An integral part of this method is the testing of functional interpretations
by experimental replication. This can be done by checking the observed wear
traces on the tool being analysed against an already existing experimental
tool of similar type that had been used in the manner proposed. Alternatively,
if such a tool is not part of the extensive collection available at the
Institute, then a replica is made and used in the manner interpreted by
the analyst. Tool number 44 is an example of this (see Figure 81).
This tool had a thin edge with relatively minor edge damage, but with
a well developed polish and heavy rounding (see
Plate 9). To create such a polish would require a hard material or a
medium material used for a long time. The minor edge damage would suggest
a medium material such as wood. The developed polish and rounding on the
tool suggests a hard material such as bone. Therefore replicas of the tool
were used on wood and bone.
The one used on wood replicated the edge damage, but after 30 minutes the
polish development or rounding had not been achieved, and because of the
penetration into the wood the polish was already more invasive than on the
test tool. Use on bone replicated the polish and rounding but created more
severe edge damage than was present on the test tool. Antler was also tried
but produced similar results to bone. In order to create the wear traces
observed on the tool, it would require a material softer than bone but harder
than wood. Therefore attempts to experimentally replicate the wear traces
suggested an unknown material.
The term unknown material means a material with which the analyst is not
experimentally familiar and therefore has no knowledge of any diagnostic
wear traces that such a material might produce. In fact the worked material
in this case was the cortex of a flint nodule. There was insufficient time
to experiment with enough materials to identify this particular one, which
accounts for the incorrect answers in the test (Figure 82), though soft
stone was mentioned as a possibility. The failure to replicate the wear
traces would have meant that if this had been an archaeological tool, then
an incorrect identification of either wood or bone would not have been made,
and it is better to say unknown than to produce inaccurate blind test results
USED AREA/ MOTION /WORKED MATERIAL
31 Burin bit grooving horn 4 /4 /0
32 Burin facet scraping antler 4 /4 /2 (1 partial)
33 Endscraper on hide 4 /4 /2 (1 partial)
34 Piercer grooving soaked antler 4 /4 /2 (2 partial)
35 Truncated bladelet cutting green saplings 4 /4 74
36 Burin spall boring horn 4 / 4 /0
37 Lunate cutting bark on wood 4 /4 /4
38 Truncation burin bit pushing holes in bark 3 /3 /0 (2 partial)
39 Truncation burin facet scraping bone 4 /4 /2 (1 partial)
40 Piercer piercing hide 4 /4 /4
41 Endscraper scraping wood 4 /4 /1 (1 partial)
42 Burin bit grooving shell 4 /3 (1 partial) /0
43 Endscraper adzing wood 4 /0 /4
44 Blade incising cortex 4 /4 /0
45 Piercer grooving soaked antler 4 /3 (1 partial) /3
46 Blade cutting fish 4 /4 /0 (1 partial)
47 Endscraper scraping wood 4 /4 /3 (1 partial)
48 Truncation burin facet scraping bone 4 /4 /3 (1 partial)
49 Truncation burin facet scraping antler 4 /3 /3 (1 partial)
50 Truncated blade whittling wood 4 /4 /3 (1 partial)