UDK 903’12/’15(4/5)“633/634”:575.17; 903’12/’15(4/5)“633/634”:574.91


Documenta Praehistorica XXXI 

Usewear analysis of Mesolithic and Neolithic stone tools 
from Mala Triglavca, Trhlovca and Pupi
ina pe 

Simona Petru 

Department of Archaeology, University of Ljubljana, SI 
simona.petru@ff.uni-lj.si 

ABSTRACT – In this paper the results of the usewear analysis of Mesolithic and Neolithic stone tools 
from three cave sites – Mala Triglavca and Trhlovca in the Slovenian Karst and Pupiina pe in Croatian Istra will be presented. Stone tools were examined under the light microscope at 50 – 200 x 
magnifications, and some additional physical and chemical analyses were undertaken. Various uses 
of the tools were determined and conclusions regarding the economies at those sites were drawn. 

IZVLEEK – V lanku predstavljamo rezultate preiskav sledi uporabe na mezolitskih in neolitskih kamenih orodjih iz treh jamskih najdi, Mala Triglavca, Trhlovca in Pupiina pe. Orodja smo preiskali pod mikroskopom pri poveavah 50-do 200-krat. Naredili smo tudi fizikalno-kemijske analize. Doloili smo razline naine uporabe, povezane z razlinimi paleogospodarstvi. 

KEY WORDS – usewear; stone tools; Mesolithic; Neolithic 

METHOD 

There are two kinds of usewear traces on stone tools: sion) method. Most of the results have already been 
flaking of the working edges and polishes, which ap-published (
mit et al. 1996; Petru 1997); here I will 
pear on the working edge, but can also extend fur-present the results of the microbeam PIXE mapping 
ther over the surface. The most important property technique, which was done at the University of Ox-
of the polish is its increased brightness compared to ford and at the R. Bokovi institute in Zagreb. 
the surrounding surface. The polish has other features which enable us to identify the material that cau-The analysis was carried out on some experimental 
sed its formation. Flaking is the direct result of me-tools and on three end-scrapers, and one flake from 
chanical pressure, while the physical and chemical the Mesolithic layers of Mala Triglavca. The results 
formation of polish is not successfully explained yet. of the analysis of the deposit on experimental tools 

were similar to those in previous research (
mit et 
The most common method for the analysis of use-al. 1996; Petru 1997). 
wear traces is optical investigation under a microscope with incident light at 50–600 x magnifications. In the deposit on the working edges of two end-scra-
The stone tools from Mala Triglavca, Trhlovca, and pers and the flake from Mala Triglavca, sulphur, po-
Pupi
ina pe were examined at 50–200 x magnifica-tassium and calcium were the most important eletions, and some additional physical and chemical ments (Fig. 1). Such a combination of elements in 
analyses were undertaken. the deposit can be connected with the scraping of 

hide (
mit et al. 1999). 
In collaboration with the Jozef Stefan Institute in Ljubljana a trace element analysis of the working edge On one of the end-scrapers, there was also a point 
was done with the PIXE (proton induced X-ray emis-where phosphorous was present together with cal


Simona Petru 

cium. Their ratio was close to the value 
found in the deposit on experimental 
stone tools used for bone working, so it 
was conclused that this tool was used 
for butchering rather than for scraping. 

On the working edge of the third end-
scraper the most important elements 
were phosphorous and calcium. Their 
ratio was similar to the ratio of these 
elements in bone tissue (
mit et al. 
1999), so the end-scraper was probably 
used for some sort of bone fashioning 
(Fig. 2). 

In collaboration with the Institute of 
Chemistry in Ljubljana, an Infra Red 
Spectroscopy of macroscopically detected organic residue on one of the stone 
tools from Trhlovca was made (Fig. 3). 
At first, the presumption was that the 
residue might be wax or some other 
glue used for fastening the blade to a 
haft. The analysis of the residue indicated that our presumption was wrong. The residue 
was a mixture of inorganic and organic components. 
It was not possible to fully identify the organic fracture, but it was composed of stereates which originated from some sort of plant oil or animal fat. The inorganic fracture represented the sediment in which 
the tool was buried. 

Fig. 1. Elemental mapping on the working edge of the end-scra-
per from Mala Triglavca (MT 8), used for hide scraping. Size of 
the examined area is 1.2 x 1.2 mm. 
Fig. 2. Elemental mapping on the working edge of the end-scra-
per from Mala Triglavca (MT 15), used on bone. Size of the exa-
mined area is 1.2 x 1.2 mm. 
MALA TRIGLAVCA 

At Mala Triglavca, below the younger layers, there 

was 1m thick prehistoric complex in which neolithic 

pottery and stone and bone tools were found. The 

bones of domesticated animals were mixed with the 

bones of wild animals. Next to the cave wall fragments of a human skull were found. Beneath this complex lie the oldest holocene layers, with Mesolithic microlitics. 
Antler and bone tools were also present 
(Leben 1988.69–71). 

Mesolithic 

Analysis of the usewear on Mesolithic 
stone tools from Mala Triglavca indicates that the most important activity was 
hunting. Projectile tools and tools for 
processing animal remains (meat cutting, hide working) prevail in this complex. (Fig. 4). 

There was a lot of hide working usewear 
on the Mesolithic end-scrapers and also 
on other stone tools from Mala Triglavca. Less important was wood working – 
they probably used tools for making the 
wooden handles for projectiles. It is notable that there were many antler and 


Usewear analysis of Mesolithic and Neolithic stone tools from Mala Triglavca, Trhlovca and Pupi
ina pe 

Fig. 3. Trhlovca – macroscopic residue on the blade. 
bone tools in the Mesolithic layers (Leben 1988.71), 
while just a small number of accompanying stone 
tools was used for working bone. 

Damage on the trapeses is characteristic of projectile 
points, while microburins were not merely unused 
byproducts of geometric tool manufacture, but were 
intensively used, since there are a lot of striations 
and microflaking present. One tool might even be a 
projectile point. Flakes were intensively used for different tasks. The mode of their use depended on the 
form of the working edge of the flake (Petru 1997. 
84, 85). 

Neolithic 

In the Neolithic the increase in the number of the 
tools used for plant and wood working reflects the 
appearance of new activities at the site (Fig. 4), one 
of which could have been the cutting of trees and 
creating clearings for herding and pasture. The tools 
from Mala Triglavca are large enough to be used as 
axes. Pollen analysis confirms that during the Neolithic in the Karst region, clearings were made for 
pasture (Culiberg 1995.204). Human influence on 
plants is also known from the Karst site at Podmol 
pri Kastelcu (Turk et al. 1993.70). 

There are not enough stone tools in Mala Triglavca 
to indicate long occupation during 
the Neolithic. The site was probably 
a temporary shelter for herders and 
their animals, while they exploited 
pasture in the vicinity of the cave. 
This is confirmed by the bones of 
domesticated animals in the Neolithic layers. The occupants of the cave 
sustained themselves with mostly by 
hunting, since wild animals bones 
exceed those of domesticates (Leben 
1988.70). Tools for processing animal remains are rare. There are two 
possible explanations for this – the 
site was not occupied long enough 
for such activities to be accompli

shed or the herders took most of the 
stone tools with them when they left 
the site. 

In Northern Italy Neolithic stone 

tools with a sickle gloss were found 

together with tools used for wood 

working (Biagi and Voytek 1992. 

275–276; Biagi et al. 1993.63). Since 
herders needed grass for winter supplies for their 
animals, sickles can be related also to herding, not 
only to cultivation. 

Sickle gloss appears on one of the blades from Mala Triglavca. This blade was found in the highest 
part of the Neolithic complex with some bronze age 
pottery, and it is possible that it is not Neolithic, but 
younger. This coincides with the pollen analysis, 
since the first cereal pollen in the Karst region is 
known from the Eneolithic (Turk et al. 1993.71). 
Even if the blade is Neolithic, this single find indicates that agriculture had just started at that time and 
was far from being a well established practise. The 
blade is made from very good material which is not 
known locally, so it is also possible, that it was used 
as a sickle elsewhere and the herders bought it to 
Mala Triglavca. 

There is a huge difference in the numbers of Mesolithic and Neolithic stone tools found at Mala Triglavca. While in the Mesolithic layers more than 800 
stone tools were found, there were just 16 in the 
Neolithic layers. The raw material had also changed. 
In the Mesolithic, local chert was used, whereas the 
Neolithic stone tools were made mostly from much 
better chert not known locally. In the Mesolithic 
there is a lot of unused flakes and a lot of by-products of flaking, while in the Neolithic almost all the 

Fig. 4. Mala Triglavca – usewear results for Mesolithic and Neoli-
thic stone tools. 

Simona Petru 

stone artefacts have usewear. One possible explanation is that since the Neolithic tools are of imported 
chert, people tried to make as much use of them as 
possible. Since herdsmen did not stay in cave for 
long, they also had little time for the production of 
new tools. 

