ANDEAN PAST - Latin American Studies Program - Cornell University

Dillehay &.Rossen: Nandwc Lithic TraditionMonte Verde site. These date to approximately12,500 B.P. In that study, use,wear analysisrevealed an industry that wasremarkablyvariedin use despite its deceptive morphologicalsim,plicity (Dillehay 1997).Microscopic use,wear analysisof the NLTwas central to the development of amulti,dimensional approach to analyzing thelithics (sensu Dillehay 1997). Specifically,use,wear analysiscomplemented the reductionsequencing, fornial typology, and contex, .tual,spatial analyses. In this analysis,a sampleof .lithics from three interrelated sites in theQuebrada de Las Pircas (CA09,27, CA09,28,CA09,52) is considered (Figure3). We presentthe details of the use,wear analysiswith threegoals. First, we wish to complete the documen,tation of the NLT, which we believe to be asignificant Middle Preceramic lithic tradition.Second, we wish to discuss the methodologicaland conceptual issues surrounding th~ imple,mentation of use,wear analysisand its integra,tion with other. forms of lithic analysis. Third,we hope to encourage a wider implementationof use,wear analysis as a standard part of thedocumentation of South American lithic tradi,tions.. Readers we11,versedin the methods andresults of microscopic use,wear studies onfine,grain chert assemblages, which normallyrender clearer, diagnostic use traces and pat'teming thap.medium,to, large grainbasalt andandesite assemblages,may be disappointed bysome of the non,diagnostic and ambiguousresults and patterning presented below. Yet,this is the nature of use,wear studies on multi,purpose, expedient tool assemblagesproducedon large grain raw materials. Distinctive use,wear and residues (plant, bone, hide, etc.) wereobserved on enough lithics in this sample,however, to provide important insightsinto theNLJ'.Microscopic use..wear analysisThe analysistechniques of use,wear tracesonstone tools adapted for this study are essentiallythose developed and described byKeeley(1980;Odell 1981). This section brieflydescribesthemethod of specimen preparation and micros,copy. This is followed by the first author'sexperimentally produced collection used forcomparative purposes in identification of wearpolishes on the archeological specimens exam,ined. (For a more detailed and comprehensiveassessmentof the methods employedin thistypeof use,wear, see Dillehay 1997.) The readershould also consult Richard's (1988) stUdyofmicrowearpatterns on experimental basalttools, .because it was very similar in techniques andresults to the experimental tests that Dillehayconducted on basalts and andesites sites fromPeru and Chile.Preparationof specimensand microscopyEdge damage, linear striations and polish arefeatures intrinsic to the utilized area of theimplement. It is critically important to removeorganic and inorganic residues from the imple,ment prior to microwear analysis,because theseresidues maybe confused with use,wear, or mayobscure use,wear traces. Obviously, this mustbe done with caution because residuesresultingfrom implement use may still adhere to thesurface of the specimen and these may providevaluable data on utilization. Distinguishingcultural from natural residues usuallyis an easytask. The former are often embedded in micro,cracks and fissures and are exotic plants andmaterials. Cultural residues are often recoveredonly on the worked or used edge whilenaturallyadhering residues usually occur on all areas ofthe stone in question (Dillehay 1997). Thus, itis important to inspect each artifact carefullyprior to chemical and other cleaning. After thisinspection, the followingprocedures were usedto clean the artifacts.Artifact edges first were inspected under bothhigh and low,power microscopes to detect