Is It Worth It? A Review of Plant Residue Analysis on Knapped Lithic Artifacts

Figures & data

Table 1. Recorded information from the literature survey with an example from Kealhofer et al., 1999.

Category	Variable	Example
Reference	Author(s)	Kealhofer L., Torrence R., Fullagar R.
	Title	Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools
	Journal	Journal of Archaeological Science 26
	Year of publication	1999
Research Goal	Type of material	archaeological
	Research objectives	investigate two methodological issues: 1. the integrity of phytolith residues and 2. interpretations of artifacts use based on phytolith assemblage composition and use-wear/residue analysis
Sample	Context	artifacts were selected from arbitrary unit of 1m x1m
	Tool type	flakes
	Raw material	quartzite, flint etc
	n (number of tools analyzed)	17
	n/x (tools selected for analysis/the total number of excavated tools)	not mentioned
Sample quality assessment	Control Sample (yes/no)	no
	Contamination considered (yes/no)	no
Method	Type of residue (plant, animal, etc.)	plants
	Overview of the methodology (in situ, extraction, use wear, combination)	Extraction use wear
	Extraction (scraping, water spraying, chemical spraying (Hcl, H2O2), brushing, ultrawave)	ultrawave
	Lithic tool sampled area (one edge, both edges, whole tool, not mentioned)	whole tool
	Type of microscopy employed (optical microscopy, SEM etc)	optical microscopy
Results	Qualitative/quantitative/both approaches	both
	Taxonomic results	predominance of bamboos, palms and arboreal taxa
	Interpretation	phytolith assemblages represent residues resulting from pre-depositional contact with materials. In case of obsidian artifacts-phytolith analysis makes a very important contribution to the understanding of chronological changes in tool use.
Observations	(By the reviewers)	pioneering and fundamental article to understand phytoliths and associated tool use

Figure 1. Graph bars showing the increase of publications regarding phytoliths and starches as retrieved through a SCOPUS search (search carried out on February 24th 2022). Regarding starch research, it also included the keyword “archaeology” as there are several researches within the food production research field dealing with starch.

Figure 2. Graph showing the time span of the sample under study.

Figure 3. Graph showing the different journals in which the papers have been published.

Figure 4. Graph showing the type of the analyzed materials. A_EXP shows studies where a combination of archaeological and experimental materials has been included.

Table 2. Identified research topics.

Archaeological questions			Methodological issues
Plant domain	Tool use	Spatial analysis	Residue	Sample quality	Integration
Environment	Efficiency (retouching)	Activity areas	Identify	Preservation	Use-wear
Plant management	Study of specific tools		Recover	Contamination	Polish
Plant consumption	Cinematics, Polish formation		Identify taxa
Food consumption	Handling

Table 3. Types of tools analyzed by the scholars.

N. of papers	Tool type	References
16	Flakes	Berman and Pearsall, 2000; Briuer, 1976; Colobig et al., 2020; Fuentes et al., 2020; Fullagar, 1991; Hardy & Garuf, 1998; Jahren et al., 1997; Kealhofer et al., 1999; Langejans, 2010; Ochoa et al., 2013; Lynch & Miotti, 2017; Nucara et al., 2020; Pedergnana & Olle, 2018; Piperno et al., 2009; Venditti et al., 2019; Wadley et al., 2004
04	Microliths	Anderson, 1980; Aleksandrova et al., 2014; Hardy et al., 2001; Unger-Hamilton, 1984
04	Scrapers	Debert & Sherriff, 2007; Monnier et al., 2012; Rots & Williamson, 2004; Sobolik, 1996
04	Various types of tools	Álvarez et al., 2009; Berman & Pearsall, 2020; Hardy et al., 2008; Henry et al., 2014
02	Flakes and microliths	Domínguez Rodrigo et al., 2001; Hardy et al., 2018
03	Flakes and grinding stones	Fullagar et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2017, 2018
01	Point	Aceituno et al., 2001
01	Heavy duty tools	Lombard, 2005
01	Scrapers and points	Hardy & Moncel, 2011
01	Flakes, choppers and chopping tools	Xhauflair et al., 2017
01	Scrapers and denticulates	Cueto et al., 2010
01	No informatio	Pearsall, Duncan, Chandler-Ezell, Ubelaker, & Zeidler, 2020

Table 4. Overview of raw materials.

No. of papers	Raw material	References
16	Crypto crystalline	Anderson, 1980; Berman and Pearsall, 2000; Cueto et al., 2010; Fullagar, 1991; Fullagar et al., 2006; Fuentes et al., 2020; Hardy & Garuf, 1998; Hardy & Moncel, 2011; Jahren et al., 1997; Monnier et al., 2012; Nucara et al., 2020; Rots & Williamson, 2004; Sobolik, 1996; Unger-Hamilton, 1984; Venditti et al., 2019; Xhauflair et al., 2017
09	Non crypto crystalline	Álvarez et al., 2009; Colobig et al. 2020; Debert & Sherriff, 2007; Domínguez Rodrigo et al., 2001; Hardy et al., 2001, 2018; Kealhofer et al., 1999; Lombard, 2005; Lynch & Miotti, 2017
05	Both types	Berman & Pearsall, 2020; Langejans, 2010; Liu et al., 2017; Pedergnana & Olle, 2018; Wadley et al., 2004
09	No information	Aceituno et al., 2001; Aleksandrova et al., 2014; Briuer, 1976; Hardy et al., 2008; Henry et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2018; Ochoa et al., 2013; Pearsall et al., 2020; Piperno et al., 2009

Table 5. Consideration of the tool edge.

No. of papers	Wear traces	Reference
20	Active edge	Anderson, 1980; Álvarez et al., 2009; Berman & Pearsall, 2020; Briuer, 1976; Colobig et al. 2020; Fullagar, 1991; Hardy & Garuf, 1998; Hardy & Moncel, 2011; Henry et al., 2014; Jahren et al., 1997; Langejans, 2010; Liu et al., 2017, 2018; Lynch & Miotti, 2017; Ochoa et al., 2013; Pedergnana & Olle, 2018; Piperno et al., 2009; Unger-Hamilton, 1984; Wadley et al., 2004; Xhauflair et al., 2017
14	Whole tool	Aleksandrova et al., 2014; Debert & Sherriff, 2007; Domínguez Rodrigo et al., 2001; Fuentes et al., 2020; Fullagar et al., 2006; Hardy et al., 2001, 2008, 2018; Kealhofer et al., 1999; Lombard, 2005; Monnier et al., 2012; Nucara et al., 2020; Rots & Williamson, 2004; Venditti et al., 2019
01	Haft area + active edge	Sobolik, 1996
04	No information	Aceituno et al., 2001; Berman and Pearsall, 2000; Cueto et al., 2010; Colobig et al., 2020; Pearsall et al., 2020

Table 6. Details of the context (13 papers have not been considered as they deal with experimental, ad hoc produced material).

No. of papers	Context	References
10	Layer	Aceituno et al., 2001; Aleksandrova et al., 2014; Álvarez et al., 2009; Dominguez et al., 2001; Fullagar et al., 2006; Hardy & Moncel, 2011; Kealhofer et al., 1999; Ochoa et al., 2013; Pearsall et al., 2020; Sobolik 1996
08	General information about the site	Berman and Pearsall, 2000, 2020; Briuer, 1976; Debert and Sheriff 2007; Hardy et al., 2008, 2018; Henry et al., 2014; Piperno et al., 2009
04	Layer (combined papers)	Fuentes et al., 2020; Lombard, 2005; Venditti et al., 2019; Rots and Williams 2004
04	No information	Anderson, 1980; Colobig et al. 2020; Hardy et al., 2001; Liu et al. 2018

Table 7. Sample size per each research, showing the number or artifacts analyzed and the lithic assemblage, also showing not available data (N/A). Label A corresponds to archaeological research, EA to ethnoarchaeological, EXP to experimental and A_EXP to those studies combining archaeological and experimental.

