Journal of Archaeological Science (1999) 26, 527–546

Article No. jasc.1998.0332, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of

Stone Tools
Lisa Kealhofer
Department of Anthropology, William and Mary College, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187–8795,
U.S.A.

Robin Torrence and Richard Fullagar

Division of Anthropology, Australian Museum, 6 College Street, N.S.W. 2000, Australia

(Received 14 January 1998, revised manuscript accepted 3 July 1998)

Analyses of phytolith assemblages extracted from residues on obsidian artefacts and from the surrounding soil matrix
of two sites in Papua New Guinea address two important methodological issues. First, multivariate analysis of
phytolith assemblages extracted from the edges of stone artefacts, from soil directly in contact with the artefact, and
from soil derived from the same archaeological context demonstrates the integrity of phytolith residues. Second,
reconstructions of tool use based on the analysis of phytoliths are compared with results from an independent
use-wear/residue study. The interpretation of phytolith assemblage variability enhances and strengthens the use-wear/
residue results. Finally, integrating the phytolith data within the broader use-wear/residue study produces significant
new findings about changes in obsidian tool-use in prehistoric Papua New Guinea.  1999 Academic Press

Keywords: PHYTOLITHS, STONE TOOLS, USE-WEAR, RESIDUES, HAFTING, OBSIDIAN,

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

Introduction sents a systematic attempt to evaluate the relationship

between phytolith residues and stone tool use.

P
lant residues have been noted on chipped
stone artefacts by archaeologists for some time
(Bruier, 1976; Shafer & Holloway, 1979;
Anderson, 1980; Hurcombe, 1992), however, few sys-
tematic attempts have been made to use this potentially
rich source of information for evaluating artefact use
(cf. Sobolik, 1996). A notable exception is the ongoing
work by a group of Australian archaeologists who
have been developing various experimental, labora-
tory, and archaeological techniques for plant residue
and use-wear analyses (e.g., Hall, Higgins & Fullagar,
1989; Fullagar, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1993a, b; Barton,
1991; Fullagar, Meehan & Jones, 1992; Loy, Wickler &
Spriggs, 1992; Barton & White, 1993; Loy, 1994;
Fullager, Furby & Hardy, 1996; Fullagar & Furby,
1997; Atchison & Fullagar, 1998; Fullagar, Loy &
Cox, 1998, 1992). Their residue work has primarily
focused on starch grains, although the potential for
interpreting phytolith residues was demonstrated by
Fullagar (1993a, b; Bowdery, n.d.) in a study
of one obsidian artefact from Papua New Guinea.
Although Sobolik (1996) noted phytoliths on stone
artefacts, an analysis of assemblage composition was
not undertaken. The pilot study reported here repre-
527
0305–4403/99/050527+20 $30.00/0
Two methodological issues were investigated: (1) the
integrity of phytolith residues and (2) interpretations of
artefact use based on phytolith assemblage compo-
sition and use-wear/residue analysis. First, in any cul-
tural context it is highly likely that there will be
incidental contact between stone artefacts and other
materials creating residues which may transfer phyto-
liths or other materials onto artefacts (cf. Bruier, 1976;
Barton, Torrence & Fullager, 1998). We tested for the
unique association of residue assemblages with stone
artefacts, by comparing phytolith assemblages from
residues with those from soil samples directly associ-
ated with the individual artefact and from soil samples
derived from the same archaeological context.
Second, interpretations of tool use based on the
analysis of phytolith assemblages extracted from resi-
dues on artefacts were compared with interpretations
of use-wear and residues using direct observation on
the same artefact. The two studies were conducted by
independent analysts as ‘‘blind tests’’. First, Fullagar
identified and recorded use-wear and residues. Next the
artefacts were sonically cleaned and the residue re-
moved was processed for phytoliths by Kealhofer. The
cleaned artefacts were later reassessed by Fullagar.
 1999 Academic Press
528 L. Kealhofer et al.
Willaumez
Peninsula
NEW
BRITAIN
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
0 200 400 km
0 2 4 km
N
Figure 1. Location of sites used in this study.
Analysis of phytolith residues and direct observation of
use-wear/residues provide distinct but complementary
types of information.
Use-wear analysis of stone artefacts contributes
a wide range of information about artefact use at a
rather general level. Mode of use (e.g., cutting, scrap-
ing, drilling) and broad categories of contact material
are typical outcomes. The analysis of residues can
substantially enhance this information if integrated
within a larger study based on use-wear. Residues,
however, should not be interpreted in the absence of
use-wear analysis since contamination may have oc-
curred (Fullagar, 1988; Fullagar, Furby & Hardy,
1996; Barton, Fullagar & Torrence, 1998).
Residues can accumulate on stone tools in a number
of ways. The most commonly considered residues are
those resulting from use. They can be also formed,
however, when a material is used as a haft or sheath to
protect hands or aid prehension or as decoration of the
tool: for example, paint, feathers, binding substances.
Finally, a residue may be created when an artefact
comes into accidental contact with a material. Since
residues result from a number of processes, it is
extremely important that analyses be undertaken to
discriminate between these and other potential forma-
tion processes. Our interpretation of phytoliths as
residues attempted to account for as many sources
as possible.
Whereas residue analysis can be an important aid for
many archaeological studies, our research illustrates
the particular importance of phytolith residues for
archaeological research in regions where organic pres-
ervation is generally poor. In the case study reported
here, phytoliths were found to be abundant on obsid-
FAO
FRL
GARUA IS.
ian artefacts derived from highly acidic, volcanic soils
in a tropical region with high rainfall. Not surprisingly,
no macroscopic organic materials were recovered from
the sites, so the interpretation of past subsistence and
settlement systems relies heavily on determining uses
for the abundant chipped stone artefacts. As phytolith
analysis considerably enhanced the use-wear residue
analyses in this worst case scenario, we argue that
phytoliths have a very important role to play in the
study of chipped stone tool use.
Archaeological Context
Obsidian artefacts from two sites, FRL and FAO,
located in West New Britain province, Papua New
Guinea (Figure 1), were chosen for the study. The sites
are notable for their well-defined stratigraphy and
relatively long time depth. The Bitokara Mission Site
(FRL) was excavated by Specht and co-workers
(Specht et al., 1988), while the FAO excavations are
part of the larger Garua Island project (Torrence et al.,
in press). Both sites have a sequence of diagnostic
volcanic tephras with a well-developed soil in the upper
horizon of each. The volcanic events which deposited
the tephras have been dated by radiocarbon, and
the tephras have been sourced and cross correlated
by both macroscopic and geochemical techniques
(Machida et al., 1996; Torrence et al., in press) thereby
providing a relative chronology for the region.
Stratigraphic units at the sites have been divided into
four chronological periods: (1) older than W-K1
tephra, 10,000–6000 ; (2) between W-K1 and W-K2
tephras, 5900–3600 ; (3) between W-K2 and Dk
 Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools 529
tephras, 3600–1100 ; and (4) post-Dk tephra, 1100
–present. Radiocarbon dates from FRL and
FAO provide additional confirmation for the tephra
chronology (Specht et al., 1988; Torrence et al., in
press).
Although organic preservation of macroscopic plant
material is very poor at these sites due to the high
acidity of the soils and the high rainfall, the presence of
organic residues on stone artefacts was not unexpected
because phytoliths are extremely resistant to decay.
For example, Anderson (1980) and Hurcombe (1992)
have also identified phytoliths adhering to and par-
tially incorporated into polishes on stone artefacts even
after treatment in acid and alkaline washes. Fullagar
(1993a, b) has reported the presence of phytoliths
extracted from soil adhering to a stone artefact
recovered from FRL, one of the sites in our study.
These artefacts are particularly appropriate for phy-
tolith studies because Fullagar’s (1992, 1993a, b) use-
wear/residue analyses have shown that prehistoric
obsidian artefacts at six sites in West New Britain,
including FRL, were mainly used to process plant
materials. He also identified a trend through time such
that more recent site assemblages showed evidence of a
wider range of tasks. At the same time multi-purpose,
retouched, curated artefacts were gradually replaced by
expedient unretouched flakes which were used for only
one task and then discarded immediately (Torrence,
1992). Fullagar’s (1992) residue and use-wear data
support Torrence’s (1992) hypothesis that changes in
FRL technology are related to increasing sedentism
and an intensification in gardening. Based on these
studies, we expected that the residues on individual
tools should become less diverse through time,
reflecting the increase in one-off, expedient use. In
contrast, the total assemblage from a site should
appear more diverse, since increasing sedentism
would lead to a wider range of tasks taking place at
individual sites.
Methodology
This pilot study was undertaken primarily to assess the
value of analysing phytoliths extracted from artefact
residues. Since phytolith analysis is very time consum-
ing, we began by studying three artefacts from FRL for
which Fullagar had identified use-wear and residues.
After obtaining good results from these cases, we
expanded the study to include soils and artefacts from
the FAO site, which had not been the subject of
previous use-wear/residue analyses.
Excavation
During the excavations at FRL and FAO, a sample of
10 artefacts was taken haphazardly from each arbitrary
unit (usually 10-cm thick) of a 1 m1 m unit. Using a
metal trowel (the artefacts were not handled), the
artefacts plus adhering soil were placed into a plastic
bag, air-dried, sealed, and stored. The FAO artefacts
were selected from a single 1 m1 m test pit, 970/
1000. At FRL the test pit was initially a 2 m2 m
unit, stepped down to 1 m1 m at the base. Soil
samples were also taken from each site. At FRL
samples were collected within each stratigraphic unit
from one wall of the unit. A column sample was taken
on the wall of the FAO test unit, with samples divided
into 5-cm thick units.
Sampling
Seventeen obsidian artefacts were selected: three from
FRL which had previously been analysed by Fullagar
(1992) and a grab sample of 14 from samples obtained
from each period in trench 970/1000 at site FAO. This
latter sample was selected for a ‘‘blind test’’ comparing
direct observation on the artefacts with phytolith
analysis of extracted residues. As shown in Table 1 and
Figures 2 and 3, the majority of the artefacts are simple
flakes and the amount of retouch decreases through
time.
Assemblage composition of phytoliths in sediment
derived from three contexts was examined: (1) soils
near the artefacts, site soil samples (Table 2); (2) soil
adhering loosely to the artefact, artefact soil samples
(one from each artefact at FAO only); and (3) residues
on the surface of the artefacts, artefact residues (Table
1). To assess the general background of phytolith
assemblages through time at each site, three site soil
samples from FAO and two from FRL were chosen
from the same stratigraphic contexts as the stone
artefacts. The artefact soil sample, which comprises
sediment in contact with the artefact when it was
excavated, provides a further check against contamina-
tion. As the artefacts dried, much of the soil originally
adhering to them became detached from them. The
artefacts were also gently rubbed inside the bag to
remove additional loose sediment. One half of the
resulting artefact soil sample was analysed for phyto-
liths. All 14 artefact soil samples in this study are from
the FAO artefacts. Artefact residues were obtained
from sonic cleaning each artefact for 5 min in pure
water.
As noted above, analyses by Fullagar (1992, 1993a,
b) at FRL have shown that through time there is a shift
from multiple to single purpose artefacts and some of
the early, larger artefacts with a relatively long use-life
were probably hafted. In order to examine whether
these patterns occur at FAO, and to look for other
types of variability within individual artefacts, some of
the artefacts were divided into various sections which
were sonic cleaned separately. For example, on several
artefacts the retouched stem was distinguished from
the unretouched blade portion of the artefact, and the
material from one blade was divided longitudinally
to investigate differential use on the two opposing
lateral margins. A total of 22 artefact residue samples
530 L. Kealhofer et al.

