<html>
<body>
I'd like to send a big thank you to Alice and all the others who have
responded: both with references to work already done and with opinions of
useful further research. The missing element that I see in this is the
depositional context and taphonomic history of the pieces. My impression
after revviewing the work of the working group of the last few years is
that the most successful studies of wear traces are from very narrow and
favorable soil conditions. Where bone tools have suffered more, scholars
tend to limit themselves to low-power observation, as Alice warns, and
our observational practices may be also be more limited. I look forward
to having a chance to continue this conversation in Paris this
summer,<br><br>
Gratefully,<br><br>
Kate Moore<br><br>
At 07:32 AM 3/15/2010, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I wish our French colleagues and
their French-trained students would take part in this debate on 'blind'
testing. They, like Genny Lemoine, Sandra Olsen, Janet Griffitts and
Cristian St.Gates in North America, have been collectively involved
in various manufacturing and use wear studies using high magnifications
(binocular and metalurgical microscopes). There is a big difference
between looking at the macro-wear at low (20X) magnifications and the
deep examination of wear patterns at high magnification in terms of the
reliability of the interpretation in my opinion (high magnification is
clearly superior). I am also standing at the side-lines in this debate
however. I do think it is important not to jump into camps about this
issue but it should be addressed for the future comfort of all of
us.<br><br>
Alice<br><br>
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Anne Brundle
<<a href="mailto:Anne.brundle@orkney.gov.uk">
Anne.brundle@orkney.gov.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I don't know the answer, but I was just thinking about the same
question<br>
<dd>this weekend. My feeling is that many interpretations of wear on
bone<br>
<dd>tools are based on the three elements of (i)surface shine
(ii)rounding<br>
<dd>on edges and (iii)presence and direction of striations, and then
on<br>
<dd>whether the wear is 'light', 'normal' or 'heavy'. These value terms
tend<br>
<dd>to change, depending what the observer is accustomed to seeing and
what<br>
<dd>they have been looking at most recently, so it becomes difficult to
make<br>
<dd>comparisons between sites.<br><br>
<dd>I tend to feel cautious if trace analysis is interpreted too
positively,<br>
<dd>but I would love to hear from people who could make it work - it
would<br>
<dd>be so good!<br><br>
<dd>Best wishes<br>
<dd>Anne<br><br>
<dd>Anne Brundle<br>
<dd>Curator of Archaeology<br>
<dd>The Orkney Museum<br>
<dd>Tankerness House<br>
<dd>Broad Street<br>
<dd>Kirkwall<br>
<dd>Orkney<br>
<dd>KW17 2JD<br><br>
<br>
<dd>-----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>From:
<a href="mailto:bonetools-bounces@listserv.niif.hu">
bonetools-bounces@listserv.niif.hu</a><br>
<dd>[<a href="mailto:bonetools-bounces@listserv.niif.hu" eudora="autourl">
mailto:bonetools-bounces@listserv.niif.hu</a>] On Behalf Of Katherine
M.<br>
<dd>Moore<br>
<dd>Sent: 12 March 2010 17:35<br>
<dd>To: Mailing list for archaeologists of the research group for the
study<br>
<dd>ofobjectand waste of bone, antler. ivory and horn.<br>
<dd>Subject: [Bonetools] Wear traces on bone tools<br><br>
<dd>Dear Colleagues:<br><br>
<dd>I am seeking general insights (or perhaps opinions) on trace
analysis<br>
<dd>of bone tools. Various studies describe characteristics of
traces<br>
<dd>left on bone by common materials (plant material, hide, soil,
etc.).<br>
<dd>Is there a recent reference which establishes the characteristics
of<br>
<dd>these traces using sytematic studies of modern bone tools? Even
more<br>
<dd>importantly, are there blind tests of identification of worked<br>
<dd>material on bone tools such as those conducted by Keeley and
Newcomer<br>
<dd>for stone tools? Those blind tests and others which followed
have<br>
<dd>shown that such identifications of worked material on stone tools
are<br>
<dd>probably not reliable. Do bone tool studies have better
foundation?<br><br>
<dd>Thanks for your help and experience.<br><br>
<dd>best,<br><br>
<dd>Kate Moore<br>
<dd>Consulting Scholar<br>
<dd>University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology<br>
<dd>3260 South St.<br>
<dd>Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA<br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Bonetools mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu">
Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools" eudora="autourl">
https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools</a><br>
<dd>This email and its attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that
is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the
applicable law. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of Orkney Islands
Council.<br><br>
<dd>If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its
attachments is strictly prohibited.<br><br>
<dd>If you have received this communication in error please notify us by
contacting the sender. Thank you.<br><br>
<dd>Orkney Islands Council –
<a href="http://www.orkney.gov.uk">http://www.orkney.gov.uk</a> –
01856 873535<br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Bonetools mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu">
Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools" eudora="autourl">
https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools</a><br><br>
</dl><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bonetools mailing list<br>
Bonetools@listserv.niif.hu<br>
<a href="https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools" eudora="autourl">
https://listserv.niif.hu/mailman/listinfo/bonetools</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>