Authors	material	n  (artefactsanalysed)	n  (total lithicassemblage)	%
Aceituno et al. 2001	A	1	N/A	-
Aleksandrova et al. 2014	A	153	3,700	4.14
Alvarez et al. 2009	A	33	N/A	-
Berman & Pearsall 2020	A	25	N/A	-
Berman & Pearsall 2000	A	6	N/A	-
Briuer 1976	A	37	2,551	1.45
Colobig et al. 2020	A	1	6	16.6
Debert & Sheriff 2007	A	26	3,000	0.87
Dominguez-Rodrigo et al.2001	A	5	N/A	-
Fullagar et al. 2006	A	12	N/A	-
Hardy & Moncel 2011	A	182	N/A	-
Hardy et al. 2001	A	50	N/A
Hardy et al. 2008	A	109	N/A	-
Hardy et al. 2018	A	99	N/A	-
Henry et al. 2014	A	209	N/A	-
Kealhofer et al. 1998	A	17	N/A	-
Ochoa et al. 2013	A	8	N/A	-
Pearsall et al. 2020	A	50	N/A	-
Piperno et al. 2009	A	5	N/A	-
Sobolik 1996	A	55	N/A
Rots & Williamson 2004	EA	18A+ 20E	N/A	-
Anderson 1980	A_EXP	13A+ 23E	N/A	-
Fuentes et al. 2020	A_EXP	51A+ EXP(N/A)	14, 525	1.25
Liu et al. 2018	A_EXP	26A+ EXP(N/A)	N/A	-
Lombard 2005	A_EXP	50A+ 35E	N/A	-
Venditti et al. 2019	A_EXP	609+ EXP(N/A)	N/A	-
Cueto et al. 2010	EXP	12	12	100
Fullagar 1991	EXP	81	81	100
Hardy & Garufi 1998	EXP	N/A	N/A	-
Jahren et al. 1997	EXP	3	3	100
Langejans 2010	EXP	160	160	100
Liu et al. 2017	EXP	17	17	100
Lynch & Miotti 2017	EXP	26	26	100
Monnier et al. 2012	EXP	18	18	100
Nucara et al. 2020	EXP	70	70	100
Pedergnana & Olle 2018	EXP	23	23	100
Unger-Hamilton 1984	EXP	2	2	100
Wadley et al. 2004	EXP	28	28	100
Xhauflair et al. 2017	EXP	99	99	100

Figure 5. Expected plant residues

Figure 6. Scheme showing a summary of protocols for studying residues in lithics in situ or through extraction.

Table 8. Various extraction methodologies.

No. of papers	Extraction method	Reference
10	Sonic cleaner	Aceituno et al., 2001; Álvarez et al., 2009; Domínguez Rodrigo et al., 2001; Debert & Sherriff, 2007; Fullagar et al., 2006; Kealhofer et al., 1999; Ochoa et al., 2013; Pearsall et al., 2020; Piperno et al., 2009; Sobolik, 1996
01	Laboratory picks	Domínguez Rodrigo et al., 2001
04	Dry brushing	Aceituno et al., 2001; Aleksandrova et al., 2014; Berman & Pearsall, 2020; Sobolik, 1996

Kealhofer, L., Torrence, R., & Fullagar, R. (1999). Integrating phytoliths within use-wear/residue studies of stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26(5), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1998.0332

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Briuer, F. (1976). New clues to stone tool function: Plant and animal residues. American Antiquity, 41(4), 478–484. https://doi.org/10.2307/279013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Colobig, M. M., Figueroa, G., & Dantas, M. (2020). Primera aproximación a los microrrestos vegetales presentes en artefactos cerámicos y líticos de los sitios LRV11 y EP1, Valle de Ambato, Catamarca, Argentina. Anuario de Arqueología, 12(12), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.35305/aa.v12i12.47

 Google Scholar

Fuentes, R., Ono, R., Carlos, J., Kerfant, C., Sriwigati, Miranda, T., Aziz, N., Sofian, H. O., & Pawlik, A. (2020). Stuck within notches: Direct evidence of plant processing during the last glacial maximum to Holicene in North Sulawesi. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 30, 102207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102207

