4.4 Article

Modern contaminants affecting microscopic residue analysis on stone tools: A word of caution

Journal

MICRON
Volume 86, Issue -, Pages 1-21

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2016.04.003

Keywords

Micro-residue analysis; Optical light microscopy; Scanning electron microscopy; Sample contamination

Categories

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [CGL2015-65387-C3-1]
  2. AGAUR, Generalitat de Catalunya [SGR 2014-899]
  3. Universitat Rovira i Virgili [2014PFR-URV-B2-17, 2015PFR-URV-B2-17]
  4. Generalitat de Catalunya [2014FI_B 00539]
  5. Wenner-Gren Foundation [WIF-212]
  6. Spanish MEC [BES-2015-074931]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Residue analysis is a method frequently used to infer the function of stone tools and it is very often applied in combination with use-wear analysis. Beyond its undeniable potential, the method itself has several intrinsic constraints. Apart from the exceptional circumstances necessary for residues to survive, the correct identification of the residue type is a very debatable topic. Before attempting to recognise ancient residues, a proper method should allow analysts to identify possible modern contaminants and exclude them from the final interpretation. Therefore, analysts should not underestimate the presence of modern contaminants and might learn how to discriminate the background noise due to handling. The main aim of this research is to provide some methodological improvements to residue analysis through the characterisation of some modern residues often present on the surface of stone tools (e.g. skin flakes, modelling clay). This characterisation was done by using both optical light microscopy (OLM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Finally, a special care in the post-excavation treatment of stone tools is claimed in order to avoid major contamination of the samples. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available