USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Use-wear experiments with Sardinian obsidian

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Use-wear experiments with Sardinian obsidian determining its function in the Neolithic
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Setzer, Teddi J
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
stone tools
Sardinia
prehistoric tools
lithic
archaeology
Dissertations, Academic -- Applied Anthropology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This study focuses on identifying the function of obsidian tools from the Late Neolithic archaeological site of Contraguda on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia. The information obtained from use-wear analysis can provide information about changes in subsistence patterns, craft specialization, social differentiation and technology. This research began by collecting geological samples of obsidian from two of the most exploited sources in the Monte Arci volcanic complex of Sardinia. Subsequently, an experimental set of tools was made from these samples, and they were used to work various raw materials that were presumably available in Sardinia during the Neolithic. Wear patterns were studied on the experimental set utilizing macroscopic and low-power microscopy techniques and were compared to the wear on artifacts excavated from the site of Contraguda. The data obtained from this study were used to identify the function of this site, and complement and refine prior interpretations of human activity in this region. Conducting this study in Sardinian obsidian use wear by utilizing the same geological sources that people during the Neolithic were exploiting provides exceptional data and a perspective that may not be otherwise obtained. Finally, general information may be gleaned from the experimental and analytical techniques used in this research by others. Macroscopic and low-power microscopy techniques are expedient, inexpensive, and easily used in the field; however, minimal research has been done using low-power techniques relative to high-power or higher-tech methods. This research also addresses the benefits, limits, and feasibility of low-power approaches on their own, as well as in conjunction with other lithic analysis methods.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Teddi J. Setzer.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 256 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001469424
oclc - 55731583
notis - AJR1178
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000325
usfldc handle - e14.325
System ID:
SFS0025020:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001469424
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 040524s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000325
035
(OCoLC)55731583
9
AJR1178
b SE
SFE0000325
040
FHM
c FHM
090
GN397.5
1 100
Setzer, Teddi J.
0 245
Use-wear experiments with Sardinian obsidian
h [electronic resource] :
determining its function in the Neolithic /
by Teddi J. Setzer.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2004.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 256 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: This study focuses on identifying the function of obsidian tools from the Late Neolithic archaeological site of Contraguda on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia. The information obtained from use-wear analysis can provide information about changes in subsistence patterns, craft specialization, social differentiation and technology. This research began by collecting geological samples of obsidian from two of the most exploited sources in the Monte Arci volcanic complex of Sardinia. Subsequently, an experimental set of tools was made from these samples, and they were used to work various raw materials that were presumably available in Sardinia during the Neolithic. Wear patterns were studied on the experimental set utilizing macroscopic and low-power microscopy techniques and were compared to the wear on artifacts excavated from the site of Contraguda. The data obtained from this study were used to identify the function of this site, and complement and refine prior interpretations of human activity in this region. Conducting this study in Sardinian obsidian use wear by utilizing the same geological sources that people during the Neolithic were exploiting provides exceptional data and a perspective that may not be otherwise obtained. Finally, general information may be gleaned from the experimental and analytical techniques used in this research by others. Macroscopic and low-power microscopy techniques are expedient, inexpensive, and easily used in the field; however, minimal research has been done using low-power techniques relative to high-power or higher-tech methods. This research also addresses the benefits, limits, and feasibility of low-power approaches on their own, as well as in conjunction with other lithic analysis methods.
590
Adviser: Tykot, Robert H.
653
stone tools.
Sardinia.
prehistoric tools.
lithic.
archaeology.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Applied Anthropology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.325



PAGE 1

Use-Wear Experiments With Sardinian Obsidian: Determining Its Function In The Neolithic by Teddi J. Setzer A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Robert H. Tykot, Ph.D. Brent R. Weisman, Ph.D. E. Christian Wells, Ph.D. Nancy Marie White, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 8, 2004 Keywords: archaeology, lithic, prehistoric tools, sardinia, stone tools Copyright 2004 Teddi J. Setzer

PAGE 2

Acknowledgments This study would not have been possible without the assistance of REU funding from the National Science Foundation for the provenance portion of this research. Many thanks go to Carlo Tozzi for assistance with in formation regarding the site of Contraguda. In addition, the experimental portion of this research would not have been possible without the integral assistance from colleagues at the Anthropology Department at the University of South Florida who volunteered to participate in the blind portion of this study: Lisa Beyer, Alexis Broadbent-S ykes, David Ceo, Maria Claude-Duque, Dawn Hayes, and Kelly Scudder. Finally, much appreciation is extended to William Pakula, who patiently provided many hours of assistance with the maps in this thesis and miscellaneous computer problems.

PAGE 3

Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables iv Abstract vi Chapter One: Introduction 1 Research 2 The Iceman 5 Chapter Two: The Sardinian Neolithic 7 An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Neolithic 7 Environmental Changes in Europe and Sardinia: Setting the Stage for the Neolithic 10 The Island Setting and Settlement of Sardinia 12 The Geography of Sardinia 16 The Foundation and the History of Research 19 The European Neolithic 20 Lithic Technology 21 Subsistence 23 Exchange 24 Ritual 27 The Sardinian Neolithic 30 Stone Tool, Pottery, and Metal Technology 32 Subsistence 34 Exchange 37 Ritual 39 Chapter Three: Lithic Analysis, Obsidian and Use-wear Research 44 The Chane Opratoire as a Framework for Lithic Tool Analysis 44 The Physical Nature of Obsidian 47 Fracture Mechanics 48 Use Wear 50 Non-Use Damage 53 Raw Material 55 Ethnoarchaeology and Lithic Research 56 Previous Use-Wear Research Theory: A Synopsis 58 Types of Use Analysis and Considerations for Choosing a Methodology 61 Interpretations Made with Use-Wear Studies 68 i

PAGE 4

Problems with Use-Wear Analysis 69 Chapter Four: The Experiment 72 Materials Used 72 Geologic 72 Measurement 73 Photography 73 Methods 73 The Methods and Standards Used for the Analysis of the Tools 78 Results of the Experiment 85 Material Worked: Meat. Tool Numbers: 1, 2, 41, and 42 86 Material Worked: Bone (wet). Tool Numbers: 3, 4, 43, and 44 87 Material Worked: Fish. Tool Numbers: 5, 6, 45, and 46 88 Material Worked: Bone (dry). Tool Numbers: 7, 8, 47, and 48 89 Material Worked: Ceramics. Tool Numbers: 9, 10, 49, and 50 90 Material Worked: Dry Oak. Tool Numbers: 11, 12, 51, and 52 91 Material Worked: Tropical Grass. Tool Numbers: 13, 14, 53, and 54 92 Material Worked: Leaves. Tool Numbers: 15, 16, 55, and 56 93 Material Worked: Animal Hide. Tool Numbers: 17, 18, 57, and 58 95 Material Worked: Cork. Tool Numbers: 19, 20, 59, and 60 95 Material Worked: Hair. Tool Numbers: 21, 22, 61, and 62 97 Material Worked: Clay. Tool Numbers: 23, 24 63, and 64 98 Material Worked: Dried Meat. Tool Numbers: 25, 26, 65, and 66 99 Material Worked: Feathers. Tool Numbers 27, 28, 67, and 68 100 Bag-Wear Experiment: Tool Numbers 29 and 69 101 Trampling Experiment: Tool Numbers 30 and 70 102 Results and interpretations of the Blind Experiment 103 Chapter Five: Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from the Site of Contraguda, Italy 105 Description of the Site 105 The Excavation of Contraguda 107 The Stratigraphy of Contraguda 112 The Sampling Strategy for the Analysis of the Obsidian Artifacts from Contraguda 112 Artifact Analysis 113 Chapter Six: Results and Discussion 118 Experimental Results 118 Experimental Discussion 119 Results for the Contraguda Artifacts 122 Discussion of the Archaeological Results 124 ii

PAGE 5

Chapter Seven: Conclusions 126 Other Research in this Region 126 Considerations Regarding Use-Wear Experiments 127 References 130 Appendices 167 Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research 168 Appendix B: Experimental Tools 177 Appendix C: Experimental Use Wear Documentation Form 194 Appendix D: Use Wear Documented on the Experimental Tools 196 Appendix E: Directions for Blind Portion of Experiment 201 Appendix F: Use-Wear Analysis Data Sheet 203 Appendix G: Results of the Experiment 205 Appendix H: Contraguda Artifacts 234 Appendix I: Frequency of the use-wear attributes on the SA (n = 31) and SC (n = 31) Experimental Tools 242 iii

PAGE 6

List of Figures and Tables Figure 1. Sardinia, the second largest island in the Mediterranean 16 Figure 2. The major regions, towns, and rivers of Sardinia 17 Figure 3. The four insular sources of obsidian in the western Mediterranean: Lipari, Palmarola, Pantelleria, and Sardinia (Monte Arci) 26 Figure 4. An example of impressed ware pottery (from Webster 1996) 33 Figure 5. Bonu Ighinu pottery (from Webster 1996) 33 Figure 6. Hypogea tomb, plan (a) and profile (b) (from Webster 1996) 41 Figure 7. Plan of a Middle Neolithic tomb (Tomb 387 at Su Cuccuru sArriu In Cabras) with enlarged detail of stone figurine found in Tomb 387 (from Webster 1996) 42 Figure 8. The chane opratoire (from Grace 2000) 45 Figure 9. The measurement of the profile of a tool (from Grace 1989) 80 Figure 10. Examples of profile ratios (from Grace 1989) 81 Figure 11. The calculation of the shape of the tool (from Grace 1989) 82 Figure 12. Examples of the scores obtained from shape measurements (from Grace 1989) 83 Figure 13. Common fracture types recorded in this experiment, with arrows in the profile view representing the direction of force resulting in the various fracture types (from Grace 1989) 84 Figure 14. The location of Contraguda on the island of Sardinia, Italy with other Late Neolithic sites identified 106 iv

PAGE 7

Figure 15. A site plan of Contraguda highlighting areas 3, 4, 19, and 20, and test units D, I, and Q. Red areas indicate those with obsidian artifacts (from Lai and Tykot 2004 after Boschian et al. 2000-2001). 108 Figure 16. Materials processed with both SA and SC obsidian at Contraguda (n=110) 123 Table 1. The Cultures of Neolithic Sardinia (after Webster) 31 Table 2. Hardness of materials worked based on Shea and Klenck (1993) 77 Table 3. The Contraguda artifacts analyzed in this study, including the area number, unit, obsidian type, and the results of the use-wear analysis 114 Table 4. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the use-wear features analyzed in this research 120 v

PAGE 8

Use-Wear Experiments with Sardinian Obsidian: Determining Its Function in the Neolithic Teddi J. Setzer ABSTRACT This study focuses on identifying the function of obsidian tools from the Late Neolithic archaeological site of Contraguda on the Mediterranean island of Sardinia. The information obtained from use-wear analysis can provide information about changes in subsistence patterns, craft specialization, social differentiation and technology. This research began by collecting geological samples of obsidian from two of the most exploited sources in the Monte Arci volcanic complex of Sardinia. Subsequently, an experimental set of tools was made from these samples, and they were used to work various raw materials that were presumably available in Sardinia during the Neolithic. Wear patterns were studied on the experimental set utilizing macroscopic and low-power microscopy techniques and were compared to the wear on artifacts excavated from the site of Contraguda. The data obtained from this study were used to identify the function of this site, and complement and refine prior interpretations of human activity in this region. Conducting this study in Sardinian obsidian use wear by utilizing the same geological sources that people during the Neolithic were exploiting provides exceptional data and a perspective that may not be otherwise obtained. vi

PAGE 9

Finally, general information may be gleaned from the experimental and analytical techniques used in this research by others. Macroscopic and low-power microscopy techniques are expedient, inexpensive, and easily used in the field; however, minimal research has been done using low-power techniques relative to high-power or higher-tech methods. This research also addresses the benefits, limits, and feasibility of low-power approaches on their own, as well as in conjunction with other lithic analysis methods. vii

PAGE 10

Chapter One: Introduction This thesis is a culmination of information obtained from two summers of fieldwork, over two years of related lab work, and over a year of literature review and writing. In the summer of 2001, I made my first trip to Italy. This was exciting, because not only was I getting to see this country for the first time, but also, I was assisting my major advisor, Robert Tykot, with his research on the trade of obsidian during the Neolithic. During that summer, I assisted in collecting geologic samples of obsidian from the Mediterranean islands of Lipari and Pantelleria. This work, while physically challenging, allowed me to understand the geology of the sources, the distance between them, and the skills needed by people during the Neolithic to obtain this valued lithic material. The following summer, I participated in the Sennixeddu (Pau, Sardinia) Survey and Excavation, which was sponsored by the Universit di Cagliari. This provided me with the basis for this thesis. I participated in a surface survey of sections of the islands obsidian source, Monte Arci, as well as excavations at an obsidian reduction site. During this season, I learned about the procurement and reduction of obsidian, while at the same time, understanding the size and context of Monte Arci. I was also fortunate to have time to visit some local areas of Sardinia. By doing this, I was able to understand the floral and faunal resources available on the island, and observe present day towns and cities as well as structures, such as Giants Tombs and Nuraghi, built during the Late Bronze Age. 1

PAGE 11

Visits to local museums allowed me to study artifacts in person, rather than examining them in a book. I also gained insight about Sardinian life, including topics such as agriculture, local customs, and the economy. I regret only having a month to explore this island. Research Initially, I was going to study obsidian use wear using two methods, one low-power microscopy approach (using magnifications under 100x) and one high-power microscopy approach (using magnifications over 100x). Due to constraints, involving both time and money, I elected to use one approach. Then, due to the vast amount of research that has focused on high-power microscopy approaches, as well as the large number of artifacts from the subject site of this study, Contraguda, I decided to use the low-power microscopy approach. This way, it would not only be feasible for me to study an adequate sample from Contraguda, but it would also be possible for me to contribute data to the smaller amount of low-power microscopy research that is available. In order to understand the importance of the results of this research, it is as important for the reader to understand the lifeways during the Late Neolithic on Sardinia as it was for me to visit the source of this obsidian and the people of Sardinia. The following chapter focuses on this. I have arranged this chapter in a manner presenting issues about Neolithic archaeology, followed by an examination of climate changes that occurred in this region at this time. Based on archaeological and environmental evidence, I have presented the current thoughts about the settlement of Sardinia and the 2

PAGE 12

island setting at the time of human occupation. I also present a synopsis of the history of archaeological research on Sardinia. Furthermore, I examine the areas that were in contact with Sardinia at this time, including their technology, subsistence, settlement, economy, exchange, and rituals. I also explore these topics for Sardinia specifically. Use-wear research is just one aspect of lithic analysis, as discussed in the third chapter. Considerations such as the characteristics of the lithic material and general principles of physics involved in the wear of a tool are also important aspects that are included in this chapter. I also include definitions of use-wear and non-use damage and discuss them in this section. I examine the role of ethnoarchaeology in lithic studies, as well as a synopsis of the history of lithic use-wear research and the methods employed with use-wear analysis. Interpretations made with use-wear studies are also discussed, as well as problems with this type of research. Next, the methods used to make a reference set of tools are described. I explain how I conducted this experiment, and the wear patterns that occurred on the obsidian tools that were used to process specific materials that were available to, and probably used by, the people of Sardinia during the Neolithic. A group of volunteers used a portion of this reference set in a blind test to assess my skills of use-wear interpretation. A description of this process is also in this chapter. The analysis of obsidian artifacts from the site of Contraguda, Italy is covered in the fifth chapter. This chapter also has a description of the site and a history of the excavations. While this unusual, open-air site with obsidian artifacts has generated many 3

PAGE 13

questions regarding its function, the results from the analysis of obsidian artifacts provide an explanation about activities that occurred there. The sixth chapter presents the results of the experimental portion of the study and the interpretation of the use of obsidian at the site of Contraguda, as well as a discussion of the research. A comparison of the wear patterns on the two types of obsidian studied in this research is discussed, as well as the function of the obsidian artifacts from Contraguda, including the interpretation of wear patterns on the artifacts made from different types of obsidian. The importance of using provenance information to identify accurately the function of artifacts is also addressed in this section. The concluding chapter covers two examples of use-wear research conducted in the region of the Central Mediterranean. I also present a synopsis of how this type of use-wear analysis is useful alone and in conjunction with other lithic analysis methods. The experimental portion of this research and the analysis of artifacts from Contraguda provide information about use-wear research and choices humans were making during the Late Neolithic. For example, the comparison of the use of different types of obsidian can indicate if they were used to process specific materials based on the type of obsidian. In addition, the creation and analysis of the reference set and the analysis of the tools used in the blind portion of the experiment can give additional information about the pros and cons of using low-power microscopy methods when interpreting obsidian use wear. The information presented in this thesis supplements current research in the region. Since use wear is one part of lithic analysis, combining information obtained in 4

PAGE 14

this study with other research (such as that on the procurement of obsidian and the manufacturing of tools) will give a more complete interpretation of life during the Late Neolithic in Sardinia. In addition, it provides information that can be applied to use-wear research in other regions. The Iceman One particular piece of evidence worth examining from this period is the find of an Italian Neolithic man entrapped in glacial ice. His superb preservation, as well as that of his clothes and tools, provides us with the opportunity to examine the species of plants and animals that were important at this time, how people used materials, and how they modified their bodies with activities such as tattooing. He lived during the Late Neolithic period. Known technically as the Late Neolithic glacier corpse from the Hauslabjoch, Municipality of Schnals (Senales), Autonomous Province Bolzano/South Tyrol, Italy, this find has been nicknamed tzi, or the Iceman (Spindler 1994). Faunal remains associated with tzi include bone, antler, calf leather, hide (fur), sinew, and feather. While researchers have not identified all of the species of these remains, the following animals have been attributed to these materials. The ibex (Capra ibex) bone found indicates that this animal was a food source. A bone awl possibly made from the remains of a goat, sheep, chamois, or female ibex (Capra sp. or Ovis sp.) was found with him. Neolithic people used red-deer (Cervus elaphus) antler for a variety of purposes. Red deer artifacts found with the Iceman include a punch for retouch, a large spike, and four points. Cattle, either domestic or wild (Bos sp.), provided the calf leather 5

PAGE 15

for the Icemans belt. It is also possible that tzi used the sinew from Bos sp. for threads and cords. Some of the Icemans clothing was made from hide, thought to be from red or roe deer, goat, chamois, or ibex (Cervus sp. or Capra sp.) (Spindler 1994). Floral remains were also found in association with the Iceman. His cloak, and the fillings and linings for his shoes were made of grass and reeds. Wood, bast, and leaves from various species of trees provided him with materials that served as the handles of tools and weapons, the framework for his backpack, containers, fuel, insulating material, and food (for a complete description, see Spindler 1994). An examination of the species of plant remains indicates that species south of the Alps were utilized (Spindler 1994; Whittle 1996). Although flint tools (Spindler 1994), not obsidian, were found with the Iceman, obsidian artifacts attributed to the Monte Arci source on Sardinia have been found within approximately 75 kilometers (Tykot 1996) of Merano, the most likely adult home of the Iceman based on Sr-Pb-O isotopic analysis (Muller 2003). While obsidian trade may have reached its peak before the Icemans existence (Whittle 1996), it is worth noting that people in this region had access to Sardinian obsidian, and possibly to other aspects of the Sardinian culture that would occur with trade, and vice versa. The well-preserved remains of the Iceman can provide us with insight into how humans in the central Mediterranean Late Neolithic used their surroundings and created their material culture, especially that of usually perishable materials. 6

PAGE 16

Chapter Two: The Sardinian Neolithic An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Neolithic A variety of changes in human behavior occurred during the Neolithic, providing archaeologists with rich and varied evidence that is both challenging and exciting to research. The Neolithic in Europe (c. 6000 2000 BC) was a long period that reflected a human response to a changing environment resulting in technological innovations, experimentation with subsistence methods, as well as evolving patterns in exchanged materials and routes, rituals, burial practices, and social relationships. While the Neolithic has provided us with an archaeological record that gives us the opportunity to understand these events, it has also given the archaeological community the difficult task of interpreting these sites, which has subsequently sparked much debate. It is important to acknowledge the difficulties with investigations of the Neolithic before conducting a study of this time, and necessary to understand them before creating a research design and interpreting the data obtained (Whittle 1985). Problems with archaeology are present for many reasons. First, it is subject to the general constraints associated with archaeology, such as the nature, quality and diversity (when the evidence is viewed on a wider scale) of the archaeological record, as well as disagreements in theoretical principles. Also, as excavation methods have changed over time, so have the types of sites researched. For example, until more recent times, open 7

PAGE 17

air sites without architectural features were neglected. Another issue to consider is the range in the quality of excavations that have occurred. These are due to a variety of possible factors including the skills of the archaeologist and the crew, constraints due to time and money, the availability and application of up-to-date technology, or a combination of these. This can lead to a lack of intensive surface surveys, limited, haphazard, unsystematic recovery methods during the excavation, the miscalculation or incorrect estimation of data, and a slow publication of the excavation results. There are also theoretical debates about the interpretation of the sites and artifacts. For example, definitions of types and typologies that are associated far from where the terminology was created can generate questionable interpretations, especially when used with ambiguous terms such as culture, site, and local. Another issue is the reliability and uneven application of dating methods, such as radiocarbon dating and cross-dating methods (e.g., using pottery typologies). These problems have varied throughout time and region, as excavation goals, methods, and interests have changed (Whittle 1985; Phillips 1998; Lazrus 1999). Overall, Whittle (1996) notes that the archaeological research of the Neolithic started systematic surveys of sites with hopes of providing us with knowledge of settlement evidence. The expansion of research efforts has not only provided information about the number of sites, but also the opportunity to apply this knowledge and make comparisons between different periods in an area or different areas in a certain timeframe. As research becomes more prevalent, and time goes on, the scientific methods employed become not only more numerous, but more refined. For example, 8

PAGE 18

there is more of a concern for the proper recovery of remains that were once thought merely incidental and not important. Seeds, bones, and lithic debitage are examples of these remains. Acknowledging that these items can provide information crucial to interpreting sites, social structure, subsistence strategies, and technology of the people occupying these sites, leads researchers in new directions, posing new research questions, and employing new methods. However, not everyone is consistently utilizing the methods that are available, for various reasons ranging from lack of money and time to lack of knowledge of the benefits of these methods. Wider education, practice, and application of new scientific methods can give the opportunity to examine the past in ways that were not imagined only decades ago. Therefore, research on the Neolithic has provided us with two basic challenges. The first addresses collecting evidence and establishing a correct chronological sequence. The second deals with interpreting this evidence, both in an anthropological and historical manner. Archaeology of the Neolithic addresses the debate of internal versus external change. By researching Neolithic sites, archaeologists can gain insight about various questions. Were changes in cultural practices caused by outside influences? Were they borne out of a state of cultural evolution of the people in question? Were they due to a combination of internal and external factors? If it is a combination, can we determine the extent of internal generation or external influence? 9

PAGE 19

Environmental Changes in Europe and Sardinia: Setting the Stage for the Neolithic Non-human agents also influence the decisions made by humans. These can include changes in the natural environment, climate, and geological features of the land. Although these may not actually determine human behavior, Whittle (1996) and Trump (1980) note that they probably act as a constraining factor. Beginning with the early post-glacial period (8000 6000 BC), which is culturally called the Epipalaeolithic or Mesolithic, the final retreat of the late glacial ice sheets occurred and was accompanied by a rapid increase in temperature. This caused a wide variety of changes in the environment and geography throughout the European continent. For example, one direct result of the temperature rise was an increase in sea level due to melting ice sheets. This caused a considerable loss of land in the Mediterranean, more so in the northern part of the Adriatic than in the western Mediterranean. It is estimated that sea level rose to about m below the present day level by 8000 BC (Shackleton 1984) which allowed the exploration and possible settlement of the islands in the Mediterranean to occur during a period of lower sea level. In fact, some early settlements throughout the Mediterranean are likely to now be submerged as sea level has risen (De Lumley 1976, Bintliff 1977, Van Andel et al. 1982). This climate adjustment also caused changes in plant and animal resources throughout Europe. The growth of oak, lime, Aleppo pine, and wild olive trees spread, while pines and grasslands retreated to higher elevations. Megafauna became extinct, and other animals adapted to the vegetation changes. Animals such as reindeer moved north; animals suited for grassland, forest grazing, and warmer temperatures thrived in 10

PAGE 20

general. Dogs were domesticated by this time. Bird species were more numerous, while sea and marine animals were less affected. In the southern regions of Europe, fewer changes took place. Elk disappeared in the archaeological record and were replaced with ibex and chamois in mountainous areas. The marine fish, tuna, and the riverine fish, carp, were food sources during this time. Also, plant foods, such as seeds, roots, tubers, nuts, and berries were abundant at archaeological sites dating from this period (Trump 1980; Whittle 1996). During the Early Neolithic (6000 5000 BC), temperature and humidity in the Mediterranean reached their optimum extent, based on analysis of pollen and isotopic studies of shells. The results of these analyses are interpreted as indicating the final trend towards the full establishment of mixed oak forests and evergreen species. Also, the sea level continued to rise. By about 5500 BC, it rose to between m and m of the present level, while it reached m to m by about 4500 BC (Shackleton 1984; Tykot 1994). Isotopic studies of shells in southern France and northern Italy indicate cooler conditions around 3500 BC, followed by a relative warming after about 2500 BC. More detailed research of climatic conditions and weather patterns will provide information allowing us to construct a more complete or accurate analysis of prehistoric climate (Whittle 1996). 11

PAGE 21

The Island Setting and Settlement of Sardinia Islands are unique environments that limit the species that populate them. When an island is not connected to the mainland with a land bridge, only animals capable of making the journey will reach and inhabit the island. Hence, this isolated region will not share all of the species that are represented in the continental fauna, but will have land animals that can swim, fly, or keep afloat until they reach the island. Upon arrival, they will colonize and adapt to the islands characteristic environment or biotope or die out. Once a species becomes established, it will remain stable until its equilibrium is disrupted. This disruption can occur in several ways. For example, the arrival of competitive fauna, such as humans, or the formation of a land bridge back to the mainland, can disrupt the islands environment (Hofmeijer and Sondaar 1992; Martini 1992; Patton 1996). Evidence of this can be found in the palaeontological and archaeological records. Mediterranean islands fossil representations include large mammals during the Pleistocene, such as elephants, hippopotami, and deer. Their adaptation to the island environment resulted in a reduction in size, and the fusion of some bones to compensate for this physiological change (Sondaar 1977). There is also an absence of large predators, other than birds of prey, in the fossil record. This absence, and the limited space on the islands, provided the elements for evolutionary transformation. There has been some hypothesizing about how and when the arrival of humans to Sardinia and Corsica occurred (Patton 1996). Martini (1992) argues that sea level was at its lowest point at the end of the middle Pleistocene (170,000 160,000 BP). During this 12

PAGE 22

time, Corsica and Sardinia were a single landmass for a period of several thousand years, and a channel of five nautical miles separated Capo Corso and Capraia. At this distance, the island would be visible, and it is reasonable to assume that this channel was crossed. Human arrival to the Corsican-Sardinian block has been interpreted by Martini (1992) to occur with the arrival of Megaloceros cazioti (a large antlered deer) and Cynotherium sardus (canid), as paleontological evidence shows that an ecological balance was created on the island that did not change until Neolithic colonization. Cherry (1992) states that there is a possibility that humans were present during this time; however, the evidence is weak and circumstantial, but may become more convincing with future research. Phillips (1992) argues, due to the distribution of Neolithic sites on Sardinia, that it is possible that the island was colonized from more than one point. On Sardinia, the earliest evidence of occupation is found at the site of Corbeddu Cave in the central region. In fact, this site provides us with the earliest evidence of island occupation anywhere in the Mediterranean. Human remains were found in a layer dating to 20,000 BP at this site (Sondaar et al. 1995; Sondaar 1998). This evidence, if interpreted correctly, indicates that humans occupied this site during the Upper Palaeolithic when Corsica and Sardinia were a single landmass, yet separated from the mainland. Subsequent layers of deposits show human remains in association with the butchered remains of a now extinct, large wild hare, Prolagus sardus. The origin of these remains is not disputed (Tykot 1999). Also other fossils (Megaloceros cazioti) show post mortem damage that does not appear to be due to natural processes (Sondaar et al. 1984; 1986; Klein Hofmeijer et al. 1986). Finds of human fossils and flint and limestone 13

PAGE 23

artifacts are used as evidence for human use of Corbeddu Cave (Hofmeijer and Sondaar 1992). However, Tykot (1992) indicates that the abundant distribution and use of obsidian during the Early Neolithic, and its absence in the pre-Neolithic levels of Corbeddu Cave (Hofmeijer and Sondaar 1992; Martini 1992), do not support the hypothesis that there was Pleistocene settlement of Sardinia. It appears that human occupation of Sardinia and Corsica became more common by 8000 BC. However, there is no evidence of traffic between these two islands and the mainland (Tykot 1999). Although Sardinia and Corsica have been separated for thousands of years, some feel that it is important to consider both when studying sites on the islands, in particular the northern part of Sardinia and the southern part of Corsica. Franois de Lanfranchi (1992, 1993) suggests that the exchange of items such as lithic materials and the use of similar architectural structures from the Neolithic throughout the two islands indicate that they should be treated as one territory (Lo Schiavo 1998). The richer evidence for human occupation of Sardinia occurs in the early sixth millennium BC after climate changes leveled out at c. 7000 BC (Chapman 1990). There is a question of how the Neolithic package was introduced to this region. In Sardinia, This package includes the domestication of plants and animals, and the appearance of ceramics and obsidian artifacts. It is possible that it was introduced either from the south (Sicily and North Africa) or from the European continent, or both (Tykot 1992). In the past, some researchers, such as Whittle (1985), noted that there is evidence supporting the belief that sheep were introduced from Asiatic stock at around 6000 BC. Other evidence indicated that the present-day mouflon in Corsica and Sardinia were indigenous; 14

PAGE 24

however, currently they are shown to be feral (R. Tykot, pers. comm.). In general, the Early Neolithic in Sardinia and Corsica are largely contemporaneous with Early Neolithic sites in southern France and northern Italy (Evin 1987; Bagolini and Biagi 1990; Skeates 1994a, 1994b; Tykot 1994); however, these domesticates probably appeared somewhat earlier in southern Italy and Dalmatia (Sargent 1985; Chapman 1988; Chapman and Mller 1990; Skeates 1994b). Further examination of artifacts could indicate exchange relationships with these regions that would support this hypothesis. Currently, the vegetation and animal populations on Sardinia have been greatly impacted since the middle of the 19th century AD due to deforestation, overgrazing and burning. Forests are now more confined than they had been. They are now mainly in the higher altitudes and are composed of several species of oak (Quercus robur, Quercus ilex, Quercus suber), scrub (macchia), holly (Ilex aquirolium), elder (Sambucus nigra), olive (Alea europea), tamarix (Tamarix gallica), wild fig (Caprificus), elm (Ulmus procera), white polar (Populus alba), laurel (Laurus nobilis), wild pear (Pirus comuis), and hawthorne (Prunus spinosa) (Muroni 1980). At lower elevations, some of the common floras include perennial bushes and annuals, such as wild rose, ivy, juniper, gorse, lentisk, rosemary, privet, laurels, heather, blackberry, myrtle, nettle, and fennel (Asole 1982). Cork oak is the most common lowland tree, and it is used for its bark (Webster 1996). A faunal species of note is the mouflon sheep (Ovis musimon), which is currently limited to the upland forests of Sardinia and Corsica and is a protected animal. Previously, however, they were far more numerous. Poached to extinction, the fallow deer (Dama dama) was common into the 19th century AD, and was reintroduced in 1968. 15

PAGE 25

A dwarfed sub-species of the European wild boar (Sus scrofa meridionalis), the fox (Vulpes vulpes), and rabbit (Oryctalagus cuniculus) were popular foods in prehistoric times and are still hunted today. However, the large, wild hare (Prolagus sardus) is now extinct, but was used as food into the Iron Age. The wild pigeon (Columba livia) was also eaten, and is still common in this region (Webster 1996). The Geography of Sardinia Sardinia, the second largest island in the Mediterranean (Figure 1), is a diverse land, both geographically (Figure 2) and socially. It is 24,000 km, and is Figure 1. Sardinia, the second largest island in the Mediterranean 16

PAGE 26

Figure 2. The major regions, towns, and rivers of Sardinia 17

PAGE 27

roughly rectangular in shape. The summers in Sardinia are typically hot and dry and the winters are cool. Rivers and streams are few in number. The five main ones are Coghinas, Tirso, Flumendosa, Mannu, and Cedrino. There is only one freshwater lake, Lago di Baratz. However, there are numerous other freshwater resources that have been important to humans on this island throughout the millennia, including springs in the upland zones and rainwater (Webster 1996). The lowland plains have been used for agriculture throughout history, even though the lack of water was a constraining factor to agricultural settlement. These plains include the regions of La Nurra and east Anglona in the north and stretch southeastward through the valley of the river Mannu and southwest to the Coral Coast. The area between the Iglesiente uplands and the island of SantAntioco is known as the Sulcitano. Also, there is another named region, the Campidano (Figure 2), a broad, trough-like area that extends for approximately 100 km across the southwest portion of Sardinia from the Gulf of Oristano to the Gulf of Cagliari. These plains are low, arid, and scarcely vegetated. While there are few metalliferous ore deposits in these regions, there are small copper sources along the northwest coast at Argentiera, Alghero, and Montresta. Monte Arci on the western coastal plains is the only known source of native obsidian, which was a medium for tools in the Neolithic (Guido 1963; Webster 1996). The middle uplands consist of thinly wooded regions running from Anglona in the northwest through Logudoro, Marghine, and Arborea toward the south, and southeast through Marmilla and Trexenta. The landscape is extremely diverse and rugged. Farms in this region benefit from greater rainfall than in the lower regions, and they have been 18

