A significant step in the history of society was the onset of metallurgy. It is however unclear when metal first started to be used as a standard, functional material in prehistory. Much of the...Show moreA significant step in the history of society was the onset of metallurgy. It is however unclear when metal first started to be used as a standard, functional material in prehistory. Much of the earliest evidence of metal artefacts within the archaeological record was deposited in a potentially ritual context, which suggests that the origin of the use of the metal as a functional material cannot be based on the presence of metal objects within the archaeological record. The deposition of supposedly ritual objects in the past does provide evidence for the presence of metal as a material, however this does not necessarily correlate to the presence of everyday, working metal objects and tools. While stone tools could have been immediately discarded once they are broken and so their stratigraphic placement in the archaeological record can be approximately correlated with the date that they were used in the past, metal tools can be re- melted and so recycled over a much longer period of time. It could therefore be argued that he earliest stratigraphic location of metal tools in the soil does not necessarily correlate with their time of origin in prehistory. In order to address this problem, many studies have instead studied the presence of metal indirectly, by investigating the microwear traces left by different tool materials in order to determine whether certain traces can be considered characteristic of metal tool use. These studies have ranged from an examination of cut marks in butchered bones to an investigation of drilling technology during bead production. The present study used experimental archaeology complemented by microwear analysis to investigate traces left by stone, antler, and metal tools during the production of amber beads, focusing particularly on the cutting and drilling stages of bead production. From an analysis of the experimentally produced pieces, it was then possible to create a list of distinguishing features for each tool material. This list of distinguishing features was then compared to those traces identified on archaeological collections from three sites in the northern Netherlands: the Late Neolithic settlement site at Kolhorn, a coffin burial in a tumulus at Emmerdennen, and grave goods from several tumuli at Hijken Hooghalen. The results demonstrated that it is possible to identify which tool material had been used to create the archaeological pieces, and thus potentially contribute towards existing studies in microwear analysis of tool traces, and potentially also further towards detecting the onset of metal as a functional material in prehistory.Show less
