Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 369–388 | Cite as

Microwear study of quartzite artefacts: preliminary results from the Middle Pleistocene site of Payre (South-eastern France)

  • Antonella PedergnanaEmail author
  • Andreu Ollé
  • Antony Borel
  • Marie-Hélène Moncel
Original Paper


Preliminary functional results obtained from the quartzite assemblage of the Early Middle Palaeolithic site of Payre (South-eastern France) are presented. In an area rich in flint, hominins at Payre also collected quartzite in their local environment, specifically along the Rhône River banks. Although the Payre lithic assemblage is largely composed of flint, quartzite was introduced in the site mainly as large cutting tools knapped outside. This fact pointed out an apparently highly differential treatment of the raw material types available in the region. A major concern is to understand the reason why. Is there any functional reason for the introduction of those artefacts, perhaps to perform specific activities related to the toughness of quartzite? Or is there any functional differentiation among the various raw materials? Use-wear analysis is a useful tool for better understanding human technological choices and strategies of lithic raw material management. Before attempting to extensively apply use-wear analysis on the quartzite assemblage, we analysed a limited sample to evaluate the general surface preservation. A specific experimental programme with the same local quartzite was carried out in order to provide a reliable comparative reference for interpreting use-wear evidence on archaeological implements. Methodological difficulties related to use-wear analysis applied to quartzite artefacts are also discussed. Both Optical light microscopy (OLM) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) were employed in this study; however, interpretations were elaborated considering principally SEM micro-graphs.

The analysis of the archaeological material showed a good state of preservation of the surfaces with a low incidence of post-depositional alterations. The documented use-wear allowed us to identify the active edges, the kinematics and, more rarely, the worked material. Chopping activities were documented on two large artefacts suggesting a specific utility of those tools.


Lithic use-wear analysis Quartzite France Payre Early Middle Palaeolithic 



We are thankful to the Servei de Recursos Científics i Tècnics team of the Rovira i Virgili University (Tarragona, Spain) for their help during SEM sessions.

This work was developed within the frame of the project CGL2015-65387-C3-1-P (Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad), the projects SGR 2014-899 (AGAUR, Generalitat de Catalunya), 2014PFR-URV-B2-17 and 2015PFR-URV-B2-17 (Universitat Rovira i Virgili), and the French-Spanish project (Mérimée, 2014-1016). A. Pedergnana is the beneficiary of a FI-DGR pre-doctoral grant from the Generalitat de Catalunya (2014FI_B 00539). Fieldworks and analyses at Payre were financially supported by the French Ministry of Culture (Rhône-Alpes region) and the regional area (Ardèche department). We thank JL. Fernández-Marchena for images A and B of the Fig. 13. We are also indebted to Deborah Barsky for the language revision of the last version of the manuscript. Finally, we are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the earlier version of this paper.


