Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

Use-wear analysis of bone and antler tools from Farneto (Bologna, Italy) and T
Sa Osa (Oristano, Italy) archaeological sites
Ursula Thun Hohensteina,1, , Eleonora Gargania,b,1, Marco Bertolinia
⁎

a
University of Ferrara, Department of Humanities (UNIFE), Laboratory of Archaeozoology and Taphonomy, C.so Ercole I d'Este 32, Italy
b
Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Institute for Prehistory, Early History and Archaeology of the Middle Ages, Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary
Ecology, Schloss Hohentübingen, 72070 Tübingen, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The aim of this study is the reconstruction of past use and function of bone and antler tools, referring to two
Bone technology archaeological sites of Copper Age occupation: Farneto rockshelter (Bologna, Italy) and Sa Osa site (Oristano,
Use-wear Italy). The collections respectively result from a museum old collection, and a preventive excavation rescue.
Animal hard material Besides, a de-contextualisation and the nearly total lack of manufacturing waste are recorded: the collections are
Experimental archaeology
mainly composed by finished tools, with pointed tools and bevelled tools as recurring typologies. The applied
Copper age
Italy
methodology take instance from the bone industry studies and functional analyses, which allow identifying the
modalities of exploitation of osseous materials during Prehistory for utilitarian purposes. Observations under
stereomicroscope and metallographic microscope highlight the presence of anthropic marks formed on tools
surface during their use in past recurring activities. An experimental activity is also performed, in order to create
a reliable reference collection to compare with the macro and micro traces recorded on the archaeological tools.
The resulting data and the integration of different approaches in an interdisciplinary research, allowed re-
constructing the past use for the most recurrent tools typologies identified at Farneto rockshelter and Sa Osa
sites' collections.

1. Introduction
The use-wear analysis of archaeological tools developed during the
second half of 20th century in Russia, thanks to the research of S. A.
Semenov, who first carried out the approach in order to understand and
reenact the possible past use of prehistoric lithic artefacts (Semenov,
1964). The process of this analysis is the investigation of a tool surface,
and consequently the record of any trace presumably related to mod-
ification through use. Experimental archaeology can support the com-
prehension and reconstruction of past function of a tool, as it allows to
match acquired data such as the experimental ones, with the archae-
ological data which have to be decoded. Firstly born as an approach
aiming at the study of lithic industry, the use-wear analysis has been
later applied to bone industry as well (Álvarez et al., 2014; Christidou
1999, 2008; Claud et al., 2009; Cristiani, 2009; Griffitts, 2006; Legrand
and Sidéra, 2007; LeMoine 1994; Maigrot 2003; Peltier & Plisson 1986;
Pétillon et al., 2016; Plisson 1985; Sidéra 2005; Sidéra and Legrand,
2006; Van Gijn, 2007). The use-wear analysis on animal hard material
tools aims at the identification of surface modification given by friction
of artefacts with the worked material, as well as the tools kinematics.
The last decades provided several important works in this field of study,
contributing to expand the archaeological background in terms of new
approaches and methodologies as well as reconstruction of past human
history. This paper shows a use-wear analysis performed on 2 assem-
blages of bone and antler artefacts, referring to the Late Copper Age
occupation: Farneto rockshelter and Sa Osa site (Oristano, Italy) and
(Bologna, Italy) (Fig. 1). The collections respectively result from a
preventive excavation rescue, and a museum old collection. Besides, a
de-contextualisation and the nearly total lack of manufacturing wastes
are recorded: the collections are in fact mainly composed by finished
tools showing a very good state of preservation and a great potential for
use-wear analysis.
Such assemblages, not directly linked in cultural and geographical
terms, provide very scarce informations about their relationship with
the sites (i.e. with possible working areas), clues about their arrival to
the recovering place and their manufacturing process. This absence of
informations, frequently occurring in old museum collections and in
assemblages resulting from preventive excavations, is the core of the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ursula.thun@unife.it (U. Thun Hohenstein), eleonora.gargani@mnf.uni-tuebingen.de (E. Gargani), marco.bertolini@unife.it (M. Bertolini).
1
Joint-first author.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102386
Received 3 November 2019; Received in revised form 26 April 2020; Accepted 1 May 2020
2352-409X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386

Fig. 1. (A) Localization of the archaeological sites involved in the research: a) Farneto Rockshelter near Bologna, b) Sa Osa near Oristano (after Google Maps, 2019).
(B) Outside view of Farneto Rockshelter entrance (after Cristiani et al., 2011). Sa Osa site: (C) overall view of southern and northern sectors and (D) J1 and J2 pits,
referring to Copper Age period (after Usai, 2011).

research interest. The aim is indeed to understand whether is possible to a period between the Late Copper Age and the Early Bronze Age. This
gathering reliable informations about the “biography” of such tools, broad period is not chronologically well distinguished, since the ar-
and to reconstruct an as complete as possible framework by only relying chaeological interventions, performed during the first half of twentieth
on the artifacts. These tools, analysed not only by a typological de- century, did not use systematic methods and strategies. The archae-
scription but also by a functional perspective, underline how many ological material is often characterised by an altered degree of pre-
information can be obtained through a multidisciplinary approach. servation due to the exposition to taphonomic processes of a calcareous
and chalky sediment characterising the site (Cavani et al., 2011). The
presence of human groups during Late Copper Age seems to be only
2. Regional backgrounds and archaeological sites.
ascribed to the rockshelter. Preliminary analyses of archaeological
collection suggested a possible attribution to the second half of IV mill.
2.1. Farneto rockshelter
B.C., contemporary to Campaniforme and Spilamberto cultures (Cavani
et al., 2011; Nenzioni, 2008).
Farneto rockshelter is part of a more complex site including a cave
The lithic collection is made up of flint cores and pre-cores, an
(Fig. 1B), articulated in different corridors and rooms. The cave was
abundant number of flint and phtanite flakes, scraper on discoid flakes
discovered in 1871, due to the accidental opening of a gypsum quarry,
with lateral retouch, only one scraper in phtanite, few arrow points in
in locality of Farneto. The discovery of the cave was attributed to
local flint, two dagger blades characterised by an intrusive bifacial re-
Francesco Orsoni, a local researcher, who started several but dis-
touch and a trapezoidal axe in green polished stone. The raw material
continuous fieldworks between 1871 and 1895, without an adequate
and the lithic assemblages find comparison with Spilamberto culture.
documentation (Cavani et al., 2011). During the archaeological field-
Fragments of rusticata and “a squame” pottery are recovered, a little
works, a narrow tunnel was discovered as well, which allowed to find
sphere of clay of unclear use, which nevertheless finds comparisons in
the way to another wide room and, subsequently, the exploration of the
some archaeological cave sites of NW Tuscany is also identified. The
whole cave. The last documented fieldwork was performed between
detected pottery decoration is not clear enough for a good chron-
1948 and 1951.
ological position of the assemblage, although they can be related to
The rockshelter has been uncovered by Luigi Fantini in 1924, and it
Campaniforme culture (Cavani et al., 2011). Besides, tools on bone and
yielded a conspicuous amount of archaeological material (Fantini,
antler have been also recorded, such as spatulas, awl and a hoe in deer
1969). After several years of abandonment, both rockshelter and the
antler, firstly reported by Scarani (1956–1964) (Cavani et al., 2011;
cave have been closed to the public in the early 90s, due to a mass
Scarani, 1971). Ornaments including hollow cylindrical beads, wild
movement that made it dangerous the access to the site, caused by the
boar canines, pierced canines of canid, Dentalium and perforated valves
neighbouring activity of gypsum quarry. The archaeological site was
of shell are also collected (Cavani et al., 2011).
reopened only in 2008 with the use of another secondary natural
The documentations of animal hard material tools from Farneto
opening, thanks to stabilisation works (Cristiani et al., 2011) having the
rockshelter is lacking, as there is not any precise chronological and
purpose of revitalisation of the whole archaeological area (Bianco,
spatial provenance. The most part of archaeological collected remains
2010; Montagni et al., 2008).
were recorded and taken into account following an obsolete
The archaeological documentation yielded by Farneto site is related

