Michael Wilson, Briggs Buchanan, Michael Fisch, Michelle R. Bebber, Metin I. Eren, Justin Pargeter
{"title":"有衬底与无衬底边缘附着力的受控比较拉伸试验:石器功能特性的推论","authors":"Michael Wilson, Briggs Buchanan, Michael Fisch, Michelle R. Bebber, Metin I. Eren, Justin Pargeter","doi":"10.1111/arcm.13025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Backing is a procedure for retouching a stone tool edge to an angle of or near 90°. Archaeologists have recorded backed lithic specimens in the Pleistocene and Holocene around the world. One prominent hypothesis for the occurrence of backing is that it increases a stone tool's adhesion relative to what it would have otherwise been with unmodified, sharp edges. We conducted a highly controlled semi‐static tensile test in which we assessed lithic specimens that possessed both a backed and a non‐backed edge, opposing each other. We hafted each specimen's backed and non‐backed edges to wood, and the bi‐hafted stone implement was then pulled apart using an Universal Instron Materials Tester, allowing for a direct ‘head‐to‐head’ comparison of the two edge types’ adhesive properties. Our tensile test results suggested no significant difference between backed and non‐backed edges in terms of adhesion, which does not support the hypothesis that backing increases a lithic specimen's adhesion.","PeriodicalId":8254,"journal":{"name":"Archaeometry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Controlled comparative tensile tests of backed versus non‐backed edges’ adhesion: Inferences into stone tool functional properties\",\"authors\":\"Michael Wilson, Briggs Buchanan, Michael Fisch, Michelle R. Bebber, Metin I. Eren, Justin Pargeter\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/arcm.13025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Backing is a procedure for retouching a stone tool edge to an angle of or near 90°. Archaeologists have recorded backed lithic specimens in the Pleistocene and Holocene around the world. One prominent hypothesis for the occurrence of backing is that it increases a stone tool's adhesion relative to what it would have otherwise been with unmodified, sharp edges. We conducted a highly controlled semi‐static tensile test in which we assessed lithic specimens that possessed both a backed and a non‐backed edge, opposing each other. We hafted each specimen's backed and non‐backed edges to wood, and the bi‐hafted stone implement was then pulled apart using an Universal Instron Materials Tester, allowing for a direct ‘head‐to‐head’ comparison of the two edge types’ adhesive properties. Our tensile test results suggested no significant difference between backed and non‐backed edges in terms of adhesion, which does not support the hypothesis that backing increases a lithic specimen's adhesion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archaeometry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archaeometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.13025\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeometry","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.13025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Controlled comparative tensile tests of backed versus non‐backed edges’ adhesion: Inferences into stone tool functional properties
Backing is a procedure for retouching a stone tool edge to an angle of or near 90°. Archaeologists have recorded backed lithic specimens in the Pleistocene and Holocene around the world. One prominent hypothesis for the occurrence of backing is that it increases a stone tool's adhesion relative to what it would have otherwise been with unmodified, sharp edges. We conducted a highly controlled semi‐static tensile test in which we assessed lithic specimens that possessed both a backed and a non‐backed edge, opposing each other. We hafted each specimen's backed and non‐backed edges to wood, and the bi‐hafted stone implement was then pulled apart using an Universal Instron Materials Tester, allowing for a direct ‘head‐to‐head’ comparison of the two edge types’ adhesive properties. Our tensile test results suggested no significant difference between backed and non‐backed edges in terms of adhesion, which does not support the hypothesis that backing increases a lithic specimen's adhesion.
期刊介绍:
Archaeometry is an international research journal covering the application of the physical and biological sciences to archaeology, anthropology and art history. Topics covered include dating methods, artifact studies, mathematical methods, remote sensing techniques, conservation science, environmental reconstruction, biological anthropology and archaeological theory. Papers are expected to have a clear archaeological, anthropological or art historical context, be of the highest scientific standards, and to present data of international relevance.
The journal is published on behalf of the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, Oxford University, in association with Gesellschaft für Naturwissenschaftliche Archäologie, ARCHAEOMETRIE, the Society for Archaeological Sciences (SAS), and Associazione Italian di Archeometria.