PAGE 28

noted in the nineteenth century to be the main producers of grain and barley on Sardinia (Angius 1833). The constraining factors in this region are the rocky landscape and erosion that occurs on the sloping land. Copper and tin deposits are also found in this region (Guido 1963; Webster 1996). Over half of the islands landscape is mountainous in nature, with two distinct zones. The first and larger is the contiguous chain that covers the entire eastern half of the island. This mountainous land has scarce high-quality soil, more precipitation, lower temperatures, and a terrain that makes communication difficult. The second, smaller mountainous zone occurs in the southwest of the island. The Campidano Plain separates this zone from the eastern mountains, and the Sulcitano Plain separates it from the southwest coast. These mountains support valleys that are used for cultivation and viniculture today, and the mountains have been sources of minerals, such as argentiferous galena, lead, and copper since antiquity (Guido 1963; Webster 1996). The Foundation and the History of Research Archaeological research in Sardinia has been taking place for decades. Although outdated, Margaret Guidos Sardinia (1963) has provided a foundation of information about Sardinia. Since the publication of this book, the evidence for the occupation of Sardinia has been adjusted. In 1963, it was believed that Sardinia had only had human inhabitants since approximately 2000 BC. Current research now is providing evidence of much earlier contact. In 1992, there was evidence of about 10 possible Paleolithic sites on the island (Martini 1992), and some (e.g., Cherry 1992) are speculating for a much earlier settlement date, suggesting that it is possible that humans reached Sardinia 19

PAGE 29

hundreds of thousands of years ago, not tens of thousands. A site of early occupation is the aforementioned Corbeddu Cave. This site is located in central Sardinia, and has sparked much debate and research, as it has provided us with a nicely preserved sequence ranging from the upper Paleolithic to the Early Bronze Age (Hofmeijer and Sondaar 1992; Webster 1996). The European Neolithic Since Sardinia is an island that was populated by people from the mainland of Europe, and is a source of obsidian that was traded with mainland people, it is relevant to consider the archaeological data from the regions that had either a direct or an indirect influence on the people of Sardinia during the Neolithic. In particular, a comparison of cultural aspects such as technology, subsistence, exchange, and ritual on mainland Europe and Sardinia provides important information about prehistoric lifeways on Sardinia. The examination of these aspects of life in Sardinia, as well as the mainland, during the Neolithic provides clues about how the obsidian analyzed in this study may have been used. For example, the technology discussed shows how obsidian was being crafted into tools, including those which may be used to manufacture or decorate pottery. Subsistence patterns show what foods were being utilized, providing further clues about what materials obsidian was used to process (e.g., plant harvesting, cutting meats, or cleaning fish). Obsidian exchange demonstrates the importance of this raw material. Provenance studies have shown that artifacts made from Sardinian obsidian are found 20

PAGE 30

hundreds of kilometers from the source of the raw material (Tykot 1992, 1995, 1996, 2002). Use-wear analysis can supplement theories formed based on these exchange patterns. For example, perhaps the preference for one type of obsidian was not due to sociopolitical factors, but rather functional ones. Or perhaps obsidian that is considered by present day archaeologists to be desirable based on physical characteristics, such as transparency, luster, or color, are not preferred over local lithics because of those factors, but rather, their ability to process a material more effectively than obsidian that does not appear esthetically pleasing to archaeologists. Finally, ritualistic traits and aspects reflect Neolithic life in a way that cannot be attained by analyzing exchange and subsistence patterns. Figurines, such as those previously discussed, may reflect cultural processes that may have utilized obsidian, such as body decoration, hair cutting, and clothing. Understanding these cultural processes, and additionally mortuary practices and grave goods, gives more information about the possible functions of obsidian in the Late Neolithic in Sardinia. Lithic Technology Overall, in the early Neolithic (8000 5000 BC) period in Europe, the material industry was made up of flint and other stone tools, many of which have been used as knives, scrapers, borers, engravers, and monoliths (interpreted as projectile points). These assemblages were widespread throughout Europe; however, different combinations of these tools are found at different sites. Aside from the lithic assemblages, wood and antler tools have been found when conditions for preservation were favorable. These 21

PAGE 31

tools have been used to provide the cultural framework and chronology for the Neolithic; however, the information has been uneven as long stratigraphies have been restricted to southern Europe. Obviously, there is an imbalance between organic and stone tools at these sites, leaving a serious gap in the understanding of Neolithic technology. Also, there have been relatively few detailed studies on the use and duration of use of artifacts. Changes in types of artifacts seem to be driven by technological improvements, cultural preferences (fashion), and adaptation of the local population (internal change), rather than by an external population change (Whittle 1996). It is also likely that there were failed innovative attempts of which we may not be aware, as no trace of their presence has been found because they were not used as long due to their ineffectiveness (Spindler 1994). The skill of stone tool manufacturing depends upon several factors that may have taken thousands of years to develop. The knowledge of the properties of lithic media, such as flint and obsidian, was an important factor in the selection of materials, manufacturing of tools, and their use. The skills developed throughout the Paleolithic, and by the Neolithic, humans were well acquainted with lithics. They had developed basic stone working techniques, such as percussion flaking, pecking, pressure-flaking, indirect percussion flaking, sawing, drilling, and grinding (Rudgley 1999). The clearest changes in tools during the early post-glacial period are seen in microliths. Non-geometric microliths appear in several areas around 8000 BC, and late Upper Paleolithic types of points begin to disappear virtually everywhere by 7000 BC. Geometric forms, such as triangles and crescents, are common after 7000 BC, and trapezoidal forms around 6000 BC. For example, changes can be found specifically in southern France and 22

PAGE 32

northern Italy, and the change in these lithic sequences is better dated than in other regions of Europe. Research has indicated that some late Upper Paleolithic traditions, which include backed blades and points, continue for some time in the regions of Calabria, Campania, and Liguria. Some areas show the adoption of geometric microliths earlier than other regions. For example, geometric microliths appear in association with backed points soon after 8000 BC in the Adige Valley and Tuscany. Trapezoidal forms appear in the Adige Valley around 6000 BC, which is when their occurrence is common throughout Europe (Whittle 1996). In the Middle Neolithic, polished stone axes and obsidian occur more frequently throughout Italy; however, in southern France, obsidian is still rare. For the most part, lithic industries lack the epipalaeolithic characteristics, such as the geometric microliths associated with hunting activities, and tools such as blades, bladelets, and endscrapers become prominent (Whittle 1996). Subsistence In general, subsistence refers to what people live on, while economy refers to how resources are managed and mobilized (Barker and Gamble 1985). Europe during the fifth to second millennium BC experienced vast changes in food use. These changes most likely were due to a combination of cultural and environmental changes. An example of this is the increased use of cereals, specifically with the most important grain, wheat, followed by the use of barley. Most of the evidence for this is represented 23

PAGE 33

archaeologically through the carbonized remains of these grains, or their impressions, which are found in pottery and bricks (Brothwell 1971). It is difficult to determine if a number of foods, such as apples, almonds, and grapes, represent wild or domesticated plants. It is possible that the foods represented in the archaeological record are a reflection of more successful attempts to domesticate plants and animals, while other attempts that did not work and were abandoned are not represented archaeologically. Also, wild plants and animals still could have been used as an alternative food source when crops failed. However, it is important to be aware of sampling biases and the variable preservation of these materials (Brothwell 1971; Marciniak 1999; Tortosa 2002). In addition to the archaeological record, throughout Neolithic Europe, there are several examples of farming and agriculture represented in rock-carvings (Fowler 1971), which can supplement archaeological data and aid in its interpretation. Exchange One of the many questions surrounding the Neolithic addresses the aspect of contact and exchange. Exchange alone, which has expanded through the millennia, must have provided cultural growth as ideas were exchanged with goods. Archaeologists can infer the existence of exchange networks by the analysis of obsidian, alabaster, marble, pottery, Spondylus shell, and other materials. Some of these materials were being exchanged, or at least procured regularly, as early as the seventh millennium BC, with earlier evidence demonstrated by the presence of obsidian in Franchthi in Greece (Patton 24

PAGE 34

1996). Supporting evidence includes sailing vessels and seafaring skills, which have been depicted on pottery from as early as the sixth millennium BC (Gimbutas 1974). Even if contact and exchange were sporadic, brief or casual rather than organized, the opportunity for the exchange of ideas was still significant; however, the pottery record shows that these opportunities were taken only to a minor extent (Trump 1984). It is also possible that throughout prehistory the exchange was not consistent but varied (Tykot 1999). Other forms of interactions that could have taken place with the exchange of goods may have included exogamous marriages, extended kinships, and alliances, all of which allow a group to widen their potential sphere of interaction (Whittle 1988). It is also possible that the exchange of local materials was made in conjunction with the exchange of domesticated animals, aiding the transition into an agricultural way of life (Tykot 1999). As noted by Whittle (1988), we need a better measure of the intensity of communication in order to determine the extent of these relationships and the connections that subsequently occurred. Establishing the presence of contact is not enough to draw significant conclusions about the cultures. Acknowledging these interactions is necessary when conducting studies of individual or networked archaeological sites. The sites place within the network of neighboring communities must be kept in mind (Patton 1996; Whittle 1988). Because people can move resources, many remains found at a site could have been used locally and/or regionally. In fact, by identifying the geographical context of the site and traded resources, it may be possible to suggest various kinds of processes, such as colonization 25

PAGE 35

or acculturation in reaction to colonization, settlement expansion, consolidation, internal differentiation, and so forth, helping to explain the changes that take place over time. There is much evidence for exchange during the Neolithic. Primarily, the exchange of goods and ideas can be researched by examining the movement of materials, such as obsidian and pottery, as these are two of the most durable remains at archaeological sites. In addition, obsidian is a material that can be easily attributed to a specific source, making it exceptionally useful when analyzing exchange routes. Obsidian in the central Mediterranean is restricted to four insular sources, Lipari, Palmarola, Pantelleria, and Sardinia (Figure 3). Provenance studies by Tykot (1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2002; Tykot et al. 2003) have shown that these sources provided a Figure 3. The four insular sources of obsidian in the western Mediterranean: Lipari, Palmarola, Pantelleria, and Sardinia (Monte Arci) 26

PAGE 36

material for tools across the continental mainland. This can demonstrate not only the lithic technological knowledge of the people who lived in the Neolithic, but also their seafaring abilities. Along with these goods, less permanent floral and faunal remains can be studied to determine the interactions of humans. For example, in the western Mediterranean the Early Neolithic is defined by the appearance of ceramics and domesticated plants and animals that are presumed to be from the eastern Mediterranean (Tykot 1999). However, any data associated with the examination of these faunal remains with regard to the origin of these stocks, that is whether they were imported or domesticated locally, are not detailed nor are studies addressing this issue widely conducted. Ritual In general, throughout prehistoric Europe, clay and stone figurines are ubiquitous and possibly one of the first lines of evidence for the development of the concept of ritual. Before pottery was first made, c. 6500 BC, Venus figurines were being produced from clay and stone. Through the transition from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic, their numbers increased and their forms changed (Gimbutas 1974). Although they appear plain and unnatural, the Neolithic figurines forms are not a reflection of the sculptors inability to replicate adequately the human form, but an indication of the ability to conform to the traditions that matured through time (Gimbutas 1974). While the familiar forms of female bodies are present occasionally in all parts of prehistoric Europe, there have also been discoveries of a series of male sculptures that are 27

PAGE 37

distinguished for their more accurate portrayal of the male form. Other figurines are hybridized human-animal forms, favoring the water bird, deer, bear, fish, snake, toad, and turtle, each with their own symbolic meanings (Gimbutas 1974). Much has been made of the interpretation of these figurines (Conkey 1983; Bednarik 1990, 1992; Taylor 1996), including the labeling of these as Fertility Goddesses or Mother Goddesses, perhaps based on the belief demonstrated in European folklore that says that a womans fertility (or lack of) influences farming. This folklore has led to further attempts to interpret the ritual and ideological components of these prehistoric societies. These interpretations have also provided the basis of the pantheon for Greek and Roman goddesses and gods (Gimbutas 1974). Other archaeologists believe that it is impossible to determine if these figurines represent goddesses at all. In fact, they could just be depictions of real humans and may not hold the same meaning or use (e.g., religious, sexual, functional, gender ideas, etc.) for all individuals as they have been found over a vast geographical area for thousands of years (Conkey 1983; Bednarik 1990, 1992; Taylor 1996). The figurines also provide us with other information about the people of the Neolithic. For example, the masks, clothing, and hairstyles on the figurines can be said to reflect the styles of the time. Some figurines (e.g., Vina figurines) have elaborate coiffures, while others have neatly combed, parted and cut hair. In some cases, throughout Europe they seem to depict human activities showing events and objects, such as clay house models from religious, daily, and seasonal life (Gimbutas 1974). In particular, figurines from the Mediterranean island of Malta bear a striking resemblance 28

PAGE 38

to those found in Sardinia, with the peoples of both islands producing rounded figures with large hips and buttocks. In addition to these figurines, another striking feature of art during the development of agriculture was the appearance of graphic designs that symbolized abstract ideas (Gimbutas 1974). In particular, the bull is represented and expressed through its emphasis of its horns. Gimbutas (1974) has stated that this animals horns are believed to be a lunar symbol and began to appear as early as the Palaeolithic (e.g., the cave of Laussel in southern France). Tykot (1999) has indicated that there are similar symbolic religious motifs cut in bas-relief in Sardinia, and they are commonly interpreted as having connotations of fertility. When interpreting symbolic systems, one is faced with both general and conceptual problems (Whittle 1988). For example, there is the danger of confusing sign systems with symbolic systems. Also, the concept and practice of culture may not agree. The definition and expression of ideology and the representation of these concepts could be either a reflection of the studied society at large or only special interest groups (Hodder 1986). The role of individuals and groups in generating and utilizing the symbolic systems could vary both within the culture and between cultures (Yengoyan 1985). Clues to the nature of a people can be found by examining their burial practices. While there are several tombs that have been found in prehistoric Europe, it is probably unlikely that these represent anything more than a fraction of the population within the tombs region and time of use. After the structures use for entombment of the deceased, 29

PAGE 39

further information can be gathered based on its secondary use what happens to these tombs after depositions stopped can be of significance (Whittle 1988). The construction of megalithic tombs usually involves more work than do hypogea (oven-shaped tombs holding single or multiple burials) and cave burials. The construction of these tombs usually involved formalized repetitive behavior as well as a formal use of space allowing the concealment of tomb interiors. As they are upstanding monuments, it is possible that different methods used to dispose of the dead reflected a change in rites, symbolically representing a change in ideology (Whittle 1988). In Sardinia, some of the tombs constructed and used during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages continued to be utilized into the Iron Age (Lazrus 1999). In addition, it is possible that the dead in the tombs may not have become remote ancestors, at least not until the entombments stopped (Whittle 1988). The Sardinian Neolithic An examination of the Sardinian Neolithic (Table 1) not only provides us with specific cases of Neolithic cultures, but also with the opportunity to examine an island environment during the Neolithic. Since Monte Arci was a source of obsidian for mainland populations, direct or indirect interaction occurred between these populations. Examining the technology, subsistence, economy, settlement patterns, and ritual during the Neolithic in Sardinia demonstrates the commonalities between this island and the European mainland. 30

PAGE 40

Table 1. The Cultures of Neolithic Sardinia (after Webster 1996) Time Period Culture Technology Subsistence Exchange Ritual Richly decorated ceramics Copper and silver first appear Earliest indication of an island-wide association of a group of cultural features: settlements, tombs, structures for communal activities Egalitarian, mixed agro-pastoral economy practicing crop rotation, fishing, hunting and collecting Sardinian obsidian still traded with northern Italy and southern France Rock-cut tombs (domus de janas) More elaborate burials with an emphasis on kin relationships Bonu Ighinu ceramics displaying more detail than Cardial I, II and Epicardial ceramics Appearance of ground stone axes Grinding tools for cereal production Cave and rock shelter sites with village settlements in the Campidano plain Indications of increased forest clearing for cultivation Obsidian exchange with northern Italy and Southern France Hypogea burials with offerings and figurines Late Neolithic (4000-3200 BC) Middle Neolithic (4800-4000 BC) Early Neolithic (6000-4800 BC) Sub-Ozieri Ozieri San Ciriaco Bonu Ighinu Epicardial (Filiestru) Cardial II Cardial I Impressed wares bowl and jar forms Lithic technologygeometric microliths, scrapers, burins, projectile points Appearance of domesticated plants and animals Obsidian may have influenced people when settling on Sardinia Procurement and exchange of pottery and obsidian Exchange within Sardinia and between Sardinia and Corsica Cave burials Stone figurines Symbolic religious motifs and connotations of fertility 31

PAGE 41

Stone Tool, Pottery, and Metal Technology Tools during the Neolithic in Sardinia were made from flint, quartz, rhyolite, and especially obsidian, which was available from four main sources (SA, SB1, SB2 and SC) on Monte Arci. These sources are found in various areas of Monte Arci, and differ in quality, quantity, and accessibility (Tykot 1996, 1997, 1999). In Sardinia, the Early Neolithic is subdivided into Cardial I, Cardial II, and the Epicardial (Filiestru) phases (Tanda 1998). In Corsica, a fourth Early Neolithic phase (Punched = Curasien; Lanfranchi 1992; 1993) is contemporaneous with the Sardinian Middle Neolithic (Tykot 1999). Obsidian has been found at all Early Neolithic sites on Sardinia. The Cardial I phase of the site of Filiestru has a lithic assemblage that is 17 percent obsidian (Trump 1983). In neighboring Corsica, obsidian becomes more abundant in the Cardial II phase. The lithic assemblages are generally made up of geometric microliths, scrapers, burins, and points (Tykot 1999). Points are infrequently made of obsidian here. At Filiestru, obsidian accounts for 30 points of the lithic assemblage (Trump 1983) and was primarily used to process animals (Hurcombe 1992; 1993). During the Early Neolithic, Sardinian pottery includes impressed wares with simple bowl and jar forms, frequently with rounded bases, and a strong reliance on Cardium, or cockle shell, for decoration. In neighboring Corsica, pottery is incised with triangular and chevron motifs, cardial impressions, jabbed impressions, and incisions in horizontal bands. The Impressed ware complex is a very common style of pottery 32

PAGE 42

Figure 4. An example of impressed ware pottery (from Webster 1996) throughout this region in the Early Neolithic (Figure 4). Styles vary from region to region, and its origin is uncertain (Lilliu 1988; Webster 1996). Material sequences and chronology during the Middle Neolithic are marked not only by changes in lithic technologies, but also pottery styles. This period in Sardinia is associated with the Bonu Ighinu pottery type (Figure 5). Bonu Ighinu pottery is typically found in both open village and cave sites (Webster 1996; Lazrus 1999). These ceramics are more decorated and display more craftwork than earlier pottery from the Early Neolithic (Tykot 1999). Figure 5. Bonu Ighinu pottery (from Webster 1996) 33

PAGE 43

The Late Neolithic period in Sardinia is represented by a variety of material goods, such as flaked stone and bone tools, greenstone axes, spindle whorls, loom weights, bone shuttles (indicating textile production), and baskets. Ceramics during this period were richly decorated, and new forms were being produced, including bowls and cups with carinated rims, globular vases with tunnel handles, tripods, and amphoras. The clay had geometric and stylized figurative motifs impressed or incised onto the pottery, and the ceramics were colored red or white (Lazrus 1999; Tykot 1999). Copper and silver first appear in Sardinia at this time (Camps 1988, Lo Schiavo 1989). This indication of social development and prestige in Sardinian is similarly present in mainland societies. Subsistence The Bonu Ighinu culture is largely homogenous throughout Sardinia during the Middle Neolithic (Lewthwaite 1983). The Bonu Ighinu sites include caves and rock shelters as well as village settlements in the Campidano plain (Lanfranchi 1992). During this period, ground stone axes are frequently found in Sardinian sites. It is thought that they may be an indication of an increase of forest clearing to make way for cultivation. Another indication of cultivation is the associated grinding tools that may have been used for cereal processing during this time (Lanfranchi 1990). Sheep and goats were still a main source of meat, with cattle being less important, and the evidence of pigs continues to decline throughout this time (Levine 1993). 34

PAGE 44

The Ozieri period is dated to the 4 th millennium BC, with the late or sub-Ozieri phase extending into the 3 rd millennium BC (Tykot 1994). This period is the earliest indication of an island-wide association of a group of cultural features, archaeologically speaking. This association includes the appearance of settlements, tombs, and structures for communal activities, as well as storage pits; however, the storage pits have only been found at one site, Su Coddu, where they have been excavated (Lazrus 1999). The Bonu Ighinu and Ozieri/San Michele cultures expanded human occupation throughout most of the coastal lowlands in the western part of the island and, to a lesser extent, to the interior valleys (Webster 1996). During the Late Neolithic in Sardinia, settlements reached their greatest pre-Bronze Age extent, with 165-200 known sites (Webster 1996). However, the large number of sites during this period could be due to the fragility of structures of the earlier Neolithic, as well as the loss of residual features and artifact remains (Whittle 1988). The floral and faunal archaeological data that are available for this time are rare, although as research continues, more information is beginning to be recovered. This has only provided us with a limited understanding of the economic strategies of the Sardinian people of the Late Neolithic. Botanical remains from the Late Neolithic sites in Sardinia are indicative of an agricultural regime that utilized crop rotation, which was supplemented with fishing, shellfish, collecting, and hunting (Lazrus 1999; Piga and Porcu 1990). The social organization during this time is generally assumed to be egalitarian; however, few villages have been extensively excavated to provide information about the 35

PAGE 45

internal structure of these sites. While there is a relatively uniform distribution of material goods, funerary forms, and open-air sites, there is no way to conclude, at this point, if there is an emergence of elite within a community (Lazrus 1999). According to some authors (Tanda and Depalmas 1991; Fadda 1985; Lilliu 1988; Foschi Nieddu 1988), there appears to be a major transition in economic strategies and social structures between the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. In general, the people of Neolithic Sardinia have been depicted as peaceful, egalitarian farmers with a predominantly agricultural economy. For example, the early Filigosa-Abealzu phase of the Chalcolithic period has sites that are enclosed with megalithic walls. These walls may have been built in response to the need to protect economic interests, such as those involved with prospecting, and or to increasing social tensions between groups. An increasing population may have contributed to differential access to resources, such as land, materials, and animals, causing some populations to become marginalized, resulting in an increase in social tension (Lewthwaite 1986; Webster 1990, 1996). The Bronze Age, on the other hand, is thought to have been represented by warrior-pastoralists who lived in a stratified society, becoming increasingly dependent on specialized pastoralism (Lazrus 1999). However, Lazrus (1999) believes that there is not sufficient evidence available to make this determination based on the currently available published data. For example, there is no indication from the archaeological record, such as an increase in dairy or textile equipment or specialized structures for animals, to indicate a change in economic strategy during the Chalcolithic. Lazrus (1999) also argues that the mixed agro-pastoral 36

PAGE 46

economy established by the Late Neolithic was a successful adaptation that was sustained through subsequent periods. Archaeologically, there does not seem to be an indication of changes in the social structure until the very late Bronze Age or the Iron Age. However, there is archaeological evidence to support the presence of farming, small-scale animal husbandry, hunting, fishing, gathering, trade, and mining during both the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Diversification, rather than specialization appears to be the economic trend for this period, making the societies extremely stable. Exchange Although many Sardinian materials were exchanged, such as shells, beads, polished stone rings and bracelets, greenstone axes, and ceramics (Tykot 1999), the examination of the spread or diffusion of obsidian from Monte Arci provides the clearest example of the extent of the exchange patterns of Sardinia (Trump 1984). An examination of the exploitation of these lithic materials, both spatially and temporally, and associated artifacts can demonstrate cultural aspects of procurement and use. For example, was a certain type of obsidian being procured and utilized due to its functional qualities, or did social and political arrangements influence its use? It is thought that the selection of this material has been made with reason and intent, rather than by happenstance (Whittle 1996). If this premise is correct, it may provide answers to questions such as when detailed examinations are made and interand intra-site variability is studied. 37

PAGE 47

Although there is no evidence of the exchange of artifacts taking place from or within Sardinia prior to the Neolithic, obsidian may have played a primary role in the settlement and Neolithic economy of Sardinia (Lilliu 1967). The others islands, which have sources of obsidian in the central Mediterranean (Lipari, Palmarola, and Pantelleria), do not demonstrate evidence of settlement during the Early Neolithic. However, obsidian was being procured from these islands. This is demonstrated by the movement and distribution of artifacts made from obsidian obtained from these sources. This again provides us with an idea of the seafaring capabilities of people during the Early Neolithic, as large sea distances had to be covered in order to obtain these materials. It has been hypothesized that sailors anchored in the Cabras lagoon acquired Monte Arci obsidian and transported it in blocks, unmodified chunks, or pre-cores, to as far as southwest Corsica (Phillips 1992). There are two basic exchange systems involving Sardinia that can be examined. First, there is the exchange that took place between Sardinia and other islands and the mainland. The study of the patterns and chronology of obsidian distribution can provide information about the degree of interaction between Sardinia and other populations (Tykot 1992). Sardinian obsidian appears at sites in Corsica around the 6 th millennium BC (Hallam et al. 1976; Lanfranchi 1980). By the Early Neolithic, Sardinian and Liparian obsidian had reached sites in northern Italy and southern France. Sardinian obsidian continued to be the obsidian of choice in southern France (and less certainly northern Italy) during the 4th millennium, with Lipari obsidian always being popular in southern Italy (Hallam et al. 1976; Williams-Thorpe et al. 1979; 1984; Phillips 1992; 38

PAGE 48

Tykot 1996). Second, there is the exchange that took place within Sardinia. Obsidian from Monte Arci has been found at almost all prehistoric and protohistoric sites on Sardinia (Tykot 1992). The wide distributions of pottery styles and Monte Arci obsidian inside and outside of Sardinia indicate that the people of this island were never completely isolated, as noted by Trump (1984). In the early Neolithic, the distribution of different types of obsidian remain fairly consistent, which would be indicative, according to Renfrew (1977) and Tykot (1996), of multiple down-the-line types of exchanges. In fact, it appears that variety in the types of obsidian is generally the rule throughout the Neolithic. Even though there were post-glacial occupations on Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, and the Italian peninsula, and there is evidence of exchange between these west Mediterranean communities, as demonstrated by Cardial pottery and obsidian, there is little indication of interactions between Sardinia and the east Mediterranean until the Bronze Age (Phillips 1998). Ritual The Neolithic in Sardinia displays ritualistic traits and practices as much of the European mainland does. Cave burials and stone figurines were common from the beginning of the Neolithic, as were other symbolic religious motifs with connotations of fertility. In particular, tombs in the Late Neolithic on Sardinia were stylized with bull horns on the walls. Inhumations in hypogea with offerings and female figurines interpreted as mother-goddesses were also present (Webster 1996). Lilliu (1988) has 39

PAGE 49

suggested that the bull motifs and figurines could suggest a base for a religion or ritual of dual opposition, that is, one of the masculine cults of the bull god and one of the feminine cults of the mother-goddess. During the Late Neolithic, a variety of burial and funerary structures were used in Sardinia, including rock-cut tombs (domus de janas or witches homes), dolmens (monuments of two or more stones in an upright position supporting a horizontal slab), and menhirs (single, upright monoliths). The construction of the domus de janas is of particular interest, with the stone of the structure often resembling the inside of a home. Floor plans are of various shapes, some with central columns used to support the roof. Commonly used for communal burials, and holding a variety of grave goods, the domus de janas was made and utilized in the Late Neolithic and Copper Age periods. However, their chambers were reutilized as hypogea (Figure 6) during the Early Bronze Age (Webster 1996). They are often comprised of a vertical access shaft that is cut down to a depth of about 0.8 meters to a single chamber (c. 2.5 x 2.0 meters). These tombs contain a single or sometimes double inhumation positioned in a semi-fetal posture. Some of these remains were covered in red ocher and were accompanied by various items, such as vessels, tools, and food offerings. Often, the deceased were accompanied by a single female idol made of polished stone. Hypogea have been found among the huts of some Monte Claro villages, as well as appearing as small necropolises. However, the feminine statues that were very characteristic during the Neolithic are not present in the Monte Claro tombs (Webster 1996). There is a link between the increase in exchange of material goods in peninsular Italy during the later Neolithic and changes in burial goods 40

PAGE 50

Figure 6. Hypogea tomb, plan (a) and profile (b) (from Webster 1996) and practices, but the sample of Sardinian burial remains is insufficient to determine if the same changes were occurring on the island (Robb 1994a, 1994b). Small limestone female figurines have been discovered in the context of burials in Sardinia. While some have suggested a comparison with the mother goddesses and fertility goddess of Eastern Europe, others, such as Turchi (1992, Figure 7), have hypothesized that they functioned as companion dolls for the deceased, who might 41

PAGE 51

Figure 7. Plan of a Middle Neolithic tomb (Tomb 387 at Su Cuccuru sArriu in Cabras) with enlarged detail of stone figurine found in Tomb 387 (from Webster 1996) otherwise be lonely or dangerous. More rarely are the figurines carved in silhouette form (usually made from local stone, such as marble), which closely resembles the Cycladic idols of the Aegean (Webster 1996). During the transition from the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, burial practices varied more widely than in other prehistoric Sardinian periods. Not only were old tombs reused and altered, but new structures were built and subsequently modified (Webster 1996). The Monte dAccoddi site near Sassari is a unique example of a site that was used throughout this transition. With a central feature of a truncated pyramid with a ramp and causeway, it is composed of not only domus de janas tombs, but also stone huts, menhirs, and a large stone sphere. A stone slab discovered with associated offerings provides evidence for sacrificial rituals at Monte dAccoddi. 42

PAGE 52

Burials during this period ranged from burials in natural caves to above ground megalithic tombs. These differences may represent an evolution of funerary structures, starting from the earlier dolmen constructions (i.e., dolmens, alles couvertes and long cists or a cassone graves) to the Giants Tombs, or tombe di giganti (MacKenzie 1910). During the later Neolithic in Sardinia, burial architecture became more elaborate with an emphasis on kin relations (Tykot 1999). Webster (1996) suggests that at this time in Sardinia, a system of ascribed status may also have existed. 43

PAGE 53

Chapter Three: Lithic Analysis, Obsidian, and Use-wear Research The Chane Opratoire as a Framework for Lithic Tool Analysis Stone artifacts and debitage are the most abundant forms of artifacts found on prehistoric sites, and in some cases the only artifacts found. Since studying these artifacts provides us with some of the most important clues to understanding prehistoric lifeways, it is not surprising that much attention has been given to the analysis of stone tools and developing theories for the interpretation of these artifacts. An example of a theoretical framework that has been used in lithic studies is the chane opratoire (Figure 8), which was introduced by Andr Leroi-Gourhan (1943). This theory attempts to identify the events that occur throughout the life of an artifact, from the procurement of the raw materials through their manufacture, use, and deposition, and it attempts to provide insight about the choices prehistoric people made. This model considers the process of human decision-making, also demonstrating a feedback system (shown in Figure 8 by a system of arrows) that is multidirectional (Grace 1996). For example, the intended use of an artifact may have an influence on the type of material procured or the technological form the tool takes. The artifacts may not necessarily be produced with a specific use in mind, in fact, the use may be dictated by the availability of certain materials (Bar-Yosef 1991) or technological limitations. A tool 44

PAGE 54

Figure 8. The chane opratoire (from Grace 2000) may be used and then reshaped as the need arises into another form that is better suited for a different use (Goodyear 1974). Each of the links of this chain represent a limiting or determining factor for the purpose of the tool. The procurement of a certain material will influence the purpose of the tool. Some stone is less suitable for knapping than others, and different types of stone are good for different purposes. For example, obsidian, while extremely flakable, is rather fragile, making it better suited for specific purposes (Whittaker 1994). Many researchers have examined the relationships between the links in this chain (e.g., Hayden et al. 1996), identifying various constraints, techniques, tool design considerations, and production strategies. 45

PAGE 55

The abundance and availablity of specific lithic resources can impact the choices made when chosing a raw material (Bar-Yosef 1991), and is a primary influence in the production and use of tools. The availability of materials can be constrained or controlled through physical factors, such as the distance of the material from the site or social networks, such as control by another group or exchange. Exchange can take place in the form of gifts and reciprocal obligations, usually in the context of feasts, religious celebrations, marriage, or the formalization of an alliance. Ethnographic research has demonstrated that items are traded based on their value due to the inaccesibility of the item to the other party, and sometimes involves a third, more distant party. While this exchange can and has taken place on a grand scale (demonstrated by the ability to source valuable exotic goods that were exchanged in the past), small-scale exchange of ordinary goods was also common (Whittaker 1994). The technology, the skills needed to use techniques and tools, that is available also limits the types of tools that can be manufactured. Technology can vary from culture to culture and over time. Also, within a culture there is variance due to the skill of the individual (Whittaker 1994). The intended function of the tool plays a part in the ultimate shape of the tool, and the intended function may influence the type of material procured. The use of the tools is one link of this chain. Use-wear analysis is a technique that can supplement the analysis of lithic materials as a whole (Grace 1989). The chane opratoire approach attempts to recreate the entire process from procurement to discard. Research that encompasses as many aspects of this chain can provide us with a more accurate understanding of how the links are related and how 46

PAGE 56

decisions were made by the culture that is being studied (Tykot 1997; Odell 2001). However, other researchers have modified this diagram. For example, Hurcombe (1992b) adds three other steps after discard: post-deposition, excavation, and post-excavation. All of these processes also impact the artifact, and in turn the data obtained from studying them. It is important to distinguish between the effects of these processes and prehistoric modifications made by humans. Some of the damage caused by these factors can mimic the wear that occurs from the manufacture and use of these tools. The Physical Nature of Obsidian Before examining the use wear on artifacts, there are other factors of which researchers should be aware. Understanding use as it relates to the other links in the chane opratoire is not enough. The physical nature of the lithic raw material needs to be taken into consideration, as different lithic materials have unique properties that directly influence how the material fractures during tool manufacture and use. The physical nature of obsidian affects how it fractures during manufacture and use. Obsidian is a volcanic glass that is produced when lava cools extremely rapidly. It is chemically related to rhyolite and granite, and contains large amounts of nonsilica minerals, including potasium feldspar and quartz. Typically black, as a result of magnetite (Fe 3 O 4 ), the color of this glass can vary depending upon the amount of oxidation that has occurred during the cooling. Some obsidian is banded due to variations in oxidation while the obsidian is cooling and lava continues to fold over it, cooling and oxidizing at a different rate. The texture of obsidian also varies from 47

PAGE 57

perfectly homogenous and glassy to grainy. Inclusions may occur, as well as cracks and stress lines from uneven cooling. What makes obsidian and very fine-grained minerals (e.g., flint, jasper, agate, chalcedony, quartzite) different from other lithic materials is the overall homogenous or isotropic nature of the substance. Other raw materials, such as quartzite and flint, are composed of larger crystals, with varying degrees of brittleness. These are known as anisotropic or cryptocrystalline materials. Fracture Mechanics Fracture mechanics, how crack patterns evolve within a stress field, have long been acknowledged to have applications in the manufacture of stone tools. Recently, they also have been acknowledged to have principles that apply to use wear, even though the details have not been completely worked out (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987; Kooyman 2000). For example, research by Lawn and Marshall (1979) has demonstrated that there is a relationship between fracture analysis and the interpretation of lithic use-wear patterns. Further research has been done by Tomenchuk (1997) regarding the application of fracture mechanics during the analysis of lithic tools. He has developed a parametric use-wear analysis method based on fracture mechanics and engineering principles that can be applied to research pertaining to edge scarring. According to the Griffith (1921) Crack Theory an indentor, such as a hammerstone, acting upon a solid, such as obsidian, causes a compressive stress field to be set up around the contact area. At the same time, strong tensile, or pulling apart, 48

PAGE 58

stresses occur at the immediate edge of the contact area. Brittle materials are weaker in tension than in compression, causing fractures to occur generally where the tensile strength is high. The fractures initiate usually when a critical value is reached where there are microcracks or flaws in the material. Since obsidian from different eruptions varies in chemical composition, brittleness, and density, and can have different amounts of inclusions, it is likely that obsidian from different sources displays slightly different fracture patterns when being crafted into tools and used. Blunt indenters (objects producing a force resulting in a fracture) create a Hertzian cone in obsidian. These are commonly observed when a window is fractured by a bee-bee. This cone has exceptionally sharp edges in structurally isotropic materials (those which have a consistent, homogenous internal structure) such as glass. This fracture type was first described by physicist H. Hertz (2004). He also notes how the fracture patterns in anisotropic materials (those with varying internal structure) produces cones that are symmetrical, yet reflect the crystalline structure of the material. That is, the cone may be triangular, or pyramid like, in nature rather than round. When the fracture in an isotropic material is not produced as a result of a downward force, but with the more likely outward bending action, it results in only a portion of the Hertzian cone being detached or, in other words, a flake (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987; Lawn and Marshall 1979; Kooyman 2000). Other factors contribute to how a material fractures. Fracture patterns tend to occur along the weaker covalent bonds in the material. Since obsidian is relatively isotropic and rigid molecularly, any stress will create an equally clean fracture, such as 49

PAGE 59

the conchoidal (smooth, shell-like) Hertzian cone. Other materials, such as granite, which is anisotropic, produce a much more random fracture pattern, because the pressure from the load follows the least resistant path, breaking weaker molecular bonds. Bending forces that are tangential to the tool edge frequently contribute to the edge damage (Coterell and Kamminga 1979; Lawrence 1979; Tsirk 1979; Odell 1981) possibly more than forces based on the principle of the Hertzian cone. The distinction between sharp and blunt indenters also plays a role in identifying edge damage (Odell 1982). Another force that has been taken into consideration with use wear analysis is the prehension, the handling or hafting, of the tool (Odell 1982). Use Wear Throughout the history of archaeology, scientists have given stone tool types various names that imply a use. Frequently, the names given imply more about the shape of the artifact or techniques used to manufacture the tool rather than its purpose (Whittaker 1994). However, while there is no one-to-one relationship with tool form and function, there is a correlation (Hayden and Kamminga 1979). In fact, evidence has shown that lithic artifacts are multifunctional tools regardless of form (Kamminga 1978; Semenov 1964). An example of this can be seen by examining the angles of the use edges on lithic artifacts. Lawrence (1979) found that edge angles are not indicative of use, but rather, edges with varying angles can be used for many purposes in contrast Keeley (1980) suggests that individual flaked tools may have had several edges that were used for various purposes. 50

PAGE 60

In general, archaeologists describe the functions of tools in a variety of ways, aside from classifying them based on morphology. They also examine other characteristics, for example, the materials suitability to perform specific tasks, through methods such as ethnographic analogy, ethnohistorical documentation, or experimentation (Lewenstein 1981). However, when ethnographic data are used, an archaeological tool with a form similar to a tool from ethnographic contexts may incorrectly be assumed to have the same or even similar function (Hodder 1982). Lithic materials must be described by the mechanical and physical properties relevant to the tool design and use, and the types of wear on the edge of the tool (Hayden and Kamminga 1979). To identify the wear on the edge of the tool, research generally is comprised of examing the tool and discriminating among the different microwear types, or quantifying the size, frequency, and distribution of the different types of termination classes. In general, the goal of these types of analysis is to identify variables that are characteristic of the mode of use and of the material on which the tool was used (Odell 1982). However, the microwear types are defined and interpreted in different ways. Kamminga (1982) identifies six types of fractures related to use wear: bending fractures, feather fractures, hinge fractures, retroflexed fractures, step fractures, and clefts. However, Kamminga also notes that there is not a radical difference between these types of fractures, and he studies them in terms of overall size and depth. These fractures are a reflection of the hardness of the material, how much the material yields, the angle the tool was used at in relationship to the material, the edge angle of the tool, the direction of use, and the type of material used to make the tool. Also, fracture 51

PAGE 61

patterns may not only be an indication of these factors, but also of the force that is needed to carry out the activity (Hayden et al. 1979). Shea (1992) identifies four types of lithic microwear phenomena: microfractures, striations, polishes, and edge-dulling. Microfractures consist of bending and shear fractures. Striations are linear grooves that are a result of grit particles being compressed into the tools surface during use. Polishes are changes in the light-reflecting properties of a surface due to an alteration caused by the tool sliding against another material. Edge-dulling is the rounding of the edge of the tool due to prolonged use (Shea 1992). Edge damage on utilized flakes is assumed to be less complex than the damage on modified tools (Lawrence 1979), as flake tools are usually expediently made, used, and discarded. Ethnographic research by Hayden (1979) and Whittaker (1994) supports this finding, showing that most tools in their studies were used briefly and then discarded. The pattern of edge damage has been shown using microcopic techniques to be a significant indicator of the use of the tool (Keeley 1977; Odell 1977; Vaughan 1985). Macroscopically, others have used edge damage as a way to infer the relative hardness of the materials worked (Parry 1987; Shott 1993); however, this technique is not as reliable as microscopic methods. An underlying principle of the nature of use-wear analysis is the idea that not every type of material and contact situation needs to be tested, that there are underlying principles concerning the physical properties of the material and the loading vectors of the contact that allow us to make predictive statements about these matters (Hayden and Kamminga 1979). Researchers do stress that there are two important parts of credible 52

PAGE 62

use-wear analysis. The first is extensive experimental tool use to provide an adequate base with which to compare and assess archaeological materials (Young and Bamforth 1990; Shea 1992). The second crucial part of the use-wear analysis is verifying the ability of the analyst through a series of blind tests (Odell and Odell-Vereecken, 1980; Gendel and Pirnay 1982). Non-Use Damage Other fractures may occur in non-use situations that cause confusion during use-wear analysis. This damage can occur from the beginning of the tools life, during the manufacturing stage, through post-depositional forces, to the excavation and curation of the artifact (see Sheets [1973] and Healan and Kerley [1984] for in-depth descriptions of the types of manufacture damage and how they are formed during biface and blade manufacturing). The hafting of a tool can also produce a wear pattern along the edge of the hafted element. Sometimes, this blunting has been intentionally done to aid in the stability of the hafting of the tool (Andrefsky 1998). This modification prevents the tool from cutting the material that is holding it in place. In most instances, non-use damage is sufficiently different and easily identifiable from use wear to be distinguished from it (Odell 1982). Usually, the wear from post-depositional non-use damage is spaced irregularly on all edges of a piece, and any striations are generally multi-directional and not associated with a particular edge. Polish is also not associated with a single edge (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980). However, 53

PAGE 63

the damage from the manufacturing of the tool can be harder to ascertain from use wear than the other aforementioned non-use damage. Bag wear, which is caused by the transportation and curation of excavated artifacts, generally results in a random distribution of wear that produces erratic and non-aligned short grooves (Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Healan and Kerley 1984). One example of research involving the non-use alteration of the surface of lithic tools has been conducted by Burroni et al. (2002). Issues addressed included identifying surface alteration features attributable to a combination of factors and tribological features related to processes such as trampling, chemical reactions, and geological factors, such as soil creep and tumbling. They note, as others have (Plisson 1983; Levi-Sala 1986, 1996; Moss 1986; Plisson and Mauger 1988) that these factors heavily impact use-wear interpretation, and that understanding the processes related to wear formation will improve the quality of use-wear analysis. Further research on the wear patterns caused by trampling have been researched by Shea and Klenck (1993) through a series of blind tests. They found that the amount of trampling the artifacts were subjected to was directly proportional to the likelihood the use-wear would be obscured, particularly with lithics used on softer materials, which would produce little wear. Shea continued by noting that, by analysts working together with soil geologists, the degree of compaction by trampling can be assessed prior to selecting assemblages to analyze and the types of analysis to use. This knowledge would also allow the analyst to know how conservative the interpretations of the use wear need to be. More objective methods of analsysis (e.g., detailed mechanical studies and the use 54

PAGE 64

of expert systems) can also reduce the error in interpretation due to trampling effects, according to Shea. It is not clear to what extent post-depositional factors affect, obscure, or destroy the wear patterns from the use of the tool (Shea 1992). Raw Material Although the properties of the individual raw materials must have led to the deliberate selection of these materials, little reseach has been done on the relationship among use, flaking properties, and raw material variability. Greiser and Sheets (1979) compared the wear patterns of different lithic materials, such as variations between flint and obsidian; however, they did not research the variation between physicochemically varying obsidian from different sources. Others, such as Kamminga (1978, 1982), have found that there seems to be considerable mechanical variation within some types of rock, such as quartzite, yet little variability in other lithic materials, including obsidian, which has a limited range of usefulness due to its fine texture and brittle nature (Hayden 1979). Schiffer (1979) found that materials from a single source vary physicochemically, and experimental studies should produce results that are applicable to all lithic materials. Obsidian, in comparison to other lithic materials, exhibits more edge damage due to non-use modification, as it is more brittle than other lithic materials, and it is also debatable if use-polishes are able to be identified on this material (Odell 1982). Keeley (1980) also states that it is hard to distinguish polish on obsidian as the surface of the artifact is generally covered with randomly oriented scratches from use, and microwear traces generally consist of abrasion rather than polish (Grace 1989b). 55

PAGE 65

On the other hand, Spear (1980) made an experimental set of obsidian tools, and he found that it is quite possible to determine the direction of use, as well as if the tool was used on hard or soft contact materials. He concludes that in general the wear on obsidian was quite similar to that of chert. Ethnoarchaeology and Lithic Research Hurcombe (1992) notes that ethnographic data are useful for identifying the general context of tool use, establishing specific wear patterns, and developing ideas for experiments. It is also advantageous to use ethnographic examples for studying wear patterns because tools are used to perform tasks, not to create wear on a tool to be analyzed. Ethnographic data may also provide a better understanding of the organic materials that people used in prehistory. For example, many experimenters may not include the less obvious materials in their use-wear experiments, ones that current populations may still be utilizing, which can be incorporated in their experiments. Thus, Hurcombe (1992) surmises that ethnographic data provide us with a source of ideas on the use of different materials and the processing activities associated with them. The population observed can supply us with a preformed set of experimental tools. However, when conducting ethnographic research, one must consider the similarity between the culture studied and the group with which the analogy is drawn. There is ample research that shows obsidian was used to perform tasks related to daily activities, such as processing food and other materials, and making items, such as tools and clothing. Other research has demonstrated that obsidian was not limited to 56

PAGE 66

these secular daily activities, but it was also used for ritual purposes and warfare. Some of the research has compared the form and function of the tool, as well as other technological attributes, such as hafting techniques. Observances made in todays hunter-gatherer societies provide us with a vast amount of knowledge of the use of lithic tools. Since the only remains found of Neolithic people today are usually bones (an exception is the find of the Iceman), it is difficult for researchers to find evidence for surgeries on soft tissue from human remains. However, it seems likely, based on ethnographic research, that surgeries on soft tissue did occur, and that these simple procedures were performed, as well as the more difficult trepanations (Rudgley 1999). Since this research focuses on the use of obsidian, the following are examples of surgical and ritual practices that may be associated with obsidian use in Europe during the Neolithic. Some surgical procedures leave marks on the skull. These vary from scrapes that may occur from surgery on the soft, scalp tissue surrounding the skull to the more invasive technique of trepanation, which was documented in detail by Wilson Parry, M.D. (1914, 1916, 1918, 1923). Trepanation involves the removal of a section of the skull without damaging blood vessels to relieve symptoms associated with epilepsy, severe and chronic headaches, mental illness, vertigo, deafness, demonic possession (medical illness), fractures, and other head trauma (which is still done today in Western medicine), including the removal of foreign objects. It was noted that the tools used by Parry in his experiments to do this procedure were made of obsidian, flint, slate, shell, glass, and shark teeth. 57

PAGE 67

Archaeologically, there is evidence that Neolithic populations also performed dental procedures (Rudgley 1999). In addition, it is likely that they performed procedures that did not leave evidence on the skeleton. Examples of some of these procedures have been observed in tribal and hunter-gatherer populations, and specifically with the use of obsidian. These surgeries include amputations, the treatment of wounds, bone setting, bloodletting, male and female circumcision, clitoridectomy, Caesarian sections, and the removal of leprous tissue, swellings, and lipomas. Ethnography has also given us information about the symbolic meaning associated with tools. For example, observation of Australian aboriginies stone tool use has provided researchers with the realization that the stone tools, like all artifacts, are part of a complex symbol system. Their users may assign meaning or value that has little to do with the functions of the tool. Some tools are important because they are associated with spiritual power, ancestors, or gender (Jones 1990, Jones and White 1988, Sharp 1952, Taon 1991). Previous Use-Wear Research and Theory: A Synopsis While scientists have been conducting research to identify the function of lithic tools for almost two centuries (see Appendix A), significant lithic use-wear studies began with Semenovs pioneering studies, which were published in the United States in 1964. The use-wear research continued with the work of Keeley (1974, 1979, 1980). Semenovs work focused primarily on studying the microscopic polishes, striations and edge damage of Russian artifacts to explain how the tool was oriented during use and, to 58

PAGE 68

a lesser degree, what materials on which the tools were used. To conduct this research, Semenov replicated thousands of tools and used them on a variety of materials. He subsequently examined the tools for striations and compared them with the wear present on artifacts. Keeleys work, known as the Keeley method (Newcomer et al. 1986, 1988; Rees et al. 1991), focused upon identifying the materials worked by analyzing micropolishes. Keeley developed this from Semenovs work (Grace 1989). He found that micropolishes contrasted with striations, as they are not a reductive process due to abrasion, but rather a depositional one. Keeley identified micropolishes as an additive process that resulted from the frictional heat and melting of the materials onto the tool (Keeley 1980). In the same work, Keeley demonstrated that polish brightness is the main way to identify the material worked. While hide polish is relatively dull and rough, corn glosses are bright and smooth, wood polish is very bright and very smooth, and meat-cutting polish varies in brightness, but is relatively dull with a different surface texture and a greasy luster (Keeley 1980). Keeley studied further use-wear phenomena, such as edge rounding and edge damage with polish to define the tool function and the material upon which it was used. Furthermore, in regard to high-power microscopic analysis, Keeley (1974a, 1974b, 1977a/b, 1980) advises to utilize material from the same source as the archaeological tools when examining polishes, because the polishes are so individually distinctive. He also explains that if the material is not available, then one of the same type and grain size should be used. However, since then, other researchers have said that the use of raw material from the same site is not necessary, because of the very distinct nature of the polishes (Grace 1989). 59

PAGE 69

Since Keeleys initial observations on the process of polish formation, a debate has arisen about the accuracy of his findings. There are two general theories on polish formation. One is termed the silica gel theory (Anderson-Gerfaud 1980), and the other is the abrasion theory. Shelley (1982) and Singer (1979) believe that polish forms when green plants with silica gel are processed. This silica gel theory was also used to explain what appeared to be phytoliths embedded in the surface of flint tools. Subsequent research failed to support the presence of these phytolith-like structures (Meeks et al. 1982; Levi-Sala 1989 and 1993; Yamada 1993). In fact, experiments have produced these structures by rubbing two flints together (Unger-Hamilton 1984). This leads to the formation of the second theory, termed the abrasion theory, which states that polish is the result of the progressive smoothing of the stone due to surface abrasion. This occurs because microscopic silica particles are detached and recompressed on the tool during use (Diamond 1979; Shea 1992). Researchers have made other observations on polish formation that fall outside the parameters of the silica gel and abrasion theories. For example, Collins (1979) believes that polish formation is a reflection of the acidity of the plant being processed. Others, such as Kamminga (1979), have suggested that the presence of water during plant processing is what causes the presence of the polish. Corruccini (1985) suggests that the presence of moisture on the worked material during use also plays a role in the formation of wear features on obsidian, such as striations. Research by Bettison (1985) has shown that sickle sheen, or polish from processing plant materials, is an attritional wear, similar 60

PAGE 70

to that postulated by the silica gel theory, that varies as a result of the age of growth of the plant, which may allow archaeologists to determine the season of occupation of a site. Others, such as Grace (1996), Shea (1992), and Odell (1982), have studied microwear phenomena, such as microfractures and edge dulling, as well as striations and polish. They have also addressed important issues, such as the use of blind experiments to analyze the interpreters ability to correctly identify wear and post-depositional wear patterns. Types of Use Analysis and Considerations for Choosing a Methodology Three basic methods have characterized use-wear studies to date. There are those that attempt to isolate the dependent and independent variables under laboratory-controlled conditions. Others try to replicate the wear patterns without control, that is, under conditions that are more natural. Finally, there are those that analyze the wear patterns on ethnographic tools with known functions (Hayden and Kamminga 1979). Analysts can observe use wear on three different levels. The first level is based on the attributes of the edge used and the macrowear present on them. While most tools that have been used display wear that is visible to the unaided eye, analysts may misclassify tools with microscopic damage when using only a macroscopic assessment (Andrefsky 1998). The second level is based on the low-power microscopy approach, or edge-wear analysis, which is used in addition to the macrowear analysis and the study of the edge attributes. Finally, the high-powered microscopy approach looks at microwear and polish distribution (Grace 1989). The level of analysis used is dependent upon 61

PAGE 71

factors such as the research questions that are asked, the size of the assemblage, the time and money available, and the expertise of the experimenter. The light microscope is useful for the low and high-power examination of wear on large collections, while scanning-electron microscopy (SEM) is most effective when examining the mechanics of wear formation (Ahler 1979). The low power microscopy approach uses magnifications under 100x. Abrasive forms of damage, such as polish, are difficult to see using low-powered stereomicroscopes (Odell 1982). Odell (1982) has demonstrated a relatively high degree of accuracy by using only low-power microscopy techniques; however, there is an inability to identify correctly the exact material worked (Odell 1982). Overall, the low-power techniques rival the high-power ones in terms of accuracy. However, low-power microscopy techniques are advantageous because they require less time to perform than high-power microscopy techniques, and only one microscope is required, making the analysis less expensive (Odell 1982). Andrefsky (1998) states that the low power microscopy techniques are more useful for determining the action of use, such as slicing, boring, and sawing, as well as the relative density of the material worked, that is, soft or hard. Odell and Odell-Vereecken (1980) have shown that low-powered analysis is an accurate technique, yet not precise enough to identify the specific types of materials worked by the tools. The basic types of microwear can be observed with light microscopes (Odell 1982). The high power microscopy approach, or Keeley method, uses magnifications between 100x and 500x. The major contribution of this technique is the identification 62

PAGE 72

and analysis of polish formation that determines the material worked. However, this technique is problematic in blind tests with tools used on more than one material (Keeley 1980; Keeley and Newcomer 1977). Also, factors such as post-depositional effects (Lvi-Sala 1986), raw material color (Bamforth 1988), and the replication of polish formation (Hurcombe 1988; Moss 1987) are factors that have been suggested to affect the ability to identify correctly the functions of tools through high power microscopy techniques. Higher-powered equipment provides more intense and effective lighting conditions, and eliminates most of the depth of field problems due to the uneven surface of the artifacts. High power practitioners generally employ two types of microscopes, incident light and SEM, so they can observe the full range of wear patterns (Odell 1982; Andrefsky 1998). If the sample size is small, or the time and money are available to process larger samples, the high-power microscopy approach is desirable (Odell 1982). The ability for analysts to identify distinctive polishes by using high-power microscopy approaches is not always agreed upon. Recent studies have shown that the qualities of polishes created by working different materials can overlap and are not necessarily distinctive. Variables that affect polish are the type of lithic material used, motion of use, duration of use, and post-depositional effects including the cleaning of the artifacts (Unger-Hamilton 1984). Grace (1989) notes that the main problem with high-power microscopy analysis is that the descriptions of the polishes are subjective and unusable by independent workers. In addition, the brightness of the polishes is a function of the type of microscope and lighting used (Grace 1996). Polish seems to be absent for the most part on obsidian because of its shiny nature (Grace 1989). 63

PAGE 73

In addition, the ability to interpret wear by using either a low-powered or a high-powered microscopy technique is not always agreed upon. Moss (1983) argues that any edge damage observed at between 75 -100x magnifications is usually meaningless, unless the analyst also uses high-powered microscopy information about polish or striations to check the reliability of the edge damage interpretation. She also questions the value of examining wear at the range of 25 -100x magnifications in use-wear studies. On the other hand, Odell and Odell-Vereecken (1980) argue that low-power microscopy methods are reliable analytical tools for determining the function of the artifact. They state that they are not just alternatives when other methods are not available, but are capable of providing vast amounts of data when high-power microscopy methods are not adequate, even though the specific material worked cannot be determined accurately with low-power microscopy techniques. That is, low-power microscopy techniques would be advantageous when studying large collections that do not require high specificity in diagnosing the material worked, because they require less time and money. They also advise that it is most logical to define the situation and specify the goals of the analysis, then choose the methods to employ. A consensus emerged at the Uppsala conference (an international conference on lithic use-wear analysis) in 1989, stating that the low and high powered techniques are not competing, but rather alternative strategies depending on the problems being addressed (Grace 1996). Scanning electron microscopy analysis is also popular in use-wear analysis because of its ability to provide a great depth of field at high magnifications (Shea 1992). Hay (1977) published results demonstrating that it is possible to see enough variability in 64

PAGE 74

use-scratches when using SEM to determine the different materials worked and the nature of those materials. Analysts also employ SEM in use-wear research to study micropolishes in areas such as rock art engravings (Alvarez, Dnae Fiore et al. 2001). Generally, researchers use SEM analysis when studying the wear formation process, or when searching for organic residues, such as plant phytoliths (Shea 1992; Kealhofer et al. 1999), starch grains (Barton, Torrence, et al. 1998), or blood stains (Hortol 2001, 2002). Phytoliths also play a role in residue analysis. Kealhofer et al. (1999) note that range of phytoliths associated with use deposited on artifacts would be significantly different from the range of types of phytoliths in the adjacent soil. Phytoliths can provide information about the materials worked, when combined with use wear evidence such as polishes, and can also indicate the hafting of a tool. However, it is important to note that the analysis of phytoliths alone is not indicative of use, merely contact. In order to surmise tool function, use-wear would have to be present as well. Jahren et al. (1997) note that not only phytoliths are useful with residue analysis, but animal minerals, such as the apatite and carbonate in bones and teeth, may also provide information about the use of a tool, for example animal or plant processing. Other residue analysis has considered the chemical compounds left on the tools after use. Christensen et al. (1992) have produced promising qualitative elemental data with experiments involving environmental scanning electron microscopy, Rutherford backscattering spectrometry, and particle-induced X-ray emission spectrometry, and similarly positive results have been obtained when using these techniques on museum 65

PAGE 75

pieces that are thousands of years old and have undergone decades of handling since being excavated. Although there is not a debate on the existence of residues on used stone tools, there are problems with residue analysis. Craig and Collins (2002) argue that the nature of the surface of lithic materials is not conducive to any long term bonding with protein; however, much of the archaeological literature contradicts this so, alternative ideas about preservation of residues in these archaeological contexts are needed, or the methods employed in residue analysis must be re-evaluated. The presence of a residue may or may not be a result of the function of the tool. For example, contamination from surrounding sediments and post excavation handling can occur (Grace 1996). Contamination can be controlled by handling the artifacts carefully and by conducting soil testing from the immediate area where the artifact was found (Fullagar et al. 1996, Hardy et al. 1997; Newman et al. 1996, 1997). Therefore, it is important to conduct residue analysis on artifacts with a detailed history of curation (Grace 1996). If the use-edge is incorrectly identified, the residues analyzed on that edge are not necessarily related to the use of the tool (Grace 1996). According to Grace (1996), the analysis of residue has a role to play when analyzed with the use wear on the artifact, but the analysis of residue alone is not enough to determine the function of the tool. An example of research integrating residue analysis with use-wear was done by Hardy and Garufi (1998), who attempted to identify plant residues in conjunction with use wear with the hopes of identifying the species of the wood worked, as well as the actions of the wood 66

PAGE 76

working tools. Loy et al. (1989, 1992, 1998) have attempted to identify the species that the tool was used to cut by analyzing blood residue. Even subsurface damage has been studied. Derndarsky and Ocklind (2001) have used dyes on quartz tools to enhance subsurface damage in use-wear research. Others, such as Shanks et al. (2001), have attempted to recover DNA trapped in the microcracks of stone tools, which would possibly allow the identification of processed animals to the subspecies level (Bonnichsen et al. 2001). Most of the use-wear analysis conducted is qualitative in nature. Many researchers have tried to come up with ways to quantify these data. Keeley (1980) tried to quantify the brightness of polish using a light meter. Dumont (1982) researched interpherometry to measure the variations in the texture of polished surfaces; however, he advises that this is a difficult approach to utilize due to technical limitations. Stemp and Stemp (2001) have experimented in UBM laser profilometry to quantify use wear in a non-destructive nature by measuring and recording the micro-topographical patterns related to stone tool use. Image analysis, measuring the texture, pattern, and degree of polish development, has provided promising results for quantifying use-wear polish (Gonzlez-Urquijo and Ibez-Estvez 2002), especially when used in conjunction with other use-wear procedures. Keeley and Newcomer (1977) state that the choice of analytical techniques is dependent upon what factors of wear the researcher is examining. Those who are examining micro-fracturing should utilize low-power microscopy techniques because 67

PAGE 77

they are most effective for this, while mid-range magnifications (up to 100x) are good for studying striations. Polishes are best examined with magnifications of up to 400x. Interpretations Made with Use-Wear Studies Use-wear research can provide specific information about the function of one artifact, or it can provide general information, such as site activities. When examining one tool, researchers are able to derive information about the function of the tool, the materials worked, and the motion during use. For example, use wear can tell us the relative hardness of the material worked, to a point. However, softer materials may produce little wear, or wear patterns that could be confused with non-use modification. In some instances, it is possible to identify the actual type of material on which the tool was used. Information about the motion and direction of use of the tool can be gleaned from examining the wear patterns as well. Cutting, sawing, boring, and scraping are examples of the use methods that can be interpreted. Use wear on individual tools can verify relationships between the form of a tool and its function (Shea 1992). When analyzing complete assemblages, use wear can provide information on the function of the site as a whole, such as the activities that were occurring at a site (Grace 1989). Information about the motions of the tools used and the range of materials worked can allow the identification of the range of activities taking place at that site. Kill sites and special-activity sites can be recognized, as well as sites that had a variety of activities occurring. For example, analysts can make connections between the use of the tools, the spatial clusters of these artifacts, and their distributions within the site to identify the 68

PAGE 78

specific use of different regions of the site (Shea 1992). The range of materials worked can also provide information on subsistence strategies, or the general importance of vegetal as opposed to animal resources, and the proportion of vegetal and animal materials used. Use-wear analysts are able to determine not only the types of work that was done at a site, but how much of a particular type of work was done at a site (Hayden and Kamminga 1979). However, Whittaker (1994) advises that it is important to determine the number of flaked stone tools that must be examined to understand what activities were being performed at a site. That is, an appropriate sampling design is important. Furthermore, comparisons between similar assemblages can be made to determine if they had the same or different functions (Shea 1992). Problems with Use-Wear Analysis The analysis of use-wear on artifacts is a difficult and complex procedure involving many variables, such as the material used, the morphology of the tool, and the subjective nature of interpreting wear and polish (Grace 1989). Factors affecting the analysis of artifacts range from the preservation of the assemblages to the rating of the skills of the analysts. However, many of arguments regarding preservation and skill factors are applicable to most archaeological research (Bamforth 1988). First, the preservation of the archaeological record is always an issue, and lithics are not exempt from this. Post-depositional effects, such as sedimentary processes and subsequent trampling, involve processes similar to the compressive and bending forces that occur during use (Grace 1989; Shea 1992). 69

PAGE 79

In addition, experimental analysis raises questions. For example, Andrefsky (1998) notes that critics of replication studies argue that the studies show only how the tools may have been made and used in the past, not how they were actually used. Although it is true that it shows how a tool may have been used, these experiments do produce a range of variability that can be controlled and understood. Another issue is the subjectivity and observer error in use-wear analysis (McGuire et al. 1982; Newcomer et al. 1986, 1987). For example, analysts are more likely to interpret accurately tools used for longer periods on harder materials because they exhibit more wear than tools used for processing softer materials, such as those associated with food procurement and processing (Shea 1992). In addition, the analysis of lithic use wear frequently involves the interpretation of visually assessed features through analogies made by an experimental set of tools. This results in variation in the interpretation among analysts, even though they are using the same techniques (Shea 1992). Furthermore, multifunction artifacts may have wear patterns similar to those on single-purpose experimental tools. It is possible that tools were used for another purpose after they were discarded, and it is also possible that the reuse occurred after a significant amount of time had passed (Bordes 1980). Related to the aspect of reuse, Odell (2001) notes that tool manufacture is a dynamic process. People may not have only reused the tools, but they may also have reshaped or modified the tools into another form, or the tools may have broken after deposition. Because of these possibilities, it is unlikely to ascertain a sole function of a lithic artifact. For instance, a reduced biface could produce flakes that have a number of uses. At this point, analyzing a flake allows one only to 70

PAGE 80

infer the most recent use of the tool, while being oblivious to the role that the flake played when it was part of a biface. In these cases, analysts may make incorrect interpretations ranging from the function of a single tool to the purpose of a site (Grace 1996; Shea 1992). Studies by Young and Bamforth (1990) demonstrate that a relatively low number of experienced and competent archaeologists correctly identify the used and unused edges of tools, most likely as a result of not considering the non-use modifications that occur. However, others, such as Hurcombe (1988), argue that some methods for recording wear and rating the analysts interpretations are too stringent, for example, not acounting for probable and possible uses. Finally, researchers should identify the goals of the study before analysis due to the amount of time needed to perform use-wear replication experiments and to analyze the total assemblage (Grace 1989). Ideally, analysts should address these goals before excavating so they can use the necessary methods to ensure optimal results. 71

PAGE 81

Chapter Four: The Experiment Materials Used Geologic Both in situ and secondarily deposited samples of obsidian were obtained from the Monte Arci region for this research. Type Sardinian A (SA) obsidian was collected from the Conca Cannus region of the eastern side of Monte Arci, and Sardinian C (SC) obsidian was collected on the western side of Monte Arci. As previously noted, the obsidian in the western Mediterranean was obtained from four volcanic island sources, Lipari, Palmarola, Pantelleria, and Sardinia (Monte Arci) (Dixon 1976; Tykot 1995; Williams-Thorpe 1995). The obsidian from Monte Arci on Sardinia had been categorized into four groups ,SA, SB1, SB2, and SC (Hallam, Warren and Renfrew 1976), prior to the research conducted by Tykot (1991, 1992, 1995), which demonstrated that there are nine chemically distincive sources, five of which were used for making tools (SA, SB1, SB2, SC). The research in this thesis focuses on the analysis of obsidian artifacts from the site of Contraguda, which have been attributed to SA and SC sources. Type SA obsidian is abundant in primary sources below the peak of Conca Cannas on the western region of Monte Arci with the presence of surface finds from Su Paris de Monte Bingias and near Monte Sparau south. Conca Cannas obsidian is black 72

PAGE 82

and glassy, and often translucent enough to see any inclusions with an unaided eye. Deoposits of SC obsidian can be found in Punta Pizzighinu with secondary deposits near Perdas Urias, Mitza Sa Tassa, and Santa Pinta, and on the surface near Su Varongu and Mitza Troncheddu (Tykot 1997). Also primarily black, SC obsidian is contrastingly untransparent when compared with the SA obsidian. It may have intrusive red-brown colors, and it frequently has gray banding on the surface. Measurement The General 6 (152 mm) Dial Caliper was used to take measurements of the dimensions of the obsidian tools. The College B3002 DeltaRange Mettler Toledo Scale was used to weigh the samples. Edge angles were measured using a goniometer. The tools were examined using a Zeiss stereomicroscope. Photography Photographs of obsidian samples and archaeological tools were taken using an HP 720 photosmart camera. Micrographs were taken with the ProScope USB microscope at 50x magnification. Methods Upon returning to the United States, the geologic samples were washed in tap water to remove any excess dirt and reveal any cortex. The pieces were numbered and 73

PAGE 83

weighed, and this information was entered into a database. Photographs of the obsidian were taken and downloaded into a database. The purpose of this experiment was to create an experimental set of tools and to replicate wear that is indicative of use for a specific material. One large nodule of SC obsidian (USF catalog number 6250, 2166.60 grams), and two smaller pieces of SA obsidian (USF catalog number 6248, 837.40 grams, and USF catalog number 6270, 314.20 grams) were selected for the production of experimental tools. One hundred fifty experimental tools were produced using direct hard hammer percussion methods. After I produced 150 tools, 80 were selected based on attributes such as size, sharpness of edges, and morphology. In other words, the pieces that resembled tools from the Contraguda assemblage were selected. The goal was to produce a set of tools comparable to the artifacts found at Contraguda, use them to process various materials that were likely used in prehistoric times at the site, examine the wear patterns on this experimental set, and compare the use wear to those found on the Contraguda artifacts to interpret the function of the prehistoric tools. These experimental tools were then numbered and classified by type, based on definitions taken from Andrefsky (1998). The types were flake, flake shatter, non-flake debitage, and blades. A flake is defined as having a discernible point-of-applied-force or striking platform, and recognizable ventral and dorsal sides. Flake shatter, on the other hand, has recognizable ventral and dorsal sides, but no recognizable striking platform. Non-flake debitage is a detached piece that does not have recognizable dorsal and ventral surfaces or a striking platform. The ventral side of the tool is the side that was facing the core before it was removed. This side 74