The activities were also different – while in the Mesolithic, Mala Triglavca was a typical hunting site, 
occupied long enough to process animal remains 
and manufacture stone tools, in the Neolithic site 
was used by herders for short periods during their 
seasonal movements. While in the Mesolithic the 
tools were used for hunting and processing animal 
remains, the Neolithic saw new activities, probably 
connected to herding, which can be detected from 
the stone tools. 

TRHLOVCA 

In Trhlovca, the Neolithic layers were covered by 
younger ones, dating from prehistory up to the modern era. In the Neolithic layers F, G and H, pottery, 
stone and bone tools were found with the bones of 
wild and domesticated animals, with wild species 
prevailing (Leben 1988.69). 

There is a similar amount of processing of animal remains and of plant working usewear on the stone 
tools from the Neolithic layers (Fig. 5). The number 
of tools used for woodworking is a little bit lower 
than in Mala Triglavca, but it is still possible to connect them with tree cutting and making clearings for 
pasture, since the presence of herdsman is confirmed by the bones of domesticated animals (Leben 
1988.69). They were hunters also, because a projectile point and wild animal bones were found in the 
Neolithic context. Similar conditions are known from 
North Italian sites, where subsistence strategy was 
based on the hunting of wild animals and the rearing of domesticates (Biaggi et al. 1993. 58). No 
signs of cereal harvesting were 
found on the stone tools from this 
period, but two tools from succeeding Eneolithic layers have sickle 
gloss. Since cereal pollen is known 
from the Eneolithic layers at the 
Karst site of Podmol pri Kastelcu 
(Turk et al. 1993 .71), it is possible 
that at that time cereals were raised 
somewhere in the vicinity of Trhlovca. 

The small number of stone tools and the absence of 
flaking by-products in the Neolithic layers may indicate that visitors to the cave brought most of their 
tools with them and that the site was temporary – 
inhabited by nomadic herders for s short period or 
periods of time. Later, in the Eneolithic, when signs 
of agriculture are already present, Trhlovca might 
have been a pen for domesticates. Since the first domesticates in this area are known from late Mesolithic contexts (Budja 1996.73, 74), it is possible that 
the tradition of herding, which started in the late 
Mesolithic, continued and was intensified in the Neolithic and later periods. 

PUPI
INA PE 

Pupi
ina pe is located in the Vranjska Draga canyon 
beneath Mt U
ka in Croatian Istria. The cave was settled from the Paleolithic onwards. An analysis of use-
wear on stone tools from the Neolithic and Mesolithic layers was carried out. 

Mesolithic 

In the Mesolithic, stone tools were used for hunting 
and the processing of animal remains. Hunting as 
the main activity is confirmed by the presence of 
projectile points among the stone tools and also by 
the bones of wild animals found at the site. Plant 
and wood working usewear was found just on few 
tools (Fig. 6). 

Neolithic 

The tools from the Neolithic layers were used for 
hunting, butchering, hide working and for wood 
working (Fig. 6). Some were used for more than one 
task, since they display more than one variety of 
usewear. 

Fig. 5. Trhlovca – usewear results for Neolithic stone tools. 

Usewear analysis of Mesolithic and Neolithic stone tools from Mala Triglavca, Trhlovca and Pupi
ina pe 

Neolithic stone tools do not greatly differ from Mesolithic ones (Miracle 1997.46). Continuity in the 
typology of stone tools is also 
known from Northern Europe, 
where it is almost impossible to 
distinguish late Mesolithic from 
early Neolithic types. The only difference is the occurrence of polished tools (Price, Gebauer and 
Keeley, 1996.115–119). 

In Pupi
ina pe similar conclusions can be drawn as to their use 

– in both periods they were used 
for the same tasks, mainly hunting. The main difference is that in the Neolithic there 
is a small increase in the number of tools used for 
wood working. This might reflect the introduction 
of a new activity, probably herding, but this activity 
is not so obviously reflected in the stone tools as in 
Mala Triglavca. Herding is confirmed by the bones of 
the domesticates, which outnumber those of wild 
species, which means that domestication was fully 
established at the time, but the beginning of the process is not known, due to a hiatus between the Mesolithic and Neolithic layers (Miracle 1997.46). 
The projectile points among the stone tools indicate 
that the Neolithic visitors were also hunters. The 
butchering tools may be connected to hunting, or 
butchering domesticates. Hide working was not extensive, with hide polish found on only two implements. There are no traces of bone or antler use-
wear on the stone tools. There are also no signs of 
usewear traces from grass cutting or cereal harvesting. 

