I would agree that it is possible to distinguish them by eye, but it is
not a reliable way to do it without training. The most consistent and
reliable method is by SEM. I discuss this and other issues related to
distinguishing metal from stone in a series of publications. If anyone
wants copies, I would be happy to send them:
Published
Greenfield, Haskel J. 2000b The origins of metallurgy in the central
Balkans based on the analysis of cut marks on animal bones.
Environmental Archaeology 5: 119-132.
Greenfield, Haskel J. 1999 The origins of metallurgy: distinguishing
stone from metal cut marks on bones from archaeological sites. Journal
of Archaeological Science 26 (7): 797-808.
Greenfield, Haskel J. n.d. A zooarchaeological perspective on the
origins of metallurgy in the Near East: analysis of stone and metal cut
marks on bone from Israel. Encyclopedia of the History of Science,
Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, 2nd edition, edition
on the internet, edited by Helaine Selin. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands. April 2004 submitted.
Greenfield, Haskel J. 2005 The origins of metallurgy at Jericho (Tel
es-Sultan): a preliminary report on distinguishing stone from metal cut
marks on mammalian remains. In Archaeozoology of the Near East VI
(Proceedings of the 6th Sixth International Symposium on the
Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas Conference),
edited by Hijlke Buitenhuis. A.M. Choyke, L. Martin, L. Bartosiewicz and
M. Mashkour. ARC-Publication vol. 123, pp.183-191. Rijksuniversitit,
Groningen, The Netherlands.
Greenfield, Haskel J. 2002a Distinguishing metal (steel and low-tin
bronze) from stone (flint and obsidian) tool cut marks on bone: an
experimental approach. In Experimental Archaeology: Replicating Past
Objects, Behaviors, and Processes, edited by James R. Mathieu. British
Archaeological Reports, International Series 1035 (Oxford), pp. 35-54.
ISBN 1 84272 415 1.
Greenfield, Haskel J. 2002c Origins of metallurgy: A zooarchaeological
perspective from the Central Balkans. In Eureka: The Archaeology of
innovation (Proceedings of the 27th Annual Chacmool Conference), edited
by Roman Harrison, Milan Gillespie and Meaghan Peuramaki-Brown. Calgary:
The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary, pp.430-448.
Haskel J. Greenfield 2000 Animal bone fragmentation and the origins of
metallurgy in the central Balkans. In Technology, Style and Society:
Contributions to Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in
Prehistory, edited by Lolita Nikolova. British Archaeological Reports,
International Series 854, pp. 93-96. Oxford.
Unpublished, but in press
Greenfield, Haskel J. n.d. Diagnostics for stone tool slicing cut marks
on animal bones. Journal of Field Archaeology. Submitted June 2005.
Benjamin Saidel, Tali Erickson-Gini, Jacob Vardi, Steven A. Rosen,
Edward Maher, and Haskel Greenfield n.d. Egypt, Copper, and Microlithic
Drills: The Test Excavations at Rogem Be’erotayim in Western Negev.
Mitkufat Haeven: Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society. Submitted to
August 2003, Accepted May 2004.
Greenfield, Haskel J. 2004b Report on the butchered animal bone remains
from the Afridar suburb (Area G) of Ashkelon (license 1963), Israel.
`Atiqot (Journal of the Israel Archaeological Society) 45: 243-261.
Greenfield, Haskel J., Ehud Gallili and Liora Horwitz n.d. The Butchered
Animal Bones from Newe Yam, a Submerged Pottery Neolithic Site off the
Carmel Coast. Mitekufat Haeven (Journal of the Israel Prehistoric
Society). Submitted September 9, 2004. Accepted June 2005.
Greenfield, Haskel J. and Liora Kolska Horwitz n.d. Butchering
technology in the Pottery Neolithic: animal bones from the submerged
site of Neve Yam, Israel. In The Links that Tie –Tools for Bones/Bones
for Tools (Proceedings of a conference organized at the McDonald
Institute of Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge), edited
by Krish Seetah. MacDonald Institute of Archaeology, Cambridge
University. Submitted May 2005.
Haskel J. Greenfield, Full Professor
University of Manitoba
Department of Anthropology
Fletcher Argue 435
Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V5, Canada
Home Tel.: 204-489-4962
Office Tel.: 204-474-6332
Office Fax: 204-474-7600
Email: [log in to unmask]
Webpage: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~greenf/
GOD PUT ME ON EARTH TO ACCOMPLISH A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THINGS. RIGHT NOW
I'M SO FAR BEHIND I WILL NEVER DIE!
-----Original Message-----
From: Analysis of animal remains from archaeological sites
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cregg Madrigal
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ZOOARCH] stone/metal tool marks
>>> kerry harris <[log in to unmask]> 3/28/2006 3:16 AM >>>
Hi all,
Would anyone be able to tell me if its possible to distinguish between
cutmarks made by stone and metal tools on bone without using S.E.M ?
>Thanks,
>Kerry
The short answer is yes – you don’t need SEM. The longer answer is, it
depends – on the assemblage you’re studying, your research questions,
etc., etc.
Possibly the only blind test of modification mark identification (which
deals with metal tool marks, but not stone tool marks), is:
Blumenschine, R. J., C. W. Marean, and S. D. Capaldo 1996. Blind Tests
of Inter-Analyst Correspondence and Accuracy in the Identification of
Cut Marks, Percussion Marks, and Carnivore Tooth Marks on Bone Surfaces.
Journal of Archaeological Science 23(4):493-507.
Abstract: We show through blind tests that marks inflicted on bone
surfaces by carnivore teeth, hammerstone percussion, and metal knife
cutting and scraping can be distinguished with near perfect reliability
without scanning electron microscopy or consideration of only
conspicuous marks. Using low-cost and high-volume hand lens and
low-power light microscope techniques, we determined the presence or
absence of conspicuous and inconspicuous marks with 97% three-way
correspondence, and diagnosed marks of known origin to actor and
effector with 99% accuracy. Novices with less than 3 h training on
control collections correctly diagnosed 86% of classic but mainly
inconspicuous marks. Novices spending several more hours studying
control specimens elevated their diagnostic accuracy on morphologically
representative marks to near-expert levels of 95%…
Good reviews of cut mark and other modification mark identification are:
Fisher, J.W., Jr. 1995. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2(1):7-68.
Noe-Nygaard, N. 1989. Man-made trace fossils on bones. Human Evolution
4:461-491.
The classic work on cut marks is:
Guilday, J. E., P. W. Parmalee, and D. P. Tanner 1962. Aboriginal
Butchering Techniques at the Eschelman Site (36LA12), Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 32:59-83.
Their original analysis holds up pretty well after forty years: metal
tool cut marks “are fine and deeply incised with a V-shaped
cross-section. Similar butchering marks on bones from known prehistoric
sites are usually coarser, with a U cross-section. The coarser cut of
the stone stone implement is due to the slight curvature induced in the
edge of a chipped tool by its conchoidal fracture. This distinction of U
vs V cross-section, and the fine vs coarse scoring on bone, should not
be taken too seriously on any one individual specimen” (p. 63).
Cregg
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/294 - Release Date: 3/27/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/294 - Release Date: 3/27/2006
|