PAGE 84

usually has no other scarring on it that occurs from knapping other blades or flakes from the core. The dorsal side of the tool is the side that was facing the flakes or blades that were removed from previous knapping. There are usually multiple scars or evidence of knapping on the dorsal side due to this process. Blade is defined as a detached piece with parallel or sub-parallel margins, usually twice as long as it is wide. The amount of cortex was also recorded. Again, based on Andrefskys (1998) rating techniques, the pieces were rated based on an ordinal scale: 0 = no cortex on the dorsal side, 1 = < 50 percent of the dorsal surface being covered by cortex, 2 = > 50 percent of the dorsal surface being covered by cortex, and 3 = the entire side being covered by cortex. The sample tools were numbered, and photographs of the tools were taken, documenting both the ventral and dorsal sides (Appendix B). After this, they were weighed, and the maximum length, width, and thickness were measured. The tools were then cleaned in an ultrasonic cleaner using tap water to remove any remaining soil and microscopic pieces of obsidian that may have been present on the surface and edges of the tools from the original knapping. After drying in an oven at approximately 35C, they were examined microscopically at 50x magnification, and the point of percussion was noted, as well as any edge damage due to manufacturing. The edge damage, when present, was minimal (on average 0.5 flakes per tool) for the SC obsidian, while the SA obsidian had substantially more edge damage (2.5 flakes per piece) from the production of the pieces. Photographs were taken of some examples of points of percussion and edge damage at 50x magnification. 75

PAGE 85

After the tools were produced, and 80 were selected and examined, two SA and two SC tools were used for each of the following materials: meat (Bovis sp.), bone (Bovis sp., wet and dry), fish (Merlangius sp.), lambskin, dried meat (Bovis sp.), tropical grass (Stenotaphrum sp.), ceramics (terra cotta), leaves (Ulmus sp.), dried oak wood (Quercus sp.), clay (unsourced, self-hardening pottery clay), hair (Homo sapiens), feathers (Nymphicus hollandicus), and cork (Quercus suber). Flora specimens, clay, and cork were obtained from the University of South Floridas Tampa Campus. The animal products and ceramic material were purchased at a local supermarket, with the exception of the feathers, which were taken from a molting pet. The use-wear materials were chosen based on the categories outlined by Shea and Klenck (1993), who categorized them in terms of yielding and resistance. The yielding classes are soft, medium (semi-rigid), and hard (rigid), while the resistance categories were animal (non-siliceous), vegetal (moderately siliceous), and inorganic (highly siliceous). The specific use materials were chosen based on their availability during the Neolithic in the Contraguda region. They found that there is a range of wear for various materials, based on the materials resistance and silica content. The goal of this experiment was to produce wear patterns that could be compared to the artifacts, allowing for the function of the artifact to be attributed to one of these categories, rather than a specific plant, animal or other material. The general hardness for the materials used in this experiment is presented in Table 2. These are examples and are not a complete representation of the materials that could fall into each of these categories. 76

PAGE 86

Table 2. Hardness of Materials Worked Based on Shea and Klenck (1993) Hardness of materials worked Soft Medium Hard Animal Meat Hair Fish Animal hide Dried meat Feathers Bone (wet and dry) Vegetal Leaves Cork Dried oak wood Inorganic Tropical grass Clay Ceramics Shea and Klenck (1993) found that wear patterns associated with their experiments could be identified at magnifications under 100x; however, they occasionally used magnifications of 120x to view smaller-scale wear. For each type of obsidian, one piece was used for five minutes, and the other was used for 15. The edge that was used was recorded for subsequent analysis. Therefore, the angles and motions of use were not controlled. However, the general angle(s) and motion(s) of use were noted on the use-wear form (Appendix C). Experiments were also done to replicate bag-wear and trampling. Details of the individual experiments are described in the following section. After the use experiments, the tools were cleaned to remove any deposits that would cover or hinder the viewing of the wear patterns on the tools. This was done using a method similar to that described by Keeley (1980). The tools were rinsed with water, and swished in a detergent solution to remove grease, and then rinsed again. They were then placed in a 2 percent HCl solution for 5 minutes, rinsed, placed in 0.1 M solution of 77

PAGE 87

NaOH for 30 minutes, and then rinsed again. After that, they were cleaned in the ultrasonic cleaner using Fisherbrand ultrasonic cleaning (50 ml of cleaning solution per 2000 ml of water) solution for 30 minutes. They were then cleaned in the ultrasonic machine for 30 minutes using only water. They were dried again in an oven at approximately 35C. After cleansing, observations were made on their wear macroscopically and at 50x magnification. Photographs were taken of examples of different types of wear (Appendix D). A sample set of tools (n = 20), half SA obsidian and half SC obsidian, was made and numbered for the blind portion of the experiment. These were taken from USF geological sample numbers 6250 and 6270. Volunteers were recruited from the Anthropology Department at the University of South Florida (listed in acknowledgments). The volunteers were directed to use a tool for a minimum of five minutes on a specific material, while noting the motions and methods used to work the material. They also noted how well the tool worked, how long it could be used effectively, and if any breakage occurred. The form with directions for this portion of the experiment is in Appendix E. After use, these tools were cleaned in the same manner as the sample set I worked with was cleaned, the wear was analyzed, and interpretations were made. The Methods and Standards Used for the Analysis of the Tools The tools used in this experiment, as well as those analyzed from the site of Contraguda, are flaked tools without retouch. The analysis of the experimental set of 78

PAGE 88

tools was conducted using the form in Appendix F. The information recorded on this form was based on research done by Grace (1989). The purpose of recording the wear in this manner is to maintain a consistent method for observing the wear patterns from one tool to the next. The tool number and type of obsidian were recorded on this form, along with topographic features, edge morphology, and both macroand micro-edge wear. The topography included the general nature of the edge (e.g., flat, undulating, or ridged) as well as other topographic features that were present on the edge, such as percussion ripples and edge feathering. Morphological features of the used edge were also recorded. These features included the angle, length, thickness, profile, and shape of the edge. The angle measurement of the used edge was taken at the midpoint of the used edge 1 mm back from the edge of the tool using a goniometer. The length of the used edge was measured using a pliable piece of wire as a guide. The measurement of the thickness of the tool was also taken from the midpoint of the used edge. The profile is a measurement of the plan of the use edge, which could be convex, straight or concave. This measurement is a ratio of the perpendicular distance of the working edge and its chord, or linear distance between the extremities of the working edge. This measurement is taken by using graph paper, and it is calculated by dividing the perpendicular measurement by the chord (Figure 9). For example, a concave edge would produce a negative profile measurement, while a straight edge would produce a measurement of zero, and a convex edge would produce a positive score (Figure 10). The shape of the tool is measured in a 79

PAGE 89

Figure 9. The measurement of the profile of the tool (from Grace 1989) similar manner; however, the size of the complete tool is measured. The working edge of the tool is placed along the y-axis of the graph paper, and the maximum lateral dimension of the tool is measured. This measurement, divided by the maximum height of the tool, which is obtained in a similar manner but measured along the x-axis, provides a score that is indicative of the overall shape of the tool (Figures 11 and 12). 80

PAGE 90

Figure 10. Examples of profile ratios (from Grace 1989) Macroscopic and microscopic use wear was recorded on these tools. For the purposes of this analysis, macroscopic wear is that which is seen without any magnification, and microscopic wear (for this experiment) is that which is seen at 50x 81

PAGE 91

Figure 11. The calculation of the shape of the tool (from Grace 1989) magnification. The same factors were recorded for both macroscopic and microscopic wear. Macroscopic wear could be present on a tool without microscopic wear being present. The first factor that analyzed was the location of the wear. The ventral and dorsal sides of the tool were studied to determine if wear was present. If there was no wear, this was noted, and if there was, the side or sides with wear were noted. Macroscopically, the wear was recorded as being absent, occurring at a rate of < 5 fractures per 10 mm, or occurring at a rate of 5 fractures per 10 mm. Microscopically, use-wear fractures were recorded as being absent, occurring at a rate of < 5 fractures per 5 mm, or occurring at a rate of 5 fractures per 5 mm. In both instances, these fractures 82

PAGE 92

Figure 12. Examples of the scores obtained from shape measurements (from Grace 1989) 83

PAGE 93

Figure 13. Common fracture types recorded in this experiment, with arrows in the profile view representing the direction of force resulting in the various fracture types (from Grace 1989) were classified as flakes (or conchoidal fractures), snaps, or steps (Figure 13). The predominant fracture types were recorded for each tool, as was the distribution of the wear. The wear distribution was classified as either random, having no regular pattern, intermittent, displaying a regular pattern on some areas of the edge but not others, and regular, which is a consistent display of wear along the edge. The minimum and maximum sizes of the wear fractures widths were measured and noted. Finally, the amount of edge rounding was examined. Recording on the observance of edge rounding is heavily subjective. In this research it was either noted as absent, light, or heavy. Macroscopically, heavy rounding is characterized by a rounded edge that can be easily 84

PAGE 94

seen with the unaided eye and felt with the finger. Light rounding is more difficult to define, and the assignment of this rating is usually made after a more detailed observation. Microscopically, edge rounding was rated as heavy if an obviously blunt edge was observed, and light if it was more questionable. Typically, with macroscopic examination, the more the edge rounding that was present, the more difficult it was to focus the edge of the tool when viewing it laterally. Due to the highly subjective nature of edge rounding, and the variety of angles produced when manufacturing lithic tools, it is probably more beneficial to use this as supporting evidence for the presence of wear rather than as a primary indicator. Results of the Experiment In these experiments, the tools that were used on known materials were analyzed first, then the tools used in the blind experiments. While the topographic and edge morphologies of these experimental tools were recorded, this analysis focuses primarily on the wear patterns identified in the forms of fracture types, and their frequency, size, and distribution. Acknowledgments have been made regarding the effectiveness of the different types of obsidian when processing materials. In some instances, it is not clear if these differences are likely due to the type of obsidian or the morphology of the tool, and these instances are noted. Appendix G provides a complete record of the experiment. 85

PAGE 95

Material Worked: Meat. Tool Numbers: 1, 2, 41, and 42 The SC obsidian tools (1 and 2) were more effective for processing meat than the SA obsidian tools (41 and 42). The SC obsidian only required sawing and cutting to produce cubes of meat, while the SA obsidian used for 15 minutes required the use of a scraping motion, causing the meat to appear soften or torn rather than cut. There was no evidence of macrofractures on the SC tools; however, macrofractures were present at the rate of < 5 per 10 mm in the form of flakes and snaps on the ventral side of the tools produced from the SA material. The SA tool used for 15 minutes only had damage in the form of flakes, while the SA one used for five minutes showed damage in the form of both flakes and snaps. This wear was distributed randomly across the edge of the tool, and was possibly related to the edge angle. There was no evidence of edge rounding at the macroscopic level on any of the four tools. The microscopic analysis revealed that the SA tools showed wear on the ventral sides at the rate of 5 per 5 mm on the both of the tools. The SA tool used for five minutes produced microwear in the form of flakes and snaps, while the tool used for 15 minutes produced wear in the form of flakes, snaps, and steps. The most common fracture types were flakes on both tools, and the sizes of the use-wear damage ranged from 0.2-3 mm. The SC tools showed microscopic wear at a rate of < 5 fractures per 5 mm for the tool used for 5 minutes, and 5 fractures per 5 mm for the tool used for 15 minutes. Both tools displayed only flake and step fractures, with steps being the predominant fracture 86

PAGE 96

type on the SC tool used for 5 minutes, and flakes being the predominant fracture type on the SC tool used for 15 minutes. The sizes of these fractures ranged from 0.1 1.5 mm. For all tools used to work meat, the tools used for 5 minutes had wear that was randomly distributed along the edge, while the tools used for 15 minutes produced an intermittent pattern of wear. None of the tools showed evidence of microrounding. Material Worked: Bone (wet). Tool Numbers: 3, 4, 43, and 44 The SA tools were used to saw and cut and appeared more effective for processing this type of material than the SC tools did. While the SA tools removed or incised the bone with the cutting and sawing motions, the SC tools only removed bone material effectively by scraping. Macroscopic wear was present on the ventral and dorsal sides of each of the four tools in the forms of flakes and steps. While the SA tools did not display a dominant fracture type, the SC tool used for 5 minutes was predominantly marked by step fractures, as was the SC tool used for 15 minutes; however, it was harder to determine the predominant fracture type on the latter. Three of the tools displayed macrowear on the order of 5 fractures per 10 mm. The fourth, the SC tool used for 15 minutes, had < 5 fractures per 10 mm. These were found at regular intervals. Light edge rounding was found on the SC tool used for 5 minutes, the SA tool used for 15 minutes, while no edge rounding was found on the other two tools. The microscopic wear appeared on the ventral and dorsal sides of the tools used for 5 minutes, the dorsal side of the SC tool used for 15 minutes, and the ventral side of 87

PAGE 97

the SA tool used for 15 minutes. Flakes and steps were found on all of the tools, while snaps were also noted on the SA tool used for 15 minutes. While there was no predominant fracture type observed on the tools used for 5 minutes, steps were the most abundant fracture type found on the tools used for 15 minutes. These fractures occurred in a regular manner at the rate of 5 per 5 mm on all of the tools. The fracture sizes ranged from 0.2 3 mm for the SC tools, and 0.25 3 mm for the SA tools. Light microrounding was observed on three of the tools, with heavy microrounding occurring on the SC tool used for 5 minutes. Material Worked: Fish. Tool Numbers: 5, 6, 45, and 46 The SA tools worked better than the SC tools for cutting fish skin and flesh in this experiment. However, time, rather than type of obsidian, played a factor in the methods of use in this experiment. The tools used for 5 minutes were used to cut and saw, while the tools used for 15 minutes dulled and were used in a scraping method. Macrowear was observed on three of the four tools, excluding the SA tool used 5 minutes. The SC tool used for 5 minutes had one step fracture (< 5 per 10 mm) on its dorsal side, and the tools used for 15 minutes had 5 fractures per 10 mm. The SC tool had macro flakes and snaps regularly distributed along its edge, both on the dorsal and ventral sides, with snaps prominent. The SA tool had flakes and steps regularly distributed as well, but only on the ventral side, without a prominent fracture type. No edge rounding at the macroscopic level was observed on any of the tools. 88

PAGE 98

Microscopically, the SC tools had edge damage on the dorsal sides. Flakes and steps were on the tool used for 5 minutes, while flakes, snaps, and steps were on the tool used for 15 minutes. Flakes were the most common fracture type on both of the tools. This edge damage was distributed regularly on these tools at the rate of 5 per 5 mm. The SA tool used for 5 minutes showed randomly distributed microwear on the ventral and dorsal sides. This wear was in the form of flakes and snaps with flakes being the most common type. It was observed at the rate of < 5 per 5mm. The SA tool used for 15 minutes had microwear on the ventral side in the form of flakes and steps, without a predominant type, and the wear was regularly distributed at the rate of 5 per 5mm. Microscopic edge rounding was observed only on the SA tool used for 15 minutes and it was light. The fracture sizes ranged from 0.1 2 mm on the SC obsidian, and 0.25 2 mm on the SA obsidian. Material Worked: Bone (dry). Tool Numbers: 7, 8, 47, and 48 The SC obsidian cut dry bovine bone; however, it was slower at working the bone than the SA obsidian. All of the tools were used in a sawing motion. Both SC tools and the SA tool used for 15 minutes were also used in a cutting fashion. Macroscopically, there was damage on the edges of the ventral and dorsal sides of all of the tools, in the form of flakes and steps occurring at the rate of 5 per 10 mm. The most predominant fracture type on the SA and SC tools used for 5 minutes and the SC tool used for 15 minutes were steps. The use wear on these tools was distributed regularly. The SA tool used for 15 minutes had a random distribution of wear and no 89

PAGE 99

predominant fracture type. All of the tools displayed macrorounding. The SA tool used for 5 minutes displayed heavy rounding, and the other tools had light rounding. Microwear was present on the dorsal sides of all of the tools, and on the ventral side of the SA tool used for 5 minutes. Flakes and steps were found on all of the tools, and snaps were also found on the SA tools. There was no predominant fracture type on the SC tools, and flakes and steps were more common than snaps on the SA tools. The wear was regular and occurred at 5 per 5mm on all of the tools. Microrounding was light on the SC tool used for 15 minutes and heavy on the remaining tools. The use fractures on the SC tools ranged in sizes from 0.2 2 mm and 0.25 2 mm on the SA tools. Material Worked: Ceramics. Tool Numbers: 9, 10, 49, and 50 There did not appear to be any difference between the effects of SA and SC obsidian on the ceramics. All of the tools were used in a scraping and sawing motion, creating an etched effect upon the terra cotta. Macrowear was present in the forms of flakes and steps on the ventral and dorsal sides of all the tools, and it occurred at the rate of < 5 per 10 mm. The SC tools and the SA tool used for 5 minutes showed steps as the predominant fracture type. No predominant fracture type was observed on the SA tool used for 15 minutes. The wear patterns were random on the SA tools and intermittent on the SC tools. Light macrorounding was observed on the tools used for 15 minutes, and heavy edge rounding 90

PAGE 100

was observed on the SA tool used for 5 minutes. The SC tool used for 5 minutes did not display any edge rounding. Microwear, in the form of flakes and steps, was present on the ventral sides of all of the tools, and on the dorsal sides of those tools used for 5 minutes. Steps were the predominant fracture type on the SC tools; the SA tools did not have a predominant type. The wear was at the rate of 5 per 5 mm, except for the SA tool used for 5 minutes, which showed wear at the rate of < 5 per 5 mm. The edges of each tool appeared heavily rounded at the microscopic level. The SC tools fractures ranged in sizes from 0.1 2 mm, and the SA tools fractures ranged in sizes from 0.2 3 mm. Material Worked: Dry Oak. Tool Numbers: 11, 12, 51, and 52 The experiments with the dry oak required a sawing motion with all of the tools. In addition, a scraping method was used with the SA tools and the SC tool used for 15 minutes. Macroscopic wear was visible on the ventral and dorsal sides of all of the tools. The wear on the SA tools occurred at a rate of < 5 per 10 mm, and the wear on the SC tools occurred at a rate of 5 per 10 mm. The SC tools only displayed regular macroscopic wear in the form of snaps, while the SA tool used for 5 minutes displayed flakes and steps, and the SA tool used for 15 minutes displayed flakes, steps, and snaps. Both of the SA tools displayed random wear. Macrorounding was absent on all of the tools except the SA tool used for 15 minutes, which had heavy macrorounding. 91

PAGE 101

Microscopic wear was noted on the ventral sides of all of the tools and the dorsal side of the SA tool used for 15 minutes and both of the SC tools. Flakes, snaps, and steps occurred on all of the tools, with snaps predominating on the SC tools. The SA tool used for 15 minutes produced wear at the rate of < 5 per 5mm, while the other tools had wear at the rate of 5 per 5 mm. The wear on the SC tools was regular, the SA tool used for 5 minutes had intermittent wear, and the SA tool used for 15 minutes had random wear. Microrounding was only present on the SA tool used for 15 minutes, and it was heavy. The SA tools use wear measured 0.25 3 mm, and the SC tools had wear measuring 0.1 3 mm. Material Worked: Tropical Grass. Tool Numbers: 13, 14, 53,and 54 All of the tools used on the tropical grass were used in the same manners, cutting, sawing, and scraping. There was no notable difference between the effectiveness of the SA and SC obsidian. The tools used for 5 minutes did not display any macrowear. The tools used for 15 minutes produced wear on the ventral and dorsal sides at a rate of 5 per 10 mm in regular intervals. The most common type of fracture was the snap on both of the tools. The SA tool also had step fractures, the SC tool had steps and flakes in addition to the snaps. The only macrorounding observed was light and on the SA tool used for 5 minutes. Microwear was observed on the ventral side of all of the tools, and the dorsal sides of the SA tool used for 15 minutes, and both SC tools. The rate of the wear on the 92

PAGE 102

SA tool used for 5 minutes was < 5 per 5 mm, and the remainder of the tools had a rate of wear of 5 per 5 mm. The SA tool displayed use wear in the form of flakes in a random pattern. The remaining tools had microscopic use wear in the form of flakes, steps, and snaps. The predominant use-wear fracture type varied for each of the tools. The SA tool used for 15 minutes had a regular pattern of microwear generally in the form of flakes and snaps. The SC tool used for 5 minutes predominately had flakes as the common microwear type, and the use wear was distributed randomly along the edges. Finally, the SC tool used for 15 minutes had regularly patterned wear with the snaps being the predominant wear type. Light microrounding was observed on the SA and SC tools used for 15 minutes, and heavy edge rounding was noted on the SA tool used for 5 minutes. The SC tool used for 5 minutes did not have any microrounding. The SA tools had use-wear fractures ranging in sizes from 0.2 2 mm, and the SC tools had fractures measuring from 0.1 2 mm. Material Worked: Leaves. Tool Numbers: 15, 16, 55, and 56 Initially, there appeared to be a difference in the effectiveness between the SA and SC obsidian types when cutting the leaves. However, in this instance the one tool that was not functioning as well as the others, the SA tool used for 5 minutes (#55) had a greater edge angle than the others. The cutting difficulty was most likely due to this factor. The tools in this experiment were used in a cutting and sawing manner. Macroscopically, no wear was observed on the SA tool used for 5 minutes. The SC tool used for 5 minutes and the SA tool used for 15 minutes had macrowear on the 93

PAGE 103

ventral and dorsal sides. The SC tool used for 15 minutes only had macrowear on its dorsal side. When wear was present, it was at the rate of < 5 per 10 mm. The SC tool used for 5 minutes had flake and step fractures intermittently displayed along the working edge, with steps being the most common. Snaps and steps were present on the tools used for 15 minutes, and they both had a regular pattern of wear. Steps were more common on the SC tool, and snaps were more common on the SA tool. There was no evidence of macrorounding; however, the SA tool used for 5 minutes had an edge that appeared to be heavily rounded; however, it was also noted that this might be due to the natural edge angle of the tool or the manufacturing processes. Microscopic wear was present on the ventral side of all of the tools. It was also present on the dorsal sides of the SC tools and the dorsal side of the SA tool used for 15 minutes. The SA tool used for 5 minutes had a wear pattern with snap fractures randomly occurring at a rate of < 5 per 5 mm, and the other tools had various types of fractures regularly occurring at a rate of 5 per 5 mm. The SA tool used for 15 minutes had snap and step fractures, with snaps being the most common. The SC tool used for 5 minutes had microwear in the form of flakes, snaps, and steps with flakes being the predominant type of use-wear fracture. The SC tool used for 15 minutes had microwear in the form of flakes, snaps, and steps with flakes and steps being the most common types of wear. Microrounding was absent on the SC tools and light on the SA tools. The SA tools had fractures measuring in sizes from 0.2 mm, and the SC tools had fractures measuring in sizes from 0.2 3 mm. 94

PAGE 104

Material Worked: Animal Hide. Tool Numbers: 17, 18, 57, and 58 The SC tools cut the animal hide more effectively than the SA tools. However, the SC tools dulled after about three minutes of use. All of these tools were used in cutting, sawing, and scraping motions. Macrowear was absent on all of the tools, and only the SA tool used for 5 minutes showed any sign of macrorounding, and it was light. Microwear was present on the ventral sides of the SA tool used for 15 minutes and both of the SC tools. The microwear was present at the rate of 5 per 5 mm in the form of flakes and snaps on all of the tools, and steps on the tools used for 15 minutes. The SA obsidian did not have a predominant wear type, and it was randomly distributed. The SC tools had flakes as the predominant type of wear and they occurred in regular patterns. There was no evidence of edge rounding on these tools. The SA tool used for 5 minutes did not display any microwear. The light edge rounding and lack of wear on this tool is probably more a result of the edge angle of the tool rather than the type of obsidian, as the angle was at least 20 greater than the other tools. The size of the use-wear fractures on the SC obsidian measured 0.1 mm, while the SA obsidian use-wear fractures were 0.2 mm. Material Worked: Cork. Tool Numbers: 19, 20, 59, and 60 While cork from trees is available on Sardinia, I was unable to return with samples, so cork test tube stoppers were used as a substitute. The obsidian tools were all used in a sawing method on the cork. The SC tool used for 5 minutes was also used to cut the cork. 95

PAGE 105

Macrowear was present on the ventral and dorsal sides of the tools used for 5 minutes, and it was present on the dorsal side of the SC tool used for 15 minutes. The SA tool used for 15 minutes did not have any macrowear. When the wear was present, it was in the amount of < 5 per 10 mm, with only snaps occurring on the tools used for 5 minutes, and flakes occurring on the SC tool used for 15 minutes. On the SC tools, the wear was intermittent. The wear was random on the SA tool used for 5 minutes. Macrorounding was not present on any of the tools. Microscopic wear was observed on all of the tools. The tools used for 5 minutes had wear on both the ventral and dorsal sides, the SC tool used for 15 minutes had wear only on the dorsal side, and the SA tool used for 15 minutes had wear on the ventral side. The SA tools had flakes, steps and snaps occurring at the rate of < 5 per 5 mm in an intermittent fashion. The most common type of use-wear fractures observed on the SA tool used for 5 minutes were snaps, while the most common fractures on the SA tool used for 15 minutes were steps. Microrounding was absent on both of these tools. The SC tools displayed wear at the rate of 5 per 5 mm. The SC tool used for 5 minutes had use wear in the form of flakes, snaps and steps with steps and snaps being the most common. This wear was distributed regularly across the edge of the tool. The SC tool used for 15 minutes had an intermittent distribution of flakes on its edge. The microrounding was light on both of the SC tools. Possible striations were noted on the SA tools. The use-wear fractures ranged in size from 0.2 1 mm on the SA obsidian, and 0.1 5 mm on the SC obsidian 96

PAGE 106

Material Worked: Hair. Tool Numbers: 21, 22, 61, and 62 For this experiment, volunteers (Beyer and Ceo) removed hair by shaving their arms and cutting small bundles of hair from their scalps. While some epithelial tissue may have been removed during this process, skin is also classified as a soft animal product; therefore, not affecting the results. The tools in this experiment were used to cut, shave, and scrape. The SA tool used for 5 minutes was used to cut, and the remaining tools were used to scrape or shave. Macroscopic wear on the SA tool used for 5 minutes occurred in a regular pattern in the form of snaps at the rate of 5 per 5 mm on the ventral and dorsal sides of the tool. The SA tool used for 15 minutes did not have any macroscopic wear. The wear on the SC tool used for 5 minutes had use wear in the form of flakes and steps, with steps being the most common type. These use-wear features were distributed in a random manner at a rate of < 5 per 10 mm on the ventral and dorsal sides of the tool. The SC tool used for 15 minutes had flakes intermittently distributed on the ventral side at the rate of 5 per 10 mm. Macrorounding was absent on these tools. Microscopically, all of tools had use wear on the ventral sides, with the SC tool used for 5 minutes also showing wear on the dorsal side. This wear occurred in the form of flakes, snaps, and steps on all of the tools except the SA tool used for 15 minutes, which did not have step fractures. The most predominant fracture type in all instances was snaps. These fractures were distributed at a rate of 5 per 5 mm for all of the tools. The pattern of wear was regular on all of the tools with the exception of the SC tool used for 15 minutes, where it appeared in an intermittent fashion. The wear on the SA tool 97

PAGE 107

used for 15 minutes appeared serrated in nature. Microrounding was absent on all of the tools. The SA tools had use wear fractures measuring 0.1 1 mm, and the SC tools had use-wear measuring 0.1 2 mm. Material Worked: Clay. Tool Numbers: 23, 24, 63, and 64 All of the tools in this experiment were used in a cutting motion. Macroscopically, the tools that had wear were the ones used for 5 minutes. The SA tool had wear in the form of snaps that occurred regularly at a rate of 5 per 10 mm on the ventral and dorsal sides. The SC tool had wear in the form of flakes that intermittently occurred at the rate of < 5 per 10 mm on the dorsal side. Macrorounding was absent on all of the tools. Microscopically, the tools used for 5 minutes had use wear present on the ventral and dorsal sides, while the tools used for 15 minutes had wear on the ventral sides. The SA tool used for 5 minutes had a random pattern of flakes and steps occurring at a rate of < 5 per 5 mm, with no predominant type. This tool had light microrounding, while the remaining did not have microrounding. The SA tool used for 15 minutes had use-wear in the form of flakes and snaps, without a predominant type, randomly distributed at the rate of < 5 per 5 mm. The SC tool used for 5 minutes had flakes and snaps intermittently distributed along the ventral and dorsal sides of the tool at the rate of 5 per 5 mm. There was no predominant fracture type on this tool. The SC tool used for 15 minutes had flakes, snaps, and steps intermittently occurring at the rate of 5 per 5 mm along the ventral side of the use edge, with snaps as the predominant fracture type. The sizes of the 98

PAGE 108

use-wear fractures on the SA tools ranged from 0.1 3 mm, and the sizes of the use wear fractures on the SC tools ranged from 0.1 1 mm. Material Worked: Dried Meat. Tool Numbers: 25, 26, 65, and 66 The tools in this experiment were used to process dried meat by cutting and sawing. Macroscopic wear occurred on all of the tools at the rate of < 5 per 10 mm. On the SA tool used for 5 minutes, flakes and steps occurred on the ventral and dorsal sides intermittently. There was no predominant fracture type on this tool. The SA tool used for 15 minutes had a random pattern of flakes and steps on its ventral side. Again, there was no predominant fracture type. The SC tool used for 5 minutes had snaps occurring in a regular pattern on the ventral and dorsal sides of the tool, while the SC tool used for 15 minutes had flakes occurring intermittently on both sides. There was no macrorounding observed on these tools. Microscopically, the wear on these tools occurred at a rate of 5 per 5 mm. The SA tool used for 5 minutes had flakes and snaps distributed intermittently on the ventral and dorsal sides. The most common use-wear fracture type on this tool was the flake. The SA tool used for 15 minutes had snaps and steps randomly distributed on the dorsal side, with the snap being the predominant fracture type. The SC tool used for 5 minutes intermittently displayed snaps and steps, with snaps being the most common type of use-wear fracture on the ventral and dorsal sides. The SC tool used for 15 minutes had all three types of use-wear fractures with snaps being the most common. These were distributed regularly on the ventral and dorsal sides. On the SC tool used for 5 minutes, 99

PAGE 109

microrounding was absent, and light microrounding was observed on the remainder of the tools. The use-wear fractures on the SA tools displayed wear ranging from 0.1 2 mm. The SC tools had use-wear fractures measuring from 0.1 4 mm. Materials Worked: Feathers. Tool Numbers: 27, 28, 67, and 68 The tools in this experiment were used in a cutting and sawing motion. Overall, the SC tools stopped working effectively after 5 minutes of use, and the SA tools were better suited for processing feathers. Macroscopic examination revealed that the SA tool used for 5 minutes had steps, and to a lesser degree snaps, on the dorsal side of the tool. These fractures were distributed in a regular pattern at a rate of 5 per 10 mm. The SA tool used for 15 minutes also had a regular pattern of wear with flakes and snaps with snaps being the most common use-wear type. These occurred at a rate of 5 per 10 mm on the ventral side of the tool. The SC tool used for 5 minutes had macrowear on the ventral and dorsal sides at the rate of 5 per 10 mm. This wear was in the form of flakes and steps, with flakes being the predominant fracture type. The SC tool used for 15 minutes displayed the same wear as the SC tool used for 5 minutes, but the wear was only present on the ventral side and in the form of flakes. Macrorounding was absent on these tools. Microscopically, the SA tools were similar. Wear was present on one side, the dorsal side, of the tool used for 5 minutes, and on the ventral side of the tool used for 15 minutes. The wear on the tool used for 5 minutes occurred at a rate of < 5 per 5 mm, while the wear on the tool used for 15 minutes occurred at a rate of 5 per 5 mm. The 100

PAGE 110

wear on both tools was in the form of flakes, snaps, and steps, without a predominant fracture type. Both of the SC tools had wear in the form of flakes, snaps, and steps occurring at the rate of 5 per 5 mm. On the SC tool used for 5 minutes, the wear was present on the ventral and dorsal sides with steps being the most common wear type. The SC tool used for 15 minutes had wear on the ventral side with flakes and steps being the most common types. The use wear on all four tools occurred at regular intervals. The microrounding was heavy on the SA tool used for 5 minutes, light on the SC tool used for 5 minutes and the SA tool used for 15 minutes, and absent on the SC tool used for 15 minutes. The SA tools had use wear measuring 0.25 3 mm, and the SC tools had use wear measuring from 0.2 1 mm. Bag-Wear Experiment. Tool Numbers 29 and 69 These tools were placed in a 4 mil plastic bag with other obsidian and carried for a week (approximately two hours of walking and driving motion each day for seven days) in order to mimic the handling of artifacts after they are excavated from a site. After the week was over, the tools were examined macroscopically and microscopically. Macroscopic wear was noted on both tools. The SA tool had snaps and steps randomly distributed 5 per 10 mm, without a predominant fracture type. These use-wear fractures were observed on the ventral and dorsal sides of the tool. The SC tool had flakes randomly distributed on the ventral side of the tool at the rate of < 5 per 10 mm. There was no evidence of edge rounding; however, it broke during the experiment. Both pieces were examined. 101

