0000000000519998
AUTHOR
Walter Gneisinger
showing 8 related works from this author
Evaluating the microscopic effect of brushing stone tools as a cleaning procedure
2020
Cleaning stone tool surfaces is a common procedure in lithic studies. The first step widely applied at any archeological site (and/or at field laboratories) is the gross removal of sediment from the surfaces of artifacts. Lithic surface alterations due to mechanical action applied in wet or dry cleaning regimes have never been examined at a microscopic scale. This could have important implications in traceology, as any modern surface modifications inflicted on archeological artifacts might compromise their functional interpretations. The current trend toward quantification of use-wear traces makes the testing even more important, as even slight, apparently invisible surface alterations migh…
A versatile mechanized setup for controlled experiments in archeology
2020
Experimentation has always played an important role in archeology, in particular to create reference collections for use-wear studies. Different types of experiments can answer different questions; all types should therefore be combined to obtain a holistic view. In controlled experiments, some factors are tested, while the other factors are kept constant to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Yet, controlled experiments have been conducted with variable degrees of control. Although they seem decoupled from archeological applications, mechanized experiments and the robust causal relationships they measure are critical to answer archeological questions like understanding the processes of use-…
Why should traceology learn from dental microwear, and vice-versa?
2019
Dental and artifact microwear analyses have a lot in common regarding the questions they address, their developmental history and their issues. However, few paleontologists and archeologists are aware of this, and even those who are, do not take into account most of the methodological insights from the other field. In this focus article, we briefly review the main developmental steps of both methods, highlight how similar their histories are and how combining methodological developments can improve both research fields. In both cases, the traditional analyses have been strongly criticized mainly because of their subjectivity and their lack of repeatability and reproducibility. Quantitative …
Using mechanical experiments to study ground stone tool use: Exploring the formation of percussive and grinding wear traces on limestone tools
2021
Ground Stone Tools (GST) have been identified in several Levantine archaeological sites dating to the Middle Paleolithic. These tools, frequently made of limestone, are often interpreted based on their morphology and damage as having been used for knapping flint, and sometimes for breaking animal bones or processing vegetal materials as well. However, the lack of experimental referential collections on limestone is a major obstacle for the identification of diagnostic traces on these types of tools and raw material. In this sense, the understanding of the specific function of these GST and the association between tool types and activity often remains unknown or merely speculative. Recent di…
Evaluating the microscopic effect of brushing stone tools as a cleaning procedure [Python analysis]
2020
This upload includes the following files related to the Python analysis: Raw data as a XLSX table (brushing_v2.xlsx), i.e. results from R Script #1 (see https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3632517) Python script of the whole analysis (RunEveryParameter.py) Convenience script for running RunEveryParameter.py in background and logging all output (RunSingleParametesBash.sh) Log file for output of sampling from the model for each parameter in a loop (logAll.txt) Jupyter notebooks of the analysis run on epLsar as an example (Notebook_SingleParameter.inpyb) and of a summary of the whole analysis (Notebook_Overview.ipynb), plus associated HTML output files (*.html) For each parameter: Full samples of p…
Evaluating the microscopic effect of brushing stone tools as a cleaning procedure [R analysis]
2020
This upload includes the following files related to the R analysis: - Raw data as a CSV table (brushing_v2.csv), i.e. results from the ConfoMap analysis (see https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3632490) - RStudio project (Brushing_project.Rproj) - R scripts as R Markdown files (*.Rmd) - Output from R scripts knitted to HTML files (*.html) - A text file containing the version of RStudio used (RStudioVersion.txt) Instructions to download all files at once are given here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4011952
Evaluating the microscopic effect of brushing stone tools as a cleaning procedure [ConfoMap analysis]
2020
ConfoMap templates for each surface in MNT format (including all original and processed surfaces, as well as results). Each template has also been exported to a PDF file. Additionally, results are collated into 'brushing_v2.csv' Instructions to download all files at once are given here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4011952
A versatile mechanized setup for controlled experiments in archeology [Electronic Supplementary Material]
2020
Supplementary Material 1. Preliminary tests on the Universal Robot UR5 (top) and inotec SMARTTESTER® (bottom). Each machine was programmed to move a scriber (needle) uni-directional linear motion from a starting point to an ending point (distance ≈ 19 cm) with a 50 N (UR5) or 5 kg (SMARTTESTER®) load applied onto the tip. One and five programmatically identical strokes were performed on an aluminum plate. The red dotted lines are straight lines drawn from the starting point to the end point. The arrows indicate the direction of the movement. The width of each groove was measured around the middle (where the black marks are) and are, from top to bottom: 407, 587, 814 and 961 &m…