In the last few years, the application of quantitative methods in the field of use wear analysis has grown considerably, involving the use of different techniques. A development in surface measurements approaches has become necessary as standard assessments based upon qualitative functional analysis are often affected by a degree of subjectivity and a limited reproducibility. To advance the current methodological debate on functional analysis of ground stone technology, we present a combined methodological approach, including qualitative and quantitative analyses, applied to the study of experimental sandstone ground stone tools. We test surface quantification at a macro and micro-scale, paired with the observation and description of residue and use wear connected to the processing of plant, animal and mineral matters. Our results provide an exhaustive quantitative dataset concerning surface modifications associated with different uses and suggest an analytical workflow for the functional analysis of both experimental and archaeological ground stone assemblages. We also highlight the limitation and pitfalls of an exclusive adoption of quantitative methods in the study of ancient tool use demonstrating how a synergetic approach can enhance the quality, reproducibility and comparability of functional data.

Functional analysis of sandstone ground stone tools: arguments for a qualitative and quantitative synergetic approach / Zupancich, Andrea; Cristiani, Emanuela. - In: SCIENTIFIC REPORTS. - ISSN 2045-2322. - 10:1(2020). [10.1038/s41598-020-72276-0]

Functional analysis of sandstone ground stone tools: arguments for a qualitative and quantitative synergetic approach

Zupancich, Andrea
Primo
Writing – Review & Editing
;
Cristiani, Emanuela
Ultimo
Writing – Review & Editing
2020

Abstract

In the last few years, the application of quantitative methods in the field of use wear analysis has grown considerably, involving the use of different techniques. A development in surface measurements approaches has become necessary as standard assessments based upon qualitative functional analysis are often affected by a degree of subjectivity and a limited reproducibility. To advance the current methodological debate on functional analysis of ground stone technology, we present a combined methodological approach, including qualitative and quantitative analyses, applied to the study of experimental sandstone ground stone tools. We test surface quantification at a macro and micro-scale, paired with the observation and description of residue and use wear connected to the processing of plant, animal and mineral matters. Our results provide an exhaustive quantitative dataset concerning surface modifications associated with different uses and suggest an analytical workflow for the functional analysis of both experimental and archaeological ground stone assemblages. We also highlight the limitation and pitfalls of an exclusive adoption of quantitative methods in the study of ancient tool use demonstrating how a synergetic approach can enhance the quality, reproducibility and comparability of functional data.
2020
ground stone technology; residue and use wear analysis; experimental archaeology; quantitative methods
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Functional analysis of sandstone ground stone tools: arguments for a qualitative and quantitative synergetic approach / Zupancich, Andrea; Cristiani, Emanuela. - In: SCIENTIFIC REPORTS. - ISSN 2045-2322. - 10:1(2020). [10.1038/s41598-020-72276-0]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Zupancich_Functional analysis_2020.pdf

accesso aperto

Note: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72276-0
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 4.6 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.6 MB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1455676
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 17
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact