We ran a bunch of controlled cutting experiments using stone tools, some with simple straight edges and others knapped and retouched. We used a mechanical tester to make each tool perform 2000 identical cutting strokes—either on softwood or on synthetic bone, so we could see how use-wear develops under tightly controlled conditions. While doing that, we 3D-scanned the tools and used a method borrowed from dental research (Occlusal Fingerprint Analysis, OFA) to simulate exactly where the tool should touch the worked material during cutting. We wanted to know whether the areas predicted by the simulation actually match where polish and other use-wear traces show up on the tools after the experiments. We also tested how much the shape of the tool and the hardness of the worked material influence where and how wear forms. The simulated contact zones and the real use-wear areas overlapped surprisingly well—especially for wood. The simulations tended to predict slightly bigger contact zones than the polish we actually saw, but the overall patterns matched. This approach could be used to build wear prediction libraries that help archaeologists understand how different stone-tool shapes and materials would wear during actual use. It could even help distinguish true use-wear from natural damage. Basically, the study shows that combining controlled experiments, 3D modelling, and simulations can give us much clearer insight into how stone tools were used in the past.
In this study, our team built a controlled mechanical experiment using standardised stone-tool blanks (based on the bifacial backed knives known as Keilmesser from the Late Middle Palaeolithic). We varied two key design features, raw material (flint vs siliceous schist), and edge angle (35° vs 45°). We then put each tool through the same cutting or carving movement under machine-controlled conditions and measured how well it performed—how deep it cut, how much damage it took, how durable it remained. The main questions focused on, 1) Does the type of rock (its hardness, structure, flaws) affect how well the tool performs?, 2) Does the angle of the edge (sharper vs slightly flatter) affect efficiency (how much work it does) and durability (how much it wears down or breaks)?, and finally, 3) What do these results tell us about the decisions that human tool-makers in the Neanderthal era might have been making when selecting raw material and designing edges? Results showed that both raw material and edge angle matter. Tools made of flint (harder material) showed less obvious damage at the sharper angle compared to those made of siliceous schist, which were more brittle and exhibited more micro-fracturing. Additionally, the edge angle had a real effect, sharper edges (35°) usually cut deeper but also tended to wear faster. In some cases, the 45° angle fared better in durability for carving movements. These results suggest that tool-makers weren’t just picking stones randomly or designing edges arbitrarily, they likely were making decisions based on how different combinations of raw material and geometry would perform for the required tasks.
This study combines experiments and ethnographic studies to investigate how stone had-oc tools were selected and used in specific techniques applied to the production of plastic mineral matter. We use confocal microscopy to identify and quantify the traces of use left during these processes and later compare with those found on archaeological artefacts from the Late Natufian in the Levant.
The ability of humans to mediate environmental variation through tool use is likely the key to our success. However, our current knowledge of early cultural evolution derives almost exclusively from studies of stone tools and fossil bones found in …
In this paper we presente a new method, semi-automated, to measure and calculate the variability of the edge of stone tools' edges. 3D-EdgeAngle calculates the edge angle at any point in a high resolution and scale of analysis, and helps to evaluate how tool use and retouch affect the desing of stone tools found in the archaeological record.
This paper is dedicated to the evaluate the importance of using standard contact material in laboratory experimental replications, in particular in use-wear studies. We ran controlled experiments to see how using artificial materials (instead of natural ones) as the contact surface affects the wear and polish that develop on stone tools. In other words, we wanted to test whether “fake” materials (used in experiments) behave similarly to “real” worked materials in producing use-wear traces. What we looked at,* Do artificial contact materials generate wear (especially polish) that is comparable to what we see when tools are used on natural materials? * How strongly do different variables (tool material, contact material, motion, duration) affect the polish formation? * Can we trust experiments using artificial materials to produce valid analogues for archaeological tools? What we found, * Yes, artificial contact materials can produce recognizable wear and polish, but the nature of the contact material still matters a lot. * The choice of contact material strongly influences how the polish forms (its appearance, size, intensity). * Because the wear outcomes vary so much depending on contact material, using artificial materials in experiments must be done carefully—properly documenting and controlling the variables is key for interpretation. This study shows that when archaeologists run use‐wear experiments, the “target” material (the substance the tool contacts) critically shapes the wear traces. If the target is artificial, differences from natural behaviour could mislead functional interpretations unless the experiment is well documented. It raises important caution about how experimental results are used to interpret archaeological tools.
This paper focuses on presenting the results of several excavations at the open-air site of Românești-Dumbrăvița, Romania. In the paper we report data on the archaeological assemblages, including stone tool technology and use-wear analysis, site formation and dating. This is a very important Aurignacian site from East-Central Europe.
This article is dedicated to the Paleolithic open-air site of Feldberg “Steinacker”, located between the Rhine and the Black Forest near Freiburg/Breisgau in South-West Germany. The site was discovered by W. Mähling in 1969 and is primarily known for …
In this study, in present the study of the assemblage of ground stone tools from the Middle Palaeolithic of Nesher. In this amazingly preserved site, several types of gst have been reported, showing different morphologies and types of damage. We explore, via experimental replication and multi-scale use-wear analysis, the origins of such damage. Our results show that different types of tools were intentionally used for different activities at site.
This paper explores the functionality of Ground Stone tool on Limestone and the formation of use-wear traces. Driven by the tool-type variability observed in the Middle Paleolithic of the Levant, we combine experimental and use-wear analysis through a multi-scale and high-resolution approach. A new experimental setup for percussion and grinding replication is also presented and discussed. These data is a fundamental library for the interpretation of the archaeological record.