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

In the last few years, the application of quantitative methods in the field of use wear analysis has grown considerably, involving the use of different techniques. A development in surface measurements approaches has become necessary as standard assessments based upon qualitative functional analysis are often affected by a degree of subjectivity and a limited reproducibility. To advance the current methodological debate on functional analysis of ground stone technology, we present a combined methodological approach, including qualitative and quantitative analyses, applied to the study of experimental sandstone ground stone tools. We test surface quantification at a macro and micro-scale, paired with the observation and description of residue and use wear connected to the processing of plant, animal and mineral matters. Our results provide an exhaustive quantitative dataset concerning surface modifications associated with different uses and suggest an analytical workflow for the functional analysis of both experimental and archaeological ground stone assemblages. We also highlight the limitation and pitfalls of an exclusive adoption of quantitative methods in the study of ancient tool use demonstrating how a synergetic approach can enhance the quality, reproducibility and comparability of functional data.

[1]  Laure Dubreuil,et al.  Ground stones: a synthesis of the use-wear approach , 2014 .

[2]  A. Ollé,et al.  Monitoring and interpreting the use-wear formation processes on quartzite flakes through sequential experiments , 2017 .

[3]  M. Lombard Distribution Patterns of Organic Residues on Middle Stone Age Points from Sibudu Cave, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa , 2004 .

[4]  M. Peresani,et al.  An integrated method for understanding the function of macro-lithic tools. Use wear, 3D and spatial analyses of an Early Upper Palaeolithic assemblage from North Eastern Italy , 2018, PloS one.

[5]  S. Malaivijitnond,et al.  Analysis of wild macaque stone tools used to crack oil palm nuts , 2018, Royal Society Open Science.

[6]  R. Fullagar The role of silica in Polish formation , 1991 .

[7]  W. James Stemp,et al.  UBM Laser Profilometry and Lithic Use-Wear Analysis: A Variable Length Scale Investigation of Surface Topography , 2001 .

[8]  Danielle A. Macdonald,et al.  The application of focus variation microscopy for lithic use-wear quantification , 2014 .

[9]  C. Ratner Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology , 2002 .

[10]  I. de la Torre,et al.  Pitted stones in the Acheulean from Olduvai Gorge Beds III and IV (Tanzania): A use-wear and 3D approach. , 2020, Journal of human evolution.

[11]  George H. Odell,et al.  The Mechanics of Use-Breakage of Stone Tools: Some Testable Hypotheses , 1981 .

[12]  A. Ollé,et al.  A new combined approach using confocal and scanning electron microscopy to image surface modifications on quartzite , 2020 .

[13]  C. Hamon Functional analysis of stone grinding and polishing tools from the earliest Neolithic of north-western Europe , 2008 .

[14]  Hugues Plisson,et al.  Which analytical framework for the functional analysis of grinding stones ? The blind test contribution , 2005 .

[15]  Adrian A. Evans,et al.  On the importance of blind testing in archaeological science: the example from lithic functional studies , 2014 .

[16]  Paolo Cignoni,et al.  MeshLab: an Open-Source Mesh Processing Tool , 2008, Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference.

[17]  F. Monna,et al.  Quantifying cereal-reaping microwear on flint tools : an experimental approach , 2016 .

[18]  A. Achilli,et al.  Mitochondrial DNA variants of Podolian cattle breeds testify for a dual maternal origin , 2018, PloS one.

[19]  A. Queffelec,et al.  Quantifying lithic surface alterations using confocal microscopy and its relevance for exploring the Châtelperronian at La Roche-à-Pierrot (Saint-Césaire, France) , 2019, Journal of Archaeological Science.

[20]  Adrián Arroyo,et al.  Assessing the function of pounding tools in the Early Stone Age: A microscopic approach to the analysis of percussive artefacts from Beds I and II, Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania) , 2016 .

[21]  Matthew A. Gleason,et al.  Testing imaging confocal microscopy, laser scanning confocal microscopy, and focus variation microscopy for microscale measurement of edge cross-sections and calculation of edge curvature on stone tools: Preliminary results , 2019, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.

[22]  L. Wadley,et al.  Small things in perspective: the contribution of our blind tests to micro-residue studies on archaeological stone tools , 2007 .

[23]  J. J. Ibáñez,et al.  Identifying Experimental Tool Use Through Confocal Microscopy , 2018, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory.

[24]  T. Matsuzawa,et al.  Nut Cracking Tools Used by Captive Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and Their Comparison with Early Stone Age Percussive Artefacts from Olduvai Gorge , 2016, PloS one.

[25]  Adrian A. Evans,et al.  Laser scanning confocal microscopy: a potential technique for the study of lithic microwear , 2008 .

[26]  Ivan Calandra,et al.  Rethinking Use-Wear Analysis and Experimentation as Applied to the Study of Past Hominin Tool Use , 2020, Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology.

[27]  T. Matsuzawa,et al.  First GIS Analysis of Modern Stone Tools Used by Wild Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) in Bossou, Guinea, West Africa , 2015, PloS one.

[28]  R. Bobe,et al.  Quantifying Traces of Tool Use: A Novel Morphometric Analysis of Damage Patterns on Percussive Tools , 2014, PloS one.

[29]  W. James Stemp,et al.  A review of quantification of lithic use-wear using laser profilometry: a method based on metrology and fractal analysis , 2014 .

[30]  Jenny L. Adams Ground stone use-wear analysis: a review of terminology and experimental methods , 2014 .

[31]  R. Fullagar,et al.  Sandstone grinding/pounding tools: Use-trace reference libraries and Australian archaeological applications , 2018, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.

[32]  L. Kimball,et al.  Atomic force microscopy of microwear traces on Mousterian tools from Myshtylagty Lagat (Weasel Cave), Russia. , 2011, Scanning.

[33]  G. Langejans Remains of the day-preservation of organic micro-residues on stone tools , 2010 .

[34]  Carl-Fredrik Westin,et al.  A Novel Approach of Groupwise fMRI-Guided Tractography Allowing to Characterize the Clinical Evolution of Alzheimer's Disease , 2014, PloS one.

[35]  G. Odell,et al.  Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis , 1974 .

[36]  Andrea Zupancich,et al.  The application of 3D modeling and spatial analysis in the study of groundstones used in wild plants processing , 2019, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences.

[37]  Laure Dubreuil,et al.  Current Analytical Frameworks for Studies of Use-Wear on Ground Stone Tools , 2015 .

[38]  Adrián Arroyo,et al.  Quantifying 3D Micro-Surface Changes on Experimental Stones Used to Break Bones and Their Implications for the Analysis of Early Stone Age Pounding Tools , 2018 .

[39]  Alfonso Benito-Calvo,et al.  3D 360° surface morphometric analysis of pounding stone tools used by Hadza foragers of Tanzania: A new methodological approach for studying percussive stone artefacts , 2018, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.