Use-wear Analysis of Nonflint Lithic Raw Materials: The Cases of Quartz/Quartzite and Obsidian

  • I. Clemente Conte
  • T. Lazuén Fernández
  • L. Astruc
  • A. C. Rodríguez Rodríguez
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique book series (MATT)

Abstract

In this chapter we explain the specificities posed by the use-wear analysis of homogeneous and heterogeneous rocks other than flint. We describe the experimentation carried out with such raw-materials as quartz, quartzite and obsidian, and propose the same means of observation as for the analysis of implements in flint and/or bone: binocular magnifying glass for the study of the macrotraces and metallographic microscope for microtraces. The types of marks seen are described, stressing the specific traits of each raw material.

Keywords

Quartz Quartzite Obsidian Functional analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work on obsidian tools has been partly funded by the project of the Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-08-BLANC-0318-CD9, ObsidienneUs (dir. L. Astruc).

References

  1. Aldenderfer, M. S., & Kimball, L. R. (1989). Microwear analysis in the Maya Lowlands: The use of functional data in a complex-society setting. Journal of Field Archaeology, 16(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida, F., Brugal, J.-P., Zilhão, J., & Plisson, H. (2007). An upper Paleolithic Pompeii: Technology, subsistence and paleoethnography at Lapa do Anecrial. In N. F. Bicho (Ed.), From the Mediterranean basin to the Portuguese Atlantic shore: Papers in honor of Anthony Marks (pp. 119–140). Faro: Actas do IV Congresso de Arqueologia Peninsular. Promontoria Monográfica 07.Google Scholar
  3. Altınbilek, Ç., & Iovino M. R. (2001). From shape to function: Notes on some end-scrapers from Çayönü. In I. Caneva, C. Lemorini, D. Zampetti, & P. Biagi (Eds.), Beyond tools. Redefining the PPN lithic assemblages of the Levant (pp. 161–164). Berlin: Ex Oriente. (Proceedings of the third workshop on PPN chipped lithic industries, 1–4 November 1998, Venice).Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, P. (np). Functional interpretation of obsidian tools in Aşikli (Pre-pottery Neolithic, Central Anatolia): Microscopic and experimental data. Poster presented at the XIth Arkeometri Sonuçlari Toplantisi, Ankara, May 1995.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, P. C. (1980). A testimony of prehistoric tasks: Diagnostic residues on stone tool working edges. World Archaeology, 12, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, P. C. (1994). Reflections on the significance of two typological classes in the light of experimentation and microwear analysis: Flint sickles and obsidian “Cayönü tools”. In H. G. Gebel & S. K. et Koslowski (Eds.), Neolithic chipped stone industries of the fertile crescent (pp. 61–82). Berlin: Ex Oriente. (Proceedings of the first workshop on PPN chipped lithic industries).Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, P., & Formenti, F. (1996). Exploring the use of abraded obsidian “Cayönu tools” using experimentation, optical and SEM microscopy, and EDA analysis. In S. Demirci, A. M. Özer, & G. D. et Summers (Eds.), Archaeometry 94 (pp. 553–566) Ankara: Tübitak. (Proceedings of the 29th symposium on archaeometry, Ankara, 9–14 May).Google Scholar
  8. Aoyama, K. (1993). Experimental microwear analysis on Maya obsidian tools: Case study of the La Entrada Region, Honduras. In P. C. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, et al. (Eds.), Traces et fonction, les gestes retrouvés (Vol. 2, pp. 423–432). Liège: Université de Liège. (ERAUL; 50. actes du colloque international de Liège, 8–10 décembre 1990).Google Scholar
  9. Aoyama, K. (1995). Microwear analysis in the Southeast Maya Lowlands: Two case studies at Copán, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity, 6, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arazova, R. (1986). Stone agricultural tools of early farmer societies of Azerbaijan. ELM, Baku.Google Scholar
