A closer look: a realistic attempt to \"squeeze blood from stones\"

12 A closer look: a realistic attempt to 'squeeze blood from stones' Annelou van Gijn Faculty ofArcheology Leiden University Leiden, The Netherlands

A Closer Look: Recellt Australiall Studies of Stolle Tools Richard Fullagar (ed.) 1998 Sydlley Ulliversity Archaeological Methods Series 6

190

INTRODUCTION From the perspectivc of a European archaeologist and lithic specialist, partially raised in the Bordesian tradition of typochronology, this book A Closer Look: Recen( Australian Studies of Stone Tools is a typical Australian product, very much in line with another 'stonc' book - Stone Tools as Cultural Markers (Wright 1977). For a non .. Australian it is especially the continuity of ethnographic present and archaeological past which seems to provide such an impetus for research and which also guides the type of questions being asked, that is (almost) always related to human behavior (see Mulvaney, this volume). Stolle Tools as Cultural Markers is for the most part directed at cultnre-historical studies; in A Closer Look the emphasis lies on functional studies. The title is therefore not arbitrarily chosen, becanse many of the articles in the volnmc do indeed take 'a closer look' in the sense that most articles inclnde a microscopic study. It mflY be appropriate to invoke the introductory chapter of Stone Tools as Cultural Markers by Glynn Isaac with the evocative title Squeezing Blood from Stones, in which he examines t.he inferential limits of stone tool inter-assemblage variability. He concludes that: It is clear that stone artifacts do provide a rich record of cultural transmission patterns (,culture-history') and that their characteristics are also related to economy and ecology. However, archaeology is not well served by unrealistic attempts to squeeze too much blood from stones alone. (Isaac 1977: 11). A Closer Look may be considered a realistic attempt to 'squeeze blood from stones'. Since the mid-seventies a bevy of new techniques and approaches have been developed to extract more information from stone tools, including refitting, micro-wear and residue stndies, and sourcing of raw materials. Many of- these teehniques, most notably use-wear studies,. were initially regarded. with some skepticism. This volume shows that studies of stone tools and, more specifically, usewear and residue studies can be a realistic avenue to provide insight into issues concerning human behaviour.

A BIT OF HISTORY Arguments and controversies have haunted use-wear and residue studies from the start. As Odell (1995: 2) complains: Greater attention has been given to use-wear analyst credibility, in fact, than to the credibility of the entire cadre of pollen analysts, geomorphologists, paleobotanists, and other collaborators from the natural sciences whose results we are happy to accept at face value.

Every analyst had to prove his or her capabilities by participating in a blind test (Gendel & Pimay 1982; Keeley & Newcomer 1977; Odell & Odell-Vereecken 1980). Several blind tests were undertaken in order to test the interpretive limitations of use-wear analysis (Newcomer et al. 1986; Unrath et al. 1986). Especially the article by Newcomer et al. created quite an outrage among usewear analysts, because the authors argued that polishes were not diagnostic. They based their conclusions, however, on experimental toois which were used for oniy a very short time, even though it was already common knowledge at that time that certain contact materials, especially soft materials such as meat, caused wear traces to develop only after a very long period of use. Several mierowear analysts pointed out the flaws in the Newcomer test (Bamforth 1988; Hurcombe 1988; Moss 1987; Piisson & van Gijll 1989), bllt this did not prevent the Newcomer article having the unfortnnate side effect that many general archeologists concluded the entire method to be a failure. The Unrath et al. blind test arrived at more balanced conclusions, arguing that, within limits, functional inferences about tools were perfectly possible. Uufortnnately this article did not draw as much attention as the Newcomer et al. article, so use·wear analysts have had to work hard to regain the confidence of their colleagues. More recently, residue analysis, especially the ______ w"'..

_n_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _'"