  1. Alonso M, Mansur ME (1990) Estudo traceológico em quartzo e quartzito de Santana do Riacho (MG). Arq Mus Hist Nat UFMG Belo Horizonte 11:173–190Google Scholar
  2. Asryan L, Ollé A, Moloney N (2014) Reality and confusion in the recognition of post-depositional alterations and use-wear: an experimental approach on basalt tools. Journal of Lithic Studies 1:9–32Google Scholar
  3. Aubry T, Igreja MdA (2009) Economy of lithic raw material during the Upper Paleolithic of the Côa Valley and the Sicó Massif (Portugal): technological and functional perspectives. In: Clemente-Conte I, Igreja MdA (eds) Recent functional studies on non flint stone tools: methodological improvements and archaeological inferences, proceedings of the workshop 23–25 may 2008. Proceedings of the workshop [CD-ROM], LisboaGoogle Scholar
  4. Baena J, Moncel MH, Cuartero F, Chacón MG, Rubio D (in press) Late Middle Pleistocene genesis of Neanderthal technology in Western Europe. The case of Payre site (south-east France). Quatern Int (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.031
  5. Beyries S (1982) Comparaison de traces d’utilisation sur différentes roches siliceuses. In: Cahen D (ed) Tailler! Pour quoi faire: préhistorire et technologie lithique II. Tervuren, Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2, p 235–240Google Scholar
  6. Borel A (2012) Formes et fonctions au sein des industries lithiques de la fin du Pléistocène et du début de l’Holocène en Asie du Sud-Est, un nouvel apport à la compréhension des comportements humains. In: BAR International Series 2351. Archaeopress, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Borel A, Ollé A, Vergès JM, Sala R (2014) Scanning electron and optical light microscopy: two complementary approaches for the understanding and interpretation of usewear and residues on stone tools. J Archaeol Sci 48:46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borel A, Dobosi V, Moncel MH (2016) Neanderthal’s microlithic tool production and use, the case of Tata (Hungary). Quater Int. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.09.102 Google Scholar
  9. Burroni D, Donahue RE, Pollard AM (2002) The surface alteration features of flint artefacts as a record of environmental processes. J Archaeol Sci 29:1277–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cristiani E, Cura S, Grimaldi S, Gomes J, Oosterbeek L, Rosina P (2009) Functional analysis and experimental archaeology: the Middle Pleistocene site of Ribeira da Atalaia, (Central Portugal). In: Clemente-Conte I, Igreja MdA (eds) Recent Functional Studies on Non Flint Stone Tools: Methodological Improvements and Archaeological Inferences, Proceedings of the Workshop 23e25 May 2008, Lisboa e Proceedings of the Workshop [CD-rom]. LisboaGoogle Scholar
  11. Clemente-Conte I, Gibaja-Bao JF (2009) Formation of use-wear traces in non-flint rocks: the case of quartzite and rhyolite – differences and similarities. In: Sternke F, Eigeland L, Costa LJ (eds) Non-flint raw material use in prehistory. Old prejudices and new directions. BAR International Series 1939, p 93–98Google Scholar
  12. Fernandes P, Raynal JP, Moncel MH (2008) Middle Palaeolithic raw material gathering territories and Neandertal mobility in the southern massif central of France: first results from a petro-archaeological study on Flint. J Archaeol Sci 35:2357–2370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibaja FJ, Clemente I, Mir A (2002) Análisis funcional en instrumentos de cuarcita: el yacimiento del Paleolítico superior de la Cueva de la Fuente Trucho (Colungo, Huesca). In: Clemente I, Risch R, Gibaja JF (eds) Análisis funcional: su aplicación al estudio de sociedades prehistóricas. BAR International Series 1073, Oxford, p 79–86Google Scholar
  14. Gibaja JF, Carvalho AF (2005) Reflexiones en torno a los útiles tallados en cuarcita: el Caso de algunos asentamientos del Neolítico Antiguo del Macizo calcáreo Extremeño (Portugal). Zephyrus 58:213–225Google Scholar
  15. Gibaja JF, Clemente I, Carvalho AF (2009) The use of Quartzite tools in the early Neolithic in Portugal: examples from the limestone massif of Estremadura. In: Clemente-Conte I, Igreja MdA (eds) Recent functional studies on non flint stone tools: methodological improvements and archaeological inferences, proceedings of the workshop 23–25 may 2008. Proceedings of the workshop [CD-ROM], LisboaGoogle Scholar
  16. González Urquijo JE, Ibáñez Estévez JJ (1994) Metodología de análisis funcional de instrumentos tallados en silex. Universitad de Deusto, BilbaoGoogle Scholar
  17. Grace R (1989) Interpreting the function of stone tools. The quantification and computerisation of microwear analysis. BAR International Series, 497Google Scholar
  18. Grace R (1990) The limitations and applications of functional analysis. In: Gräslund B, Knutsson H, Knutsson K, Taffinder J (eds) The Interpretative possibilities of microwear studies. AUN 14, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala, p 9–14Google Scholar
  19. Hardy BL, Moncel MH (2011) Neanderthal use of fish, mammals, birds, starchy plants and wood 125-250,000 years ago. PLoS One 6(8):e23768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023768 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayden B (ed) (1979) Lithic use-wear analysis. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Hroníková L, Priorová P, Šajnerová A (2008) An experimental approach to formation of use-wear traces on quartzite tools. In: Longo L, Skakun N (eds) “Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. Proceedings of the International Congress, Verona (Italy), 20–23 April 2005. BAR International Series 1783, p 355–357Google Scholar
  22. Heath JP (2005) Dictionary of microscopy. Wiley & Sons, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurcombe LM (1992) Use wear analysis and obsidian: theory, experiments and results. JR Collis Publications, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  24. Igreja MdA (2008) A Traceologia: gestos do passado pela objectiva do microscópio. Arqueologia Experimental – recriações do passado em ritmos do nosso tempo, Actas das Sessões do Fórum Valorização e Promoção do Património Regional, vol 4, p 35–45Google Scholar
  25. Igreja MdA (2009) Use-wear analysis of non-flint stone tools using DIC microscopy and resin casts: a simple and effective technique. In: Clemente-Conte I, Igreja MdA (eds) Recent functional studies on non flint stone tools: methodological improvements and archaeological inferences, proceedings of the workshop 23–25 may 2008. Proceedings of the workshop [CD-ROM], LisboaGoogle Scholar
  26. Igreja MA, Moreno-García M, Pimenta CM (2007) Um exemplo de abordagem experimental da interface Traceologia lítica/Arqueozoologia: esquartejamento e tratamento da pele de um corço (Capreolus capreolus) com artefactos de Pedra lascada. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia 10(2):17–34Google Scholar
  27. Juel Jensen HJ (1994) Flint tools and plant working: hidden traces of stone age technology: a use wear study of some Danish Mesolithic and TRB implements. Aarhus University Press, AarthusGoogle Scholar
  28. Keeley LH (1980) Experimental determination of stone tool uses. A microwear analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Keeley LH, Newcomer MH (1977) Microwear analysis of experimental flint tools: a test case. J Archaeol Sci 4:29–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knutsson K (1988) Patterns of tools use. Scanning electron microscopy of experimental quartz tools. AUN, 10. Societas Archaeologica Upsalensis, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  31. Knutsson H, Knutsson K, Taipale N, Tallavaara M, Darmark K (2015) How shattered flakes were used: micro-wear analysis of quartz flake fragments. J Archaeol Sci: Reports 2:517–531Google Scholar
  32. Kononenko N (2011) Experimental and archaeological studies of use-wear and residues on obsidian artefacts from Papua New Guinea. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum, vol 21, p 1–244Google Scholar
  33. Leipus M, Mansur ME (2007) El análisis funcional de base microscópica aplicado a materiales heterogéneos, perspectivas metodológicas Para el estudio de las cuarcitas de la región pampeana. In: Bayón C, Pupio A, González MI, Flegenheimer N, Frére M (eds) Arqueología en las pampas, vol vol 1. Sociedad Argentina de Antropología, Buenos Aires, pp. 179–200Google Scholar
  34. Lemorini C, Plummer TW, Braun DR, Crittenden A, Ditchfield PW, Bishop LC, Hertel F, Oliver JS, Marlowe FW, Schoeninger MJ, Potts R (2014) Old stones’ song: use-wear experiments and analysis of the Oldowan quartz and quartzite assemblage from Kanjera south (Kenya). J Hum Evol 72:10–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lerner HJ (2014) Intra-raw material variability and use-wear formation: an experimental examination of a fossiliferous chert (SJF) and a silicified wood (YSW) from NW New Mexico using the Clemex vision processing frame. J Archaeol Sci 48:34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lerner H, Du X, Costopoulos A, Ostoja-Starzewski M (2007) Lithic raw material physical properties and use-wear accrual. J Archaeol Sci 34:711–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levi-Sala I (1996) A study of microscopic polish on flint implements. BAR International Series 629, Tempus Reparatum, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Mansur ME (1999) Análisis funcional de instrumental lítico: problemas de formación y deformación de rastros de uso. In: Diez Martín C (ed) Actas del XII Congreso Nacional de Arqueología Argentina (1). Universidad de la Plata, La Plata, pp. 355–366Google Scholar
  39. Marreiros J, Bicho N, Gibaja JF (2014) International conference on use-wear analysis. Use-wear 2012. Cambridge Scholar Publishing, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin S (2012) Mise en place d'une méthodologie d'analyse fonctionelle des industries en quartz en vue d'une application aux industries sue éclat du site de Payre (Ardèche), Dept. de Préhistoire. Master thesis, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris (France)Google Scholar
  41. Moncel MH (ed) (2008) Le site de Payre. Occupations humaines dans la vallée du Rhône à la fin du Pléistocène moyen et au début du Pléistocène supérieur. Mémoire XLVI de la Sociéte préhistorique française, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. Moncel MH, Chacón-Navarro MG (2008) Payre (Ardèche, France) early Middle Palaeolithic site: an example of macroscopic traces on tools and flakes: utilization as side-scrapers and stone tips (hand implements, projectile points) in an OIS 5 human occupation. In: Longo L, Skakun N (eds) “Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. BAR International Series 1783, p 409–414Google Scholar
  43. Moncel MH, Borel A, Lombrera De A, Sala R, Deniaux B (2008) Quartz and quartzite dans le site de payre (MIS 7 et 5, Ardèche, France): données techno-économiques Sur la gestion de roches locales au Paléolithique moyen. C.R. Palevol 7(7):441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moncel MH, Cachón MG, Coudenneau A, Fernandes P (2009) Points and convergent tools in the European middle Paleolithic site of payre (SE, France). J Archaeol Sci 36:1892–1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Monnier GF, Ladwig JL, Porter ST (2012) Swept under the rug: the problem of unacknowledged ambiguity in lithic residue identification. J Archaeol Sci 39:3284–3300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Murphy DB (2001) Fundamentals of light microscopy and electronic imagining. Wiley & Sons, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Ollé A (2003) Variabilitat I patrons funcionals en els SistemesTècnics de Mode 2. Anàlisi de les deformacions d'ús en els conjuntslíticsdelriparoesterno de GrottaPaglicci (Rignano Garganico, Foggia), Áridos (Arganda, Madrid) i Galería-TN (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos). Departament d’Història i Geografia. Tarragona. PhD thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, (Spain)Google Scholar
  48. Ollé A, Vergès JM (2008) SEM functional analysis and the mechanism of microwear formation. In: Longo L, Skakun N (eds) “Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later: functional studies and the russian legacy. BAR International Series 1783, p 39–49Google Scholar
  49. Ollé A, Vergès JM (2014) The use of sequential experiments and SEM in documenting stone tool microwear. J Archaeol Sci 48:60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ollé A, Pedergnana A, Fernández-Marchena JL, Martin S, Borel A, Aranda V (2016) Microwear features on vein quartz, rock crystal and quartzite: a study combining Optical Light and Scanning Electron Microscopy. Quaternary International.
  51. Pereira JP (1993) A análise dos vestígios de uso em quartzito. Actas do I Congresso de Arqueologia peninsular, Porto, 1987. Trabalhos de Antropologia e Etnologia 33(1–2):51–68Google Scholar
  52. Pereira JP (1996) Usewear analysis on quartzite artefacts: an experimental approach. In: Moloney N, Raposo L, Santonja M (eds) Non-Flint Stone Tools and the Palaeolithic Occupation of the Iberian Peninsula. BAR International Series 649, Tempus Reparatum, Oxford, p 189–191Google Scholar
