Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments by 'Blind Tests': The Low-Power Approach Author(s): George Hamley Odell

and Frieda Odell-Vereecken Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1980), pp. 87-120 Published by: Boston University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529584 Accessed: 14/09/2009 21:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=boston. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Boston University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

Verifying Reliability LithicUse-Wear the of Assessments 'BlindTests':the Low-Power by Approach

George HamleyOdell FriedaOdell-Vereecken
Foundation for Illinois Archaeology Kampsville, Illinois

Severalfreshly knapped piecesoff ne-grained basaltwereutilizedby an experimenter a largevariety tasks. Thetoolswerethensubmitted an analyst, for of to whowasignorant theusesto which of eachof theobjectshadbeenpat. Employinglow-power microscopic techniques, wasable to identifywithreasonable he accuracytheusedpart(s)of the implements, prehended the part(s),theactivities in whichthepieceshadbeenengaged, therelative and resistance thematerials of worked. is arguedthatlow-power It micro-wear techniques several have advantages,amongwhich easeandspeedof analysisandavailability equipment. are of Themethods selectedforany use-wear analysisof stonetools,however, mustbe adapted theparticular to situation thequestions be askedof thedata. and to

Introduction The analysisof the edges and surfacesof stone tools for the purposeof ascertaining theirpatternsof damage (i.e., use-wearanalysis)has been highlytouted as being capable of providingvalid and instructiveinsightsfor the study of lithic artifacts.'This contention,however true, is becominga little hackneyed. Whereas Tringham et al.2 could term their articleon the subject,"Experimentationin the Formationof Edge Damage:A New Approach to Lithic Analysis" (emphasis ours), Elve years later, and 15 yearsafterthe Englishtranslation of Semenov'sfamous work, the subjectis no longer nas1. S. A. Semenov, Prehistoric Technology, translated by M. W. Thompson (London, 1964); S. A. Semenov, "The Forms and Functions of the Oldest Tools, " Quartar 21 (1970) 1-20. F. Bordes, "Conside'rations sur la typologie et les techniques dans le Pale'olithique," Quartar 18 (1967) 25-55; S. A. Ahler, "Projectile Point Form and Function at Rodgers Shelter, Missouri," A{issouriArchaeological Society Research Series 8 (1970); J. D. Nance, "Functional Interpretations from Microscopic Analysis," AmAnt 36 (1971) 361-366; Ruth Tringham, "Analysis of Patterns in the Analysis of Stone Tools," (paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology, Annual Meetings, 1972); L. H . Keeley, "Technique and Methodology in Microwear Studies: A Critical Review," WA 5 (1974) 323336. 2. Ruth Tringham, Glenn Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Voytek, and Anne Whitman, "Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis," JFA 1 (1974) 171-196.

cent. It is thereforegermaneto ask what has been accomplishedrecently,and whetheror not any advances have been madein the Eleld. In one sense that question is easy to answer.There has been an increasingfrequency articleson the subof ject; at least threedoctoraldissertations have beenwritten dealingprimarily with it, all of whichincludemajor programsof experimentation;3 conferencehas been a held to disseminateideas and standardize certainprocedures;4 an entiresessionof the Societyfor Ameriand can Archaeology(in Tucson, 1978)was devotedto the subject.Thereis a greatdeal of activity.Whether not or people outsidethe field can interpret use this mateand rial in any meaningfulfashionis debatable,since there still exists no easily availablecompendiumof detailed patterns of use-wear(except Semenov's,which is not
3. Johan Kamminga, "Blood from a Stone: an Inquiry into the Functions of Australian Prehistoric Stone Tools," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney (1977); L. H. Keeley, "An Experimental Study of Microwear Traces on Selected British Palaeolithic Implements," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oxford University (1977); G. H. Odell, "The Application of Micro-Wear Analysis to the Lithic Component of an Entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems and Functional Reconstructions," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University ( 1977). 4. Brian Hayden, ed., Lithic Use-Wear Analysis (New York, San Francisco and London, 1979).

Vereecken and Assessment/Odell Odellof 88 Reliability LithicUse-Wear comprehensivein its treatment of edge and surface damage). In addition, we have sensed a reluctanceon to the part of severalprehistorians acceptthe resultsof studies based on assessments of use-wear, on the has groundsthat the basic analyticalframework not yet been establishedand that the judgementsof the function analystshave never been tested. In this regardthe recent article by Keeley and Newcomer,s in which Keeley was asked to identifythe activitiesand worked materials in which 15 stone tools made and used by advancein Newcomerhad beenengaged,is a signiElcant that it has perhapshelped to make use-wearanalysis comto "believable" at least part of the archaeological munity. As in skinningcats, however,there is more than one way to do use-wearanalysis.6If Keeley'smethodsappear reasonablyreliable,that does not meanthat other methods have attained a comparabledegree of reliability or are reliablein the same sense. The purposeof the present article is to communicatethe results of a similar series of tests, using techniquesdifferentfrom those employedby Keeley,and to evaluatethese results in the light of what can reasonablybe expected from eithertype of analysis. ment the analyst is able to observe both removalsof and materialfrom an edge (scarring) evidenceof abrasion such as roundingand surfacescratches,or "striations.\ But the most diagnosticelementof wearappears to be polish, which Keeley states was "takenas a ceredge had beenused."8 tain signalthat that particular The techniquesdevelopedby Keeley were tested in the following manner: Newcomer manufactured15 tools of Englishchalk flint and utilized 14 of them in various ways on various materials.These implements as wereto be interpreted havingcome froma European Lower or Middle Palaeolithiccontext. As interpreted series,this meant by Newcomerduringthe experimental coverthat the tools wouldbe handheld,withprotective ing used when performingstrenuoustasks. Activities and generallyrestrictedto would be non-agricultural one use per tool. Materialswould be those availableto and probably employed by Lower or Middle Palaeolithic Europeans,and the test would permit the occasional use of backing under the material.Tools included both retouched and unretouched varieties. Results were as follows: used area of the piece: 14 activity:12 of 16, or 75%; correct out of 16, or 87.5Yo; and worked material:10 of 16, or 62.5%.The level of reliabilityshown in these tests is quite acceptablefor techmost purposes,and it is evident that high-power Approach" The "High-Power specificinformaniquesoffer the potentialof rendering The use-weartechnique propoundedby Keeley we tion on the functions of stone implementsused in for approach" lack of a more shall call the "high-power prehistorictimes. It only remainsto considerat what the discussionpresented Although accuratedesignation. is expensethis information acquired. it here is primarilyconcernedwith Keeley's methods, The most obvious expense is monetary.Keeley emthat Semenov,Semenovs Russhould be remembered ployed three microscopesin his blind test series and, sian colleagueG. F. Korobkova,and a numberof other (L. althoughonly one was absolutelynecessary Keeley, researchersalso employ high-powertechniques of a personal communication1979), even the cost of that slightly differentnature.The most importantpiece of with whichwe Certaindepartments one is considerable. of equipmentemployedby researchers this school is a are familiarwould simplynot be able to affordsuchexhigh-powerbinocularmicroscope.Keeley'sinstrument penditureat present budgetarylevels. Nevertheless,it attachmentand has a range possessesan incident-light can be arguedthat for a techniquewith such apparent He of 24 to 400X magnification. also utilizestwo other with a rangeof 6-SOX potential,one can affordto spenda little more. Unfora microscopes: stereomicroscope tunately, there is another drawback: it takes conmagnification for examinationof edge damage, and scan a tool siderabletime to utilize2 or 3 microscopes, another high-power microscope for use with those at lOOX,investigatecertain areas at up to 400X, and firstpieces too awkwardlyshaped to fit under the mentionedapparatus.Scanningis usuallydone at lOOX assess the piece at 200X. Keeley admitsthis point, saying, "Fifteenwas chosenas the numberof experimental of and identification functionat 200X.7Withthis equiptools only after considerablediscussion,balancingthe desireto have as manytools as possibleagainstthe considerable time necessaryto record and study the use Analysisof Ex5. L. H. Keeleyand M. H. Newcomer,"Microwear perimentalFlint Tools: A Test Case," Journal of Archaeological wear on the tools."9Clearlythe techniqueis not ideally
Science 4 ( 1977)29-62.

A in 6. G. H. Odell, "Micro-Wear Perspective: SympatheticResponse to LawrenceH. Keeley," WA 7 (1975) 226-240;Keeley and op. Newcomer, cit. (in note 5) 29, 35. op. 7. KeeleyandNewcomer, cit. (in note5) 36-37.It shouldbe noted employed,no basic are that, althoughhigh magnifications frequently

artifact scanning or functional assessment is performed with a scanning electron microscope. 8. Ibid. 37. 9. Ibid. 34.

Vol. of Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 89 suited for use with large samples an unfortunate size of severalof the limitation,given the considerable haveto deal. lithiccollectionswithwhicharchaeologists First, A few additionalpoints are worthconsidering. althoughuse polish has becomea sort of "fossiledirecteur" for wear assessments using high-powerequipment, it is not an infallibleindex.Thereare severalinover stancesin which Keeley mentionsan "uncertainty the interpretation of the microwear polish,"' a probable result of the potentially large number of variablesthat can influencethe formationof damage traces. Second, Keeley and Newcomer decided against insubstances stone and soil . . . as like cluding"inorganic there is little evidence for their use before the Upper Palaeolithic.""They may well be correct, but implebeen intermentssuch as the handaxehaveoccasionally preted as digging tools.'2 In any case, it would appear imprudent to dismiss inorganic materialsentirely in activities. postulatingLowerand MiddlePalaeolithic conThird, Keeley'swork so far has beenexclusively and cernedwith flintsand chertsas rawmaterial, he has his beenjustifiablycautiousin extending resultsto other materials.He mentions that the flint he studies has a 13 very fine-grained structure. In fact, flint is an amorphous, isotropic brittle solid that possesses the making it same fracturepropertiesin all directions,'4 ideally suited for the observation of damage traces. There is no guaranteethat the techniquesthat Keeley has developedwith flint will workwith other rawmaterials, whetherthey be clearerand more brittle,such as such as quartzobsidian,or coarserand moregranular, assays, controlling ite. A numberof new experimental for differentlithic categories,are going to have to be techniquesbeforeenough undertaken using high-power consistencies among types have been observed and documentedto indicate the versatilityof the method. Until that happens,one must consideradaptabilityto be a potentialproblem.The studythat follows suggests that this is not a severeproblemwhen employinglowpowermethods. Finally, there are several types of analysis that are of satisfiedwith information a lowerorderthanthat offered by high-power approaches.Although accurate assessmentof exact worked materialis desired, categories such as "hard," "medium" and "soft" are usually sufficient in answeringquestions of environActivity,as will import.'5 mentaland humanbehavioral by be seen shortly,can be assessedfairlyaccurately usOne does not, ing eitherhigh-or low-powerequipment. if therefore,lose a greatdeal of information one decides micro-wear methods. not to pursuehigh-power These considerationssuggest that, far from being a cure-allor a functionalpanacea,as it may be viewedby approachhas definitedissome people, the high-power advantages.The most salient of these are the excessive amount of time expended and the possible lack of replicability from one rawmaterialcategoryto another. can If methodsemployinglow-powermagniElcation be shown to reduce the expenditureof time, improve replicability(i.e., be adaptive to a greater variety of raw-material types), and remain responsiveto a large and importantarrayof questions,then these should be recognized as powerful reasons for adopting alternativesto the approachoutlinedabove. Approach" The "Low-Power Use-wear techniques employing low-power microscopes have been practicedfor a long time.'6 Several scholarsare responsiblefor the increasedtempo of activity in this field. Noteworthyare the experimentsby Charles Keller'7 and the interest kindled in London Experimenduringthe late 1960sby Ruth Tringham.'8 tation has continued during the 1970s at Harvard and several University,'9the University of Sydney,20 otherlocalities.2'

15. M. B. Schiffer, "The Place of Lithic Use-Wear Studies in Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, BrianHayden, Behavioral Archaeology," G. and ed. (New York,San Francisco London1979)15-25; H. Odell, LithicConApproach Archaeological to "Toward MoreBehavioral a centrations," mAnt, in press). (A 16. Tringham al., op. cit. (in note 2); Odell,op. cit. (in note 6); L. et H. Keeley, "The Function of PalaeolithicFlint Tools," SAm 237 (1977)108-126. of 17. C. M. Keller,"The Development Edge DamagePatternson -511. StoneTools,"Man I (1966)501 and Technology Typologyof the 18. RuthTringham, "TheFunction, Chipped Stone Industry at Bylany," Die aktuelle Fragen der fehervar (1972)143 148. Bandkeramik,J. Fitz, ed., Szekes 19. Tringham al., op. cit. (in note2);Odell,op. cit. (in note3). et 20. Kamminga, cit. (in note3). op. 21. Hayden, cit. (in note4). op.

