Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: A Methodology

9. Blind Test

9. BLIND TEST provided (e.g., exact material identifications). Ten tools are included and no guidelines were given to the experimenters . Tools were handed over cleaned; they were re-cleaned, including by immersion in HCl (10%). No attempt was made to distinguish between bone and antler; such a distinction is difficult, as agreed upon by most analysts. 9.1 RESULTS 9.1.1 Scores First of all, conclusive tables with the blind test results are presented per analytical method. The exact way in which the correctness of the results was evaluated is explained in section 9.1.2. and depends on the importance of the mistake : for instance, an inexact evaluation of relative duration is not considered of much importance when the determination of other aspects of use (used tool part, material worked, use motion) is correct. The final blind test can be categorised as gradual in approach. All methods were used, but one after the other and more or less independently of each other. This test, as well as a more integrated one, was published (Rots et al. 2006). Tools were first analysed on a macroscopic level, next on a low power level, and finally on a high power level. Per method, a final interpretation was proposed which was not modified following subsequent analyses of the same tool using another method. Interpretations were not crosschecked for potential contradictions. Information retrieved per method was separated as far as possible, but this separation remains somewhat artificial (i.e., one analyst). The results are discussed per analytical level. The impossibility of interpreting part of the hafting arrangement is not necessarily a mistake as the magnification level may not allow such detail. Consequently, interpretations marked “-” are not treated as mistakes, but as soon as a value is provided and proves wrong, it is counted as a mistake, even if the magnification level theoretically does not allow the detail RESULTS BT10 BT11 BT12 BT13 BT14 BT15 BT16 BT17 BT18 BT19 TOTAL (/10) Used part 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Worked material 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0,5 6,5 Action 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Relative duration 0,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 9 USE 1 1 1 1 0,5 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 8 HAFTING 1 1 1 x 1 1 1 1 - 1 10 PREHENSION - - - x - - - - 1 Hafted / hand-held part 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Haft limit - 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 7 Haft material 0,5 - 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 - 5,5 Contact zone haft 0,5 - 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 - 6,5 Wrapping 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 8 Contact zone wrapping 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 8 Bindings 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 8 Contact zone bindings 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 8 Fixation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 9 Contact zone fixation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 9 Haft type 0,5 1 1 1 0,5 1 0,5 1 1 - 7,5 Hafting method 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 8 Tool placement 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 9 Tool direction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 9 Orientation AP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 9 INTERPRETATION 0 0,5 1 1 1 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,5 7 Figure 9.1. Macroscopic test results (0= wrong; 0,5= partially wrong; 1= correct interpretation; - = not relevant or not provided; shaded categories: a degree of certainty was provided during the functional analysis; shaded cells: uncertain interpretation) PREHENSION AND HAFTING TRACES ON FLINT TOOLS 190 The macroscopic results appear surprisingly good (Fig. 9.1). However, for some interpretations the certainty level is poor (see infra), given the restricted nature of macroscopic data. The results are a factor of experience combined with the importance of trace patterning. The latter significantly facilitates a macroscopic distinction between hafted and hand-held tools. The low power results appear less successful than the macroscopic ones (Fig. 9.2), but this is not really true: the interpretation provided was more detailed but proved wrong in some cases, while the...