Table 1. Summary of artefacts and artefact residue samples

Macroscopic Tool residue

Artefact Period Type Segment Cortex Retouch use-wear sample

FAO
285 4 Flake Complete Partial None None Whole artefact
288 4 Flake Complete Partial None None Whole artefact
303 4 Flake Complete Partial None None Whole artefact
306 4 Flake Distal Partial None None Whole artefact
310 3 Flake Complete None None Micro-scarring on distal edge Whole artefact
313 3 Flake Complete Total None None Whole artefact
317 3 Blade Complete None None Micro-scarring on one lateral Whole artefact
margin
325 3 Flake Distal Partial Present on left lateral Micro-scarring and rounding Stem (325s), Blade (325b)
margin on one lateral margin
336 3 Flake Complete None None None Lateral left (336a), Lateral
right (336b)
339 2 Flake Complete Partial None None Whole artefact
340 2 Flake Complete Partial None None Whole artefact
359 2 Flake Complete None Stemmed tool, retouch on None Stem (359s), Blade (359b)
two lateral margins of stem
364 2 Flake Complete None Present on dorsal side at Micro-scarring on both lateral Proximal (364p), Distal
proximal end of flake; edges of blade (364d)
differentiates proximal
from distal
367 2 Blade Complete None Retouch on two lateral Micro-scarring on left lateral Stem (367s), Blade (367b)
margins of blade to form side of blade
stem; retouch on distal end
of blade
FRL
021 4 Blade Distal None None None Distal (021d), Proximal
(021p)
281 2 Flake Proximal Partial None None Whole artefact
352 1 Blade Medial Partial Present proximal end of Extensive micro-scarring and Stem (352s), Blade (352b)
blade to form notches rounding on both lateral edges
differentiating stem and
blade

from the 17 artefacts were included in the study
(Tables 1 & 3).
Direct analysis of use-wear and residues
Analysis began with the microscopic examination of
the artefacts. Use-wear and residues were assessed
concurrently using both low and high power magnifi-
cations. The reconstruction of artefact use(s) was
based on experimental results (Fullagar, 1991),
whereas the contact material was identified using a
reference collection from New Britain (Fullagar, 1992).
The results are reported in Table 4. A variety of
residues, including starch and plant fibres, were ob-
served on most tools and most artefact edges showed
some degree of scarring.
To distinguish use from post-depositional contami-
nation and to obtain reliable assessments of artefact
function, an integrated analysis of residues with the
four main kinds of use-wear is required (Fullagar,
Furby & Hardy 1996). These are (1) scarring; (2)
rounding; (3) polish; and (4) striations (Figures 4 & 5).
An important factor to consider particularly with
obsidian is surface preservation (Ambrose, 1996),
which in this case was recorded as follows: (1) ‘‘not
pitted to slightly pitted/etched’’ which means the use-
wear is unaffected and 80% of the surface is clearly
visible with fresh fracture scars and stress lines; (2)
‘‘pitted/etched’’ has pitting to the extent that the pres-
ence of use-wear is not in doubt but the interpretations
of polish have some uncertainty; and (3) ‘‘heavily
pitted/etched’’ surfaces still have use scarring but
low reliability for the interpretation of polishes.
Sometimes flakes with heavily etched surfaces have
edges which are well preserved and maintain a distinc-
tive use polish. The process which permits polished
edges to be better preserved than other surfaces is not
understood.
As a first measure of whether or not an artefact had
been used, the edges were examined under a stereo-
scopic microscope with oblique incident light (6,
12, 25 and 50), specifically noting scarring
characteristics. Subsequently, the artefacts were exam-
ined under vertical incident light with bright- and
darkfield illumination (between 200 and 500).
Edge rounding, or the loss of a sharp edge due to use,
is visible in cross-section and measured by degree of
loss: none; very slight; slight; slight–medium; and
 Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools 531

Figure 2. Artefacts from FAO used in this study.

medium. Polish provides a third measure of artefact
use. Four stages of polish formation have been defined
for obsidian (Fullagar, 1991): the first stage involves
abrasive smoothing and loss of features of fresh frac-
tured surfaces; in the second stage, patches of
smoothed polished surfaces within abrasive surfaces
(generally not diagnostic of material worked) are
observed; during the third stage polished areas are
linked and the pattern becomes diagnostic of materials
worked (e.g., Figure 4); and the fourth stage leads to
an extensively polished, featureless surface. Stage 4
polish can be achieved very rapidly when moist,
532 L. Kealhofer et al.

