Use-Trace Analysis of Bone Tools: a Brief Overview of Four
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
South African Archaeological Bulletin 70 (201): 3–14, 2015 3 Research Article USE-TRACE ANALYSIS OF BONE TOOLS: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF FOUR METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES JUSTIN BRADFIELD Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, 2006, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] (Received January 2015. Revised April 2015) ABSTRACT until mechanical failure results in a fracture (Johnson 1985; In comparison with some other parts of the world, there has been a Lakes et al. 1990; Kim et al. 2006; Rennick 2012). Adhesive wear marked lack of engagement with the functional study of bone tools in arises from frictional contact between two surfaces. However, southern Africa. Only a handful of researchers are actively conducting instead of resulting in material attrition, as occurs with abrasive work on this important aspect of material culture on the sub- wear, material from one object is transferred to the other continent. In this paper, I explore four avenues of use-trace analyses (LeMoine 1994; Francis 2002). The contact material is identified, that can be used to investigate the past function of bone tools, namely, based on the residue of the adhering material. Chemical wear is use-wear, macrofracture analysis, morphological residues studies and the physical alteration of a tool surface due to chemical action, micro-focus computed tomography. Despite the increasing application which normally occurs after deposition but which can also of sophisticated analytical software, definitions of use-traces still differ occur as a result of contact with skin and other acidic sub- among analysts. Here I provide a brief overview of various use-trace stances or organic enzymes. indicators and descriptions of how to identify them. Wherever possi- Here I present four use-trace techniques used for the analy- ble, I use only the consensus definitions and descriptions of the various sis of bone tools. The basic principles and methodological use-traces for easier identification by a non-expert. approaches governing use-wear, residue analysis, macrofrac- Keywords: use-traces, use-wear, residue analysis, macro- ture analysis and micro-CT on bone tools are outlined. There fracture analysis, micro-CT, bone tools. are various analytical techniques within each of these methods, but I describe only those techniques with which I am most INTRODUCTION familiar. Use-trace studies are regularly conducted on stone tools to find out more about the tasks for which they may have been USE-WEAR ANALYSIS used in the past (e.g. Binneman 1983; Cooper & Nugent 2006; The underlying premise governing use-wear analysis is Villa & Lenoir 2006; Lombard 2011). In South Africa, similar that friction between two materials will result in traces on both functional studies are seldom done on bone tools. The work of (Rots 2010). Use-wear is based on tribology, or the study of Backwell and d’Errico (e.g. 2001, 2009; Backwell et al. 2008; interacting surfaces in motion. The basic premise is that each d’Errico et al. 2012a,b), mostly conducted on Early and Middle material and activity will leave distinctive use-wear patterns on Stone Age artefacts, has been one of the few exceptions. Yet, tools, and that the identification of such patterns can provide there is a wealth of information to be gleaned from bone tools information about the contact material and the nature of from any time period (e.g. Bradfield 2014, in press). contact or use; in other words, similar wear patterns should In this paper, I review a number of techniques that can be indicate similar function (Semenov 1964; Chomko 1975; used to investigate the past function of bone tools. All the tech- LeMoine 1994; Buc & Loponte 2007; Buc 2011). niques described below can be subsumed under the general Experimental studies have shown that different materials heading of use-traces. Simply put, use-traces are the combina- and motions of use often leave distinctive microscopic wear tion of micro- and macroscopic features that develop on objects patterns, consisting of polish, striations, rounding, flattening, that have come into contact with one another,either during use pitting, cracking and micro-breakage (Olsen 1989; d’Errico or manufacture. Use-trace analyses provide a tool for identify- 1993; Griffitts 1997, 2001). Table 1 presents broad definitions of ing possible activities at archaeological sites for which no other each of these terms. Polish may be described as either high evidence remains. For example, the manufacture of leather (I use the word ‘bright’ to distinguish it from topographic loca- clothing may leave identifiable traces on the tools used to make tion) or dull, the former