PAGE 111

Microscopically, wear on the SA tool occurred at a rate of 5 per 5 mm. This wear was in the forms of flakes, snaps, and steps on the dorsal side in an intermittent pattern and there was no predominant fracture type. The SC tool had flakes and snaps occurring in a random pattern at a rate of < 5 per 5 mm. There was no predominant fracture type on this too either. There was no evidence of microrounding on these tools. The fractures on the SA tool ranged from 0.25 1 mm, and the fractures on the SC tool range from 0.1 0.5 mm. Trampling Experiment. Tool Numbers 30 and 70 In the trampling experiment, a piece of SA and a piece of SC obsidian were placed in a bin of sand at a depth of 2.5 cm. They were then stepped on 200 times, by a 105 lb individual wearing sneakers. Macroscopic wear was observed on the ventral and dorsal sides of both pieces. The SA tool had random damage in the form of flakes, snaps, and steps at the rate of < 5 per 10 mm, with no predominant fracture type. The SC obsidian had snaps and steps in a regular pattern on one edge at the rate of 5 per 10 mm, and random on the other edges at a rate of < 5 per 10 mm. There was no macrorounding on either piece. Microscopic wear was present on the ventral sides of both tools. The SA piece had flakes, snaps, and steps without a predominant type in an intermittent pattern at the rate of 5 per 5 mm. The SC piece had flakes and steps in a random pattern at the rate of 5 per 5 mm. There was no predominant fracture type on this piece. Microrounding was 102

PAGE 112

absent. The fractures on the SA piece ranged in size from 0.1 1 mm, and the fractures on the SC piece ranged in size from 0.5 1.5 mm. Results and Interpretations of the Blind Experiment The blind experiment was done with tools 31 40 and 71 80. These tools were used by volunteers, in my absence, on the same materials that were used in the controlled portion of the experiment. After the tools were used and cleaned, they were examined using the same parameters that were used with the sample set. The information was then compared to the data collected with the sample set (as presented in Appendix G). Comparisons were made based on the categories of predominant macrowear type, macrowear pattern, macrowear frequency, microwear type, microwear pattern, microwear frequency, macrorounding and microrounding. For each category, the matching patterns for both SA and SC sample sets were noted. The types of materials worked for each category and obsidian type were noted, and the frequency of the occurrence between categories was tallied. That is, if soft meat was present in all categories, this possible use was given a score of eight. If there was only one category of wear that matched wear from soft meat, then it was given a score of one. To reduce the possible number of interpretations of wear, if the material produced a score of one, that material was not included in the list of possible materials that the tool was used to process. After the possible materials that the tools were used upon were noted, the forms that were completed by the volunteers were reviewed and the use of the tool was noted. 103

PAGE 113

This test produced mixed results. For example, with the SC obsidian, I was able to attribute wear correctly (that is, the material worked was within the top two most tallied groups based on my wear analysis in either type of obsidian), to the exact material worked 90 percent of the time, while a correct identification by chance would occur 9 percent of the time. However, with the SA obsidian, I was able to attribute wear correctly to the exact material worked (e.g., soft meat, medium meat, hard meat) 60 percent of the time. Overall, I was successful in identifying the exact material 75 percent of the time. I was able to identify the class of material (e.g., meat, vegetal, inorganic) 90 percent of the time for the SC obsidian, and 80 percent of the time for the SA obsidian. The wear patterns on the tools used in the blind set were compared to wear patterns on both types of obsidian. When compared solely to the wear patterns on the same type of obsidian, the materials worked were correctly identified 70 percent of the time with the SC obsidian, and 50 percent of the time for the SA obsidian. When compared solely to the other type of obsidian, the materials were identified 50 percent of the time for the SC tools used in the blind experiment, and 40 percent of the time for the SA tools used in the blind experiment. The results of this analysis will be addressed further in the discussion section of this thesis. 104

PAGE 114

Chapter Five: Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from the Site of Contraguda, Italy Description of the Site In order to make a sufficient interpretation of artifact and site function, it is important to understand the site and archaeological context of the obsidian artifacts examined in this study. The open air site of Contraguda sits on a hill in the Coghinas Valley of Sardinia, about 20 km from the north coast of Sardinia and 3 km north of the town of Perfugas in Sassari (Figure 14). Used during the Late Neolithic, or the Ozieri period, this site extends over several hectares and is the largest Ozieri settlement known on Sardinia. Not only is the site one of the largest open-air sites from this time, but it is also one of the only open-air sites with obsidian artifacts. While most of the contemporaneous sites that have produced obsidian artifacts on this island have been almost exclusively rock shelters and caves, Contraguda provides archaeologists with a different perspective on the lifeways during the Late Neolithic on Sardinia. This site was first identified in 1980 during an archaeological survey that was conducted to identify and catalog archaeological features at the site. In 1992, a systematic investigation of Contraguda was begun by Boschian et al. (2000-2001). Five radiocarbon dates obtained from this site place it in the mid-4 th millennium BC, with the calibrated dates ranging between 4050 and 3770 BC. However, the samples that provided these dates were not from the same context as the obsidian tools, which appear 105

PAGE 115

Figure 14. The location of Contraguda on the island of Sardinia, Italy with other Late Neolithic sites identified 106

PAGE 116

to be from later in the Ozieri period. This makes the site contemporaneous with Grotta Filiestru, as well as the sites of Basi, Presa-Tusiu, and Scaffa Piani in Corsica. The location of this site and the time it was used, places it in an important position. At this time, obsidian was being distributed from Monte Arci throughout Sardinia and Corsica and to mainland sites in Italy and France. Obsidian tools have been found at this site outside of a feature, called Structure A-B. This structure is composed of a series of small, interrelated walls, which form rooms. Structure A-B is of unknown function, and the quality of the construction varies. One hundred ninety-two obsidian tools were found in strata beneath the plow zone associated with this structure. These tools were found in areas 3, 4, 19, and 20 of the site (Figure 15), which are adjacent to each other and in proximity with the undefined Structure A-B. The Excavation of Contraguda In November and December of 1992, preliminary excavations took place in Contraguda by Boschian et al. (2000-2001) with the approval of the Ministero per i Beni culturali ed Ambientali. The first unit that was excavated covered 32 m and was labeled saggio A. The upper 25 cm stratum contained a light brown soil with artifacts that were disturbed by agricultural activity. Under this plow zone were levels with degraded limestone and flint, which were also destroyed by the agriculture activity and subsequently covered with colluvium. One hundred meters from saggio A a second unit, saggio B, was opened. This second unit was on a greater slope than the 107

PAGE 117

Figure 15. A site plan of Contraguda highlighting areas 3, 4, 19, and 20, and test units D, I, and Q. Red areas indicate those with obsidian artifacts (from Lai and Tykot 2004 after Boschian et al. 2000-2001). first, and covered 13 m. This unit contained archaeological materials, predominantly lithics, in a 30 cm layer of dark, tawny soil. This layer also was disturbed by 108

PAGE 118

agricultural activities. Under this was a very compact, dark brown, almost black layer with a muddy texture and small, sandy lenses. Under a subsequent layer of degraded limestone, there was a more abundant amount of archaeological materials, including lithics and pottery. The layer containing these items ranged in depth from 10 40 cm below the degraded limestone. During the excavation of this layer, two structures became partially exposed. The first one was visible along the north and southwest walls of the unit, while the second one was present along the east and southeast walls. There were more lithic deposits including blocks of unworked flint under the second structure. The soil under this layer was light brown and sandy with more lenses and an abundant amount of archaeological materials. The excavations during this season demonstrate that people were utilizing this site during prehistoric times and there were at least two distinct phases of use. The first one was related to the Ozieri culture, and the second one is attributed to the phase between the end of the Copper Age and the beginning of the Bronze Age. During the 1995-1996 field season, the main goals of the research were to find the boundary of the site and protect it from further damage from agricultural activities. This season consisted of a survey of about 8 ha. This was divided into three areas during this survey, each 10,000 m in size. Saggio B was expanded by 24 m more. This defined the zone of the two structures discovered during the prior excavation. Fourteen test units were excavated, twelve of which yielded in situ archaeological layers with a remarkable amount of artifacts. Of particular interest are test units D and I in area 3, and test unit Q in area 4. Test unit D was on the top of a hill, which included 109

PAGE 119

the space frequented by people during prehistory. Several cobbles of medium and small size were found in this unit, as well as several potsherds and lithic artifacts. Test unit I, covering a surface of 69 m, was opened on a higher part of the hill, where the land takes on a slight slope, about 30 m from test unit D. This test unit uncovered many stones that appeared related to each other. The removal of plowed soil in this test unit revealed two structures. The first had an elliptical shape (7 x 5 m) and was oriented in an east-west direction. This structure was a large tumulus made of flat flint stones and cores, as well as other undefined materials of various sizes between 5 and 50 cm long. Some of these were placed in an organized manner. About 80 cm of this structure was visible above ground before the excavation. Ceramic Ozieri artifacts were also found on the surface. The second structure was about 2 m south of the tumulus and was partially embedded in the limestone bedrock. A remarkable quantity of manufactured lithics and ceramics were found in test unit Q, which initially covered 36 m. The distribution and density of these artifacts required reducing the investigation to 4 m. In this reduced investigation, a hollow, unidentifiable structure was uncovered, which contained an abundant amount of artifacts including decorated Ozieri pottery, well-crafted flint blades, food remains and residue, and a bone punch. As the field season progressed, the excavation expanded to about 3 ha, including the previously, partially investigated areas 3 and 4. Area 3 was enlarged to about 90 m for further research of the two structures excavated in the prior field season, and the amount of tumulus uncovered was also expanded. At this time, Boschian et al. decided to 110

PAGE 120

excavate around the tumulus, because the plan of this structure was complex. In addition, there are no other similar coeval structures like this in Sardinia, so only a portion of it was excavated. Culturally, the tumulus is attributed to the terminal phase of the Ozieri culture. Structure B had a dense concentration of stones placed on the limestone bedrock with several unspecified archaeological materials and food remains. Area 4 produced archaeological remains, including some structures that were distributed along a surface of 123 m. The artifacts from this sequence were of the Ozieri culture, as well as from the terminal phase of the Monte Claro and Bonnannaro cultures. The analysis of these artifacts identified a first phase of use during the final Neolithic with breaks in continuity, either due to abandonment or a decline in activity or population. There are also components of use, transformation, and abandonment during the end of the Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age. The work between 1997 and 2000, by Boschian et al., included the division of the entire hill into large 50 x 50 m sections. Each section was defined as an area, and shovel tests were done inside them to determine the limits of the site and assess the dimensions of the deposits. The prehistoric site was about 4 ha; however, the surface finds of lithic and ceramic materials covered a much larger region. The deposit was thinner on the upper part of the hill, and became thicker along the south and southeast slopes of the hill. The excavations in 1997 followed the preliminary tests, and focused on areas 3, 4, 19 and 20. During this research, they found that the hill of Contraguda was the site of many components of use by humans during prehistory. The most substantial use appears to have occurred during the Late Neolithic. 111

PAGE 121

The Stratigraphy of Contraguda The following defined stratigraphic sequence applies to the entire hill of Contraguda: Layer 1 includes soil disturbed by agricultural activities, containing abundant amounts of ceramics from the Ozieri period. Materials from the Copper and Bronze Age are rarely found. The second layer contains materials from the metal ages; however, a systematic investigation has not been done on these objects. The soil in this layer is probably of colluvial origin, and is found only south of the hill in area 1. The third and fourth layers correspond to the highest part of the hill, and are present in some parts of areas 3, 4, 19, and 20. There is no continuity due to the damage from plowing, thus they cannot be directly related to each other. Both of these layers contain materials from the Ozieri culture. Layer 5 consists of the pits dug in the limestone bedrock, which also contains Ozieri culture materials. The Sampling Strategy for the Analysis of the Obsidian Artifacts from Contraguda Over 500 obsidian artifacts were found at Contraguda. These artifacts were sent to the archaeological lab at the University of South Florida to be chemically analyzed to determine the most likely source that provided the raw material for these tools. Although this sample provides an opportunity to research the use of these tools, many of the artifacts were of an uncertain context, primarily due to agricultural activity around the site that has disturbed the soil matrix in which these obsidian objects were found. In addition, the curation of these artifacts from this site is unknown. However, radiocarbon dating indicates that these artifacts are most likely from the Ozieri period. 112

PAGE 122

In order to assess confidently what activities were taking place, only obsidian artifacts from well documented contexts were analyzed, primarily from the 192 obsidian pieces found in areas 3, 4, 19, and 20. Additionally, all of the 192 tools have been classified as to the most likely attributed source (Tykot et al. 2003), and others from this sample have been sent for chemical analysis to obtain additional information about the geologic source. Analysis showed that the artifacts were attributed to the SA and SC sources of Monte Arci. Since the tools sent out for analysis were not available for this use-wear study, I relied only on the tools which were available for 19 specific test units in these four areas, so in some instances not all of the tools in a unit were available for analysis. However, 110 tools (Appendix H, Table 3) were analyzed, representing approximately 20 percent of the total assemblage from Contraguda and all of the areas where radiocarbon dates were obtained. Artifact Analysis The tools in the assemblage from Contraguda, and therefore the experimental set, were composed of expediently made, informal, unretouched, small, flaked tools. According to Binford (1979), these types of tools are situational in use, not produced with a specific use in mind, and made with little regard to form. The expedient nature of their manufacturing and short period of use are interpreted as being wasteful when compared to formal tools which are used for long periods of time and retouched for subsequent use. Informal tools, such as the ones in the Contraguda assemblage, are thought to be indicative of sedentism (Parry et al. 1987). While mobile groups generally utilize formal 113

PAGE 123

Table 3. The Contraguda artifacts analyzed in this study, including the area number, unit, obsidian type, and the results of the use-wear analysis USF NUMBER AREA UNIT NUMBER TYPE MATERIALWORKED 2991 3 L19 SA Hard Animal Products 3020 3 L19 SA Medium Hardness Animal Products 3022 3 L19 SC Soft Animal Products 3034 3 L19 SA Soft Vegetal Products 3035 3 L19 SA Soft Inorganic Products 3036 3 L19 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3095 3 L19 SC Medium Hardness Vegetal Products 2983 3 M19 SA Post-Depositional Wear 2984 3 M19 SC Hard Animal Products 2986 3 M19 SA Post-Depositional Wear 3004 3 M19 SA No Wear Present 3006 3 M19 SC Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3007 3 M19 SA Medium Hardness Animal Products 3008 3 M19 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3104 3 M19 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3116 3 M19 SC Hard Animal Products 3165 3 M19 SA Soft Animal Products 2994 3 M20 SC Hard Animal Products 2995 3 M20 SA Soft Animal Products 2996 3 M20 SA Soft Vegetal Products 2998 3 M20 SA Medium Hardness Animal Products 2999 3 M20 SA Post-Depositional Wear 3000 3 M20 SC Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3001 3 M20 SC Post-Depositional Wear 3002 3 M20 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3003 3 M20 SA Soft Inorganic Products 3024 3 N18 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3026 3 N18 SC Post-Depositional Wear 3027 3 N18 SC No Wear Present 3059 3 O17 SA Post-Depositional Wear 3061 3 O17 SC Soft Animal Products 3062 3 O17 SA Hard Animal Products 3068 3 O17 SC Medium Hardness Vegetal Products 3069 3 O17 SA Post-Depositional Wear 3070 3 O17 SC Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3072 3 O17 SA Soft Inorganic Products 3073 3 O17 SC No Wear Present 3074 3 O17 SC Medium Hardness Vegetal Products 3076 3 O17 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3079 3 O17 SC Post-Depositional Wear Continued on the next page 114

PAGE 124

Table 3 (Continued) USF NUMBER AREA UNIT NUMBER TYPE MATERIALWORKED 3122 3 O17 SA Hard Animal Products 3123 3 O17 SA Soft Animal Products 3141 3 O17 SA Medium Hardness Vegetal Products 3145 3 O17 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3146 3 O17 SA No Wear Present 3155 3 O17 SA Hard Inorganic Products 3154 3 O18 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3064 3 O18 SC Hard Animal Products 3065 3 O18 SC Hard Animal Products 3077 3 O18 SC Medium Hardness Vegetal Products 3101 3 O18 SC Medium Hardness Vegetal Products 3103 3 O18 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3081A 3 O18 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3081B 3 O18 SA Soft Vegetal Products 3081C 3 O18 SA Hard Animal Products 3179 4 HHH23 SA Hard Vegetal Products 3184 4 L12 SC Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3192 4 L12 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3194 4 L12 SC Post-Depositional Wear 3186 4 S11 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3189 4 S11 SC Hard Vegetal Products 3272 19 GG4 SC Post-Depositional Wear 3273 19 GG4 SC Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3336 19 HH2 SC Soft Inorganic Products 3377 19 HH2 SC Soft Vegetal Products 3453 19 HH2 SC Soft Inorganic Products 3455 19 HH2 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3456 19 HH2 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3457 19 HH2 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3458 19 HH2 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3283 19 II1 SA Soft Inorganic Products 3284 19 II1 SA Post-Depositional Wear 3285 19 II1 SA Post-Depositional Wear 3286 19 II1 SA Soft Animal Products 3287 19 II1 SC Soft Inorganic Products 3288 19 II1 SC Hard Animal Products 3289 19 II1 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3291 19 II1 SC Soft Vegetal Products 3491 19 II1 SC Soft Animal Products 3298 19 LL3 SC Soft Inorganic Products 3299 19 LL3 SA Post-Depositional Wear 3301 19 LL3 SC Soft Animal Products Continued on the next page 115

PAGE 125

Table 3 (Continued) USF NUMBER AREA UNIT NUMBER TYPE MATERIALWORKED 3302 19 LL3 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3303 19 LL3 SC Medium Hardness Animal Products 3304 19 LL3 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3305 19 LL3 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3306 19 LL3 SA Hard Animal Products 3307 19 LL3 SC Medium Hardness Vegetal Products 3392 19 LL3 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3445 19 LL3 SA Hard Vegetal Products 3446 19 LL3 SC Medium Hardness Vegetal Products 3472 19 LL3 SA Soft Inorganic Products 3482 19 LL3 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3220 20 EE45 SC Hard Inorganic Products 3221 20 EE45 SC Post-Depositional Wear 3223 20 EE45 SC Post-Depositional Wear 3204 20 FF50 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3205 20 FF50 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3206 20 FF50 SC Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3207 20 FF50 SC Soft Animal Products 3219 20 GG3 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3229 20 GG47 SC Soft Inorganic Products 3240 20 GG47 SA Medium Hardness Inorganic Products 3241 20 GG47 SC Hard Animal Products 3242 20 GG47 SC Soft Inorganic Products 3243 20 GG47 SA Soft Animal Products 3209 20 GG49 SC Soft Inorganic Products 3218 20 GG49 SA Medium Hardness Vegetal Products 3210 20 GG50 SC Soft Inorganic Products 3211 20 GG50 SC Soft Vegetal Products 3213 20 GG50 SC Soft Vegetal Products tools because these tools are multifunctional, modifiable, and easily transported, sedentary populations are not as affected by raw material availability. Therefore, sedentary populations do not need the formal tools, as they can manufacture, use, and discard the tool as the need arises (Andrefsky 1998). 116

PAGE 126

Any of the tools I studied which were not already sourced by Tykot et al. (2003), I attributed to either the SA or SC source based on a physical appearance. The tools were then examined macroscopically and microscopically to identify any use wear and the edges on which these patterns occurred. The artifacts were then rated using the same methods that were used for the experimental set to determine their function. The determination of the most likely type of material processed was based on the same process that was used to determine the function of the tools used in the blind portion of the experiment. 117

PAGE 127

Chapter Six: Results and Discussion Experimental Results During the experiments, users observed that the SA and SC obsidian varied in effectiveness for working certain materials. For example, when processing soft animal products, the SC obsidian cut the meat in clean cubes, while the SA obsidian was not as effective, leaving the meat to appear torn or shredded. In contrast, hard animal products (wet and dry bone) were processed more effectively when using SA tools. Medium hardness animal products were processed effectively using both types of obsidian; however, specific materials classified in the medium hardness animal category, such as animal hide, fish, and feathers were processed more effectively with specific types of obsidian, as noted in the previous chapter. There was no difference noted between the two types of obsidian when processing vegetal and inorganic products. The wear patterns observed on the SA and SC obsidians were significantly different in nine out of eleven observed parameters, as well (Table 4). In some instances, the use of one type of obsidian would not produce wear on the macroscopic level. This was noted on some of the SC obsidian tools that were used to process soft animal and soft and medium organic products, and on some of the SA obsidian tools used to process soft and medium animal, soft and medium inorganic, and medium vegetal products. Overall, the SC obsidian demonstrated more evidence for macroscopic wear. The variations and similarities of all the use-wear attributes examined in this study are presented in 118

PAGE 128

Appendix I, and statistical comparisons of the distribution of these attributes between SA and SC obsidian are provided in Table 4. For this comparison, the non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used, as the data are non-continuous. The results reflect a comparison of the distribution of the measurements between the SA and SC obsidian tools used in the controlled portion of the experiment. The individual categories used to interpret wear were compared, rather than the individual use categories, as this provides a larger sample size. Experimental Discussion The use-wear experiment produced results that are noteworthy for this research, as well as the design of other obsidian use-wear studies. These include the variation of the effectiveness of working the material based on the type of obsidian, as well as the production of different wear patterns on these obsidians. This experiment was conducted with two of the types of obsidian used to make the artifacts from the site of Contraguda in an attempt to control for this variable. Even though I found no mention of a study that specifically compared and demonstrated the use-wear attributes of two types of obsidian, I expected that there would be some variation between the usefulness of the types and wear patterns on the tools due to the variations in chemical composition, inclusions, and brittleness. This research has demonstrated that some variation does occur that appears to be related to the type of obsidian used, at least in the case of the SA and SC obsidians used at Contraguda. The results in Chapter Four indicate that using obsidian from a different source as a reference 119

PAGE 129

Table 4. The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the use-wear features analyzed in this research FEATURE TWO-SIDED LARGE SAMPLE K-S STATISTIC APPROXIMATE P VALUE SA and SC macrowear type 1.27 0.08 SA and SC macrowear distribution 1.778 < 0.005 SA and SC macrowear frequency 1.905 < 0.005 SA and SC microwear type 1.778 < 0.005 SA and SC microwear distribution 2.54 < 0.005 SA and SC microwear frequency 3.556 < 0.005 SA and SC macrorounding 3.429 < 0.005 SA and SC microrounding 2.54 < 0.005 SA and SC minimum fracture size 2.286 < 0.005 SA and SC maximum fracture size 1.016 0.25 SA and SC fracture size range 0.889001 0.41 set can reduce the number of correct interpretations made when analyzing artifacts, in this case, up to one-fifth of the time. If the results of future research support the findings in this study, this could provide important information for others conducting use-wear experiments with obsidian. 120

PAGE 130

While only two tools from each of the obsidians were used on each specific material, these initial observations would benefit from a more detailed experiment with a larger sample size, while discriminating and controlling more of the variables, such as edge profile, edge angle and duration of use, direction of use, and other types of obsidian. These factors were not controlled in this study due to the stabilization of the use edge and its angle that occurs when working a material. In addition, controlling for the same use angle is debatable. The nature of material processing is one that employs angles and motions that are varied and inconsistent due to the preference of the worker, the characteristics of the product, and the desired result. Also, the brittleness of obsidian causes damage to occur more quickly than on other materials, such as flint. In addition, these tools in the Contraguda assemblage were likely to have been used for one purpose, as previously discussed (Andrefsky 1998; Binford 1979; Parry et al. 1987). However, a study controlling for the use of various combinations and permutations of the categories of materials investigated in this research could also provide valuable information, particularly for formal, multifunctional tools. This was not addressed in this research because of the informal nature of the artifacts, and limits due to time and funding. Not only is it important to identify the source of the obsidian that was exploited for artifact production in prehistory and use these same materials when analyzing use wear, but it is also essential to conduct a blind experiment in order to identify the analysts ability to identify correctly the material worked. Without conducting the blind portion, there is no way to verify the reliability of the analyst when interpreting wear on artifacts. An additional benefit from the blind portion of the experiment is that the results 121

PAGE 131

produced by using these tools can be added to the initial set of experimental tools since the product it was used on is known. This not only increases the sample size of the experimental set, but also allows the analyst to identify wear patterns that were created by different users who may not have been using the same methods as the analyst did on the initial sample set. Through my survey of the literature, I have found that the analysis of use-wear attributes on lithic artifacts is a highly subjective process. This aspect makes attempts to duplicate experiments or analysis difficult without direct training. Even then, it is likely that the analysts have conflicting views on how use wear is observed. Researchers may define terms in various ways, or interpret wear differently, and they may emphasize the importance of the range of use-wear attributes inconsistently. In an attempt to address this problem and standardize lithic use-wear analysis, Grace (1996, 2004) has developed computer programs that analyze information (e.g., form, wear patterns and lithic grain size) of an artifact, and subsequently provide information on tool technology and use. LITHAN is an example of a program that analyzes the technology and typology of tools, and FAST is a program that provides the likely use of the tool. Results for the Contraguda Artifacts The determination of the use of obsidian tools at Contraguda was based on the documentation and scoring of visible wear attributes on the artifacts. These attributes were then compared to those patterns found on the experimental tools to identify the 122

PAGE 132

material these tools were most likely used to process. The analysis of 110 artifacts from 19 different units in Areas 3, 4, 19, and 20 revealed that most (43 percent) of the tools were used to process inorganic materials, or had wear patterns consistent with no use or post-depositional damage (17 percent) (Figure 16). Twenty-three percent of the tools showed evidence of working animal products, and 17 percent were showed evidence of use on vegetal products. The SA obsidian artifacts were generally used to process medium hardness inorganic materials, such as cutting or incising clay, while the SC obsidian was also used to process more medium hardness vegetal and soft and hard inorganic materials than the SA obsidian. Figure 16. Materials processed with both SA (n = 51) and SC (n = 59) obsidian at Contraguda (n = 110) 123

PAGE 133

Discussion of the Archaeological Results The analysis of the obsidian artifacts from Contraguda provides information about activities occurring at this site during the Late Neolithic, or Ozieri period. Recent research has shown that 75 percent of the obsidian artifacts from Contraguda are attributed to the SC source (Lai and Tykot 2004). However, the reason for this preference is not clear. Both sources are on the same mountain with no significant difference in distance from Contraguda. The reasons for this distribution could range from access to the raw materials to preference due to workability when manufacturing tools or functionality when using them. The results of this specific use-wear analysis indicate that the SC was used for processing more hard inorganic materials than SA, while SA was used to process more medium hard inorganic materials. The distribution of which tools near Structure A-B could indicate this structure may have been used for the storage of obsidian, hafted tools, or processed goods, such as pottery. Due to the ceramic and flint finds at Contraguda, it is also possible that this structure was used for the heat treating of flint or as a kiln for the manufacturing of pottery; the latter use could be indicated by the presence of slumped sherds or residues on the structure. The remainder of the obsidian tools that were found with wear patterns consistent with the processing of animal and vegetal materials indicate that humans have been utilizing this region for similar activities throughout the Late Neolithic. A study of the use-wear patterns on the flint tools found at Contraguda could compliment the information found from analyzing the use of the obsidian. For example, it may be possible that the variety of materials the flint was used to work could be quite different than those worked with 124

PAGE 134

obsidian, which could indicate a preference based on the qualities of the two lithic media. In addition, the proportion of obsidian relative to flint can provide information about the accessibility and possibly usefulness of these materials. The stratum disturbed by agricultural activities, containing artifacts from the Late Neolithic that were used for similar activities, provide a means for understanding the subsistence traditions of the people of Sardinia and their changing technologies. 125

PAGE 135

Chapter Seven: Conclusions Other Research in this Region Ammerman et al. (1998) report findings of an excavation of a household at Piana di Curinga, Italy. They found that the lithic remains were primarily obsidian artifacts. Obsidian was also found, along with Impressed-Ware sherds, in the daub of dwellings at this site. The lithic remains were found below a thick layer of daub fragments that were covering a large portion of the occupation surface due to the collapse of the structure. This provided very favorable conditions for preservation. Two hundred and twenty five pieces of obsidian were removed from the occupation surface, with the attributed source being the island of Lipari, located 100 km from the site. For microwear analysis, 50 of these pieces were analyzed, including all of the blades found and other pieces that had edges that were deemed to be good for cutting. Three categories of wear were identified. The first was related to slicing or sawing motion, ranging from light whittling to notch cutting. The second category of wear was primarily related to scraping actions. The third type of wear pattern is similar to activities such as cutting and slashing certain types of plants. There is evidence that some of the blades were used for more than one activity. Also, it appears that the obsidian was not exploited in an efficient manner, that is, the blades did not appear to be use-exhausted. Ammerman et al. (1998) conclude that, because these artifacts did not show heavy wear patterns, obsidian was not considered a 126

PAGE 136

scarce or valuable commodity even though the source of the obsidian was more than 100 km from the site. Linda Hurcombe (1992, 1993; Hurcombe and Phillips 1998) has also done use-wear analysis with obsidian from the central Mediterranean sources. However, her research focused on Sardinian obsidian artifacts from the Sardinian sites of Grotta Filiestru (Neolithic) and Ortu Cmidu (Late Bronze-Iron Age). Hurcombe used 250x magnification to record 18 variables related to polish, striations, attrition, and residues to identify the functions of the tools. She found that the Grotta Filiestru artifacts were mainly utilized for flesh, fish, and hide working, while the Ortu Cmidu artifacts were used for processing soft and tough plants. Hurcombe (1992) also found through experimentation that obsidian is very good for cutting meat, hide, and plants, and for any work that requires fine detail. Research has been done on obsidian use-wear in the central Mediterranean (Ammerman et al. 1998; Vaughan 1990, Hurcombe 1992: and Iovino 1996), and has provided valuable information about the function of sites and human behavior. Further use-wear research, macroscopic, low power or high-power, in the Mediterranean will provide additional data useful for supplementing provenance, trade, and manufacturing studies that have been recently conducted. Considerations Regarding Use-Wear Experiments In contrast to many of the studies discussed in Chapter Three, this research has relied solely on macroscopic and low-powered techniques. In addition, this research 127

PAGE 137

incorporated provenance studies, allowing for the inclusion use of two different types of obsidian, both used at Contraguda, in the experimental set. The consideration of the specific source of the raw material in this research, and the recognition of significant differences in the wear patterns on these two types of obsidian, demonstrates that this is an essential point when interpreting obsidian use-wear patterns. The results of this experiment indicate that the source of the obsidian artifacts being studied should be identified and used when manufacturing a reference set. Obsidian from the two different sources worked certain materials (e.g., soft animal, medium animal, and hard animal) with varying effectiveness. This research has shown that in most instances, the wear patterns produced on SA and SC obsidians were significantly different. Further experimentation with different types of obsidian and a larger sample set controlling for more factors, may provide more clarification on these preliminary findings. It is important to note that an approach using multiple lines of evidence, such as lowand high-powered microscopy and residue analysis, is favorable, as more data can be obtained evaluating the arguments for the function of the tool. However, prior to conducting any analysis, the quality of the curation and handling of the artifacts, the availability of soil samples, the research questions, and the factors such as available resources should be considered before deciding which methods to employ when analyzing the tools. For example, conducting residue or SEM analysis on a large assemblage of tools could be costly and time consuming. In this instance, it would be important to know the curation techniques used so issues such as contamination can be 128

PAGE 138

addressed. General research questions about the site being analyzed may be answered by a more efficient, both time and cost-wise, method, such as the quick low-powered technique used in this research. Due to the subjective nature of this research, it would be ideal to utilize one skilled use-wear analyst when studying an assemblage until a standardized method is devised. After conducting this research and analyzing the results, I have found that use-wear studies are highly subjective and require extensive knowledge of the composition of the material being used, the products available to the people being studied, their culture, and contemporary site function. This process proved to be a complex, tedious task at times. It involved various activities from fieldwork to assessing and reassessing use-wear patterns, to determining the best analytical techniques to use when describing the data. However, since the wear patterns on the sample set of SA and SC obsidian have been studied and documented, the future analysis of SA and SC obsidian artifacts will be much easier. The findings in this study have not only provided an interpretation of the activities occurring at the site of Contraguda during the Late Neolithic, but have also demonstrated that this approach is useful for identifying use-wear patterns on artifacts and determining the general materials that the artifacts were being used to process. When used by a skilled analyst, it is likely that these methods can be used in the field to provide an expedient method to identify and study lithic artifact use. 129

PAGE 139

References Acquafredda, P., T. Andriani, S. Lorenzoni, and E. Zanettin 1999 Chemical Characterization of Obsidians from Different Mediterranean Sources by Non-destructive SEM-EDS Analytical Method. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:315-325. Ahler, S. A. 1979 Functional Analysis of Nonobsidian Chipped Stone Artifacts: Terms, Variables, and Quantification. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 301-328. Academic Press, Inc., New York. 1998 Early and Middle Archaic Settlement Systems in the Modoc Locality, Southwest Illinois. Illinois Archaeology 10:1-109. Alvarez, M., D. Fiore, E. Favret, and R. Castillo Guerra 2001 The Use of Lithic Artefacts for Making Rock Art Engravings: Observation and Analysis of Use-Wear Traces in Experimental Tools Through Optical Microscopy and SEM. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:457-464. Ammerman, A. J., G. D. Shaffer, and N. Hartman 1998 A Neolithic Household at Piana di Curinga, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology 15:121-140. Anderson-Gerfaud, P. 1980 A Testimony of Prehistoric Tasks: Diagnostic Residues on Stone Tool Working Edges. World Archaeology 12:181-193. Anderson, P., L. Astruc, R. Vargiolu, and H. Zahouani 1998 Contribution of Quantitative Analysis of Surface States to a Multi-Method Approach for Characterising Plant-Processing Traces on Flint Tools with Gloss. In Functional Analysis of Lithic Artefacts: Current State of Reserach, pp. 1151-1160. Tome II ABACO Edizioni ed. XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Workshops Forli, Italy. 130

PAGE 140

Andrefsky, Jr. W. 1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Angius, V. 1833 Articles on Sardinia. In Dizionario Geografico-Storico, Statistico Commerciale degli Stati di S.M. il Re di Sardegna, edited by G. Casalis, G. Maspero. Turin. Aoyama, K. 1995 Microwear Analysis in the Southeast Maya Lowlands: Two Case Studies at Copan, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 6:129-144. Asole, A. 1982 La flora. In La Sardegna, edited by M. Brigaglia, A. Mattone, and G. Melis, pp. 41-50. Democratica Sarda, Cagliari. Atchison, J. and R. Fullagar 1998 Starch Residues on Pounding Implements from Jinmiun Rock-Shelter. In A Closer Look, edited by R. Fullagar, pp. 109-125. Sydney University, Sydney. Atzeni, E. 1980 Vornuraghenzeit. In Kunst und Kultur Sardeiniens vom Neolithikum bis zum Ende der Nuraghenzeit, edited by J. Thimme, pp. 15-44. C.F. Muller, Karlsruhe. Bagolini, B. and P. Biagi 1990 The Radiocarbon Chronology of the Neolithic and Copper Age of Northern Italy. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9(1):1-23. Baillie, M. G. L. 1989 Do Irish Bog Oaks Date the Shang Dynasty? Current Archaeology (117):310. 1991 Marking in Marker Dates: Towards an Archaeology with Historical Precision. World Archaeology 23(2):233-43. Ballenger, J. A. M. 1996 The Southern Plains Craft Lithic Cache. Plains Anthropologist 41:297-309. 131