Figure 3. Artefacts from FAO and FRL used in this study.

siliceous materials are processed. The nature of polish
often precludes defining what the artefact was used on,
without consideration of other use-wear and residue
characteristics (Fullagar, 1991). Striations, the fourth
form of evidence (e.g., Figure 5), are defined by their
regularity or randomness, their directionality (parallel
or perpendicular to the edge), and by combinations of
these. Particular contact materials and modes of use
can cause unique patterns of striations.
In addition to use-wear, residues were recorded
(Table 4). These included traces of resin, plant fibres,
cracked films of blood, starch grains, and phytoliths
(cf. Fullagar, 1986, 1988; Fullagar, Furby & Hardy,
1996). Starch grains were observed with cross polarized
 Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools 533

Table 2. Site soil samples Phytolith analysis

Site Unit Sample Period Two different methods were used to extract phytoliths.
First, site soil samples (80 g) and artefact soil samples
FAO 970/1000 30–35 cm 4 (varied but generally less than 0·1 g) were processed
80–85 cm 3 according to procedures outlined by Piperno (1988),
150–155 cm 2
FRL 11 4
with a few modifications in chemicals (substitution of
8 2 zinc bromide) and processing times. Soils were defloc-
culated for a week, sieved to remove >250 ìm material,
and fractionated into 50–250 ìm and 5–50 ìm frac-
tions. Gravity sedimentation procedures were applied
Table 3. Abundance of phytoliths and starch extracted from artefact to the fine fraction (5–50 ìm) to remove clays. Both
soils and residues fractions were then wet ashed in Schulze solution
(nitric acid and potassium chlorate) to remove
Phytolith abundance
Starch abundance organic materials. Samples were rinsed in water,
Sample Period Artefact soil residue residue dried, and the phytoliths were floated on a heavy
liquid, specific gravity 2·35, to separate them from the
FAO remaining heavier minerals. Soil processing required
285 4 + ++ + approximately 1 month.
288 4 ++ — ++
303 4 ++ ++ +
Artefact residue samples (generally less than 0·001 g)
306 4 ++ ++ + were processed in a similar way to modern reference
310 3 ++ ++ ++ material. The liquid resulting from the sonic cleaning
313 3 ++ ++ + of the artefacts was deflocculated overnight, and sieved
317 3 ++ ++ — through 250-ìm mesh. No clays were removed as
325 3 ++
325b 3 — — the fraction was very small. The artefact residues were
336 3 ++ then wet ashed in Schulze solution to remove organic
336a 3 ++ + materials, and as above, rinsed and floated on a heavy
336b 3 ++ + liquid solution.
339 2 + + ++
340 2 ++ + +
After removal from the sediment matrix, the
359 2 ++ — — phytoliths were mounted on slides, viewed, and photo-
364 2 — graphed at 400 magnification. Phytolith types were
364p 2 + — identified when possible, assigned a descriptor if not,
364d 2 ++ — and counted and photographed. For most slides a
367 2 +
367d 2 + + minimum of 100 diagnostic phytoliths were counted,
367p 2 — — but where there was sufficient material, counts were
FRL extended to c. 200.
21 4 ++ Phytoliths were identified on the basis of comparison
21p 4 ++ +
21d 4 ++ + with more general South-East Asian reference collec-
281 2 ++ ++ ++ tions, and a reference collection of grasses from around
352 1 ++ the world (Brown, 1984; Piperno, 1988; Piperno &
352b 1 — — Pearsall, 1990a, b; Kealhofer & Piperno, in press;
352s 1 ++ ++
Piperno & Pearsall, in press; Kealhofer, unpubl.). The
phytolith assemblages included a wide variety of
Sample number: p, d are proximal and distal ends of the artefact;
b, s are blade and stem; a, b are lateral edges. grasses falling mainly within the Bambusoideae and
Phytolith abundance: —, <20 phytoliths; +, 21–75 phytoliths; + +, Panicoideae subfamilies, herbaceous types (Composi-
>75 phytoliths. tae, Marantaceae, Cyperaceae), a diverse selection
Starch abundance: —, Absent; +, present; + +, abundant. of arboreal types (Palm, Moraceae, Musaceae,
Burseraceae, Annonaceae, and others), and unknown
light. They were predominantly less than 5 ìm in Dicotyledon types (Figure 6). Possibly economically
diameter and so identification to species was not useful species including arboreal phytoliths from
attempted (cf. Therin, Torrence & Fullager, 1997). Burseraceae species, potentially Canarium, as well as
A summary assessment of use is presented in scleroid from Annonaceae, and hair cells from Mora-
Table 4 using the following categories: 0=not used; ceae taxa, were present in the residues from both sites.
1=possible use; 2=probable use; 3=definite use. For a Specific identifications were made where possible but
positive attribution of use, residues had to be associ- the focus was on establishing assemblage patterns
ated with an edge, rather than randomly distributed for each sample. More detailed identification would
over the surface of the artefact. A more precise defini- require extensive analysis of modern reference material
tion of function was based on the most likely material which has not as yet been carried out for West New
worked. Britain.
Table 4. Results of use-wear/residue analysis by direct observation of artefacts under reflected light microscopy
534

Scars Scar Scars Edge Obsidian Contact

Tools <5 mm types >5 mm rounding Polish Striations Alignment Other surface Residues material Use

FAO 1
285 Present b,f None None 0 None Not used 1 0
288 Present b,f,s None Slight–medium 2 Present Perpendicular Probably cf. collagen Animal 2
& parallel used
L. Kealhofer et al.

289 Present f None None 0 None Not used 1 0

303 Present f,s None Slight 1–2 None 1 Fibres, Uncertain 2
spicules
306 Present f None Very slight 0–1 None 1 Starch grains, Uncertain 1
fibres
310 Present f,s None Slight–medium 2–3 Parallel 1 Starch grains, Plant 3
phytoliths
313 None None Very slight 1–2 Present Perpendicular 2 Plant 1–2
317 Present b,f None Slight–medium 2–3 Present Perpendicular Multiple use 1 Plant 2–3
& parallel
325d Present b,f,c Present Slight 1–2 Present 45 deg. 3 Non-sliceous wood 2
325p Present Present Slight 1–2 Present Perpendicular 3 Non-siliceous soft plant 2
& 45 deg.
336a, b Present b,f,s None Medium 1–2 Present Perpendicular Bevel on 2 Resin? Plant 2
& parallel proximal end
339 Present Very slight 1–2 Present Parallel & 45 3 Starch Uncertain 2
deg.
340 Present b,f,s,c None None None 3 Uncertain 0–1
359 Present b,f Present None None None 2 Starch grains Uncertain 0–1
on stem
364p Present None Very slight 0–1 Present Perpendicular 2 Starch grains, Soft plant 0–1
fibres
367d Present f,s Present Slight 2–3 Present Parallel Haft, pitted 1 Starch grains cf. plam 3
polish on
high spots
367p None f,s Present Slight 1 Present Perpendicular 1 Starch grains Non-siliceous starchy plant 1–2
FRL
M021d Present f,s None Slight 3 Present Parallel & 1 Starch grains, Siliceous plant: palm or reed 2
perpendicular fibres,
cracked film
(cf. blood)
M021p Present f,s None Slight 2 Present Parallel & Pitted polish 1 Starch, fibres Siliceous plant: palm or reed 2
perpendicular
M281 Present b,f None Slight 2–3 None Soft siliceous plant 2
M352b Present f,s Present Medium 2–3 Present Perpendicular Scraping 2 Starch Wood 3
& 45 deg.
M352s Present f,s Present Very slight 2 Present None Haft 2 Starch, fibres Siliceous plant 3

Key: ‘‘Scar types’’ refers to presence of distinct termination types of use-wear scars as follows: f, feather; s, step; h, hinge; b, bending.
‘‘Polish’’ refers to polish development from intial to later stages 1–3. See text for discussion.
‘‘Obsidian surface’’ refers to the degree of cortex development, erosion, or other weathering ranked from lower to higher impact on use-wear interpretations 1–3. See text for discussion.
‘‘Use’’ refers to the interpretation of tool use from lower to higher levels of confidence 1–3. See text for discussion.
‘‘Tools’’ refers to edge samples as follows (cf. Table 1): d, distal; p, proximal; b, blade; s, stem; a,b, lateral edges.
 Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools 535

Figure 4. Examples of use-wear polishes. (a) FRL. M021. Polish (cf. palm) on high points near edge with small pits. Negative taken at 200.
Width of field approximately 0·3 mm; (b) FRL. M021. Polish (cf reeds/bamboo) and rounding on distal edge. Negative taken at 200. Width
of field approximately 0·3 mm.

The analysis of starch grains, often from plants
that do not make phytoliths (e.g., root crops such
as taro and yams) expands our knowledge about
plant use (cf. Loy, Wickler & Spriggs, 1992; Loy,
1994). Given the use of aggressive chemicals in
phytolith extraction techniques (e.g., Schulze sol-
ution), we were surprised to find that starch grains
survived processing. Currently, the only explanation
for their appearance in the phytolith samples is
that the starch grains were silicified in some way. In
some cases what appeared to be silicified casts of
grains surrounding gelatinized starch were observed.
Starch grains were relatively common in the artefact
residues (Figure 7) but were rare in the artefact soil
or site soil phytolith assemblages, a pattern seen in
other analyses of stone artefacts (Barton, Torrence &
Fullagar, 1998). In general, the starch grains were
spherical and ranged in size from 10 to 25 ìm. It seems
likely that smaller grains have not been preserved
or did not survive the processing. A summary of
starch abundance extracted from artefact residues is
presented in Table 3.
536 L. Kealhofer et al.

Figure 5. Examples of use-wear polishes and striations. (a) FRL, M352. A thin band of polish (stage 2–3) with striations at 45deg. to the edge.
Negative taken at 500. Width of field approximately 0·1 mm. (b) FRL, M021. Slight rounding and perpendicular striations along distal
edge. Negative taken at 200. Width of field approximately 0·3 mm.

Test for Integrity of Residues
We began by testing whether the residues extracted
from the artefacts could be assumed to be associated
with tool use. We argue that if phytoliths were
deposited on artefacts in the context of use, then the
phytolith assemblage in a residue sample should be
significantly different from that in the adjacent soil.
Alternately, similarity between artefact residues and
both site and artefact soil samples would suggest the
artefact came in contact with the phytoliths after
deposition. This hypothesis was tested by comparing
both the phytolith assemblage from each artefact resi-
due with a site soil sample from the associated exca-
vation unit and the phytolith assemblage from the
artefact residue sample with that from the artefact soil
sample adhering to the artefact.
Forty-four samples were analysed for phytoliths: 22
artefact residues, 17 artefact soil samples; and five site
soil samples (Tables 2 & 3). Phytoliths were abundant
in the site soils but mixed results were obtained from
the artefact soil and residue samples (Table 3). Counts
of less than 20 were interpreted to mean real absence.
The mid range of 21–75 was considered to be too small
Figure 6. Examples of phytoliths found in the samples, centre of photograph. (a) Panicoid bilobate c. 20 ìm (grass); (b) sclereid (arboreal
form); (c) possible palm c. 18 ìm (Caryota?-type); (d) UNID arboreal form c. 25 ìm.
538 L. Kealhofer et al.
Figure 7. Starch grains found in the phytolith preparation.
Figure 8. Graph of phytolith types.
to be meaningful and, in the case of residues, open to
an interpretation of contamination. Samples with
greater than 75 phytoliths were included in the corre-
spondence analyses discussed below. It is worth stress-
ing that given the extremely small size of the artefact
residue samples, less than 0·001 g, the presence of
quantifiable numbers of phytoliths lends much support
to their interpretation as residues rather than contami-
nation from surrounding soils, for which 80 g of
material often produced only 100 diagnostic phytoliths.
The question of the integrity of the residues is best
examined where there were sufficiently high phytolith
counts for quantitative analysis: 11 artefact residues
(eight FAO artefacts, and three FRL artefacts), eight
artefact soil samples, and all five soil samples (FRL
and FAO). The basic data are presented in Figure 8
and the results of correspondence analyses using these
counts are presented in Figures 9–13. A multivariate
approach helps overcome potential contamination be-
cause it focuses on the overall structure of the data (cf.
Powers, Padmore & Gilbertson, 1989 for a similar
approach).
Due to chronological changes in vegetation at FAO
(cf. Figure 8), each period was analysed separately.
Plots of the first two eigenvalues for Periods 3 and 4
(56% and 67% variability explained, respectively) show
a clear separation of the artefact residue samples and
the soil samples (Figures 9 & 10) confirming that the
phytoliths are derived from different processes. For
Period 3 (3600–1100 ) the three residues on the upper
left of Figure 9 are associated with a specific assem-
blage of Palm and Bambuseae phytolith types. In con-
trast, the two residues on the upper right are
characterized by a wide variety of unknown Dicotyle-
don and arboreal phytolith types. As would be
expected of samples representing the general environ-
ment at the site, rather than artefact use, the artefact
soil and site soil assemblages include a more diverse
assemblage of Bambusoid, arboreal, Panicoid, and her-
baceous types than the residue samples. The artefact
soil sample from FAO317 includes an unusual herba-
ceous component, skewing the assemblage somewhat.
In Figure 10, showing Period 4 (1100 –present), the
two residue samples cluster on the bottom right of the
graph, while the soil and artefact soil samples are
further left. The residues have a more diverse assem-
blage of Bambusoid, herbaceous, and arboreal types
than the previous period and the soils include a wider
spectrum of arboreal types, Palms, and Panicoid
grasses.
 Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools 539

Soils versus residues: FAO Period 3 Phytoliths

Correspondence analysis
1.5
Residues
1 310R
313R
336RBA 317R
0.5 336RBB

313S
0
Eigenvalue 2

336S
–0.5 80 cm
310S

–1

–1.5 Bag soils and soil sample

–2

–2.5
317S

–3
–2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Eigenvalue 1
Figure 9. Correspondence analysis of phytolith assemblages extracted from residue and soils samples from FAO Period 3. Plot of cases on the
first two eigenvalues.

Soils versus residues: FAO Period 4 Phytoliths

Correspondence analysis

30 cm
1.5

1 Bag soils and soil sample

Residues
Eigenvalue 2

0.5 306S

0
303R
–0.5 303S

–1

–1.5 306R

–2
–2.5 –2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Eigenvalue 1
Figure 10. Correspondence analysis of phytolith assemblages extracted from residue and soils samples from FAO Period 4. Plot of cases on
the first two eigenvalues.

Due to the small sample size, all periods at FRL
were combined leading to a greater range of artefact
and soil variability. Nevertheless, Figure 11 shows
there are significant differences in phytolith assemblage
composition between the two soil samples and the
artefact residues.
Among the samples with low counts, the much
larger counts for the FAO285 artefact residue suggests
that the phytoliths are not due to contamination but
result from tool use. The cases where there are virtually
no phytoliths in the residue samples (FAO288,
FAO325b, FAO359s, FAO367p) contrast with the
540 L. Kealhofer et al.

FRL residues and soils: Phytoliths

Correspondence analysis
2

1.5 352S

1 Soil 1 Period 4
Eigenvalue 2

Residues
0.5
Soils
0
Soil 8 Period 2

–0.5 021D

021P
–1
281

–1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Eigenvalue 1
Figure 11. Correspondence analysis of phytolith assemblages extracted from soils and residues at site FRL. Plot of cases on the first two
eigenvalues.

Phytolith group residues: FAO and FRL stone tools

Correspondence analysis
2
Bamboo group
FAO306
1.5
FAO303
1 FAO285
FAO310
Eigenvalue 2

0.5
Grass and mixed group FRL021D
0 FAO3645
FRL021P
FRL281 FRL3525
–0.5
FAO313

–1 FAO317
Palm group
–1.5 FAO336BIB Arboreal group
FAO336BIA

–2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Eigenvalue 1
Figure 12. Correspondence analysis of phytolith assemblages extracted from artefact residue samples. Plot of cases on the first two eigenvalues.

presence of phytoliths in the artefact soil samples,
therefore supporting the proposition that the informa-
tion from the residue samples is independent of the
soils. For the only two examples where there is a match
(FAO339 and FAO367), the quantity of phytoliths is in
the mid range for which we feel interpretation is not
warranted. Although these results are not quantifiable
due to small sample sizes, the data do suggest that
the residues, where present, accumulated as a result of
use rather than contamination from the surrounding
soil.
In summary, the phytolith assemblage compo-
sition of the artefact residue samples at both FRL
and FAO are distinct from the soil matrix. We
therefore accept the proposition that the assem-
blages of phytoliths extracted from the artefact resi-
due samples are related in a meaningful manner to
artefact use.
 Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools 541

Phytolith residue groups: FAO and FRL stone tools

Correspondence analysis
3 Bamboo group
Wide B Saddle
TallSaddle Tall Narrow Saddle
T2tpC UNID7Oryza UND2fuzz
SpinSph
2 UNID13elongnodul Tc-c C-cUNID12ribbedelong
2ptBil
Caryota-type UNID11irregelong
Saddle
TabSph
1 INIDmixed Chloridoid
Grass and mixed group Sedge T2ptBil
Eigenvalue 2

4ptBil SRS Arboreal group

T4ptBil Cross BulbSph
0 Bilobate
Multilobate LRS
Musa LnkdBodies UNID6flatsp
SS
Palm UNID3spky
–1 MFP Sclereid
SmMFP
UNID14nodular
EMFP Canarium-type
UNID1disk UNID8acorn
UNID10projn

–2 Palm group UNID9trd 2-cell Hair UNID5wrvol UNID16bulbbod

UNID15spic/cone

FaintMFP
–3 KBPalm

–4 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Eigenvalue 1
Figure 13. Correspondence analysis of phytolith assemblages extracted from artefact residue samples. Plot of variables on the first two
eigenvalues.

Analyses of Artefact Use
The next stage of the analysis was to compare the
inferences about use provided by the direct observation
of use-wear and residues with that derived from an
interpretation of the phytolith assemblages from
the artefact residues. The aim was two-fold. First,
since direct observation of use-wear and residues is
now well established in archaeological methodology,
it could serve as a check on the validity of the
reconstructions derived from phytolith analysis.
Second, we examined whether phytolith analysis,
which is quite time-consuming and requires a great
deal of specialist knowledge, could significantly
enhance the understanding of artefact use.
Direct observation of artefacts
Use-wear and residue analysis by direct observation
identifies which artefacts were used. In many cases the
broad category of contact material, for example, skin
or plant tissue, can also be identified. For some arte-
facts fairly specific information about contact material
is possible, especially when diagnostic residues are
present. Table 4 summarizes the data. A category of
‘‘uncertain’’ was included for cases where use-wear was
insufficiently diagnostic to specify contact material
with a high level of confidence. The almost exclusive
presence of plant residues in the assemblage, however,
suggests that contact with plant tissue was the most
likely for those artefacts having an uncertain function.
Dynamic contact with plants includes processing of
particular materials, but other kinds of deliberate
contact (such as casual wrapping of a tool edge for use,
storage or transport) and also inadvertent contact (e.g.,
trampling) could have taken place. Only one tool
(FAO288) has evidence of contact with soft animal
tissue, most likely skin. It is possible that this pattern
of use-wear was due to handling of the artefact during
very short term use.
As shown in Table 5, artefacts with reliable
evidence of plant processing can be divided into two
groups according to the presence of residues, devel-
oped polish types and other forms of use-wear: (1)
woody plants and (2) soft, non-siliceous, starchy
plants (tubers). Woody plants can be broken down
into (1a) hard non-siliceous wood, (1b) soft siliceous
plants (e.g., woody grasses like reeds or bamboo),
and (1c) very starchy and siliceous woody plants
(e.g., palm).
The most distinctive polish was found on artefacts
FRL352 (Figure 5), FRL021 (Figures 4 & 5), FRL281,
FAO325 and FAO367s which form an easily recogniz-
able group relating to woody plants. In contrast, the
processing of non-siliceous, soft starchy plants (e.g.,
tubers) is difficult to identify because use-wear alone is
not diagnostic. Reliable determination depends upon
further study of residues in terms of the frequency, size
and other characteristics of starch grains (cf. Loy,
1994; Therin, Torrence & Fullagar, 1997). With these
reservations, artefacts likely to have been in dynamic
contact with soft, starchy, non-siliceous plants
include FAO339, FAO340, FAO364a, FAO364b and
FAO367b and possibly FAO325s.
In terms of the data necessary to test hypotheses
about chronological patterning in lithic technology in
542 L. Kealhofer et al.

Table 5. Summary of artefact uses based on direct observation of use-wear and residues

Use-wear groups Artefacts

(1) Woody plants

(1a) Hard, non-siliceous FRL21d, FRL021p, FAO325d, FRL352b
(1b) Soft, siliceous FRL352s, FRL021d, FRL021p, FRL281, FAO310, FAO313
(1c) High starch, siliceous FRL021d, FRL021p, FAO367s
(2) Soft, non-siliceous, starchy plants FAO339, FAO340, FAO359, FAO364p, FAO367b, FAO325p
(3) Animal FAO288
(4) Plant, uncertain FAO303, FAO306, FAO317, FAO336a, FAO336b, FAO364d
(5) Unused FAO285
Starch residues present FAO306, FAO310, FAO313, FAO339, FAO359s, FAO364p, FAO364d,
FAO367d, FAO367s, FRL021d, FRL021p, FRL281, FRL352b, FRL352s

West New Britain, two important forms of information
can be derived from the data: multi-functionality and
presence of hafting. The tool with the largest number
of contact materials (3) was FRL021 from the most
recent period. Two materials were found on FRL352
(Period 1), FAO367 (Period 2) and FAO325 (Period 3).
Whereas multiple uses were found on both parts of
FRLO21, the contact materials were separated on the
other three tools, suggesting the presence of a used end
and a hafted end. In the case of FAO367, palm may
have been used as a handle as in the case of recent
obsidian spears and daggers from Manus (cf. Torrence,
1993). The handle for FAO325 may have been
wooden, whereas for FRL352 some form of wrapping
involving grass, bamboo or a reedy plant is indicated.
Two further Period 2 artefacts with retouch suggestive
of hafting, FAO359 and FAO364, had very little
evidence of use, although fibres were observed on
FAO364. However, FAO359 had a very etched surface
prohibiting a reliable interpretation for use.
Only the FAO data are large enough to be analysed
for chronological trends. Comparing Tables 1 and 4, a
very general trend occurs in the data from multi-
functional or hafted tools used to process soft, starchy
plants in Period 2–Period 4 which is characterized by
hand-held tools used for short periods of time on
uncertain plants. Period 3 is transitional with fewer
hafted tools and more uncertain plants than Period 2,
whereas all the samples from Period 4 are unused or
slightly used. In addition the importance of soft, non-
siliceous starchy plants appears to decline through
time.
Phytoliths extracted from artefact residues
Surprisingly, the relative abundance of phytoliths dif-
fered between the two sites. Phytoliths were abundant
in both the soils and residues of all periods at FRL, but
were relatively rare in FAO Period 2 artefact soil and
residue samples. Given that most of the FAO Period 2
surfaces are also poorly preserved (Table 4, FAO339–
367), it seems likely that residues had been removed
through soil diagenesis and/or that phytoliths are not
particularly well preserved in Period 2 contexts.
Table 6. Summary of artefact uses based on extracted phytoliths and
starch grains
Residue
groups Artefacts
(1) Bamboos FAO303, FAO306, FAO310
(2) Palms FAO336A, FAO336B, FAO285,
(3) Arboreal FAO313, FAO317, FAO364d
(4) Multiple FRL021p; FRL021d, FRL281, FRL352b, FRL352s
(5) Uncertain FAO285, FAO339, FAO340, FAO367b, FAO364p
(6) Absent FAO288, FAO325b, FAO359s, FAO367s
The results of correspondence analysis of the phyto-
lith assemblage structure from the artefact residue
samples with high phytolith counts is presented as a
plot of the first two eigenvalues which explain over
60% of the variability in the data. Four slightly over-
lapping groups of tools can be distinguished in Figure
12 and the phytolith types that define them can be
identified by examining the same region of the variable
plot in Figure 13. The tool use groups as discriminated
by phytoliths include the following (Table 6):
(1) primarily bamboos;
(2) defined by a specific type of Palm phytolith, and
an unidentified Dicotyledon type;
(3) strongly dominated by arboreal and Dicotyledon
phytolith forms, including potential Burseraceae
taxa such as Canarium (an important economic
species in this region) and no grasses or herba-
ceous types were found in this group;
(4) a wide mixture of Palms, Panicoid grasses,
banana, and diverse arboreal, herbaceous and
Dicotyledon forms defines a group of tools for
which multiple uses can be inferred.
Not surprisingly the artefacts from FRL, which were
specifically chosen for this pilot study because Fullagar
(1992) had previously identified distinctive use-wear
and residues on them, have the most diverse group of
phytoliths, suggesting multi-purpose uses. Examining
differences within individual tools relating to function
also produced good results. FRL021 (Figure 3) pro-
duced the most striking results. The distal end is
 Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools 543
characterized by nearly 50% Palms, but also has a
significant percentage of Panicoid grasses and bam-
boos. In contrast, residue from the proximal end of the
same artefact contains a much lower percentage of
Palms, fairly comparable amounts of grasses, and a
higher arboreal count. It seems likely that the distal
end was used for processing palms, whereas the proxi-
mal end was hafted, possibly with a wooden handle
secured by grass binding. Similarly, FRL352 had phy-
toliths on the stem, potential handle region, and not on
the blade. FRL281 may also have been hafted since
grasses are present in the residue. Separate parts of
three FAO artefacts were analysed separately. FAO367
produced too few phytoliths for interpretation and
may have not been used, whereas the presence of
primarily arboreal phytoliths on the stem of FAO364
may be associated with a wooden haft. There is no
evidence from the phytolith analysis that the two edges
of FAO336 were used on different materials.
The distribution of starch grains provides further
support for the phytolith interpretations, although the
data must be interpreted cautiously since we are unsure
what proportion of the original material survived the
phytolith extraction procedures. Abundant quantities
were recorded for five artefacts (Table 3). FRL352 and
FRL281 are probably multi-functional tools involving
starchy and other plants. The absence of phytoliths on
FAO288 combined with abundant starch strongly sup-
ports the interpretation of a hand-held tool used to
process a starchy, non-phytolith producing plant. The
only definite indication of root processing is from
FAO310 which had masses of large starch grains
tentatively identified as Dioscorea (yam). Since bam-
boo leaf phytoliths were also common on this artefact,
it seems very likely that it was partially wrapped to aid
prehension while used to process a starchy tuber. The
last example with a high abundance of starch is
FAO339 which was classified by the correspondence
analysis into the group characterized by palms. Since
palms are quite starchy plants, this finding is not
surprising. Starch was also recovered in lower quan-
tities from all the other artefacts in the phytolith palm
group.
Although sample sizes are small, some interesting
chronological trends in contact materials can be seen in
the correspondence analysis of the phytolith assem-
blages from FAO (Figures 12 & 13). The only Period 2
artefact, FAO364, forms an outlier because it contains
a mix of herbaceous and arboreal phytoliths. The
arboreal and palm groups are comprised solely of
Period 3 artefacts, whereas the bamboo group is domi-
nated by Period 4 artefacts. These data may be moni-
toring a shift through time from sturdier wooden hafts
to more expedient handles using leaves. The mixed
group in the middle of Figure 12 is comprised of the
multi-functional tools from FRL. These tools show
little chronological patterning, although there is some
separation within the cluster with the more recent
examples located closest to the bamboo group.
In summary, the study of phytoliths and starch
grains extracted from artefact residues provides rela-
tively specific interpretations for contact material. Cor-
respondence analyses identified three functional classes
based on the predominance of bamboos, palms, and
arboreal taxa, as well as a fourth group of multi-
functional tools. Starch grains are primarily associated
with the multi-functional and palm groupings but a
fifth functional class may be justified by the very high
concentrations of starch on two other artefacts. Differ-
ential use on several artefacts is interpreted as the
result of hafting.
An Integrated Approach to Tool Use
When comparing the two methodologies it is import-
ant to stress that each detects particular forms of
behaviour and one method does not necessarily dupli-
cate the other. For instance, use-wear can determine if
an artefact has been used, but phytolith analysis can-
not. The presence of phytoliths indicates contact (not
necessarily use) with only certain plants since phyto-
liths are only produced by some species. So, for
example, use-wear analysis can detect the processing of
non-siliceous plants, but phytolith analysis cannot. In
contrast, the two techniques will agree on some uses,
for example, soft siliceous or high starch siliceous
plants, but the presence of characteristic phytoliths
permits identification of contact material to plant taxa
which is not possible through use-wear analysis. In
other words, the data obtained by the two techniques
should either complement or add a different type of
information to that provided by the other.
If the findings of both techniques are combined,
every artefact examined had use-wear or phytoliths
and/or starch residues. In only two cases, discussed
further below, did interpretations from the two tech-
niques disagree. Total agreement was reached in terms
of the ascription of plant as the contact material. All
the tools in the class of soft, non-siliceous plants
established in the use-wear analysis either lacked phy-
toliths or were placed in the uncertain class because the
phytolith counts were too low to give meaningful data
in terms of use. The only example with evidence of skin
working, FAO288, lacked phytoliths, although starch
was recovered from the phytolith extraction. Since
starch was not found through direct observation of the
artefact nor was there evidence of use on starchy
plants, we view the starch as possible contamination
(cf. Barton, Torrence & Fullagar, 1998).
These cases demonstrate that the absence or low
frequency of phytoliths is generally significant. A sig-
