Atomic force microscopy of microwear traces on Mousterian tools from Myshtylagty Lagat (Weasel Cave), Russia

Abstract

Since durable technology emerged between 3.4 and 3.2 million years ago, stone tools served as a major material means that hominins used to survive. Determining how different lithic tools functioned is a principal question in human evolution. The main experimentally based approach to the functional study of lithic technology uses stereo and incident-light microscopy, and is known as the Keeley Method. Although this method has demonstrated success in linking the morphology of microwear traces on flint tools to the function of the tool, there is no agreed upon model of how these microwear polishes form. At the same time, the characterization of these polishes has been a largely qualitative process. Herein, we use the atomic force microscope (AFM) to scan microwear traces on Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) tools from Weasel Cave, Russia to show quantitative data and small scale features of microwear polishes interpreted (using the Keeley Method) as due to contact with meat, fresh hide, dry hide, bone, wood, and hafting. These results follow those of to the previous AFM study on the experimental tools, namely that the meat and dry hide polishes are the least developed polishes with smaller changes in roughness and that the bone polish and wood polishes are more highly developed polishes and exhibit larger changes in roughness.

Testing Area‐Scale Fractal Complexity (Asfc) and Laser Scanning Confocal Microscopy (LSCM) to Document and Discriminate Microwear on Experimental Quartzite Scrapers

“…; Faulks et al . ; Stemp et al . ) and there have been numerous additional developments involving a variety of new approaches and equipment that have greatly expanded upon earlier work (e.g., Lerner et al .…”

“…In the decade or so that followed, more microwear analysts applied techniques and technologies from metrology and tribology to mathematically document the surfaces of stone tools on micro-and nanoscales. In particular, the work of the early practitioners of lithic microwear quantification has continued (e.g., Anderson et al 2006;Faulks et al 2011;Stemp et al 2009) and there have been numerous additional developments involving a variety of new approaches and equipment that have greatly expanded upon earlier work (e.g., Lerner et al 2007Lerner et al , 2010Evans and Donahue 2008;Stevens et al 2010;Evans and Macdonald 2011;Stemp and Chung 2011;Stemp et al 2013Stemp et al , 2015bEvans et al 2014;Lerner 2014;Macdonald 2014;Stemp 2014).…”

“…Although archaeologists have used a number of different measurement systems to document microwear on stone tools, including interferometry (Anderson et al 2006;Vargiolu et al 2003), laser profilometry (Stemp 2014), atomic force microscopy (AFM) (Faulks et al 2011) and focus variation microscopy (FVM) (Macdonald 2014), this research project relied on laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM) (Evans and Donahue 2008), specifically the Olympus LEXT OLS4000 laser scanning confocal microscope (LSCM). Like some of the other technologies mentioned above, the LSCM provides the ability to view the surfaces to be measured much like metallurgical microscopes (e.g., Keeley 1980) and can produce a three-dimensional image of the scanned surface based on the mathematical documentation of the elevations of the surface on a microscale ( Fig.…”

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

“…Numerous studies have shown its potential to infer parameters of the actions performed with a prehistoric artefact, like use duration, worked material, motion direction, or force during use. Many have recently presented protocols attempting to show quantitatively the effect of use duration (Evans et al, 2014;Lerner et al, 2007), worked material (Evans and Donahue, 2008;Faulks et al, 2011;Stemp et al, 2010Stemp et al, , 2009Stemp and Chung, 2011;Stevens et al, 2010) and also direction of motion (Anderson et al, 2006;Vargiolu et al, 2003) on the micro-wear pattern.…”

Quantifying Microwear on Experimental Mistassini Quartzite Scrapers: Preliminary Results of Exploratory Research Using LSCM and Scale‐Sensitive Fractal Analysis

“…Although some lithic use‐wear research has focused on various techniques that rely on two‐dimensional image analysis of worn stone tool surfaces, such as work by Barceló and Pijoan‐López (), Pijoan et al (), Barceló et al (), Dumont (), Gonzalez‐Urquijo and Ibañez‐Estevez (), Grace et al (), and Vila and Gallart (), among others, there has been recent interest in the application of methods that rely on documentation of surface roughness or texture using metrology, specifically laser profilometry (Stemp et al , , , ; see Stemp and Stemp, , ), atomic force microscopy (AFM) (Kimball et al , , ; Faulks et al , ), laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM) (Evans and Donahue, ; Evans and MacDonald, ; Stemp and Chung, ; Stevens et al , ), optical interferometry (Anderson et al , , ), and differential contrast microscopy (e.g., Alicona Infinite Focus) (Evans and MacDonald, ). Advantages associated with metrological study of stone surfaces include the production of data in three‐dimensions and the micro‐ to nanoscale level of surface measurement possible.…”