2
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al.
methodology, mostly basing on an amateur approach (Nenzioni, 2017).
The analysed assemblage refers to a museum collection likely given by
Luigi Fantini to Piero Leonardi, director of Museo Universitario di Pa-
leontologia e Preistoria di Ferrara. This donation affected the composition
of the studied assemblage, which is mainly characterised by finished
tools, as the purpose was the highlighting of aesthetic features char-
acterising the collection (Nenzioni, 2017).
2.2. Sa Osa site
Sa Osa site is located on an alluvial terrace, at an altitude of 6 m
a.s.l., overlooking the alluvial plane of Tirso river, Sa Osa is far from
Tirso river around 500 m, and far from the Sea – Oristano Gulf- around
2 km (Usai et al., 2012; Usai, 2011). The site (Fig. 1C) was already
known before the archaeological excavations because of several pottery
fragments yielded by superficial preliminary survey, referring to Middle
Bronze Age, Final Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age (Usai 2011). In
April 2008 an important archaeological deposit has been recovered,
during the roadworks interesting the area, which had the aim at con-
necting the locality of Cabras with the main city of Oristano. The ar-
chaeological field consisted in a preventive rescue, in order to recover
the archaeological evidences before the roadworks were completed
(Mastino, 2011; Usai et al., 2012).
The history of site and its transformations are very close to the one
of surrounding territory, characterised by continuous changes in terms
of marine, fluvial and aeolian dynamics (Melis and Sechi, 2011). The
site is characterised by alluvial sediments formed during Pleistocene
and Holocene, colluvium deposits and aeolian sediments (Melis and
Sechi, 2011). During the excavation, this side yielded a high amount of
different coloured large spots, variable in diameter, subsequently as-
sociated to anthropic pits and wells, cutting the alluvial sediments.
The archaeological site of Sa Osa yielded a conspicuous doc-
umentation, spanning from the Copper Age to the Early Iron Age, at-
testing a long and almost uninterrupted human occupation of the area.
The site is a nuragic and pre-nuragic settlement without presence of
classical nuraghi monuments and wall structures surrounding the in-
habited area. This feature, noticed for the first time in Sardinian pre-
historic research, suggests a permanent but precarious settlement,
capable of facing the unstable environment in which is located (Usai
et al., 2012).
The Copper Age facies called Sub-Ozieri is well represented for all
across the area, although it consists in rare fragments and material
coming from secondary following deposits, thus likely related to dif-
ferent episodes of accumulation. Two anthropic structures seem to
collect the most part of Copper Age assemblage, referring to J1 and J2
little pits close one to another (Fig. 1D); a discrete amount of lithic
industry on obsidian comes from the J structures, with a high percen-
tage of flakes. Besides, a wide pit (O) in the southern district and close
to a sandstone deposit block, yielded Copper Age findings only partially
investigated (Usai et al., 2012).
The analysed bone tools assemblage comes from the US 312 of O pit,
a big ditch referring to the first human occupation, chronologically
corresponding to the Late Copper Age. The pit, although not system-
atically excavated and studied, suggests a dump function. No other
informations are available, as the publication of data is currently un-
derway.
3. Materials and method
3.1. The assemblages
The whole analysed assemblage is composed of 30 artefacts in an-
imal hard material (Table 1): 16 artefacts are from Farneto, divided into
bone (NR = 7) and antler (NR = 9) tools (Fig. 2); 14 bone tools come
from Sa Osa (Fig. 3). Farneto rockshelter yielded NR = 66 fragments
and débitage waste products on antler, which gave the opportunity to
3
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386
deepen the technological aspect of the study. By contrast, bone tools
from Sa Osa were not supported by waste products that could be useful
for the reduction sequences reconstruction. The whole assemblage was
kept in Ferrara University L.A.T. (Taphonomical and Archaeozoological
Laboratory), into separated Mini-grip®. Every tool has been numbered
with a progressive numeration. The archaeological remains didn’t need
to be cleaned. At first look, the tools assemblage is made up of pointed
tools (5 from Farneto; 10 from Sa Osa), bevel-ended tools (3 from
Farneto; 4 from Sa Osa), 7 double bevel-ended tools and 1 bone rod
from Farneto. The artefacts observed are finished tools.
3.2. Typological and taxonomical determination
The dedicated volumes of Fiches Typologiques (Camps-Fabrer et al.,
1990, 1998) have supported the identification of typological categories.
A Canon 600d has been used in order to photograph each archae-
ological remain, giving the possibility to create a macro documentation.
The preliminary step of the analysis dealt with the taxonomical and
anatomical determination of artefacts, in order to understand the re-
lationship with the local fauna and possible exploitation patterns. For
this purpose, an osteological reference collection available in L.A.T. has
been consulted.
3.3. Taphonomic analysis
A taphonomic analysis allows skimming anthropic and non-an-
thropic modifications on tools surface; a reliable reference literature
has been consulted for this purpose (Behrensmeyer, 1978;
Behrensmeyer et al., 2000; David, 2016; D’Errico & Villa, 1997; De
Grossi Mazzorin, 2008; Fernandez-Jalvo and Andrews, 2016; Haynes,
1983; Lyman, 1994; Shahack-Gross et al., 1997; Shipman et al., 1984;
Villa and Mahieu 1991; Villa and D’Errico 2001).
3.4. Use-wear analysis
The assemblage has undergone a use-wear analysis, with the aim of
reconstructing the past function of tools. The surface observation has
been carried out by accounting the difficulty in clearly skimming the
traces ascribed to the manufacturing of tools and those related to their
use. In order to overcome, at some extent, this recurring bias, the sur-
face observation of archaeological artefacts has been compared with the
available literature (Bertolini, 2014; Keeley, 1980; Legrand and Sidéra,
2007; Maigrot, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003; Newcomer, 1974, 1977; Peltier
and Plisson, 1986; Plisson, 2006) as well as with the elaboration of an
experimental activity. The surfaces analysis has been performed at
different magnifications: a stereomicroscope LEICA S6D, associated to a
LEICA EC3 Cam, with a magnification from 6.3× to 40× has been used
to record macrowear traces affecting the active part of tools, such as
smoothing, cracks, or fractures (D’Errico et al., 1984; Newcomer, 1974,
1977; Peltier and Plisson, 1986; Tringham et al., 1974). The observa-
tion of microwear traces, i.e. polishing, microtopography, microrelief,
striations, weft of surfaces (Legrand and Sidéra, 2007; Maigrot, 1997,
2000, 2003; Peltier and Plisson, 1986; Plisson, 2006) has been per-
formed with the help of an OPTIKA B600 MET metallographic micro-
scope, associated to a Moticam 2500 5.0M, with magnifications be-
tween 50× and 500×. When the tools resulted to be too unwieldy to be
observed under the metallographic microscope, casts in Provil Novo®
Fast Light Set, Heraeus Kulzer have been made.
3.5. The technological markers
Both the hard animal tools assemblages consist of finished artefacts.
The shaping phase has been the most identified phase of reduction
sequence. The pointed tools from Farneto are the result of scraping and
abrading activities on the active part. The bone point on red deer me-
tapodial (FN1) yielded traces on the proximal part, which could reflect
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386