nificant exception is FAO367 which lacked quantifiable
phytoliths and yet had well-preserved polishes and
residues that allowed direct observation of the artefact
to suggest that it was hafted. This discrepancy may
be explained by the relatively poor preservation of
phytoliths for Period 2 samples at FAO.
544 L. Kealhofer et al.
The second case where there was substantial dis-
agreement between the two techniques is FAO285.
This artefact was determined as unused by use-wear
analysis but had abundant quantities of phytoliths
placing it into the group characterized by palms. Once
again we feel that the use-wear is the best judge of use,
although the phytoliths might indicate contact ma-
terial, which in this case could be either some form of
deliberate wrapping of the artefact or non-intentional,
post-depositional contact. The former seems more
likely since only a small number of phytoliths were
extracted from the corresponding artefact soil sample.
In a number of examples the phytolith data provided
additional information on the types of plants which
produced the observed use-wear. FAO313 and
FAO336 which were in the use-wear uncertain plant
category were assigned to a phytolith group and
specific plant types could be given to others. It is
interesting that the phytolith bamboo group is largely
comprised of artefacts characterized by use-wear
analysis as uncertain plant. It is possible that Bambu-
soid residues came from the expedient use of bamboo
leaves to grasp sharp obsidian flakes during very
short-term use that left the undiagnostic traces
observed by Fullagar. Until further study of modern
reference material from the area has been undertaken,
a specific identification of the leaves is not possible.
FAO310 for which bamboo use-wear was observed
may also have been used in the same way but used for
a slightly longer period of time. FAO336 which had
uncertain plant use-wear and was placed in the phyto-
lith palm group may also have been an expedient
tool held in palm leaves and used only for a brief
time. It is significant that the only tool which had
evidence of contact with skin, FAO285, did not have
phytoliths, thereby supporting the proposition that
other expediently used tools were grasped directly in
the hand.
The FAO364s sample provides additional evidence
for the use of plants as expedient holding materials.
The retouched stem had a few herbaceous phytoliths,
possibly suggesting a material used to wrap or haft this
stem. When combined with use-wear identified as
relating to soft, starchy plant for the blade end, it
seems this tool may have been used to process tubers.
The interpretation of FAO364 demonstrates how the
two techniques can be used in concert with data on
manufacturing technique to infer tool function. No
single approach definitively reconstructed tool use, but
together they provide a fuller picture.
These examples demonstrate the need for an inte-
grated approach to the study of tool function. Rather
than rely solely on either the analysis of residues
extracted from artefacts or direct observation of use-
wear/residues, a combination of approaches produces a
more comprehensive reconstruction. The case study
also highlights the very important role phytoliths can
play in identifying the function of unretouched, expe-
dient tools with very low levels of use-wear develop-
ment. The majority of the tools in this category could
only be assigned an uncertain plant function by use-
wear residue analysis, but the phytolith study has
provided a new perspective on these artefacts by iden-
tifying differences in the nature of the hafting material
used to grasp them.
Chronological Change
Integrating the results from the use-wear/residue and
phytolith analyses allows us to address predictions
concerning chronological changes in tool use on the
north coast of West New Britain. Following on from
Fullagar’s (1992) and Torrence’s (1992) previous work,
we expected to find a change from curated, multi-
functional to single use tools combined with a change
from less to more diverse range of tasks at individual
sites. The very small sample size prohibits an adequate
test of these hypotheses, but the integrated data do
contribute significantly to an understanding of the
changes in obsidian artefacts.
The earliest Periods 1 and 2 appear to have been
characterized by both multi-functional and single pur-
pose tools primarily for processing starch. Hafting was
common for many of the artefacts but unretouched
flakes were also used on soft, starchy plants. Since
phytolith preservation is poor for Period 2 at FAO, we
cannot determine whether the unretouched flakes were
hafted or had handles of some form. The fact that the
most highly curated artefacts in our sample were
discarded at FRL and not at FAO is significant
because the former is a quarry site (Specht et al., 1988).
It seems likely that these tools were abandoned at FRL
after fresh replacements had been manufactured using
the plentiful supplies of raw material. Similar tools
may have been used at FAO but were carried away and
discarded elsewhere.
Period 3 is characterized by a change to more
expedient tool use. Only one artefact has been
retouched so as to create an area appropriate for
hafting, although the unretouched flakes appear to
have had informal handles consisting of wrapped plant
materials. Use-wear analysis did not specifically iden-
tify artefacts used to process starchy plants, although
starch was noted as a residue by both techniques for
two cases.
By Period 4 the trend to expedient tool use had
progressed further. In the majority of cases the very
sharp, unretouched, obsidian flakes were grasped with
bamboo leaves—presumably as much to reduce dam-
age to fingers as well as to increase the grip. Only one
artefact was held directly in the hand, but it was used
only very briefly. With the exception of the starch
extracted from FAO288 as part of the phytolith analy-
sis, which for reasons stated above we are hesitant to
accept uncritically, there is no evidence for starch
processing in Period 4. This result is extremely im-
portant because as Specht (1981) has noted, recent
 Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools 545
ethnographic accounts only mention uses associated
with the human body (e.g., shaving). In the recent past
processing of starchy tubers involved shell not stone
artefacts. Barton & White (1993) have also detected a
change from stone to shell tool use at Balof Cave in
New Ireland. The plant contact material which
Fullagar has noted in the use-wear analysis may simply
be hafting of flakes as suggested by the phytolith study
for uses similar to the ethnographic accounts. The
absence of cracked protein films interpreted as animal
blood residues is not surprising for this tropical, high
rainfall environment.
In summary, our results provide substantial confir-
mation for a change from curated to expedient tool use
at sites FRL and FAO. The new data from the
integrated study of direct observation and phytolith
analysis also provides important new insights into
the associated changes in the nature of handles. In
addition, the recognition of a possible change from
primarily plant processing to cutting of animal skin or
tissue not only helps explain the previous conflict
between Fullagar’s (1992) use-wear/residue study and
recent ethnography but also provides a much richer
understanding of chronological changes in obsidian
tool use in West New Britain.
Conclusions
At the beginning of this paper we framed two ques-
tions. The first was answered affirmatively for the
artefacts used in this study: phytolith assemblages
represent residues resulting from pre-depositional con-
tact with materials. Since contamination from the
surrounding soil is likely to occur in most archaeologi-
cal settings, each case will need evaluation comparable
to the methodology used here. We recommend that
systematic testing of site soil samples from archaeologi-
cal contexts and random testing of artefact soil samples
be carried out in conjunction with residue analyses.
When phytoliths are absent or present in low numbers
in residue samples, preference should be given to the
interpretation from direct observation of use-wear/
residues. This prescription applies to all forms of
residue analysis (Fullagar, Furby & Hardy, 1996;
Barton, Torrence & Fullagar, 1998).
The second question was how does the analysis of
phytolith assemblage data complement and/or add to
information derived from use-wear/residue analyses.
Since the analysis of phytoliths involves costly and
time-consuming procedures, it is important to assess
whether these are justified. In terms of the obsidian
artefacts analysed in our work, we conclude that
phytolith analysis makes a very important contribution
to the understanding of chronological changes in tool
use. First, the analysis of phytolith assemblage com-
position using correspondence analysis categorized
contact material by particular plant types. Second,
phytolith analysis provided important information
about chronological variability in the way the tools
were handled.
While contributing further taxonomic information
on plant processing and craft production in West New
Britain, phytolith studies also provided quantitative
information for testing hypotheses about functional
variability. This new information extends the category
of siliceous plant processing, available from use-wear/
residue studies, to the presence and quantification of
specific plants, particularly bamboo, palm, grasses
and a range of Dicotyledons. New insights were also
obtained about the nature of tool use such as handling,
hafting, single versus multi-purpose, and expediency.
