Journal of Archaeological Science (2001) 28, 81–88 doi:10.1006/jasc.2000.0547, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on UBM Laser Profilometry and Lithic Use-Wear Analysis: A Variable Length Scale Investigation of Surface Topography W. James Stemp Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Michael Stemp Department of Materials Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland (Received 24 June 1999, revised manuscript accepted 18 February 2000) Lithic use-wear analysis, despite being a well-accepted research tool, is still undermined by its qualitative nature. An effort has been made to quantify use-wear analysis, but only with limited success. This paper will present a new method of analysis based on a non-destructive measurement technique, laser profilometry. This optical technique, when coupled with appropriate software, allows for easy measurement of roughness parameters at several length scales. This accounts for the length-scale dependence of surface topography and allows for its quantitative description. Further, the information from this type of measurement can, in some cases, be described by fractal geometry leading to new interpretive possibilities. Initial results showed that measurements could be made on several different chert and obsidian samples and that these could be distinguished based on their wear histories.  2001 Academic Press Keywords: LITHICS, USE-WEAR, VARIABLE LENGTH SCALE, FRACTALS, UBM, LASER PROFILOMETRY. Introduction U se-wear analysis has undergone a rather rapid expansion since its relatively recent introduc- tion into the field of archaeology and has experienced various degrees of acceptance by both lithicists specifically and archaeologists in general. Ever since Semenov’s (1964) pioneering work into the study of wear patterns on stone tools, many archaeologists such as Tringham et al. (1974), Odell (1977, 1979, 1980, 1981), Keeley (1974, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980), Grace (1989, 1996; Grace et al., 1985), Lewenstein (1981), Newcomer (Keeley & Newcomer, 1977; Newcomer & Keeley, 1979; Newcomer et al., 1986), Mansur-Franchomme (1983; Mansur, 1982), Meeks et al. (1982), Moss (1983a, b, c; Moss & Newcomer, 1982), Vaughan (1981, 1985), Unger-Hamilton (1984), and Anderson-Gerfaud (1981, 1982, 1983; Anderson, 1980a, b), among others, have refined and developed different methodologies for the observation, identi- fication, and preservation of data relating to the use- wear damage observed on stone tools. Despite the excellent experimental research conducted by lithicists in archaeology and the tests performed to verify and improve upon these different methodologies, questions relating to the subjectivity of humanly observed, quali- tative analysis have persisted in lithic use-wear studies (Keeley & Newcomer, 1977; Odell & Odell-Vereecken, 1980; Holley & Del Bene, 1981; Vaughan, 1981, 1985; Gendel & Pirnay, 1982; Newcomer et al., 1986, 1987, 1988; Unrath et al., 1986; Moss, 1987; Bamforth, 1988; Hurcombe, 1988; Bamforth et al., 1990). Some lithic researchers such as Grace (1989, 1990; Grace et al., 1985, 1987; Rees et al., 1991), Dumont (1982), Knutsson et al. (1988), Beyries et al. (1988), Akoshima (1981, 1987), and Kimball et al. (1995) have attempted to circumvent the problem of observation-based subjectivity through the implementation of various techniques to document use-wear quantitatively. This paper marks the first in a series of experimental studies utilizing a UBM laser profilometer to develop a method for the quantitative recognition and recording of micro-topographical patterns related to stone tool use. The objectives of this study were to determine the feasibility of using UBM laser profilometry for investigating the surface topography of stone tools at variable length scales and to determine the applic- ability of a fractal model in use-wear lithic analysis. The basis for pursuing this second avenue of research is the success of other fractal models that have already been used to describe rough surfaces, such as those developed by Brown & Savary (1991), Majumdar & Tien (1990), Malinverno (1990), and Chauvy et al. (1998). 81 0305–4403/01/010081+08 $35.00/0  2001 Academic Press