See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240330339

The recognition and description of knapped lithic artifacts in thin section

Article  in  Geoarchaeology · March 2010

DOI: 10.1002/gea.20303

CITATIONS READS

21 186

1 author:

Diego E. Angelucci
Università degli Studi di Trento
119 PUBLICATIONS   1,190 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ARQEVO - Archeology and Evolution of Early Humans in the Western Façade of Iberia View project

Excavations at Vallone Inferno (Scillato, PA) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Diego E. Angelucci on 11 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Recognition and Description of
Knapped Lithic Artifacts in Thin Section
Diego E. Angelucci*
Dipartimento di Filosofia, Scienze e Beni Culturali, Università di Trento,
Piazza Venezia 41, I-38122 Trento, Italy

Stone tools occur quite frequently in sediment and soil thin sections, yet their micromorpho-
logical characteristics have not been explicitly defined in the literature. The aim of this paper
is to define the criteria for the identification and description of knapped lithic artifacts com-
posed of flint and quartzite by examining and comparing thin sections from prehistoric sites
and petrographic thin sections obtained from lithic artifacts. The main characteristics that
allow the micromorphologist to identify a knapped lithic artifact, besides its composition,
grain size, and alteration degree, are: the tabular or platy shape; the angularity; the smooth
surface; the prominent and regular boundary. Some examples taken from prehistoric sites
in southern Europe show the reliability of these criteria for the recognition of stone tools in
thin sections. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION
Lithic artifacts (stone tools) are common components of surface sediments and
soils and may therefore appear in samples of such materials, including thin sec-
tions. The presence of stone tools in a sediment sample may be diagnostic of past
human activity at the sampling site. This can be related to the existence of an archae-
ological site at the location, to sporadic occupation by past humans groups, to the
secondary reworking of archaeological objects from a nearby or distant site, or to
the execution of specific activities. Regardless of their archaeological meaning,
lithic artifacts are artificial, human-introduced components of sediments and soils
and need to be properly described and identified. Micromorphologists acquainted
with archaeological deposits have often described lithic artifacts or shown them in
figures and micrographs (see below). Nevertheless, the criteria for their identifica-
tion in thin section have yet to be proposed. The purpose of this paper is to outline
criteria that can be used for the recognition and description of lithic artifacts in sed-
iment thin sections, in particular for the artifacts obtained through the flaking
technique (débitage). The stone knapping procedure creates a number of object-
specific features that are consistent enough to allow the micromorphologist to rec-
ognize and describe them through standard micromorphological description.
To this end, archaeological specimens cut in petrographic thin sections and lithic arti-
facts from archaeological sites are examined and compared, and their characteristics

*Corresponding author; E-mail: diego.angelucci@unitn.it.

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, 220–232 (2010)
© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/gea.20303
 KNAPPED LITHIC ARTIFACTS IN THIN SECTION

are described following the current guidelines for the analysis of soil thin
sections (Stoops, 2003).

STONE KNAPPING
Stone knapping has been the main technique for producing tools for a variety of
functions for at least 2.5 million years (e.g., Semaw et al., 2003). Lithic materials
commonly form a major component of archaeological deposits dating from the
Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. The production and use of flaked stone tools did
not end with the earlier phases of human prehistory, nor with the appearance of pol-
ished stone artifacts and pottery during the Neolithic (taking into account Old World
archaeological chronology), nor with the advent of metallurgy in the Chalcolithic.
Stone artifacts were knapped and used up to quite recent times all around Europe, as
in the cases of gunflint production between the 16th and the 19th centuries (see Solinas,
1971; Woodall, Trage, & Kirchen, 1997) and in the production of parts for threshing
machines in southern Europe (Anatolia, Cyprus, Greece, the Iberian peninsula) until
the 20th century (see González, 1991).
The denomination of artifacts obtained from knapping (also: flaking, chipping) is
varied and includes: débitage products, lithic artifacts, or flints (e.g., Courty, Goldberg,
& Macphail, 1989:115), flint fragments, or flint artifacts. The use of the term “flint”
is the result of semantic transfer between the commonest material used for the pro-
duction of stone tools—flint or chert—and the objects obtained from stone knapping.
This is also apparent in other languages, for example, silex (French), selce (Italian),
or sílex (Spanish), terms that are commonly used to indicate both the raw material
and the artifacts produced (e.g., Tarriño, 2006a). Several techniques can be used to
obtaining tools by flaking, though the primary action for detaching a flake is the
application of a mechanical shock on the raw material through percussion or pres-
sure (the word “flake” is employed here without any typological or morphometric
meaning, as a general term for any object extracted from a blank through knapping).
The action may be implemented through direct or indirect percussion or pressure.
More details on these processes can be found in the specialized literature (e.g., Tixier,
Inizan, & Roche, 1980; Whittaker, 1994).
Stone knapping usually follows complex sequences of actions (châines opéra-
toires) in order to obtain well-defined end products. This implies the production of
a large number of by-products that are often discarded. Additionally, stone tools can
be maintained or modified throughout their use in order to reshape or repair them,
thus producing an increasing amount of unused waste products. The quantity of
items obtained through stone knapping is thus large, and the shape and size of the
by-products and of the final tools is highly varied, according to the technique used,
the experience of the knapper, the aim of the production, the quality of the raw mate-
rial, and so forth (e.g., Whittaker, 1994). From an archaeological point of view, this
means that the surface of the places where stone knapping was performed are often
rich in unused by-products, including microdebitage (particles less than 1.0 mm; see
Fladmark, 1982), that may easily be incorporated into surface sediments and soils.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2 221

ANGELUCCI

Figure 1. Basic nomenclature for knapped lithic artifacts.

All flakes show common elements that are derived from the process of flaking
(Figure 1): a proximal butt, that is, the one that receives the strike, and a distal end,
opposite to it; a ventral (lower) side, which is the one removed by the mechanical
stroke, usually more or less symmetrically curved; and a dorsal (upper) side, opposite
to the former, which bears the scars of the previous detachments or the natural sur-
face of the nodule from which the flake was removed (see Andrefsky, 1998).
The types of rock employed for knapping are often selected according to their
resistance and durability, the latter being responsible for the preservation of the arti-
facts. Not all types of rock are suitable for knapping. The main properties of the
lithotype to be flaked in order to obtain durable and efficient stone tools, with a rea-
sonable cost–effort ratio, are as follows:
• mechanical isotropy or low mechanical anisotropy, which permits the break-
age of the material through conchoidal fractures;
• hardness, in order to guarantee the durability of the items produced;
• high tenacity (including fragility), for enhancing the transmission of the
mechanical waves produced by percussion and to guarantee the durability of
the functional parts of the artifact;
• and, to a lesser extent, the availability of the raw material in significant quan-
tity and at a relatively short distance from the production or employment
sites.
Only a limited number of materials match these requirements, and the stone tools
found in archaeological sites are usually manufactured from a small number of litho-
types:
• siliceous sedimentary rocks, by far the most commonly used for the produc-
tion of knapped lithic artifacts. The best material is referred to as “chert” in

222 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2

 KNAPPED LITHIC ARTIFACTS IN THIN SECTION

petrography and is composed of cryptocrystalline quartz, chalcedony (micro-

crystalline compact quartz), or opal (colloidal, amorphous, or semi-amorphous,
sometimes hydrated, silica). This material is often indicated in archaeology as
“flint,” while other terms are also used (e.g., radiolarite, ftanite, diatomite,
spongolite, jasper) depending on its specific characteristics (see Tarriño, 2006a);
• volcanic glass, such as obsidian, is particularly useful for flaking, due to its lack
of crystalline organization;
• fine-grained metamorphic quartzite can give good results and was widely
employed in the past;
• crystalline quartz, especially hyaline (a.k.a. rock crystal) or amethyst, shows
perfect conchoidal fracture, and crystals with appropriate size were often
used. Milky metamorphic quartz is also found in prehistoric sites even though
its flaking can be difficult;
• basalt and other fine-grained volcanic rocks (dacite, andesite, rhyolite, etc.)
have sometimes been documented in Palaeolithic sites;
• in certain cases, some types of limestone, especially fine-grained calcilutite as
well as fine-grained quartzitic sandstone (quartzarenite) or siltite, have also
been recorded (see Tixier, Inizan, & Roche, 1980).
This partial list shows that a wide range of lithologies have been used for knap-
ping, although the majority of knapped lithic artifacts found in archaeological sites
are composed of chert, quartzite, and, when available, obsidian or crystalline quartz
(Tarriño, 2006a).

