whetherthat penetrationbe performed n aslicing, sawing, or cuttingmotion seems a bit super-fluousfor mostpurposes. n fact, thereare a wholehostof applicationsknownto the authors48or which thistypeof distinction s simplynot necessary. n the finalanalysis,the techniquesemployedshould be equal tothe questionsthat they are required o answer,and ifthosequestionsdictatedistinguishingutting romsaw-ing, forexample, hen low-powermethodsareprobablynot suitable.C. Characteristicsf UseDamage.WorkedMaterial

It has provendifficult o give an accurateassessmentof exact workedmaterialusing low-power echniques.Workedmaterialshavethereforebeen separated,by thepresentauthorsat least, into fourcategoriesaccordingto their hardness,or resistance o pressure.The wearpatternstypicallyassociatedwith these at low magni-ficationsareas follows:

1. Soft.Includesanimalproductssuch as meat, skin andfat, andsoft vegetal ubstances uch asmany ubers,rhizones,stalks, and leaves. Scarring s usuallysmall and possessesfeather erminationshat are most often medium-deElnedntheir nteriorborders i.e., one caneasilyseethe terminations,

but they are not deeplycut into the stone in the mannerofhingedand steppedscars; see FIG. 8). Often very soft sub-stances such as meat do not producereal feather-terminatedscars, scalar in plan view, at all. Instead the edge appears"roughened,"nd thetiny removals re rregularnshapeandappear o have beenremovedat different ngles.Striations, fpresent,are usually aint, thoughpolish s frequentf the toolis used ong enough,and sometimes isible o the nakedeye.2. Soft medium. oftwoods, particularlyf coniferous rees,are typical of this category, though firm but pliable sub-stances, uchas freshstalks,may also be included.Becauseofa relatively eep penetrationnto the substancebeingworked,scarring s often fairlylarge (i.e., visible to the nakedeye),particularly n unretouched dges with relatively ow edgeangles.It also tends to be feather erminated nd frequentlypoorlydefined, he interiorborders f the individual carsbe-ing barelyvisibleunder he microscopee.g., FIG. 9). Scarringon blunt or retouched dgesis usuallynot as invasiveas thatdescribed bove,a point illustrated y Figure5.3. Hardmedium.Oftenassociatedwith hardwoodssuch asoak and manzanita,althoughsoaked antlerand fresh bonecan produce similar characteristics.Scarring is typicallyhinged and medium-to-largen size, while striationsandpolishare not infrequent.Thewearon the fish knife FIG. 7) iSrepresentativef use on materials f this resistancelass.4. Hard. Usuallybone and antler, houghhard, drywoodcan producesimilarwear.Damage frombone can usuallybedistinguishedromantler, f both arein the samestate (e.g.,fresh).If one is freshand the otherdriedout, or if one is dryandthe othersoaked,however,damage hangesaccordingly,sometimeseven causingreversals f whatone might expect.For the purposeof this test, the aforenamedmaterialsweresimply umped ntothe samecategory.Most diagnostic f thistype of wear is scarringwith stepped erminationssee FIGS.Io-ll). Medium-to-largen size, it frequentlyundercuts helateralmargin,causingconsiderable amage.Althoughstria-tions and polish do appear, they are frequentlyremovedshortlyafter formationby the extensive carring. mplementutilizedon hard materials or even a moderately ong timeusually ncurenoughabrasive riction o sufferedge rounding,onceenoughof theedgehasbeenremoved ostabilize t.

It shouldbe notedthat wehave ndicated lsewhere,4by distinguishing etweengradesof soft andhard sub-stances,a greaterspecificityof worked material hanthatattained n thispaper.Ourreasons or pursuinghepresentcourse of action are the following.First, al-though animal and vegetal substances of lesserresistance anoften be distinguishedrom one another,severalof our experimentshave suggested hat this isfrequentlya difficult task. Second,substancesof con-

49. Tringham et al., op. cit. (in note 2); Odell, op. cit. (in note 3);Odell, op. cit. (in note 15); G. H. Odell, "The Morphological Expressat Function Junction: Searching for Meaning in Lithic Tool Types,"(manuscriptpresentedfor publication).8. See, for exarnple,Odell, op. cit. (in note 15).


