Elsevier

Quaternary International

Volume 427, Part B, 12 January 2017, Pages 25-34
Quaternary International

High magnification use-wear analysis of lithic artefacts from Northeastern America: Creation of an experimental database and integration of expedient tools

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.061Get rights and content

Abstract

Use-wear analysis on prehistoric lithic artefacts makes it possible to identify the real function of the tools. To identify the nature of the technical activities practised on a site increases considerably the interpretative potential of the archaeological collections, since it is then possible to define the behaviors and the choices which characterize the socio-economic organization. However, use-wear analysis necessitates access to an experimental referential specifically representative of the context in study (and the nature of subsistence activities), the raw material used and the types of tools identified. It is in this perspective that the we decided to build a specialised database (made of objects, notes, descriptive forms, drawings, films and thousand of pictures) adapted to the prehistoric context of the American North-East. The first two phases of this project already made it possible to document the use of expedient tools (raw flakes), manufactured on lithic raw materials regularly found in the archaeological assemblies (various varieties of chert and quarzite). Experiments carried out to date allowed us to document: 1 – characteristic combinations of traces associated with the use of tools made on flakes for various functions connected to the activities of subsistence of hunters-gatherers (work of bones, antler, hide, cutting-up); 2 – the variability of dynamic of wear of five varieties of Appalachian cherts (St.Nicolas, Munsungun, Touladi, Normanskill, Onondaga) and of two varieties of quarzites (Mistassini and Ramah); 3 – the modality of use and the process of wear of the expedient tools, which will make it possible to locate and identify adequately this category of tools in the archaeological collections. Access to such a reference database will make it possible to identify the true function of the tools from this context and to integrate the category “ad hoc tools” into the inventory and go beyond the premise « form-function » in the interpretation of the activities practised on the prehistoric sites.

Introduction

The ultimate goal of prehistoric studies is to explain the past of our ancestors. But understanding every day life address the notion of cultural variety and help to define the thin line that distinguishes one group from another. This is why it is relevant to shed light on and understand as much as possible the archaeological remains. Nowadays, it seems we are still trying to explain tools and sites functions from our own perception, instead of trying to decode what artefacts themselves can reveal. We have to understand what occurred effectively on a site, in order to replace this site in its socio-economic strategy (Knutsson, 1990, Thorsberg, 1990, Bamforth, 2010, van Gijn, 2010). Many questions have to be solved and there are methods to achieve this. Which processing phase was performed and where on the site and who did it? If we consider our actual state of knowledge of the lithic toolkit from the Northeastern America prehistory, it is even more relevant to develop an adapted database for this specific context, in order to understand better the tools themselves, their functions and the archaeological representation of subsistence and production activities. The use-wear database project of the Archaological Laboratories of Université Laval (2013–2014) is therefore a start-up contribution to achieve this goal. The generated database has both a scientific and educational mission (Chabot et al., 2014). However, the concrete results of this experimental program go way beyond the “traditional” creation of a traceological database. In fact, it is now obvious that the integration of functional data to the interpretation of stone tools and archaeological sites gives access to a more comprehensive view of the identified lifestyles. By doing so, functional studies bring a “plus-value” to our knowledge of North-American prehistory. These elements deal with: finding the true functions of the tools, upgrading the tool corpus by integrating expedient tools and the entire operating process (chaîne opératoire) let us reach and understand better their social organisation.

Section snippets

Our understanding of the lithic toolkit from Northeastern America prehistory

Our current definition of North American prehistory is still strongly related to the study of lithic tools, while it is often the main material remains available to explain technical activities that occurred at the site. However, the analysis of these tools has often been limited to their morphological characteristics, according to the principles of classical typological classification (Fig. 1). Even today, lots of archaeologists think single macroscopic observations are sufficient to determine

Expedient tools: beyond the premise form/function

The archaeological remains are direct results of activities at the site, in a given socio-economic system. The application of these activities induces social interactions and individual decision-makings framed by cultural conventions. Thus, these social interactions may be examined. In addition to collecting material and spatial data on an archaeological site, it is essential to identify the function of tools and activities performed at the site. To this end, the question to ask is: what does

Experiments: documenting the function for North Eastern American contexts

Experimentations document various dimensions of the function of a tool: the type of wear that it is generated on its surface, the efficiency of the working tool itself and validity of ethnographic models usually applied to archaeological tools (Anderson-Gerfaud et al., 1987). In this context, the experiments presented here are aimed to document use-wear patterns that will let us identify the functions of the expedient tools, but also their multi-functionality and the various details of their

Wear process and lithic raw material properties

Our first statement was that the different varieties of Appalachian cherts selected showed a combination of usewear distinct for a single function, due to their specific physical properties. The main properties which will impact the use-wear formation on the surface are (Chabot et al., 2014):

  • -

    The particle size and the porosity of the material;

  • -

    Resistance degree of surface and edges;

  • -

    Elasticity related to the nature and the cohesion of the elements that compose the raw material (Marchand and

Conclusion

As our understanding of sites functions, subsistence strategies and lifeways from Paleo-Indians to historic Amerindian populations are mainly based on a classic classification of tools without functional data, many topics in actual prehistoric research could be further investigated by the specific contribution of use-wear analysis.

The questions concerning initial settlements, cultural adaptations and diversifications, or trade networks in the northeastern part of America foragers-collectors,

Acknowledgments

P.A.D.P. grant (Université Laval: Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines), Équipe de recherche en archéométrie de l'Université Laval, Isabelle Duval (lithic material characterization and procurement), Cynthia Gosselin (analysis and student coaching), Volonteer students: Claude Borgia, Cynthia Bougie, Laurence Ferland, Geneviève Gagné-Dumont, Jean-Olivier Lemelin, Alexandre Lévesque, Simon Paquin, Ariane Pépin, Pascal Saint-Jacques. Frédéric Hottin (flintknapping), Vincent Rousseau (raw

References (53)

  • A.L. Burke

    Les carrières du Paléoindien récent à La Martre et la géologie du chert du mélange de Cap-Chat

    Recherches amérindiennes au Québec

    (2002)
  • A.L. Burke et al.

    Stratégie d'acquisition du chert Touladi et production lithique durant la période du Sylvicole au Témiscouata

  • J. Chabot

    Tell ‘Atij-Tell Gudeda. Industrie lithique. Analyse technologique et fonctionnelle

    (2002)
  • J. Chabot et al.

    Stone tools from a Bronze Age Village (Tell Nusstell, Syria) in their wider context

    Berythus Archaeological Studies

    (2007)
  • J. Chabot et al.

    Tall Mozan: Le matériel lithique

  • J. Chabot et al.

    Décoder l'outil: Usure, utilisation et fonction de l'outillage lithique en préhistoire du Nord-est

    Archéologiques

    (2014)
  • E. Chalifoux et al.

    La préhistoire du Témiscouata: occupations amérindiennes dans la haute vallée de Wolastokuk

  • R. Risch Clemente et al.

    Análisis funcional: su aplicación al estudio de sociedades prehistóricas

    (2002)
  • Y. Codere

    Contribution à la préhistoire du Québec méridional: l'analyse des matières premières lithiques

    (1992)
  • Y. Codere

    Des pierres et des hommes

    (1996)
  • Y. Codere

    Des pierres et des hommes, phase 2

    (1998)
  • M.-M. Dionne

    Gestion de la chaîne opératoire de traitement des peaux et implication socioéconomique de la femme dorsétienne (Detroit d'Hudson, Nunavik): Ethnoarchéologie, tracéologie et analyse de genre

    (2013)
  • I. Duval

    Caractérisation géochimique et pétrographique: Les matériaux lithiques du site archéologique Cartier-Roberval

    (2009)
  • I. Duval

    Les cherts de la région de Québec: un aperçu de l'approvisionnement préhistorique par les Amérindiens

    Archéologiques

    (2011)
  • J.I. Estevez et al.

    From tool use to site function: use-wear analysis in some final Upper Palaeolithic Sites in the Basque Country

  • J.-P. Faivre

    Le façonnage au Paléolithique moyen: témoignage de flexibilité opératoire dans le techno-complexe Moustérien de Tradition Acheuléenne

  • Cited by (8)

    • Lawrence H. Keeley's contributions to the use of microwear analysis in reconstructions of past human behavior (1972–2017)

      2019, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      The microwear on ancient stone tools can be compared to wear traces on flaked stone tool replicas used in controlled experiments (e.g., scraping dry hide, fresh hide, hides with thick layers of fat, and hides with thinner fat layers). The high power method provides detailed evidence for interpreting specific functions of ancient stone tools (Keeley, 1981; also see Anderson et al., 1993; Chabot et al., 2017; Gräslund et al., 1990; Loebel, 2012; Longo and Skakun, 2008; van Gijn, 1990, 2010; van Gijn et al., 2014, for examples of recent descriptions of microwear traces and of applications of high power methods; see Stemp et al., 2015 for a review of other microwear methods, and Dunmore et al., 2018 for a description of different schools of thought that developed out of Keeley's microwear research). This brief account of Lawrence Keeley's contribution to the development of microwear analysis is illustrated with a few examples of his research; how he verified his methods in a landmark blind test, and how he employed his high power method in several reconstructions of past human behavior.

    • The morphometrics and microwear of a small Clovis assemblage from Guernsey County, Southeastern Ohio, U.S.A.

      2017, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      Future research should aim to assemble a continental database of early and mid-stage Clovis bifaces to facilitate more appropriate comparisons. Numerous experimental studies have argued that using chipped stone tools to process different types of materials, in different motions, produces recognizable macro- and microscopic wear traces (e.g., Chabot et al., 2016; Evans et al., 2014; Jensen, 1988; Keeley, 1980; van Gijn, 1990, 2014; Vaughan, 1985; Yerkes and Kardulias, 1993). In addition to interpretations that focus on specific worked materials, experimentation in lithic use-wear analysis has led to the recognition of wear patterns associated with other behaviors such as the hafting and artifact transportation (Keeley, 1980, 1982; Rots, 2010; van Gijn, 1990).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text