PAGE 141

Balmuth, M. S. 1984 The Nuraghi of Sardinia: An Introduction. In Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, edited by M. S. Balmuth, R. J. and Rowland Jr., pp. 23-52. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1992 Archaeology in Sardinia. American Journal of Archaeology 96(4):663-97. Balmuth, M. S. and R. J. Rowland, Jr. 1984 Preface. In Studies in Sardinian Archaeology, edited by M. S. Balmuth, and R. J. Rowland Jr., pp. v-viii. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1984 Studies in Sardinian Archaeology. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Bamforth, D. B. 1988 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests: The Institute Results in Context. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:11-23. Bar-Yosef, O. 1991 Raw Material Exploitation in the Levantine Epi-Paleolithic. In Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by A. Montet-White and S. Holen, pp. 235-50. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology 19, Lawrence. Barker, G. and C. Gamble 1985 Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe. Academic Press, London. Barton, H., R. Torrence, and R. Fullagar 1998 Clues to Stone Tool Function Re-examined: Comparing Starch Grain Frequencies on Used and Unused Obsidian Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:1231-1238. Becker, M., and F. Wendorf 1993 A Microwear Study of a Late Pleistocene Qadan Assemblage from Southern Egypt. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:389-398. Bednarik, R. G. 1990 More to Palaeolithic Females than Meets the Eye. Rock Art Research 7(2):133-137. 1992 Palaeoart and Archaeological Myths. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2(1):27-57. 132

PAGE 142

Bettison, C. A. 1985 An Experimental Approach to Sickle Sheen Deposition and Archaeological Interpretation. Lithic Technology 14(1):26-32. Beyries, S. 1988 Industries Lithique: Tracologie et Technologie. British Archaeological Report International Series 2. Oxford. Bienenfeld, P. 1995 Duplicating Archaeological Microwear Polishes with Epoxy Casts. Lithic Technology 20:29-39. Binford, L. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255-273. Bintliff, J. 1977 Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece. BAR s 28, Oxford. Bloedow, E. F. 1987 Aspects of ancient trade in the Mediterranean: Obsidian. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 26:59-124. Bonnichsen, R., L. Hodges, W. Ream, D. L. Kirner, K. Selsor, R. E. Taylor, and K. Field 2001 Radiocarbon Dates and Gene Sequences from Individual Ancient Hairs. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:777-787. Bordes, F. 1961 Typologie du Palolithique Ancien et Moyen. In Publications de l'Institut de Prehistoire de l'Universit de Bordeaux. Memoire 1.. Imprimeries Delmas, Bordeaux. 1980 Question de Contemporanit: Illusion des Remontages. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 77(5):132-133. Boschian, G., P. Brilli, P. Falchi, P. Fenu, F. Martini, G. Pitzalis, L. Sarti, and C. Tozzi 2000-2001 Prime Ricerche nell'Abitato Neolitico di Contraguda (Perfugas, Sassari). Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche LI:235-287. 133

PAGE 143

Bradbury, A. P. 1998 The Examination of Lithic Artifacts from an Early Archaic Assemblage: Strengthening Inferences through Multiple Lines of Evidence. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 23:263-288. Brink, J. 1978 Notes on the Occurrence of Spontaneous Retouch. Lithic Technology VII(2):31-33. 1978 The Role of Abrasives in the Formation of Lithic Use-Wear. Journal of Archaeological Science 5:363-371. Briuer, F. L. 1976 New Clues to Stone Tool Function: Plant and Animal Residues. American Antiquity 41:478-484. Broadbent, N. 1979 Coastal Settlement and Settlement Stability. Borgtrans, Uppsala. Broadbent, N. and K. Knusson 1975 An Experimental Analysis of Quartz Scrapers. Results and Applications. Fornvnnen 70:113-128. Brose, D. S. 1975 Functional Analysis of Stone Tools: A Cautionary Note on the Role of Animal Fats. American Antiquity 40:86-94. Brothwell, D. 1971 Diet, Economy and Biosocial Change in Late Prehistoric Europe. In Economy and Settlement in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Europe, edited by D. D. A. Simpson, pp. 75-87. Humanities Press Inc., New York, New York. Burroni, D., R. E. Donahue, and A. Mark Pollard 2002 The Surface Alteration Features of Flint Artefacts as a Record of Environmental Processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:1277-1287. Camps, G. 1988 Prhistoire d'Une le. Les Origines de la Corse. Errance, Paris. 134

PAGE 144

Cattaneo, C., Gelsthorpe, K., Phillips, P., and Hedges, R. 1993 Blood Residues on Stone Tools: Indoor and Outdoor Experiments. World Archaeology 25(1):29-43. Chapman, J. C. 1988 Ceramic Production and Social Differentiation: the Dalmatian Neolithic and the Western Mediterranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1(2):3-25. Chapman, J. C. and J. Mller, 1990 Early Farmers in the Mediterranean Basin: The Dalmatian Evidence. Antiquity 64:127-34. Cherry, J. F. 1992 Palaeolithic Sardinians? Some Questions of Evidence and Method. In Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R. H. Tykot and T. K. Andrews, pp. 28-38. Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., Sheffield, England. Christensen, M. 1998 Processus de Formation et Caractrisation Physico-Chimique des Polis d'Utilisation des Outils en Silex. Applications la Technologie Prhistorique de l'Ivoire. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 95:183-201. Christensen, M., Walter, P., and Menu, M. 1992 Usewear Characterisation of Prehistoric Flints with IBA. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 64:488-493. Coffey, B. P. 1994 The Chemical Alteration of Microwear Polishes: An Evaluation of the Plisson and Mauger Findings through Replicative Experimentation. Lithic Technology 19:88-92. Collin, F. and P. Jardon-Giner 1993 Travail de la Peau avec des Grattoirs Emmanchs. Rflexions sur des Bases Exprimentales et Ethnographiques. In Traces et Fonction: Les Gestes Retrouvs, ERAUL, No. 50, edited by P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson, pp. 105-117. Lige. Collins, M. B. 1979 Comments on Silica as a Polishing Agent. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden. Academic Press, New York. 135

PAGE 145

Conkey, M. 1983 On the Origins of Paleolithic Art: A Review and Some Critical Thoughts. In The Mousterian Legacy: Human Biocultural Change in the Upper Pleistocene, edited by E. Trinkaus, pp. 201-227. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 164, Oxford. Corruccini, J. A. 1985 Moisture and the Formation of Obsidian Striations. Lithic Technology 14(1):33-35. Cotterell, B., B. Hayden, J. Kamminga, M. Kleindiest, R. Knudson, and R. Lawrence 1979 The Ho Ho Classification and Nomenclature Committee Report. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 133-141. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Cotterell, B. and J. Kamminga 1979 The Mechanics of Flaking. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 99-112. Academic Press, New York. 1987 The Formation of Flakes. American Antiquity 52:675-708. Crabtree, D. E. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. In Occasional papers at the Idaho State University Museum, Number 23. Pocatello, Idaho. Craig, O. E. and M. J. Collins 2002 The Removal of Protein from Mineral Surfaces: Implications for Residue Analysis of Archaeological Materials. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:1077-1082. Cullen, B. 2003 Testimony from the Ice Man Smithsonian. 42-50. Curwen, E. C. 1930 Prehistoric Flint Sickles. Antiquity IV:179-186. Custer, J. F., J. Ilgenfritz, and K. R. Doms 1988 A Cautionary Note on the Use of Chemstrips for Detection of Blood Residues on Prehistoric Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:343-345. De Lumley, H. 1976 La Prhistoire Franaise. 1, 2 ed. CNRS, Paris. 136

PAGE 146

Del Bene, T. A. 1979 Once upon a Striation: Current Models of Striation and Polish Formation. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 167-177. Academic Press, New York. Derndarsky, M. and G. Ocklind 2001 Some Preliminary Observations on Subsurface Damage on Experimental and Archaeological Quartz Tools using CLSM and Dye. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1149-1158. Diamond, G. 1979 The Nature of So-Called Polished Surfaces on Stone Artifacts. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 159-166. Academic Press, New York. Dixon, J. E. 1976 Obsidian Characterization Studies in the Mediterranean and Near East. In Advances in Obsidian Glass Studies, edited by R. E. Taylor, pp. 288-333. Noyes Press, Park Ridge, NJ. Downs, E. F. and J. M. Lowenstein 1995 Identification of Archaeological Blood Proteins: A Cautionary Note. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:11-16. Dumont, J. V. 1982 The Quantification of Microwear Studies of Flint Artefacts. World Archaeology 14(2):206-217. Eisele, J. A., D. D. Fowler, G. Haynes, and R. A. Lewis 1995 Survival and Detection of Blood Residues on Stone Tools. Antiquity 69:36-46. Evans, J. 1897 Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain. 2nd ed. Longmans, Green, London. Evin, J. 1987 Rvision de la Chronologie Absolue des Dbuts du Nolithique en Provence et Languedoc. In Premires Communauts Poysannes in Mditerrane Occidentale. Actes du Colloque International du C.N.R.S., Montpellier 26-29 avril 1983 edited by J. Guilaine, J. Courtin,, J. L. Roudil, and J. L. Vernet. C.N.R.S., Paris. 137

PAGE 147

Fadda, M. A. 1985 Il Villaggio. In Civilt Nuragica, pp. 111-31. Electa, Milano. Fiedel, S. J. 1996 Blood from Stones? Some Methodological and Interpretive Problems in Blood Residue Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:139-147. Foschi Nieddu, A. 1988 La Cultura di Abealzu-Filigosa: La Tomba I di Filigosa. Rassegna di Archaeologia (7):5-21. Fowler, P. J. 1971 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in Western Europe: Some Archaeological Evidence In Economy and Settlement in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Europe, edited by D. D. A. Simpson, pp. 153-182. Humanities Press Inc., New York, New York. Fredericksen, C. F. K. and B. Sewell 1991 The Reliability of Flaked Tool Function Studies in New Zealand Archaeology. Archaeology of Oceania 26:123-126. Frison, G. C. 1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped Stone Tools. American Antiquity 33:149-155. Fullagar, R., T. Loy, and S. Cox 1998 Starch Grains, Sediments and Stone Tool Function: Evidence from Bitokara, Papua New Guinea. In A Closer Look, edited by R. Fullagar, pp. 49-60. Sydney University, Sydney. Fullagar, R. L. K. 1991 The Role of Silica in Polish Formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:1-24. Fullagar, R., J. Furby, and B. Hardy 1996 Residues on Stone Artefacts: State of a Scientific Art. Antiquity 70:740-745. Gallin, L. J. and R. H. Tykot, R. H. 1993 Metallurgy at Nuraghe Santa Barbara (Bauladu), Sardinia. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(3):335-45. 138

PAGE 148

Garling, S. J. 1998 Megafauna on the Menu? Haemoglobin Crystallisation of Blood Residues from Stone Artefacts at Cuddie Springs. In A Closer Look, edited by R. Fullagar, pp. 29-48. Sydney University, Sydney. Gassin, B. and Y. Garidel 1993 Des Outils de Silex pour la Fabrication de la Poterie. In Traces et Fonction: Les Gestes Retrouvs ERAUL No. 50, edited by P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson, pp. 189-203. Lige. Gendel, P. A. and L. Pirnay. 1982 Microwear Analysis of Experimental Stone Tools: Further Test Results. Studia Praehistorica Belgica 2:251-265. Gero, J. M. 1978 Summary of Experiments to Duplicate Post-Excavational Damage to Tool Edges. Lithic Technology VII(2):34. Gimbutas, M. 1974 Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California. Gonzlez-Urquijo, J. E. and J. J. Ibez-Estvez 2002 The Quantification of Use-Wear Polish Using Image Analysis. First Results. vol. 29. Goodyear, A. 1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Publications on Archaeology, Research Series 7. Gould, R. A. 1973 Use-Wear on Western Desert Aborigine Stone Tools: A Reply to Messrs. Hayden and Kamminga. Newsletter of Lithic Technology II(1-2):9-13. Gould, R. A., D. A. Koster, and A. H. Sontz 1971 The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. American Antiquity 36:149-169. 139

PAGE 149

Grace, R. 1989 Interpreting the Functions of Stone Tools: the Quantification and Computerisation of Microwear Analysis. British Archaeological Report International Series Oxford. 1989 Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: The Quantification and Computerisation of Microwear Analysis. http://www.hf.uio.no/iakk/roger/lithic/bar/bar1.html. 1993 New Methods in Use-Wear Analysis. In Traces et Foncion: Les Gestes Retrouvs, ERAUL, No. 50, edited by P. Anderson, S. O. M. Beyries, and H. Glisson, pp. 385-387. Lige. 1993 The Use of Expert Systems in Lithic Analysis. In Traces et Foncion: Les Gestes Retrouvs, ERAUL, No. 50, edited by P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson, pp. 389-400. Lige. 1996 Use-Wear Analysis: The State of the Art. Archaeometry 38(2):209-229. 2004 Expert Systems http://www.hf.uio.no/iakk/roger/lithic/expsys.html#anchor130219. Grace, R., I. D. G Graham, and M. H. Newcomer 1985 The Quantification of Microwear Polishes. World Archaeology 17:112-120. Greiser, S. T. and P. D. Sheets 1979 Raw Material as a Functional Variable in Use-Wear Studies. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 289-299. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Griffith, A. A. 1921 The Phenomena of Rupture Flow in Solids. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A221:163-198. Grimaldi, S. L. C. 1995 Technology and Microwear: Predetermined Flakes from the Mousterian Site of Grotta Brueil (Monte Circeo, Italy). In The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology, edited by H. Dibble, and O. Bar-Yosef, pp. 143-155. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. 140

PAGE 150

Guido, M. 1963 Sardinia. Series edited by G. Daniel, Thames and Hudson, London, Great Britain. Gunn, J. 1971 Research in Theory and Method of Functional Classification for Paleolithic Burins. University of Kansas. Gurfinkel, D. M. and U. M. Franklin 1988 A Study of the Feasibility of Detecting Blood Residue on Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:83-97. Hallam, B., S. Warren, and C. Renfrew 1976 Obsidian in the Western Mediterranean: Characterization by Neutron Activation Analysis and Optical Emission Spectroscopy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42:85-110. Hardy, B. L. and G. T. Garufi 1998 Identification of Woodworking on Stone Tools through Residue and Use-Wear Analyses: Experimental Results. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:177-184. Hardy, B. L. and R. A. Raff 1997 Recovery of Mammalian DNA from Middle Paleolithic Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:601-611. Hardy, K. 1993 Post-Analysis Replication of Use-Wear Traces on Stone Tools from the Mesolithic site of Thatcham (England). In ERAUL 1993, pp. 417-421. vol. 2. 1993 Preceramic Lithics in Central Mexico: an Examination of the Tehaucn and Oaxaca Chronological Sequences. University of London. Hay, C. 1977 Use-scratch Morphology: A Functionally Significant Aspect of Edge Damage on Obsidian Tools. Journal of Field Archaeology 4:491-494. Hayden, B. 1979 Discussion: Raw Materials. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 297-299. Academic Press, Inc., New York. 1979 Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York. 141

PAGE 151

Hayden, B., E. Blakewell, and R. Gargeff 1996 The World's Longest Lived Corporate Group: Lithic Analysis Reveals Prehistoric Social Organization near Lillooet, British Columbia. American Antiquity 61(2):341-356. Hayden, B. et al. 1979 Discussion: Inferring Worked Materials. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 283-287. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Hayden, B. and J. Kamminga 1973 Gould, Koster, and Sontz on 'Microwear': a Critical Review. Newsletter of Lithic Technology II(1-2):3-8. 1979 An Introduction to Use-Wear: The First CLUW. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 1-13. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Healan, D. M. and J. M. Kerley 1984 Edge Damage Induced by Core Immobilization in Prismatic Blade Manufacture. Lithic Technology 13(1):1-10. Healey, F., M. Heaton, S.J. Lobb, M. J. Allen, I. M. Fenwick, R. Grace, and R. G. Scaife 1992 Excavations of a Mesolilthic Site at Thatcham, Berkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58:41-76. Hertz, H. 2004 The Principles of Mechanics Presented in a New Form. Dover Publications, New York. Hester, T. R., D. Gilbow, and A. D. Albee 1973 A Functional Analysis of "Clear Fork" Artifacts from the Rio Grande Plain, Texas. American Antiquity 38:90-96. Hodder, I. 1982 Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1986 Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 142

PAGE 152

Hofmeijer, G., P.Y. Sondaar, C. Alderliesten, K. van der Borg, and A. de Jong 1987 Indications of Pleistocene Man on Sardinia. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B(29):166-68. Hofmeijer, G. K. and Sondaar, P. Y. 1992 Pleistocene Humans in the Island Environment of Sardinia. In Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R. H. Tykot, and T. K. Andrews, pp. 49-55. Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., Sheffield, England. Hortol, P. 2001 Experimental SEM Determination of Game Mammalian Bloodstains on Stone Tools. Environmental Archaeology 6:97-102. 2002 Red Blood Cell Haemotaphonomy of Experimental Human Bloodstains on Techno-Prehistoric Lithic Raw Materials. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:733-739. Hudler, D. 1997 Determining Clear Fork Tool Function through Use-Wear Analysis: A Discussion of Use-Wear Methods and Clear Fork Tools. In Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Studies in Archeology 25. University of Texas, Austin. Hurcombe, L. 1988 Some Criticisms and Suggestions in Response to Newcomer et al. (1986). Journal of Archaeological Science 15:1-10. 1992 New Contributions to the Study of the Function of Sardinian Obsidian Artifacts. edited by R. H. Tykot, and T. K. Andrews, pp. 83-97. Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., Sheffield, England. 1992 Use Wear Analysis and Obsidian: Theory, Experiments and Results. J. R. Collis Publications, Sheffield. 1993 The restricted function of Neolithic Obsidian Tools at Grotta Filiestru, Sardinia. In Traces et Fonction: Les Gestes Retrouvs, edited by P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson, pp. 87-96. Colloque International de Lige. Edition ERAUL 50. Centre de Recherches Archologiques du CNRS, tudes et Recherches Archologique de L'Universit de Lige 143

PAGE 153

1997 The Contribution of Obsidian Use-Wear Analysis to Understanding the Formation and Alteration of Wear. In Siliceous Rocks and Culture, edited by A. Ramos-Millan, and M. A. Bustillo, pp. 487-497. Editorial Universidad de Granada, Spain. Hurcombe, L. and P. Phillips 1998 Obsidian Usage at the Filiestru Cave, Sardinia: Choices and Functions in the Early and Middle Neolithic Periods. In Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean edited by M. S. Balmuth, and R. H. Tykot, pp. 93-102. Oxbow Books, Oxford, United Kingdom. Hyland, D. C., J. M. Tersak, J. M. Adovasio, and M. I. Siegel 1990 Identification of the Species of Origin of Residual Blood on Lithic Material. American Antiquity 55:104-112. Iannone, G. J. 1992 Ancient Maya Eccentric Lithics: A Contextual Analysis. M.A. thesis, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario. Iovino, M. R. 1996 La Funzione dell'Ossidiana: un Approccio Sperimentale al Problema. Estratto da Origini Preistoria e Protostoria delle Civilt Antiche Bonsignori Editore, Rome. Jahren, A. H., N. Toth, K. Schick, J. D. Clark, and R. G. Amundson 1997 Determining Stone Tool Use: Chemical and Morphological Analyses of Residues on Experimentally Manufactured Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:245-250. Jones, R. 1990 Hunters of the Dreaming: Some Ideational, Economic and Ecological Parameters of the Australian Aboriginal Productive System. In Pacific Production Systems: Approaches to Economic Prehistory, edited by D. Yen. and J. Mummery, pp. 51-87. Highland Press, Canberrra. Jones, R. and N. White 1988 Point Blank: Stone Tool Manufacture at the Ngilipitji Quarry, Arnhem Land 1981. In Archaeology with Ethnography: An Australian Perspective, edited by B. Meehan, and R. Jones. Highland Press, Canberra. Kamminga, J. 1978 Journey into the Microcosms: A Functional Analysis of Certain Australian Prehistoric Stone Tools. University of Sydney. 144

PAGE 154

1979 The Nature of Use-Polish and Abrasive Smoothing on Stone Tools. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 143-158. Academic Press, New York. 1982 Over the Edge: Functional Analysis of Australian Stone Tools. In Occasional Papers in Anthropology. vol. 12, University of Queensland, Brisbane. Kantman, S. 1970 Esquisse d'un Procd Analytique pour l'tude Macrographique des "Encoches". Quaternaria 13:269-280. Kardulias, P. N. and R. W. Yerkes 1996 Microwear and Metric Analysis of Threshing Sledge Flints from Greece and Cyprus. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:657-666. Kay, M. 1996 Microwear Analysis of some Clovis and Experimental Chipped Stone Tools. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. Odell, pp. 315-344. Plenum Press, New York. Kazaryan, H. 1993 Butchery knives in the Mousterian Sites of Armenia. In Traces et Fonction: Les Gestes Retrouvs, ERAUL, No. 50, edited by P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson, pp. 79-85. Lige. Kealhofer, L., R. Torrence, and R. Fullagar 1999 Integrating Phytoliths within Use-Wear/Residue Studies of Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:527-546. Keeley, L. H. 1974 Technique and Methodology in Microwear Studies: a Critical Review. World Archaeology 5:323-336. 1974 The Methodology of Microwear Analysis: a Comment on Nance. American Antiquity 39:126-128. 1977 The functions of Paleolithic Flint Tools. Scientific American 237(5):108-126. 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology Series The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 145

PAGE 155

Keeley, L. H. and M. Newcomer 1977 Microwear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools: a Test Case. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:29-62. Keller, C. M. 1966 The Development of Edge Damage Patterns on Stone Tools. Man (New Series) 1:501-511. Kimball, L. R., J. F. Kimball, and P. E. Allen 1995 Microwear Polishes as Viewed through the Atomic Force Microscope. Lithic Technology 20:6-28. Klein Hofmeijer, G., F. Martini, M. Sanges, P. Sondaar, and A. Ulzega 1987-1988 La fine del Pleistocene nella Grotta Corbeddu in Sardegna. Fossili Umani, Aspetti Paleontologici e Cultura Materiale. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 41(1-2):29-64. Knutsson, K. 1976 Skrapor och Skrapning. En Ethnografisk och Experimentell Studie. Uppsala University. Knutsson, K., B. Dahlquist, and H. Knutsson 1988 Patterns of Tool Use: the Microwear Analysis of the Quartz and Flint Assemblages from the Bjurselet site, Vasterbotten, Northern Sweden. In IndustriesLlithique: Tracologie et Technologie, edited by S. Beyries, pp. 253-294. vol. 1, Oxford. Kooyman, B., M. E. Newman, and H. Ceri 1992 Verifying the Reliability of Blood Residue Analysis on Archaeological Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:265-269. Kooyman, B. P. 2000 Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Lai, L. 2002 A Preliminary Sourcing Study of the Obsidian Artifacts from Contraguda (prov. Sassari, Sardinia), area3, structure A-B. 146

PAGE 156

Lai, L. and R. H. Tykot 2004 Contraguda (Sardinia): Sourcing Obsidian Artifacts and Tracing Exchange Networks in the Middle and Late Neolithic. Paper presented at Archaeological Institute of America 105th Annual Meeting. San Francisco. Lanfranchi, F. D. 1980 L'Obsidienne Prehistorique Corse: Les changes et les Axes de Circulation. Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franais 77(4):115-22. 1990 L'Alimentation des Hommes Prhistoriques. Prparation et Consommation de Queleues Espces Vgtales. Archologia Corsa 12-13(1987-88):46-53. 1992 The Megalithic Monuments of Corsica and Sardinia: a Comparative Study. In Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology Presented to Miriam S. Balmuth, edited by R. H. Tykot, and T. K. Andrews. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. 1993 Le Nolithique Ancien Mditerranen de la Corse. Corsica Antica juillet 1993:2-9. Lawn, B. R. and D. B. Marshall 1979 Mechanisms of Microcontact Fracture in Brittle Solids. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 63-82. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Lawrence, R. A. 1979 Experimental Evidence for the Significance of Attributes Used in Edge-Damage Analysis. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 113-121. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Lazrus, P. K. 1999 Farmers or Pastoralists in Sardinian Prehistory Settlement and Environment. In Social Dynamics of the Prehistoric Central Mediterranean, edited by R. H. Tykot, J. Morter, and J. E. Robb, pp. 123-135. vol. 3, Series edited by E. Herring, R. D. Whitehouse, and J. B. Wilkins, Accordia Research Institute, London, England. Leach, J. D. 1998 A Brief Comment on the Immunological Identification of Plant Residues on Prehistoric Stone Tools and Ceramics: Results of a Blind Test. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:171-175. 147

PAGE 157

Leach, J. D. and R. P. Mauldin 1995 Additional Comments on Blood Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Antiquity 69:1020-1022. LeMoine, G. M. 1997 Use-Wear Analysis on Bone and Antler Tools of the Mackenzie Inuit. BAR International Series 679 Oxford. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1943 volution et Techniques: L'Homme et la Matire. Albin Michel, Paris. Levi-Sala, I. 1986 Use Wear and Post-Depositional Surface Modification: A Word of Caution. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:229-244. 1989 A study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements. University of London. 1993 Use-Wear Traces: Processes of Development and Post-Depositional Alterations. In ERUAL 1993, pp. 401-416. vol. 2. 1996 A Study of Microscopic Polish on Flint Implements. BAR International Series 629 Oxford. Levine, M. 1983 La fauna di Filiestru (Trincea D). In La Grotta di Filiestru a Bonu Ighinu, Mara, edited by D. H. Trump, pp. 109-131. Quaderni 13, Dess, Sassari. Lewenstein, S. 1981 Mesoamerican Obsidian Blades: An Experimental Approach to Function. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:175-188. 1991 Edge Angles and Tool Function among the Maya: A Meaningful Relationship? In Maya Stone Tools, edited by T. Hester, and H. Shafer, pp. 207-217. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. 1993 Experimentation in the Formation and Variability of Lithic Use-Wear Traces on Obsidian and Chert Implements. In Traces et Fonction: Les Gestes Retrouvs, ERAUL, No. 50, edited by P. Anderson, S. Beyries, M. Otte, and H. Plisson, pp. 287-294. Lige. 148

PAGE 158

Lewenstein, S. M. and J. Walker 1984 The Obsidian Chip/Manioc Grating Hypothesis and the Mesoamerican Preclassic. Journal of New World Archaeology VI(2):25-38. Lewthwaite, J. 1983 The Neolithic of Corsica. In Ancient France, Neolithic Societies and their Landscapes 6000-2000 BC, edited by C. Scarre, pp. 146-83. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. 1985 Colonialism and Nuraghismus. In Papers in Italian Archaeology IV: The Cambridge Conference, edited by C. Malone and S. Stoddard, pp. 220-51. BAR, Oxford. 1986 Nuragic Foundations: an Alternative Model of Development in Sardinian Prehistory, ca. 2500-1500 BC. In Studies in Sardinian Archaeology III: Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World, edited by M. S. Balmuth, pp. 57-74. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Lilliu, G. 1966 Apporti Pirenaici e del Midi alle Culture Sarde della Prima et del Bronzo. Studi Sardi (19):51. 1967 La Civilt dei Sardi dal Neolitico all'Et dei Nuraghi. 2nd edition ERI, Torino. 1987 La Crescita delle Aristocrazie nell'Et del Ferro. In Guidetti, pp. 111-29. 1988 La Civilt dei Sardi dal Paleolithico all'Et dei Nuraghi. 3rd edition. Nuova ERI, Torino. Lo Schiavo, F. 1989 Le Origini della Metallurgia ed il Problema della Metallurgia nella Cultura di Ozieri. In La Cultura di Ozieri. Problematiche e nuove acquisizioni. Atti del I convegno di studio (Ozierie, gennaio 1986-aprile 1987), edited by L.D. Champus vol. Ozieri, gennaio 1986-aprile 1987, Il Torchietto, Ozieri. 1998 Round Table: Introduction. In Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean, edited by M. S. Balmuth, and R. H. Tykot, pp. 333-334. Oxbow Books, Oxford, United Kingdom. 149

PAGE 159

Loshe, E. S. 1996 A Computerized Descriptive System for Functional Analysis of Stone Tools. Tebiwa 26:3-66. Loy, T. H. 1983 Prehistoric Blood Residues: Detection on Tool Surfaces and Identification of Species or Origin. Science 220:1269-1271. 1993 The Artifact as Site: An Example of the Biomolecular Analysis of Organic Residues on Prehistoric Tools. World Archaeology 25:44-63. Loy, T. H. and E. J. Dixon 1998 Blood Residues on Fluted Points from Eastern Beringia. American Antiquity 63:21-46. Loy, T. H. and B. L. Hardy 1992 Blood Residue Analysis of 90,000-Year-Old Stone Tools from Tabun Cave, Israel. Antiquity 66:24-35. Loy, T. H., M. Spriggs, and S. Wickler 1992 Direct Evidence for Human use of Plants 28,000 Years Ago: Starch Residues on Stone Artefacts from the Northern Solomon Islands. Antiquity 66:898-912. Loy, T. R. and A. R. Wood 1989 Blood Residue Analysis at Cayonu Tepesi, Turkey. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:451-460. MacDonald, G. F. and D. Sanger 1968 Some Aspects of Microscope Analysis and Photomicrography of Lithic Artifacts. American Antiquity 33:237-240. MacKenzie, D. 1910 The Dolmens, Tombs of the Giants and Nuraghi of Sardinia. Papers of the British School at Rome (5):86-87. Mansur, M. E. 1997 Functional Analysis of Polished Stone-Tools: Some Considerations about the Nature of Polishing. In Siliceous Rocks and Culture, edited by A. Ramos-Millan and M. A. Bustillo, pp. 465-486. Editorial Universidad de Granada, Spain. 150

PAGE 160

Marciniak, A. 1999 Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology-Epistemology Reconsidered. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(4):293-320. Martini, F. 1992 Early Human Settlement in Sardinia: The Palaeolithic Industries. In Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R. H. Tykot. and T. K. Andrews pp. 40-47. Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., Sheffield, England. Mauldin, R. P., J. D. Leach, and D. S. Amick 1995 On the Identification of Blood Residues on Paleoindian Artifacts. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12:85-87. Mauser, P. F. 1965 Die Interpretation Steinzeitlicher Silexwerkzeuge nach Modernen Technologischen Gesichtspunkten. Fundberichte aus Schwaben Neue Folge 17:29-42. McBrearty, S., L. Bishop, T. Plummer, R. Dewar, and N. Conard 1998 Tools Underfoot: Human Trampling as an Agent of Lithic Artifact Edge Modification. American Antiquity 63:108-129. McGuire, R. H., J. Whittaker, M. McCarthy, and R. McSwain 1982 A Consideration of Observational Error in Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Lithic Technology 11(3):59-63. Meeks, N., G. Sieveking, M. Tite, and J. Cook 1982 Gloss and Use-Wear Traces on Flint Sickles and Similar Phenomena. Journal of Archaeological Science 9:317-340. Moir, J. R. 1914 The Striation of Flint Surfaces. Man 90:177-182. Moss, E. H. 1983 Some Comments on Edge Damage as a Factor in Functional Analysis of Stone Artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 10:231-242. 1986 What Microwear Analysts Look At. In Technical Aspects of Microwear Studies on Stone Tools. Early Man News, edited by L. Owen and G. Unrath, pp. 91-96. 151

PAGE 161

1987 A Review of "Investigation Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests." Journal of Archaeological Science 14:473-481. Muller, W., H. Fricke, A. N. Halliday, M. T. McCulloch, and J. Wartho 2003 Origin and Migration of the Alpine Iceman. Science 302(5646):862-866. Muroni, A. 1980 Borore e il Marghine. Carlo Delfino, Sassari. Nance, J. D. 1971 Functional Interpretations from Microscopic Analysis. American Antiquity 36:361-366. Newcomer, M., R. Grace, and R. Unger-Hamilton 1986 Investigating Microwear Polishes with Blind Tests. Journal of Archaeological Science 13:203-217. 1987 Microwear Polishes, Blind Tests, and Texture Analysis. In The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, edited by G. Sieveking and M. Newcomer, pp. 253-263. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1988 Microwear Methodology: A Reply to Moss, Hurcombe and Bamforth. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:25-33. Newman, M. E., H. Ceri, and B. Kooyman 1996 The Use of Immunological Techniques in the Analysis of Archaeological Materials a Response to Eisel; with Report of Studies at Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump. Antiquity 70:677-682. Newman, M. E., R. M. Yohe, H. Ceri, H., and M. Q. Sutton 1993 Immunological Protein Residue Analysis of Non-Lithic Archaeological Materials. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:93-100. Newman, M. E., R. M. Yohe II, B. Kooyman, and H. Ceri 1997 "Blood" from Stones? Probably: A Response to Fiedel. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:1023-1027. Nilsson, S. 1838-1843 Skandinaviska nordens ur-invnare. Berlingska Boktryckeriet, Lund. 152

PAGE 162

Odell, G. H. 1975 Micro-Wear in Perspective: a Sympathetic Response to Lawrence H. Keeley. World Archaeology 7:226-240. 1977 The Application of Micro-Wear Analysis to the Lithic Component of an Entire Prehistoric Settlement: Methods, Problems and Functional Reconstruction. Harvard University. 1978 Prliminaires d'une Analyse Fonctionnelle des Pointes Microlithiques de Bergumermeer (Pays-Bas). Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 75:37-49. 1981 The Mechanisms of Use-Breakage of Stone Tools: Some Testable Hypotheses. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:197-209. 1982 Emerging Directions in the Analysis of Prehistoric Stone Tool Use. Reviews in Anthropology (Winter):17-33. 1990 Brer Rabbit Seeks True Knowledge. In The Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies, edited by B. Grslund, H. Knutsson, K. Knutsson, and J. Taffinder, pp. 125-134. vol. 14: Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis AUN, Uppsala. 1994 Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in the North American Midcontinent: Examples from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:51-73. 1998 Investigation Correlates of Sedentism and Domestication in Prehistoric North America. American Antiquity 63:553-571. 2001 Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Classification, Function, and Behavior. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1):45-100. Odell, G. H. and F. Odell-Vereecken 1980 Verifying the Reliability of Lithic Use-Wear Assessments by 'Blind Tests': the Low-Power Approach. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:87-120. Owen, L. and Unrath, G. 1989 Microtraces d'Usure dues la Prhension. l'Anthropologie 93:673-688. Parry, T. W. 1914 Prehistoric Man and His Early Efforts to Combat Disease. The Lancet 13 June. 153

PAGE 163

1916 The Art of Trephining Among Prehistoric and Primitive Peoples: Their Motives for its Practice and Their Methods of Procedure. Journal of the British Archaeological Association March 1916: 33-69. 1918 Surgery of the Stone Age: A Ballad of Neolithic Times. John Bale, London. 1923 Trephination of the Living Human Skull in Prehistoric Times. British Medical Association, London. Parry, W. 1987 Chipped Stone Tools in Formative Oaxaca, Mexico: Their Procurement, Production and Use. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Parry, W. J. and R. L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Marrow. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Patton, M. 1996 Islands in Time: Island Sociogeography and Mediterranean Prehistory. Routledge, New York. Pawlik, A. 1995 Die Microskopische Analyse von Steingeraten: Experimente-Auswertungsmethoden-Artefaktanalyse, Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 10. Verlag Archaeologica Venatoria, Tubingen. Petraglia, M., Knepper, D., Glumac, P., Newman, M., and Sussman, C. 1996 Immunological and Microwear Analysis of Chipped-Stone Artifacts from Piedmont Contexts. American Antiquity 61:127-135. Pfeiffer, L. 1912 Die Steinzeitliche Technik und ihre Beziehungen zur Gegenwart: Ein Beitrag zur Gaschichte der Arbeit. In Festschrift zur XLIII algemeinen Versammlung der deutschen anthropologischen Gesellshaft. vol. 1, Gustav Fischer, Jena. Phillips, P. 1992 Western Mediterranean Obsidian Distribution and the European Neolithic. In Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R. H. Tykot and T. K. Andrews, pp. 71-81. Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., Sheffield, England. 154

PAGE 164

1998 Sardinia and the Mediterranean: Remarks upon Data and Interpretation. In Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean, edited by M. S. Balmuth, and R. H. Tykot, pp. 397-398. Oxbow Books, Oxford, United Kingdom. Piga, A. and M. A. Porcu 1990 Flora e Fauna della Sardegna Antica. L'Africa Romana 7:569-597. Piperno, D. R. and I. Holst 1998 The presence of Starch Grains on Prehistoric Stone tools from the Humid Neotropics: Indications of Early Tuber Use and Agriculture in Panama. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:765-776. Plisson, H. 1983 De la Conservation des Micropolis d'Utilisation. Bullettin de la Socit Prhistoriques Belgica 2:279-287. Plisson, H. and M. Mauger 1988 Chemical and Mechanical Alteration of Micro-Wear Polishes: An Experimental Approach. Helinium 28:3-16. Price-Beggerly, P. 1976 Edge Damage on Experimentally Used Scrapers of Hawaiian Basalt. Newsletter of Lithic Technology V(3):22-24. Quente, P. 1914 Steinzeitliche Ackerbaugerte aus der Ostprignitz, Erdhacken und Pflge, und ihre Schaftungsmglichkeit. Praehistorische Zeitschrift VI:180-187. Ranere, A. J. 1975 Toolmaking and Tool Use among the Preceramic Peoples of Panama. In Lithic Technology, edited by E. H. Swanson Jr., pp. 173-209. Mouton, The Hague. Rees, D., Wilkinson, G. G., R. Grace, and C. R. Orton 1991 An Investigation of the Fractal Properties of Flint Microwear Images. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:629-640. Renfrew, C. 1977 Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribution. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T. E. Earle and J. E. Ericson, pp. 71-90. Academic Press, New York. 155

PAGE 165

Robb, J. E. 1994 Burial and Social Reproduction in the Peninsular Italian Neolithic. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 7(1):27-71. 1994 The Neolithic of Peninsular Italy: Anthropological Synthesis and Critique. Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana 85:189-214. Rosenfeld, A. 1971 The Examination of Use Marks on Some Magdalenian End Scrapers. British Museum Quarterly XXXV:176-182. Rousseau, M. K. 1992 Integrated Lithic Analysis: The Significance and Function of Key-Shaped Formed Unifaces on the Interior Plateau of Northwestern North America. Department of Archaeology, Publication No. 20. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. Rudgley, R. 1999 The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age. Simon & Schuster, New York, New York. Sargent, A. 1985 The Carbon-14 Chronology of the Early and Middle Neolithic of Southern Italy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (51):31-40. Schick, K. D. and N. Toth 1993 Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and the Dawn of Technology. Simon and Schuster, New York. Schiffer, M. B. 1979 The Place of Lithic Use-Wear Studies in Behavioral Archaeology. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 15-25. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Schousboe, R. 1977 Microscopic Edge Structures and Microfractures on Obsidian. Lithic Technology VI(1-2:):14-21. Schreurs, J. 1992 The Michelsberg site Maastricht-Klinkers: A Functional Interpretation. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 25:129-171. 156

PAGE 166

Sehested, N. F. B. 1884 Praktiske forsg. Archaeologiske Undersgelser 1878-1881:1-40. Seitzer, D. J. 1978 Form vs. Function: Microwear Analysis and its Application to Upper Paleolithic Burins. Meddelanden frn Lunds Univesitets Historiska Museum 2:5-20. Seitzer Olausson, D. 1980 Starting from Scratch: The History of Edge-Wear Research from 1838 to 1978. Lithic Technology 9:48-60. Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology. Cory, Adams, and Mackay, London. 1970 The Forms and Functions of the Oldest Tools. Quartr 21:1-20. 1973 Fonctiologie du Paleolithique. Actes du Villme Congrs International des Sciences Prhistoriques et Protohistoriques 11:108-113. Shackleton, J. C., van Andel, T. H., and Runnels, C. N. 1984 Coastal Palaeogeography of the Central and Western Mediterranean during the Last 125,000 Years and its Archaeological Implications. Journal of Field Archaeology (11):307-14. Shackley, M. S. 1998 Gamma Rays, X-Rays and Stone Tools: Some Recent Advances in Archaeological Geochemistry. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:259-270. Shanks, O. C., Robson Bonnichsen, Anthony T. Vella, and Walt Ream 2001 Recovery of Protein and DNA Trapped in Stone Tool Microcracks. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:965-972. Sharp, L. 1952 Steel Axes for Stone Age Australians. Human Organization 11(2):17-22. Shea, J. J. 1987 On Accuracy and Relevance in Lithic Use-wear Analysis. Lithic Technology 16(2-3):44-50. 1992 Lithic Microwear Analysis in Archeology. Evolutionary Anthropology 1(4):143-150. 157

PAGE 167

Shea, J. J. and Joel D. Klenck 1993 An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Trampling on the Results of Lithic Microwear Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:175-194. Sheets, P. D. 1973 Edge Abrasion during Biface Manufacture. American Antiquity 38(2):215-218. Shelley, P. 1982 Research into Processes of Phytolith Deposition. Phytolitharien Newsletter 1(2):3-4. Sherratt, A. 1987 Neolithic Exchange Systems in Central Europe 5000-3000 BC. In The Human Uses of Flint and Chert. Proceedings of the 4th International Flint Symposium, Brighton 1983, edited by G. de G. Sieveking and M. Newcomer, pp. 193-204. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Shiner, J. L. and J. J. Porter 1974 Scanning Electron Microscopy and Prehistoric Stone Tools. Texas Journal of Science 26:284-286. Shott, M. J. 1993 The Leavitt Site: a Parkill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central Michigan. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Singer, D. C. 1979 Discussion: Inferring Worked Materials. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 284. Academic Press, New York. Skeates, R. 1994 Thin-Section Analysis of Italian Neolithic Pottery. In Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory, edited by E. Herring, R. Whitehouse, and J. Wilkins,. Accordia Research Centre and the British School at Rome, London. 1994 Towards an Absolute Chronology for the Neolithic in Central Italy. In Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory, edited by R. Skeates, and R. Whitehouse. Accordia Research Centre and the British School at Rome, London. Smith, P. R. and M. T. Wilson 1992 Blood Residues on Ancient Tool Surfaces: a Cautionary Note. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:237-241. 158

PAGE 168

Sobolik, K. D. 1996 Lithic Organic Residue Analysis: An Example from the Southwest Archaic. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:461-469. Sondaar, P. Y. 1977 Insularity and its Effects on Mammal Evolution. In Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, edited by Hecht et al., pp. 671-707. New York, NY. 1998 Paleolithic Sardinians: Paleontological Evidence and Methods. In Sardinian and Aegean Chronology. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology V, edited by M. S. Balmuth, and R. H. Tykot, pp. 45-51. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Sondaar, P. Y., R. Elburg, G. Klein Hofmeijer, F. Martini, M. Sanges, A. Spaan, and H. de Visser 1995 The Human Colonization of Sardinia: a Late-Pleistocene Human Fossil from Corbeddu Cave. Comptes Rendus de l'Acadmie des Sciences IIa:145-50. Sondaar, P. Y., F. Martini, A. Ulzega, and G. Klein Hofmeijer 1986 The Pleistocene Deer Hunter of Sardinia. Geobios 19(1):17-25. Sonnenfeld, J. 1962 Interpreting the Function of Primitive Implements. American Antiquity 28:56-65. Spear, R. L. 1980 A Brief Discussion of Obsidian Use-Wear Experiments. Lithic Technology IX(2):38-39. Spindler, K. 1994 The Man in the Ice: the Discovery of a 5,000-Year-Old Body Reveals the Secrets of the Stone Age. Harmony Books, New York, New York. Spurrell, F. C. J. 1884 On some Palaeolithic Knapping Tools and Modes of Using Them. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 13:109-118. 1892 Notes on Early Sickles. Archaeological Journal XLIX:53-69. Stapert, D. 1976 Some Natural Surface Modifications on Flint in the Netherlands. Palaeohistoria XVIII:7-41. 159

PAGE 169

Stemp, W. J. and M. Stemp 2001 UBM Laser Profilometry and Lithic Use-Wear Analysis: A Variable Length Scale Investigation of Surface Topography. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:81-88. Storck, P. L. 1997 The Fisher Site: Archaeological, Geological and Paleobotanical Studies of an Early Paleo-Indian Site in Southern Ontario, Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs No. 30. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Taon, P. S. C. 1991 The Power of Stone: Symbolic Aspects of Stone Use and Tool Development in Wester Arhnem Land, Australia. Antiquity 65:192-207. Tanda, G. 1998 Articolazione e Cronologia del Neolitico Antico. In Sardinian and Aegean Chronology. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology V, edited by M.S. Balmuth and R.H Tykot. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Tanda, G. &. D. A. 1991 Saggio di Analisi del Territorio nella Sardegna Centrale. In Arte Militare e Architettura Nuragica, edited by B. Santillo Frizell, pp. 146-62. Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, Stockholm. Taylor, T. 1996 The Prehistory of Sex: Four Million Years of Human Sexual Culture. Fourth Estate, London. Therin, M. 1998 The Movement of Starch Grains in Sediments. In A Closer Look, Archaeological Methods Series 6, edited by R. Fullagar, pp. 61-72. Sydney University, Sydney. Thomas, K. D. 1993 Molecular Biology and Archaeology: a Prospectus for Interdisciplinary Research. World Archaeology 25(1):1-17. Tomenchuck, J. 1997 A Parametric Use-Wear Study of Artifacts from Areas C and C-East. In The Fisher Site, Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs No. 30, edited by P. Storck, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 160

PAGE 170

Tortosa, J. E., V. Bonilla, and M. Ripoll, et. al. 2002 Big Game and Small Prey: Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic Economy from Valencia (Spain). Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(3):215-268. Tringham, R. 1971 The Function, Technology, and Typology of the Chipped Stone Industry at Bilany, Czechoslovakia. In Die aktuelle Fragan der Bandkeramik, edited by J. Fritz, pp. 143-148. Szekesfehervar. Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. Odell, B. Voytek, and A Whitman 1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171-195. Trump, D. H. 1980 The Prehistory of the Mediterranean. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1983 La Grotta Filiestru a Bonu Ighinu, Mara (SS). In Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica per le Provincie di Sassari e Nuoro 13. Dess, Sassari. 1984 The Bonu Ighinu Project and the Sardinian Neolithic. Edited by M. S. Balmuth, and R. J. Rowland Jr., pp. 1-21. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Tsirk, A. 1979 Regarding Fracture Initiations. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 83-96. Academic Press, New York. Tsirk, A. and W. J. Parry 2000 Fractographic Evidence for Liquid on Obsidian Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:987-991. Turchi, D. 1992 Venerette e pippias. Sardegna Antica 1:2-4. Tuross, N., I. Barnes, and R. Potts 1996 Protein Identification of Blood Residues on Experimental Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 23:289-296. Tykot, R. H. 1991 Survey and Analysis of the Monte Arci (Sardinian) Obsidian Sources. Old World Archaeology Newsletter 14:23-27. 161

PAGE 171

1992 The Sources and Distribution of Sardinian Obsidian. In Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R. H. Tykot, and T. K. Andrews, pp. 57-69. Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., Sheffield, England. 1994 Radiocarbon Dating and Absolute Chronology in Sardinia and Corsica. In Radiocarbon Dating and Italian Prehistory, edited by R. and W. R. Skeates, pp. 115-45. Accordia Research Center, University of London, London, U.K. 1995 Prehistoric Trade in the Western Mediterranean: the Sources and Distribution of Sardinian Obsidian. Ph.D. Thesis. Harvard University, Ann Arbor, MI. 1996 Obsidian Procurement and Distribution in the Central and Western Mediterranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9:39-82. 1997 Characterization of the Monte Arci (Sardinia) Obsidian Sources. Journal of Archaeological Science (24):467-479. 1999 Islands in the Stream: Stone Age Cultural Dynamics in Sardinia and Corsica. In Social Dynamics of the Prehistoric Central Mediterranean, edited by R. H. Tykot, J. Morter, and J. E. Robb, pp. 67-82. Vol. 3, Accordia Research Institute, London, England. 2002 Geochemical Analysis of Obsidian and the Reconstruction of Trade Mechanisms in the Early Neolithic Period of the Western Mediterranean. In Archaeological Chemistry. Materials, Methods, and Meaning, edited by K. Jakes, pp. 169-184. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. Tykot, R. H. and T. K. Andrews 1992 Introduction. In Sardinia in the Mediterranean: A Footprint in the Sea, edited by R. H. Tykot, and T. K. Andrews, pp. 17-21. Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., Sheffield, England. Tykot, R. H., L. Lai, and C. Tozzi 2003 Obsidian Flows, Flakes, and Functions: An integrated study of the late Neolithic assemblage from Contraguda, Sardinia. Paper presented at the 104th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. New Orleans. Unger-Hamilton, R. 1984 The Formation of Use-Wear Polish on Flint: Beyond the 'Deposit' Versus 'Abrasion' Controversy. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:91-98. 162

PAGE 172

1989 Analyse Exprimentale de Microtraces d'Usure: Quelques Controverses Actuelles. l'Anthropologie 93:659-672. Vagnetti, L. 1993 Mycenaean Pottery in Italy. Fifty Years of Study. In Wace and Blegen. Pottery as evidence for trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (December 1-3, 1989), edited by C.P. Zerner F. Zerner & J. Winder, pp. 143-154. Gieben, Amsterdam. 1996 Espansione e Diffusione dei Micenei. In I Greci. Storia, Cultura, Arte, Societ, edited by S. Settis, pp. 133-172. Vol. 2.1: Einaudi, Torino. 1998 Aegean Chronology Session: Introductory Remarks. In Sardinian and Aegean Chronology: Towards the Resolution of Relative and Absolute Dating in the Mediterranean, edited by M. S. Balmuth, and R. H. Tykot, pp. 285-286. Oxbow Books, Oxford, United Kingdom. Van Andel, T. and J. Shackleton 1982 Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Coastlines of Greece and the Aegean. Journal of Field Archaeology 9:445-454. van den Dries, M. and A. van Gijn 1997 The Representativity of Experimental Usewear Traces. In Siliceous Rocks and Culture, Editorial Universidad de Granada, edited by Ramos-Millan, A. and Bustillo, M. A., pp. 499-513. Spain. Vaughan, P. C. 1985 Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. Vayson, A. 1920 La plus Ancinne Industrie de Saint-Acheul. L'Anthropologie 30:441-496. 1922 L'etude des outillages en pierre. L'Anthropologie 32:1-38. Walker, P. L. and J. C. Long 1977 An Experimental Study of the Morphological Characteristics of Tool Marks. American Antiquity 42:605-616. 163

PAGE 173

Wallis, L. and S. O'Connor 1998 Residues on a Sample of Stone Points from the West Kimberly. In A Closer Look, Archaeological Methods Series 6, edited by R. Fullagar, pp. 149-178. Sydney University, Sydney. Warren, S. H. 1914 The Experimental Investigation of Flint Fracture and its Application to Problems of Human Implements. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute XLIV:412-450. Webster, G. S. 1990 Labor Control and Emergent Stratification in Prehistoric Europe. Current Anthropology 31(4):337-66. 1996 A Prehistory of Sardinia 2300-500 B.C. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 5 Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., Sheffield, England. White, J. P. 1968 Ston Naip Bilong Tumbuna: the Living Stone Age in New Guinea. In La Prhitoire: Problmes et Tendances, pp. 511-516. Paris. 1969 Typologies for Some Prehistoric Flaked Stone Artefacts of the Australian New Guinea Highlands. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania IV (1):18-46. White, J. P. and D. H. Thomas 1972 What Mean these Stones ? Ethno-Taxonomic Models and Archaeological Interpretation in the New Guinea Highlands. In Methods in Archaeology edited by D.L. Clarke, pp. 275-308. Methuen, London. Whittaker, J. C. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and understanding stone tools. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Whittle, A. 1985 Neolithic Europe: A Survey. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. 1988 Problems in Neolithic Archaeology. New Studies in Archaeology Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. 164

PAGE 174

1996 Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Williams-Thorpe, O. 1995 Review article. Obsidian in the Mediterranean and the Near East: a Provenancing Success Story. Archaeometry 37:217-248. Williams Thorpe, O., S.E. Warren, and L.H. Barfeld 1979 The sources and Distribution of Archaeological Obsidian in Northern Italy. Preistoria Alpina 15:73-92. 1984 The Distribution and Sources of Archaeological Obsidian from Southern France. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:135-146. Wilmsen, E. N. 1968 Functional Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts. American Antiquity 33:156-161. Wylie, H. G. 1975 Artifact Processing and Storage Procedures: a Note of Caution. Newsletter of Lithic Technology IV(1-2):17-19. Yamada, S. 1993 The Formation Process of 'Use-Wear Polishes'. In ERAUL 1993, pp. 433-445. vol. 2. Yamada, S. and A. Sawada 1993 The Method of Description for Polished Surfaces. In ERAUL 1993, pp. 447-457. vol. 2. Yengoyan, A. A. 1985 Digging for Symbols: the Archaeology of Everyday Material Life. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51:329-34. Yohe II, R. M., M. E. Newman, and J. S. Schneider 1991 Immunological Identification of Small-Mammal Proteins on Aboriginal Milling Equipment. American Antiquity 56:659-666. 165

PAGE 175

Young, D. and D. B. Bamforth 1990 On the Macroscopic Identification of Used Flakes. American Antiquity 55(2):403-409. 166

PAGE 176

Appendices 167

PAGE 177

Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research The following table is a summary of the contributions of analysts who have studied lithic artifact use. The data are presented in a chronological format, with notations of the foci of their research and the contributions they have made. This table contains research through the end of the last century, and is based on the review of the literature examined for this thesis with a focus on those of Seitzer Olausson (1980) and Odell (2001). 168

PAGE 178

Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research (Continued) Researcher Date Type of Research Contributions Nilsson 1830s Ethnographic analogies Macro-examination of tool edges with general inferences about their use Sehested 1884 Experimental replication and use Spurrell 1884, 1892 Traces of tool manufacture, experimental replication and use Evans 1897 Ethnographic analogies Compared archaeological samples to ethnographic samples Pfeiffer 1912 Ethnographic analogies and replicative experiments Warren 1914 Experimental replication and use, force applied to tool, quantification of wear, postdepositional wear Quente 1914 Experimental replication and use Experiments in hafting and using axes and celts Moir 1914 Experimental replication and use, lithic material, post depositional wear Vayson 1920, 1922 Mechanical action, material worked, ethnographic analogies Burkitt 1925 Site functions based on tool functions Curwen 1930 Experimental replication and use Semenov 1964, 1970, 1973 Ethnographic analogies, lithic material, material worked, use angle, post depositional wear Most systematic and comprehensive study to that date, recognized the many variables that affect edge-wear and made advances in recording wear Bordes 1961 Site functions based on tool functions Sonnenfeld 1962 Edge angle Systematic analysis demonstrating how wear patterns develop through use 169

PAGE 179

Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research (Continued) Researcher Date Type of Research Contributions Mauser 1965 Ethnographic analogies, use angle Compared modern metal tools with stone tools Keller 1966 Experimental replication and use, edge angle, quantification of wear More rigorous experimentation than Semenov MacDonald and Sanger 1968 Lithic material Frison 1968 Traces of tool manufacture Wilmsen 1968 Edge angle White 1968, 1969 Ethnographic analogies, mechanical action, edge angle, edge morphology, quantification of wear, magnification Kantman 1970 Edge angle, post-depositional wear Gould, Koster and Sontz 1971 Ethnographic analogies, postdepositional wear Gunn 1971 Use angle Rosenfeld 1971 Magnification Nance 1971 Lithic material Tringham 1971 Experimental replication and use, post-depositional wear Began an experimental program at the University of London White and Thomas 1972 Typology and edge angle Edge angles stabilize with use Sheets 1973 Lithic material Hester, Gillbow and Albee 1973 Quantification of wear Hayden and Kamminga 1973 Material worked, use angle, quantification of wear Gould 1973 Quantification of wear Goodyear 1974 Site functions based on tool functions Tringham et al. 1974 Mechanical action, material worked, edge angle, use angle, post-depositional wear 170

PAGE 180

Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research (Continued) Researcher Date Type of Research Contributions Shiner and Porter 1974 Magnification Keeley 1974, 1977, 1980 Experimental replication and use, material worked, postdepositional wear High powered analysis of lithic artifacts, analyzed polish to identify material worked Ranere 1975 Experimental replication and use Used experimental techniques to establish the functions of an entire archaeological collection Brose 1975 Edge angle Wylie 1975 Post-depositional wear Cautioned that cleaning may impact wear patterns Broadbent and Knutsson 1975 Lithic material, material worked, edge angle, use angle, post-depositional wear Quartz Odell 1975, 1977, 1978, 1990 Edge morphology, mechanical action, experimental replication and use, lithic material, use angle, post-depositional wear PriceBeggerly 1976 Experimental replication and use, use angle, quantification of wear Knutsson 1976 Ethnographic analogies Briuer 1976 Post-depositional wear Stapert 1976 Post-depositional wear Walker and Long 1977 Use angle, edge morphology, force applied to tool Hay 1977 Striations Used SEM to distinguish different materials worked based on striation morphologies Keeley and Newcomer 1977 Mechanical action, quantification of wear, magnification Schousboe 1977 Lithic material, edge angle, post-depositional wear Obsidian Brink 1978 Experimental replication and use, use angle, magnification 171

PAGE 181

Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research (Continued) Researcher Date Type of Research Contributions Seitzer 1978 Edge morphology Gero 1978 Post-depositional wear Del Bene 1979 Striation and polish formation Hayden 1979 Edge angle, force applied to tool, mechanical action, material worked, lithic material, AndersonGerfaud 1980 Magnification Proposed the "silica gel" polish formation theory Kamminga 1982 Edge angle, force applied to tool, mechanical action, material worked, lithic material Recognized six fracture types with low-power examination Meeks et al. 1982 Magnification Loy 1983 Residue analysis Claimed blood residue survives on stone tools UngerHamilton 1984, 1989 Magnification, functional interpretation Found the features (phytoliths) proposed by the "silica gel" theory can be created by rubbing two flints together Grace et al. 1985 Quantification Moss 1987 Experiments with blind tests Knutsson et al. 1988 Quantification Used image processing techniques to quantify polish Bamforth 1988 Experiments with blind tests Beyries 1988 Quantification Presented the technique of profilometry Gurfinkel and Franklin 1988 Residue analysis Blood Custer et al. 1988 Residue analysis Blood Plisson and Mauger 1988 Striations, abrasions Owen and Unrath 1989 Prehensile wear Loy and Wood 1989 Residue analysis Blood 172

PAGE 182

Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research (Continued) Researcher Date Type of Research Contributions 173 Grace 1989 Quantification Levi-Sala 1989, 1993, 1996 Magnification Found the presence of water affects the rate of surface smoothing Hyland et al. 1990 Residue analysis Blood Newman et al. 1993 Residue analysis Blood Fullagar 1991 Polish formation Different polishes develop at different rates Lewenstein 1991 Edge angle Determined that the edge angle cannot be used to infer function, even when morphological class is considered Yohe et al. 1991 Residue analysis Blood Fredericksen and Sewell 1991 Experiments with blind tests Rees et al. 1991 Quantification Attempted to quantify polish with fractal geometry Smith and Wilson 1992 Residue analysis Blood Kooyman et al. 1992 Residue analysis Blood Loy et al. 1992 Residue analysis, postdepositional wear Hurcombe 1992 Use-wear on obsidian Healey et al. 1992 Material worked Smith and Wilson 1992 Residue analysis Questioned the reliability and applicability of the analysis of blood residues Kooyman et al. 1992 Residue analysis Blood Christensen et al. 1992 SEM analysis Rousseau 1992 Replicative experiments Schreurs 1992 Replicative experiments Yamada 1993 Magnification Presented evidence for the "abrasion theory" for polish formation

PAGE 183

Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research (Continued) Researcher Date Type of Research Contributions Loy 1993 Residue analysis Blood Yamada and Sawada 1993 Quantification Suggested the use of a computer program designed specifically for analyzing polishes Lewenstein 1993 Replicative experiments Kazaryan 1993 Replicative experiments Schick and Toth 1993 Replicative experiments Gassin et al. 1993 Polish analysis Thomas 1993 Residue analysis Lewenstein 1993 Experiments with blind tests Catteneo et al. 1993 Residue analysis Blood Collin and Jardon-Giner 1993 Prehensile wear Shea and Klenck 1993 Effects of trampling Becker and Wendorf 1993 Polish analysis Detected a new type of polish on Nubian tools Hardy 1993 Material worked Grace 1993, 1996 Functional interpretation Advocacy for the use of all available clues for functional interpretation Coffey 1994 Abrasions, striations Odell 1994, 1998 Prehensile wear Bienenfeld 1995 Magnification Use of epoxy casts for SEM analysis Maudlin et al. 1995 Residue analysis Blood Aoyama 1995 Polish formation Grimaldi and Lemorini 1995 Replicative experiments Pawlik 1995 Replicative experiments Leach and Mauldin 1995 Residue analysis Blood Kimball et al. 1995 Quantification Used atomic force microscope to measure topography of tools 174

PAGE 184

Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research (Continued) Researcher Date Type of Research Contributions Eisele et al. 1995 Residue analysis Blood Downs and Lowenstein 1995 Residue analysis Blood Sobolik 1996 Residue analysis Phytoliths Tuross et al. 1996 Residue analysis Blood Fiedel 1996 Residue analysis Blood Pertaglia et al. 1996 Residue analysis Blood Lohse 1996 Quantification Kay 1996 Magnification Newman et al. 1996 Residue analysis Blood Ballenger 1996 Replicative experiments Mansur 1997 Striations Rabinowicz's molecular theory applies to the chemical alteration of striations LeMoine 1997 Functional interpretation van den Dries and van Gijn 1997 Tool motion, worked material, edge rounding, fracturing and polish analysis Hardy et al. 1997 Residue analysis Phytoliths Hurcombe 1997 Striations Experimented with chemicals demonstrating they alter the striations Tomenchuk 1997 Magnification Developed a parametric use-wear method using engineering principles Hudler 1997 Replicative experiments Storck 1997 Replicative experiments Fullagar et al. 1998 Residue analysis Starch grains Loy and Dixon 1998 Residue analysis Blood Leach 1998 Residue analysis Phytoliths Anderson et al. 1998 Quantification Measurement of the topographic features of the tool Barton et al. 1998 Residue analysis Starch grains Atchison and Fullagar 1998 Residue analysis Starch grains 175

PAGE 185

Appendix A: A History of Use-Wear Research (Continued) Researcher Date Type of Research Contributions Bradbury 1998 Replicative experiments Wallis and O'Connor 1998 Residue analysis Blood Christensen 1998 SEM analysis, abrasion Suggested abrasion is not a major factor in use-wear Therin 1998 Residue analysis Starch grains McBrearty et al. 1998 Effects of trampling Garling 1998 Residue analysis Blood Ahler 1998 Replicative experiments Piperno and Holst 1998 Residue analysis Starch grains Kealhofer et al. 1999 Residue analysis Phytoliths 176

PAGE 186

Appendix B: Experimental Tools Photographs in this appendix are of the experimental tools before and after use. The tools are organized to correspond with the number in a left to right, top to bottom manner. 177

PAGE 187

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 178

PAGE 188

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 179

PAGE 189

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 180

PAGE 190

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 181

PAGE 191

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 182

PAGE 192

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 183

PAGE 193

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 184

PAGE 194

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 185

PAGE 195

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 186

PAGE 196

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 187

PAGE 197

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 188

PAGE 198

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 189

PAGE 199

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 190

PAGE 200

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 191

PAGE 201

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 192

PAGE 202

Appendix B: Experimental Tools (Continued) 193

PAGE 203

Appendix C: Experimental Use Wear Documentation Form This form was used for documenting the use of the tools used in the non-blind portion of the experiment. Material worked refers to the specific type of material, such as feathers, meat, dry bone, etc. The method of use includes all motions that were used during the experiment (i.e., cutting, scraping, sawing, and so forth). Qualitative notes on the use of the artifacts were also documented, and the edge of the tool used was also noted in this section. 194

PAGE 204

Appendix C: Experimental Use Wear Documentation Form (Continued) USF Sample Number: __________________ Pre-Use Tool Number: ___________________ IL Microscopy Date: __________________ Material Worked: ___________________ Photo Numbers: __________________ Duration of Use: ___________________ Post-Use Method of Use: ___________________ IL Microscopy Date: __________________ Angle of Use: ___________________ IL Photo Numbers: __________________ Date of Use: ___________________ Experimenter: ___________________ Use Notes: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Microscopy Notes: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 195

PAGE 205

Appendix D: Use Wear Documented on the Experimental Tools The following photographs are of the SA and SC tools used to process the various categories of material. The photographs were taken with The ProScope USB digital microscope, using a 50x magnification lens. 196

PAGE 206

Appendix D: Use Wear Documented on the Experimental Tools (Continued) SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were used to process soft animal products for 15 minutes SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were used to process medium animal products for 15 minutes SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were used to process hard animal products for 15 minutes 197

PAGE 207

Appendix D: Use Wear Documented on the Experimental Tools (Continued) SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were used to process soft vegetal materials for 15 minutes SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were used to process medium vegetal products for 15 minutes SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were used to process hard vegetal products for 15 minutes 198

PAGE 208

Appendix D: Use Wear Documented on the Experimental Tools (Continued) SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were used to process soft inorganic products for 15 minutes SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were used to process medium inorganic products for 15 minutes SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were used to process hard inorganic products for 15 minutes 199

PAGE 209

Appendix D: Use Wear Documented on the Experimental Tools (Continued) SA (left) and SC (right) tools that were subjected to trampling to simulate post-depositional processes 200

PAGE 210

Appendix E: Directions for the Blind Portion of the Experiment This form was distributed to the volunteers who used tools in the blind portion of the use-wear experiments. Before using any obsidian tools, they were instructed on how to complete the form. The forms were placed in an envelope after they were filled out. After the tools used in the blind portion of the experiment were examined and the materials the tools were likely used on were identified, the envelope was opened so the interpretation of the use-wear could be compared to the actual material that the tool was used to process. 201

PAGE 211

Appendix E: Directions for the Blind Portion of the Experiment (Continued) Name _______________________________________________________ Date _________________________ Tool Number ___________________ Material Worked ______________________________________________ Time Used (at least five minutes please) ___________________________ Motion(s): Cutting / Slicing (one direction, holding tool at 90) Sawing (two directions, holding tool at 90) Scraping (one direction, holding tool at 45) Awl / Bore (using end of tool to make a hole) Punching Twisting Other notes on use (e.g., how well the tool worked, did it work better at the beginning rather than the end, breakage, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 202

PAGE 212

Appendix F: Use-Wear Analysis Data Sheet Used when examining the wear on both the experimental tools and artifacts from Contraguda, this form includes information on the number and form of the tool, such as topographic features, as well as macroscopic and microscopic observations. As the researched progressed, the macroscopic and microscopic features were the primary ones used to diagnose the function of the tools, as the assemblage was composed of predominantly expediently made small, flaked tools of a similar form with similar topographic features. 203

PAGE 213

Appendix F: Use-Wear Analysis Data Sheet (Continued) Tool Number: ___________ SA SC Topography: flat undulating ridged Topographic percussion edge feathering both absent Features: ripples Edge angle ________ length ________ thickness ______ Morphology: profile __________________ shape __________________ Macro Edge Wear: Ventral Dorsal Fractures: 1. absent 2. < 5 per 10 mm 3. 5 per 10mm Fracture Types: 1. flakes 2. snaps 3. steps Predominant Fracture Type: __________________________________________ Fracture Size: _____________________________________________ Fracture 1. random 3. intermittent 3. regular Distribution: Rounding: 1. light 2. heavy 3. absent Micro Edge Wear: Ventral Dorsal Fractures: 1. absent 2. < 5 per 5 mm 3. 5 per 5 mm Fracture Types: 1. flakes 2. snaps 3. steps Predominant Fracture Type: __________________________________________ Fracture Size: __________________________________________ Fracture 1. random 3. intermittent 3. regular Distribution: Rounding: 1. light 2. heavy 3. absent 204

PAGE 214

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment The following pages contain the experimental results for each tool used. The attributes and how they are calculated are explained in Chapter Three. 205

PAGE 215

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) USF Number Tool Number Tool Type Obsidian Source Knapper Date Knapped 6250 1 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 2 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 3 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 4 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 5 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 6 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 7 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 8 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 9 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 10 Flake-shatter SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 11 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 12 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 13 Non-flake debitage SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 14 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 15 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 16 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 17 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 20 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 21 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 22 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 23 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 24 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 18 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 19 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 25 Non-flake debitage SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 26 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 27 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 28 Blade/Flake-shatter SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 29 Blade SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 30 Blade SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 31 Blade SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 32 Blade SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 33 Blade SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 34 Blade SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 35 Non-flake debitage SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 36 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 37 Flake-shatter SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 38 Flake SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 39 Flake-shatter SC Setzer 2/22/03 6250 40 Flake-shatter SC Setzer 2/22/03 6248 41 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 206

PAGE 216

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) USF Number Tool Number Tool Type Obsidian SourceKnapper Date Knapped 6248 42 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 43 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 44 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 45 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 46 Flake/Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 47 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 48 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 49 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 50 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 51 Flake-shatter SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 52 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 53 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 54 Flake/Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 55 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 56 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 57 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 58 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 59 Flake/Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 60 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 61 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 62 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 63 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 64 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6248 65 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 66 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 67 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 68 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 69 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 70 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 71 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 72 Flake-shatter SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 73 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 74 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 75 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 76 Blade SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 77 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 78 Flake SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 79 Flake-shatter SA Setzer 2/22/03 6270 80 Flake-shatter SA Setzer 2/22/03 207

PAGE 217

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Cortex Material Worked Hardness of Material Worked Duration of Use 1 1 Meat Animal Soft 5 minutes 2 2 Meat Animal Soft 15 minutes 3 1 Wet bone Animal Hard 5 minutes 4 2 Wet bone Animal Hard 15 minutes 5 0 Fish Animal Medium 5 minutes 6 0 Fish Animal Medium 15 minutes 7 2 Dry bone Animal Hard 5 minutes 8 1 Dry bone Animal Hard 15 minutes 9 0 Pottery Inorganic Hard 5 minutes 10 3 Pottery Inorganic Hard 15 minutes 11 0 Dry oak Vegetal Hard 5 minutes 12 1 Dry oak Vegetal Hard 15 minutes 13 0 Tropical grass Inorganic Soft 5 minutes 14 2 Tropical grass Inorganic Soft 15 minutes 15 1 Leaves Vegetal Soft 5 minutes 16 1 Leaves Vegetal Soft 15 minutes 17 0 Animal hide Animal Medium 5 minutes 20 0 Cork Vegetal Medium 15 minutes 21 2 Hair/shaving Animal Soft 5 minutes 22 0 Hair/shaving Animal Soft 15 minutes 23 0 Clay Inorganic Medium 5 minutes 24 2 Clay Inorganic Medium 15 minutes 18 0 Animal hide Animal Medium 15 minutes 19 2 Cork Vegetal Medium 5 minutes 25 0 Dried meat Animal Medium 5 minutes 26 2 Dried meat Animal Medium 15 minutes 27 1 Feathers Animal Medium 5 minutes 28 0 Feathers Animal Medium 15 minutes 29 0 Bagwear Non-depositional na 30 0 Trampling Non-depositional 200 steps 31 0 Ceramic Hard Inorganic 5 minutes 32 2 Animal hide Medium Animal 5 minutes 33 0 Tropical grass Soft Inorganic 5 minutes 34 1 Wet bone Hard Animal 5 minutes 35 0 Cork Medium Vegetal 5 minutes 36 1 Tropical grass Soft Inorganic 5 minutes 37 2 Animal hide Medium Animal 5 minutes 38 1 Wet bone Hard Animal 5 minutes 39 0 Meat Soft Animal 5 minutes 40 0 Cork Medium Vegetal 5 minutes 41 1 Meat Animal Soft 5 minutes 208

PAGE 218

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Cortex Material WorkedHardness of Material WorkedDuration of Use 42 1 Meat Animal Soft 15 minutes 43 0 Wet bone Animal Hard 5 minutes 44 0 Wet bone Animal Hard 15 minutes 45 0 Fish Animal Medium 5 minutes 46 0 Fish Animal Medium 15 minutes 47 0 Dry bone Animal Hard 5 minutes 48 2 Dry bone Animal Hard 15 minutes 49 1 Pottery Inorganic Hard 5 minutes 50 0 Pottery Inorganic Hard 15 minutes 51 0 Dry oak Vegetal Hard 5 minutes 52 0 Dry oak Vegetal Hard 15 minutes 53 2 Tropical grass Inorganic Soft 5 minutes 54 1 Tropical grass Inorganic Soft 15 minutes 55 1 Leaves Vegetal Soft 5 minutes 56 0 Leaves Vegetal Soft 15 minutes 57 3 Animal hide Animal Medium 5 minutes 58 1 Animal hide Animal Medium 15 minutes 59 0 Cork Vegetal Medium 5 minutes 60 0 Cork Vegetal Medium 15 minutes 61 0 Hair Animal Soft 5 minutes 62 0 Hair Animal Soft 15 minutes 63 1 Clay Inorganic Medium 5 minutes 64 2 Clay Inorganic Medium 15 minutes 65 0 Dried meat Animal Medium 5 minutes 66 1 Dried meat Animal Medium 15 minutes 67 0 Feathers Animal Medium 5 minutes 68 0 Feathers Animal Medium 15 minutes 69 0 Bagwear Non-depositional na 70 0 Trampling Non-depositional 200 steps 71 0 Leaves Soft vegetal 5 minutes 72 0 Fish Medium Animal 5 minutes 73 0 Dry bone Hard Animal 10 minutes 74 0 Dry oak Hard Vegetal 5 minutes 75 1 Wet bone Hard Animal 5 minutes 76 0 Cork Medium Vegetal 5 minutes 77 0 Dry bone Hard Animal 5 minutes 78 0 Dy oak Hard Vegetal 5 minutes 79 0 Meat Soft Animal 5 minutes 80 0 Dried meat Medium Animal 5 minutes 209

PAGE 219

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Method of Use Angle of Use Experimenter Tool Dimensions (l x w x t) (pre-use) in mm 1 Cut 90 Setzer 8788.5 2 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 4165 3 Saw, scrape 90, 45 Setzer 11250 4 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 3906 5 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 3465 6 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 2944 7 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 6873.75 8 Saw, cut 90, 90 Setzer 3450 9 Scrape, saw >45, 90 Setzer 9976 10 Scrape, saw >45, 90 Setzer 8190 11 Saw 90 Setzer 2145 12 Saw, scrape 90, >45 Setzer 2457 13 Saw, cut, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 12060 14 Saw, cut, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 4650 15 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 4192.5 16 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 918 17 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 3220 20 Saw 90 Setzer 4590 21 Scrape <45 Beyer 6000 22 Scrape <45 Beyer 3584 23 Cut 90 Setzer 2629.13 24 Cut 90 Setzer 945 18 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 90 Setzer 4200 19 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 825 25 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 1280 26 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 1725 27 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 4160 28 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 936 29 na 0 Setzer 792 30 na 0 Setzer 1466.25 31 Cut 90 Ceo 451.25 32 Bore 0 Ceo 2092.5 33 Saw 90 Duque 3375 34 Cut 90 Ceo 3045 35 Scrape 45 Duque 2940 210

PAGE 220

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Method of Use Angle of Use ExperimenterTool Dimensions (l x w x t) (pre-use) in mm 36 Saw 90 Scudder 5514.75 37 Cut, scrape 90, 45 Hayes 2790 38 Cut, saw 90 Hayes 6204 39 Saw 90 Scudder 8887.5 40 Cut, bore 90 Hayes 6745 41 Cut 90 Setzer 7209 42 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 9957.75 43 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 15152.5 44 Saw 90 Setzer 2007.5 45 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 1275 46 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 3517.5 47 Saw 90 Setzer 3949.75 48 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 544.5 49 Saw, scrape 45, 90 Setzer 484.5 50 Scrape, saw 45, 90 Setzer 3933 51 Saw, scrape 90, >45 Setzer 2978.5 52 Saw, scrape 90, >45 Setzer 1212.75 53 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 1759.5 54 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 10829 55 Cut, saw 90?, 90? Setzer 17290 56 Cut, saw 90?, 90? Setzer 1056 57 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 6834 58 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Setzer 14850 59 Saw 90 Setzer 1008 60 Saw 70-90 Setzer 2996.25 61 Cut 90 Beyer 2376 62 Scrape (shaving) <45 Ceo 3878.88 63 Cut 90 Setzer 1020 64 Cut 90 Setzer 5544 65 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 1320 66 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 38458 67 Cut, saw 90, 90 Setzer 8820 68 Saw, cut 90, 90 Setzer 9246 69 na na Setzer 2821.5 211

PAGE 221

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Method of Use Angle of Use ExperimenterTool Dimensions (l x w x t) (pre-use) in mm 70 na na Setzer 15984 71 Cut 90 Ceo 973.75 72 Cut 90 Beyer 8400 73 Scrape 45 Ceo 1732.5 74 Saw 90 Ceo 807.5 75 Scrape 45 Beyer 5978 76 Saw 90 Ceo 280 77 Cut, bore 90 Broadbent 2457 78 Cut, saw, scrape 90, 90, 45 Broadbent 1539 79 Cut 90 Duque 1444 80 Saw 90 Beyer 1900 212

PAGE 222

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Tool Weight (pre-use) in grams Tool Dimensions (l x w x t) (post-use) in mm Tool Weight (post-use) in grams 1 4.71 7316 4.24 2 3.41 4464 3.14 3 7.78 12025 7.77 4 2.45 3780 2.39 5 1.74 3465 1.76 6 1.75 2852 1.76 7 5.44 6727.5 5.41 8 2.63 3381 2.63 9 6.85 9072 6.82 10 6.63 7875 6.62 11 1.33 2145 1.23 12 1.42 2398.5 1.43 13 6.02 11220 5.98 14 3.86 4836 3.88 15 3.23 4095 3.23 16 1.03 918 1.02 17 2.13 3220 2.1 20 2.63 5100 2.64 21 4.65 6000 4.65 22 2.75 3584 2.75 23 2.07 2850 2.02 24 0.83 918 0.84 18 2.46 4200 2.44 19 0.49 427.5 0.21 25 0.76 1248 0.75 26 1.12 1046.25 0.83 27 2.5 4720 2.51 28 0.57 936 0.57 29 0.58 726 0.54 30 1.03 1466.25 1.03 31 0.54 427.5 0.52 32 1.7 2092.5 1.7 33 2.67 3330 2.65 34 2.64 3045 2.63 35 1.88 1440 1.81 36 4.05 5386.5 4.04 37 1.79 2281.5 1.72 38 5.46 6532 5.39 39 7.16 8887.5 7.16 40 3.09 5760 2.88 213

PAGE 223

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Tool Weight (pre-use) in grams Tool Dimensions (l x w x t) (post-use) in mm Tool Weight (post-use) in grams 41 4.18 7128 4.17 42 6.65 9957.75 6.63 43 9.3 14833.5 9.24 44 1.02 1925 1 45 0.83 1275 0.8 46 1.91 3517.5 1.92 47 1.52 3202.5 1.47 48 0.54 528 0.48 49 0.5 484.5 0.5 50 2.5 3933 2.5 51 1.59 2508 1.6 52 0.84 1127 0.84 53 1.51 1683 1.47 54 6.71 10829 6.64 55 12.09 17290 12.12 56 0.94 1056 0.96 57 6.69 6549.25 6.71 58 7.86 14850 7.86 59 0.98 1008 0.96 60 2.58 2996.25 2.57 61 1.86 2425.5 1.87 62 2.32 3878.88 2.33 63 0.83 960 0.82 64 4.96 5456 4.92 65 0.94 1320 0.94 66 25.57 43148 25.55 67 6.72 8400 6.7 68 6.48 8613 6.45 69 1.49 2964 1.49 70 7.29 13634.5 7.28 71 1.15 990 1.16 72 3.61 7680 3.61 73 1.27 1575 1.25 74 0.57 726.75 0.55 75 3.7 6832 3.7 76 0.33 280 0.32 77 1.56 1820 1.52 78 1.28 1458 1.25 79 0.79 1444 0.78 80 0.7 1425 0.7 214

PAGE 224

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) 215 Tool Number Use notes 1 cut 5 minutes using distal end, broke when measuring 2 Utilized right ventral side/margin 3 Proximal end used, scraping motion worked bone better than sawing to remove any bone 4 Scraping motion removes some bone, sawing/cutting not as much 5 Distal edge used 6 Right ventral side used 7 Left ventral edge used, cuts slowly 8 Right ventral side used 9 Right distal edge used, sharpens edge 10 Right ventral edge 11 Left ventral, distal 12 Right ventral, mostly used to saw with little scraping 13 Right ventral side used 14 Right ventral side used 15 Left ventral side used 16 Right ventral side and distal end used 17 Right ventral side, cut easily at firs t, dulled rather quickly at about 3 minutes 20 Left ventral edge used 21 Distal end used 22 Distal end used 23 Distal end used, clay adheres to it, possibly limiting wear patterns 24 Distal end used 18 Left ventral side used, dulled at about 3 minutes into experiment 19 Distal end used, thin piece that br oke into three pieces when being used 25 Distal end used 26 Distal end used, broke during use 27 Mismeasure pre use dimensions? Di stal end used, cuts feathers well 28 Left ventral edge used, stopped cutting e ffectively after approx. 5 minutes 29 Broke into 2 pieces, second weight is combined 30 na 31 No breakage noted 32 Difficult to use, with minor breakage 33 Sawing easier than cutting, noted changes in effectiveness of edge with use 34 na 35 Broke during use 36 Did not work well 37 Flaking during scraping 38 Usefulness declined with processing, flaked during use 39 Worked well the whole time

PAGE 225

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Use notes 40 Edges good for carving, did not work well with boring 41 Right ventral margin used 42 Right ventral edge used, SC did not cut meat as well as SA 43 Distal end used 44 Right ventral edge used, sawed bone nicely, possibly due to the shape of the tool rather than type 45 Right ventral side used 46 Left ventral side used 47 Right ventral side used, seems to cut better than SC 48 Right ventral side 49 Right ventral side used 50 Distal end used 51 Distal end used, mostly sawing motion with some scraping 52 Distal end used 53 Distal and right ventral edge used 54 Right ventral edge used 55 Right distal end used, did not cut as well as SC, required more force and strokes 56 Left distal ventral end used, cut nicely, due to angle not type of obsidian? 57 Mid-left ventral side used, didn't work as well as SC 58 Right ventral edge used, didn't work very well at all, could be edge angle 59 Right ventral edge used 60 Left ventral edge used 61 Right lower ventral, didn't seem to work as well, but not same activity exactly 62 Point of percussion used 63 Left ventral edge used 64 Left distal ventral edge used 65 Right ventral edge used 66 Left lower ventral toward distal end used 67 Distal end used, seemed to cut faster than SC 68 Distal end used 69 na 70 na 71 No breakage noted, worked consistently well during experiment 72 Worked well on meat and skin 73 Worked well scraping 74 Worked well throughout experiment 75 Cuts well on wet bone 76 Edge dulled during use 77 Broke during use 78 Edges continually wore down during the experiment 79 The tool cut well throughout the experiment 216

PAGE 226

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Use notes 80 Worked fairly well, best when cutting with the grain of the meat 217

PAGE 227

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Topography Topographic Features Edge Morphology Angle Edge Morphology Length Edge Morphology Thickness 1 undulating percussion ripples 86 36 7 2 flat edge feathering 38 23.5 5 3 flat percussion ripples 58 23.5 11 4 flat edge feathering 66 8.5 5.5 5 undulating percussion ripples 30 39 4 6 flat absent 28 27.5 3 7 flat absent 60 35 6.5 8 undulating r percussion ripples 60 19 5.5 9 undulating percussion ripples 15 21.5 7 10 flat percussion ripples 24 23.5 4.5 11 undulating percussion ripples 17 25 4 12 ridged percussion ripples 18 8 4.5 13 flat absent 69 15 9.5 14 flat percussion ripples 30 19 5 15 undulating percussion ripples 30 20 5 16 flat percussion ripples 16 12 4 17 undulating both 33 21 5 20 flat percussion ripples 70 29 8 21 flat percussion ripples 45 18 7 22 flat percussion ripples 35 18 8 23 flat percussion ripples 30 14 4.5 24 flat percussion ripples 22 16 3.5 18 flat percussion ripples 30 19 4.5 19 flat percussion ripples 16 20 1 218

PAGE 228

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Topography Topographic Features Edge Morphology Angle Edge Morphology Length Edge Morphology Thickness 25 flat absent 17 8 3 26 flat percussion ripples 38 10.5 4.5 27 undulating percussion ripples 34 18.5 7 28 undulating percussion ripples 17.5 21 3 29 na na 30 na na 31 flat percussion ripples 77 9.5 2.5 32 flat percussion ripples 50 28.5 5 33 undulating percussion ripples 27 12 2.5 34 undulating, ridged percussion ripples 44 25 5 35 flat percussion ripples 45 8 3 36 flat percussion ripples 43 17.5 8 37 flat absent 18 6 4 38 flat percussion ripples 72 39 6 39 flat percussion ripples 15 12 9 40 flat percussion ripples 30 19 4.5 41 undulating percussion ripples 46 39.5 7 42 flat percussion ripples 16 30 8 43 undulating percussion ripples 16 28 10 44 undulating percussion ripples 50 37.5 4 45 flat absent 78 18.5 3 46 undulating percussion ripples 66 25 5.5 47 flat percussion ripples 30 26 5 48 flat absent 46 7.5 3 219

PAGE 229

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Topography Topographic Features Edge Morphology Angle Edge Morphology Length Edge Morphology Thickness 49 flat absent 29 18 3 50 ridged both 86 24 8.5 51 undulating percussion ripples 60 24 6 52 flat percussion ripples 40 26 3 53 ridged percussion ripples 78 25 6 54 flat percussion ripples 34 30 7 55 ridged absent 52 27 9 56 flat percussion ripples 15 19 3 57 flat absent 53 12 8 58 undulating percussion ripples 45 27 10 59 undulating percussion ripples 17 21 4 60 flat absent 55 23.5 4 61 flat edge feathering 15 7 5 62 flat edge feathering 49 9.5 6 63 undulating percussion ripples 20 10 3 64 flat absent 17 15 7 65 flat percussion ripples 47 21 5 66 undulating percussion ripples 48 74 14 67 flat absent 45 21 9.5 68 flat percussion ripples 24 26 5 69 na na 70 na na 71 flat percussion ripples 44 19 5 72 flat percussion ripples 29 16 6 73 flat percussion ripples 16 17.5 4 74 na na 75 flat absent 20 13 7 220

PAGE 230

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Topography Topographic Features Edge Morphology Angle Edge Morphology Length Edge Morphology Thickness 76 flat absent 15 9 2 77 flat percussion ripples 44 16 6 78 flat percussion ripples 37 11 4 79 flat absent 47.5 8.5 3.5 80 flat percussion ripples 31 13.5 3.5 221

PAGE 231

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Edge Morphology Profile Edge Morphology Shape Macro Edge Wear Macro Fractures 1 0.13 1.3 absent absent 2 -0.04 0.82 absent absent 3 0.16 0.74 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 4 -0.14 0.71 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 5 0.21 1.6 dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 6 0.05 1.38 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 7 0.06 0.53 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 8 -0.06 1.36 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 9 0.03 1.55 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 10 0.04 1.08 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 11 0.36 0.68 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 12 -0.05 0.84 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 13 0 1.22 na absent 14 -0.07 1.1 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 15 0.14 0.68 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 16 -0.06 0.56 dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 17 0.04 0.92 na absent 20 -0.02 0.8 dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 21 -0.2 0.91 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 22 -0.03 0.63 ventral =/> 5 per 10 mm 23 -0.09 1.42 dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 24 0.2 1 na absent 18 0.09 1.13 na absent 19 0.15 1.3 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 25 -0.08 0.86 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 26 0.14 1.09 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 27 0.14 0.64 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 28 -0.1 0.48 ventral =/> 5 per 10 mm 29 na 0.8 ventral < 5 per 10 mm 30 na 0.44 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 31 0.1 0.52 dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 32 0.08 0.45 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 33 0.12 0.41 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 34 0.08 0.58 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 35 0.1 0.88 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 36 0.08 0.75 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 37 0 0.89 na absent 38 0.18 1.63 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 39 0.08 1.56 dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 40 0 1.56 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 222

PAGE 232

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Edge Morphology Profile Edge Morphology Shape Macro Edge Wear Macro Fractures 41 -0.04 0.5 ventral < 5 per 10 mm 42 0.4 0.94 ventral < 5 per 10 mm 43 0.21 0.66 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 44 0.08 0.32 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 45 0 0.37 na absent 46 0.04 0.84 ventral =/> 5 per 10 mm 47 -0.08 0.5 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 48 -0.17 0.67 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 49 0.08 0.58 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 50 0.04 0.81 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 51 0.13 1.19 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 52 0.18 1.63 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 53 0.13 0.44 na absent 54 0.07 0.54 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 55 0.08 0.57 na absent 56 0.19 1.33 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 57 0 0.71 na absent 58 -0.06 0.73 na absent 59 -0.11 0.91 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 60 0.15 0.92 na absent 61 0.5 0.8 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 62 0.07 0.45 na absent 63 0.3 1.1 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 64 0.2 1.49 na absent 65 0.11 0.56 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 66 0.17 0.46 ventral < 5 per 10 mm 67 0.03 0.76 dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 68 -0.1 1.29 ventral =/> 5 per 10 mm 69 na na ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 70 na na ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 71 0.14 0.71 na absent 72 0.13 0.63 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 73 0 na ventral < 5 per 10 mm 74 na na na absent 75 0 0.95 dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 76 0.33 2.9 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 10 mm 77 0.24 0.64 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 78 0.03 1 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 79 0.14 1.25 na absent 223

PAGE 233

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Edge Morphology Profile Edge Morphology Shape Macro Edge Wear Macro Fractures 80 -0.14 1.08 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 10 mm 224

PAGE 234

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Macro Fracture Types Predominant Macro Fracture Type Maximum Fracture Size in mm Macro Fracture Distribution Macro Rounding 1 na na 1.5 na absent 2 na na 0.75 na absent 3 flakes, steps steps 2 regular light 4 flakes, steps steps/equal 3 regular absent 5 steps step (one) 2 random absent 6 flakes, snaps snaps 0.5 regular absent 7 flakes, steps steps 2 regular light 8 flakes, steps steps 2 regular light 9 snaps, steps steps 2 intermittent absent 10 flakes, steps steps 1 intermittent light 11 snaps snaps 2 regular absent 12 snaps snaps 3 regular absent 13 na na na absent 14 flakes, snaps, steps snaps 2 regular absent 15 flakes, steps steps 3 intermittent absent 16 snaps, steps steps 2 regular absent 17 na na na absent 20 flakes flakes 0.5 intermittent absent 21 flakes, steps steps 2 random absent 22 flakes flakes 0.5 intermittent absent 23 flakes flakes 0.5 intermittent absent 24 na na 1 na absent 18 na na na absent 19 snaps snaps 5 intermittent absent 25 snaps snaps 4 regular absent 26 flakes flakes 1 intermittent absent 27 flakes, steps flakes 1 regular absent 28 flakes flakes 0.5 regular absent 29 flakes flakes 0.5 random na 30 snaps, steps na 1.5 regular* absent 31 steps steps 0.5 intermittent absent 32 steps steps 0.75 random absent 33 snaps snaps 3 regular light 34 flakes, snaps na 1 random absent 35 steps steps 1 regular absent 36 snaps snaps 1 random absent 37 na na na absent 38 steps steps 1 regular absent 225

PAGE 235

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Macro Fracture Types Predominant Macro Fracture Type Maximum Fracture Size in mm Macro Fracture Distribution Macro Rounding 39 steps steps 1 random absent 40 flakes, snaps flake 2 random absent 41 flakes, snaps na 0.75 random absent 42 flakes flakes 3 random absent 43 flakes, steps na 1 regular absent 44 flakes, steps na 3 regular light 45 na na na absent 46 flakes, steps na 2 regular absent 47 flakes, steps steps 2 regular heavy 48 flakes, steps na 2 random light 49 flakes, steps step 3 random heavy 50 flakes, steps na 1 random light 51 flakes, steps steps 1 random absent 52 flakes, snaps, steps na 3 random heavy 53 na na na light 54 snaps, steps snaps 2 regular absent 55 na na na heavy* 56 snaps, steps snaps 2 regular absent 57 na na na light 58 na na na absent 59 snaps snaps 0.75 random absent 60 na na 1 na absent 61 snaps snaps 1 regular absent 62 na na 0.2 na absent 63 snaps snaps 3 regular absent 64 na na na absent 65 flakes, steps na 0.5 intermittent absent 66 flakes, steps na 2 random absent 67 snaps, steps steps 0.5 regular absent 68 flakes, snaps snaps 3 regular absent 69 snaps, steps na 1 random* absent 70 flakes, snaps, steps na 1 random absent 71 na na 0.5 na absent 72 flakes flakes 1 regular absent 73 flakes flakes 1 random light 74 na na na absent 226

PAGE 236

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Macro Fracture Types Predominant Macro Fracture Type Maximum Fracture Size in mm Macro Fracture Distribution Macro Rounding 75 flakes, steps na 2 regular light 76 snaps snaps 2.5 regular absent 77 flakes, steps steps 1 regular heavy 78 flakes, steps steps 2 regular light 79 na na 1 na absent 80 snaps snaps 0.75 regular absent 227

PAGE 237

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Micro Edge Wear Micro Fractures Micro Fracture Types Predominant Micro Fracture Type 1 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps steps 2 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps flakes 3 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps na 4 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps steps 5 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps flakes (almost equal w/steps) 6 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes 7 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps na (overlapping) 8 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps na 9 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps steps 10 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps steps 11 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 12 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 13 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes 14 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 15 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes 16 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes, steps 17 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps flakes 20 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes flakes 21 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps, steps* 22 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 23 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps na 24 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 18 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes 19 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps steps, snaps 25 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm snaps, steps snaps 26 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 27 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps steps 28 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes, steps 29 ventral < 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps na 30 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps na 31 dorsal < 5 per 5 mm snaps snaps 32 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps snaps 33 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 5 mm snaps snaps 34 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 35 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes 36 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 37 ventral < 5 per 5 mm flakes flakes 38 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps steps (probably) 39 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm snaps, steps snaps 40 ventral >/= 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps flakes 228

PAGE 238

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Micro Edge Wear Micro FracturesMicro Fracture Types Predominant Micro Fracture Type 41 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps flakes 42 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flake 43 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps na 44 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps steps 45 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps flakes 46 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps na 47 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes, steps 48 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes, steps 49 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps na 50 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps na 51 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps na 52 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps na 53 ventral < 5 per 5 mm flakes flakes 54 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes, snaps 55 ventral < 5 per 5 mm snaps snaps 56 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm snaps, steps snaps 57 na absent na na 58 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps na 59 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 60 ventral < 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps steps 61 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 62 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps snaps 63 ventral, dorsal < 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps na 64 ventral < 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps na 65 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps flakes 66 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm snaps, steps snaps 67 dorsal < 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps na 68 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps na 69 dorsal > 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps na 70 ventral =/> 5 per 5 mm* flakes, snaps, steps na 71 dorsal < 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps na 72 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes 73 ventral < 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps flakes 74 na absent na na 75 dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps flakes 76 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 77 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, steps steps 78 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps step 79 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps, steps snaps 229

PAGE 239

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Micro Edge Wear Micro FracturesMicro Fracture Types Predominant Micro Fracture Type 80 ventral, dorsal =/> 5 per 5 mm flakes, snaps snaps 230

PAGE 240

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Predominant Micro Fracture Type Minimum Fracture Size in mm Micro Fracture Distribution Micro Rounding Notes 1 steps 0.25 random absent 2 flakes 0.1 intermittent absent 3 na 0.25 regular heavy 4 steps 0.2 regular light 5 flakes (almost equal w/steps) 0.1 regular absent 6 flakes 0.25 regular absent 7 na (overlapping) 0.25 regular heavy 8 na 0.2 regular light 9 steps 0.1 regular, almost continuous heavy, possible polishing 10 steps 0.2 regular heavy, possible polishing 11 snaps 0.1 regular absent 12 snaps 0.1 regular absent 13 flakes 0.25 random absent 14 snaps 0.1 regular light 15 flakes 0.2 regular absent 16 flakes, steps 0.2 regular absent 17 flakes 0.1 regular absent 20 flakes 0.2 intermittent light 21 snaps, steps* 0.1 regular absent probably snaps 22 snaps 0.1 intermittent regular absent 23 na 0.1 intermittent absent 24 snaps 0.1 intermittent absent 18 flakes 0.1 regular absent 19 steps, snaps 0.1 regular light 25 snaps 0.1 intermittent absent 26 snaps 0.2 regular light 27 steps 0.2 regular light 28 flakes, steps 0.2 regular absent 29 na 0.1 random na 30 na 0.5 random absent one edge, some surface crushin g, 231

PAGE 241

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Predominant Micro Fracture Type Minimum Fracture Size in mmMicro Fracture Distribution Micro Rounding Notes white spots 31 snaps 0.25 random absent 2 microscopic snaps 32 snaps 0.1 intermittent absent 33 snaps 0.1 intermittent heavy 34 snaps 0.1 regular light possible micro wear on ventral and dorsal, snaps 35 flakes 0.25 regular absent 36 snaps 0.1 regular absent not sure if this is use-wear 37 flakes 0.1 intermittent absent rough edge not wear photo 38 steps (probably) 0.1 regular light macro-wear looks serrated 39 snaps 0.1 regular absent 40 flakes 0.2 regular light 41 flakes 0.25 random absent 42 flake 0.2 intermittent absent 43 na 0.25 regular light 44 steps 0.25 regular light 45 flakes 0.25 random absent angle measurement taken at midpoint 46 na 0.5 regular light can't tell if macro fx are flakes or steps 47 flakes, steps 0.25 regular heavy 48 flakes, steps 0.25 regular heavy 49 na 0.5 random heavy polish/edge dulling 50 na 0.2 intermittent heavy polish/edge dulling 51 na 0.25 intermittent absent angle measurement from midpoint 52 na 0.25 random heavy 53 flakes 0.2 random heavy 54 flakes, snaps 0.2 regular light 55 snaps 0.25 random light angle measurement from midpoint could be angle 56 snaps 0.2 regular light 57 na 0 na light 232

PAGE 242

Appendix G: Results of the Experiment (Continued) Tool Number Predominant Micro Fracture Type Minimum Fracture Size in mmMicro Fracture Distribution Micro Rounding Notes 58 na 0.2 random* absent *only one small section of piece with this, remainder of piece clean 59 snaps 0.2 intermittent absent possible striations 60 steps 0.25 intermittent absent possible striations 61 snaps 0.2 regular absent 62 snaps 0.1 regular absent wear looks serrated 63 na 0.2 random light 64 na 0.1 random absent 65 flakes 0.1 intermittent light 66 snaps 0.1 random light 67 na 0.25 regular heavy 68 na 0.25 regular light hard time viewing micro rounding 69 na 0.25 intermittent/regular absent *one edge w/ regular wear 70 na 0.1 intermittent absent *one edge, remainder has less 71 na 0.2 random light predominant microfracture type not specified 72 flakes 0.2 regular light 73 flakes 0.1 random/intermittent light 74 na 0 na absent 75 flakes 0.1 regular heavy 76 snaps 0.1 regular absent 77 steps 0.1 regular heavy overlapping 78 step 0.1 regular heavy 79 snaps 0.1 regular absent might not be wear 80 snaps 0.1 regular light-heavy 233

PAGE 243

Appendix H: Contraguda Artifacts The following artifacts from the site of Contraguda were analyzed in this research. The analysis included macroscopic and low-power microscopic use-wear analysis. 234

PAGE 244

Appendix H: Contraguda Artifacts (Continued) 235

PAGE 245

Appendix H: Contraguda Artifacts (Continued) 236

PAGE 246

Appendix H: Contraguda Artifacts (Continued) 237

PAGE 247

Appendix H: Contraguda Artifacts (Continued) 238

PAGE 248

Appendix H: Contraguda Artifacts (Continued) 239

PAGE 249

Appendix H: Contraguda Artifacts (Continued) 240

PAGE 250

Appendix H: Contraguda Artifacts (Continued) 241

PAGE 251

Appendix I: Frequency of the Use-Wear Attributes on the SA (n = 31) and SC (n = 31) Experimental Tools The following is a graphic representation of the frequency of the observed use-wear attributes for the tools used in the controlled portion of the experiment. Equal numbers of SA and SC obsidian tools were used for each category of material worked (i.e., soft animal, medium animal, hard animal, etc.). 242

PAGE 252

Appendix I: Frequency of the Use-Wear Attributes on the SA (n = 31) and SC (n = 31) Experimental Tools (Continued) 243

PAGE 253

Appendix I: Frequency of the Use-Wear Attributes on the SA (n = 31) and SC (n = 31) Experimental Tools (Continued) 244

PAGE 254

Appendix I: Frequency of the Use-Wear Attributes on the SA (n = 31) and SC (n = 31) Experimental Tools (Continued) 245

PAGE 255

Appendix I: Frequency of the Use-Wear Attributes on the SA (n = 31) and SC (n = 31) Experimental Tools (Continued) 246

PAGE 256

Appendix I: Frequency of the Use-Wear Attributes on the SA (n = 31) and SC (n = 31) Experimental Tools (Continued) 247