17/35

102 Reliability f Lithic Use-WearAssessment/Odell nd Odell-Vereeckensiderable resistancewere consolidated, even though"hard" e.g., bone, very hardwoods) and "very hard"(e.g., antler)materials re able to bedistinguished singthese techniques.Here some explanation s necessary.Odell had previously onducteda similar eriesof blindtestswithone of his students a "dry run," so to speak,that is discussed ater in this report).Some of the stu-dent's experimentshad includedantler that had beensoaked in water for severaldays, a process that ren-dered the antlermore easilyworkableandcausedcon-siderably"lighter"wear on tool edges thanthatcausedin previous experimentationwith non-hydratedagedand fresh antler i.e., greatly reduced frequency ofbreakageremovalsand step scarringwith a correspon-dingly increased frequency of feather- and hinge-terminatedremovals.Tool edges utilized on hydratedantler from the first test series were consistentlyas-sessed to have been used on less resistantsubstances,usually in the hardmediumrange which, in fact, theantler appears o have become,makingthe assessmentprobablycorrect after all. The samephenomenonateroccurred with tools numbers 4 and 19 of Odell-Vereecken'series.This situation created a dilemma.We know of noethnographic ccountsof antlerhavingbeensoaked fora long time beforebeingworked.On the otherhand, itis more likely that prehistoricpeoplewouldhave usedfresh antler, and ethnographic ccountsof the seasonalpatternsof severalcircumpolarAmericanNativeforag-ing cultures ndicatethatautumn s the time for peopleto engage in the hunting of large mammalsand thefashioningand maintenanceof subsistenceequipment,of which some were made of antler.5We can safelyassumethat the temporalcoincidenceof these two ac-tivities(huntingandequipmentmaintenance)s signifi-cant, that the primecondition of antlerduringthe fallruttingseasonof wild ungulateswas an inducement oengage n hunting heanimals nthe firstplace,and thatmostantler, f used atall,was usedin thefreshstate.These considerationswere not discussedby the co-authorspriorto testing,becauseOdell-Vereeckeneganherexperimentation eforethe firstblind test with thestudenthad been conductedand before it was realizedthatsoaking mightcreatea problem.In interpretingheexperimentalpieces, however, Odell had to considersoaked antler an alternative,particularlybecause theexperimentswere performed n the late winter/spring50. J. J. Honigmann,"TheAttawapiskat wampyCree, an Ethno-graphicReconstruction,"Univ. of Alaska Anthropological Papers 5(1956)23-82;E. S. Rogersand J. H Rogers,"TheYearlyCycleof theMistassiniIndians,"Arctic 12 (1959) 130-138;E. S. Rogers,"TheRound LakeOjibwa,"Occasional Paper No. 5, Art andArchaeologyDivision,RoyalOntarioMuseum 1962).

and freshantlerwasnot readilyavailable. n doingso acertainconsistencyhad to bemaintained, ndit wasfeltmost prudentat the outset of the functionalanalysis oconsiderantler n any state as a hardmaterial thoughconsidering t hard mediumwould have scored betteron the test). Becauseof theseconsiderations t was feltmostprudent o consolidate hehardmaterialsnto onecategory a resultthat still gives a workabledegreeofspecificity.As previouslydiscussed,prehistoriccollec-tions should not offer this particularproblem andshouldallow greater pecificity o be attained.It was evidentfromthe outsetthat,of the functionacategoriesdescribedhere, workedmaterial s the mostdifficultto determine.This contention s supportedbythe fact that Keeley's lowest ratio of successful re-sponsesoccurredwith this category.The slightly owerfunctional pecificityattainedusing ow-powermethodsshouldnot mask the factthat a greatdeal of usable n-formation s retained.Forexample, venifexactworkedmaterialcannot be ascertained n a particularool, butthe materialworked was soft and the tool's movementcan be determinedto have been longitudinal to theutilizededge,then it is likelythat the implementwasen-gaged in the processingof food (because the vast ma-jority of experimentalmplementsyieldingthis type ofwear wereutilizedon edible tems).Addingthenumberof similarlyassessedpiecesshouldgive a roughindica-tion of the quantityof food-processing ools present nthecollection a figurethatcan beemployed n severalways in achievinga greaterknowledgeof theprehistoribehaviorof the humangroup with whichone is dealing.Similarly,f theedge of a tool has beenassessed o havemovedtransversallycrosssoft material, t is likely thatthe piecewas engaged n scrapingor rubbingof skins,and so forth. Functionaldeductions must, of course,take into account all known factors relevant to thecultural group being assessed(i.e., its temporalplace-ment, tseconomy,thevegetationprevailing t thetime,etc.). If a largenumberof thesefactorsareknown,theyprovidea body of informationwithinwhich the micro-wear data can be interpreted.Undertheseconditions,the potential contributionof the micro-weardata isconsiderable.D. Characteristicsof Damagefrom Prehension

Damage accruingthrough contact with a substancebeingworked s themostdiagnostic esultof theutiliza-tionprocess.Throughout hisprocess,however, he im-plement s in contactwithanothermaterial:he agent nwhich t is heldor by meansof which t ispropelled.Thisagent also frequentlycauses damage to the imple-ment damage that is sometimesconfusedwith use-wear. Despitethe occasional imilarity,hereareseveral


18/35

c

-- -

Journal f FieldArchaeology/Vol. 7, 1980 103features hat recuras a resultof prehension nd that canbe distinguished rom use-wear.Correct dentificationof these tracescan help to locate utilizedportionsof thetool that eitherescapednoticeor presented roblems. nany case, they provideadditional nformationby enabl-ing one to reconstruct he precisemanner n which thetool was held.A number of factors influencethe form of damageresulting rom prehension.Some of these, such as theamount of pressure xertedand the morphologyof theedge, may appear muted in their overall effects eitherbecause hey can be considered elatively onstant pres-sure) or becauseaberrances hat cause significant aria-tion are relatively nfrequent edge morphology).This isnot to say that they may not directlyaffect prehensiledamage n any particular ase, because hey have beennoted experimentallyo be occasionally he most inlpor-tant determinants f prehensilewear.Two otherfactors,however,appear o contributemore consistently o theformationof damage from prehension: dge angle andthe angle of contact between prehenderand lateralmargin. Using photographsof wear at certaincontactlocations on varioustools and diagrams f the way thetools wereheld, we shallendeavor o demonstratehe ef-fects of these variables.Since all implements n this ex-perimental eriesweremanuallyworked, n eachcase wewill be discussing he natureof the contactbetween ooledge and hand. Although eatherpads or other protec-tive coverings may alter the relative influence of thevariables nvolved, t has beenobserved hat suchaltera-tion is slight and that the essentialnatureof the contactremainsunchanged.Manual orcesareapplied o a tool edge by gripping tand wielding t on or against a substance.The humangrip exertsforces hat are basicallyunidirectional t anyone time on a given contact area,thoughdirectionmaychangeduringmanipulation. f pressure s sufficient ndangle appropriate, lakes will be removed rom the sur-face opposite the applied force. As representedschematically n Figure 13, theangle of applied orce isthe principal actor determining heform of the result-ing removalsand, hence,of the scarnegatives emainingon the tool edge. In general, the more direct (i.e., lessoblique) he pressure n the edge, the moredirectly ntothe body of the tool the waves of force proceed. Anangle of force oblique or perpendicular o the edgeproduces feather-terminated emovals (or half-moonshapedslicingscars,depending n otherconditions).Asthe angleof pressurebecomesmoreacute, he frequencyof hinge- and step-terminated scarring increases.Pressuredirectly through the plane bisecting he edgeresults n small, irregularly hapedremovals hat makethe marginappear"roughened."The form of removals