 Google Scholar

Fullagar, R. (1991). The role of silica in Polish formation. Journal of Archaeological Science, 18(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/0305-4403(91)90076-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hardy, B. L., & Garuf, G. T. (1998). Identification of woodworking on stone tools through residue and use-wear analyses: Experimental results. Journal of Archaeological Science, 25(2), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1997.0234

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jahren, A. H., Toth, N., Schick, K., Clark, J. D., & Amundson, R. G. (1997). Determining stone tool use: Chemical and morphological analyses of residues on experimentally manufactured stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 24(3), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1996.0107

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Langejans, G. H. J. (2010). Remains of the day-preservation of organic micro-residues on stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(5), 971–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.11.030

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ochoa, G. A., Martínez, P. P., & González, I. I. R. (2013). Metodología para el estudio del procesamiento de plantas en sociedades cazadoras-recolectoras: un estudio de caso. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, 8(3), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1981-81222013000300004

 Google Scholar

Lynch, V., & Miotti, L. (2017). Introduction to microresidue analysis: Systematic use of Scanning Electron Microscope and Enery Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (SEM-EDX) on Patagonian raw materials. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 16, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.10.020

 Google Scholar

Nucara, A., Nunziante-Cesaro, S., Venditti, F., & Lemorini, C. (2020). A multivarious analysis for enhancing the interpretation of infrared spectra of plant residues on lithic artefacts. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 33, 102526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102526

 Google Scholar

Pedergnana, A., & Olle, A. (2018). Building an experimental comparative reference collection for lithic micro-residue analysis based on a multi-analytical approach. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(1), 117–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9337-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Piperno, D. R., Ranere, A. J., Holst, I., Iriarte, J., & Dickau, R. (2009). Starch grain and phytolith evidence for early ninth millennium B.P. maize from the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(13), 5019–24. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812525106

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Venditti, F., Nunziante-Cesaro, S., Parush, Y., Gopher, A., & Barkai, R. (2019). Recycling for a purpose in the late Lower Paleolithic Levant: Use-wear and residue analyses of small sharp flint items indicate a planned and integrated subsistence behavior at Qesem Cave (Israel). Journal of Human Evolution, 131, 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.016

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wadley, L., Lombard, M., & Williamson, B. (2004). The first residue analysis blind tests: Results and lessons learnt. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31(11), 1491–1501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2004.03.010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anderson, P. C. (1980). A testimony of prehistoric tasks: Diagnostic residues on stone tool working edges. World Archaeology, 12(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1980.9979791

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aleksandrova, O. I., Kireeva, V. N., & Leonova, E. V. (2014). Study of organic and inorganic residues on the stone tools from the early Mesolithic layer in the Dvoinaya cave (Northwestern Caucasus). Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia, 42(4), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeae.2015.06.002

 Google Scholar

Hardy, B. L., Kay, M., Marks, A., & Monigal, K. (2001). Stone tool function at the paleolithic sites of Starosele and Buran Kaya III, Crimea: Behavioural implications. Proceesings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(19), 10972–10977. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.191384498

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Unger-Hamilton, R. (1984). The formation of use-wear Polish on flint: Beyond the “deposit versus abrasion” controversy. Journal of Archaeological Science, 11(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(84)90044-X

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Debert, J., & Sherriff, B. L. (2007). Raspadita: A new lithic tool from the isthmus of Rivas, Nicaragua. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34(11), 1889–1901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.01.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Monnier, G. F., Ladwig, J. L., & Porter, S. T. (2012). Swept under the rug: The problem of unacknowledges ambiquity in lithic residue identification. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(10), 3284–3300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.010

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rots, V., & Williamson, B. S. (2004). Microwear and residue analyses in perspective: The contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31(9), 1287–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2004.02.009

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sobolik, K. D. (1996). Lithic organic residue analysis: An example from the Southwestern Archaic. J. Field. Archaeol, 23(4), 461–469.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Álvarez, M., Zurro, D., Briz, I., Madella, M., Osterrieth, M., & Borrelli, N. (2009). Análisis de los procesos productivos en las sociedades cazadoras-recolectoras-pescadoras de la costa norte del Canal Beagle (Argentina): el sitio Lanashuaia. In M. Salemne, F. Santiago, M. Álvarez, E. Piana, M. Vázquez, & M. E. Mansur (Eds.), Arqueología de la Patagonia. Una mirada desde el último confín. Editorial Utopías (pp. 903–917).