10. Ibid.48. 11. Ibid.34. .. des PZ 12. hI. Quiring,Uber Zweckund Handhabung Faustkeils," How They 23 (1932) 277-280;L. S. B. Leakey,"Stone Implements: Archaeological Bulletin 5 (1950) WereMadeandUsed,"South A%rican 17;J. E. Pfeiffer,The Emergenceof Man (New York 1969)49, 56. op. 13. KeeleyandNewcomer, cit. (in note 5) 37. Information from "Modelsfor DerivingCultural 14. R. Bonnichsen, Stone Tools," National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, ArchaeoNo. 94. logicalSurvey Canada,Paper 60 ( 1977) of

90 Reliability LithicUse-Wear of Assessment/Odell Odelland Vereecken Details of the methods involved vary with the individual, but in general researchers one microscope use with capabilitiesup to 40-lOOX. Preparation the obof ject with chemicals or metallization is usually not necessary,and pieces are typically scanned at around 10-20Xand assessedat 20-40X. All forms of wear are observedand considered,but Keeley and Newcomer22 are correct in assertingthat the most ubiquitousand frequentlyused index is scarringalong the edges. Once observed, relevantdamage is usually assessed directly accordingto its similarityto experimentalpieces, describedaccordingto type, or determinedindirectlyby recording attributes and re-combining them statistically.23

Therehas been some criticismof certainpracticalaspects of micro-wear identification using low-power techniques, particularly by Keeley and Newcomer. They claim that the damage caused by intentional retouch,manufacture damageto edgesproducedduring the original removal of the piece (i.e., "spontaneous retouch"),24 naturalmovementof soil sediment,as and in solifluxion,are extremely difElcult distinguish to from use-wearunder low-powermicroscopesand are therefore seriousimpediments the low-powerapproach.25 to Whileadmittingthat thereis difficulty the natureand extent of that difficultywill be discussedshortly there have been studies that demonstratea clear difference between damage produced by utilization and that caused by other factors.26 Differencesare often subtle, to be sure, but the more experimentation observaand tion an analyst does, the more competent he or she becomesat identifying tracescorrectly. the Anothercriticismof the low-powerapproachis "the large numberof variablesto which utilizationdamage responds."27 Keeley and Newcomer'slist (their p. 36) exaggerates situation,for "edgethickness" largely the is a functionof "edge angle,"alreadymentioned,and ar22. KeeleyandNewcomer, cit. (in note5) 35. op. 23. G. H. Odell, "A New and Improved Systemfor the Retrieval of FunctionalInformation from Microscopic Observations Chipped of Stone Tools," Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, Brian Hayden,ed. (New York,San Francisco London1979)329-44. and 24. M. H. Newcomer, "Spontaneous Retouch," SecondInternational Symposium Flint, Staringia 3, F. Engelen,ed. (Maastricht1976) on 62-64;J. Brink,"Notes on the Occurrence Spontaneous of Retouch," Lithic Technology7 ( 1 978)31-33. 25. KeeleyandNewcomer, cit. (in note5) 35. op. 26. Tringham al., op. cit. (in note 2); JeanneA. Schutt,"Artifact et RecoveryProcedures Microwear and Patterns," (paperpresented at the Society for AmericanArchaeology,Annual Meetings,Tucson 1978). 27. KeeleyandNewcomer, cit. (in note 5) 35. op.

tifact raw materialand method of prehensionare no more a problem(probablyless so, as we shall see) with low-power techniques than with high-power ones. Nevertheless,there is a large numberof variablesto consider, and work has only begun in isolating and evaluatingthem. It might be relevantthat people who employ threemicroscopes a largerangeof magnifiand cation must also consider all of these variables,plus those contributing the variability polish and striato of tions observed at the higher magnifications. The differencebetweentechniquesin this regardlies with the relativeemphasisgiven each of the variables,and it is difficultto see any great advantagepossessedby either approachon this point. For the resolutionof this problem, it should be sufficientat the presentstate of researchto invoke Keeley'sown advice:"Therecognition of a used edge depends heavily on the microwear analyst's own familiaritywith the use of stone implements,gainedin the courseof experiments."28 Finally,Keeleyand Newcomerstatethat "Utilization damage . . . rarely forms on steeply-angled edges."29 Our work indicates that this statementis inaccurate. First, the harderthe materialworked,the morelikelyit is that utilizationdamagewill occur and be observable at low magnifications.The authors' experimentsindicate that, for most activities,use on hard materials almost always produces damage, even on edges with very high angles. Second, the amount that an edge is utilizedhas an effect on the damageproduced.That is, a piece employed for 10 strokes on a weasel pelt will probablyresult in an ostensiblyunusededge, whereas strokingit 10,000timesoughtto producesome discernible damageto a tool edge. The use of the word "damage" is intentional,becausethe resultmay not be scarring, or what Keeleyterms"utilization damage."For example, experiments the authorsscrapinga seal skin by for 3000 strokeswith fine-grained basalton edges with high anglesproducedonly a moderateamountof scarring, but a considerableamount of edge roundingdiscernible some locationseven to the nakedeye. To at say that "utilization damage" failed to form to any great extent, therefore,misses the real point of relevance to low-powertechniques: anothersort of damage did develop,and it developedin a fashiondiagnosticof the activityand material worked. The Experiments: Rulesof the Game The reliabilityof methodsusing low-powermagnifications has been tested in a mannersimilarto that outlined by Keeley and Newcomer. Most of their rules
28. Ibid. 37. 29. Ibid.

Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 91 of Vol. have been retained,assuringa certainamountof comparability betweenthe two seriesof tests. The material from which the tools were fashioned consistsof a black, fine-grained substancethat was discoveredin the vicinityof CacheCreek,BritishColumbia, and has been classifiedas a sideromelane,or basalt.30It was selectedfor use for two reasons. First, it was available in the area in which the authors were working, whereas European chalk flint was unobtainable.And second,it is definitely granular texture, in as the photographs accompanying articleillustrate. this Striations,polishand otherevidenceof abrasionare not easily discernibleand had been rarelyencounteredin previousexperimentation. was felt that to use such a It materialwould, if successful,indicatethe utility of the scarring indexand illustrate that the principles which on this use-wearstudy is based are applicableto a wide rangeof substances other than European chalk flint, on which most of the authors' previousexperimentshad beenconducted. A series of 40 flakes, blades, spalls, and core tools were knappedfrom this materialby Odell with a hammerstone. Some were then retouched, using a hammerstoneand/or deer antlertine, and the lot was given to Odell-Vereecken. these, 32 were to be selectedfor Of use, the selectionto be made at the time of utilization. One of the implementsbroke and was discarded,leaving a sampleof 31 pieces.Fromthe deliveryof the tools to their returnfollowing utilization,Odell did not see them outside the closed box in which they were kept, nor was there any communicationbetween the two authorsconcerningthe contentof the experiments until afterthe micro-wear assessments beenmade.31 had
30. The determination was made on the basis of a thin-section analysis of the rock, performed by William K. Collins of the Department of Geology, Brown University. According to Collins, the rock has a basalt glass matrix with feldspar microlites and euhedral olivine phenocrysts, and a preferred orientation in the direction of the flow of the rapidly cooling igneous rock mass. 31. The experiments were conducted in the spring of 1978, in Vancouver, British Columbia. It may be of interest to the more socially minded readers that the co-authors are indeed married and do inhabit the same domicile. These facts had no effect on the secrecy in which the content of the experiments was maintained. It was only afterwards that the silence was broken (and divorce contemplated), proving once again that some people can keep a secret. Both Larry Keeley and Jo Kamminga (personal communication, 1979) have suggested that the success rates of the experiments presented here would be more believable" if 1) the use-wear analyst had not knapped the stones himself and 2) the co-authors had not been conjugally related. In answer to the first point, the stones were, for the most part, picked out of the debris pile rather than deliberately shaped, and those that were retouched were not shaped to any specific plan but were modified to H1ll variety of potential forms and uses. Since several a more pieces were knapped than were used and since more than two

The following rules were established.To maintain comparability with Newcomer'sexperiments, was ait greed that all tools would be hand-held(i.e., not hafted), although the user could employ whateverprotection, such as gloves and leatherpads, that she deemed necessary in a given situation. Boards or other "natural" (non-synthetic) backing could be used if necessary.Tasks were to be non-agricultural few and tools were to have multiple uses. On this point the authorsagreewith Keeleyand Newcomer,32 is, that that the large majorityof discardedtools on archaeological sites and the simple design of most stone implements precludemultipleuses for the vast majorityof them. In addition, micro-wearstudies performedon large samples from a singlesite seemto supportthis contention.33 Materialsworked,however,werenot limitedto organic substances.Not enough researchhas been done to establishthe relativeproportionsof inorganicto organic materialsutilized in antiquityand it is definitelyprematureto precludethem at this stage. The numberof strokes to which each tool was to be subjectedwas neverspecified,but it was agreedthat everyimplement was to be utilizedfor a lengthof time sufElcient perto form a "reasonable" task with the tool. Interpretation of this stipulationwas left to the tool user. A wide varietyof activitieswas performed an even on widervarietyof materials.Figure1 illustrates use of the some of these implements,while Table 1 presentsa list by species of the materialsworked.34 Figures2-4 show the individualtools and the locationof indicators use of on each piece. Letterspoint to specificareasexplained
months elapsed between the times of knapping and inspection, it is difficult to conceive that any substantial bias-either subliminal or otherwise-would develop on this account. In answer to the second point, it cannot be denied that some subliminal bias may have occurred as a result of the marital status of the authors, but it is uncertain in what direction the results may have been altered. The guesses of yams, potatoes, celery, etc., were based on previous experiments in an attempt to be as exact as possible in the assessments, and were not based on what we had for dinner the previous evening (we rarely eat either yams or potatoes, anyway). Furthermore, this paper does not report one series of blind tests, but two. The first of these, described near the end of this article, was performed with a student who had no axe to grind (so to speak), exhibited a healthy skepticism of use-wear analysis, and knapped the tools himself. In fact, it was as a result of the first series of experiments that the present co-authors decided that their conjugality would not signiElcantlyalter the results of a second series. 32. Keeley and Newcomer, op. cit. (in note 5) 34. 33. Odell, op. cit. (in note 3); Henry G. Wylie, "Tool Microwear and Functional Types from Hogup Cave, Utah," Tebiwa 17 (1975) 1-31. 34. We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Joseph T. Eastman, Dept. Of Biology and Medicine, Brown University, who identified the Pacific coast canary rockfish from a photograph.

92 Reliability Lithic Use-Wear of Assessment/Odell Odelland Vereecken

Figure1. Someof the activities represented the blindtests:a) Tool no. 4 usedto boresoakedantler.b) Tool no. 8 used by to cut freshporkskin.c) Tool no. 9 usedto scrapefreshporkskinon pinebacking.d) Tool no. 12 usedto crushhazelnuts on pinebacking.e) Tool no. 13usedto sawagedhemlock.f) Tool no. 24 usedto gravecookedcowjoint. g) Tool no. 25 usedto graveagedhemlock.h) Tool no. 26 usedto cut grass.a) to h) areleft to right,top to bottom.

Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 93 of Vol.

10

O 1 2
e

5cm

ll

Figure2. Experimental pieces1-11. In this andthe two figuresthatfollow,eachpieceis oriented withproximal (bulbar) end towardthe bottomof the page,exceptfor piecenumbers and9 whichare 2 oriented differently reasonsof space for (locationof bulbof percussion suggested a full circle).Intentional is by retouchis indicated marginal, by stylized,regular, andcontiguous scallop-shaped configurations, whereas verylargeshapingremovals drawnto scaleandto exactshape. are Visibleremovals causedby use haveusuallynot beenrendered, orderto avoidconfusionwithintentional in retouch, althoughextremely largeones areshown.

94 Reliability of Lithic Use-WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereecken

18

Figure 3. Experimental pieces 12-24.

Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 95 of Vol.

28
0
15 e

Scm

'

W/

<\_

31 30

Figure 4. Experimental pieces 25-31.

in the text: P = polish; S = striations; E = edge rounding; Rf = feather-terminated removals; Rh = hinge-terminated removals;Rs = break-terminated, or step, removals; = crushing. Rc After an implementhad been utilizedit was cleaned carefullyin soap and waterto removeany remnantmaterial. It was then placed in a plastic bag and returned to the box whenceit had come. Upon completionof the activitiesthe box was given to the micro-wear investigator, who washedeach tool in diluted HCI, NH40H, and water.This actionwas probablynot necessary, considering the magniFlcations contemplated,but it was performedas a precautionagainstthe existenceof any remnantworked material that may have escaped the Flrstcleansing, and against any grease or other substance that may have been transmittedthrough handlingor othermeansafterthetools werewashed.

It was not totally from a sense of fairnessand consistencythat these matterswere attendedto. Remnant materialcan be conceptuallyconfusingto a researcher. After all, a trainedfunctionanalystshould be betterat
Table 1. Genusand speciesnamesof the plantsand animals that servedas contactmaterials the experimental in series.
Plants

Animals cow: Bos taurus deer (mule): Odocoileus hemionus pig: Sus scrofa lamb: Ovis aries canary rockfish: Sebastes pinniger

yam: Dioscorea sp. western hemlock: Tsuga heterophylla hazel: Corylus sp. bigleaf maple: A cer macrophyllum scallions: Allium cepa grass: Gramineaesp.

96 Reliability of Lithic Use- WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereecken

identifyinguse-wearon a stone tool than understanding function merely by recognizing,say, the odd piece of chicken skin fortuitouslylodged in a marginaldepression.

Principles Procedures and

A. Characteristicsof lVonUse Damage

FunctionalidentiFlcations werebasedon experiments performedby Odell at HarvardUniversityand in the Netherlands.3s Part of this experimentation concerned factorsthat cause damageto stone tools but are quite divorcedfrom the utilizationof the implement.These factorsmust be consideredand rejectedbeforedamage can be safelyattributed use. to One importantconsiderationconcernsthe effects of naturalforcessuch as hill wash,solifluxion,streamrolling, and frost heaving.36 Pressuresresultingfrom these activitiescan be expectedto produceall forms of wear recognizedon intentionallyutilizedpieces,though patterning of the damage can usually be expected to be random, not favoring one part of the tool over the others. Chipping from naturalcauses frequentlyconsists of removals spaced irregularly all edges of a on piece, therebylackingthe concentration patterning and of use chipping.Striations,if present,tend to be multidirectional and uncorrelated with particular edges. Polish and edge rounding are likewise usually unassociatedwith particular edges and may be a resultof extremebattering crushing. and Damagecan also be causedby post-depositional factors involving either the prehistoricoccupants or archaeologicalrecoveryand storagetechniques.Damage from trampling, for example, has been shown to be characterized scarsthat have no EIxed by orientationor size, but usuallya markedelongationand a randomdistribution along the edge.37Similarly, the occasional roughhandlingand contactwith hardmaterials that often occursin storingartifacts, oftentermed"labwear,"38 has also produced randomness of distribution. Experimentation this aspect of edge damageand in in transportation has allowed the conclusion that:
35. Tringham al., op. cit. (in note 2);Odell,op. cit. (in note 3). et 36. See, for example,J. D. Clark,"TheNaturalFracture Pebbles of from the BatokaGorge, NorthernRhodesia,and Its Bearingon the KafuanIndustries Africa,"PPS 24 (1958)64-77;D. Stapert, of "Middle Palaeolithic Finds from the Northern Netherlands,"Palaeohistoria 18( 1976) 43-72. 37. Tringham al., op. cit. (in note2) 192. et 38. J. M. Gero, "Summary Experiments DuplicatePost-Excaof to vationalDamageto Tool Edges,"Lithie Teehnology 7 (1978)34; see also H. G. Wylie, "ArtifactProcessingand Storage Procedures: a Noteof Caution,"Newsletter oSLithie Teehnology4 ( 1975)17-19.

"Although a greater variety of scars occurred, scars were generallynot consistentenough to be interpreted as edge damageresultingfromuse."39 Bagwearhas also been consideredeasily distinguishable from use wear"becauseof the randomdistribution of bagwear scars along both edges of a tool."40 Likewise,damage by screeninghas been tested experimentally and has produced "erraticand non-aligned short grooves," irregularly spaced crushed edges, and no discernibledamagepattern.4' Removalscaused by excavationequipmentsuch as trowels and shovels are characterized one or more rows of contiguous, by unifacial scars, roughly equal in size and shape. Occasionally the scraped edge terminatesin a V-shaped notch (the point at whichthe massof the objectbecame too great for the force applied,therebyhaltingfurther penetration)and/or shows the metallic mark of the diggingimplement.42 The manufacture stone tools also causes damage of that, in some cases, can be very difficultto distinguish from use-wear.Severalauthorshave commented the on generaldifferences that obtain, however,and these can be summarizedbriefly. Although there is obviously a continuumbetweenintentionalretouchand use-wear in those variablesthat characterize them (e.g., size, location), retouch tends to be larger, more invasive, and more regularlyplaced. In addition,it usuallymanifests crushing at the point at which the impactor or retouchercontacted the edge, leaving uncrushedand unscarredareas between negative impact or pressure points. Use-wearon the other hand, is usually smallerand less regularlyspaced, it is often concentratedon projecting partsof the edge and, if it occurson a retouched edge, it tends to nick, crush, or abradethose parts of the largerscars that occur betweenimpactor pressure points.43This principlecan be demonstratedfor mo39. J. A. Schutt,op. cit. (in note26) 3. 40. S. Lewenstein, "An Analysisof Experimentally ProducedEdge Damage:Its Potentialfor the FunctionalInterpretation Mesoof american Prismatic BladeIndustries," (paperpresented the annual at meetingsof the Societyfor American Archaeology, Tucson,Arizona, 1978,p. 33). 41. Gero, op. cit. (in note 38);Schutt,op. cit. (in note 26) concursin the last-mentioned assessment 3). (p. 42. C. H. Webb,J. L. Shinerand E. W. Roberts,"TheJohn Pearce Site (16 CD 56): A San PatriceSite in Caddo Parish,Louisiana," BullTexArchSoc 42 (1971)24;Odell,op. cit. (in note3) 156-157. 43. D. Crabtree and E. Davis, "ExperimentalManufactureof WoodenImplements Tools of FlakedStone,"Seienee 159( 1968) with 428; S. Kantman, "'Raclettes mouste'riennes': e'tudeexpe'riune mentalesur la distinctionde retoucheintentionnelle les modificaet tions du tranchant utilisation,ll par Quaternaria (1970)295-304; 13 A. Rosenfeld,"The Examination Use Markson Some Magdalenian of

Journal- FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 97 of Vol.

Figure 5. Small hinge-terminated scars (Rh) on the retouched edge (ventral surface) of experimental tool no. 20, illustrated in Figure 3, used for scraping across a branch of fresh bigleaf maple. Actual length of photographed surface is 4 mm.

Figure 6. Predominantly small hinged removals on bifacially retouched edge at Rh on tool no. 27 (FIG. 4), used for graving fresh bigleaf maple. Actual length = 8 mm.

tions both longitudinaland transverseto the working edge. Figure 5 illustrates the extent and location of damage on the retouched edge of tool no. 20 from scrapingacrossa branchof bigleafmaple.It consistsof a row of small, nearly contiguous, hinge-terminated scars, particularly evident on the projecting parts. Graving a bigleaf maple branch longitudinal to the bifacially retouched working edge also produces numeroushinged removals,especially on lateral projections,as shownin Figure6. Abrasivedamageis often causedby preparing strika ing platformfor flake or blade removalor an edge for the removal of pressureflakes.44 Striationscaused by
End Scrapers," BMQ 35 (1970) 178; Tringham, op. cit. (in note 18) 145; P. D. Sheets, "Edge Abrasion during Biface Manufacture," AmAnt 38 (1973) 218. 44. D. Crabtree, "Mesoamerican Polyhedral Cores and Prismatic Blades," AmAnt 33 (1968) 462-463; P. Sheets, op. cit. (in note 43); L. H. Keeley, "The Methodology of Microwear Analysis: A Comment on Nance," AmAnt 39 (1974) 126-128; I. Rovner, "Evidence for a Sec-

such action often occur on strikingplatformsand consist of fairly large, deep grooves, though this characteristicdependson the natureof the abrader employed. Large, deep grooves also occur on edges as a resultof manufacture,and can sometimes be distinguishedby the presenceof utilizationscarringthat destroysparts of them,leavingremnantstriationsbetweenscars. B. Characteristics Use Damage:Activity of Most of the experimentation conducted by the authors has involvedtool utilizationand this information serves as the basis for functionalassessments. Conceptually, of course,works of such people as Semenovand Keller45 contributedto the informationpool availalso able at the beginningof the exercise.Althoughdescriptions of wear resultingfrom the use of tools on various types of activities and materialscan be found in the
ondary ObsidianWorkshopat Mayapan,Yucatan,"Newsletter of Lithic Technology3 (1974)20. 45. Semenov, cit. (in note 1);Keller,op. cit. (in note 17). op.

98 Reliability Lithic Use-Wear of Assessment/Odell Odelland Vereecken

U;-tuS/

Figure 7. Denticulated feather- and hinge-terminated removals on used edge of FIshknife (tool no. 5, FIG. 2). Actual length = 4 mm.

Figure 8. Small, unidirectional feather-terminated scarring on dorsal surface of meat knife (tool no. 29, FIG. 4). Actual length = 3 mm.

aforementionedpublications,the most basic elements characterizing each majorcategory,as observedat lowpower magnifications, are summarized below. Two points should be mentioned.First, exceptionsto these traits can always be found, so they are to be viewed as averages, rather than as discrete, mutually exclusive characteristics.And second, the opinions to be expressedare exclusively those of the authors.They reflect the authors' particularmethods and biases, and need not be representativeof the opinions of others who workwith low-powertechniques.
1. Motionslongitudinal the working to edge. Cutting usually produces scarringon both surfacesof an edge, alternating from side to side and developingwith use into denticulation of the lateralmargin.This scarring patterncan be easilyseen on the usededgeof the fish knife(FIG.7) that frequently came in contactwith bone. If striationsare visible,they occurnear the edge and parallelto it. If the marginis utilizedenoughto becomerounded,that abrasionis evidentfirston projections, later (with continuinguse) on extensivecontiguousareas of the margin.Trueone-waycuttingmotionoften causesa direc-

tionality in the scarringthat providesclues as to where and how the tool was held and in which directionit moved.The small, feather-terminated removalson the edge of the meat cutterin Figure8, for example,are deeperand moresharplydefinedon their right sides than on theirleft sides, a characteristicthat suggeststhat the tool itself was movedfromright to left, as picturedin the photograph. Sawing(2-waymotion) does not provide the uni-directionality scarring,but the of other basic characteristics similar.Slicingand carving are are viewed here as variationson a basic longitudinalmovement, althoughtransverse motion is also involved.46 theseactiviAs ties are conceivedhere, the operatorfirst makescontactwith the workedmaterialat one end of the edge being employed, then draws the implementthroughthe materialin a cutting motion as penetrationproceeds.The angle of the tool to the worked substanceand the directionof motion may change during the course of the stroke. In both of these activities, scarringtends to be located more on one surfacethan on the other and striations,if visible,are often unifacialand usually slanted,or diagonalto the edge.
46. Odell, op. cit. (in note 3) appendix B. The motion described in this appendix (pp. 604-605) includes "whittling," an activity described in this report under motions transverse to the working edge.

Vol. of Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 99

Figure 9. Continuous row of uniform-sized and -shaped featherterminated scars on ventral surface of used edge of knife used to whittle a point on a fresh hemlock branch (tool no. 15, FIG. 3). Actual length = 4 mm.

Figure 10. Unifacial stepped and hinged removals on tip of bone graver (tool no. 7, FIG. 2). Actual length = 8 mm.

to 2. Motions transverse the workingedge. In scrapingor pulling motions, the scarring is exclusively unifacial, or wide area,althoughthis almostso, and occurson a relatively stipulationdependson the natureof the contactbetweentool in and workedmaterial.The barkscraperphotographed Figure 5 typifies the damageresultingfrom this activity.Striato tions, if present,are perpendicular the edge, on the surface are oppositethe scarring.Projections againthe firstand most extensivelyworn. Planing is usually defined as a pushing, are ratherthan a pullingmotion, but the wearcharacteristics wearon verysimilar.Thereis, however,usuallymoreabrasive thanis evident the surfacein contactwith the workedmaterial is with scrapingwear. Whittling specifiedhereas a transverse motionin whichthat portionof the edge that firstmakescontact with the workedmaterialremainsin contactthroughout the length of the stroke (i.e., is not moved longitudinally). and horizontalmovementof the tool edge result Penetration being in the removalof slices,or shavings,fromthe substance unifacialreworked. This activity results in predominantly in movals such as those photographed Figure9. Notice that, after 1000strokeson a freshhemlockbranch,thereis little or of no crushing the.edge. and has 3. Graving elementsof either,or both, longitudinal transversemotions, dependingon the particularcase. The is principaldifference that it occurson a point, or tip, rather

of than on an entire side of a piece.-Thisvariability scarring can be illustratedby two examples.One, a bone graverillustrated in Figure 10, manifeststhe typical unifacialityof reacross the movals producedby drawingthe tip transversely substancebeing worked. The other, a wood graverseen in Figure6, shows bifacialityof scarringtypicalof drawingthe tip longitudinallyacross the material.Strictlyspeaking,it is whetherthe utilizedpartof tool no. 27 is an edgeor debatable convex a projection,but the localizedwearon the projecting portion at Rh in the diagramarguesthat gravingis the more accurateterm. In any case, therecan be little debateover the wearproduced. pressure 4. Boring.A complexmotion involvingdownward and lateraltwisting.The downwardpressurecan usuallybe of ascertainedfrom "roughening" the tip and scarringthat emanates from the tip. Twisting often results in removals from the lateraledgesthat lead to the point. This damagecan of on be unifacialor bifacial,depending the configuration the edges and the angle at which the tool was held. Most of the describedhere can be witnessedon the tip of characteristics tool no. 3, a borer held at a 90 angle to the bone being worked(FIG. 11). Damage is usuallybifacialif the edge is sym5. Chopping. metricalwhen viewed head-on (i.e., is not displacedto one damageof all kinds side or the other). If it is asymmetrical,

100 Reliability LithicUse-Wear of Assessment/Odell Odelland Vereecken

3 (FIG. 2),

Figure11. Bifacialmulti-shaped scarring sidesand tip of tool no. on usedto drillholesin freshcow bone.Actuallength= 8 mm.

Figure12. Irregularly shapedsteppedscarring ventralsurface on of usededgeof tool no. 11(FIG. 2), a freshhemlockchopper, hand or axe.Actuallength= 11mm.

favorsone side over the other. Heavyimpacttypicallyresults in scars possessing well-definedterminations(hinged and stepped),of the sort producedon the ventralsurfaceof tool no. 11 (FIG. 12). The choppingmotion often producesstriations obliqueto the cuttingedges,thoughthis characteristic is not reproduced in the present experiments.Adzing is a basicallytransversemotion that resultsin unifacialscarring and striations perpendicular the edge. Wedging usually to produces scars similar to chopping,with striationsperpendicularto the cuttingedge ratherthan diagonalto it. On the end opposite the cutting edge are pitting or chippingmarks resulting frompoundingthe wedgeinto the workedmaterial. 6. Projectile. Although neither Newcomer's nor OdellVereecken's experiments includethis activity,the latterwere not restricted reproducing Loweror MiddlePalaeolithic to a cultural stage. Nevertheless,since this activity would have necessitatedhafting the implement,Odell-Vereecken chose not to include it. Characteristics wear on stone projectile of points have been describedelsewhere,47 to summarize: but there is often impact damage similar to that on an axe, resultingin removals of all sizes that usually have sharply
47. Odell, op. cit. (in note 3); G. H. Odell, "Preliminaires d'une analyse fonctionnelledes pointes microlithiques Bergumermeer, de Pays-Bas," BSPF75 (1978)37-49.

defined terminations.These sometimeslook like burin spall negatives.If striaecan be observed,they are typicallyparallel to the long axis of the piece(or sometimes shortaxis,if the the implementwas hafted transversely) and as often away from the edge as close to it. Haftingfrequently producesdamageof eitheran abrasiveor dislocatory (scarring) sort, or both. 7. Abrading. This activity includesgrindingand polishing another item, such as a bone point, axe handle, or arrow shaft, and reducing a substancesuch as pigment or pharmaceuticalsto a powder. Typicallythe surfacesof the tool, not the edges, receivethe bruntof the pressure,and wear is primarily abrasive. The type of abrasionproduced dependson the hardnessand granularity the workedmaterialand of of the backing,if employed. 8. Pounding. as a hammer,an activityemployinga surUse face ratherthan an edge and usuallyresultingin pittingand crackingof that surface.