  11. Astruc, L. (2011). Du Gollü dağ à Shillourokambos: de l’utilisation d’obsidiennes anatoliennes en contexte insulaire. In J. Guilaine, F. Briois, & J. D. Vigne (Eds.), Shillourokambos, un établissement néolithique pré-céramique à Chypre. Les fouilles du secteur 1. (pp. 727–744). Athens: Editions Errance, Ecole française d’Athènes.Google Scholar
  12. Astruc, L., Jautée, E., Vargiolu R., & et Zahouani H. (2001). La texture des matières siliceuses et son influence sur le nature et le développement des traces d’usure: apports des méthodes expérimentales. L’exemple des cherts de la formation de Lefkara (Chypre). In L. Bourguignon, I. Ortega, & M.-Ch. Frère-Sautot (Eds.), Préhistoire et approche expérimentale (pp. 205–224). Montagnac: Editions Monique Mergoil.Google Scholar
  13. Astruc, L., Kayacan, N., & Özbaşaran, M. (2008). Technical activities held at Musular: First approach through use-wear analysis. Arkeometry sonuçları toplantısı, 23, 165–172.Google Scholar
  14. Astruc, L., Vargiolu, R., Ben Tkaya, M., Balkan-Atlı, N., Özbaşaran, M., & Zahouani, H. (2011). Multi-scale tribological analysis of the technique of manufacture of an obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük (Aceramic Neolithic, Central Anatolia). Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(12), 3415–3424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Astruc, L., Ben Tkaya M., Torchy, L., et al. (2012). De l’efficacité des faucilles proche-orientales: Approche expérimentale. BSPF, 2012/4, 671–687.Google Scholar
  16. Ataman, K. (1988). The chipped stone assemblages from Can Hassan III: A study in typology, technology and function. PhD Thesis, Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, December 1988.Google Scholar
  17. Badalyan, R. S., Harutyunyan, A. A., Chataigner, C., Le Mort F., Chabot, J., Brochier, J.-E., Balasescu, A., Radu, V., & Hovsepyan, R., (2010). The settlement of Aknashen-Khatunarkh, a Neolithic site in the Ararat Plain (Armenia): Excavation results 2004–2009. Tüba-Ar, 13, 187–220.Google Scholar
  18. Ballin, T. B. (2008). Quartz Technology in Scottish Prehistory. Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports (SAIR) 26.Google Scholar
  19. Bellot-Gurlet, L., Le Bourdonnec, F. X., Poupeau, G., & Dubernet, S. (2010). Raman micro-spectroscopy of western Mediterranean obsidian glass: One step towards provenance studies? Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 35, 671–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Beyin, A. (2010). Use-wear analysis of obsidian artifacts from later Stone Age shell midden sites on the Red Sea Coast of Eritrea, with experimental results. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 1543–1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Beyries, S. (1982). Comparaison de traces d’utilisation sur différentes roches siliceuses (pp. 235–240). Louvain: Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2.Google Scholar
  22. Bracco, J.-P., & Morel, P. (1998). Outillage en quartz et boucherie au Paléolithique supérieur: quelques observations expérimentales. In J.-P. Brugal, L. Meignen, & M. et Patou-Mathis (Eds.), Économie préhistorique: les comportements de subsistance au Paléolithique (pp. 387–395). Sophia Antipolis: A.P.D.C.A.Google Scholar
  23. Bradley, R. (1986). Microwear analysis (Tougs, Burra Isle, Shetland). Glasgow Archaeological Journal, 13, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Broadbent, N. D., & Knutsson, K. (1975). An experimental analysis of quartz scrapers. Results and applications. Fornvannen, 70, 113–128.Google Scholar
  25. Caneva, I., Lemorini, C., & Zampetti, D. (1996). Lithic technology and functionality through time and space at Çayönü. In S. K. Kozlowski & H. G. K. Gebel (Eds), Neolithic chipped stone industries of the fertile crescent, and their contemporaries in adjacent regions, studies in early near eastern production, subsistence, and environment 3 (pp. 385–402). Berlin: Ex Oriente.Google Scholar
  26. Clemente Conte, I. (1995/2008). Instrumentos de trabajo líticos de los yámanas (canoeros-nómadas de la Tierra del Fuego): una perspectiva desde el análisis funcional. Tesis doctoral, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Published in 2008 in: Publicaciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. http://www.tdx.cat/TDX-0415108-171300.
