Reaping 'rewards' in sickle use-wear analysis

Recently in their research Goodale et al. (2010) as well as that of Vardi et al. (2010) independently tackled issues of effectively measuring attrition/gloss rates on sickle blade tools from Southwest Asia. Interestingly, while applying new methodology to analyzing sickle tools from different cultural and temporal contexts, these two papers arrived at a similar conclusion: sickle tools were likely very expensive to make, and thus, considerations were made during their production to ensure long use-lives to benefit the people who made and used them in prehistory. Stemp et al. (in this issue) provide a methodological critique of both studies. In addressing their critique we make several points. First it is important to note that Stemp et al. provide no new experimental analysis to justify their assertions, and their critique is ultimately, at best, guesswork. Second, the minimal reanalysis of the data Stemp et al. do conduct arguably lead to the same preliminary conclusion at which we originally arrived: the prehistoric sickle blades we examined were used longer than those we replicated. As stated in our original paper, lithic use-wear studies often do not address issue of reliable and reproducible methods. We believe that our original study helps fill this missing component, and that measuring edge thickness is much less subjective than conventional features on stone tools traditionally identified microscopically. From our perspective, Stemp et al. present largely unsupported critical commentary, lacking substantial reanalysis or experiments to complement or justify their commentary. In the end Stemp et al. provide little more than interesting ideas and conjecture. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.