Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean

Functional Analysis of Caribbean Tool Assemblages / 103
organization of the technological system, especially about those aspects thereof
that are usually not preserved.
Methodology
Use- wear analysis as a method to study the function of prehistoric tools was first
introduced by the Russian S. A. Semenov. Although several researchers had been
interested in the function of prehistoric artifacts before, Semenov was the first
to include experimentation, ethnographic observation, and microscopy in his research.
He not only studied flint tools but also examined hard stone, bone, and
antler tools (Semenov 1964). His book on use- wear analysis was first published in
Russia in 1934, but it was not until 1964 that an English translation appeared. This
book, titled Prehistoric Technology, inspired several researchers in England and the
United States to study the function of all those artifacts, which until then had only
been used as chronological markers. Obviously, this new approach toward studying
the function of tools fitted in well with the ideas of the New Archaeologists at
that time who wanted to know about the people behind the artifacts.
In the United States, Tringham and Odell were the first to do systematic research
of tools, stressing one aspect of Semenov’s research, that of the macroscopic
wear traces (Tringham et al. 1974). This included edge removals (often referred to
as use retouch) and edge rounding, whereas the general presence or absence of polish
could often be determined as well. This approach makes use of a stereomicroscope,
using magnifications of 10x to 100x, occasionally 160x. In England another
American, Keeley, emphasized another aspect of Semenov’s method. Keeley concentrated
on polish and striations that can only be observed under high magnification
(100–560x), making use of reflected light microscopes (Keeley 1980). The
method of Tringham and Odell is commonly referred to as the Low Power approach,
that of Keeley as the High Power approach. In the 1970s several articles appeared
that stressed the relative benefits of each approach. Basically, the issue is
between those emphasizing relative speed and ease of analysis (the advocates of
the Low Power approach) and those more concerned with obtaining detailed functional
information by means of the more tedious High Power method (Juel Jensen
1988).
The debate has pretty much abated and most researchers nowadays stress that
the two approaches should be used in a supplementary way. The choice of method
should be determined by the degree of preservation of the assemblages studied
and by the archaeological questions asked. Low Power microscopy is ideal to detect
residues, to find the location of polish and edge rounding, in short to obtain
a general idea about the function of an implement. High Power analysis is crucial
to arrive at a more detailed statement about the nature of the contact material
and often also about the motion executed. However, most European research-
You are reading copyrighted material published by the University of Alabama Press.
Any posting, copying, or distributing of this work beyond fair use as defined under U.S. Copyright law is illegal and
injures the author and publisher. For permission to reuse this work, contact the University of Alabama Press.