b

Figure 13. The effect of differing contact angles between appliedforce and lateral tool margin: a) oblique or perpendicular, b) acute, c)direct.

Figure14. The diffusenature f manual ontact reatesnot onelocalizedpressure oint,but several,distributed venlyat the locus ofapplied orce.resulting rom prehension s also partly a function ofthe angle of the edge. The effectsof this variablewill bediscussed hortly.The distributionof the resultant car negativesalonga tool margin s a functionof one basicanatomical act:the human finger is broad and fleshy relative to theedges of lithic implements.For this reason, a relativelylarge expanse of edge will necessarily ome in contactwith a firm, somewhatyielding mechanism hat exertsforce simultaneously hroughout he contact area. Be-cause of the diffusenatureof the contact,removals endto occur in aggregations, r bunches see FIG. 14). If anentireedge is under ntensepressure rom the hand andthe directionof appliedforce is constantrelative o themargin, hen therewill be essentiallyone aggregation fscars distributedunifaciallyand evenly down the edge.


19/35

-

Whittling ool no. 15, held as shown n Figure17f,hasa very thin edge at the point at which the forefingermade contact with it. In addition, the pressureexertedby the forefingerwas very obliqueto the lateralmargin.The result of this contact is a row of small feather-terminated cars of consistentsize and shape, removedfrom the ventralsurfaceof the flake at that point (i.e.,the upper urfaceas seen n FIG.17).Table2. Edgeanglesand scar erminations f the prehendedparts llustratedn Figure17 and photographedn Figures25and 18-23.Tool Polar Edge DominantNumber Co-ordinate Angle ScarTerminations

15 8 14 feather7 6 43 feather6 6 44 feather27 2 55 hinge/step14 8 57 feather9 1 65 crushed/step3 1 84 hinge

104 Reliability f Lithic Use-WearAssessment/Odellnd Odell-Vereecken

- c - D CKm - N

Figure S. Aggregation f hingedremovals n dorsal urface f a Figure16. Alternating lumpsof scarsproduced y changes n thebone borer tool no. 3, FIG. 2), causedby upward ressure f the direction f appliedprehensileorce tool no. 23,FIG. 3). ActualfOrefinger (FIG. 17a). Actual ength= 5.5 mm. length= 8 mm.

If these conditions prevail but force and/or contact ismore localized, then one or more smaller bunchesof scars may be removed. The resultantpattern maylook like the aggregation n Figure 15. If the directionofapplied force during tool manipulationchanges fromone side of an edge to the other, however, he resultantdistribution s likely to be characterized y clumps ofscars that alternate rom one surface o the other, as inFigure 16. Notice that this distribution s quite differentfrom the denticulated bifacial removals (each onealmost directlyopposed to one or moreremovalson theopposite surface) hat characterizemost types of move-ment hat are ongitudinal o the edge(seeFIG. 7).The mechanics of prehensile damage can best beunderstoodwith reference o the mannerby which ndi-vidual implementswere held. Seven experimental oolswere selected for demonstration, their manner ofprehension being illustrated in Figure 17. The edgeangles of the prehendedpolar co-ordinatesof these im-plements, measuredwith a goniometerat points ca. 2mm. from he edge, are isted n Table2.


20/35


a 7

15

Figure 17. Illustrations of the ways that seven of the experimental tools were held. a) Tool no. 3; b) no. 6; c) no. 7; d) no.9; e) no. 14; f) no. 15; g) no. 27.


21/35


4wEv-

Figure 18. Aggregation of feather-terminated prehensile scars on Figure 19. Aggregation of small scars on face opposite that of theventral surface of tool no. 7 (FIGS. 2, 17c), a result of pressure from the damage shown in Figure 18, slightly displaced laterally. Actual lengthforefinger. Actual length = 2.5 mm. = 4 mm.