 Google Scholar

Berman, M. J., & Pearsall, D. M. (2020). Crop dispersal and Lucayan tool use: Investigating the creation of transported landscapes in the central Bahamas through Starch Grain, Phytolith, Macrobotanical, and Artifact Studies. Journal of Field Archaeology, 45(5), 355–371. http://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2020.1740958

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Henry, A. G., Brooks, A. S., & Piperno, D. R. (2014). Plant foods and the dietary ecology of Neanderthals and early modern humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 69, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.014

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Domínguez Rodrigo, M., Serrallonga, J., Juan-Tresserras, J., Alcala, L., & Luque, L. (2001). Woodworking activities by early humans: A plant residue analysis on Acheulian stone tools from Peninj (Tanzania). Journal of Human Evolution, 40(4), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2000.0466

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hardy, B. L., Moncel, M.-H., Despriee, J., Courcimault, G., & Voinchet, P. (2018). Middle Pleistocene hominin behaviour at the 700ka Acheulian site of la Noira (France). Quaternary Science Reviews, 199, 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.09.013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fullagar, R., Field, J., Denham, T., & Lentfer, C. (2006). Early and mid Holocene tools-use and processing of taro (Colocasia esculenta), yam (Dioscorea sp.) and other plants at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(5), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.07.020

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liu, L., Wang, J., & Levin, M. J. (2017). Usewear and residue analyses of experimental harvesting stone tools for archaeological research. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 14, 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.06.018

 Google Scholar

Liu, L., Levin, M. J., Bonomo, M. F., Wang, J., Shi, J., Chen, X., Han, J., & Song, Y. (2018). Harvesting and processing wild cereals in the Upper Palaeolithic Yellow River Valley, China. Antiquity, 92(363), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.36

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aceituno, F., Treserras, J., Jaramillo, J., Loaiza, N., & Vélez, L. (2001). identificación de plantas alimenticias en el Cauca medio durante el Holoceno temprano y medio. Boletín de Antropología, 15(32), 51–72.

 Google Scholar

Lombard, M. (2005). Evidence of hunting and hafting during the Middle Stone Age at Sibidu Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: A multianalytical approach. Journal of Human Evolution, 48(3), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.11.006

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hardy, B. L., & Moncel, M.-H. (2011). Neanderthal use of fish, mammals, birds, starchy plants and wood 125–250,000 years ago. PLoS One, 6(8), e23768. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023768

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xhauflair, H., Pawlik, A., Forestier, H., Saos, T., Dizon, E., & Gaillard, C. (2017). Use-related or contamination? Residue and use-wear mapping on stone tools used for experimental processing of plants from Southeast Asia. Quaternary International, 427, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.02.023

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cueto, M., Capparelli, A., Ciampagna, L., Paunero, M., & Castro, A. (2010). Prácticas poscolecta y material leñoso: análisis de residuos y huellas microscópicas de origen vegetal, sobre artefactos de roca tallada utilizados en contextos experimentales. In Proceedings of the XVII National Congress of Argentinian Archaeology, Mendoza (pp. 1205–1210).

 Google Scholar

Berman, M. J., & Pearsall, D. M. (2020). Crop dispersal and Lucayan tool use: Investigating the creation of transported landscapes in the central Bahamas through starch grain, phytolith, macrobotanical and artifact studies. Journal of Field Archaeology, 45(5), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2020.1740958

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pearsall, D. M., Duncan, N. A., Chandler-Ezell, K., Ubelaker, D. H., & Zeidler, J. A. (2020). Food and society at real alto, an early formative community in southwest coastal ecuador. Latin American Antiquity, 31(1), 122–142. http://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2019.96

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar