Skip to main content

Extracting residues from stone tools for optical analysis: towards an experiment-based protocol

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences volume 10, pages 1717–1736 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

The identification of residues is traditionally based on the distinctive morphologies of the residue fragments by means of light microscopy. Most residue fragments are amorphous, in the sense that they lack distinguishing shapes or easily visible structures under reflected light microscopy. Amorphous residues can only be identified by using transmitted light microscopy, which requires the extraction of residues from the tool’s surface. Residues are usually extracted with a pipette or an ultrasonic bath in combination with distilled water. However, a number of researchers avoid residue extraction because it is unclear whether current extraction techniques are representative for the use-related residue that adheres to a flaked stone tool. In this paper, we aim at resolving these methodological uncertainties by critically evaluating current extraction methodologies. Attention is focused on the variation in residue types, their causes of deposition and their adhesion and on the most successful technique for extracting a range of residue types from the stone tool surface. Based on an experimental reference sample in flint, we argue that a stepwise extraction protocol is most successful in providing representative residue extractions and in preventing damage, destruction or loss of residue.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  • Akerman K, Fullagar R, van Gijn A (2002) Weapens and wunan: production function and exchange of Kimberley points. Aust Aborig Stud 1:13–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker A, Venables B, Stevens SM, et al (2012) An optimized approach for protein residue extraction and identification from ceramics after cooking

  • Barton H (2007) Starch residues on museum artefacts: implications for determining tool use. J Archaeol Sci 34:1752–1762. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.01.007

  • Barton H, Torrence R, Fullagar R (1998) Clues to stone tool function re-examined: comparing starch grain frequencies on used and unused obsidian artefacts. J Archaeol Sci 25:1231–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boëda E, Connan J, Dessort D et al (1996) Bitumen as a hafting material on Middle Palaeolithic artefacts. Nature 380:336–338. doi:10.1038/380336a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briuer F (1976) New clues to stone tool function: plant and animal residues. Am Antiq 41:478–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown TA, Brown K (2011) Biomolecular archaeology: an introduction. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne L, Ollé A, Vergès JM (2006) Under the hammer: residues resulting from production and microwear on experimental stone tools. Archaeometry 48:549–564. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4754.2006.00272.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig OE, Collins MJ (2002) The removal of protein from mineral surfaces: implications for residue analysis of archaeological materials. J Archaeol Sci 29:1077–1082. doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowther A, Haslam M, Oakden N et al (2014) Documenting contamination in ancient starch laboratories. J Archaeol Sci 49:90–104. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2014.04.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denham TP, Haberle SG, Lentfer C et al (2003) Origins of agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of New Guinea. Science 301:189–193. doi:10.1126/science.1085255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans AA, Donahue RE (2005) The elemental chemistry of lithic microwear: an experiment. J Archaeol Sci 32:1733–1740. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evershed RPR (1993) Biomolecular archaeology and lipids. World Archaeol 25:74–93. doi:10.1080/00438243.1993.9980229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evershed RP (2008) Organic residue analysis in archaeology: the archaeological biomarker revolution*. Archaeometry 50:895–924. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00446.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullagar R (1986) Use-wear and residues on stone tools: functional analysis and its application to two southeastern Australian archaeological assemblages (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). La Trobe University, Melbourne 

  • Fullagar R (2006) Starch on artefacts. Anc Starch Res:177–203

  • Fullagar R (2014) Residues and usewear. In: Balme J, Paterson A (eds) Archaeology in practice: a student guide to archaeological analyses. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 232–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullagar R (2015) The logic of visitation: tool-use, technology and economy on Great Glennie Island, southeastern Australia. Quat Int 385:219–228. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.05.066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullagar R, Field J, Denham T, Lentfer C (2006) Early and mid Holocene tool-use and processing of taro (Colocasia esculenta), yam (Dioscorea sp.) and other plants at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. J Archaeol Sci 33:595–614. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.07.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullagar R, Hayes E, Stephenson B et al (2015) Evidence for Pleistocene seed grinding at Lake Mungo, south-eastern Australia. Archaeol Ocean 50:3–18. doi:10.1002/arco.5053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson NE, Wadley L, Williamson BS (2004) Microscopic residues as evidence of hafting on backed tools from the 60 000 to 68 000 Howeisons Poort layers of Rose Cottage Cave, South Africa. South African Humanit 16:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurfinkel DM, Franklin UM (1988) A study of the feasibility of detecting blood residues on artifacts. J Archaeol Sci 15:83–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy BL (2004) Neanderthal behaviour and stone tool function at the Middle Palaeolithic site of La Quina, France. Antiquity 78:547–565. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00113213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy BL, Moncel M-H (2011) Neanderthal use of fish, mammals, birds, starchy plants and wood 125-250,000 years ago. PLoS One 6:e23768. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy BL, Bolus M, Conard NJ (2008) Hammer or crescent wrench? Stone-tool form and function in the Aurignacian of southwest Germany. J Hum Evol 54:648–662. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2007.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam M (2011) Mountains and molehills: sample size in archaeological microscopic stone-tool residue analysis. In: Terra Australis. pp 47–79

  • Helwig K, Monahan V, Poulin J, Andrews TD (2014) Ancient projectile weapons from ice patches in northwestern Canada: identification of resin and compound resin-ochre hafting adhesives. J Archaeol Sci 41:655–665. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.09.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kealhofer L, Torrence R, Fullagar R (1999) Integrating Phytoliths within use-wear/residue studies of stone tools. J Archaeol Sci 26:527–546. doi:10.1006/jasc.1998.0332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley LH (1980) Experimental determination of stone tools uses: a microwear analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoLondon

  • Lamb J, Loy T (2005) Seeing red: the use of Congo Red dye to identify cooked and damaged starch grains in archaeological residues. J Archaeol Sci 32:1433–1440. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.03.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langejans GHJ (2011) Discerning use-related micro-residues on tools: testing the multi-stranded approach for archaeological studies. J Archaeol Sci 38:985–1000. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.11.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langejans GHJ (2012) Middle Stone Age pièces esquillées from Sibudu Cave, South Africa: an initial micro-residue study. J Archaeol Sci 39:1694–1704. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.12.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langenheim J (2003) Plant resins: chemistry, evolution, ecology, and ethnobotany

  • Liu L, Field J, Fullagar R et al (2010) What did grinding stones grind? New light on Early Neolithic subsistence economy in the Middle Yellow River Valley, China. Antiquity 84:816–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M (2004) Distribution patterns of organic residues on Middle Stone Age points from Sibudu Cave, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. South African Archaeol Bull 59:37–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M (2005) Evidence of hunting and hafting during the Middle Stone Age at Sibidu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a multianalytical approach. J Hum Evol 48:279–300. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M (2006) Direct evidence for the use of ochre in the hafting technology of Middle Stone Age tools from Sibudu Cave. South African Humanit 18:57–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M (2008) Finding resolution for the Howiesons Poort through the microscope: micro-residue analysis of segments from Sibudu Cave, South Africa. J Archaeol Sci 35:26–41. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.02.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M, Phillipson L (2010) Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64 000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Antiquity 84:635–648. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00100134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M, Wadley L (2007) The morphological identification of micro-residues on stone tools using light microscopy: progress and difficulties based on blind tests. J Archaeol Sci 34:155–165. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2006.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Polin L, Bermúdez de Castro JM, Carbonell E (2011) Preparation of Pleistocene human bones with an ultrasonic scaler: the case of mandible ATD6-112 from Atapuerca (Spain). ArchéoSciences 35:235–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loy TH (1993) Prehistoric organic residue analysis: the future meets the past. In Spriggs M, Yen DE, Ambrose W, Jones R, Thorne A, Andrews A (eds) A community of culture: the people and prehistory of the Pacific. Australian National University, Canberra, pp 56–72

  • Mason TJ (2015) Ultrasonic cleaning: an historical perspective. Ultrason Sonochem. doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2015.05.004

    Google Scholar 

  • Matheson CD, Veall M-A (2014) Presumptive blood test using Hemastix® with EDTA in archaeology. J Archaeol Sci 41:230–241. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.08.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills J, White R (1977) Natural resins of art and archaeology their sources, chemistry, and identification. Stud Conserv 22:12–31. doi:10.2307/1505670

    Google Scholar 

  • Monnier GF, Ladwig JL, Porter ST (2012) Swept under the rug: the problem of unacknowledged ambiguity in lithic residue identification. J Archaeol Sci 39:3284–3300. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman M, Julig P (1989) The identification of protein residues on lithic artifacts from a stratified boreal forest site. Can J Archaeol 13:119–132

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor TP (1987) On the structure, chemistry and decay of bone, antler and ivory. Archaeol bone, antler ivory 6–8

  • Pedergnana A, Asryan L, Fernández-Marchena JL, Ollé A (2016) Modern contaminants affecting microscopic residue analysis on stone tools: a word of caution. Micron 86:1–21. doi:10.1016/j.micron.2016.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plisson H (1985) Etude fonctionnelle d’outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l’analyse des micro-usures: recherche méthodologique et archéologique. Université de Paris I, thèse de doctorat.

