Next Article in Journal
A Review, Analysis, and Roadmap to Support the Short-Term and Long-Term Sustainability of the European Crafts Sector
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of a Subsequent Deposition of Human Bodies in a Funerary Site in Sardinia (Italy) Using Entomological Evidence
Previous Article in Special Issue
Radiocarbon Ages of a Possible Titian Painting
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 8
Issue 2
10.3390/heritage8020069
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fission Track Dating of Obsidian Samples from Lipari Neolithic Settlements

by
Maria Clara Martinelli
1,
Letizia Bonizzoni
2,*,
Mauro Coltelli
3,
Marco Manni
3,
Arianna Pefano
2,
Massimo Oddone
4 and
Alessandra Guglielmetti
2
1
Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie, Museo Luigi Bernabò Brea, Via Castello 2, 98055 Lipari, Italy
2
Department of Physics “Aldo Pontremoli”, University of Milan, Via Celoria 16, 20133 Milano, Italy
3
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Osservatorio Etneo, Piazza Roma 2, 95125 Catania, Italy
4
Department of Chemistry, University of Pavia, Via Taramelli 12, 27100 Pavia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2025, 8(2), 69; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8020069
Submission received: 21 January 2025 / Revised: 8 February 2025 / Accepted: 10 February 2025 / Published: 13 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue It's All a Matter of Time: Exploring the Past, Present and Future of Artworks through Dating, Authentication, Material Characterization, Monitoring and Restoration)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present work describes the first results of the project “Lipari Obsidian and Neolithic Human Communities in the Aeolian Islands”, which aims to study the connection between obsidian sources on the island of Lipari and Neolithic populations on the Aeolian archipelago in Italy. Obsidian is a natural volcanic glass used to produce chipped tools; in the Neolithic period it was the sharpest known material and its trade played an important role in the Mediterranean area. It is thus of particular interest for tracing prehistoric trading patterns. Indeed, Lipari obsidian has a wide distribution and has been found even in southern France, Dalmatia, Sicily and mainland Italy. To reach the project goal, we considered both raw materials from different obsidian geological samples and artefacts from Neolithic settlements on the Aeolian islands, and performed fission-track dating (FT), a radiometric technique that can be used for uranium-bearing minerals and glasses. The preliminary results facilitated the age determination of geological samples, which we could relate to the different eruption phases. Archaeological samples were also dated; their link with the studied volcanic deposits and lava flows made it possible to shed some new light on raw material procurement and on the ability of the Neolithic populations to move from their locations, with particular attention to the consequences of environmental features on the first human settlements on the Aeolian islands.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Project

The present work is part of the project “Lipari Obsidian and Neolithic Human Communities in the Aeolian Islands”, which concerns the study and analysis of obsidian flows on the island of Lipari in relation to the population of the Aeolian Islands during the Neolithic. The project proposes some scientific aims that concern a synthesis of archaeological and volcanological studies, and at the same time new chronological elements for the temporal reconstruction of the volcanic events that produced obsidian.
The area of interest of the project is the correlation between the first phases of population and the exploitation of this raw material.
The main objectives of the project are:
(1)
Analysis of the supply sources (location, dates, sample analysis) of raw material and obsidian artefacts in use in the Aeolian Neolithic settlements, witnessing the volcanic activities of Lipari in prehistory.
(2)
Hypotheses on the methods of collecting raw material and the mobility of communities in relation to the Neolithic settlements in the Aeolian Islands.
(3)
Environmental characteristics that may have influenced the first population of the islands.
In the present paper we describe how, through the fission-track method, it is possible to determine the age of lava flows and pyroclastic deposits from which the pieces of obsidian used by the Neolithic communities of Lipari were extracted. This will allow us to develop a local chronological framework of the exploitation of the raw material and to compare it with the absolute and cultural chronologies of the prehistory of the Mediterranean.

