A citation network analysis of lithic microwear research

Dunmore, Christopher J.; Pateman, Ben; Key, Alastair

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2018.01.006

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the last decades, several researchers have pointed out limitations of the applied methods and protocols (Collins 2008;Dibble et al 2017;Shea 1987;Dunmore et al 2018). These limitations are often related to the following main issues: (1) archeological sampling and selection methods, (2) the lack of a clear and rigorous experimental framework, (3) the lack of a standardized analytical framework, (4) subjective description of the wear traces, and (5) the absence of a holistic approach when interpreting tool use.…”

Section: A Critical Review and New Insightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Failing to do so, strict quantitative studies will be limited in their impact, as many researchers are not able to assess them and therefore integrate them in their projects (Calandra et al 2019a). In parallel to this, additional standards and protocols need to be established, for example, concerning sample preparation procedures, including cleaning, archiving, and other processes such as molding and casting samples (Dunmore et al 2018;Cnuts and Rots 2018;Langejans 2010;Macdonald et al 2018). Although several protocols (e.g., cleaning solutions, Macdonalds and Evans 2014, Ollé and Vèrges 2014) have been published lately that seem suitable for the visual identification of use-wear traces, it still needs to be evaluated how these procedures affect the surface microtopography.…”

Section: Lack Of Standardization In Data Acquisition and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the current state-of-the-art in functional analysis heavily relies on experimental reference collections that aim to replicate past potential uses and understand the formation process of identifiable diagnostic traces, to which the archeological material can be compared (Coles 1979). Nevertheless, although inferring tool use was embedded in archeological research very early, the history of traceological studies is marked by several conceptual shifts and methodological improvements (Bicho et al 2015;Dunmore et al 2018;Marreiros et al 2015). The discipline has faced many adjustments and developments according to changes in its methodological and theoretical scope and in the main research questions (Longo andSkakun 2008, Evans et al 2014;Stemp et al 2015;van Gijn 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Rethinking Use-Wear Analysis and Experimentation as Applied to the Study of Past Hominin Tool Use

Marreiros

Calandra²,

Gneisinger³

et al. 2020

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In prehistoric human populations, technologies played a fundamental role in the acquisition of different resources and are represented in the main daily living activities, such as with bone, wooden, and stone-tipped spears for hunting, and chipped-stone tools for butchering. Considering that paleoanthropologists and archeologists are focused on the study of different processes involved in the evolution of human behavior, investigating how hominins acted in the past through the study of evidence on archeological artifacts is crucial. Thus, investigating tool use is of major importance for a comprehensive understanding of all processes that characterize human choices of raw materials, techniques, and tool types. Many functional assumptions of tool use have been based on tool design and morphology according to archeologists' interpretations and ethnographic observations. Such assumptions are used as baselines when inferring human behavior and have driven an improvement in the methods and techniques employed in functional studies over the past few decades. Here, while arguing that use-wear analysis is a key discipline to assess past hominin tool use and to interpret the organization and variability of artifact types in the archeological record, we aim to review and discuss the current state-of-the-art methods, protocols, and their limitations. In doing so, our discussion focuses on three main topics: (1) the need for fundamental improvements by adopting established methods and techniques from similar research fields, (2) the need to implement and combine different levels of experimentation, and (3) the crucial need to establish standards and protocols in order to improve data quality, standardization, repeatability, and reproducibility. By adopting this perspective, we believe that studies will increase the reliability and applicability of use-wear methods on tool function. The need for a holistic approach that combines not only use-wear traces but also tool technology, design, curation, durability, and efficiency is also debated and revised. Such a revision is a crucial step if archeologists want to build major inferences on human decisionmaking behavior and biocultural evolution processes.

show abstract

Section: A Critical Review and New Insightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Lack Of Standardization In Data Acquisition and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rethinking Use-Wear Analysis and Experimentation as Applied to the Study of Past Hominin Tool Use

Marreiros

Calandra²,

Gneisinger³

et al. 2020

J Paleo Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along with residue analysis, the study of microscopic use-wear is one of only two currently known methods for obtaining information on how a prehistoric stone tool was used. Despite significant advances in the study of stone tool use-wear 1,2 , most interpretations of use from wear traces left by worked materials still rely on analogies between experimental and archaeologically documented phenomena, rather than on an accurate understanding of the processes underlying these phenomena 3 . Among the different use-wear traces, it is widely believed that polishes hold important information for identifying and distinguishing the materials that were worked with ancient stone tools [4][5][6][7] .…”

Section: Polished Edges Of Archaeological Stone Tools Are Commonly Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mineralogy and structure of use-wear polish on chert

Schmidt

Rodriguez

Yanamandra

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polished edges of archaeological stone tools are commonly investigated to obtain information on the tools’ uses in prehistory. Yet to this day, it remains unclear what exactly such polishes are and how they form. Answering these questions should allow the elaboration of new interpretative methods based on objective measurements. Two major competing hypotheses of polish formation have been proposed: abrasion and the formation of a thin amorphous film on the chert or flint surface. We employ reflectance infrared spectroscopy, a technique particularly sensitive to thin amorphous films, to investigate these two hypotheses. We found no added amorphous layer that would have formed upon friction against bone, antler, ivory or wood. Our observations suggest polish formation by abrasion, notwithstanding previous claims of added amorphous surface structures. This has implications for our understanding of the physical processes taking place during friction of chert and flint against different materials. Our results also open the possibility to propose new pathways for identifying different use-wear processes, based on the degree of abrasion.

show abstract