  53. Pedergnana A, Ollé A (2014) Use-wear and residues analyses on quartzite stone tools: setting up a methodology. In: Lemorini C, Nunziante S (eds) Proceeding of the international conference “An integration of use wear and residues analysis for the identification of the function of archaeological stone tools”. BAR International Series 2649, Oxford, p 43–62Google Scholar
  54. Pedergnana A, Ollé A (2016) Monitoring and interpreting the use-wear formation processes on quartzite flakes through sequential experiments. Quatern Int in press. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2016.01.053
  55. Pedergnana A. Rosina P (2015) Interpretação da formação do sítio arqueológico de Santa Cita (Portugal) através de um estudo microscópico sobre alguns elementos da indústria lítica. Al-Madan 19(2):37–44Google Scholar
  56. Pedergnana A, García-Antón MD, Ollé A (2016) Structural study of two quartzite varieties from the Utrillas facies formation (Olmos de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain): from a petrographic characterisation to a functional analysis design. Quatern Int in press. doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.031
  57. de la Peña P, Wadley L, Lombard M (2013) Quartz bifacial points in the Howiesons Poort of Sibudu. S Afr Archaeol Bull 68:119–136Google Scholar
  58. Pettijohn FJ, Potter PE, Siever R (1987) Sand and sandstone. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Plisson H (1986) Analyse des polis d'utilisation sur le quartzite. In: Owen LR, Unrath G (eds) Actes de la conférence de Tübingen février 1985. Early Man News 9/10/11, p 47–49Google Scholar
  60. Richards TH (1988) Microwear Patterns on Experimental Basalt Tools. BAR International Series, 460, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Rots V (2010) Prehension and hafting traces on Flint tools. A methodology. Leuven University Press, Leuven (Belgium)Google Scholar
  62. Rots V, Hayes E, Cnuts D, Lepers C, Fullagar R (2016) Making sense of residues on flaked stone artefacts: learning from blind tests. PlosOne. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150437 Google Scholar
  63. Semenov SA (1964) Prehistoric technology. Cory, Adams and Mackay, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. Sussman C (1988) A microscopic analysis of use-wear and polish formation on experimental quartz tools. BAR International Series 395, John and Erika Hedges Ltd, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  65. Stemp WJ, Lerner HJ, Kristant EH (2013) Quantifying microwear on experimental Mistassini quartzite scrapers: preliminary results of exploratory research using LSCM and scale-sensitive fractal analysis. Scanning 35:28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stemp WJ, Watson AS, AA E (2015) Surface analysis of stone and bone tools. Surf Topogr: metrol Prop 4:013001. doi: 10.1088/2051-672X/4/1/013001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tringham R, Cooper G, Odell G, Voytek B, Whitman A (1974) Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: a new approach to lithic analysis. J Field Archaeol 1:171–196Google Scholar
  68. Van Gijn (1990) The wear and tear on Flint: principles of functional analysis applied to Dutch Neolithic assemblages. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 22, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  69. Vaughan PC (1985) Use-wear analysis of flaked stone tools. The University of Arizona Press, TusconGoogle Scholar
  70. Valladas H, Mercier N, Ayliffe LK, Falguères C, Bahain JJ, Dolo JM, Froget L, Joron JL, Masaoudi H, Reyss JL, Moncel MH (2008) Radiometric dates for the middle Paleolithic sequence of payre (Ardèche, France). Quat Geochronol 3:377–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonella Pedergnana
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Andreu Ollé
    • 1
    • 2
  • Antony Borel
    • 3
  • Marie-Hélène Moncel
    • 3
  1. 1.IPHES, Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució SocialTarragonaSpain
  2. 2.Àrea de PrehistòriaUniversitat Rovira i Virgili, Fac. de LletresTarragonaSpain
  3. 3.Histoire Naturelle de l’Homme Préhistorique (HNHP, UMR 7194), Sorbonne Universités, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, CNRS, Université Perpignan Via DominicaParisFrance

Personalised recommendations