1.2. The Neolitic of the Aeolian Islands

The archipelago of the Aeolian Islands (Figure 1) includes seven islands, Lipari, Vulcano, Salina, Panarea, Stromboli, Filicudi and Alicudi, and some islets. Except for Vulcano, all the islands and islets have preserved traces of frequentation and settlements starting from the Neolithic [1,2,3,4,5]. The main impetus for the beginning of human settlement in the area was the presence on the island of Lipari of excellent quality obsidian, black, shiny, glassy and perfect for making cutting tools. Control of this raw material allowed for its exchange on a long-distance basis, determining the first form of “trade” in the Mediterranean.
The subaerial eruptive history of Lipari [6] developed between about 267,000 years ago and the Late Middle Ages. There were several eruptions that produced obsidian. The oldest is Monte Guardia (27–24,000 years ago) which seems to have never been used, followed by Canneto Dentro and Vallone del Gabellotto (about 8700–8400 years before present) which were exploited during prehistory. Finally, the formation of the Monte Pilato and Forgia Vecchia volcanoes probably occurred in two phases at the end of the 8th century [6,7] and in the 13th century [8,9].
The actual territory in the north-eastern part of the island is the result of the most recent eruptions and natural erosion that have modified the environment frequented during prehistory. Detailed analyses of the geological sources have allowed us to identify two sources where obsidian was collected in the Neolithic: Vallone del Gabellotto and Canneto Dentro [10], and probably a third source in Vallone Fiume Bianco [11]. Due to the changes in this part of the territory, the areas for collecting raw materials frequented during the Neolithic are no longer visible, but two supply and processing areas have been discovered. The first, Canneto–Lami, relating to the early Neolithic, has been dated through carbon-14 dating at 6290 ± 30 BP (calibrated 5320–5217 BC) in [11]; the second, Canneto–Acquacalda, relating to the late Neolithic, has returned a fragment of red monochrome pottery from the Diana culture [12]. The exploitation of Lipari obsidian began in the Neolithic around the middle of the 6th millennium BC and continued until the Middle Bronze Age (1500–1300 BC), but then disappeared completely. The large quantity of processing chips, blades and exploited cores found in the settlements of the Aeolian Islands, from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age, demonstrates that the working of this material took place as a domestic craft within the villages [2]. In the most ancient phase of the population of the Aeolian Islands (Stentinello culture), dated around 5300 BC, two main settlements are known: one in Lipari at the Castellaro site [12] and the other in Salina at the Rinicedda site [13]. Both are characterized by their position in flat areas where subsistence agriculture is possible. Archaeological traces speak of small agricultural communities who lived in huts made of reeds and clay. Their main activity was the exploitation and collection of obsidian. The ceramics that characterize the Stentinello culture are decorated with impressions made by hand or molds. This pottery is associated with the production of fine purified ceramics painted with red or brown banded motifs [14]. The rapid coastal advance of the Neolithic settlers led to the establishment of exchange networks that determined an early circulation of obsidian for hundreds of kilometers, and consequently the Aeolian Neolithic community manifested the need to control the primary source of raw material. In fact, during the periods of painted vases, first trichrome pottery then Serra d’Alto pottery, the settlement stabilized only in Lipari on the coastal cliff, today called a castle, naturally fortified by rocky crags that due to these characteristics have been inhabited continuously over the centuries. During the late Neolithic, the Diana culture emerged, characterized by a red monochrome pottery, widespread in Sicily and the Italian peninsula between 4500 and 4000 BC. Its name derives from the large settlement located on a large coastal plain that was discovered in the middle of the last century in Lipari in the Diana district [15]. During the period of the Diana culture the obsidian chipping technique became highly specialized [16]. All the islands, except Vulcano, were inhabited with settlements; the diffusion of Lipari obsidian reached the entire Mediterranean area and beyond [17].
The end of the Neolithic dates back to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC (Diana–Spatarella culture) and coincided with a period of economic and demographic crisis caused by the introduction of metalworking techniques, which reduced the demand for obsidian, and by the volcanic activities of Stromboli and Vulcano which directly and indirectly influenced the population of Lipari with consequences throughout the archipelago [18].