KNAPPED LITHIC ARTIFACTS IN THIN SECTION

From a micromorphological point of view, knapped lithic artifacts fall into the
category of coarse components. According to the Handbook for Soil Thin Section
Description (Bullock et al., 1985), they may be placed within the “artifacts,” which
is one of the four main categories of basic mineral components, also including such
materials as fragments of brick and pottery, furnace slag, fertilizers, fragments of
coal, as well as concrete and cements (Bullock et al., 1985:57, 65). The more recent
guidelines by Stoops (2003) would place lithic artifacts in the group of “anthro-
pogenic elements.” Nevertheless, no description of the specific characteristics of
lithic artifacts under the microscope is available in any of the reference texts on soil
micromorphology. In Courty, Goldberg, and Macphail (1989), lithic artifacts are
considered as a mineral product within the group of the remains resulting from human
occupation: “Flint is easily recognized by its petrographic properties, which include low
birefringence and cryptocrystallinity. In thin section, however, it is exceedingly difficult
to distinguish natural from human worked fragments of flint” (Courty, Goldberg, &
Macphail, 1989:115). Notwithstanding this, several authors have identified lithic
artifacts in thin sections: for instance, the presence of lithic artifacts in thin section
is often mentioned by Bergadà (1998); “microflakes” are reported and illustrated by
Courty (2001:221, Figure 8.7, pictures b and c); and a “burned flint flake” in thin

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2 223

ANGELUCCI

section, under oblique incident light, is shown by Goldberg and Macphail (2006:56,
Figure 3.11). It is therefore clear that some criteria for the recognition of knapped
lithic artifacts in thin section do exist, but they have never been made explicit in the
literature—which is the purpose of this paper.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A selection of knapped lithic artifacts in thin section is shown here in order to
define their micromorphological characteristics. Some of the artifacts are embedded
in the sediment of their respective archaeological sites, while others are single archae-
ological objects cut in petrographic thin sections. The samples for micromorpho-
logical observation were collected from the following sites: Abric de la Cativera
(Spain, Epipalaeolithic: Angelucci, 2003); Gruta da Oliveira (Portugal, Middle
Palaeolithic: Angelucci & Zilhão, 2009); Riparo Dalmeri (Italy, Late Upper Palaeolithic:
Angelucci & Peresani, 1996; Dalmeri et al., 2006); Lugo di Grezzana (Italy, Neolithic:
Angelucci, 2002; Cavulli, Angelucci, & Pedrotti, 2002); and Barca do Xarez de Baixo
(Portugal, Epipalaeolithic: Araújo & Almeida, 2003; Angelucci, 2006). Individual lithic
artifacts from the site of Mendandia (Spain, Upper Palaeolithic: Tarriño, 2006b) were
also analyzed. For locations of all sites, see Figure 2.
Thin sections were prepared following the standard procedures used in micro-
morphology: oven-drying at 60°C until a constant weight was attained; impregna-
tion with a mixture of resin, styrene, and hardener; curing; cutting into cm-thick
slabs; and final preparation of 25-mm sections, measuring 95 mm ⫻ 55 mm. Thin sections
were observed under a polarizing microscope equipped with a digital camera, at
magnifications between 25⫻ and 1000⫻, using plane-polarized light (PPL), cross-
polarized light (XPL), and oblique incident light (OIL).

Figure 2. Location of the sites mentioned in the text. Key: 1 ⫽ Abric de la Cativera; 2 ⫽ Gruta da Oliveira;
3 ⫽ Riparo Dalmeri; 4 ⫽ Lugo di Grezzana; 5 ⫽ Barca do Xarez de Baixo; 6 ⫽ Mendandia; 7 ⫽ Cueva Antón.

