{"title":"Microscope agnosticism and the characterization of sedimentary abrasion of flint stone tools","authors":"Guillermo Bustos-Pérez , Andreu Ollé","doi":"10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The surface of lithic stone tools from Paleolithic archaeological sites can undergo a range of different postdepositional alterations, including sedimentary erosion induced by water displacement or wind. The surface of flint artifacts can reflect these alterations as changes in texture. Microscopic analyses and grayscale images can be employed to obtain quantitative data to help determine the degree to which the surfaces of flint stone tools have been altered. However, surface quantitative values depend directly on the image capturing system of each microscope. This raises the question of whether the quantitative values are actually capturing the evolution of the surface, whether they are dependent on the type of microscope and its image capturing system, and whether the detection of the degree of abrasion might vary depending on the type of microscope. The present work sought to determine whether data extracted from images from two different microscopes point to the same trends in surface change due to postdepositional alterations. Surface photographs of a sample of 25 flakes were taken using a Dino-Lite Edge 3.0 AM73915MZT and a 3D Optical Profiler Sensofar S neox 090. These flakes represented three different stages of alteration (fresh, ten hours of experimentally-induced sedimentary erosion, and geological neocortex). Results from grayscale images indicate that, despite yielding different numeric ranges, the quantitative values of the images from both types of microscope reflect the same trends in surface change. The classification accuracy of the three stages of erosion did not vary between microscopes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48150,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24004346","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The surface of lithic stone tools from Paleolithic archaeological sites can undergo a range of different postdepositional alterations, including sedimentary erosion induced by water displacement or wind. The surface of flint artifacts can reflect these alterations as changes in texture. Microscopic analyses and grayscale images can be employed to obtain quantitative data to help determine the degree to which the surfaces of flint stone tools have been altered. However, surface quantitative values depend directly on the image capturing system of each microscope. This raises the question of whether the quantitative values are actually capturing the evolution of the surface, whether they are dependent on the type of microscope and its image capturing system, and whether the detection of the degree of abrasion might vary depending on the type of microscope. The present work sought to determine whether data extracted from images from two different microscopes point to the same trends in surface change due to postdepositional alterations. Surface photographs of a sample of 25 flakes were taken using a Dino-Lite Edge 3.0 AM73915MZT and a 3D Optical Profiler Sensofar S neox 090. These flakes represented three different stages of alteration (fresh, ten hours of experimentally-induced sedimentary erosion, and geological neocortex). Results from grayscale images indicate that, despite yielding different numeric ranges, the quantitative values of the images from both types of microscope reflect the same trends in surface change. The classification accuracy of the three stages of erosion did not vary between microscopes.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports is aimed at archaeologists and scientists engaged with the application of scientific techniques and methodologies to all areas of archaeology. The journal focuses on the results of the application of scientific methods to archaeological problems and debates. It will provide a forum for reviews and scientific debate of issues in scientific archaeology and their impact in the wider subject. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports will publish papers of excellent archaeological science, with regional or wider interest. This will include case studies, reviews and short papers where an established scientific technique sheds light on archaeological questions and debates.