1.3. Provenance Studies for Obsidian Samples

As part of the present project, fission-track (FT) dating of obsidian is utilized as a tool for provenance determination. This approach is widely practiced in the field of archaeometry and has been applied in various contexts, as obsidian holds paramount importance for archaeological studies predating the advent of ceramics [19,20,21,22].
Several chemical analyses have demonstrated their effectiveness in distinguishing sources of obsidian since the initial studies conducted in the 1960s [19,23,24,25,26]. Early methods included emission spectrometry [27] and proton inelastic scattering [28]. Over time, more advanced techniques were introduced, such as laser ablation–inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) [29], particle-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) [30,31] and energy-dispersive spectroscopy with a scanning electron microscope (SEM-EDS) [32].
One of the most commonly used methods remains neutron activation analysis (NAA) [33], a nuclear technique occasionally paired with particle-induced gamma emission (PIGE) [26] or X-ray fluorescence (XRF) [32]. This unique analytical method offers high precision and detects a wide range of elements; however, it requires irradiating samples with a neutron flux. Over the years, Raman micro-spectroscopy [21,31], Mössbauer spectroscopy [15] and optical emission spectroscopy (OES) [27] have also been employed for similar purposes.
Among the techniques applied to obsidian provenance studies, energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (ED-XRF) has emerged as a leading method [16,17,34,35,36,37,38]. It enables the quantification of elements in a non-destructive manner, offering relatively low detection limits for samples of any size. Furthermore, both portable and laboratory-based equipment are available for this purpose. Despite this, the suboptimal detection of low atomic number (Z) elements necessitates specialized calculation and calibration software, requiring customized data processing [39]. This limitation is often addressed by focusing on element ratios rather than absolute elemental concentrations for geographic origin discrimination [16,32,38]. Using this approach, studies on obsidian samples consistently demonstrate the capability of XRF—whether performed with tabletop or portable devices—to reliably identify sample provenance [40,41].
Starting from this premise, it is worth emphasizing the practical advantages of FT dating, particularly its ability to provide absolute age constraints. This capability not only supports provenance determination but also enhances broader archaeological chronologies. While the method necessitates specialized laboratory facilities and a minimum uranium content in the analyzed glass, it serves as a valuable complement to geochemical techniques, especially in complex volcanic settings.

2. Materials and Methods

In 2019, a research agreement was signed between the Archaeological Park of the Aeolian Islands—Luigi Bernabò Brea Museum and the University of Milan—Department of Physics, which implemented some of the aims proposed by the previously mentioned project. The sampling of obsidian flows and tephra layers accessible on the island of Lipari was carried out and, at the same time, samples of obsidian artefacts of the chipping products (debitage) from archaeological excavation contexts in the main Neolithic settlements of the Aeolian archipelago were selected [11].

2.1. Obsidian Samples

Samples from both geological sources and archaeological sites were selected for this study. The geological samples are from dated volcanic phases and comprehend obsidian blocks from pyroclastic deposits and lava flows, or from secondary beds near known or supposed ancient obsidian sources. The archaeological materials, mainly splinters and blades, were from both Salina and Lipari Islands.

2.1.1. Geological Samples

In the present work, 11 geological samples (see Figure 2 for the location of the sampling and Figure 3 for a selection of fragments) have been analyzed; Table 1 summarizes their provenance and eruption age, while further details are given below.
LIP2, LIP3 and LIP3A are all from the Canneto Dentro area, and have never been directly dated before. LIP2 was extracted in agricultural land within a secondary deposit formed after a landslide. This obsidian sample appears black and shiny despite being immersed in soil material. LIP3 was taken from a pyroclastic deposit formed during the Canneto Dentro dome emplacement and appears black in color with a shiny and compact surface. LIP3A has the same origin as LIP3, and it is characterized by a black color, an opaque appearance and a rough surface, as well as by the presence of bubbles and inclusions. These samples should belong to the same eruptive phase as Vallone del Gabellotto–M. Pilato, Epoch 9a of the geological map [6].
LIP4 and LIP5 are both attributed to the Vallone del Gabellotto Formation. The former is composed of four separate fragments collected from the pumice tephra layer and looks greyish and rough, with many bubbles present in the obsidian itself. LIP5 was collected from the bed of a stream at Vallone Fiume Bianco; the sample has a black color and a shiny surface which presents, in some areas, residues of rocky material. LIP6 was collected from a layer of a pumice quarry in the Vallone Fiume Bianco area, and it is characterized by a black color, a shiny and compact appearance and a smooth surface; inside, it has a large number of bubbles and inclusions. LIP7, from the Pomiciazzo lava flow (on the right bank of the Gabellotto gorge), is black, shiny and relatively opaque, with some inclusion visible under the microscope, and surrounded by a different rocky material. LIP13A is a black and shiny obsidian block, with many inclusions, in a pumice tephra layer from the left bank side of the Gabellotto gorge.
LIP12, LIP12A and LIP12B appear to be opaque, black to gray in color and with a very large number of inclusions. These samples come from the Monte Guardia and Monte Giardina flows and have an expected age of 27–24,000 years BP [6].