Two of the other implementsmanifest similar pre-hensile wear. Graving tool no. 7 shows damage fromcontact with the forefingerat approximately he samearea of the tool relative o the workingpart FIG. 17c)asthe implementpreviouslydiscussed.A difference,how-ever, is that tool 7 is somewhat larger and thereforemakes contact furtherup the finger toward the palm.This positioning in the hand produced more directpressure gainst he edge than that produced n tool no.15, though it was still fairly oblique. In addition, thedirectionof pressureappears o have been inconstant,resulting n removals rom both the dorsal and ventralsurfacesat this point. This damage,consistingof alter-natingaggregations f small, eather-terminatedcars, spresented n Figures18 and 19 as it occurson either ur-face.The hemlock borer no. 6 (FIGS. 17b, 20) manifestsprehensilewear that appearsquite similar o the graverpreviously discussed. Comprisinga unifacial aggrega-tion of very small, feather-terminated emovals, theprincipal difference(aside from its unifaciality) s its

location relative to the working part. As indicated nFigure 17b, it results from oblique downwardpressureof the thumb on a fairlythin section of the edge near anatural notch. The nature of the contact here deter-mined that the scars would be not only clumped andremoved uniquely from the ventral surface, but alsofeather-terminated.It is appropriateat this juncture o observethat theprehended ateralmarginsdiscussedpreviouslyall pos-sess relativelyacute edge angles and feather-terminatescarring damage. The principal factor causing theseregularities as been the relatively bliqueangleof forceapplied to the lateral margin n each case. An obliqueangle of force can be expectedwith acute edges held inthe bare hand, since to changethe directionof pressuredrastically toward the edge itself would be likely toresult n injury o the worker's ingers.One findsthat asedge angles ncrease,prehensile amagemore requentlytakes the form of hinge and step fractures.The reasonfor this is partly that more pressure an be exertedonmore obtuse-angled dges without causingunnecessary


22/35

Journal of Field Archaeology/ Vol. 7, 1980 107

Figure 20. Group of small, predominantly feather-terminated Figure 21. Aggregated, unifacial step- and hinge-terminatedprehensile scars on ventral surface of tool no. 6 (FIGS. 2, 17b), a result removals from dorsal surface of tool no. 27 (FIGS. 4, 17g), produced byof downward pressure from the thumb. Actual length = 4 mm. pressure from the posteriorly supporting middle finger. Actual length= 2.5 mm.discomfort o the user, and partly that the intensityofpressurerequiredto cause damage to marginswithhigherangles s bothgreaterand more ikelyto producescars hat aresharplydefinedon their nteriorborders.For whatever eason, hetransitionbetween car ypesin the presentdata-setoccurs at around55. Two toolspossessedges of approximatelyhis angle, butthey beardifferent ypes of damage.Oneis the skin awl (tool no.14) llustrated n Figure 17e. Itspointof contactwith theforefingerexhibits very smalldorsalremovals hat arecontiguous, feather-terminated, and very poorlydelineatedon their interiorborders.Tool no. 27 (FIG.17g),however, has verydifferently hapedremovalsonits prehendedportion,althoughthe edge on which thedamageoccurs is slightly moreacutethan that of toolno. 14. The scars on the maple graver(tool 27) arehinge-andstep-terminated ndconsiderablyarger hanthose on the awl(FIG. 21).The differences in dislocatory damage reflect dif-ferences n how the tools were held and in how theiredgesmadecontactwiththe finger.Theobliqueupward

pressureof the forefingeragainst he sturdydistal mar-gin of tool 14 succeeded in driving off tiny feather-terminated cars, but the angle of contactwith the edgewas not directenough andthe pressurewas not intenseenough to create more extensive or more sharplydelineated emovals.Thegraving ool (no. 27)was helddifferently,however,resulting n differentanglesof con-tact. As illustrated n Figure 17g, the forefingerwasplaced on a flat surfaceand produced no discernibledamage,butuponuse theprojecting ightmarginof thepiece (at Rh/s) tended to imbed itself in the middlefinger, which was supporting the object posteriorly.Pressure n themiddle ingerbecame ntenseduringuseand bunchesof hinge- and step-terminated carswereremoved from the dorsal surface.It is significant hat,despitedifferencesbetween ools 14 and27 in theformof theprehensiledamageproduced, heirrespective cardistributionsemain contiguous,unifacial, and aggre-gated.As edge angle increases,the force necessary o re-move chips from a tool margin also increases. The