The eight basic types of use-weardescribedabove, with variations,include most of the activitiesthat one encounterson a regularbasis in collectionsfamiliarto the authors. Several functions have not been mentioned, includingawls, "limpetscoops," and a host of other possible activities.In the authors'opinion, these

Vol. of Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 101 on actionseitheroccurveryinfrequently archaeological sites (e.g., limpet scoops) or they can be subsumedunder one of the categories mentioned (e.g., awls and drillswith the borers). One limitation of using low-power techniques (or perhapsjust a limitationof our use of them)is that frequently it is difficult to distinguishbetweencertainof the variationswithin the groups. For example,slicing, (at cutting,and sawingoften bearsimilarcharacteristics werenot kept if least to us), particularly the movements constantduringuse. Of course,if conditionsare favorable (i.e., the tool was used for a long time in a constant motion, abundantwearwas produced,etc.) theseactivibut ties can be distinguished, we do not feel particularly confidentthat conditionsare favorableoften enoughto justify trying to distinguishamong them in every instance. Therefore,no attemptwas made in the experibetweenthe variousspecificmoments to differentiate to tions that are longitudinaland transverse the working edge. The other activitiesdo not presentthis problem. In our opinion, there is no great loss of information here. For instance, if one assesses a particularimplement as possessingtracesof weartypicalof havingbeen utilized longitudinallyon a soft substance,it has thus been specified that the tool penetratedthe material worked. Whetherthat penetrationbe performedin a slicing, sawing, or cutting motion seems a bit superfluous for most purposes.In fact, thereare a whole host for of applicationsknown to the authors48 which this type of distinctionis simply not necessary.In the final analysis, the techniquesemployed should be equal to the questionsthat they are requiredto answer,and if cuttingfrom sawthose questionsdictatedistinguishing ing, for example,then low-powermethodsare probably not suitable. Material of C. Characteristics Use Damage. Worked It has provendifficultto give an accurateassessment of exact worked materialusing low-powertechniques. by Workedmaterialshave thereforebeen separated, the presentauthorsat least, into four categoriesaccording to their hardness,or resistanceto pressure.The wear patternstypically associatedwith these at low magnificationsare as follows: 1. Soft. Includesanimal productssuch as meat, skin and suchas manytubers,rhizones, fat, and soft vegetalsubstances stalks, and leaves. Scarringis usually small and possesses on that are most often medium-deElned featherterminations theirinteriorborders(i.e., one can easilysee the terminations,
48. See, for exarnple, Odell, op. cit. (in note 15).

but they are not deeply cut into the stone in the mannerof hinged and stepped scars; see FIG. 8). Often very soft substancessuch as meat do not producereal feather-terminated scars, scalar in plan view, at all. Instead the edge appears in are and "roughened," the tiny removals irregular shapeand if angles.Striations, appearto have been removedat different if present,are usuallyfaint,thoughpolish is frequent the tool visibleto the nakedeye. is usedlong enough,and sometimes trees, of Soft 2. Soft medium. woods,particularly coniferous are typical of this category, though firm but pliable substances,such as freshstalks,may also be included.Becauseof beingworked, into the substance deeppenetration a relatively scarringis often fairly large (i.e., visible to the naked eye), on particularly unretouchededges with relativelylow edge and frequently angles. It also tends to be featherterminated scarsbepoorly defined,the interiorbordersof the individual (e.g., FIG. 9). Scarring ing barelyvisibleunderthe microscope on blunt or retouchededges is usuallynot as invasiveas that by above,a point illustrated Figure5. described Oftenassociatedwith hardwoods such as 3. Hardmedium. oak and manzanita,althoughsoaked antler and fresh bone can produce similar characteristics.Scarring is typically in hinged and medium-to-large size, while striations and The polish are not infrequent. wearon the fish knife(FIG. 7) iS class. of of representative use on materials this resistance 4. Hard. Usually bone and antler,thoughhard, dry wood can producesimilarwear. Damagefrombone can usuallybe from antler,if both are in the same state (e.g., distinguished fresh).If one is freshand the otherdriedout, or if one is dry and the other soaked,however,damagechangesaccordingly, sometimeseven causing reversalsof what one might expect. materialswere For the purposeof this test, the aforenamed of simplylumpedinto the samecategory.Most diagnostic this (see type of wear is scarringwith steppedterminations FIGS. in Io-ll). Medium-to-large size, it frequentlyundercutsthe damage.Althoughstrialateralmargin,causingconsiderable tions and polish do appear, they are frequentlyremoved shortlyafter formationby the extensivescarring.Implements utilized on hard materialsfor even a moderatelylong time usuallyincurenoughabrasivefrictionto sufferedgerounding, it. to onceenoughof theedgehasbeenremoved stabilize

elsewhere,49 It shouldbe notedthat we haveindicated betweengradesof soft and hard subby distinguishing stances, a greater specificityof worked materialthan the that attainedin this paper.Ourreasonsfor pursuing present course of action are the following. First, although animal and vegetal substances of lesser from one another, resistancecan often be distinguished several of our experimentshave suggestedthat this is frequentlya difficult task. Second, substancesof con-

49. Tringham et al., op. cit. (in note 2); Odell, op. cit. (in note 3); Odell, op. cit. (in note 15); G. H. Odell, "The Morphological Express at Function Junction: Searching for Meaning in Lithic Tool Types," (manuscript presented for publication).

102 Reliability LithicUse-Wear of Assessment/Odell Odelland Vereecken siderable resistance were consolidated, even though "hard"(e.g., bone, very hard woods) and "very hard" (e.g., antler)materialsare able to be distinguished using these techniques. Here some explanationis necessary. Odell had previouslyconducteda similarseriesof blind tests with one of his students(a "dryrun,"so to speak, that is discussedlater in this report).Some of the student's experimentshad included antler that had been soaked in water for several days, a process that rendered the antler more easily workableand causedconsiderably"lighter"wear on tool edges than that caused in previous experimentationwith non-hydratedaged and fresh antler i.e., greatly reduced frequency of breakageremovalsand step scarringwith a correspondingly increased frequency of feather- and hingeterminatedremovals. Tool edges utilized on hydrated antler from the first test series were consistently assessed to have been used on less resistantsubstances, usually in the hard mediumrange which, in fact, the antler appearsto have become, makingthe assessment probablycorrect after all. The same phenomenonlater occurred with tools numbers 4 and 19 of OdellVereecken's series. This situation created a dilemma. We know of no ethnographic accountsof antlerhavingbeen soakedfor a long time before being worked.On the other hand, it is more likely that prehistoricpeople would have used fresh antler, and ethnographic accountsof the seasonal patternsof severalcircumpolar AmericanNative foraging culturesindicatethat autumnis the time for people to engage in the hunting of large mammals and the fashioningand maintenanceof subsistenceequipment, of which some were made of antler.5We can safely assume that the temporalcoincidenceof these two activities (huntingand equipmentmaintenance) signifiis cant, that the prime condition of antlerduringthe fall ruttingseason of wild ungulateswas an inducementto engagein huntingthe animalsin the firstplace,and that most antler,if used at all, was used in the freshstate. These considerationswere not discussedby the coauthorspriorto testing,becauseOdell-Vereecken began her experimentation before the first blind test with the student had been conductedand before it was realized that soakingmightcreatea problem.In interpreting the experimentalpieces, however, Odell had to consider soaked antler an alternative,particularlybecause the experimentswere performedin the late winter/spring
50. J. J. Honigmann,"The Attawapiskat SwampyCree, an Ethnographic Reconstruction," Univ. of Alaska Anthropological Papers 5 ( 1956)23-82;E. S. RogersandJ. H. Rogers,"TheYearlyCycleof the MistassiniIndians,"Arctic 12 (1959) 130-138;E. S. Rogers, "The Round LakeOjibwa,"Occasional Paper No. 5, Art and Archaeology Division,RoyalOntarioMuseum 1962). (

and freshantlerwas not readilyavailable.In doing so a certainconsistencyhad to be maintained, it was felt and most prudentat the outset of the functionalanalysisto consider antler in any state as a hard material(though consideringit hard mediumwould have scored better on the test). Becauseof these considerations was felt it most prudentto consolidatethe hardmaterialsinto one category a result that still gives a workabledegreeof specificity.As previouslydiscussed,prehistoriccollections should not offer this particular problem and shouldallow greaterspecificityto be attained. It was evident from the outset that, of the functional categoriesdescribedhere, worked materialis the most difficult to determine.This contentionis supportedby the fact that Keeley's lowest ratio of successful responses occurredwith this category.The slightlylower functionalspecificityattainedusinglow-powermethods should not mask the fact that a greatdeal of usableinformationis retained.For example,even if exactworked materialcannot be ascertained a particular on tool, but the materialworkedwas soft and the tool's movement can be determinedto have been longitudinalto the utilizededge, then it is likelythat the implement enwas gaged in the processingof food (becausethe vast majority of experimentalimplementsyieldingthis type of wear were utilizedon edibleitems).Addingthe number of similarlyassessedpieces shouldgive a rough indication of the quantityof food-processing tools presentin the collection a figurethat can be employedin several ways in achievinga greaterknowledgeof the prehistoric behaviorof the humangroupwith whichone is dealing. Similarly,if the edge of a tool has been assessedto have movedtransversally acrosssoft material,it is likelythat the piece was engagedin scrapingor rubbingof skins, and so forth. Functional deductions must, of course, take into account all known factors relevant to the culturalgroup being assessed(i.e., its temporalplacement,its economy,the vegetationprevailing the time, at etc.). If a largenumberof these factorsare known,they providea body of informationwithinwhichthe microwear data can be interpreted.Under these conditions, the potential contribution of the micro-weardata is considerable.
D. Characteristicsof Damagefrom Prehension

Damage accruingthrough contact with a substance beingworkedis the most diagnosticresultof the utilization process.Throughoutthis process,however,the implementis in contactwith anothermaterial: agentin the whichit is heldor by meansof whichit is propelled. This agent also frequently causes damage to the implement damage that is sometimes confused with usewear.Despitethe occasionalsimilarity, thereare several

Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 103 of Vol. featuresthat recuras a resultof prehension that can and be distinguishedfrom use-wear.Correctidentification of these tracescan help to locate utilizedportionsof the tool that eitherescapednoticeor presented problems.In any case, they provideadditionalinformation enablby ing one to reconstruct precisemannerin which the the tool was held. A numberof factors influencethe form of damage resultingfrom prehension.Some of these, such as the amountof pressureexertedand the morphologyof the edge, may appear muted in their overall effects either becausethey can be considered relatively constant(pressure)or becauseaberrances causesignificant that variation are relativelyinfrequent (edgemorphology). This is not to say that they may not directlyaffect prehensile damagein any particular case, becausethey have been notedexperimentally be occasionally most inlporto the tant determinants prehensile of wear.Two otherfactors, however,appearto contributemore consistentlyto the formationof damagefrom prehension: edge angle and the angle of contact between prehenderand lateral margin. Using photographsof wear at certaincontact locationson varioustools and diagramsof the way the tools wereheld,we shallendeavorto demonstrate efthe fects of these variables.Since all implementsin this experimental seriesweremanually worked,in eachcasewe will be discussingthe natureof the contactbetweentool edge and hand. Althoughleatherpads or other protective coverings may alter the relative influence of the variables involved,it has beenobserved that suchalteration is slightand that the essentialnatureof the contact remainsunchanged. Manualforcesareappliedto a tool edgeby grippingit and wieldingit on or against a substance.The human grip exertsforcesthat are basicallyunidirectional any at one time on a given contact area,thoughdirectionmay changeduringmanipulation. pressure sufficient If is and angle appropriate, flakeswill be removedfrom the surface opposite the applied force. As represented schematically Figure 13, the angle of appliedforce is in the principalfactor determining theform of the resulting removalsand, hence,of the scarnegatives remaining on the tool edge. In general,the more direct (i.e., less oblique)the pressure the edge,the moredirectlyinto on the body of the tool the waves of force proceed. An angle of force oblique or perpendicular the edge to produces feather-terminated removals (or half-moon shapedslicingscars,depending otherconditions).As on the angleof pressure becomesmoreacute,the frequency of hinge- and step-terminated scarring increases. Pressuredirectlythrough the plane bisectingthe edge resultsin small, irregularly shapedremovalsthat make the marginappear"roughened." form of removals The

Figure 13. The effect of differing contact angles between applied force and lateral tool margin: a) oblique or perpendicular, b) acute, c) direct.
-- -

Figure14. The diffusenatureof manualcontactcreatesnot one localizedpressure point,but several, distributed evenlyat the locusof appliedforce.

resultingfrom prehensionis also partly a function of the angleof the edge. The effectsof this variablewill be discussedshortly. The distributionof the resultantscar negativesalong a tool marginis a functionof one basicanatomicalfact: the human finger is broad and fleshy relative to the edges of lithic implements.For this reason,a relatively large expanse of edge will necessarily come in contact with a firm, somewhatyieldingmechanismthat exerts force simultaneously throughout contact area. Bethe causeof the diffusenatureof the contact,removalstend to occur in aggregations, bunches(see FIG. 14). If an or entireedge is underintensepressurefromthe handand the directionof appliedforce is constantrelativeto the margin,then therewill be essentiallyone aggregation of scars distributedunifaciallyand evenly down the edge.