224 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2

 KNAPPED LITHIC ARTIFACTS IN THIN SECTION

DESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF KNAPPED

LITHIC ARTIFACTS IN THIN SECTIONS
Microscopic observation of the selected samples shows some features that allow
the micromorphologist to identify them as knapped lithic artifacts. These micro-
morphological characteristics are listed below.

Grain Size
Knapped lithic artifacts belong to the class of mineral coarse components and
are extremely heterogeneous in size, from a few hundred microns to several cen-
timeters (the length of the items depicted in Figures 3, 4, 5a, and 5b ranges between

Figure 3. (a) Abric de la Cativera (Spain), layer C3 (Epipalaeolithic) in PPL. Lithic artifact composed of
chert, probably a microlithic flake cut transversally to its longer axis by the thin section. Notice the sharp bound-
ary and the acute corners. The regularly curved side (top left) corresponds to the ventral face of the artifact,
while the opposite side is the dorsal face. Anomalous interference colors are related to the excessive thick-
ness of the slide. (b) Same view as (a) but in XPL. (c) Gruta da Oliveira (Portugal), layer 13 (Middle Palaeolithic)
in PPL. Lithic artifact composed of cryptocrystalline chert. Note the sharp curved boundaries (the arrow on
the top right corner indicates the orientation of the thin section). (d) Same view as (c) but in XPL.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2 225

ANGELUCCI

Figure 4. (a) Riparo Dalmeri (Italy), unit 24A (late Upper Palaeolithic living floor) in PPL. Lithic artifact
composed of cryptocrystalline chert. The artifact is vertical due to post-depositional discontinuous frost
action. (b) Same view as (a) but in XPL. (c) Detail of figure (a) in PPL, displaying the butt of the artifact.
(d) Same view as (c) but in XPL.

2 mm and 12 mm). In addition, it should be observed that the size of the lithic arti-
facts is often unrelated to the typical grain size of the embedding matrix, as is clearly
visible, for example, in Figures 3a, 3c, 4a, and 5a.

Composition
Worked lithic artifacts are composed of rock types that are suitable for knapping,
and these are often alien to the local geological context of the site. All the objects
depicted in Figures 3 and 4 are composed of fine-grained to cryptocrystalline chert.
They come from the Abric de la Cativera (Figures 3a, 3b), Gruta da Oliveira
(Figures 3c, 3d), and Riparo Dalmeri (Figure 4), sites where chert or any other kind
of non-terrigenous siliceous sedimentary rock are not recorded in the immediate
geological context. In some cases, the lithotype used for the production of artifacts
at the site can also be found as a local raw material within the deposit. For instance,
both flint artifacts (Figures 5a, 5b) and natural fragments of chert (Figures 5c, 5d)

226 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2

 KNAPPED LITHIC ARTIFACTS IN THIN SECTION

Figure 5. (a) Lugo di Grezzana (Italy), a mid-Holocene buried soil with early Neolithic dwelling features
on top in PPL. Lithic artifact composed of microcrystalline chert. Note the sharp boundaries, both curved
and straight. It is probably a broken microflake that was cut oblique to its axis. (b) Same view as (a) but
in XPL. (c) Lugo di Grezzana (Italy), Neolithic layers in PPL. Natural fragment of chert. Note the moder-
ate weathering, oblate shape, rounded edges, irregular surface roughness, and irregular boundary (the
arrow indicates the orientation of the thin section). (d) Same view as (c) but in XPL. (e) Cueva Antón
(Murcia, Spain), Upper Pleistocene alluvial sand featuring Middle Palaeolithic occupation: chert sand
grain (center) in PPL. (f) Same view as (e) but in XPL.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2 227

ANGELUCCI

Figure 6. (a) Barca do Xarez de Baixo (Portugal), layer 3 (Epipalaeolithic) in XPL. Probable quartzite
artifact. (b) Lithic artifact in petrographic thin section, Mendandia (Spain) in XPL. (c) The end of the
lithic artifact in petrographic thin section, Mendandia (Spain) in PPL. (d) Same view as (c) but in XPL.

were detected at the Neolithic site of Lugo di Grezzana. At Barca do Xarez de Baixo,
lithic artifacts composed of quartzite are embedded in the coarse alluvial sediment,
which contains cobbles and pebbles of the same lithology (Figure 6a). In such cases,
the distinction between the artifacts and the unmodified fragments must be based
on other criteria, as discussed below.