The extra information concerning expediently used
tools, for which use-wear was poorly developed, was
particularly valuable since the change from curated to
expedient tools is a major focus for our research. In
future work each research project will need to assess
the need for a phytolith study given the particular
questions asked, the likely functions of the tools,
and the specific types of information which phytolith
analysis provides.
It should be stressed that on its own, phytolith
analysis is not an adequate means for understanding
tool function. Not only is there potential for non-
intentional contact with materials and/or post-
depositional contamination, but also phytoliths can
only provide information about a subset of plants.
Analyses of phytolith assemblages from residues
should always be integrated into a wider study which
incorporates use-wear/residue and technological analy-
sis of the stone artefacts. When carried out in conjunc-
tion with adequate soil testing and artefact analyses,
the study of phytolith assemblages extracted from
residues on artefacts will play a very important role in
the understanding of tool use.
Acknowledgements
Much of the research was carried out while L.
Kealhofer held Australian Museum Visiting Fellow-
ships in 1995 and 1997. R. Fullagar and R. Torrence
held an Australian Research Council Research Fellow-
ship and a Senior Research Fellowship, respectively.
The excavation of FRL was supported by an
Australian Research Council grant to Jim Specht and
Chris Gosden. Fieldwork on Garua Island was funded
by the Australian Research Council and the Papua
New Guinea Biological Foundation with assistance
from Garua Plantation Pty, Kimbe Bay Shipping
Agencies, Walindi Plantation, the West New Britain
Provincial Cultural Centre and the support of local
communities. Both projects were affiliated to the
National Museum and Art Gallery, PNG. Permission
for research was granted by the West New Britain
Provincial Government and visas were obtained with
the assistance of the National Research Institute.
The authors are also grateful to Anita van der
546 L. Kealhofer et al.
Meer and Kelly Ann Sullivan for technical assistance,
Glenn Summerhayes for Figure 1, Peter White and
Peter Graves for comments, and Annie Clarke for
lunches.
References
Ambrose, W. (1996). Obsidian hydration dating of the Reef/Santa
Cruz Lapita sites. In (J. Davidson, G. Irwin, F. Leach, A. Pawley
& D. Brown, Eds) Oceanic Culture History. Dunedin North: New
Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication, pp. 245–255.
Anderson, P. (1980). A testimony of prehistoric tasks: diagnostic
residues on stone tool working edges. World Archaeology 12,
181–193.
Atchison, J. & Fullagar, R. (1998). Starch residues on pounding
implements from Jinmium rock-shelter. In (R. Fullagar, Ed.)
Accessing Stones: Recent Australian Studies of Stone Tools.
Sydney: Sydney University, Archaeological Methods Series.
Barton, H. (1991). Raw material and the tool function: a residue and
use-wear analysis of artefacts from a Melanesian rock shelter. B. A.
Hons. Thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney.
Barton, H., Fullagar, R. & Torrence, R. (1998). Clues to stone tool
function re-examined: comparing starch grain frequencies on used
and unused obsidian artefacts. Journal of Archaeological Science
25, 1231–1238.
Barton, H. & White, J. P. (1993). Use of stone and shell artifacts at
Balof 2, New Ireland, PNG. Asian Perspectives 32, 169–181.
Bowdery, D. (n.d). Report on phytoliths from a tool at FRL.
Unpublished report for the Australian Museum.
Brown, D. (1984). Prospects and limits of a phytolith key for grasses
in the Central United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 11,
345–368.
Bruier, F. L. (1976). New clues to stone tool function: plant and
animal residues. American Antiquity 41, 478–484.
Fullagar, R. (1986). Use-wear and residues on stone tools: functional
analysis and its application to two southeastern Australian ar-
chaeological assemblages Ph.D. Thesis, La Trobe University,
Melbourne.
Fullagar, R. (1988). Recent developments in Australian use-wear
and residue studies. In (S. Beyries, Ed). Industries Lithiques,
Tracéologie et Technologie. Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports International Series 411(ii), pp 133–145.
Fullagar, R. (1991). The role of silica in polish formation. Journal of
Archaeological Science 18, 1–25.
Fullagar, R. (1992). Lithically Lapita. Functional analysis of flaked
stone assemblages from West New Britain Province, Papua New
Guinea. In (J.-C. Galipaud, Ed.). Poterie Lapita et Peuplement.
Nouméa: ORSTOM, pp. 135–143.
Fullagar, R. (1993a). Flaked stone tools and plant food production:
a preliminary report on obsidian tools from Talasea, West New
Britain, PNG. In (P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte & H. Plisson,
Eds). Traces et Fonction: Les Gestes Retrouvés. Liegè: ERAUL,
Vol. 50, pp. 331–337.
Fullagar, R. (1993b). Taphonomy and tool use: a role for phytoliths
in usewear and residue analysis. In (B. Fankhauser & J. R. Bird,
Eds) Archaeometry: Current Australasian Research. Canberra:
Australian National University. Occasional Papers in Prehistory
22, 740–745.
Fullagar, R. & Furby, J. (1997). Pleistocene seed-grinding imple-
ments from the Australian arid zone. Antiquity 71, 300–307.
Fullagar, R. B., Meehan, R. & Jones, R. (1992). Residue analysis
of ethnographic plant-working and other tools from northern
Australia. In (P. Anderson-Gerfaud, Ed.) Préhistoire de
l’agriculture: nouvelles approches experimentales et ethno-
graphiques. Monographie du CRA. 6, Paris: CNRS, pp. 39–53.
Fullagar, R., Furby, J. & Hardy, B. (1996). Residues on stone
artifacts: state of a scientific art. Antiquity 70, 740–745.
Fullagar, R., Loy, T. & Cox, S. (1998). Starch grains, sediments and
stone tool function: archaeological evidence for plant foods from
Bitokara, Papua New Guinea. In (R. Fullagar, Ed.). Accessing
Stones: Recent Australian Studies of Stone Tools. Sydney: Sydney
University, Archaeological Methods Series.
Hall, J., Higgins, S. & Fullagar, R. (1989). Plant residues on stone
tools. In (W. Beck, A. Clarke & L. Head, Eds) Plants in Australian
Archaeology. St. Lucia: Tempus Monograph Series, pp. 136–160.
Hurcombe, L. M. (1992). Use Wear Analysis and Obsidian: Theory,
Experiments and Results. Sheffield: Sheffield Archaeological
Monographs 4.
Kealhofer, L. & Piperno, D. (in press). Phytolith Distribution in
Modern Southeast Asian Flora. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian
Contributions to Botany.
Loy, T. H. (1994). Methods in the analysis of starch residues on
prehistoric stone tools. In (J. Hather, Ed.) Tropical Archaeo-
botany. London: Routledge, pp. 86–114.
Loy, T., Wickler, S. & Spriggs, M. (1992). Direct evidence for human
use of plants 28,000 years ago: starch residues on stone artifacts
from the northern Solomon Islands. Antiquity 66, 898–912.
Machida, H., Blong, R., Moriwaki, H., Hayakawa, Y., Talai, B.,
Lolock, D., Specht, J., Torrence, R. & Pain, C. (1996). Holocene
explosive eruptions of Witori and Dakataua volcanoes in West
New Britain, Papua New Guinea and their possible impact on
human environment. Quaternary International 35/36, 65–78.
Piperno, D. R. (1988). Phytolith Analysis: An Archaeological and
Geological Perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Piperno, D. R. & Pearsall, D. M. (1990a). Phytolith morphology in
tropical Bambusoideae and Arundinoideae: taxonomy, new forms
and implications for archaeological maize identification. Ms on
file. Philadelphia: MASCA, University of Pennsylvania.
Piperno, D. R. & Pearsall, D. M. (1990b). Phytoliths in the repro-
ductive structures on Zea and Tripsacum: implications for the
study of maize evolution. Ms on file. Philadelphia: MASCA,
University of Pennsylvania.
Piperno, D. R. & Pearsall, D. M. (in press). The Silica Bodies of
Tropical American Grasses: Morphology, Taxonomy, and Implica-
tions for Grass Systematics and Fossil Phytolith Identification.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Contributions to Botany.
Powers, A. H., Padmore, J. & Gilbertson, D. D. (1989). Studies of
late prehistoric and modern opal phytoliths from coastal sand
dunes and machair in northwest Britain. Journal of Archaeological
Science 16, 27–46.
Shafer, H. J. & Holloway, R. J. (1979). Organic residue analysis in
determining stone tool function. In (B. Hayden, Ed.) Lithic
Use-Wear Analysis. New York: Academic Press, pp. 385–399.
Sobolik, K. D. (1996). Lithic organic residue analysis: an example
from the Southwestern Archaic. Journal of Field Archaeology 23,
461–70.
Specht, J. (1981). Obsidian sources at Talasea, West New Britain,
Papua New Guinea. Journal of the Polynesian Society 90, 337–56.
Specht, J., Fullagar, R., Torrence, R. & Baker, N. (1988). Prehistoric
obsidian exchange in Melanesia: a perspective from the Talasea
sources. Australian Archaeology 27, 3–16.
Therin, M. J., Torrence, R. & Fullagar, R. (1997). Australian
Museum starch reference collection. Australian Archaeology 44,
52.
Torrence, R. (1992). What is Lapita about obsidian? A view from
the Talasea source. In (J.-C. Galipaud, Ed.) Poterie Lapita et
Peuplement. Nouméa: ORSTOM, pp. 111–26.
Torrence, R. (1993). Ethnoarchaeology, museum collections and
prehistoric exchange: obsidian-tipped artifacts from the Admiralty
Islands. World Archaeology 24, 467–81.
Torrence, R., Pavlides, C., Jackson, P. & Webb, J. (in press)
Volcanic disasters and cultural discontinuities in the Holocene of
West New Britain, Papua New Guinea. In (C. Firth & W.
McGuire, Eds) Volcanoes in the Quaternary. Oxford: Blackwell.