104 Reliability LithicUse-WearAssessment/Odell Odell-Vereecken of and

-c-D
-

CKm

-N

Figurel S. Aggregation hingedremovals dorsalsurfaceof a of on boneborer(tool no. 3, FIG. 2), causedby upward pressure the of fOrefinger (FIG. 17a). Actuallength= 5.5 mm.

Figure16. Alternating clumpsof scarsproduced changesin the by direction appliedprehensile of force(tool no. 23, FIG. 3). Actual length= 8 mm.

If these conditions prevailbut force and/or contact is more localized, then one or more smaller bunches of scars may be removed. The resultantpattern may look like the aggregation Figure15.If the directionof in applied force during tool manipulationchanges from one side of an edge to the other, however,the resultant distributionis likely to be characterized clumps of by scarsthat alternatefrom one surfaceto the other, as in Figure 16. Notice that this distribution quitedifferent is from the denticulated bifacial removals (each one almostdirectlyopposedto one or moreremovalson the opposite surface)that characterize most types of movementthat arelongitudinal the edge(see FIG. 7). to The mechanics of prehensile damage can best be understoodwith reference the mannerby whichindito vidual implementswere held. Seven experimental tools were selected for demonstration, their manner of prehension being illustrated in Figure 17. The edge angles of the prehended polar co-ordinatesof these implements,measuredwith a goniometerat points ca. 2 mm. fromthe edge, arelistedin Table2.

Whittlingtool no. 15,held as shownin Figure17f,has a very thin edge at the point at which the forefinger made contact with it. In addition,the pressureexerted by the forefinger was very obliqueto the lateralmargin. The result of this contact is a row of small featherterminatedscars of consistentsize and shape, removed from the ventralsurfaceof the flake at that point (i.e., the uppersurfaceas seen in FIG.17).
Table2. Edgeanglesand scarterminations the prehended of partsillustrated Figure17 and photographed Figures25 in in and 18-23. Tool Polar Edge Dominant Number Co-ordinate Angle ScarTerminations 15 7 6 27 14 9 3 8 6 6 2 8 1 1 14 43 44 55 57 65 84 feather feather feather hinge/step feather crushed/step hinge

Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 105 of Vol.

15

Figure 17. Illustrations of the ways that seven of the experimental tools were held. a) Tool no. 3; b) no. 6; c) no. 7; d) no. 9; e) no. 14; f) no. 15; g) no. 27.

106 Reliability LithicUse-Wear of Assessment/Odell Odelland Vereecken

4wEv-

Figure 18. Aggregation of feather-terminated prehensile scars on ventral surface of tool no. 7 (FIGS. 2, 17c), a result of pressure from the forefinger. Actual length = 2.5 mm.

Figure 19. Aggregation of small scars on face opposite that of the damage shown in Figure 18, slightly displaced laterally. Actual length = 4 mm.

Two of the other implementsmanifest similar prehensile wear. Graving tool no. 7 shows damage from contact with the forefingerat approximately same the area of the tool relativeto the workingpart(FIG. 17c) as the implementpreviouslydiscussed.A difference,however, is that tool 7 is somewhat larger and therefore makes contact furtherup the finger toward the palm. This positioning in the hand produced more direct pressure againstthe edge thanthat producedon tool no. 15, though it was still fairly oblique. In addition, the directionof pressureappearsto have been inconstant, resultingin removalsfrom both the dorsal and ventral surfacesat this point. This damage,consistingof alternatingaggregations small,feather-terminated of scars,is presented Figures18 and 19 as it occurson eithersurin face. The hemlock borer no. 6 (FIGS. 17b, 20) manifests prehensilewear that appearsquite similarto the graver previouslydiscussed. Comprisinga unifacial aggregation of very small, feather-terminated removals, the principaldifference(aside from its unifaciality)is its

location relative to the working part. As indicatedin Figure 17b, it resultsfrom oblique downwardpressure of the thumb on a fairlythin section of the edge neara natural notch. The nature of the contact here determined that the scars would be not only clumpedand removed uniquely from the ventral surface, but also feather-terminated. It is appropriateat this junctureto observethat the prehendedlateralmarginsdiscussedpreviouslyall possess relativelyacute edge anglesand feather-terminated scarring damage. The principal factor causing these regularities beenthe relatively has obliqueangleof force applied to the lateral marginin each case. An oblique angle of force can be expectedwith acute edges held in the bare hand, since to changethe directionof pressure drasticallytoward the edge itself would be likely to resultin injuryto the worker'sfingers.One findsthat as edge anglesincrease,prehensile damagemorefrequently takes the form of hinge and step fractures.The reason for this is partly that more pressurecan be exertedon more obtuse-anglededges withoutcausingunnecessary

Journal of Field A rchaeology/ Vol. 7, 1980 107

Figure 20. Group of small, predominantly feather-terminated prehensile scars on ventral surface of tool no. 6 (FIGS. 2, 17b), a result of downward pressure from the thumb. Actual length = 4 mm.

Figure 21. Aggregated, unifacial step- and hinge-terminated removals from dorsal surface of tool no. 27 (FIGS. 4, 17g), produced by pressure from the posteriorly supporting middle finger. Actual length = 2.5 mm.

discomfortto the user, and partlythat the intensityof pressure required to cause damage to margins with higheranglesis both greaterand morelikelyto produce scarsthat aresharplydefinedon theirinteriorborders. For whatever reason,the transition betweenscartypes in the presentdata-setoccurs at around55. Two tools possessedges of approximately angle, but they bear this differenttypes of damage.One is the skin awl (tool no. 14)illustrated Figure17e. Its point of contactwiththe in forefingerexhibits very small dorsal removalsthat are contiguous, feather-terminated, and very poorly delineatedon their interiorborders.Tool no. 27 (FIG. 17g),however,has very differentlyshapedremovalson its prehendedportion, althoughthe edge on which the damage occurs is slightly more acute than that of tool no. 14. The scars on the maple graver (tool 27) are hinge-and step-terminated considerably and largerthan those on the awl (FIG. 21). The differences in dislocatory damage reflect differencesin how the tools were held and in how their edgesmadecontactwith the finger.The obliqueupward

pressureof the forefingeragainstthe sturdydistal margin of tool 14 succeeded in driving off tiny featherterminatedscars,but the angle of contactwith the edge was not directenough and the pressurewas not intense enough to create more extensive or more sharply delineatedremovals.The gravingtool (no. 27) was held differently, however,resultingin differentanglesof contact. As illustratedin Figure 17g, the forefingerwas placed on a flat surface and produced no discernible damage,but upon use the projecting rightmarginof the piece (at Rh/s) tended to imbed itself in the middle finger, which was supporting the object posteriorly. Pressure the middlefingerbecameintenseduringuse on and bunches of hinge- and step-terminated scars were removedfrom the dorsal surface.It is significantthat, despitedifferencesbetweentools 14 and 27 in theform of the prehensiledamageproduced,theirrespective scar distributions remain contiguous, unifacial, and aggregated. As edge angle increases,the force necessaryto remove chips from a tool margin also increases.The

108 Reliability LithicUse-Wear of Assessment/Odell Odelland Vereecken damageto prehended edges with less acute anglesis frequentlya resultof pressures the marginthat aremore on direct than those necessary to damage more acuteanglededges. A case in point is tool no. 3, used for drilling bone. As shown in Figure 17a, the tip of the forefinger made intense contact with the wide-angledprojection at Rh during the entire course of the activity. Resultingdamageconsists of small, contiguoushinged removalsaggregated the dorsalsurface(FIG. 15). on Anotheraspect of prehensileedge damageis relevant here.The lateralmarginof a stone usuallyconsistsof an angle formed by the two principal surfaces. Occasionally, however, the margin becomes battered or roundedso that the angle of the edge differsdepending on whereon the roundedsurfaceone takesthe measurement. In the presentseriesof experiments, readings were taken ca. 1-2 mm. back from the margin in order to preclude rounding or battering as a variable and to achieve a modicumof consistency.It should be noted, therefore,that the readingsfor a few edgesdo not reflect the fact that the marginsare slightlyor extensivelybattered.Such a situationprevailson the prehended edgeof skin-scraping tool no. 9, the marginsof which are batteredby intentionalretouchand the angleof which(65) does not reflectthis battering. formand largesize of The the implementmade it easiest to handle as shown in Figure 17d. Becauseretouch had partiallybluntedthe edges of the tool in contact with the hand, direct pressurecould be exerted.This pressureremovedtiny particlesby comminutionand flattenedthe marginstill further(FIG. 22). Although this type of prehensilewear can be easily confusedwith damagefrom edge preparation for the removalof flakesby pressure indirectperor cussion,the fact that it was correctlyassessedin the present series of experiments indicates that it can be isolated. Althoughmoreresearch neededin the studyof damis age to stone implements from manipulation, the previous descriptions indicate the most salient and diagnosticcharacteristics distinguished far. The disso cussion has stressed the importanceof two variables (edge angle and nature of contact), but it should be emphasized that other variables such as edge morphology and amount of applied pressure also influence the resultantforms of wear and can determine the damagepatternsin individual cases. Damagefroma prehending mechanism such as a woodenhaft havebeen demonstratedto produce characteristicsslightly differentfromthose causedby manualgripping,5' fact of a considerableutility in assessing collections of prehistoric lithicartifacts.
51. Odell,op. cit. (in note 15).

Figure22. "Roughening" crushing prehended or of portionof tool no. 9 (FIGS. 17d), a resultof directmanualpressure the retouched 2, on edge.Actuallength= 4 mm.

E. Procedures Functional identifications were performed with a ZeissIII stereomicroscope capabilities with ranging from 6X to lOOX. Pieces were first scannedat lOX, then at 20X, and problematicareaswere observedat 30-1OOX. The light source employedwas the reflectinglamp attachedto the microscope.Tools werenot treatedin any way after they had been washed in the solutions describedabove. The actualassessment performed the following was in manner. A tool was selected from the group and the time was noted. It was observedand the relevantsummary informationwas listed. The traces of wear and prehension weredescribed writingon anothersheetof in paper, totalling a paragraph in each case with an average eightsentences.Upon termination the exerof of cise,thetimewasnotedagainandrecorded. Although the basic format of the experimentswas kept as similaras possible to that of Keeley and Newcomer,thereare differences the information in recorded. For ease of placement,the location of wear traceswas

Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 109 of Vol. oriented on an 8-polar co-ordinategrid, the polar coordinates(P.C.s) beginningwith P.C. 1 at 12 oclock as on a wristwatch,and continuingclockwise to P.C. 8, which ends at 12 o'clock.52 Traces of prehensionwere oriented according to the same system. Activity was assessedwith the stipulationsdiscussedpreviously,and workedmaterialwas recordedon two scales:exact and relative(i.e., a 4-parthardness scale).Finally,the length of time taken for the entireexercise,includingscanning, assessing,recording,and writing the descriptiveparagraph,was registered the nearestminute. to Evaluation Results:Activity of The resultsof the experimental "blindtests"arelisted in Table 3 and summarized Table 4. "Grading"the in test was fairlystraightforward, exceptin 3 instances.In two of these, a wooden backingwas used in scraping and in cutting pork skin. The answers "wood" and "hardmedium"were given 1/2 point in each case. The thirdexceptionconcernsa tool for whichtwo locations and two differentactivitieswerepostulated. Onlyone of thesewas correct,so 1/2 pointwas awarded the "used in part"and "activity" column. The wearon each experimental implement not be will describedhere individually,for to do so with 31 tools would be both redundantand tedious. It is perhaps more instructive summarize information to the initially by presentingthe numberof correctto total responses for each category,first accordingto the experiment actually performed,next accordingto the experimentas aswsessed the analyst.That is, the denominator the by in first column consists of those activities actually performedor those materialsactuallyworked;the denominator in the second columnconsistsof those activities or materials analystthought the werebeingperformed or worked. Resultsare presentedby activity(TABLE5), by exact workedmaterial (TABLE6), and by relative worked material (TABLE7). There is a high correspondence betweencorrectresponse and actualactivityfor the categoriesof cutting, scraping, boring, graving, and chopping (TABLE 5). Correspondence withinthese categoriesby assessedactivity is less, because mistakes on the unmentioned categoriestend to be attributedto these. That is, digging, pounding, grinding/crushing,and ;;no activity were not correctlydetermined the analyst,the wear by resultingfrom these activitieshaving been incorrectly placedin one of the otherfivecategories. Withinthe five categories mentionedabove, all have about the same success ratio; therefore,one cannot say that, for this analystat least, one was easieror moredifficultto identify than another. Since the principles governing this analysis have alreadybeen enumerated, would be redundant disit to cuss the tools that were correctlyassessed.Let us turn, therefore, to those implementsthat were incorrectly assessed,in orderto ascertain problems the encountered in the investigation.
A. Used Edges. LongitudinalA{otion