23/35

108 Reliability f LithicUse-WearAssessment/OdellndOdell-Vereeckendamage o prehended dgeswith lessacuteangles s fre-quentlya resultof pressures n themargin hatare moredirect than those necessaryto damage more acute-anglededges. A caseinpoint is tool no. 3, usedfor drill-ing bone. As shown in Figure17a,the tip of the fore-finger madeintensecontactwith the wide-angledpro-jection at Rh during the entirecourseof the activity.Resultingdamageconsists of small,contiguoushingedremovalsaggregated n thedorsalsurfaceFIG. 15).Anotheraspect of prehensile dgedamage s relevanthere.Thelateralmarginof astone usuallyconsistsof anangle formed by the two principal surfaces. Oc-casionally,however, the marginbecomesbatteredorroundedso that the angleof the edgediffersdependingon whereon the rounded urfaceonetakes themeasure-ment. Inthe present eriesof experiments,eadingsweretaken ca. 1-2 mm. back from the margin in order toprecluderounding or battering as a variable and toachieve a modicumof consistency.It shouldbe noted,therefore, hatthereadings ora fewedgesdo notreflectthe factthat the marginsareslightlyor extensivelybat-tered.Such a situationprevailsontheprehendeddge ofskin-scrapingool no. 9, the marginsof which arebat-teredbyintentional etouchandtheangleof which 65)doesnot reflect hisbattering.Theformand largesize ofthe implementmade it easiest to handleas shown inFigure 17d. Becauseretouchhad partiallyblunted theedges of the tool in contact with the hand, directpressurecould be exerted.This pressureremoved inyparticlesby comminutionandflattened he marginstillfurther FIG. 22). Although this type of prehensilewearcan be easilyconfusedwith damage romedgeprepara-tion forthe removalof flakesbypressure r indirectper-cussion,the factthat it was correctlyassessed n thepre-sent series of experimentsindicates that it can beisolated.Althoughmoreresearchsneededn the studyof dam-age to stone implements from manipulation, theprevious descriptions indicate the most salient anddiagnosticcharacteristics istinguished o far.The dis-cussion has stressedthe importanceof two variables(edge angle and natureof contact), but it should beemphasizedthat other variables such as edge mor-phology and amount of applied pressure also in-fluence the resultant orms of wearand can determinethedamagepatterns n individual ases.Damage rom aprehendingmechanismuch as a woodenhafthavebeendemonstratedto produce characteristics lightly dif-ferent rom thosecausedby manualgripping,5' fact ofconsiderableutility in assessingcollectionsof prehis-toric lithicartifacts.

Figure22. "Roughening"r crushing f prehended ortionof toolno. 9 (FIGS., 17d), a resultof directmanualpressure n theretouchededge.Actual ength= 4 mm.

E. ProceduresFunctional identificationswere performedwith aZeiss IIIstereomicroscope ithcapabilitiesanging rom6X to lOOX.Pieceswere first scanned at lOX,then at20X, and problematicareaswere observedat 30-1OOX.The light sourceemployed was the reflectingampat-tachedto the microscope.Tools werenot treated n anyway after they had been washed in the solutionsde-scribedabove.Theactualassessmentwasperformed n thefollowingmanner. A tool was selectedfrom the group and the

time was noted. It was observedandthe relevant um-mary informationwas listed. The tracesof wear andprehensionweredescribedn writingon another heetofpaper, totalling a paragraph in each case with anaverage f eightsentences.Upontermination f theexer-cise,the timewasnotedagainandrecorded.Although the basic formatof the experimentswaskept as similaras possible to that of Keeleyand New-comer, herearedifferencesn theinformation ecorded.For ease of placement, he location of wear traceswas1. Odell,op. cit.(in note 15).


24/35

Journal fFieldArchaeology/Vol.7, 1980 109oriented on an 8-polarco-ordinategrid, the polarco-ordinates P.C.s)beginningwithP.C. 1 at 12oclock ason a wristwatch,and continuingclockwise to P.C. 8,whichends at 12 o'clock.52Traces of prehensionwereorientedaccordingto the same system.Activitywasassessedwiththe stipulationsdiscussedpreviously,andworkedmaterialwas recordedon two scales:exactandrelative i.e., a 4-parthardness cale).Finally, he lengthof timetakenfor theentireexercise,ncluding canning,assessing,recording,and writingthe descriptivepara-graph,wasregisteredo thenearestminute.Evaluationf Results:Activity

Theresultsof theexperimentalblind ests"are istedin Table 3 and summarizedn Table4. "Grading"hetest was fairlystraightforward,xcept n 3 instances. ntwo of these, a wooden backingwas used in scrapingand in cutting pork skin. The answers"wood" and"hardmedium"weregiven 1/2 point in eachcase.Thethirdexceptionconcernsa tool forwhichtwo locationsand two differentactivitieswerepostulated.Onlyone ofthese wascorrect, o 1/2 pointwasawarded n the"usedpart"and"activity" olumn.Thewearon eachexperimentalmplementwillnotbedescribedhere individually, or to do so with 31 toolswould be both redundantand tedious. It is perhapsmoreinstructive o summarizehe informationnitiallyby presenting he numberof correct o total responsesfor eachcategory, irstaccording o theexperiment c-tually performed,next according o the experiment saswsessedy the analyst.Thatis, the denominatorn thefirst column consists of those activitiesactuallyper-formedor thosematerialsactuallyworked; hedenom-inator in the secondcolumnconsists of thoseactivitiesormaterials heanalyst houghtwerebeingperformedrworked.Results arepresentedby activity TABLE5), byexactworkedmaterialTABLE6), andbyrelativeworkedmaterialTABLE7).There is a high correspondence etweencorrect re-sponseand actualactivityfor the categoriesof cutting,scraping, boring, graving, and chopping (TABLE 5).Correspondencewithinthesecategoriesby assessedac-tivity is less, because mistakes on the unmentionedcategories end to be attributed o these. That is, dig-ging, pounding,grinding/crushing, nd ;;no activitywere not correctlydeterminedby the analyst, he wearresultingfrom these activitieshaving been incorrectlyplaced none of theotherfivecategories.Within he fivecategoriesmentionedabove, all have about the samesuccessratio;therefore,one cannot say that, for this

analystat least,one waseasieror moredifficult o iden-tifythananother.Since the principlesgoverning this analysis havealreadybeenenumerated,t would be redundanto dis-cuss the tools thatwerecorrectlyassessed.Let us turn,therefore,to those implementsthat were incorrectlyassessed, n order o ascertain heproblems ncounteredin theinvestigation.A. UsedEdges. LongitudinalA{otion

