Home

HOME
Pahranagat Trail
Misc. Sites
Unique Places
Fremont Culture
Et Highway-Rachel
Desert Morning
Gift Shop
Help Us!
Links
Contact Us
Other States
Bob Hafey's Page

SURPRISE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF LITHIC MATERIAL

The purpose of this paper is two fold. The first being that of Objective Reality vs. Subjective Conjecture as this is the arena where archaeologists find themselves in trouble. And secondly that of Microscopic Use-Wear Analysis of Lithic Material and some of the surprising results of what it reveals.

Much of what we do as archaeologists is literally based upon the SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess; however, based upon empirical evidence). Where we get into trouble is when we describe what we observe. For some reason we inject subjectivity or an assumption into that which is objectively observed. For instance when I first observed fibers on the cutting edges of some of the stone tools I had placed under the microscope I immediately assumed that the fibers had come from what the tool had been used on.

fibers on jasper tool fiber on quartz tool

All of the observed fibers appeared on the cutting or marginal utilized edges of the tools examined. No fibers were found on the surrounding surfaces.

After extensive reading of Keeley and Vaughn I could not find any reference to fibers. Both dealt nearly exclusively with the experimental Use-Wear patterns and polishes left on artifacts and I am faced with the real artifacts that have been utilized. I then called several geo-archaeologists and they also could not give any answers as to what the fibers were and whether they were plant or animal.

And now to add more confusion to the issue I have been looking for chert and jasper sources in the Sand Spring Valley area and found a source of chert nodules.

Panoramic view of area containing chert nodules

The photo to the right is of the

surface containing many chert

nodules.

I had heard that microscopic fossils could be found in chert, so I broke several nodules in half and looked at them under the microscope. What a surprise. The freshly uncontaminated pieces of chert contained the same type of fibers within them! Apparently the fibers or whatever they are had become inclusions within the chert nodules and are exposed when the nodules are broken.

100X on quartz 50X on chert 50X on chert

Where do I go from here? What I had thought were “fibers on artifacts” that came from use-wear were actually inclusions within the chert and I needed to find out whether they were plant or animal has become the opening of PANDORA’S BOX.

I contacted Dr. Ken Finger of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and sent sample photos. As a result, Dr. Finger pointed out that I had some fibers and what appeared to be a hair. He further stated that it would take chemical analysis to determine exactly what they were. He also pointed out that chert contains fossils and sometimes encapsulates organic material. Paleontologists also can determine the age of many deposits from the fossils that they contain.

So, now as a result of these findings I think it best to leave the microscopic analysis of artifacts to center specifically on wear patterns and polishes.

Robert L. Hafey

HC-61 Box 74

Alamo, NV 89001

Telephone: (775) 729-2561 Cell: (775) 962-2252