Two misjudgements occurredon those tools used in motions longitudinal to their lateral margins. The utilizededge on one of these (no. 28, FIG. 4) was badly batteredby retouch.The locationof use and the relative workedmaterialutilizedwerecorrectly assessedbut, according to notes made during the initial observation, "Some very small step scars (dorsal) and roughening only on the dorsalside make me think that the cutting edge was perhapsusedto scrapesomethingsoft-medium like tree bark." It was probablythe change in micromorphologyof the edge that causedprimarily unifacial damageas a resultof a sawingactivity. Use on the other cutting tool (no. 17) was mistaken for tracesof prehension. Becauseholdinga tool frequently causes unifacialscarring,this damagewas mistaken for scrapingwearon a soft substance.It is interesting to note that the assessment madeinitiallyon this piecewas totally correct,even to the exact workedmaterial,but the investigator changedhis mind. Ambivalence this to extent is not common, though it does occur occasionally. It illustratesthat certain prehensiontraces can look verymuchlike use-wear, particularly the tool if was not obviouslyusedat anotherlocation.Althoughit mightbe suspected that the softnessof the workedmaterial could contributeto an inabilityto observedamage traces and, therefore,to a frequentambivalenceover wear patterns, the summary of results by relative workedmaterial(TABLE7) suggeststhat successin identifying soft substancesis about averagefor those categoriestested.
B. Used Edges. TransverseA{otion

52. Described in Odell, op. cit. (in note 23).

Turningto those experimental tools utilizedin a motion transverseto their workingedges, one implement was misclassified (no. 30, FIG. 4). Both lateraledges of the tool were batteredto the extreme by intentional retouch,then the tool was utilizedon soft material.Had the analyst been assessinga prehistoriccollection, he would have deemed the piece "functionallyundeterminable"and continuedto the next item. The rules of the exercise,however,did not allow this alternative, but stipulatedthat in eachcase an assessment mustbe made. The resultsin this case werenegative: everything possi-

110 Reliability LithicUse-Wear ssessment/Odell Odellof A and Vereecken

Table3. Essential information the experimental on series.If the micro-wear researcher wrong,that was guessis indicated betweenparentheses motionslongitudinal transverse the edge,assessments (for and to differentfromthe exactactivitybut withinthe correctgeneralcategorywerecountedas correct)."Time"means the lengthof time it took the micro-wear researcher analyzethe piece."Prehended to part"is that portionof the tool judgedto possesstracesof havingbeenheld in the hand."P.C."= polarco-ordinate, " 1/2" and means1/2 point was given for this assessment. "Stroke"is the sameas that definedin Tringham al. 1974, et p. 184 (see footnote 2). The orderin the table reflectsthe orderanalyzedfor function.+ = 1 point given. - = no points.
Number of strokes 3000 1300 Used Hand pro- part tection (P.C.) no no 2,4
+

Piece no. 1 2

Edge angle 34,40 38

Activity sawing scraping +

Exactworked material
raw yams

Relative worked part (P.C.) material

soft 5,8

Prehended Timein minutes

15

gristle off cooked soft medium cow joint (douglas fir) fresh cow bone
+

2,4,6

12

1500

no leather pad no

8 8 + 6,7,8

63 70

boring
+

hard

1000

boring

soakeddeer hard antler(drybone) + fish skin + bone hardmedium (hardwood) +

aged hemlock
+ 2 10

1750

25,20,20

sawing

1200

leather pad

1,8
+

55,58

boring
+

hard medium
+

3,6
+ 6 9

12

1500 no 4

64
35

graving
+

freshcowbone
+

hard
+

1000

cutting

no

Pig skin on wood backing (hard wood) 1/2 Pig skin on wood backing (hard wood) 1/2 ground (fresh bone)

soft (hard medium) 1/2 soft

+

2000

no

55

scraping +

32

(hard medium) 1/2 hard

+ 7

10

3500

55 no leather pad no 2 + 1,8 (3) 5

digging (boring)

16

11

1500

73

chopping +
Grinding + Crushing (chopping)

freshhemlock (wood)
hazelnuts (bone)

soft medium (hard medium) soft medium (hard)

13

12

3500

85,90

5 +

18

Vol. of Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 111

Table3 (continued) Used Number Hand pro- Part of Piece (P.C.) tection Strokes no. 13 1000 no 2,3

Edge Angle 73,55

Activity

Prehended Exactworked Relativeworked Part Timein (P.C.) minutes material material

seasoned hemlock hard medium (softmedium) (alder)
+

sawing

6 + 1,7,8

10

14

1600

no

34

boring (graving)

uncooked pork skin (vegetal: celery)

soft +

12

15

1000

no

1,2

42,26

whittling,
scraping

freshhemlock
+

softmedium
+

7,8
+

16

1500

no

2,3

45,50

slicing

bark off fresh hemlock (meat) partly thawed lamb leg (vegetal: carrots or potatoes)

Wsoft medium (soft) soft +

7 + 4,8,3 (4,8) 1/2

17

3500 no 4 (6,7)

48

sawing (scraping)

20

18

not used (1,2) 1500

no 4 (4,8)

13

(graving) -

bracken)(soft medium) (vegetal:

Soaked deer antler (hard wood) fresh maple branch (soaked deer antler) hard (hard medium) edium soft me (hard)

(3,4) 2 (1,2,7) 6
+

19

54

1/2 20 3000 no
+

Graving (graving + scraping) 1/2 scraping

+

17

73

12

21

2900

no

2,3

40,45

cutting

vegetal: scallions soft (vegetal: carrots) +

+

4,8

17

22

4000
no 7 (7,8)

pounding (sawing) 58 62 boring graving (boring)

hazelnut shells (hardwood) -

hard medium +

6,4 (6,7,4) 1/2 1,4,6,8

6

16

23 24

750 1500

leather pad no

7 + 7

soakeddeer antler+

hard +

12
14

cookedcow bone hard (seasonedhard +

wood)

(5,6)

1/2 25 1200 leather pad 8 (4,5) 64 graving

seasonedhemlockhardmedium + +

1 (1,6) 1/2

ll

112 Reliability of Lithic lJse-WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereecken

(continued) Number of Hand proStrokes tection 3000 no

Table 3 Piece no. 26

Used Part
(P.C.)

6,7,8
+

Edge Angle 65,54,58

Activity cutting +

Exact worked material grass (hard woody material high silica content)

Prehended Relativeworked Part Timein material (P.C.) minutes soft 1,2 13 (hardmedium) +

27

850 no 4,5 1,8

+

98,37

graving

fresh maple (bone) fresh maple branch (bark)

+

soft medium

28

1000

no

70,35

sawing (scraping)

soft medium
+

17

29

2100

no

3,4

30,30

cutting

pork meat (soft vegetal: carrots)

soft (4,5) 1/2 2,3

12

30

1200

leather pad no

6,7 (2,3) 7
+

60,48

scraping (cutting)

fat off porkskin soft (bone) (hard)

plan-

16

31

1200

48

slicing, ing

soakeddeer hard antler(douglasfir)(soft medium)

11

Table4. Computation theresults theindividual of of experiments category. by Used part Activity Exactworkedmaterial 12/31 = 38.7% Relativeworkedmaterial 19/31 = 61.3% If all wood is medium: 21/31 = 67.7% Prehended PartP.C. 23.5/31 = 75.8% wrong:5.5/31 = 17.7% no information 2/31 = 6.5%

24.5/31 = 79.0% 21.5/31 = 69.4%

ble was misclassified.Fortunately,intentionalretouch by battering this extremedoes not occurveryoften in to the prehistoric collectionswith whichwe arefamiliar.In addition, it will soon be shown that the presenceof retouchwas not a deterrent assessing to correctfunction in most instances presented thesetests. In somecases, by however,such as the presentone, the correctdetermination of function by the techniquesemployedhere is a verydifficultassignment, leastfor this investigator. at
C. Used Projections. Borers and Gravers

Tools employedfor the purposeof boringpresented the same degreeof difficultyto the analystas those used for graving.In each categorythe one tool misclassified

was attributedto the other category.These misjudgements are instructivein indicatingthat wear from two activities is sometimessimilarenough to cause an occasional cross-overof assessed function, even though other aspectsof the damage(relativeworkedmaterial in thesecases)mayhavebeencorrectly determined. Experimental no 14(FIG. 3) iS a triangular, tool pointed instrument usedas an awl on freshlyscrapedpig skin. It was thoughtto havebeena graverbecauseof the lack of roughening other damageto the tip, as well as the or predominantly unifacialdamageto one of the edges. It was notedthatthe otheredgealsosuffered somedamage, but that could have occurredby holdingthe implement differently on more than one occasion, causing the leading edged to alternatebetweenone and the other.

Journalof FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 113 Vol.

Table5. The ratioof correctto total responses each for category,firstaccording the activityactuallyperformed, to nextby activityas assessedby the investigator.
Actual activity 1. Longitudinal 2. Transverse 3. Bore 4.Grave 5. Dig 6. Pound 7. Chop 8. Grind/crush 9. No activity Assessed activity 9/11 4/5 4/5 3.5/4.5 0/1 0/1 1/1 0/1 0/1.5 21.5/3 1 9/11 4/6.5 4/6 3.5/5.5

1/2

21.5/3 1

ations upon the graverassessedto have beena drill(no. 24, FIG. 3). A gravingfunctionwas initiallyconsidered for this tool but was rejectedfor a numberof reasons. First, damage to the tip itself was consideredto be somewhat less extensive than that on the sides away from the tip, a characteristic moreof a boringthan of a gravingactivity.Second,the trailingedgehad frequently made contact with the bone being incised,causingconsiderableabrasionand notchingreminiscent having of been twistedin a hole. And third,bifacialscarringnear the point has characteristicsof having been twisted ratherthan drawn in a groove. Upon re-inspection of the implementthe wear becomesmore understandable as having been producedby a graving motion, but it would take a very practicedeye to determine correct its function.
D. MiscellaneousActivities

Table6. The ratioof correctto total responses eachexact for workedmaterial category,firstaccording the substance to actuallyworked,nextby material assessedby the as investigator . Actualworkedmaterial Assessedworkedmaterial 1. Softvegetal 2/3 2. Soft animal 1/6 3. Soft wood (fresh) 3/6 4. Hardwood (seasoned)3/3 5. Bone 2/5 6. Nut 0/2 7. Earth 0/1 8. Antler 1/4 9. No use 0/1 12/31 2/6 0/1 3/5 4/10 2/7 1/2 12/31

Table7. The ratioof correctto total responses each for relative workedmaterial category,firstaccording the subto stanceactuallyworked,nextby the material assessedby as the investigator. Workedmaterial l.Soft 2. Softmedium 3. Hardmedium 4. Hard 5. None Actualworked Assessedworked material material 6/9 3/8 5/6 5/7 0/1 19/31 5/6 3/6 6/10 5/9 19/31

Four tools wereemployedin activitiesfor whichthey are the sole representatives, which threewere incorof rectly assessed.The digging implement(no. 10, FIG. 2) was thoughtto have been utilizedin boringa hardsubstance, because it possesses numeroushinge fractures on edges emanatingfrom the tip. These are bifacialon one edge and predominantly unifacialon the other,and they suggest a twistingmotion as with a drill. In addition, striationswereobserved,but they werethoughtto run around the point. Upon closer inspectionafter the test was finished,scratchesleading straightback from the point were recognized, providing the necessary evidence that the tip had penetratedsome substance longitudinally,ratherthan having been twistedas in a drillingmotion (see FIG. 23). The excessiveabrasionof the sides near the tip and the tip itself suggestthat the substanceworkedwas quiteresistant.In re-assessing the weartracesafterthe initialobservation, is evidentthat it the markingsnecessaryfor the correctdetermination of functionin this case werepresent.They werejudgedin-

Upon re-assessments wear on the tool still appears the somewhatambiguouss one could probablyinterpret and it eitherway. The sametypes of ambiguitycharacterize deliberthe

Figure 23. Abrasion on the tip of digging implement no. 10 (FIG. 2), consisting of excessive rounding and striations parallel to the main axis of the piece. Actual length = 2.5 mm.

