Quantifying Cereal-Reaping Microwear On Flint Tools: An Experimental Approach

Abstract

From the earliest Neolithic in the Near East to the last Chalcolithic cultures in Western Europe, certain flint tools have been used as sickles to harvest cereals. Such harvesting tools can be identified through use-wear analyses, because the cutting of herbaceous plants produces specific wear-traces on the working edge of flint blades. The aim of this work is to explore harvesting-driven microwear variability and, more particularly, intensity of use as a governing factor. To achieve this objective, an experiment was designed consisting in the production of flint replicas to be used as harvesting tools, in various controlled conditions. A simple, cost-effective method of quantifying wear-traces by measuring polish extent is developed, requiring only classical use-wear observation equipment. The polish extent shows monotonic correlation with the amount of work, expressed either in terms of time or as the quantity of cereals harvested. Polish extent measurement is therefore proposed as a reliable and powerful descriptor of use intensity.

Functional analysis of sandstone ground stone tools: arguments for a qualitative and quantitative synergetic approach

“…In this regard, several works have discussed the application of quantitative methods focused on surface measurements to knapped and ground stone tools (henceforth GSTs), at both macro and microscale [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] . A variety of equipment and techniques has been tested, including confocal microscopy 5,6,9,15 , atomic force microscopy 16 , surface textural imaging 17 , laser profilometry 9,18 and 3D modelling [11][12][13]14,19,20 . These works paved the way to a new era of functional studies where the objectivity and reliability of functional interpretation are perceived as counterposed against well-established qualitative use wear approaches.…”

Quantifying lithic surface alterations using confocal microscopy and its relevance for exploring the Châtelperronian at La Roche-à-Pierrot (Saint-Césaire, France)

“…This need for quantitative methods to overcome potential problems with comparability between qualitative analyses is not new (Grace et al, 1985). Recent technological developments in the field of usewear analysis, such as surface textural imagery (Knutsson, 1988;Linton et al, 2016), interferometry (Dumont, 1982;Anderson et al, 2006), atomic force microscopy (Kimball et al, 1995;Faulks et al, 2011) and 3D scanning (Grosman et al, 2011;Benito-Calvo et al, 2017), have helped to better characterize and compare microwear on stone and bone tools. More recently, confocal microscopy has proven to be a successful tool for quantifying use-wear on stone tools (Evans and Donahue, 2008;Evans and Macdonald, 2011;Giusca et al, 2012;Stevens et al, 2010;Stemp and Chung, 2011;Bofill et al, 2013;Stemp et al, 2013Stemp et al, , 2017Evans et al, 2014;Ibáñez et al, 2014aIbáñez et al, ,b, 2016Key et al, 2015).…”