displaying a reflective lustre, the latter them even if no leather survives in the archaeological deposit not (Chomko 1975). Likewise, striations may be described as (Griffitts 2001; d’Errico et al. 2012b). The presence of these traces either long or short, an arbitrary determinant set at 4 mm is therefore used to infer function and, by extension, the (Chomko 1975). Each of these wear-traces can tell us something primary economic activities of prehistoric groups (Keeley 1974; about the material that caused them. Striations show the direc- Rots 2010). tion of movement as well as the texture of the contact material Broadly speaking, there are four processes through which (d’Errico 1993; Griffitts 2001). Polish may indicate duration of bone tools can develop use-traces. These are abrasive, fatigue, use or the softness/hardness of the contact material (Tyzzer adhesive and chemical (LeMoine 1994). These processes arise 1936; Legrand & Sidera 2007). The arrangement, distribution from manufacture, use and environmental factors. Abrasive and morphology of use-wear traces, when considered wear results from prolonged frictional contact between a tool together, may provide evidence for activities such as hafting, and a contact material, usually through working of the material leather working or wood working (Stone 2013). The relation- (LeMoine 1994; Fisher 1995). Fatigue wear results from struc- ship of traces to one another allows us to identify a sequence of tural strain occasioned through contact or use. In bone tools, events or activities (Semenov 1964), with the most recent this process initially manifests as micro-cracks and continues events superimposed onto older events. 4 South African Archaeological Bulletin 70 (201): 3–14, 2015 TABLE 1. Definitions of terms used to describe modifications to bone. Type Indicators References Abrasion Caused by the interaction of two materials, one harder than the other, LeMoine 1994; which often results in scratches on the surface of the softer materials. Fisher 1995 Acid etching Produces widespread erosion, scalloping, smoothing and thinning. May Cook 1986; (digestion) produce perforations. Surface bears little resemblance to natural bone surface. Fisher 1995; d’Errico & Villa 1997 Adhesive Adhesive wear refers to the transfer of one material to another through contact. LeMoine 1994 Chemical Results from chemical reactions. Includes processes such as oxidation and LeMoine 1994 acid etching. May occur in isolation or in combination with mechanical stress. Cracking The splitting of cortical bone usually resulting from desiccation or stress. Fisher 1995 Synonymous with weathering. Crushing The inward displacement of the bone cortex into the spongy bone space. Fisher 1995 within; fragmentation of cortical bone due to pressure Cut marks V-shaped in cross-section with flat sides. Fine parallel striations occur Cook 1986; along the walls of the main groove and at the bottom of grooves. Fisher 1995 Fatigue The sudden failure of a material due to repetitive stress. LeMoine 1994 Flaking Micro-flaking resulting from percussion against a harder material. Bone Fisher 1995; flakes display the same features as stone flakes. Results from a variety of Buc 2011 causes including trampling and biting. Flattening The first stage in the wear process. It is the abrasive removal of surface Legrand & Sidéra 2007; material prior to the formation of polish. Buc 2011 Heating Dependent on temperature and duration of exposure. Passes through five Shipman et al. 1984; stages differentiated by surface colour and topography. Short duration or Choyke & Daróczi-Szabó 2010 low temperature shows blackened edges and smooth surface; increased temperature/exposure shows bluish-white colour and porous texture. Pitting Often occurs in the polish and manifests as uneven depressions on the Griffitts 2001 surface. Dependent on the hardness and/or acidity of the contact material. Polish Consists of smoothing and flat surfaces, usually accompanied by rounded Fisher 1995; edges. It is usually acquired through contact with secondary surfaces and is Griffitts 1997, 2001 the abrasive removal of material from the contact surface. Polish differs depending on duration of use and hardness of contact material. Best viewed under high-power magnification. Root etching Thin, shallow dendritic lines on surface with u-shaped cross-section. Cook 1986; Usually visible to the naked eye. Fisher 1995; Vercoutére et al. 2007 Rounding Results from repetitive wear, usually on soft materials, but has been found Buc 2011 to occur after impact. Sediment Very similar to digging indicators; deformation characterised by crack d’Errico 1993; abrasion networks. The degree of wear is related to type of bone, duration of Lyman 1994; exposure, sediment matrix and transport mode, if any. Fisher 1995; Sklar & Dietrich