  • Perrault K, Stefanuto P-H, Dubois L et al (2016) A new approach for the characterization of organic residues from stone tools using GC×GC-TOFMS. Separations 3:16. doi:10.3390/separations3020016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry L (2004) Starch analyses reveal the relationship between tool type and function: an example from the Orinoco valley of Venezuela. J Archaeol Sci 31:1069–1081. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard AM, Heron C (2008) Archaeological chemistry. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge

  • Regert M (2004) Investigating the history of prehistoric glues by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Sep Sci 27:244–254. doi:10.1002/jssc.200301608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rots V (2010) Prehension and hafting traces on flint tools: a methodology. Universitaire Pers Leuven, Leuven

    Google Scholar 

  • Rots V, Williamson B (2004) Microwear and residue analyses in perspective: the contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence. J Archaeol Sci 31:1287–1299. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rots V, Van Peer P, Vermeersch PM (2011) Aspects of tool production, use, and hafting in Palaeolithic assemblages from Northeast Africa. J Hum Evol 60:637–664. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rots V, Hardy BL, Serangeli J, Conard NJ (2015) Residue and microwear analyses of the stone artifacts from Schöningen. J Hum Evol 89:298–308. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rots V, Hayes E, Cnuts D et al (2016) Making sense of residues on flaked stone artefacts: learning from blind tests. PLoS One 11:e0150437. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffer M (1972) Archaeological context and systemic context. Am Antiq 37:156–165

  • Schiffer M (1987) Formation processes of the archaeological record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque 

  • Sensabaugh GF, Wilson AC, Kirk PL (1971) Protein stability in preserved biological remains: II. Modification and aggregation of proteins in an 8-year-old sample of dried blood. Int J Biochem 2:558–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer H, Holloway R (1979) Organic residue analysis in determining stone tool function. In: Hayden B (ed) Lithic use-wear analysis. pp 385–399

  • Shanks OC, Hodges L, Tilley L et al (2005) DNA from ancient stone tools and bones excavated at Bugas-Holding, Wyoming. J Archaeol Sci 32:27–38. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith M, Hayes E, Stephenson B (2015) Mapping a millstone: the dynamics of use-wear and residues on a Central Australian seed-grinding implement |. Aust Archaeol 80:70–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson B (2015) A modified Picro-Sirius Red (PSR) staining procedure with polarization microscopy for identifying collagen in archaeological residues. J Archaeol Sci 61:235–243. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerhayes GR, Leavesley M, Fairbairn A et al (2010) Human adaptation and plant use in highland New Guinea 49,000 to 44,000 years ago. Science 330:78–81. doi:10.1126/science.1193130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrence R, Barton H (2006) Ancient starch research. Left coast Press, Walnut Creek

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan P (1985) Use wear analysis of flaked stone tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson

  • Veall M-A, Matheson CD (2014) Improved molecular and biochemical approaches to residue analysis. In: Lemorini C, Nunziante Cesaro S (eds) An integration of use-wear and residues analysis for the identification of the function of archaeological stone tools. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 9–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadley L, Lombard M, Williamson B (2004) The first residue analysis blind tests: results and lessons learnt. J Archaeol Sci 31:1491–1501. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson BS (1997) Down the microscope and beyond: microscopy and molecular studies of stone tool residues and bone samples from Rose Cottage Cave. S Afr J Sci 93:458–464

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all members of TraceoLab for their help and advice during the experiments and the preparation of this paper, in particular Christian Lepers for producing and using all the experimental stone tools examined in this study and Noora Taipale and Carol Lentfer for having revised the English text. Finally, we would like to thank the reviewers who have helped to improve this paper. This research was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) in the context of a starting grant (“EVO-HAFT”) attributed to Veerle Rots (ERC Grant Agreement no. 312283). Veerle Rots is also indebted to the Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS-FRS) (grant number: CQ 2011).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TraceoLab/Prehistory, University of Liège, Quai Roosevelt 1B (Bât. A4), 4000, Liège, Belgium

    Dries Cnuts

  2. Chercheur Qualifé du FNRS, TraceoLab/Prehistory, University of Liège, Quai Roosevelt 1B (Bât. A4), 4000, Liège, Belgium

    Veerle Rots

Authors
  1. Dries Cnuts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veerle Rots
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dries Cnuts.

Electronic supplementary material

Table 1

Results of the adhesion test with the ultrasonic bath. The percentage of removal was calculated by comparing the state of density and size of a residue before any intervention and the state before and after each cleaning step by counting the residues. When the residue fragments were too numerous, the degree of change was estimated. Residue cause: P= production, H= Hafting, U= Use, I= Incidental, C= contamination. Condition: F= Fresh, D= Dry. Main chemical component: AA= Amino acids, CH= Carbohydrates, HY= Hydroxyapatite, LI= Lipids, TE= Terpenes and terpernoids (XLSX 15 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cnuts, D., Rots, V. Extracting residues from stone tools for optical analysis: towards an experiment-based protocol. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 10, 1717–1736 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-017-0484-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-017-0484-7

Keywords

  • Residue analysis
  • Lithics
  • Extraction
  • Pipette
  • Ultrasonic bath
  • Residue adhesion
  • Residue cause