Two misjudgementsccurredon thosetools usedinmotions longitudinal to their lateral margins. Theutilizededge on one of these(no. 28, FIG.4) was badlybatteredbyretouch.Thelocationof useand therelativworkedmaterialutilizedwerecorrectly ssessedbut, ac-cording to notes made during the initialobservation"Some very small step scars (dorsal) and rougheninonly on the dorsal side make me think that thecuttingedgewasperhapsused o scrape omething oft-mediumlike tree bark." It was probably he change in micromorphologyof the edgethatcausedprimarilyunifaciadamageas aresultof asawingactivity.Use on the othercuttingtool (no. 17) was mistakefortracesof prehension.Becauseholdinga tool frequently causesunifacial carring,his damagewas mistakeforscrapingwearon a soft substance. t is interesting onotethat theassessmentmade nitiallyon this piecewatotallycorrect, even to the exactworkedmaterial,buthe investigator hangedhis mind.Ambivalence o thiextent is not common, though it does occur oc-casionally. It illustrates hat certainprehension racecan look verymuch ikeuse-wear, articularlyfthe toowasnot obviouslyused at another ocation.Although mightbesuspectedhat thesoftnessof theworkedmaterialcould contribute o an inability o observedamagtracesand, therefore, o a frequentambivalenceovewear patterns, the summary of results by relativworkedmaterialTABLE7) suggests hatsuccess n identifying soft substances s about averagefor those categories ested.B. UsedEdges. TransverseA{otion

Turning o thoseexperimentalools utilized n a motion transverse o theirworkingedges,one implemewas misclassifiedno. 30, FIG.4). Both lateraledges othe tool were batteredto the extreme by intentionretouch, henthe tool wasutilizedon softmaterial.Hathe analyst been assessing a prehistoric ollection,hwould have deemed the piece "functionallyundeteminable"and continued o the next item.The rules otheexercise,however,didnot allowthisalternative, ustipulatedhat ineachcase anassessmentmustbemadThe results n thiscasewerenegative: verythingposs2. Described in Odell, op. cit. (in note 23).


25/35

110 Reliability f LithicUse-WearAssessment/Odell nd Odell-VereeckenTable 3. Essential nformation n the experimentaleries. f the micro-wear esearcher as wrong, hatguess s indicatedbetweenparenthesesfor motions ongitudinal nd transverseo the edge, assessments if-ferent rom he exact activitybut within he correctgeneral ategorywerecountedas correct)."Time"meansthe lengthof time it took the micro-wear esearchero analyze he piece. "Prehended art" s that portionofthe tool judged o possess racesof havingbeen held n the hand."P.C." = polarco-ordinate, nd " 1/2"means 1/2 point was given for this assessment. Stroke" s the sameas that defined n Tringham t al. 1974,p. 184 (see footnote 2). The order n the table reflects he orderanalyzed or function. + = 1 point given.- = no points.

NumberPiece ofno. strokes1 3000

UsedHand pro- parttection (P.C.)no 2,4

+no 1

no 8

Prehendedpart Time n(P.C.) minutesEdge Activity Exactworkedangle material Relative workedmaterial34,40 sawing soft 5,8 15aw yams

2 1300 38 scraping gristle off cookedcow joint+ (douglas fir)

63 boring fresh cow bone+ +

soft medium 2,4,6

hard 1

12

81500soakeddeer hardantler drybone) +fish skin + bone hardmedium(hardwood) +

71000

5 1750

leather 8pad +no 6,7,8

70 boring

25,20,20 sawing 2 10

6 1200 leatherpad1,8 55,58 boring aged hemlock hard medium 3,6 12

+ + ++7 1500

no 4

no 7

64 graving freshcow bone+ +

hard+soft(hard medium)1/2soft(hard medium)1/2hard+

6 9

8 1000 35 cutting Pig skin onwood backing(hard wood)1/2

5

55 scraping Pig skin on+ wood backing(hard wood)1/2

+322000 no 5

10 3500 no 5 55 digging(boring)ground(fresh bone)

7 16

11 1500

12 3500

leather 2pad +no 1,8

(3)

73 chopping freshhemlock+ (wood) soft medium(hard medium) 7 13

85,90 Grinding +Crushing(chopping)

hazelnuts(bone) soft medium 5(hard) +


26/35

Journal f FieldArchaeology/Vol.7, 1980 111

Table3 (continued) PrehendedExactworked Relativeworked Part Time nmaterial material (P.C.) minutesNumber

Piece ofno. StrokesUsedHand pro- Part

tection (P.C.) EdgeAngleActivity

no 2,3 73,55 sawing seasoned hemlock hard medium 6(alder) (softmedium) ++

1013 1000

no 6 34 boring(graving)

uncooked pork softskin (vegetal: +celery)

1,7,8 124 1600

15 1000 no 1,2 42,26 whittling,scraping

freshhemlock softmedium 7,8 4+ + +

16 1500 no 2,3 45,50 slicing bark off fresh Wsoftmedium 7hemlock(meat) (soft) +

8

partly thawed softlamb leg +(vegetal: carrotsor potatoes)

4,8,3 20(4,8)1/2

17 3500 no 4(6,7)48 sawing(scraping)

not used(1,2) -

13(graving) -

- - -

(vegetal:bracken) soft medium) (3,4)-1819 1500

no 4(4,8)

