Reaping the rewards: the potential of well designed methodology, a comment on Vardi et al. (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1716–1724) and Goodale et al. (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1192–1201)

The recent articles by Vardi et al., “Tracing sickle blade levels of wear and discard patterns: a new sickle gloss quantification method” (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1716–1724), and Goodale et al., “Sickle blade life-history and the transition to agriculture: an early Neolithic case study from Southwest Asia” (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1192–1201), are two papers that seek to address interesting archaeological questions through the development of new approaches to measuring the duration of stone tool use. Here comment is made on the fashion in which research design and analytic procedures contribute to limit the capabilities of each of the techniques presented. Whilst the authors support the investigation of novel techniques, in order for the results of any use-wear analysis to be accepted as reliable the methods employed must be demonstrably sound.

► Comment is made on two new methods to quantify use-wear on sickle blades. ► Vardi et al. do not perform adequate experimentation of the He–Ne laser technique. ► They provide no information on stone tool cleaning protocols. ► Goodale et al. do not consider the effect of edge angle on rate of wear accrual. ► They inappropriately employ linear regression to extrapolate use intensity.