Table 1
Hard animal material tools from Farneto Rockshelter and Sa Osa site involved in the analyses.
Site N° remain Taxon Anatomical element Typ. category

Farneto FN1 Cervus elaphus Left metatarsal Pointed tool

Farneto FN2 Ovis vel Capra Left ulna Pointed tool
Farneto FN3 Bos taurus Left ulna Pointed tool
Farneto FN4 Cervus elaphus Tine Bevelled tool
Farneto FN5 Ovis vel Capra Right metapodial Handle
Farneto FN6 Bos taurus Left ulna Pointed tool
Farneto FN7 Cervus elaphus Beam Bevelled tool
Farneto FN10 Cervus elaphus N.D. (Cortical antler) Pointed tool
Farneto FN11 N.D. Rib Bevelled tool
Farneto FN13 Cervus elaphus Cortical antler Double bevelled tool
Farneto FN14 Cervus elaphus Cortical antler Double bevelled tool
Farneto FN15 Cervus elaphus Cortical antler Double bevelled tool
Farneto FN16 Cervus elaphus Cortical antler Double bevelled tool
Farneto FN17 Cervus elaphus Cortical antler Double bevelled tool
Farneto FN18 Cervus elaphus Cortical antler Double bevelled tool
Farneto FN19 Cervus elaphus Cortical antler Double bevelled tool

Sa Osa SO83 N.D. Diaphysis Pointed tool

Sa Osa SO84 Bos taurus Left ulna Bevelled tool
Sa Osa SO85 N.D. Diaphysis Double pointed tool
Sa Osa SO86 N.D. Diaphysis Pointed tool
Sa Osa SO88 N.D. Diaphysis Pointed tool
Sa Osa SO89 Ovis vel Capra (Left) Metapodial Pointed tool
Sa Osa SO90 N.D. Diaphysis Bevelled tool
Sa Osa SO91 N.D. Diaphysis Pointed tool
Sa Osa SO92 Ovis vel Capra Left metatarsal Pointed tool
Sa Osa SO93 Ovis vel Capra Right metacarpal Pointed tool
Sa Osa SO94 Ovis vel Capra Left metacarpal Pointed tool
Sa Osa SO95 Ovis vel Capra Left metatarsal Pointed tool
Sa Osa SO96 N.D. Diaphysis Bevelled tool
Sa Osa SO97 N.D. Diaphysis Bevelled tool

a groove and splinter technique (Fig. 4A), as widely attested in the
region (Provenzano, 1996–1997, 2001) although for more recent but
very close period (Early Bronze Age). Bevel-ended tools have been
achieved by scraping and abrading the edge of the roughout (bevel-
ended tool on bovid rib, Fig. 4C), or entailed and partially abraded on
the distal part (antler tools) (Fig. 4B). The double bevel-ended tools on
antler are instead entailed all along the lateral edges and partially
scraped (Fig. 4D). By considering the tools assemblage from Sa Osa, it is
possible to notice how the pointed tools have been worked with long-
itudinal scraping by lithic sharp tools and then abraded transversally to
the main axis of the tool (Fig. 4E). By contrast, the bevel-ended tools
were obtained by abrading, and partially scraping, the blank in order to
achieve a smooth-edged tool (Fig. 4F).
3.6. The experimental use-wear reference collection
The tools involved in the experimentation have been tested in the
processing of different raw material, such as skin, bark and clay in
different states (dry, fresh, rehydrated, treated), in order to create a
reliable reference collection and to match the resulting modern traces
with the archaeological ones (Supplementary Fig. 1). Furthermore, the
experiments involving clay took into account different possibility of
materials combination, such as the presence/absence of additives (fine
sandstone and chamotte). The experimentation took into account dif-
ferent gestures, which could have been adopted during the several ac-
tivities, as well as different durations, to understand the degree of de-
velopment of wear traces on tools (Fig. 5). The activities performed
with the pointed tools consisted in skin and bark piercing, considering
different gestures such as rotating and direct piercing motions. Con-
versely, the bevel-ended tools have been employed for smoothing ac-
tivity on clay combined with several additives. The gesture performed
during the experiments was mainly characterized by a unidirectional
movement (Table 2). Each tool has been used for an average period of
20–30 min, and each activity took place in several steps, in order to
observe and record the modifications on the surfaces and their
development degree as the experiments went on (Supplementary
Fig. 2). Whenever the surface observation was hampered by the pre-
sence of worked materials residues, the experimental tools have been
cleaned into water in an ultrasonic tank, allowing better quality ob-
servation of traces without compromising the microsurface with a too
hard cleaning process. The experimental tools have been undergone an
observation at low and high- power magnifications before the experi-
ments’ execution, in order to have a reference collection as complete as
possible by including every possible surface modification from the
finishing phase of reduction sequence. Given the overtime recurring
observation of the surfaces, the experimental technological traces have
been clearly identified and isolated (Supplementary Fig. 3) from the
use-wear traces developed with the ongoing activities mentioned
above.
Both experimental and archaeological tools yielding use-wear traces
have been examined with main regard to the active part.
4. Results
4.1. Macro use-wear analysis on Farneto and Sa Osa tools assemblage
Macrotraces related to the use of tools have been recorded.
A recurrent fracture is detected on the distal tip of several studied
pointed tools. Nevertheless, the fractured surfaces show a smoothed
aspect and rounded profile. This feature is also detectable on tips view
at naked eye, whose aspect results to be very worn and quite polished.
The smoothing aspect interests the entire tip, without affecting its
symmetry (Fig. 6A–D). The bevel-ended tools show an overall regular
surface and, depending on the artefacts, crushing, rounding and chip-
ping (Fig. 6E,F).
4.2. Micro use-wear traces
4.2.1. Pointed tools from Farneto rockshelter
This category is composed by pointed tools on red deer metapodial,

