Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Claire Smith

Stone Tool Usewear and Residue Analysis

  • Richard FullagarEmail author
  • Carney Matheson
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_842

Introduction

Although strictly speaking the concept of artifact refers to what is actually manufactured (e.g., by flaking or grinding), in archaeology the term stone artifact commonly refers to any stones that are made, modified, or used by humans (other primates also make and use artifacts; see Mercader et al. 2007). The by-products of manufacture are often also called artifacts in the sense that humans produced them. Stone tools are usually defined as those artifacts that actually have evidence of use. For reliable identification of archaeological stone tools and determination of specific functions, analysts rely on multiple lines of evidencethat might include tool design, usewear, residues, breakage patterns, hafting traces, and archaeological context. Ethnographic and experimental evidence is also important. Usewear and residue analyses have the potential to provide a reliable basis for reconstructing and evaluating the nature of prehistoric tasks, resource utilization, and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Briuer, F.L. 1976. New clues to stone tool function: plant and animal residues. American Antiquity 41(4): 478-84.Google Scholar
  2. Evershed, R., C. Heron, S. Charters & L.J. Gaod. 1992: The survival of food residues: new methods of analysis, interpretation and application, in A.M. Pollard (ed.) New developments in archaeological science: 187-208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Hayden, B. (ed.) 1979. Lithic use-wear analysis: 1–13. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Kamminga, J. 1982. Over the edge (Occasional Papers in Anthropology 12). St. Lucia: Anthropological Museum, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  5. Lombard, M. & M.L. Haidle. 2012. Thinking a bow-and-arrow set: cognitive implications of Middle Stone Age bow and stone-tipped arrow technology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 22(2): 237-64.Google Scholar
  6. Loy, T.L. 1993. The artefact as site: an example of the biomolecular analysis of organic residues on prehistoric stone tools. World Archaeology 25: 44-63.Google Scholar
  7. Mercader, J., H. Barton, J. Gillespie, J. Harris, S. Kuhn, R. Tyler & C. Boesch. 2007. 4300-year-old chimpanzee sites and the origins of percussive stone technology. Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences 104(9): 3043-48.Google Scholar
  8. Odell, G. 2004. Lithic analysis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Pollard, A.M. & C. Heron. 1996. Archeological chemistry. Washington (DC): Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  10. Rots, V. 2010. Prehension and hafting traces on flint tools: a methodology. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Thornton, J.I. 1997. The general assumptions and rationale of forensic identification, in D.L. Faigman, D.H. Kaye, M.J. Saks & J. Sander (ed.) Modern scientific evidence: the law and science of expert testimony, Volume 2. St. Paul (MN): West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. van Gijn, A. 2010. Flint in focus. Leiden: Sidestone Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Archaeological ScienceSchool of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  2. 2.Scarp ArchaeologyAustinmerAustralia
  3. 3.Paleo-DNA Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Department of BiologyLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada