Blind tests shed light on possibilities and limitations for identifying stone tool prehension and hafting

Points and convergent tools in the European Early Middle Palaeolithic site of Payre (SE, France)

“…Retouch affects two convergent edges. We also carried out morphometric analyses, using experimental and ethnoarchaeological references (McCormick, 1940;Evans, 1957;Flenniken and Raymond, 1986;Frison, 1989;Wilke and Flenniken, 1991;Tankersley, 1994;Dockall, 1997;Jahren et al, 1997;Shea, 1998;Hutchings, 1999;Sellet, 2004;Rots, 2003;Rots et al, 2006;Weedman, 2006). We tested the ''tip crosssectional area'' (TCSA) method, proposed by Hughes (1998) and developed by Shea (2006).…”

Laser scanning confocal microscopy: a potential technique for the study of lithic microwear

“…Numerous blind test studies over the past three decades have had variable 'success' (Bamforth et al, 1990;Gendel and Pirnay, 1982;Grace et al, 1988;Newcomer et al, 1986Newcomer and Keeley, 1979;Rots et al, 2006;Shea, 1987;Shea and Klenck, 1993). Whilst there have been several questions as to the adequacy of the experimental design of such studies and how results may therefore have been skewed (Bamforth, 1988;Hurcombe, 1988;Moss, 1983;Newcomer et al, 1988), these tests indicate the potential for improvement and highlight the need for more objective and reliable methods.…”

The morphological identification of micro-residues on stone tools using light microscopy: progress and difficulties based on blind tests

“…This feedback approach to blind testing is underscored by sophisticated studies carried out by other researchers (e.g. [21]). The main residue identification problem highlighted in Test 1 was the tendency to confuse certain faunal and plant residues.…”