4
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al.
Fig. 2. Farneto rockshelter. Analysed animal hard material tools (bar scale 2 cm).
undetermined diaphysis and ulnas of large and medium sized mam-
mals. Four out of five tools showed a good state of preservation, al-
lowing the observation and record of use-wear traces. The pointed tools
result to have similar features, localised on the distal part and referring
to the active portion. A high polished aspect and a shiny surface is in
fact detected on the tips at different degrees of extent, and in particular,
tool FN6 shows a varnished feature, with a heterogeneous and regular
microtopography, and tight weft. Three out of five examined tools show
an arranged presence of micro-striations, indicative of tools’ kinematic.
In particular, artefact FN2 has a high concentration of striations with a
transversal and oblique arrangement (Fig. 7A,B). By contrast, artefact
FN6 has different traces, depending on the tool’s side. On the dorsal
view, it shows a high concentration of parallel, short and transversal
striations, whereas on the opposite side, very few micro-striations are
detected, distinguished by the previous group for a chaotic orientation
(Fig. 7A_a,b). As additional feature, artefact FN6 shows a very high
polished surface with glossy and tight weft on the proximal part, likely
used as a handle (Fig. 7B_e–f).
4.2.2. Bevel-ended tools from Farneto rockshelter
The examined group of bevel-ended tools is subdivided into dif-
ferent morpho-typological categories (Fig. 7C,D). Two out of ten refer
to bevel-ended tools on red deer antler. The active part of both tools is
characterised by the presence of a surface with irregular and matt
5
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386
microtopography. On this area, a discrete amount of micro-striations is
recorded, characterised by a random arrangement, and a straight and
short aspect (Fig. 7C_c). Concerning the proximal perforation, there is
not any reliable trace which can be detected. Only one artefact consists
in a bevel-ended tool on rib of large sized mammal, presumably bovid.
Although technological traces are still noticeable, rough and straight
micro-striations are recorded along the distal edge (Fig. 7D_d).
Seven tools are double bevel-ended tools made up on red deer antler
cortical rods. The observation under high magnification yielded reliable
informations only for three tools, since the remaining four are char-
acterised by a rough and unpolished feature, and natural surfaces with
technological traces are still very evident. At low magnifications, series
of rough striations are easily identified on five out of seven tools active
part, as the remaining rods are in a poor preservation degree.
Only FN13 shows an additional different pattern on one of the lat-
eral edges: the mesial portion is characterised by a peculiar surface with
a loose weft but nevertheless a quite glossy aspect, with a dense pre-
sence of oblique micro-striations visible only under higher magnifica-
tions (Fig. 7E_h).
4.2.3. Pointed tools from Sa Osa site
Four out of ten tools were made up on bone diaphysis; one is a
double pointed tool on bone diaphysis; the remaining five tools are
made up on ovine metapodial. The tools surface preserves clear
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al.
Fig. 3. Sa Osa site. Analysed animal hard material tools (bar scale 2 cm).
technological traces, with scarce or nearly absent use-wear alterations.
They generally show a heterogeneous and irregular microtopography,
except for one bone point (SO85) showing a moderate gloss. Fine micro-
striations, with different orientations according to the main axis of the
tools, are mostly detected on the distal part of the artefact (Fig. 8A_a).
Clear transversal micro-striations are recorded on the proximal part of
SO88, accompanied by a homogeneous and regular microtopography
and a shiny surface (Fig. 8A_b). This portion shows an ancient stepped
fracture, pointing at a different original tool structure, where the
modern proximal part would be the mesial part of the artefact.
4.2.4. Bevel-ended tools from Sa Osa site
Four tools fall in this category: the distal part of a bovid ulna and 3
long bone diaphyses. An homogeneous microtopograhy with a medium
to tight weft characterises the SO84 and SO90 distal part. Transversal
and oblique striations are identified on SO90 (Fig. 8B_d). The dorsal
surface of SO96 tool shows micro-striations with a chaotic arrangement
on a homogeneous microtopography (Fig. 8B_c).
A common feature is recorded on tools SO90 and SO96: the pre-
sence of smoothed surface, with a medium-to-tight weft and moderate
shine characterise their mesial parts (Fig. 8B). SO97 is characterised by
a moderate polish, with a heterogeneous and irregular micro-
topography. Technological traces related to abrading technique are
detected, showing an oblique arrangement. At high power magnifica-
tion, thinner microstriations characterised by a multidirectional dis-
position and overlapping the technological striations are recorded
(Fig. 8C_e).
6
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386
5. Discussions
The analyses allowed to deepen the understanding of both assem-
blages coming from Farneto rockshelter and Sa Osa site. By integrating
the archaeological functional data with experimental activities and
published literature (Bertolini and Thun Hohenstein, 2017, 2019a,
2019b; Bradfield, 2015; Maigrot, 1997; Peltier and Plisson, 1986;
Plisson, 2006; Legrand and Sidéra, 2007; Maigrot, 2000, 2003; van
Gijn, 2007) it has been possible to define the past use of the examined
tools and to reconstruct what were the corresponding activities in
which they have been involved. A recurrence of micro and macro wear
traces is identified on the examined tools. These traces are analysed and
interpreted in relation to the identified tools categories, in order to
understand how they have been used during the past, and the presence
or absence of standardised intended use per category.
5.1. Animal hard material tools from Farneto rockshelter.
Pointed tools show a similar pattern in micro use-wear (Table 3).
The active part is characterised by the presence of an altered surface
and presence of micro-striations. The alteration concerning the distal
surface changes in intensity, depending on the tool and its preservation.
Nevertheless, an overall smoothing and polishing is detected on the
bone points. The micro-striations are indicative of motion adopted
during the use of tool: they record the inclination and gesture per-
formed and, by combining them with other use-wear traces, they can be
related to the nature of worked material. Especially, two combinations
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al.
are detected on archaeological tools: longitudinal microstriations only,
and longitudinal plus oblique or transversal microstriations. They are
respectively ascribed to an only penetrating gesture and a penetrating
and rotating motion.
The overall macro wear traces show a high degree of rounding and
smoothing of tips, sometimes accompanied by a tiny fracture. These
traces are presumably related to an elastic and resistant material, and to
the prolonged friction between the active part with the worked raw
material. Pointed tools on ulna show traces related to a piercing activity
with both penetrating and rotating motion. The experimental results
7
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386
Fig. 4. Farneto rockshelter (A–D). (A) Pointed
tool FN1, bearing technological traces – a) The
scraping technique left long and parallel marks
along the main axis of the tool. These traces
transversally cross shorter and subparallel
striations, related to abrading technique. b)
Long marks due to the scraping technique
along the lateral edges of the pointed tool. c)
Fine subparallel striations, obliquely oriented
to the main axis of the tool, connected to the
sawing technique. (B) Bevelled tools on Cervus
elaphus antler: FN4 – d) Traces related to the
entailing technique. The transversal notches
are indicative of the surface where the working
tool, likely a metal chisel, stopped; FN7 – e)
Fine and parallel striations cross the distal part,
due to the abrading technique. (C) Bevelled
tool on rib of big sized mammal, FN11 – f–g)
characterized by short, fine and parallel traces
due to the abrading technique. (D) FN13:
double bevelled tool, retaining traces caused
by the entailing technique on the lateral edges.
h) Flat an opaque surface likely due to the re-
moval of quite wide portion of antler cortex. i)
Wavy surface due to the removal of several
small chips. Sa Osa site (E,F). (E) Pointed tool,
SO83 – k) Traces due to abrading technique,
consisting in short and subparallel striations
which run transversally to longitudinal axis of
the tool. j) Scraping marks characterized by
long and subparallel striations along the length
of the tool. (F) Bevelled tool, SO84 –
Characterized by traces l) due to abrading
technique and m) scraping technique.
(FN = Farneto; SO = Sa Osa; bar scale 2 cm).
suggest a piercing activity on dry skin for the FN3 pointed tool, whereas
FN2 and FN6 were presumably ascribed to the piercing on fresh skin.
FN1 on red deer metapodial is likely related to the piercing of an elastic
material offering a good degree of resistance. The poor state of pre-
servation did not allow a good interpretation of the nature of worked
material. The few recorded micro-striations suggest a perforating and
rotating gesture.
Concerning the bevel-ended tools, different patterns are identified,
suggesting a different function depending on the category (Table 3).
According to the experimental results, FN11 tool on bovid rib is
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386

Fig. 5. Activities performed during the experimental analysis. (A) Piercing on fresh skin of Oryctolagus cuniculus; (B) Piercing on modern treated skin; (C) Piercing on
dry skin of Oryctolagus cuniculus; (D) Piercing on rehydrated skin of Dama dama; (E) Piercing on vegetable fibers of Morus alba (white mulberry); (F) Smoothing
activity on pottery. The skin and the vegetable fibers have been tested in several phases for an average time of 40 min, testing different gestures (piercing with and
without rotating motion). The clay involved in the experimentation has been tested in both fresh and dry condition, with presence/absence of fine and coarse
additives, such as namely sandstone and chamotte. The average time spent for the activities performance has been 30–40 min (photos after Gargani, 2017).

associated to smoothing activity on wet clay. Besides, the micro use-
wear traces find comparison in published literature (Bertolini and Thun
Hohenstein, 2017; Maigrot, 2003). The bevel-ended tools on antler
show similar patterns each other and they are likely ascribed to hitting
or cleaving a quite resistant and durable material. The macro wear
analysis shows a flat but rough surface on the active part, confirming
the idea of working on a rather durable material. The double bevel-
ended tools on red deer antler show deep and rough scars at lower
magnification. It is likely interpreting these tools as punches used as
lithic tools pressure retouchers. FN13 and FN14 show additional micro
use-wear traces, which are perhaps related to the smoothing on a soft
material (wet clay).
5.2. Animal hard material tools from Sa Osa
Pointed tools on diaphysis are affected by a fracture on the distal
part, which can be ascribed to the piercing of an elastic material
(Table 4). By combining the archaeological and experimental data with
bibliographical references (Legrand and Sidéra, 2007; Maigrot, 2003;
Olsen, 2007) only SO83 tool is presumably related to piercing activity
on rehydrated skin. The remaining tools do not show reliable micro use-
wear, and the surface on the active part generally retains technological
traces. SO88 pointed tool is interpreted as a pin. The identified prox-
imal stepped fracture likely corresponded to the mesial part of the tool,
whereas the use-wear traces refer to the tool friction with a soft ma-
terial. The micro wear traces on the distal and proximal parts suggest
that the tool was firstly inserted into the material, whereas the stria-
tions on proximal part are presumably related to the friction produced
by contact between tool and material. An association with treated
(leather) or dry skin is suggested, thanks to published work (Maigrot,
2003) and experimental results. The pointed tools on ovicaprine me-
tapodials do not yield reliable micro traces. Only SO92 yielded use-
wear, such to be reasonably associated to a piercing activity on fresh
animal skin. Nevertheless, the presence of fractures affecting the distal
tips of this tools helps to identify a prolonged use of tools, possibly on a
resistant and elastic material. Among the bevel-ended tools (Table 4),

Table 2
Functional experimentation: employed tools and performed activities.
Tool typology Worked raw material Preservation state Gesture Activity duration (min) Nr. tools

Pointed tools on diaphysis of bovid long bone Rabbit skin Fresh Rotation 20′ 1
Fresh Punching 5′ 2
Fresh Punching 40′ 1
Dry Rotation 20′ 1
Dry Punching 20′ 1
Leather Treated Rotation 20′ 1
Treated Punching 20′ 1
Fallow deer skin Rehydrated Rotation 20′ 1
Rehydrated Punching 20′ 1

Spatulae on diaphysis of bovid tibia Pure clay Fresh Back-Forth 15′ 1

Fresh Back-Forth 30′ 1
Dry Back-Forth 15′ 1
Dry Back-Forth 30′ 3
Clay + Sandstone Fresh Back-Forth 15′ 1
Fresh Back-Forth 30′ 1
Dry Back-Forth 30′ 1

8
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386

Fig. 6. Macro use-wear of pointed tools (A–D), consisting in highly polished and shiny surfaces on the active part of FN1 (A), FN6 (B) from Farneto and SO83 (C),
SO93 (D) from Sa Osa. Particularly, the presence of a stepped fracture is identified on tools FN1, FN6 and SO83 likely due to the usage in repeated activities through
time. Macro use-wear of bevelled tools (E,F), consisting in flat and moderately shiny surface with presence of smoothed edges in FN11 (E), and chipping on the lateral
edge of SO84 (F). (FN = Farneto; SO = Sa Osa; bar scale 2 cm).

9
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386

Fig. 7. Farneto rockshelter. (A,B) Pointed tool: (A) FN2 – a) Moderately shiny and homogeneous suface on the active part, with presence of scarce and randomly
oriented microstriations; b) Flat and homogeneous topography with presence of fine and light microstriations; (B) FN6 – e) Highly polished and matt surface, with
homogeneous topography. Presence of several short and subparallel microstriations transversally oriented to the length of the tool; f) Close-up view of (e); g) Highly
polished and homogeneous surface with rare microstriations randomly oriented on the proximal part of the artefact. (C,D) Bevelled tool: (C) FN7 – The surface still
preserves technological traces giving an irregular feature to the micro-relief of tool. c) The surface is poorly polished, with presence of microstriations in a random
arrangement; (D) FN11 – d) Opaque micro-surface showing rare microstriations with a subparallel arrangement and oriented both longitudinally and transversally to
the length of the tool. (E) Double bevelled tool, FN13 – h) The micro-surface shows a polished and shiny aspect, with presence of fine microstriations obliquely
oriented with regard to the length of the tool. (FN = Farneto; bar scale 2 cm).

10
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386

SO84 show traces matching with the experimental results: it is rea-

sonably to infer a smoothing activity on clay with medium sized grain
additives, perhaps in a fresh state. Handle traces are recorded on the
opposite surface (dorsal view). By contrast the remaining bevel-ended
bone tools found reliable comparison in what observed on previous
scientific publications (Maigrot, 2003). In fact, the tools were likely
used in peeling or scraping activity on hide.

6. Conclusions

The zooarchaeological data of both Farneto and Sa Osa refer to

more recent frequentation phases of the sites. Farneto rockshelter is in
fact well investigated for the Recent Bronze Age only (Sala, 1980);
Cervus elaphus, Ovis aries, Capra hircus and Bos taurus are well re-
presented taxa. Nevertheless, the examined animal hard material tools
refer to a Late Copper Age occupation of the site. Thus, even if there
could be a good correlation between the attested faunal remains (Sala,
1980) and the exploited taxa for tools production, it is more reasonable
thinking to indirect evidences than to direct correspondences. By con-
trast, Sa Osa site yielded faunal remains from Early Bronze Age fre-
quentation phase (Usai et al., 2012), which is very close to the Late
Copper Age occupation phase. Bos taurus, Ovis aries, Capra hircus, Sus
scrofa and Cervus elaphus are the most recurring taxa, hence with a good
correlation with the analysed bone tools. The archaeological animal
hard material tools correspond to the basic toolkits widely attested
during the Late Copper Age across the regions to which the sites belong
(Fiore and Tagliacozzo, 2011; Manca, 2016; Manca, 2006). The selec-
tion of raw material can be related to the intended use of a tool. The
examined antler tools seem to be mostly used on stressing works, such
as activities implying repeated impacts, or prolonged contact with a
hard and resistant material such as flint. The choice of antler rather
than bone can be strictly connected to the inner structure and me-
chanical properties of antler, which shows a higher elastic response to
external strains than the bone does (Christensen, 2004). The identified
function and activities are ascribed to a domestic sphere, i.e. hide
processing (piercing and scraping) and pottery production (smoothing).
Besides, activities requiring a higher stress degree can be associated to
the bevel-ended and double-bevel-ended tools on antler. Both tools
assemblage from Farneto and from Sa Osa sites share common duties
and functions. Despite the identification of the worked raw material
often revealed to be challenging, it has been possible to always identify
the kinematics of tools, and at least the main general features (elastic,
hard, soft) characterising the worked material. These conditions, al-
though unable to clearly point at specific activity, suggested the past
function of tools in terms of gesture performed and general functions in
household sphere. In conclusion, the achieved results allowed a reliable
reconstruction of “tools’ biography”, despite the scarce context doc-
umentation regarding the presumable activities in which the tools could
have been involved. Besides, the data obtained through the analysis
enable to find good correlations with coeval productions, such as the
ones of Late Copper Age bone industry in northern Italy and Sardinia
region.

Fig. 8. Sa Osa site. Pointed tools (A): SO85 – a) showing fine and parallel mi- Author contributions
crostriations on a moderately irregular surface; SO88 – b) displaying a polished
and flattened microtopography, with a high presence of microstriations having U.T.H. coordinated and organized the project; M.B. organized the
different arrangement with regard to the tool. Bevelled tools (B,C). (B) SO96 –
experimental use-wear reference collection E.G. and M.B. performed
c) characterized by a polished and matt surface, with randomly oriented mi-
the use-wear analyses. All the Authors discussed the results, wrote and
crostriations; SO90 – d) with a moderate polished micro-surface and a homo-
geneous micro-topography. Several microstriations are widely recorded all edited the manuscript.
along this smoothed surface, characterized by a random arrangement. (C) SO97
– e) The surface is characterized by an irregular micro-relief due to technolo- Declaration of Competing Interest
gical marks left by the abrading technique. The most exposed areas are affected
by a moderate polishing and shiny aspect, with presence of rare and fine mi-
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
crostriations. (SO = Sa Osa; bar scale 2 cm).
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.

11
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386

Table 3
Animal hard material tools from Farneto Rockshelter: reconstructed gestures and performed activities.
Typology Gesture Activity Worked material Material preserv. state Frequency

Pointed tools on ulna Rotation Piercing Skin Dry 1

Rotation Piercing Skin Fresh 2
Pointed tool on metapodial Rotation Piercing – Elastic/resistant 1
Bevelled tool on rib Back-Forth Smoothing Clay Wet 1
Bevelled tools on antler Punching Cleaving – Hard/durable 2
Double bevelled tools on antler Punching Pressuring Lithics Hard 7
Back-Forth Smoothing Clay Wet 2

Table 4
Animal hard material tools from Sa Osa: reconstructed gestures and performed activities.
Typology Gesture Activity Worked material Material preserv. state Frequency

Pointed tools on metapodial Rotation Piercing Skin Fresh 1

Rotation Piercing – Elastic/resistant 4
Pointed tools on diaphysis Rotation Piercing Skin Rehydrated 1
Chaotic Securing Skin/Leather Wet 1
Rotation Piercing – Elastic/resistant 3
Bevelled tools Back-Forth Smoothing Clay + M Sized additives Fresh 1
Back-Forth Scraping Skin, Hide – 3

Acknowledgements l'Universitè de Provence, Aix-En-Provence.

