Abrasive and impact wear of stone used to manufacture axes in Neolithic Greece

Abstract

Excavations at the Neolithic settlement at Makriyalos in Northern Greece brought to light a large number of stone axe heads, the majority of which were manufactured from serpentinite and igneous rocks. Detailed study of the manufacturing traces on the archaeological implements identified that both percussive (pecking) and abrasive techniques (sawing and grinding/polishing) were employed for the production of the axes. There is limited evidence, however, of how these processes may have been undertaken.The aim of this work was to build on previous research investigating sawing and polishing methods and the materials that may have been used in these tasks.Modern samples of two types of serpentinite and a dolerite were collected from the environs of the archaeological site. These were tested for strength and porosity. Through archaeological research the materials available to Neolithic people were established and some testing was carried out to establish sliding speeds and loads and percussive impact velocities achievable by a human to feed into the tribological test design.Pin-on-disc wear tests were carried out using quartz, chalcedony and sandstone as the pin material in wet and dry conditions to study sawing and polishing behaviour. Reciprocating tests were carried out using leather and combinations of lubricant (animal fat and water) and abrasive medium (sand) to study effects on polishing. Percussive impact tests were also carried out.The tests indicated that with certain combinations of materials and test conditions, both sawing and polishing could be achieved. A series of stages for the polishing were identified which are in line with observations made by archaeologists.

Influence of force and duration on stone tool wear: results from experiments with a force-controlled robot

“…Some researchers used basic kinematic structures for controlled guidance of lithic replicas in tasks like scraping (Tomenchuk, 1985), threshing (Anderson et al, 2006;Vargiolu et al, 2003) or milling (Dubreuil et al, 2015). Others used commercial pin on disk tribometers (Lewis et al, 2011), scratch testers (Astruc et al, 2003), or custom designed machines (Collins, 2008;Tomenchuk, 1985). Tomenchuk (1985) designed a basic electrically powered kinematic 'wear-tester' to perform linear scraping strokes with the specimen on exchangeable undergrounds.…”

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

“…As most experimental designs involve different variables and the first generation experiments seek the identification of major variables, these need to be tested individually in order to assess and evaluate their effect-causation and correlation with other variables in the experiment. Based on this evaluation, the second generation experiments often use mechanical or automated apparatuses which drastically reduces human variability, all the while controlling and manipulating system variables (Aldeias et al 2016;Dibble and Rezek 2009;Eren et al 2011;Iovita et al 2013;Key 2016;Magnani et al 2014;Schmidt et al 2019;Astruc et al 2003;Collins 2008Lewis et al 2011Pfleging et al 2019;Tomenchuk 1985;Calandra et al 2020).…”

Stone Dead: Uncovering Early Mesolithic Mortuary Rites, Hermitage, Ireland

“…It has been suggested that a relatively hard lithology, such as quartz sandstone, along with water and ash for lubrication, could have been used in Ireland (Cooney & Mandal 1998, 13). Lewis et al (2011) have suggested the use of leather, an abrasive, probably sand, and a lubricant, such as animal fat and water.…”