Pau Basilia

Archaeological application of scanning electron microscopy has been used on lithic analysis to identify and examine use wear. For organic beads, contributions to shell bead analysis has recently benefitted from scanning electron microscopy or SEM (d’Errico et al. 2009). On the other hand, Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy has been used to analyze residues from organic artifacts (Pyatt 2010). It is clear that technological advances on microscopy have been beneficial towards archaeology. Moreover, this paper demonstrates how SEM and EDS can aid in bead analysis. This paper uses SEM to analyze Microperforated Cut Shell Beads (MCSB) in a ground breaking analysis that reconstructs its manufacturing process based only on the final form of the artifact and surviving traces from the production process. The two main tools for analysis are SEM and EDS that is supported by optical microscopy, experimental archaeology and morphological analysis. The results of the analysis demonstrates how limitations of taphonomy, recovery and context can be surpassed using a multi-level analysis, including SEM and EDS.

The generally accepted trajectory of the shell bead manufacturing tradition in Philippine archaeology had been disputed by the systematic analysis of the Microperforated Cut Shell Bead (MCSB) from Ille site, El Nido, Philippines (Basilia 2012). The MCSB showed innovation and development at what was believed to be the decline of shell bead manufacture. Moreover, the bead form and technological processes involved to create the MCSB closely resembles that of inorganic beads especially that of imported stone beads (e.g. carnelian). This suggests that shell bead manufacture was strongly influenced by the influx of stronger, more colorful, and plentiful glass and stone beads. In that, the progress of shell bead manufacturing was a result of a conscious decision to imitate inorganic beads. However, a closer analysis of the manufacturing techniques involved in MCSB manufacture suggests a more complex scenario rather than simple imitation. Instead of a direct reaction to a demand for inorganic beads brought in by trade, a more likely influence to the development of shell bead manufacturing tradition is from the transfer of technological knowhow and the arrival of new tools. Through the MCSB, this paper demonstrates how interaction goes beyond the exchange of materials, but also involves technologies.