The authors are grateful to Alessandro Usai (Soprintendenza Beni
Archeologici Cagliari-Oristano) for allowing the analyses of the bone
tools from Sa Osa and giving the site’s information. This research has
been funded by the FAR 2017 of the University of Ferrara. The authors
thank the reviewers and the editor for their careful help and patience to
improve the contents.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102386.
References
Álvarez, M., Mansur, M.E., Pal, N., 2014. Experiments in bone technology: a methodo-
logical approach to functional analysis on bone tools. In: Mansur, M.E., (Ed.),
Traceology Today: Methodological Issues in the Old World and the Americas, BAR
International Series, vol. 2643, pp. 19–26.
Behrensmeyer, A.K., 1978. Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering.
Paleobiology 4 (2), 150–162.
Behrensmeyer, Anna K., Kidwell, Susan M., Gastaldo, Robert A., 2000. Taphonomy and
paleobiology. Paleobiology 26 (Suppl 4), 103–147.
Bertolini, M., 2014. Strategie di sussistenza e lavorazione della materia dura animale
durante l'Età del Bronzo nel Veneto sud-occidentale (PhD. unpublished thesis).
University of Ferrara.
Bertolini, M., Thun Hohenstein, U., 2017. Bevel-ended tools on large ungulate ribs during
the Bronze Age in northern Italy: preliminary result of functional and experimental
analyses. Quaternary International 427, 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.
2016.02.002.
Bertolini, M., Thun Hohenstein, U., 2019a. Artigiani dell’osso e del palco nella palafitta
del Bronzo Medio delle Vallette di Cerea (VR). Padusa 55, 135–156.
Bertolini, M., Thun Hohenstein, U., 2019b. Analisi tecnologica e funzionale delle spatole
realizzate su frammenti di costa di grande ungulato durante l’età del Bronzo nel
Veneto sud-occidentale. Atti 8° Convegno Nazionale di Archeozoologia (Lecce, 2015).
ESE - Salento University Publishing, pp. 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1285/
i9788883051487p91.
Bianco, D., 2010. Aree protette: il Parco dei Gessi Bolognesi e la Speleologia. Speleologia
Emiliana. Rivista di Speleologia della Federazione Speleologica Regionale
dell’Emilia-Romagna XXXI (1), 20–23.
Bradfield, J., 2015. Pointed bone tools technology in southern Africa: results of use-trace
analysis. Southern African Humanities 27, 1–27.
Camps-Fabrer, H., Cattelain, P., Choi, S.Y., David, E., Pasqualbenito, J.L., Provenzano, N.,
Ramseyer, D. (Eds.), 1998. Fiches Typologiques de l'industrie osseuse Prèhistorique.
Cahier VIII, Biseaux et Tranchants. Commission de nomenclature sur l’Industrie de
l’os préhistorique. Publications de l'Universitè de Provence, Aix-En-Provence.
Camps-Fabrer, H., Ramseyer, D., Stordeur, D., (Eds.) 1990. Fiches typologiques de l’in-
dustrie osseuse préhistorique, Cahier III, Poinçons, Pointes, Poignards, Aiguilles.
Commission de nomenclature sur l’Industrie de l’os préhistorique. Publications de
Cavani, V., Nobili, R., Secondo, M., 2011. Il Farneto (BO): la frequentazione eneolitica.
Atti della XLIII Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria,
L’età del Rame in Italia, pp. 721–725.
Christensen, M., 2004. Fiche caractères morphologiques, histologiques et mécaniques des
matières dures d’origine animale. Fiches Typologique de l’industrie osseuse
preéhistorique, Matières et Technique, Cahier XI, pp. 17–28.
Christidou, R., 1999. Outils en os néolithique du Nord de la Grèce: Étude technologique
(Ph.D.), University Paris X.
Christidou, R., 2008. An application of micro-wear analysis to bone experimentally
worked using bronze tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 733–751.
Claud, É., Brenet, M., Maury, S., Mourre, V., 2009. Étude expérimentale des macrotraces
d’utilisation sur les tranchants des bifaces. Caractérisation et potentiel diagnostique.
In: Costamagno, S. Théry-Parisot, I., (Eds.), Programmes expérimentaux en tapho-
nomie, Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’Homme (Les nouvelles de l’archéologie
118), Paris, pp. 55–60.
Cristiani, E., 2009. Osseous artefacts from the Mesolithic levels of Pradestel rockshelter,
(north-eastern Italy): a morphological and techno-functional analysis. Preistoria
Alpina 44, 179–203.
Cristiani, M., Dalmonte, C., De Waele, J., Ghirotti, M., 2011. Il sistema di monitoraggio
della Grotta del Farneto (BO). Atti del XXI Convegno Nazionale di Speleologia
“Diffusione delle conoscenze” – Sessione Turismo; Trieste 2 – 5 giugno 2011, pp.
230–238.
David, É., 2016. Principes de l'étude technologique et critères de diagnose des techniques
mésolithiques. Cours du Séminaire de technologie osseuse Masters 3 HPR 003
Université Paris Ouest (UPO) – QP 36 Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN).
Master. Principes de l'étude technologique et critéres de diagnose des techniques
mésolithiques, UPO, France, 2016.
D'Errico, F., Giacobini, G., Puech, P.F., 1984. Les répliques en vernis des surfaces osseuses
façonnées. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 81 (6), 169–170.
D’Errico, F., Villa, P., 1997. Holes and grooves: the contribution of microscopy and
Taphonomy to the problem of art origins. Journal of Human Evolution 33, 1–31.
De Grossi Mazzorin, J., 2008. Archeozoologia: lo studio dei resti animali in archeologia.
Laterza Edizioni.
Fantini, L., 1969. Nuovi Reperti archeologici dalla frana del sottoroccia del Farneto. Culta
Bononia anno 1 (2), 275–279.
Fernandez-Jalvo, Y., Andrews, P., 2016. Atlas of Taphonomic identifications. In: Delson,
E., Salgis, E.J. (Eds.), Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series.
Fiore, I., Tagliacozzo, A., 2011. La produzione di manufatti in materia dura animale
nell’Eneolitico: esempi da alcuni contesti funerari e da abitato. XLIII Riunione
Scientifica- Età del Rame in Italia 215–223.
Gargani, E., 2017. Techno-functional analysis of bone and antler industry from Farneto
(Bologna, Italy) and Sa Osa (Oristano, Italy) archaeological sites. Erasmus Mundus
Master in Quaternary and Prehistory (Master Thesis), Academic year 2016/2017,
University of Ferrara (Unpublished).
Griffitts, J., 2006. Bone Tools and Technological Choice: Change and Stability on the
Northerns Plains (PhD. thesis). University of Arizona.
Haynes, G., 1983. Frequencies of spiral and green-bone fractures on ungulate limb bones
in modern surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48 (1), 102–114.
Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Use. University of Chicago
Press.
Legrand, A., Sidéra, I., 2007. Methods, means, and results when studying European Bone
Industry. In: Gates St-Pierre, C., Walker, R.B. (Eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods
and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, BAR Internarional Series 1622, Oxford,
pp. 291–304.