54 Graving(graving +scraping)1/2

Soaked deer hard 2antler(hard wood) (hard medium) (1,2,7)

17

1/220 3000 no 7 73 scraping fresh maple soft mebranch

(soaked deer (hard)antler)

edium 6 1+ + +

21 2900 no 2,3 40,45 cutting vegetal: scallions soft(vegetal: carrots) + 4,8 17+

22 4000no 7

(7,8)pounding(sawing)

hazelnut shells hard medium 6,4 16(hardwood) + (6,7,4)- 1/2

23 750 leather 7pad +58 boring soakeddeer hardantler+ + 1,4,6,8 12

24 1500 no 7 62 graving(boring) cookedcow bone hard(seasonedhard +wood)

6(5,6)

14

1/225 1200 64 gravingleather 8pad (4,5) seasonedhemlockhardmedium 1+ + (1,6)1/2

ll


27/35

Table4. Computation f the results f the ndividual xperiments y category.Used part Activity Exactworkedmaterial Relativeworkedmaterial Prehended artP.C.24.5/31 = 79.0% 21.5/31 = 69.4% 12/31 = 38.7% 19/31 = 61.3% 23.5/31 = 75.8%If all wood is medium: wrong:5.5/31 = 17.7%21/31 = 67.7% no information /31 = 6.5%

112 Reliability of Lithic lJse- WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereecken

(continued)NumberofStrokes3000

UsedPart(P.C.)6,7,8+

PrehendedRelativeworked Part Time nmaterial (P.C.) minutessoft 1 2 13(hardmedium) +

Hand pro-tectionno

EdgeAngle65,54,58

Activity Exact workedmaterial

cutting grass+ (hard woodymaterial

high silicacontent)

27 850 no 4,5 98,37 gravingfresh maple(bone) soft medium 2

9

28 1000 no 1,8 70,35 sawing fresh maplebranch(scraping) (bark)

+

soft medium 17+

pork meat(soft vegetal:carrots)

soft(4,5)1/2

129 2100 no 3,4 30,30 cutting

60,48 scraping(cutting)

48 slicing, plan-ing

fat off porkskin soft(bone) (hard)soakeddeer hardantler douglas ir) soft medium)

2,3 16

11

30 1200

31 1200

leather 6,7pad (2,3)

no 7+

was attributed o the other category.These misjudge-ments are instructive n indicating hat wear from twoactivities s sometimessimilar enough to cause an oc-casional cross-overof assessed function, even thoughother aspectsof the damage relativeworkedmaterial nthesecases)may havebeencorrectly etermined.Experimentalool no 14 FIG. 3) iS a triangular, oint-ed instrument sedas an awl on freshly crapedpig skin.It was thought o have been a graverbecauseof the lackof roughening r other damage o the tip, as well as thepredominantly nifacialdamage o one of the edges. Itwas noted hatthe otheredgealso suffered omedamage,but that could have occurredby holding he implementdifferently on more than one occasion, causing theleading edged to alternatebetweenone and the other.

ble was misclassified.Fortunately, ntentionalretouchby battering o this extremedoes not occurveryoften inthe prehistoric ollectionswith whichwe are familiar. naddition, it will soon be shown that the presence ofretouchwas not a deterrent o assessing orrect unctionin most instancespresented y these ests. In some cases,however, uch as the presentone, the correctdetermina-tion of function by the techniquesemployedhere is averydifficultassignment, t leastfor this investigator.C. Used Projections. Borers and Gravers

Tools employedfor the purposeof boringpresentedthe same degreeof difficulty o the analystas those usedfor graving.In each category he one tool misclassified

Table 3Pieceno.26


28/35

Actual activity Assessed activity1. Longitudinal 9/11 9/112. Transverse 4/5 4/6.53. Bore 4/5 4/64.Grave 3.5/4.5 3.5/5.55. Dig 0/16. Pound 0/17. Chop 1/1 1/28. Grind/crush 0/19. No activity 0/1.5

21.5/3 1 21.5/3 1

Actualworkedmaterial Assessedworkedmaterial1. Softvegetal 2/3 2/62. Soft animal 1/6 0/13. Soft wood (fresh) 3/6 3/54. Hardwood (seasoned)3/3 4/105. Bone 2/5 2/76. Nut 0/27. Earth 0/18. Antler 1/4 1/29. No use 0/1

12/3 1 12/3 1

Table7. The ratio of correct o total responses or eachrelativeworkedmaterial ategory, irstaccording o the sub-stanceactuallyworked,next by the material s assessedbythe investigator.Workedmaterial Actualworked Assessedworkedmaterial materiall.Soft 6/9 5/62. Softmedium 3/8 3/63. Hardmedium 5/6 6/104. Hard 5/7 5/95. None 0/1

19/3 1 19/31Upon re-assessmentshe wear on the tool still appearssomewhatambiguouss nd one could probably nterpretit eitherway.The sametypes of ambiguity haracterizehe deliber-

Journal f FieldArchaeology/Vol. 7, 1980 113ations upon the graverassessed o have been a drill no.24, FIG. 3). A gravingfunctionwas initiallyconsideredfor this tool but was rejected or a numberof reasons.First, damage to the tip itself was considered to besomewhat less extensive than that on the sides awayfrom the tip, a characteristicmore of a boring han of agravingactivity.Second, he trailing dge had frequentlymade contact with the bone being incised,causingcon-siderableabrasionand notching reminiscent f havingbeen twisted n a hole. And third, bifacialscarringnearthe point has characteristicsof having been twistedrather than drawn in a groove. Upon re-inspection fthe implement he wear becomes more understandablas having been produced by a graving motion, but itwould take a very practiced ye to determine ts correctfunction.D. MiscellaneousActivities