  27. Clemente Conte, I. (1997). Los instrumentos líticos de Túnel VII: una aproximación etnoarqueológica. Madrid: Col. Treballs d.Etnoarqueologia, 2, UAB—CSIC.Google Scholar
  28. Clemente Conte, I., & Gibaja Bao, J. F. (2009). Formation of use-wear traces in non-flint rocks: The case of quartzite and rhyolite. Differences and similarities. In F. Sternke, L. J. Costa, & L. Eigeland (Eds.), Non-flint raw material use in prehistory: Old prejudices and new directions (pp. 93–98). Oxford: Archaeopress. (Proceedings of the XV. Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. BAR International Series, 1939).Google Scholar
  29. Corruccini, J. A. (1985). Moisture and the formation of obsidian striations. Lithic Technology, 14, 33–35.Google Scholar
  30. Delagnes, A., Wadley, L., Villa, P., & Lombard, M. (2006). Crystal quartz backed tools from the Howiesons Poort at Sibudu Cave. Southern African Humanities, 18(1), 43–56.Google Scholar
  31. Derndarsky, M., & Ocklind, G. (2001). Some preliminary observations on subsurface damage on experimental and archaeological quartz tools using CLSM and dye. Journal of Archaeological Science, 28, 1149–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Driscoll, K., & Menuge, J. (2011). Recognising burnt vein quartz artefacts in archaeological assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 2251–2260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Feinberg, J. M., Johnson, C., & Frahm, E. (2009). A database of obsidian magnetic properties for archaeological sourcing. GSA joint annual meeting, GSA abstracts with programs.Google Scholar
  34. Fullagar, R. (1986). Use-wear on quartz. In G. Ward (Ed.), Archaeology at ANZAAS (pp. 191–197). Canberra: Canberra Archaeological Society.Google Scholar
  35. Fullagar, R. (1991). The role of silica in polish formation. Journal of Archaeological Science, 18, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibaja, J. F., Clemente, I., & Mir, A. (2002). Análisis funcional en instrumentos de cuarcita: el yacimiento del paleolítico superior de la Cueva de la Fuente del Trucho (Colungo, Huesca). In I. Clemente, R. Risch, & J. F. Gibaja (Eds.), Análisis funcional. Su aplicación al estudio de las sociedades prehistóricas. British Archaeological Reports (International series) (Vol. 1073, pp. 79–86). Oxford: Hadrian.Google Scholar
  37. Gibaja, J. F., Clemente, I., & Carvalho, A. F. (2009). The use of quartzite tools in Prehistory. Some examples from the Portuguese Neolithic. In M. Araujo Igreja & I. Clemente Conte (Eds.), Recent functional studies on non flint stone tools: Methodological improvements and archaeological inferences (p. 41). Portugal: Fundação para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (Ministerio da Ciencia e da Tecnologia) IGESPAR Ministerio da Cultura.Google Scholar
  38. González Urquijo, J. E., & Ibáñez Estévez, J. J. (1994). Metodología de análisis funcional de instrumentos talaldos en sílex. Bilbao: Cuadernos de Arqueología 14, Universidad de Deusto.Google Scholar
  39. Greiser, S. T., & Sheets, P. D. (1979). Raw materials as a functional variable in use-wear studies. In B. Hayden (Ed.), Lithic use-wear analysis (pp. 289–296). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Gyria, E. Y., & Plisson, H. (2009). О преимуществах  применения  программы Helicon Focus в  археологической трасологии, Helicon Focus. http://www.photo-soft.ru/focus_trasologiya.html.
