Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T09:15:43.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Microwear Analysis of Prehistoric Stone Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2013

Get access

Extract

Archaeologists have used microscopes to study traces of use on the edges of prehistoric stone tools for many years, but the past decade has seen a tremendous increase in the technical sophistication and substantive contributions made by this branch of archaeological research. Our purpose is to summarize the basic approaches archaeologists take to microwear analysis, the potentials of these approaches, and the kinds of traces that microwear analysts examine.

Three forms of microwear analysis can be identified and are based on (1) the range of magnification, (2) the type of equipment, and (3) the type of traces examined. The first relies on stereoscopic microscopes, works at magnifications ranging from 10 to 75×, and examines patterns in the abrasion and chipping of tool edges during use. More recent research indicate s that important variation also exists in the way a tool surface is polished during use, and the second analytical approach examines differences in polish appearance as well as utilizing the techniques of the first method. Microwear polishes are visible at magnifications from 100× to 400× using binocular microscopes and incident illumination. Finally, the third approach relies on the scanning electron microscope (SEM) and very high magnifications to identify traces of materials on which the stone tools were used. In this discussion we emphasize the first two of these analytical approaches because very few analysts have used the SEM.

Type
Microscopic Analysis in Archaeology
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1989

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

1.Ahler, S., Missouri Archaeological Society Research Series 1 (1971); R. Tringham et al., J. Field Archaeology 1 (1974) p. 171-196.Google Scholar
2.Keeley, L.H., Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980) p. 3561; P.C. Vaughan, Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1985) p. 27-38.Google Scholar
3.Knutsson, K. and Hope, R., Archaeometry 26 (1984) p. 4961; M. Newcomer et al., J. Archaeological Sci. 13 (1986) p. 203-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bamforth, D., J. Archaeological Sci. 15 (1988) p. 1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Odell, G. and Odell-Vereecken, F., J. Field Archaeology 7 (1980) p. 87120.Google Scholar
6.Anderson, P.C., World Archaeology 12 (1980) p. 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Keeley, L.H. and Newcomer, M., J. Archaeological Sci. 4 (1977) p. 37.Google Scholar
8.Moss, E., British Archaeological Reports, International Series 177 (1983).Google Scholar