Four tools wereemployed n activities or whichtheyare the sole representatives, f which three were incor-rectly assessed.The digging implement no. 10, FIG. 2)was thought to have been utilized n boringa hardsub-stance, because it possesses numeroushinge fractureon edges emanating rom the tip. These are bifacialonone edge and predominantly nifacialon the other, andthey suggest a twisting motion as with a drill. In addi-tion, striationswere observed,but they werethought orun around the point. Upon closer inspectionafter thetest was finished, scratches eading straightback fromthe point were recognized, providing the necessarevidence that the tip had penetratedsome substanclongitudinally,ratherthan having been twisted as in adrilling motion (see FIG. 23). The excessiveabrasionofthe sides near the tip and the tip itself suggest hat thesubstanceworkedwas quite resistant. n re-assessingheweartracesafterthe initialobservation, t is evident hatthe markingsnecessary or the correctdetermination ffunction n this case were present.They were udged n-

Table5. The ratioof correct o total responses or eachcategory, irstaccording o the activityactuallyperformed,next by activityas assessedby the investigator.

Table6. The ratio of correct o total responses or eachexactworkedmaterial ategory, irstaccording o the substance c-tuallyworked,next by material s assessedby theinvestigator

Figure 23. Abrasion on the tip of digging implement no. 10(FIG. 2),consisting of excessive rounding and striations parallel to the mainaxis of the piece. Actual length = 2.5 mm.


29/35

114 Reliability of Lithic Use-WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereeckenscars, heedgein questionappears o havebeenutilizedBut,once again,a suitableexplanation or thisdamageis lacking.53Evaluationf Results:WorkedMaterial

Thenumberof mistakes ommittednjudgingrelativeworkedmaterialwas slightlyhigherthan that for ac-tivity(TABLE7). Threepieces the nutgrinder, he skinscraper, and the unutilizedflake were totally mis-calculatedand havealreadybeendiscussed.The othersshow some interestingtendencieswhen analyzed bycategory.A. Soft

Tools used on soft substances hat were incorrectlassessedwere,of course, udgedto havebeenutilizedonhardermaterials.In two cases the pieces workedonthe wooden plank(nos. 8 and 9) this assessmentwasessentiallycorrectandwasgivenhalfcredit.It is worthmentioningthat the materialnoticed was the hardeof the two, a resultthat is quitecommonwhentwo ormoresubstances f unequal esistance reworkedbythesameedge.Theothermisjudgedmplementutilizedon soft material is a flake (no. 26, FIG. 4), the retouchededge ofwhichwas usedto cutcommon awngrass.Three hou-sandstrokeson thismaterialproducedanunmistakab"corngloss" (FIG. 24) of the sortdiscussedby CurwenWhitthoft, Kamminga,and others.54Odell, who hasstudiednumerouspiecesused in prehistoricimesthatdisplay his sortof polish,55ecognizedt as suchimme

53. Thebasaltwasknappedon a largepieceof canvas yingon thefloor of the basementof the Museumof Man at the UniversityoBritishColumbia.On the canvaswas a multitudeof debrisfrompreviousknapping pisodes.Thefreshlyknapped toneswereplacein a box andcarriedhome,where heywereutilized.Theywere hentransportedo the author'soffice at U.B.C., lyingon the shelf foseveraldaysbeforeanywear on themwasexamined.Theperiodbetweenknappinghestoneandinvestigatinghe use-wear onsistedo2-3months,duringwhich imetheylaydormant exceptduring heiutilization), utcouldhavebeensubjectedo a number f forces,bothas a resultof theeventsdescribed boveor through omeothercaus(G.H.O.).54. E.C. Curwen,"Prehistoric lintSickles,"Antiquity4 (1930)179186;J. Witthoft,"GlazedPolishon FlintTools,';AmAnt 32 (1967383-388;J. Kamminga,"The Nature of Use-Polishand AbrasivSmoothing on Stone Tools," Lithic tJse-Wear Analysis, BriaHayden, d.(NewYork,SanFrancisco ndLondon1979)143-157.55. G. H. Odell,"A StatisticalAnalysisof theChippedStoneComponentof a Sample romthe StarcevoHabitationSiteof Banja,Serbia, Yugoslavia,"Divostin, D. Srejovicand A. McPherron, ds(Belgrade,npress).

correctlybecauseof carelessness nd,probably,becausetheanalystsimplydidnot anticipatehatthissomewhatextraordinaryctivitymightoccur.Anotheruniquepiece,thefunctionof whichwascom-pletely unanticipated,was no. 22 (FIG. 3) employed npoundinghazelnutson a woodenbackingto cracktheshells.The damageresulting romthis activityconsistsof medium-to-largesized removals, distributed ir-regularlyon this irregularlyhapededge,andmistakenforan inexpertandmaladroit ortof retouch which heauthorsareperfectly apableof producing).The"wear"that was recognizedon this piece is totally confusing,because t is uninterpretablehroughanyknowncause.It consists of abrasionand b

Odell Odell

Documents

Transcript of Odell Odell