An examination of the usewear found on the stone 
tools indicates that the Neolithic visitors to Pupi
ina 
pe were hunters and herders, but there are no signs 
of agriculture in the vicinity of the cave. The only 
traces of plant usewear were those of wood. Because 
the hilly hinterland of the Adriatic coast was not suitable for agriculture, the inhabitants of those areas 
were probably not sedentary farmers, but seasonal 
nomadic pastoralists. The animal remains indicate 
that during the Neolithic the cave was occupied primarily in spring (Miracle 1997.57), which could coincide with seasonal movements of herders. In later 
periods Pupi
ina pe continued to keep the role as 
animal pen (Miracle 1997.48). 

CONCLUSION 

A usewear analysis of Mesolithic and Neolithic stone 
tools from the Karst sites at Mala Triglavca and Trhlovca, indicates that new activities were introduced 
during the Neolithic. In the Neolithic fewer tools are 
used for processing animal remains, while tools for 
wood working become more frequent. New activities may be connected to herding – tools were needed for cutting down trees, so that clearings for 
animal grazing could be created. The number of 
hunting tools decreases in the Neolithic contexts of 
Mala Triglavca and Trhlovca. But at the Croatian site 
at Pupi
ina pe usewear indicates that hunting was 
almost as important in the Neolithic as in the Mesolithic. 

Nomadic hunters and gatherers might more easily 
develop herding than agriculture, which demands a 
sedentary way of life. The late appearance of agriculture in the Slovenian Karst region probably also reflects unfavourable conditions for raising crops. Similar conditions are found at early Neolithic sites in 
Iberia, where agriculture first appeared in more favourable areas and later expanded to more marginal areas. The process was gradual, early farmers coexsisted with hunters and gatherers in both the marginal and more favourable areas (Bernabeu Auban 
1997.13). 

All three caves probably remained animal shelters 
even in the Eneolithic, although the sickle gloss on 
stone tools from Mala Triglavca and Trhlovca indicates that agriculture was already present in the Karst 
region by that time. 

Fig. 6. Pupi
ina pe – usewear results for Mesolithic and Neolithic 
stone tools. 

Simona Petru 

REFERENCES


BERNABEU AUBAN J. 1997. Indigenism and migrationism. The neolithization of the Iberian peninsula. 

Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in 
eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 1–17. 

BIAGI P. and VOYTEK B. A. 1992. The flint assemblages from Pits XVIII and XXXII of the early Neolithic 
site of Campo Ceresole at Vhó di Piadena (Cremonanorthern Italy). Natura Bresciana 27: 243–288. 

BIAGI P., STARNINI E. and VOYTEK B. 1993. The 
late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Settlement of 
Northern Italy: Recent Considerations. Poroilo o 
raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 21: 45–67. 

BUDJA M. 1996. Neolitizacija na podro
ju Caput Adriae: med Herodotom in Cavalli-Sforzo. Poroilo o 
raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v 
Sloveniji 23: 61–76. 

CULIBERG M. 1995. Dezertifikacija in reforestacija 
slovenskega Krasa. Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 22: 201–217. 

LEBEN F. 1988. Novoodkrite prazgodovinske plasti v 
jamah na Krasu. Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolita, 
neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 16: 65–76. 

MIRACLE P. 1997. Early Holocene foragers in the 
karst of northern Istria. Poroilo o raziskovanju pa

leolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 43– 

61. 
PETRU S. 1997. Metode preiskav sledov uporabe na 
kamenih orodjih iz najdi
 Zakajeni spodmol in Mala 
Triglavca. Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 79–97. 

PRICE T. D., GEBAUER A. B. and KEELEY L. H., 1996. 
The Spread of Farming into Europe North of the Alps. 
In Price T. D. and Gebauer A. B. (eds.), Last Hunters 

– First Farmers: 95–126. 
MIT ., PETRU S., GRIME G., VIDMAR T., BUDNAR 
M., ZORKO B. and RAVNIKAR M. 1996. Z rabo nastale obloge na kamenih orodjih: dolo
anje sestave z 
metodo PIXE. Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, 
neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 23: 169–183. 

MIT ., GRIME G., PETRU S. and RAJTA I. 1999. Microdistribution and composition of usewear polish 
on prehistoric stone tools. Nuclear Instruments and 
Methods in Physics Research, B 150: 565–570. 

TURK I., MODRIJAN Z., PRUS T., CULIBERG M., ERCELJ A., PERKO V., DIRJEC J. AND PAVLIN P. 1993. 
Podmol pri Kastelcu – novo ve
plastno arheoloko 
najdi
e na Krasu, Slovenija. Arheoloki vestnik 44: 
45–96. 

cont ent s