Weathering or Alteration
Knapped lithic artifacts usually show little or no weathering, typically less than
the class 1 alteration sequence (Stoops et al., 1979). Differential alteration is a cri-
terion for distinguishing stone tools from natural fragments of the same lithology
that can be found in the deposit: At Lugo di Grezzana, flint artifacts are unweathered
(Figures 5a, 5b), while the chert fragments embedded in sediment show moderate
to discrete weathering (e.g., Figures 5c, 5d).

228 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2

 KNAPPED LITHIC ARTIFACTS IN THIN SECTION

Shape
Artifacts manufactured by the knapping technique are mostly planar, acicular, or
oblate in three dimensions; thus, their two-dimensional appearance in thin section
is usually tabular or platy. Most of the objects shown in the figures (e.g., Figures 3c,
3d, 4a and 4b, as well as Figures 5a and 5b) are platy and exhibit approximately the
same “habit” even though they come from sites that are geographically distant and
that belong to distinct chronological epochs. This sort of “morphological conver-
gence” is the result of the flaking technique explained prior, which is aimed at
producing objects with a definite shape.
Other morphological characteristics are sometimes diagnostic, in particular the
presence of scars or crests along the object’s contour or the occurrence of very acute
angles at its corners, features that recall the shape of the flaked products. The arti-
fact from Abric de la Cativera (Figures 3a, 3b) displays a regularly arched boundary
along its upper side, which corresponds to the ventral face of the flake, and two
crests representing the scars of previous extractions on the opposite face—the dorsal
side of the artifact. This shape can be easily related to knapped tools (see Figure 1)
and indicates that the object is, most probably, a microflake that was cut perpendi-
cular to its flaking axis during the preparation of the thin section.
The ventral face is also identifiable in other samples by its asymmetric but con-
tinuous curvature (Figures 3c, 3d). The natural fragments of chert found at Lugo di
Grezzana (Figures 5c, 5d) and at Cueva Antón (Figures 5e, 5f) do not show this shape
but are slightly irregular.

Roundness
The lithic artifacts observed in thin sections are typically angular or very angular
(Figures 3a, 4a, 4c, 5a). This characteristic is also clear in the samples that were
obtained from lithic tools (Figures 6b, 6c, 6d).

Surface Roughness
The surface of knapped lithic artifacts is usually regular and smooth (Figures 4c,
4d), and this is commonly evident in the archaeological samples (Figure 6b).

Boundary
The boundary or outline of the artifacts is sharp and prominent and contrasts
strongly with the surrounding sediment matrix (Figures 4c, 4d). The outline is more
or less regularly curved or straight (Figures 3, 4), a characteristic that is not detected
in natural fragments of chert (Figures 5c–5f).

DISCUSSION
The micromorphological features reported in the preceding description are diag-
nostic of knapped lithic artifacts, and the fragments of micro- or cryptocrystalline chert

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2 229

ANGELUCCI

Table I. Main micromorphological features of knapped lithic artifacts (terminology follows Stoops, 2003).
Characteristic Description

Grain size From a few hundred microns to several centimeters; often anom-
alous in respect to the grain size of the embedding matrix
Alteration Absent or less than class 1
Shape Tabular or platy
Roundness Angular or very angular
Surface roughness Regular, smooth
Boundary Sharp, prominent; straight to more or less regularly curved outline