Annelou vall Giin

191 identification of blood remains, has also come under attack (Eisele, Fowler, Haynes & Lewis 1995; Tuross, Barnes & Potts 1996). At the same time different approaches have developed in different countries, disregarding in an almost dogmatic fashion one or more sources of information pertaining to the reconstruction of tool use. In the US most functional analyses largely relied on edge removals and edge rounding, arriving at inferences about the relative hardness of the inferred contact materials, an approach generally referred to as the low-power method. Many researchers believed the examination of polishes to be too time-consuming (eg. Odell 1977). In large parts of Western Europe prehistoric peoples made use of the beautiful fine-grained flint available in glacial moraines and chalk deposits. The so-called high-power approach, relying on the examination of polish and striations, turned out to be very successful with this material, because polish develops rather quickly on this fine-grained material (eg. Juel Jensen 1994; Keeley 1980; Plisson 1985). In Australia such highquality raw material is rare and tools are made of silcretes and other coarse-grained stones 011 which polish and striatiolls only develop very slowly, if at all. Here residue studies took a great flight, virtually to the exclusion of the examination of use retouch, polish and striations. There are a number of drawbacks, however, associated with each of these approaches. A major problem with sole reliance on residue for the interpretation of tool use is that of association: the observation that blood remains are left on an implement does not necessarily mean the tool in question was employed in butchering. It may sirnply have lain in the vicinity of a butchering event. The assumption of association can be tested by also including wear traces in one's inference. Sole reliance on the low-power approach (edge removals, edge rounding) has the drawback that it is not always easy to separate use retouch from manufacturing retouch. Moreover, if the edge is carefully selected for the task at hand and the tool is used in a competent manner, often hardly any damage occurs. Of course this does not pertain to dynamic motions such as pounding, but it certainly applies to scraping and frequently to cutting. There are also problems with the use of high-power analysis alone in to arnvmg at an interpretation of tool use. First, diagnostic polish does not always develop, especially on coarsergrained types of stone, or if the tools are used for a short time only. Brief contact with meat or non-siliceous plants remains difficult to trace, a problem for which residue analysis may provide a solution because residue is deposited onto the tool's surface almost immediately and adheres especially well on exactly these coarser types of stone. A second problem with polishes is that different contact materials produce polishes that may overlap in terms of their diagnostic attributes. Certain attributes, considered to be indicative of a specific contact material, may therefore not always develop. A combined approach using residue studies can to some extent contribute to solving this problem. It is thus a combination of characteristics that will give a higher probability to a functional inference. Awareness is now growing that such an integration of various techniques - low power, high power and residue studies - is the best approach for arriving at functional inferences. This volume is a demonstration of this awareness. It is not a coincidence that it is at the laboratory of the Division of Anthropology of the Australian Museum in Sydney where this was realised, because Fullagar (1986) can be considered the flrst to practice such an integrative approach.

SOME CONCLUSIONS A Closer Look is not a book about grand theoretical issues. If theories are involved, it is in an implicit way, because all papers do address specific archeological questions addressing bigger issues. In this sense, the volume is a demonstration that fi.mctional analysis is becoming more and more 'of age' (see Juel Jensen 1988; van Gijn 1990) and no longer has to fight for its methodological right of existence. Still, there are quite a few rather technical papers outlining the various methods and techniques (for example, Garling, Atchison & Fullagar, Therin). All approaches represented, however, can be considered archaeological and not so much archaeometric (Shackley 1998). None require expertise from specialists, whereas this is definitely A closer look: a realistic attempt to 'squeeze blood from stones'

192

the case with techniques like DNA analysis (e.g. Loy 1993; Loy & Hardy 1992), or ESEM and EDXRF analysis (Christensen, Walter & Menu 1992). 'This means that the techniques described in A Closer Look can be used by any archaeologist interested in functional analysis. This brings us to a related issue. There seems to be a tendency to abandon existing techniques of analysis in favor of apparently more advanced methods: the lure of high tech, so to speak, and our naivete in putting our faith in promising new techniques. For a long time we only had tool form at our disposal as a possible clue to function. With the advent of wear trace analysis, both high and low power, the shape of the tool was intentionally ignored as a possible source of infonnation. Rather, wear traces were considered an independent test of the morphological (and typological) classification and it was considered a sin to be influenced by an intuitive assessment of morphological aspects. Something similar happened when residue studies became in vogue. Many archaeologists, especially in Australia, considered the tedious analysis of wear traces to be superseded by residue studies which, they argued, provided a much more direct clue towards tool function. However, they overlooked the problem of association described above. Just as tool shape has to be in accordance with interpreted wear traces, residue must be seen in the context of observed wear traces. Arguments have recently been advanced that we should put our faith in elemental composition analysis (eg. Shackley 1998). Again, this approach is too limited and, moreover, not accessible for daily routine analyses. It is the merit of A Closer Look that it not only shows the necessity of using all avenues that. could lead to a functional interpretation, but it also shows that the various techniques are sufficiently accessible for archaeologists to apply them in an integrative fashIon. Interestingly enough, the book also presents implicit support for the necessity of ethnographic information in many issues related to tool use, despite arguments to the contrary put fOlward in Australia. Akennan derives a possible explanation for the wear pattern observed on hafted polished flakes from extensive ethnographic knowledge. On the basis of the ethnographic observation that stone sources are part of a system of Dreaming affiliation, Mulvaney argues that the stone quan'y of Kurutiti used to be part of a system of widespread ceremonial gift exchange, even though there exists no memory of this. Brass goes one step further and compares wear traces and residue on a sample of ethnographic and archaeological assemblages, in order to test the value of an ethnographic analogy. Ethnohistory plays a part in the paper by Attenbrow, Fullagar and Szpak in the evaluation of the function of so-called fish-hook files. Clearly, ethnographic infonnation is accepted as a heuristic device by those writing in A Closer Look. There remains the question of how much extra infonnatioD is 'squeezed out' from the stone tools by applying the various analytical techniques and approaches presented in A Closer Look. On the one hand it provides a finer-grained picture of what was already known: for example, an inference of plant processing could be further refined to one about seed grinding or fibercraft (Field & Fullagar; Akennan). On the other hand, in some cases the results challenge perceived wisdom. For instance, it turns out that stone points were not all used as projectile points for hunting (Wallace & O'Connor) and that seed grinding appears much earlier in the Australian prehistoric sequence than previously believed (Field & Fullagar). All this would not have been possible with the typochronological approach of the past. A Closer Look makes clear that, provided we do not loose track of the relevant archaeological issues (see Torrence 1989: 1- 2), the bevy of new techniques and approaches, applied in an integral fashion, allows us a peek into prehistoric decision malting.