114 Reliability of Lithic Use- WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereecken

and, probably,because correctlybecauseof carelessness the analystsimplydid not anticipatethat this somewhat activitymightoccur. extraordinary Anotheruniquepiece,the functionof whichwas completely unanticipated,was no. 22 (FIG. 3) employedin poundinghazelnutson a wooden backingto crack the shells. The damage resultingfrom this activityconsists of medium-to-large sized removals, distributed irshapededge, and mistaken regularlyon this irregularly for an inexpertand maladroitsort of retouch(whichthe The authorsare perfectlycapableof producing). "wear" that was recognizedon this piece is totally confusing, throughany knowncause. because it is uninterpretable It consists of abrasionand bifacialremovalsalong the acrossthe piece,when dorsalridgerunninghorizontally orientedwith the proximalend towardthe observer.A large percentage of these removals are hinged, but several are also small and irregular, resulting in a "roughened"appearanceoften attributedto prehension. The part of the spine in question, however,was seldom in contact with the hand duringutilization,and probably was also never in contact with the hazelnut shells or the pine board.The only otherexplanationfor factor this damage lies in some other post-depositional of whichthe authorsare unaware. Anotherlargepiece(no. 12, FIG. 3) was usedin a downward and slightly rotating movement to crush whole de-shelledhazelnutmeatinto smallerpieces,then in a downwardpulling movementtowardthe operator into a chunkypaste. Most of the to grindthe remainder pressureoccurredon the ventralsurfaceof the stone and being left no tracesof use detectablewith the techniques motion towardthe down-turned employed.The rolling distalend mayhaveresulted retouched and intentionally more chips being removedfrom the dorsalsurin a few face, but there is little visible crushingon projecting parts, and none at all in the depressions(i.e., between arriseson the edges of the scar negativesthemselves). Thus the damage from nut crushingand grindingwas largely invisible, even though the stone had endured 3500 "strokes."What was visible was a series of projections on polar co-ordinate3 that had sufferedsome damage enigmatic(again, possibly"post-depositional") through hinge scarring of the projecting parts. This to damagewas attributable a poundingor choppingmotion, but such activity never occurredin the authors' it presence.Upon re-inspection was concludedthat the damageobservedwas probablythe resultof havingbeen force. to droppedor subjected some otheraccidental The one tool that was not utilizedwas also interpreted as possessing wear attributable to graving a softmediummaterialsuch as pine.Consistingof small,close or contiguous, bifacial hinge- and feather-terminated

scars,the edge in questionappearsto havebeenutilized. But, once again, a suitableexplanationfor this damage is lacking.53 Material of Evaluation Results:Worked The numberof mistakescommittedinjudgingrelative worked materialwas slightly higher than that for activity (TABLE7). Threepieces the nut grinder,the skin scraper, and the unutilized flake were totally miscalculatedand have alreadybeen discussed.The others show some interesting tendencies when analyzed by category. A. Soft Tools used on soft substancesthat were incorrectly assessedwere,of course,judgedto havebeen utilizedon harder materials.In two cases the pieces worked on the wooden plank (nos. 8 and 9) this assessmentwas essentiallycorrectand was given half credit. It is worth mentioning that the material noticed was the harder of the two, a result that is quite common when two or are of moresubstances unequalresistance workedby the sameedge. implementutilizedon soft mateThe othermisjudged rial is a flake (no. 26, FIG. 4), the retouchededge of which was used to cut commonlawngrass.Threethousand strokeson this materialproducedan unmistakable "corn gloss" (FIG. 24) of the sort discussedby Curwen, Whitthoft, Kamminga, and others.54Odell, who has studied numerouspieces used in prehistorictimes that recognizedit as such immedisplaythis sort of polish,55

53. The basaltwas knappedon a largepiece of canvaslying on the floor of the basementof the Museumof Man at the Universityof BritishColumbia.On the canvas was a multitudeof debris from previousknappingepisodes.The freshlyknappedstoneswereplaced in a box and carriedhome, wheretheywereutilized.They werethen to transported the author'soffice at U.B.C., lying on the shelf for The periodbeseveraldays beforeany wearon them was examined. consistedof the the tweenknapping stone and investigating use-wear 2-3 months,duringwhichtime they lay dormant(exceptduringtheir of to but utilization), couldhavebeensubjected a number forces,both aboveor throughsome othercause as a resultof the eventsdescribed (G.H.O.). Flint Sickles,"Antiquity 4 (1930)179"Prehistoric 54. E. C. Curwen, 186;J. Witthoft,"GlazedPolish on Flint Tools,'; AmAnt 32 (1967) 383-388;J. Kamminga,"The Nature of Use-Polish and Abrasive Smoothing on Stone Tools," Lithic tJse-Wear Analysis, Brian and ed. Hayden, (NewYork,SanFrancisco London1979)143-157. 55. G. H. Odell,"A StatisticalAnalysisof the ChippedStoneComponentof a Samplefromthe StarcevoHabitationSite of Banja,Serbia, Yugoslavia," Divostin, D. Srejovic and A. McPherron,eds. in (Belgrade, press).

rOz.7 1980 115 Journalof FieldArchaeology/ produced damage typical of less resistant materials, featherby characterized verysmall,bifacial(denticular) scars, scalar and ill-definedin outline and terminated It appearance. is instructive manifestinga "roughened" exist woody substancesthat produce fewer that there and smallerdamagetracesthan substancesof the same by class(as categorized the authors). generalresistance The other failures to identify materials of softinvolved. the mediumhardnessoverestimated resistance One of these pieces (no. 11, FIG. 2), used to chop fresh westernhemlock,was estimatedto have been used on a hard-mediumsubstance and cannot be consideredto constitute a grave error.The other two (no. 20, FIG. 3 and no. 27, FIG. 4) wereboth usedon freshmaplewood, and in both cases the traces of wear occur on intentionally retouchededges. It is difficult to estimate to what extent the retouch confused the identification, however, because the maple itself appears to have scarringon the burinedge causedsome step-terminated and in the scrapernotch. It could also be contendedthat maple, considered soft-medium by Odell-Vereecken because of its easily workable qualities, should be category,evenwhenfresh. classifiedin the hard-medium If this is so, the mistakesbecomemoreunderstandable. and C. Hard-Medium Hard maof The identification tools used on hard-medium terials is consistentlycorrect,except for one seasoned hemlock saw (no. 13, FIG. 3), judged to have been utiTwo lized in sawinga materialof slightlyless resistance. errorswere made in assessinghard materials,both involvingthe workingof deer antlerthat had beensoaked in water for two weeks. Soaked antler does become much softer than dry antler,a fact which suggeststhat mademay be correct,afterall. Muchof the assessments dependson how to resistance penetration the material's antler was allowed to dry before working it, long the what part of the antlerwas worked,and so forth. For the sake of consistency,antlerin any state of hydration was consideredhard.The piece used as a slicing[nstrument (no. 31, FIG. 4), was thoughtto have been utilized on Douglas fir, becauseflake removalson the edge are than one wouldexpectfor usageon less step-terminated antler.Wear on the gravingedge of tool no. 19 (FIG. 3) also appearsto have beenproducedby wood, exhibiting less crushing and stepped scars than antler usually causes.This tool, by the way, was originallythoughtto have possessed another utilized edge. These spurious "utilizationscars,"however,wereproducedby a combination of prehensionand "spontaneousretouch,"and on close subsequentinspection,the differencebetween could be distinguished. this and actualuse-damage

of margin grass-cutting Figure24. "Sicklegloss"on the retouched tool no. 26 (FIG. 4). Actuallength= 5.5 mm.

diately; he was unwilling,however,to accept that the user had actuallycut grass with this tool, becausethis and thereforeoutactivity appearedto be agricultural side the limits of the test. He accordinglydecidedthat some other substancewith a high silica or opal content had probablycausedthe implementto wearin the same manner as a flint sickle. Turning to the intentional some retouchon the same edge, he then misinterpreted of that as wear,andjudgedthe workedmaterialto have been harderthan it actuallywas. In otherwords,having consideredit improbablethat the user would cut grass, the analyst succeededin outsmartinghimself in a way that probablywould not happen when dealing with a collection. prehistoric B. Soft-Medium Soft-mediumsubstancesaffordedmore and different problemsto the investigator.In one instance(no. 16, FIG. 3) the materialguessedwas softerthan the material worked,althoughit could be arguedthat freshwestern hemlock bark is actually a soft substance.It certainly

116 Reliability of Lithic Use- WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereecken

Assessmentof the exact materialworkedis not very accurate (TABLE 6). This comes as no surprise, and proponentsof the techniquesemployedherehave never claimedto be able to distinguish workedmaterialmore preciselythan to a generalhardness scale.Withthis fact in mind,the accuracyof the soft vegetaland hardwood assessments may be worthy of note, although more pieces were thought to have been employed on those materials than was actuallythe case. Analysis Results of The previousdiscussionhas emphasized mistakes the that were made in the blind test, becausethis was consideredto be the most instructive methodof attempting to interpretthe weaknessesof low-powermicro-wear techniques.It is now time to evaluatethe methodfrom an overallperspective. A. Comparison High-andLow-Power of Techniques Despite the employmentof one microscope(instead of three,in Keeley'scase), magnifications only lOOX to (insteadof 400X or more),and basalt,a relatively granularrawmaterial (insteadof crypto-crystalline flint),the resultsof the presenttest areremarkably similarto those achieved by high-powertechniques. In depicting the location of use, both tests yielded good results:87.5<37o with high-power methods,79<37O low-power.It is eviwith dentthat, usingeithertechnique,the analystcan usually determine which part of a tool has been utilized. Reconstruction of tool movement in the KeeleyNewcomer series was identifiedwith 75<37O accuracy;in the present test, with the alterationsnoted above, accuracywas 69.4<37o.It is arguedherethat an approximate accuracy 70<37O quiteacceptable this type of analof iS for ysis, particularly consideringthat the analyst'spersonal experiencewith use-wearon basalt at the time of these experiments was limitedto a similar"blindtest" to be describedshortly, inspectionof eight flakes used by a student for cutting, sawing, and whittling seasoned Pacificred cedar,and the butchering threemammals. of It shouldbe noted that these latterexperiences werenot directlyuseful,sinceno butchering performed the was in tests reported here. Successin identifyingthe materialworkedwas 62.5<37o for the Keeley-Newcomer experimental series.Using the same criteriafor materialspecification,the success of the present series is only 38.7<37o.This result was anticipated, however, because previous experimentation had indicatedthat low-powermethods, at the current capabilitiesof the authors, are presentlynot able to achieveaccurateresultsby assessingcontactmaterialto a specificitygreaterthan to a relativeresistance presto

sure. Use of a 4-part relativehardnessscale yields a moresatisfactory successrateof 61.337o. all substances If of mediumresistance(i.e., all woods in this series)are combinedinto a 3-partscale of soft-medium-hard, the accuracy is augmented 67.737o. rate to The success ratios of the high- and low-powerapproacheswerecomparedto one anotherfor locationof wear, activity,and workedmaterial,usinga differenceof-proportionstest.56In each case the differencebetweenthe two scoresis not significant the .10 level.As at suggestedpreviously,the loss of exact informationon worked material does not seem extensive using lowpowertechniques,and the accuracyachievedwith these criteriais about equal to that attainedusinghigh-power methods.Studiescurrently underway recentlycomand pleted but not yet publishedwill add data to the pool presentlyavailablethat shouldincreasethe specificity of low-poweruse-wear assessments. B. Additional Issues The discussionso far has concernedissues on which the two techniques in question could be compared. There are other questions, however, that Keeley and Newcomer do not address and that are germane or even crucial to the largerissuesof the refinement and practicabilityof use-wear analysis. One involves the prehensionof the tool. As discussedpreviously,tool prehensionhas been demonstrated producedamage to differentenough from use-wearin most instancesto be distinguishablefrom it and frequentlyenough to be useful in micro-wearassessments.In the presentanalysis, the locationandappearance damageattributable of to prehensionwere both listed on the recordingsheet and described note formalongwiththe appearance in of use-wearand other pertinentinformation.In "scoring" this test, prehensile damagecorrectly assessedwas given one point. If more than one location for such damage was recordedfor a piece and one (or more) was right whileone (or more)was wrong,a half point was awarded. Onthisbasis,thefollowingresults wereobtained: Correct: 23.5/31 = 75.837o Incorrect: 5.5/31 = 17.7370 No information: 2/31 = 6.537o If the two stones that yieldedno information preon hension are disregarded,the success rate increasesto 8137o. This high an accuracyrate was not anticipated prior to the observationof the experimental series,and

56. H. M. Blalock,Jr., SocialStatistics(New York 1972)228-230.In the workedmaterial the Keeleyscorewascompared the resllits test, to of the4-partrelative-hardness usedin thisseries. scale

Vol. Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 117 of of for is most encouraging the development micro-wear analysis. Since damage from prehension has, to the authors' knowledge, rarely been discussedin the usewear literatureand probablynot even noticedby many with lithics, these results sugwho have experimented gest that this variableshould remaina neglectedaspect of use-wear analysisno longer. The other issue that Keeleyand Newcomerfail to address is the length of time requiredto performsuch a study. In the authors'experience,this is one question that recursrepeatedlyamong scholarsnew to practical in micro-wear researchand interested pursuingit. Since experimentally, the problemhas seldombeenconsidered it was decidedto recordthe length of time requiredto complete the analysis of each stone, to the nearest minute(Table 3). The resultis an averageof just under 13 minutes,and includesone specimenthe analysisof whichtook over a half-hourto complete.It is estimated that the descriptionand recordingtook between5 and 10 minutesin most cases, leavingabout 3-8 minutesfor the observation assessment. and It should be stressedherethat Keeleyand Newcomer paid considerableattentionto the numberof tools intime cludedin their series,becauseof the "considerable necessary to record and study the use-wear on the tools."57This problem never played a serious role in to limitingthe numberof experiments be includedin the that presentstudy,becauseit was knownbeforehand the length of time necessaryto assess most of the tools was wouldbe short.The majorconsideration to obtaina of judgements the results samplefromwhichmeaningful could be made, and the presentnumberwas considered adequatefor these purposes.The greaterthe depletion of samplesize from this quantity,the more difficultthe studywouldhavebeento justifystatistically. The results of these blind tests demonstratethat Keeley and Newcomer'sobjectionsto the employment techniquesare eitherunfounof low-powermicro-wear The "largenumberof variablesto ded or exaggerated. does whichutilizationdamageresponds"58 not appearto have been severe enough to have greatly impededthe retouch"from manuanalysis.Likewise,"spontaneous infacturewas noticedon a few occasions,andcorrectly terpreted exceptin one instance.Theeffectsof minorsoil movementsand other naturalprocesseshave not been but testedby the presentexperiments, it has beenargued may affectany kindof useabovethat thesephenomena wear analysis.Finally,the contentionthat "Utilization is damage. . . rarelyforms on steeplyanglededges''S9 totally incorrect.Not only did it form, but the recogniedges was quite tion rate of damageon steeply-angled only thosetools, the used high. For example,considering portionsof which possess at least one polar coordinate greaterthan60 (i.e., 11pieces),the followingresultsappear.
9 correct, Locationof wear: 8 correct, Activity: 6 " Exactworkedmaterial: " Relativeworkedmaterial: S or or

81.8So 72.7So

, or 54.5g0 , or 45.5g0

The accuracyof these assessmentsis actuallyhigher than the total sample for all categoriesexcept relative the workedmaterial.In attemptingto ascertain reasons for inaccuracyin this category,it was noticed that in four of the six cases in which relativeworkedmaterial was incorrectly assessed, the utilized edge had been previouslyretouched.Thus, the criticismthat "Utilization damage . . . cannot usually be distinguishedon may retouched edges"60 havesomevalidity. on Edges C. Accuracy Assessment Retouched of In orderto judge the effectof retouchon the accuracy of low-powermicro-wearassessments,all tools which had been utilized on retouched edges were isolated. "Retouched" definedhereas any secondaryremovals is fromthe parent from a stone afterit has been separated nodule, or the result of any blows if it is a core tool. for There are 10 pieces exhibitingretouch,61 which examinationyieldsthe followingresults.
Locationof wear: Activity: Exactworkedmaterial: Relativeworkedmaterial:
8 correct, or 8057o 6 " ,or60g0 3.5 " , or 35So 3.5 " ,or35g0

Although the sample is small, some tendenciesappear. Two of the categories location of wear and exact workedmaterial manifestthe samedegreeof accuracy as the total population. It is encouragingto note that among retouched tools there was little apparentdifthe ficultyin locatingwhere wearoccurredon the piece. This fact alone disprovesKeeley'sandNewcomers con-

59. Ibid. 37. 60. Ibid. 57. Keeley and Newcomer, op. cit. (in note 5) 34. 58. Ibid. 35. 61. The tools for which utilized and retouched edges are the same are numbers 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 30.