  41. Hay, C. A. (1977). Use-scratch morphology: A functionally significant aspect of edge damage on obsidian tools. Journal of Field Archaeology, 4, 491–494.Google Scholar
  42. Hayden, B. (Ed.). (1979). The Ho Ho classification and nomenclature committee report. In B. Hayden (Ed.), Lithic use-wear analysis (pp. 133–135). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  43. Huang, Y., & Knutsson, K. (1995). Functional analysis of middle and upper paleolithic quartz tools from China. Tor, 27, 7–46.Google Scholar
  44. Huet, B. (2006). De l’influence des matières premières lithiques sur les comportements techno-économiques au Paléolithique moyen: l’exemple du Massif armoricain (France). PhD, Université de Rennes 1.Google Scholar
  45. Hurcombe, L. (1992). Use wear analysis and obsidian: Theory, experiments and results. (Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 4). Sheffield: J. R. Collis.Google Scholar
  46. Ibáñez, J. J., González Urquijo, J., & Rodríguez Rodríguez, A. (2007). The evolution of technology during the PPN in the Middle Euphrates: A view from use-wear analysis of lithic tools. In L. Astruc, D. Binder, & F. et Briois (Eds.), Technical systems and near eastern PPN communities (pp. 153–165). Antibes: Editorial APDCA.Google Scholar
  47. Ibáñez, J. J., González Urquijo, J., & Rodríguez Rodríguez, A. (2008). Analyse fonctionnelle de l’outillage lithique de Mureybet. In J. J. Ibáñez (Ed.), Le site néolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie du Nord). En hommage à Jacques Cauvin. BAR Internacional Series (Vol. 1843(I), pp. 363–405). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  48. Iovino, M. R. (1996). La Funzione dell’ossidiana: un approccio sperimentale al problema. Origini, 20, 71–108.Google Scholar
  49. Kamminga, J. (1982). Over the edge. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, 12, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
  50. Kay, M. (1996). Microwear analysis of some Clovis and experimental chipped stone tools. In G. Odell (Ed.), Stone tools: Theoretical insights into human prehistory (pp. 315–344). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kazaryan, H. (1993). Butchery knives in the Mousterian Sites of Armenia. In P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, & H. Plisson (Eds.), Traces et Fonction:Les Gestes Retrouvés (pp. 79–85). Liège: ERAUL, No. 50, Université de Liège.Google Scholar
  52. Keeley, L. H. (1980). Experimental determination of stone tools uses. A micro-wear analysis. Prehistory, archaeology and ecology series. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Keeley, L., & Toth, N. (1981). Microwear polishes on early stone tools from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Nature, 293, 464–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Knight, J. (1991). Vein quartz. Lithics, 12, 37–56.Google Scholar
  55. Knutsson, K. (1986). SEM analysis of wear features on experimental quartz tools. Early Man News, 9/10/11, 35–46.Google Scholar
  56. Knutsson, K. (1988a). Patterns of tool use: Scanning electron microscopy of experimental quartz tools. Aun 10. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  57. Knutsson, K. (1988b). Chemical etching of wear features on experimental quartz tools. In S. L. Olsen (Ed.), Scanning electron microscopy in archaeology. BAR International Series (Vol. 452, pp. 117–153). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar
  58. Knutsson, K., & Lindé, K. (1990). Post-depositional alterations or wear marks on quartz tools, preliminary observations on an experiment with aeolian abrasion. In M. R. Séronie-Vivien & M. y Lenoir (Eds.), Le silex de sa genèse à l’outil (pp. 607–618). Bordeaux: Cahiers du Quaternaire, 17, Éd. C.N.R.S.Google Scholar
  59. Knutsson, K., Dahlquist, B., & Knutsson, H. (1988). Patterns of tool use. The microwear analysis of the quartz and flint assemblage from the Bjurselet site, Vasterbotten, Northern Sweden. In S. Beyries (Ed.), Industries Lithiques. Tracéologie et Technologie (Vol. 411, pp. 253–294). Oxford: BAR International Series.Google Scholar
  60. 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, Online, 21, 1–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kononenko, N., Bedford, S., & Reepmeyer, C. (2010). Functional analysis of late Holocene flaked and pebble stone artefacts from Vanuatu, Southwest Pacific. Archeology in Oceania, 45, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lazuén, T., Fábregas, R., Lombera, A., & Rodríguez, X. P. (2011). La gestión del utillaje de piedra tallada en el Paleolítico Medio de Galicia. El nivel 3 de Cova Eirós (Triacastela, Lugo). Trabajos de Prehistoria, 68(2), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Leipus, M. (2006). Análisis de los modos de uso prehispánicos de las materias primas líticas en el Sudeste de la Región Pampeana: Una aproximación funcional. Tesis Doctoral no publicada. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, UNLP.Google Scholar