References Bamforth, D. B. 1988 Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests: The Institute results in context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 11-24. Christensen, M., P. H. Walter & M. Menu 1992 Usewear characterisation of prehistoric flints with rnA Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B64: 488-493. Eisele, J. A., D. D. Fowler, G. Haynes & R. A. Lewis 1995 Survival and detection of blood residues on stone tools. Antiquity 69: 36-46.

A,melou van Gijn

193 Fullagar, R. 1986 Use -wear an residues on j·tone tools. Unpublished PhD thesis. Melbourne: La Trobe University. Gendel, P. & L. Pirnay 1982 Microwear analysis of experimental stone tools: Further test results. Studia Prehistorica Belgica 2: 251-266. Gijn, A. L. van 1990 The Wear and Tear of Flint. Leiden: University of Leiden (Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 22 ). Hurcombe, L. 1988 Some criticisms and suggestions in response to Newcomer et al. (1986) Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 1-10. Isaac, G. 1977 Squeezing blood from stones. In R. V. S. Wright (ed.) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity, pp. 5- 12. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Juel Jensen, H. 1994 Flint tools arId plant working. Hidden traces of stone age technology. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Juel Jensen, H. 1988 Functional analysis of prehistoric flint tools by high-power microscopy: A review of West European research. Journal of World Prehistory 2: 53- 88. Keeley, L. H. 1980 Experimental determination of stone tool uses. A microwear analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Keeley, L. H. & M. H. Newcomer 1977 Microwear analysis of experimental flint tools: A test case. Journal of Archaeological Science 4: 29-62. Loy, T. H. & B. G. Hardy 1992 Blood residue analysis of 90,000 year old stone tools from Tabun Cave, Israel. Antiquity, 66: 24-35. Loy, T. H. 1993 The artifact as site: An example of the biomolecular analysis of organic residues on prehistoric tools. World Archaeology 25: 45-63. Moss, E. H. 1987 A review of 'Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests ' . Journal of Archaeological Science 14 : 473-481. Newcomer, M. B., R. Grace & R. Unger-Hamilton 1986 Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests . .Tournai of Archaeological Science 13: 203-2 18. Odell, G. H. 1977 The application of microwear analysis to the lithic component of an entire prehistoric settlement: Methods, problems and functional reconstructions. PhD thesis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. Odell, G. H. & F. Odell-Vereecken 1980 Verifying the reliability oflithic use wear assessments by blind test; the low-power approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7: 87- 120. Odell, G. H. 1995 Introduction. In G. II. Odell (ed.) Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, pp. 1- 6. New York: Plennm Press. Plisson, H. 1985 Etude fonctionnelle d'outillages lithiques prchistoriques par I'analyse des microusures. Recherche mcthodologique et archeologique. Unpublished PhD thesis. Paris: University of Paris. Plisson, H. & A. L. van Gijn 19S9 La traceologie: Mode d' emploi. L'AnthropoJogie 93: 631-642. Shackley, M. S. 1998 Gamma rays, X-rays and stone tools: Some recent advances in archaeological geochemistry . .Toumal of Archaeological Science 25: 259-270.

A closer look: a realM·tic attempt to 'squeeze blood from stolles'

194 Torrence, R. 1989 Tools as optimal solutions.ln R. Torrence (ed.) Time, Energy and Stone Tools, pp. 1-6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tuross N., I. Barnes & R. Potts 1996 Protein identification of blood residues on experimental stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 289- 296. Unrath, G., L. R. Owen, A. L. van Gijn, E. H. Moss, H. Plisson, & P. Vaughan 1986 An evaluation of microwear studies: A multi-analyst approach. In L. R. Owen & G. Unrath (eds), Technical Aspects of Microwear Studies on Stone Tools, pp. 1 17-· I 76. Tiibingen (Early Man News 911011 I). Wright, R. V. S. (ed.) 1977 Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Almelou va" Gij"