118 Reliability of Lithic Use- WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereecken

tention,noted above.The fact that the assessment exof act workedmaterialdid not diminishin accuracyis not surprising,since it was rather low in the total population. The abilityto judge activityand relativeworkedmaterial on these implements,however,is lower than in the total population.In the activitycategory,no regularity of mistakesis apparentandthe retouched sampleis only 10<37o than the total population,a differencethat lower constitutesone tool. Both the sampleand the difference are too small to attribute any significanceto these results. The accuracyof the relativeworked material determinations, however,is more than 20<37o than lower the population,and there is a definitedirectionality to the mistakes.All of the incorrectly assessedimplements werejudgedto have been utilizedon a substance harder than they actuallywere.Apparently some of the retouch was mistaken for use-wear,and the resistanceof the workedmaterialassessedwas therebyexaggerated. This tendency, of course, can definitely be attributed to weaknessesin the techniquesbeing employed.On the other hand, the unidirectionalityof the mistakes suggeststhat, with practice,the analystcan compensate for muchof the errorinherent the system. in The previous discussionhas concernedthose pieces on which utilizationoccurredon retouchededges. This is only half the story. Thereare also 10 piecesthat possess retouchededgeson whichno utilizationoccurred.62 In nine of these cases, the retouchededges in question werecorrectlyinterpreted havingnot been used. The as tenth (no. 30) was so badly batteredon both lateral edges that it would have been regardedas undeterminable in a normal analysis.On five of these pieces, traces of prehensionwere recordedon the retouched edges. Four of the five were correctlyinterpreted, the fifth being the same as that describedabove (no. 30). The assessmenton this piece was convoluted,prehension tracesbeingidentifiedas wearandvice-versa.

begun on the problem.63 the absenceof substantial In experimental evidenceone way or the other,the authors can provide some scanty, though suggestive,information. It was mentionedabove that at the time that theseexperimentswere performed Odell possessed very little practical experience in working with basalt, or in observingthe damagecharacteristics it. Most of his of previous experimentationhad been with European chalk flint. Some experiencewith basalt was gained througha seriesof blindtestsconductedabout2 months priorto the seriesdescribedhere. Eighteenexperiments coveringa wide rangeof activitiesandworkedmaterials were performedby a studentof the functionanalystat the Universityof BritishColumbia.The utilizedimplements were submittedto the investigatorfor analysis withoutthe latter'sknowledge theirprevioususe. The of analyst'sexperiences basaltat this point consistedof in experimentation butchering harbourseal (Phocea in one vitulina richardi) scrapingits skin.The rulesadhered and to in thesetestswerevirtually identicalto those followed in the later set, except that detaileddescriptions the of wear were not writtenand feedbackof the actualuse of each implementwas given immediately afterthe assessmentwas madeand recorded. Althoughdetailedlists of each experimentare not offered here for reasons of space, the activities include cutting, slicing, sawing, scraping, graving,andboring.Workedmaterials include soaked antler, cooked and raw bone, seasoned black alderwood and bark,freshblackalderwood, freshand seasoned Douglas fir wood, fresh aspen wood, cooked roastbeef, rawchicken,rawpotato,and rawcarrot.The resultsareas follows

D. Importanceof Raw Material

Location of use: 14.5 correct, or 80.657o Activity: 13.5 " , or 75.057O Exact worked material: 6.5 " , or 36.157o Relative worked material: 13.5 " , or 75.0570 All medium materials lumped: 14.5 " , or 80.657o Prehension: 12 " , or 66.757o Average time/piece: 5.03minutes (standard deviation = 1.64)

Anotherquestionis crucialto use-wearanalysisof all kinds. That is, to what extent is utilization damage generalizable over the variouscategories rawmaterial of employedby prehistoricpeople?Put anotherway, will the sameactivitiesproducethe samedamageon tools of differentchemicaland/or physicalcomposition? Opinions on this question are varied and work has just

These resultsare similarin generalto the seriesheretofore described particularlyas to location of use, which remains accurate, and exact worked material,
63. Keeley,op. cit. (in note 1); Kamminga, cit. (in note 3); G. op. Odell, R. Tringham,M. Roberts, B. Voytek and A. Whitman, "Microwear Analysis,"letterin JFA 3 (1976)239-240; T. Greiser S. and P. D. Sheets,"Raw Materialas a FunctionalVariablein UseWearStudies," Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, B. Hayden,ed. (New York, SanFrancisco London1979)289-296. and

62. Implements possessing edges that were retouched but not utilized are numbers 4, 9, 10,1 1,12,14, 19, 23, 26, and 30.

Vol. of Journal FieldArchaeology/ 7, 1980 119 which remains inaccurate. Depiction of activity is thanin the latertests, and depicmoresuccessful slightly tionof relativeworkedmaterialis much more successful.One reasonfor the greateraccuracyachievedin the tests may concernthe immediatefeedbackof inearlier thoughthis has never from the experimenter, formation and wouldclearlyinvolve an beenconsidered advantage the realm of the subconsciousif it is one. A more cause of successis that the earlierexperiments probable weremore conventionalthan the laterones, exclusively withwhichthe involvingactivitiesand workedmaterials familiar(e.g., no hazelnutswerecracked,no analystwas plant roots extirpated,no grass cut). Tracesof prehension were successfully identified less frequently, possibly because the analyst was less careful and or fastidiousabout the earlierset of experiments, posbecausethe averagenumberof strokesfor which sibly tools wereutilizedwas substanthe earlierexperimental less. It should be noted that the averagetime to tially assess and record the pieces was about 5 minutespreciselyin the middle of the range estimatedfor the laterseries. The significanceof the earlierblind tests is two-fold. First, the resultsare similarto the later tests and dembut onstratethat they are not a one-shotoccurrence, are indicativeof underlyingprobabilitiesusing these techSecof niquesat the presentcapabilities the investigator. ond, the pieces were analyzed with almost no prior to knowledgeof the damagecharacteristics be expected of basalt. This is a hearteningdevelopment,and one that suggests that a wide rangeof lithic materialsmay manifest wear traces that are similarenough to be interpreted within the presentknowledgeof damagecharacteristics observableusing low-powertechniques.This does not mean that one need not experimentwith a lithic type before analyzing prehistoricspecimensmade from it. and Severaltypes do show differences, one can neverbe that certain of this variableuntil one can demonstrate the lithictype being analyzedreactsin ways similarto a This stipulationis critical,and must knownlithictype.64 be adheredto for the resultsof an analysisto be acceptable within the frameworkin which micro-wearinvestigators are currentlyoperating. Nevertheless,the in resultsof the presentstudyare encouraging that they illustrate that certain principlesof low-power microwear analysis are able to be generalizedfrom at least igneous European chalk flint to certain Elne-grained that the factor of raw rocks. It should be emphasized by materialhas yet to be approached proponentsof the For example,all of Keeley's pubhigh-powerschool.
64. Odell et al., op. cit. (in note 63).

lishedwork on this subjectto date concernstraces of on exclusively Englishchalkflint. wear Conclusion At the presenttime thereare two majorways to conduct researchinto the damagethat accruesto the surfaces and edges of stone tools from use. One is through techniques involving high-power magnifications;the other,throughmethodsinvolvinglow-powermagnificathe to tions.Thispaperhasattempted present advantages of low-powermethodsand to establishthem as reliable from information tools for derivingfunctional analytical lithic artifacts.They are not just the alternativethat might be used when other methodsare unemployable, of vast butarecapableof rendering quantities usabledata and can be employedin situationsin whichhigh-power methodsareclearlyinadequate. Results of the blind tests reportedhere establish a numberof points concerningmethods employinglow First, the utilizedpart of a tool can be magnifications. the accuracy; presentseries identifiedwith considerable Second, acof experimentsattaineda rate of ca. 80No. tivity and relativeworkedmaterialare more difficultto series, activitywas assess. In the presentexperimental accuracy,relativeworkedmaterial identifiedat ca. 70370 dependingon whetheror not and at between61No 68No, substancesof medium resistanceare lumped together. acThird,exact workedmaterialcannot be determined damage curately by the methods used here. Fourth, from prehensionof the tool can be consistentlydistinguishedfrom use-wearand can providevaluableinformationon a numberof issues. In the presentstudy, tracesexceeded of accuracyof identification prehension all other categoriesexceptthe location of use. Fifth, infrom use-wearin tentionalretouchcan be distinguished most instances.However,it does affordsome problems, in particularly assessingthe substanceon which a piece was utilized. "Spontaneousretouch"from the original knappingof the stone can also be consistentlydistinguishedfrom wear. Sixth, the materialfrom which the implement was fabricated remains an important variablethat should be controlledin each case or for each site. Blind tests conductedprior to those reported and here suggestthat patternsof micro-chipping other one transcend damageobservableat low magniElcations to generalizererock type; it may even be possible gardingsuch patternsand damageover severaldifferent varieties. Propertiesof certain fine-grainedand cryptocrystallinerocks appearto be similarenough to one anotherthat the same principlesof fracturemechanics apply to them. And seventh, observation and basic shortperiodof take a relatively of recording implements

120 Reliability of Lithic Use- WearAssessment/Odell and Odell-Vereecken

time using the techniquesespousedhere. Both seriesof blindtestsindicatean averageof ca. S minutespertool. Techniquesusing low magnifications appropriate are for several situations. Since analysistakes a relatively short period of time, they are particularly suited to the assessmentof largesamples.In the authors'experience, in fact, there are certainpieces in most collectionsthat possessambiguouswearor tracesthat have beenutterly obscuredby batteringor by some other cause (such as piece no. 30 in the experimental series).Theseitemsare best regardedas unidentifiable. The presenceof these piecesand the needwith any technique micro-wear of to acquirea properappreciationfor the variabilityin an assemblage makeit desirable selecta fairlylargesamto ple. One would prefer not to have to spend decades analyzingit. In addition, spatial analysisof functional elementson prehistoric occupation floors a studyeasily integratedwith functional lithics studies and particularly informativeof past behaviorpatterns is usually only relevantand operationalwith the use of largesamples. The choiceof any particular micro-wear technique ultimatelydependson the individualsituationand on the felt needsof the observer.If a collectionis smalland/or very specific functionalinformationis required(and if the equipment is available), then strategiesinvolving high magnifications are desirable. These techniques have been indicated to be capable of high functional specificityand can be appliedto a numberof situations. If the sampleis large,however,and the questionsto be answereddo not involvesuch high specificity,then one would be well advisedto employ tactics involvinglow magnifications. Questions concerning patterns of human behavior,adaptationto the environment,subsistence, spatial organizationof activities,etc. can be answered througheithermethod.65 most logicalapThe proach to the problem is to define the situation and specify the goals of the analysis being contemplated, thenchoose the methodologythat seemsmost appropriate. To do otherwisefailsto recognize uniqueadvanthe tagesof eithertechniqueof use-wear analysis.
Acknowledgements

tendedto GeordieHowe (Department Anthropology of and Sociology, Universityof BritishColumbia),who participatedin the first series of blind tests; to Bill Collins (Departmentof Geology, Brown University), who madethe determination the lithictype employed of in the experiments; to Dr. JosephT. Eastman and (Division of Biology and Medicine,BrownUniversity), who identified the species of fish represented here. Frieda Odell-Vereecken producedall of the line drawingsand photographs containedherein. George Odellis currently research H. a archaeologist at theFoundation IllinoisArchaeology, for Kampsville, IIlinois.He received B.A.from YaleUniversity a a and Ph.D. in 1977from Harvard. hasdonearchaeological He field workin theNew World (Massachusetts, Ohio, BritishColumbia) in the Old(Netherlands, and France, SouthAfrica). FriedaOdellVereecken an archaeological is draftspersonandphotographer theFoundation IllinoisArat for chaeology, Kampsville, lllinois.Shereceived licenceat a the University Ghent, of Belgium. field workhasbeen Her doneinBelgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, the France, BritishColumbia, Massachusetts, RhodeIsland. and

This articlehas benefitedfrom the assistanceof Sally Greiser, Brian Hayden and Johan Kamminga,all of whom made helpfulcommentson the first draftof the manuscript. Criticisms Kamminga by and LarryKeeley on a laterdraft,discussedin footnote 31, are also gratefully acknowledged. Any errorsor omissionsshould be attributed the authors.In addition,appreciation exto is
65. Schiffer, op. cit. (in note 15);Odell, op. cit. (in note 15).