12
U. Thun Hohenstein, et al.
LeMoine, G.M., 1994. Use-wear on bone and antler tools from the Mackenzie Delta,
Northwest Territories. American Antiquity 59 (2), 316–334.
Lyman, R.L., 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Maigrot, Y., 1997. Tracéologie des outils tranchants en os des Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-
C. en Bassin Parisien. Essai méthodologique et application. Bulletin de la Société
Préhistorique Française 94 (2), 198–216.
Maigrot, Y., 1999. Technical and functional study of ethnographic (Irian Jaya, Indonesia)
and archaeological (Chalain and Clairvaux, Jura, France, 30th century BC) tools
made from boars’ tusks. In: Beyries, S., Pétrequin, P. (Eds.), Ethno-Arcaheology and
its Transfers, Bournemouth, pp. 67–79.
Maigrot, Y., 2000. Les outils en matières dures animals utilises pour le travail du bois à
Chalain station 4 (Néolithique Final, Jura). XXVe Congrès Préhistorique de France –
Nanterre 24-26 novembre 2000 – Approches fonctionelle en Préhistoire, pp. 67–82.
Maigrot, Y., 2003. Etude technologique et fonctionnelle de l'outillage en matiéres dures
animales. La station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France) (PhD. thesis),
Université de Paris I- Sorbonne, MS.
Manca, L., 2006. Considerazioni sui manufatti ossei della Sardegna, Atti della XXXIX
Riunione Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Materie prime e
scambi nella preistoria italiana, Firenze, pp. 933–943.
Manca, L., 2016. The method of debitage by bipartition in the exploitation of bone: an
overview of its application in Neolithic groups of Sardinia. Quaternary International
1–19.
Mastino, A., 2011. Presentazione. Tharros Felix 4 (2011), 7–9.
Melis, M.G., Sechi, S., 2011. L’insediamento nuragico di Sa Osa-Cabras (OR). Studio
geoarcheologico. Tharros Felix 4 (2011), 187–191.
Montagni, L., Angelini, E., Zanna, A., 2008. La riapertura al pubblico della Grotta del
Farneto. Grotta del Farneto, una storia di persona e natura; Parco Regionale Gessi
Bolognesi e Calanchi dell'Abbadessa Editore, pp. 9–18.
Nenzioni, G., 2008. Il sottoroccia del Farneto. La grotta del Farneto: una storia di persone
e natura; Parco Regionale dei Gessi e Calanchi dell’Abbadessa Editore, pp. 39–48.
Nenzioni, G., 2017. La grotta e il sottoroccia del Farneto, Appunti e riflessioni sulle ri-
cerche amatoriali (Inedited).
Newcomer, M., 1974. Study and replication of bone tools from Ksar Akil (Lebanon).
World Archaeology 6, 138–153.
Newcomer, M., 1977. Experiments in Upper Palaeolithic bone work. In: Camps- Fabrer
(Ed.), Méthodologie appliquée à l'industrie de l'os préhistorique, Premier colloque
international sur l'industrie de l'os dans la Préhistoire. éd. du CNRS, Paris, pp.
293–301.
Olsen, S., 2007. Conclusions: Bone artefacts and their importance to archaeology. In C. G.
St-Pierre & R. B. Walker (Eds.), Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations
in Worked Bone Studies, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622.
Archaeopress, Oxford, pp. 175–182.
Peltier, A., Plisson, H., 1986. Micro-tracéologie fonctionnelle de l'os, quelques résultats
expérimentaux. In: Outillage peu élaboré en os et en bois de cervidés II (artefact 3).
Troisiéme réunion du groupe de travail sur l'industrie de l'os préhistorique, Paris, pp.
69–80.
Pétillon, J.-M., Plisson, H., Cattelain, P., 2016. Thirty years of experimental research on
the breakage patterns of stone age osseous points. Overview, methodological pro-
blems and current perspectives. In: Radu, I. Katsuhiro, S. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary
scientific approaches to the study of stone-age weaponry. Springer (Vertebrate
13
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 32 (2020) 102386
Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series), Mainz, pp. 47–63.
Plisson, H., 1985. Etude fonctionelle d'outillages lithiques préhistoriques pur l'analyse des
micro-usures: reserche méthodologique et archéologique (PhD thesis). Universitée de
Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne, Paris.
Plisson, H., 2006. Tracéologie fonctionnelle des matiéres osseuses : quelle methode?
Bulletin de la Societé Préhistorique Française 104 (2), 375–380.
Provenzano, N., 1996–1997. Per una definizione della tecnologia ossea nell’Età del
Bronzo, L’esempio delle Terramare. Padusa, Anno L, pp. 47–67.
Provenzano, N., 2001. Produits, techniques et production à l’Âge du Bronze: l’industrie
osseuse dans les Terramares de la moyenne Vallée du Pô. Thèse de doctorat en
Préhistoire, archéologie, histoire et civilisations de l'Antiquité et du Moyen-Âge, Aix-
Marseille 1.
Sala, B., 1980. La fauna della Grotta del Farneto (Bologna). Emilia Preromana, n.8,
Modena, pp. 85–86.
Scarani, R., 1971. La documentazione archeologica del Farneto nel quadro della preistoria
regionale e padana. Atti del VII Convegno speleologico dell'Emilia-Romagna e del
Simposio di studi sulla Grotta del Farneto, S. Lazzaro di Savena e Bologna: 9-10
Ottobre 1971, pp. 109–116.
Semenov, S., 1964. Prehistoric Technology [1957]. Moonraker Press, Wiltshire.
Shahack-Gross, R., Bar-Yosef, O., Weiner, S., 1997. Black-coloured bones in Hayonim
Cave, Israel: differentiating between burning and oxide staining. Journal of
Archaeological Science 24, 439–446.
Shipman, P., Foster, G., Schoeninger, M., 1984. Burnt bones and teeth: an experimental
study of color, morphology, crystal structure and shrinkage. Journal of
Archaeological Science 11, 307–325.
Sidéra, I., 2005. Technical data, typological data: A comparison. In: Luik, H., Choyke, A.,
Batey, C.E., Lougas, L. (Eds.), From Hooves to Horns, from Mollusc to Mammoth.
Manufacture and Use of Bone Artefacts from Prehistoric Times to the Present,
Muinasaja Teadus, vol. 15. Tallinn Book Printers, Taillinn, pp. 47–66.
Sidéra, I., Legrand, A., 2006. Tracéologie fonctionnelle des matières osseuses: une
méthode. Bulletin de La Société Préhistorique Française 103 (2), 291–304.
Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Boytek, B., Withman, A., 1974. Experimentation in
the formation of edge damage: a new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field
Archaeology 1, 171–196.
Usai, A., 2011. L’insediamento prenuragico e nuragico di Sa Osa-Cabras (OR). In:
Mastino, A., Spanu, P.G., Usai, A., Zucca, R. (Eds.), Topografia e considerazioni
generali. Tharros Felix 4, 2011, pp. 159–313.
Usai, A., Sebis, S., Depalmas, A., Melis, R.T., Zedda, M., Carenti, G., Caruso, S., Castangia,
G., Chergia, V., Pau, L., Sanna, I., Sechi, S., Serrelli, P.F., Soro, L., Vidili, S.,
Zupancich, A., 2012. L’insediamento nuragico di Sa Osa (Cabras - OR). XLIV Riunione
Scientifica dell’Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria; Sassari 23-28 novembre
2009 – La preistoria e la protostoria della Sardegna, pp. 1–12.
van Gijn, A., 2007. The use of bone and antler tools: two examples from the late
Mesolithic in the Dutch coastal zone. In: Gates St-Pierre, C., Walker, R. (Eds.), Bones
as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies, BAR
International Series Oxford, vol. 1622, pp. 81–92.
Villa, P., D’Errico, F., 2001. Bone and ivory points in the lower and middle Paleolithic of
Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 41, 69–112.
Villa, P., Mahieu, E., 1991. Breakage patterns of human long bones. Journal of Human
Evolution 20, 1–2.