  64. Leipus, M., & Mansur, M. E. (2007). El análisis funcional de base microscópica aplicado a materiales heterogéneos. Perspectivas metodológicas para el estudio de las cuarcitas de la región pampeana. In C. Bayón, et al. (Eds.), Arqueología en las Pampas (pp. 179–200). Buenos Aies: Sociedad Argentina de Antropología.Google Scholar
  65. Lemorini, C. (2000). Reconnaître des tactiques d’explotation du milieu au paléolithique Moyen. La contribution de l’analyse fonctionelle. Étude fonctionelle des industries lithiques de Grotta Breuil (Latium, Itale) et de la Combette (Bonnieux, Valcluse, France). BAR S858. Archaeopress, Oxford.Google Scholar
  66. Lewenstein, S. (1981). Mesoamerican obsidian blades: An experimental approach to function. Journal of Field Archaeology, 8, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lewenstein, S. (1991). Edge angles and tool function among the Maya: A meaningful relationship? In T. Hester & H. Shafer (Eds.), Maya stone tools (pp. 207–217). Madison: Prehistory.Google Scholar
  68. Lombard, M. (2011). Quartz-tipped arrows older than 60 ka: Further use-trace evidence from Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 1918–1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mansur, M. E. & Lasa, A. (2005). Diversidad artefactual VS especialización funcional. Análisis del IV componente de Túnel I (Tierra del Fuego, Argentina). Magallania (Chile) 33 (2), 69–91.Google Scholar
  70. Mansur, M. E. (1982). Microwear analysis of natural and use striations: New clues to the mechanisms of striation formation. Studia Praehistorica Belgica, 2, 213–234.Google Scholar
  71. Mansur, M. E. (1999). Análisis funcional de instrumental lítico: problemas de formación y deformación de rastros de uso. In Actas Del XII Congreso Nacionalde Arqueologia Argentina, La plata, pp. 355–366.Google Scholar
  72. Mansur-Franchomme, M. E. (1987). El análisis funcional de artefactos líticos. Buenos Aires: Cuadernos Serie Técnica 1, Instituto Nacional de Antropología.Google Scholar
  73. Mansur-Franchomme, M. E. (1988). Tracéologie et technologie: quelques données sur l’obsidienne. Industries Lithiques. Tracéologie et Technologie (Vol. 411, pp. 29–47). Oxford: BAR International Series.Google Scholar
  74. Moncel, M. -H., Borel, A., Lombera, A., Sala, R., & Deniaux, B. (2008). Quartz et quartzite dans le site de Payre (MIS 7 et 5, Ardèche, France): données techno-économiques sur la gestion de roches locales au Paléolithique moyen. Comptes Rendus. Palevol, 7, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Odell, G. H. (1983). Problèmes dans d’étude des traces d’utilisation. Traces d’utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du Proche Orient. Travaux de la maison de l’orient nº 5, pp. 17–24.Google Scholar
  76. Pant, R. K. (1989). Etude microscopique des traces d’utilisation sur les outils de quartz de la Grotte de l’Arago, Tautavel, France. L’Anthropologie, 9(3), 689–704.Google Scholar
  77. Plisson, H. (1985). Etude fonctionelle des outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l’analyse des micro-usures: recherche méthodologique et archéologique. Thèse de Doctorat présentée à l’Université Paris I.Google Scholar
  78. Plisson, H. (1986). Analyse des polis d’utilisation sur le quarzite. Early Man News, 9/10/11, 47–49. (Tübingen).Google Scholar
  79. Plisson, H. & Mauger, M. (1988). Chemical and mechanical alteration of microwear polishes: an experimental approach. Helinium XXVIII 2, 3–16.Google Scholar
  80. Plisson, H., & Lompré, A. (2008). Technician or researcher? A visual answer. In L. Longo & N. Skakun (Eds.), “Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later: Functional studies and the Russian legacy. BAR (Vol. 1783, pp. 503–508). Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
  81. Poupeau, G., Le Bourdonnec F. X., Dubernet, S., Scorzelli, R. B., Duttine, M., & Carter, T. (2007). Tendances actuelles dans la caractérisation des obsidiennes pour les études de provenance. Archéosciences, 31, 79–86.Google Scholar
  82. Rodríguez Rodríguez, A. C. (1993a). La industria lítica de la isla de La Palma. Cuevas de San Juan, un modelo de referencia. Tesis Doctoral (1990), en microfichas. Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Laguna.Google Scholar
  83. Rodríguez Rodríguez, A. C. (1993b). Analyse fonctionnelle des outillages lithiques en basalte de l’île de La Palma (Iles Canaries). Prémiers résultats. Actes du Colloque Le Geste Retrouvé á Liege 1990. ERAUL 50, pp. 295–301.Google Scholar
  84. Rodríguez Rodríguez, A. C. (1997). Primeras experiencias de análisis funcional en los instrumentos de basalto tallado de Canarias. El ejemplo del material prehistórico de la isla de La Palma. Vegueta, 3, 29–46.Google Scholar
  85. Rodríguez Rodríguez, A. C. (1998). Traceología de las obsidianas canarias. Resultados experimentales. El Museo Canario LIII, 53, 21–58.Google Scholar
  86. Rodríguez Rodríguez, A. C. (1999). The reconstruction of ancient leather technology or how to mix methodological approaches. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte, 14, 99–110.Google Scholar
  87. Rodríguez Rodríguez, A. (2009). Use-wear analysis on volcanic grainy rocks: Problems and perspectives. The exemple of Canary Island. Material. In M. de Araújo & I. Clemente (Eds.), Recent functional studies on non flint stone tools: Methodological improvements and archaeological inferences. Lisboa: CD Publication, 26–45.Google Scholar
  88. Semenov, S. A. (1957). Pervobitnaya Tejnika. Materiali y Isledovania po Arjeologuii SSSR. nº 54. Moskva. Traducción al inglés: Prehistoric Technology. Cory, Adams and Mackay, London. 1964.Traducción al castellano: Tecnología Prehistórica (Estudio de las herramientas y objetos antiguos a través de las huellas de uso). Akal Editor. Madrid. 1981.Google Scholar
  89. Semenov, S. A. (1972). Obsidian knives from burials in the crater of Ngorongoro Volcano. Kratie soobschenia Instituta arkheologii, 131, 31–35. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  90. Setzer, T. J. (2004). Use-wear experiments with Sardinian Obsidian: Determining its function in the neolithic. PhD Master of Arts, Department of Anthropology, College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  91. Sussman, C. (1985). Microwear on quartz: Fact or fiction? World Archaeology, 17(1), 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sussman, C. (1987). Résultats d’une étude des microtraces d’usure sur un échantillon d’artefacts d’Olduvai (Tanzanie). L’Anthropologie, 91, 375–380.Google Scholar
  93. Sussman, C. (1988). A microscopic analysis of use-wear polish formation on experimental quartz tools (Vol. 395). Oxford: BAR International Series.Google Scholar
  94. Tallavaara, M., Manninen, M. A., Hertell, E., & Rankama, T. (2010). How flakes shatter: A critical evaluation of quartz fracture analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 2442–2448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Toselli, A., Pijoan, J., & Barceló, J. A. (2002). La descripción de trazas de uso en materias primas volcánicas:Rresultados preliminares de un análisis estadístico descriptivo. In I. Clemente, R. Risch, & J. Gibaja (Eds.), Análisis Funcional. Su aplicación al estudio de sociedades prehistóricas. BAR International Series (Vol. S1073, pp. 65–79). Oxford: Archeopress.Google Scholar
  96. Tringham, R. C., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B., & Whitman, A. (1974). Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic análisis. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1, 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tykot, R. H., Iovino, M. R., Martinelli, M. C., & Beyer, L. (2006). Ossidiana da Lipari: le fonti, la distribuzione, la tipologia e le tracce d’usura. Atti del XXXIX Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria: Materie prime e scambi nella preistoria italiana, Firenze, 25–27 November 2004, pp. 592–597.Google Scholar
  98. Vaughan, P. C. (1981). Microwear analysis of experimental flint and obsidian tools. Staringia, 6, 90–91. (Third international flint symposium).Google Scholar
  99. Vaughan, P. C., & Perlès, C. (1983). Pièces lustrées, travail des plantes et moisson à Franchti (Grèce). In M. C. Cauvin (Ed.), Traces d’utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du Proche-Orient (pp. 209–222). Lyon: CNRS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Clemente Conte
    • 1
  • T. Lazuén Fernández
    • 2
  • L. Astruc
    • 3
  • A. C. Rodríguez Rodríguez
    • 4
  1. 1.Dpto. de Arqueología y AntropologíaIMF-CSICBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.PACEA, UMR 5199CNRS-Université BordeauxPessac CedexFrance
  3. 3.CNRS/ArScanNanterreFrance
  4. 4.Dpto. Ciencias HistóricasUniversidad de Las Palmas de Gran CanariaLas Palmas de Gran CanariaSpain

Personalised recommendations