Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T17:51:54.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments to Investigate the Effects of Heat Treatment on Use-wear on Flint Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2014

Deborah Seitzer Olausson
Deborah Seitzer Olausson*
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, University of Lund, S–223 50 Lund, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A series of twenty controlled experiments was undertaken to determine if heat treatment alters the speed, intensity, or appearance of wear on the edges of flint tools. Four hypotheses were tested with the following results: Heat-treated tools wore more quickly and with more severity than tools which had not been heated. When used in the same fashion and on the same materials, heat-treated flakes showed longer microflake removals from use than did non-heat-treated flakes. The use of these flint tools yielded more step and hinge flake terminations on the heat-treated tools than on the non-heat-treated tools. Flake scars from microflaking due to use had a shiny surface on flints which had been heat-treated, while such surfaces were matt on unheated materials. The results suggest that these effects should be taken into consideration when studies of use-wear are undertaken.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , 1983 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahler, S. A., 1979. ‘Functional analysis of nonobsidian chipped stone artifacts: terms, variables, and quantification’, in Hayden, B. (ed.), Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, 301–28. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Anderson, P. C., 1980. ‘A testimony of prehistoric tasks: diagnostic residues on stone tool working edges’, World Archaeol. 12(2), 181–93.Google Scholar
Bleed, P. and Meier, M., 1980. ‘An objective test of the effects of heat treatment of flakeable stone’, American Antiquity 45, 502–07.Google Scholar
Bonnichsen, R., 1977. Models for Deriving Cultural Information from Stone Tools. University of Alberta, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Brink, J., 1978. ‘The role of abrasives in the formation of lithic use-wear’, J. Archaeol. Sci. 5, 363–71.Google Scholar
Collins, M. B. and Fenwick, J. M., 1974. ‘Heat treating of chert: methods of interpretation and their application’, Plains Anthropologist 19, 134–45.Google Scholar
Crabtree, D. E., 1967. ‘Notes on experiments in flintknapping: 3. The flintknapper's raw materials’, Tebiwa 10(1), 8–24.Google Scholar
Crabtree, D. E., and Butler, B. R., 1964. ‘Notes on experiments in flint knapping: 1. Heat treatment of silica materials’, Tebiwa 7(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
Crabtree, D. E. and Gould, R. A., 1970. ‘Man's oldest craft re-created’, Curator 13(3), 179–98.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. and Garrison, E. G., 1975. ‘Thermally altered novaculite and stone tool manufacturing techniques’, J. Field Archaeol. 2, 125–31.Google Scholar
Hayden, B. (ed.), 1979. Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hester, T. R., 1972. ‘Ethnographic evidence for the thermal alteration of siliceous stone’, Tebiwa 15, 63–65.Google Scholar
Kamminga, J., 1979. ‘The nature of use-polish and abrasive smoothing on stone tools’, in Hayden, B. (ed.), Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, 143–57. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Keeley, L. H., and Newcomer, M., 1977. ‘Microwear analysis of experimental flint tools: a test case’, J. Archaeol. Sci. 4, 29–62.Google Scholar
Mandeville, M. D., 1973. ‘A consideration of the thermal pretreatment of chert’, Plains Anthropologist 18, 177–202.Google Scholar
Masson, A., Coqueugniot, E. and Roy, S., 1981. ‘Silice et traces d'usage: le lustré des faucilles’, Musée Guimet d'Histoire Naturelle de Lyon, fascicule 19 suppl., 43–51.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H., 1981. ‘The mechanics of use-breakage of stone tools: some testable hypotheses’, J. Field Archaeol. 8, 197–209.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H., 1982. ‘Emerging directions in the analysis of prehistoric stone tool use’, Reviews in Anthropology 9(1), 17–33.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. and Odell-Vereecken, F., 1980. ‘Verifying the reliability of lithic use-wear assessments by “blind tests”: the low-power approach’, J. Field Archaeol. 7, 87–120.Google Scholar
Olausson, D. S. and Larsson, L., 1982. ‘Heat treatment of flint in the Scandinavian stone age?’, Papers of the Archaeological Institute, University of Lund 4, 5–25.Google Scholar
Purdy, B. A., 1974. ‘Investigations concerning the thermal alteration of silica minerals: an archaeological approach’, Tebiwa 17, 37–66.Google Scholar
Schindler, D. L., Hatch, J. W., Hay, C. A. and Bradt, R. C., 1982. ‘Aboriginal thermal alteration of a central Pennsylvania jasper: analytical and behavioral implications’, American Antiquity 47(3), 526–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seitzer, D. J., 1979. ‘Form vs. function: microwear analysis and its application to Upper Paleolithic burins’, Papers of the Archaeological Institute, University of Lund 2, 5–20.Google Scholar
Sollberger, J. B. and Hester, T. R., 1972. ‘Some additional data on the thermal alteration of siliceous stone’, Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 21, 181–85.Google Scholar
Stafford, B. D., 1977. ‘Burin manufacture and utilization: an experimental study’, J. Field Archaeol. 4, 235–46.Google Scholar
Weymouth, J. W. and Mandeville, M., 1975. ‘An X-ray diffraction study of heat-treated chert and its archaeological implications’, Archaeometry 17(1), 61–67.Google Scholar
Wilmsen, E. N., 1968. ‘Functional analysis of flaked stone artifacts’, American Antiquity 33(2), 156–61.Google Scholar