2.1.2. Archaeological Samples

Nine archaeological samples (see Table 2 for details and Figure 4 for a selection of fragments) were selected among obsidian artefacts from the Neolithic sites of Lipari and Salina [4], held among Lipari Museum materials, such as splinters and blades of different shapes and sizes, used for various types of daily activities. Details of the samples are given in the following.
Sample MU2 consists of eight pieces found in 1953 in Lipari in the Contrada Diana district. All samples have an opaque appearance and a black color with gray areas. They present, depending on the fragment under analysis, a variable bubble and inclusion presence, which made fission-track dating a delicate task.
Sample MU4 consists of two blocks excavated in 1957 in Lipari at the Castellaro site. They appear slightly different from each other: one is opaque and with a black color tending towards grey, while the other is blacker and shiny. Under the microscope, the fragments under analysis have bubbles and inclusions inside them.
Samples MU6 (two fragments), MU7 (four fragments), MU9 (three fragments), MU10 (three fragments), MU12 (five fragments) and MU13 (two fragments) are from the Rinicedda archaeological site on Salina Island excavated in 1989 and 2008. They are all opaque and black, with bubbles and inclusions. Sample MU7 shows the presence, in some areas, of rocky material; MU13 is grayish.
Sample MU14 (three fragments) was recovered from a Neolithic quarry on the Canneto–Acquacalda road. The fragments are black and characterized internally by the presence of bubbles and inclusions.

2.2. Fission-Track Dating

Obsidian, a naturally occurring volcanic glass formed when lava extruded from a volcano cools rapidly with minimal crystal growth, can be dated by means of the fission-track method, which has already proved to be useful for source identification [42,43] and provenance studies [44,45]. In Neolithic times, obsidian was the sharpest known material, and it is thus considered one of the earliest pieces of evidence for commerce conducted over a long distance.
Fission-track dating (FTD) [46,47,48] is based on the detection of the fission products of uranium that create damage trails (fission tracks) within minerals [49,50]. It is a radiometric technique used for both very old materials, such as meteorites, and younger objects, including artifacts from archaeological sites, providing a versatile tool for dating a wide range of samples. In fission-track dating, the fission products are identified as microscopic damage trails or tracks in the crystal lattice rather than as daughter isotopes. 238U undergoes spontaneous fission decay, and it is the only isotope with a decay rate relevant to the significant production of natural fission tracks. As detailed in Section 2.1.1, the density of spontaneous fission tracks in a material increases over time as events accumulate, making it directly proportional to the age of the sample. In general, obsidian is datable by FTD [49,51,52,53], and thus this technique is a tool for reconstructing the chronological framework of Lipari obsidian flows. As collecting and processing obsidian was the main economic resource for the Neolithic population of Lipari, FTD on archaeological findings allows us to correlate obsidian artifacts with natural sources.
The physical bases of FTD rely on the fact that the spontaneous nuclear fission of uranium 238 within minerals creates damage trails, the so-called fission tracks, that can be etched and observed with an optical microscope [54,55,56]: the surface density of fission tracks on a thin chip of material thus represents a measure of the time over which tracks accumulate. Both spontaneous and induced fission tracks are uniformly distributed throughout the entire volume of the material under study, as the uranium that generates them is uniformly distributed. However, the counting is performed on an internal surface obtained by sectioning the material. For this reason, we refer to surface density.
To calculate the fission-track age, it is necessary to measure the amount of uranium present by irradiating the sample with thermal neutrons in a nuclear reactor. This procedure artificially induces fission on uranium 235; the ratio between uranium 238 and uranium 235 fission-track density is used to calculate the age.