(flint) or quartzite that display the complete set of these features (Table I) can be iden-
tified by the micromorphologist as artifacts. In addition to these criteria, other fea-
tures that may help the micromorphologist to identify lithic artifacts are: (1) their anom-
alous dimension in respect to the grain size of the embedding matrix; (2) the overall
shape of the object. This characteristic is partly interpretive but highly diagnostic and
is given by the delineation of the object’s contour and by the occurrence of more or less
regularly arched boundaries, of scars along the contour, and of very acute angles.
The micromorphological characteristics listed are not evident in the natural,
geogenic, components of the archaeological matrix, as shown by the following exam-
ples. Figures 5c and 5d depict one of the common fragments of natural chert found
in the deposit of the Lugo di Grezzana site, visible with the naked eye during exca-
vation. These fragments are part of the slope sediment that makes up most of the
Holocene succession of the site and are derived from reworking along the slope of
loess-like sediments and terra rossa–like soils that developed on cherty limestone
(Cavulli, Angelucci, & Pedrotti, 2002). The fragment of chert (Figures 5c, 5d) is larger
than the surrounding sediment and shows an almost regular surface with prominent
boundary. Nevertheless, the object is almost equant, subrounded, and weathered.
Its characteristics are very different from the lithic artifacts found at the same site,
as shown in Figures 5a and 5b.
Figures 5e and 5f show a partial view of the sand that forms the bulk of the deposits
at the Middle Palaeolithic site at Cueva Antón (Murcia, Spain; Zilhão et al., 2010;
Figure 2), a rockshelter in Tertiary limestone. The infilling of the rockshelter is of
alluvial origin and derives from the activity of the River Mula, whose drainage basin
contains chert and cherty limestone. They occur as occasional components within the
alluvial sand. The fragment of chert shown in Figures 5e and 5f is unweathered (but
is approximately the same size as the larger sand grains in the surrounding sediment),
subrounded, and shows an irregular serrated surface. These features do not match the
micromorphological characteristics described in the previous sections as typical of
lithic artifacts. The examples from Lugo di Grezzana and Cueva Antón demonstrate
that the geogenic components within the archaeological matrix present micromor-
phological characteristics that are different from those shown by the anthropogenic
components.

230 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2

 KNAPPED LITHIC ARTIFACTS IN THIN SECTION

The set of micromorphological features described above allow the micromor-

phologist to recognize knapped lithic artifacts obtained from chert or quartzite. This
represents a first contribution toward the establishment of a systematic description
of this kind of anthropogenic component in sediment thin sections. The same micro-
morphological criteria can be applied in the identification of lithic artifacts made
up of other lithotypes. More experimental work on archaeological objects and exper-
imental artifacts is needed in order to define the micromorphological characteristics
of the lithic artifacts affected by thermal impact, which have not been taken into
account in this work.

The idea of writing this paper arose from discussions some years ago with Georges Stoops, Giovanni
Boschian, Karen Milek, and other colleagues of the working group Archaeological Soil Micromorphology.
Andoni Tarriño kindly provided some archaeological specimens from his excellent reference collection.
I am also indebted to him for useful discussions on the subject. Stefano Grimaldi read a previous version
of the paper, and Mark Tomasi and Jamie Woodward revised the English text. I would also like to thank
the directors of research at the sites (Ana Cristina Araújo, Giampaolo Dalmeri, Annaluisa Pedrotti, Luciano
Salzani, Josep Maria Vergès, João Zilhão) for allowing me to study the material. Comments by the three
anonymous reviewers and the editors improved the manuscript.

REFERENCES
Andrefsky, W., Jr. (1998). Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Angelucci D.E. (2002). Il sito preistorico di Lugo di Grezzana (VR): Prime osservazioni micromorfologiche.
Preistoria Alpina, 38, 109–129.
Angelucci, D.E. (2003). Geoarchaeology and micromorphology of Abric de la Cativera (Catalonia, Spain).
Catena, 54, 573–601.
Angelucci, D.E. (2006). Micromorphological observations on some samples from the prehistoric site of
Barca do Xarez de Baixo (Reguengos de Monsaraz, Portugal). Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, 9,
5–19.
Angelucci, D.E., & Peresani, M. (1996). The micromorphology of some Palaeo-Mesolithic living-floors in
the southern Alps: Preliminary data. In L. Castelletti & M. Cremaschi (Eds.), Paleoecology: The col-
loquia of the XIII UISPP Congress (pp. 161–174). Forlì, Italy: ABACO.
Angelucci, D.E., & Zilhão, J. (2009). Stratigraphy and formation processes of the Upper Pleistocene succes-
sion at Gruta da Oliveira (Almonda karstic system, Torres Novas, Portugal). Geoarchaeology, 24, 277–310.
Araújo, A.C., & Almeida, F. (2003). Barca do Xerez de Baixo: Balanço de quatro anos de trabalhos arque-
ológicos. Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, 6, 17–67.
Bergadà, M. (1998). Estudio geoarqueológico de los asentamientos prehistóricos del Pleistoceno superior
y el Holoceno inicial en Catalunya. BAR International Series, 742.
Bullock, P.N., Fedoroff, N., Jongerius, G.J., Stoops, G., Tursina, T., & Babel, U. (1985). Handbook for soil
thin section description. Wolverhampton: Waine Research Publishers.
Cavulli, F., Angelucci, D.E., & Pedrotti, A. (2002). La successione stratigrafica di Lugo di Grezzana (Verona).
Preistoria Alpina, 38, 89–107.
Courty, M.A. (2001). Microfacies analysis assisting archaeological stratigraphy. In P. Goldberg, V.T.
Holliday, & R. Ferring R. (Eds.), Earth sciences and archaeology (pp. 205–239). New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Courty, M.A., Goldberg, P., & Macphail, R.I. (1989). Soils and micromorphology in archaeology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dalmeri, G., Bassetti, M., Cusinato, A., Hrozny Kompatscher, M., & Kompatscher, K. (2006). Le site Épi-
gravettien de l’Abri Dalmeri: Aspects artistiques à la fin du Paléolithique supérieur en Italie du nord.
L’Anthropologie, 110, 510–529.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2 231

