Part 3: An experimental archaeology project
You will hear two archaeology students, Felix and Maya, discussing a project in which they made copies of ancient stone tools.
Lời thoại bài nghe (transcript)
Felix: So, Maya, we've got ten minutes to present the stone tools project next week. Shall we go through what we've got so far?
Maya: Yes, let's. Can I start by saying why I picked this topic? I think the tutor will ask.
Felix: Sure. I always assumed it was because you'd done flint-knapping before, on that summer course.
Maya: Well, I had, but only for a day, and to be honest I wasn't much good at it. What actually interested me was the other end of the process. Archaeologists are very good at describing how a tool was made, but much less certain about what it was used for. That's the question I wanted to explore.
Felix: And that's what our experiment is really about, isn't it? Making copies of the blades from the site and using them on different materials, then comparing the wear marks under the microscope with the marks on the originals.
Maya: Exactly. Speaking of which, we should mention the trouble we had getting the flint.
Felix: Oh, yes. The supplier was fine, and the price was reasonable. The problem was that most of the pieces they sent were full of cracks, so they kept breaking in the wrong place when we struck them. We had to throw away about half of it.
Maya: That should go in the presentation, because it affects how many tools we could make. But what surprised me most was how fast it was once we got going. I'd read that it took hours to make one good blade, but we were producing usable ones in under five minutes.
Felix: I was expecting to cut my fingers to pieces, too, but apart from that one time on the first day, we were fine, thanks to the leather gloves.
Maya: Right. Now, the microscope. I know you had doubts about using the one in the geology lab.
Felix: I did at first, because it's quite old. But actually the magnification was more than enough. The real limitation was that we could only book it for an hour at a time, so we never had a chance to look at all the blades as carefully as we'd have liked.
Maya: OK. So let's go through the materials we tested. Fresh meat first.
Felix: That was the one that worked best, I think. The polish on our blades looked almost identical to the polish on several of the original tools, which suggests that at least some of them were used for butchering.
Maya: I agree. Then dry wood.
Felix: That was disappointing. I thought wood would leave really clear marks, but the edge just crumbled within the first minute or so. After that, the blade was useless.
Maya: Yes, and that's interesting in itself. It might mean that people wouldn't have used such thin blades for woodworking. What about the animal hide?
Felix: The hide was the one where I'm least confident about our results. We only had one piece, and it had been treated with chemicals before we got it, so it wasn't really like fresh skin at all. I don't think we can draw any conclusions from it.
Maya: Fair enough. And the reeds?
Felix: Now, I expected those to be easy, because they're so soft, but it was a real struggle. The stems are so fibrous that the blade kept slipping, and it took ages to cut through a bundle.
Maya: That's true. I was exhausted after that session. And last of all, bone.
Felix: Our blades did leave some scratches on the bone, but we think we were holding the tool at the wrong angle. The tutor suggested we should try again using one of the thicker scrapers instead of a blade before we say anything definite.
Maya: Good, let's put that down as further work. Now, how should we organise the presentation itself? I'd thought of going through each material in turn.
Felix: I'm not sure that's the best way. Last time, the tutor said our slides had too much text. Maybe we should show the microscope photographs side by side, original and copy, and talk around those.
Maya: Yes, that would be much clearer. Let's do that, and keep the background section really short.