 ANGELUCCI

Fladmark, K.R. (1982). Microdebitage analysis: Initial considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science,
9, 205–220.
Goldberg, P., & Macphail, R.I. (2006). Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.
González, J. (1991). Aperos de madera. Valladolid: Consejería de Agricultura y Ganadería.
Semaw, S., Rogers, M.J., Quade, J., Renne, P.R., Butler, R.F., Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., Stout, D., Hart, W.S.,
Pickering, T., & Simpson, S.W. (2003). 2.6-million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6
and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution, 45, 169–177.
Solinas, G. (1971). Selci lavorate per acciarino nell’Italia settentrionale e in Francia. Studi Trentini di
Scienze Naturali, 48, 326–343.
Stoops, G. (2003). Guidelines for analysis and description of soil and regolith thin sections. Madison, WI:
Soil Science Society of America.
Stoops, G., Altemüller, H.-J., Bisdom, E.B.A., Delvigne, J., Dobrovolsky, V.V., FitzPatrick, E.A., Paneque,
G., & Sleeman, J. (1979). Guidelines for the description of mineral alteration in soil micromorphology.
Pédologie, 29, 121–135.
Tarriño, A. (2006a). El sílex de la Cuenca Vasco-Cantábrica y Pirineo Navarro: Caracterización y su
aprovechamiento en la prehistoria. Altamira: Museo Nacional y Centro de Investigación de Altamira.
Tarriño, A. (2006b). Fuentes de aprovisionamiento de los sílex del Yacimiento arqueológico de Mendandia
(Sáseta, Condado de Treviño). In A. Alday (Ed.), El legado arqueológico de Mendandia: Los modos de
vida de los últimos cazadores en la Prehistoria de Treviño (pp. 75–122). Valladolid: Consejería de
Educación y Cultura.
Tixier, J., Inizan, M.L., & Roche, H. (1980). Préhistoire de la pierre taillée. Paris: CREP.
Whittaker, J.C. (1994). Flintknapping: Making and understanding stone tools. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Woodall, J.N., Trage, S.T., & Kirchen, R.W. (1997). Gunflint production in the Monti Lessini, Italy. Historical
Archaeology, 31, 15–27.
Zilhão, J., Angelucci, D.E., Badal-García, E., d’Errico, F., Daniel, F., Daye, L., Douka, K., Higham, T.F.G.,
Martínez-Sánchez, M.J., Montes-Bernárdez, R., Murcia-Mascarós, S., Pérez-Sirvent, C., Roldán-García,
C., Vanhaeren, M., Villaverde, V., Wood, R. & Zapata, J. (2010). Symbolic use of marine shells and
mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,
107, in press (doi:10.1073/pnas.0914088107).

Received 31 July 2009

Accepted for publication 19 November 2009
Scientific editing by Jamie Woodward and Richard Macphail

232 GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 25, NO. 2

View publication stats