2.2.1. Fission-Track Age Equation

The fission-track method is based on the natural radioactive decay of the unstable parent nucleus, uranium 238, into a stable daughter nucleus, the fission fragments. The age equation in its most complete form is given by:
T = 1 λ α l n 1 + λ α λ f σ ϕ η N s N i ,
where:
λα is the decay constant of uranium 238 for alpha decay;
Ns/Ni is the ratio between the number of uranium 238 nuclei per unit volume that decay by means of spontaneous fission and the number of uranium 235 nuclei per unit volume that decay by means of induced fission after neutron irradiation. The ratio can be determined through the ratio of surface densities of fission tracks determined in the non-irradiated and irradiated samples.
For samples younger than 100 million years (Ma), that is, for the vast majority of the studied materials, the approximate form of the age equation is used:
T = ϕ σ λ f η · ρ s ρ i ,
where:
T is the age in years,
ρs is the surface density of fossil tracks,
and ρi is the surface density of induced tracks.
From Equation (2), it can be clearly seen that T is proportional to the surface density of fossil and induced tracks, and thus to the uranium content in the sample, as well as to the thermal neutron dose and a series of constants, namely [57]:
  • Φ is the thermal neutron dose (neutrons/cm2), which can take different values depending on the dosimeter used and the characteristics of the nuclear reactor;
  • σ is the neutron cross-section for the fission of uranium 235; this is not a true constant but is an average associated with the spectrum of thermal neutrons produced in nuclear reactors under standard conditions;
  • λf is the decay constant for the spontaneous fission of uranium 238; this value includes some uncertainty due to the low probability of the event;
  • η is the isotopic ratio of uranium 238 to uranium 235.
The values of the above-described parameters used in the present research are reported in Table 3.
The age Equation (2) is valid if several important assumptions are met [58], i.e., if it is assumed that every single fission event leaves a latent track in the material and that this track remains stable over time; that the system is considered “closed”, meaning there have been no variations in the uranium content of the sample; if the uranium content is assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the material; and if the fission tracks from the spontaneous fission of uranium 238 and the induced fission tracks of uranium 235 are considered equivalent, as they have a negligible difference in energy.
The total error value in the age equation is given by the sum of the errors encountered in the calculation of the individual variables, namely those related to the dose Φ and the ratio ρs/ρi, assuming λ, σ and η as constants.

2.2.2. Experimental Procedure

Samples for FTD require long and laborious preparation, consisting of a series of steps that can be summarized as follows. Firstly, the obsidian block is broken into thin chips, divided into two batches, one of which is irradiated with thermal neutrons. The neutron irradiation took place using the TRIGA MARK II research reactor at the L.E.N.A. laboratory at the University of Pavia. The reactor is fueled with low-enriched 235U and moderated with light demineralized water, with a steady-state power of 250 kW. For the irradiation facility, the rotating sample holder, LS (Lazy Susan), was selected in order to achieve a thermal flux around 1 × 1012 n cm−2 s−1 [59].
After irradiating part of the samples, the chips from both batches are embedded into epoxy resin, so as to obtain resin cylinders that serve as support for the processing. For this purpose, a two-component epoxy resin (Buehler), which polymerizes at room temperature, was used. Grinding and polishing are the last two stages of sample preparation before etching; the chemical treatment, employed to selectively etch the obsidian surface, enlarges the fission tracks and allows a clearer detection through optical microscope observation. The standard conditions for the chemical treatment of obsidian are HF in a 20% aqueous solution at a temperature of 40 °C for 120 s.
At the end of this procedure, it is possible to count the fossil and induced traces and to perform the calculations for age determinations.

3. Results

The results obtained are summarized in Figure 5, which shows the comparison between the dates obtained for the geological samples and the archaeological samples. More details and the discussion of the results are provided in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2.

3.1. Geological Samples

The results obtained for the geological samples analyzed in this work are reported in Table 4.
The most ancient geological samples (LIP12, LIP12A and LIP12B) are in agreement with the volcanism activity in southern Lipari—Epoch 8a dated 27–24,000 years before present [6]. The other samples belong to the Vallone del Gabellotto Formation, whose stratigraphic interval age is still uncertain. The Canneto Dentro tephra, associated with the obsidian dome, is placed in Epoch 8b, recognized as occurring between the older layers of the Upper Brown Tuffs (24–20 ka) and the Vallone del Gabellotto (8.7–8.4 ka) [6,60]. In recent literature, the date 8.6 ka is assumed as the most probable age of the Vallone del Gabellotto Formation that included the Pomiciazzo obsidian lava flow; however, another date was obtained with the fission-track method, 11,400 ± 1800 BP [44], on obsidian samples from Vallone del Gabellotto. The samples LIP4, LIP5 and LIP6 belong to a long period of volcanic activity but concern an area distant from the primary source of the Vallone del Gabellotto, located where the Fiume Bianco torrent digs the tephra layers of pumice belonging to the Vallone del Gabellotto Formation, uncovering the obsidian blocks present in that deposit dating up to 7170 years BP [61].

3.2. Archaeological Samples

Table 5 shows the fission-track datings obtained for the archaeological samples that are clearly related to the obsidian taken from the Vallone del Gabellotto formation. In the most ancient settlements, Castellaro (Lipari) and Rinicedda (Salina), the obsidian was probably collected from two main sources: (1) the bed of the near river Fiume Bianco and (2) the first Vallone del Gabellotto quarry [11]. In the more recent Neolithic settlement, Contrada Diana, the obsidian was collected primarily in the Vallone del Gabellotto area that included the Canneto Dentro source [10,17]. The most ancient dates are reported from samples of the Rinicedda site (MU6, MU12, MU13). We could suppose that this obsidian belongs to a more ancient eruption which is no longer visible. It is possible that the Neolithic community first inhabited Salina Island and then Lipari Island. This hypothesis could agree with the observations made by Buchner in 1949 [62] in the Papesca locality (actually Capo Rosso) where he observed the presence of older lava at the base of the stratigraphy [63].
The MU14 sample was collected in the Neolithic second quarry, discovered by Buchner near the Canneto–Acquacalda road, used during the Diana culture phase. This is the youngest sample among the archaeological ones dated in this work. The fission-track date accorded with the chronology of the Vallone del Gabellotto formation but the sample MU2 from Contrada Diana has a different and older date.
Considering that the C14 dating carried out in the archaeological sites indicates the beginning of the population of the Aeolian Islands in the middle of the VI millennium BC, it is assumed that the period of quiescence of the volcanoes of Lipari had begun. In the Middle Ages, the volcanic activity resumed, modifying the territory of the north-eastern part of the island.
Comparing the dates of geological and archaeological samples, a higher incidence is observed around 10,000 years ago, suggesting the presence of an eruptive phase of the Vallone del Gabellotto formation older than the one dated at 8700–8400 years but not yet identified.

4. Conclusions

After the first outcome of this project, which focuses on the dating of geological and archaeological samples using the fission-track method and is the first of its kind to be proposed, we can summarize our conclusive remarks as follows:
These findings may support the hypothesis that obsidian from Lipari was collected and used in early Neolithic (impressed ware) or even Mesolithic settlements outside Lipari, even before the stable occupation of the Aeolian Islands.
The preliminary results presented in the present paper clearly show the potential of the fission-track dating method for provenance studies, particularly in cases where geochemically similar obsidian sources cannot be distinguished using traditional methods. Moreover, its ability to provide absolute age constraints contributes not only to provenance determination but also to broader archaeological chronologies.
The project “Lipari Obsidian and Neolithic Human Communities in the Aeolian Islands” is currently ongoing, aiming to further investigate and deepen our understanding of these aspects.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C.M., M.C. and A.G.; methodology, M.C.M., M.C., M.M., M.O. and A.G.; investigation, L.B., A.P. and A.G.; data curation, L.B., A.P. and A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.C.M., M.M., L.B. and A.P.; writing—review and editing, M.C.M., M.C., M.M., L.B. and A.G.; supervision, M.C.M., M.C. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Forni, F.; Lucchi, F.; Peccerillo, A.; Tranne, C.A.; Rossi, P.L.; Frezzotti, M.L. Chapter 10 Stratigraphy and Geological Evolution of the Lipari Volcanic Complex (Central Aeolian Archipelago). Geol. Soc. Lond. Mem. 2013, 37, 213–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Martinelli, M.C.; Dawson, H.; Cascio, P.L.; Levi, S.T.; Fiorentino, G. Blowin’ in the Wind: Settlement, Landscape and Network Dynamics in the Prehistory of the Aeolian Islands. J. Mediterr. Archaeol. 2021, 34, 28–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Martinelli, M.C. Isole Vicine. L’arcipelago delle Isole Eolie e le Comunità Umane Nella Preistoria Mediterranea; Ediz. Storia e Studi Sociali: Ragusa, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-88-99168-50-6. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernabò Brea, L.; Cavalier, M. Civiltà Preistoriche Delle Isole Eolie e Del Territorio Di Milazzo. Bull. Paletnol. 1956, 65, 8–98. [Google Scholar]
  5. Martinelli, M.C.; Lo Cascio, P. Topografia Della Preistoria Nelle Isole Eolie. In A Madeleine Cavalier; Bernabò Brea, M., Massimo Cultraro, M., Gras, M., Martinelli, M.C., Pouzaudoux, C., Spigo, U., Eds.; Collection du Centre Jean Berard 49, CNRS: Napoli, Italy, 2018; pp. 65–78. [Google Scholar]
  6. Di Renzoni, A.; Levi, S.; Renzulli, A.; Rosi, M.; Yoon, D. Should I Stay or Should I Go? 6000 Years of Human Presence and Abandonments at Stromboli Volcano and an Overview on the Whole Aeolian Archipelago (Southern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Ann. Geophys. 2021, 64, VO545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Keller, J. Lipari’s Fiery Past: Dating the Medieval Pumice Eruption of Monte Pelato. In Proceedings of the International Conference ‘The Fire Between Air and Water’, Lipari, Italy, 23 September–2 October 2002. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tanguy, J.-C.; Le Goff, M.; Principe, C.; Arrighi, S.; Chillemi, V.; Paiotti, A.; La Delfa, S.; Patanè, G. Archeomagnetic Dating of Mediterranean Volcanics of the Last 2100 Years: Validity and Limits. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2003, 211, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pistolesi, M.; Rosi, M.; Malaguti, A.B.; Lucchi, F.; Tranne, C.A.; Speranza, F.; Albert, P.G.; Smith, V.C.; Di Roberto, A.; Billotta, E. Chrono-Stratigraphy of the Youngest (Last 1500 Years) Rhyolitic Eruptions of Lipari (Aeolian Islands, Southern Italy) and Implications for Distal Tephra Correlations. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2021, 420, 107397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tykot, R.H.; Feund, K.P.; Vianello, A. Source Analysis of Prehistoric Obsidian Artifacts in Sicily (Italy) Using pXRF. In Archaeological Chemistry VIII; ACS Symposium Series; Armitage, R.A., Burton, J.H., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  11. Martinelli, M.C.; Coltelli, M.; Manni, M.; Bonizzoni, L.; Guglielmetti, A.; Oddone, M.; Balestrieri, M.L. Prehistorical Obsidian Sources in the Island of Lipari (Aeolian Islands). Open Archaeol. 2020, 6, 393–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cavalier, M. Ricerche Preistoriche Nell’arcipelago Eoliano. Riv. Sci. Preist. Ist. Ital. Preist. Protostoria Firenze 1979, XXXIV, 45–135. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bernabò Brea, L.; Cavalier, M. Salina. Ricerche Archeologiche (1989–1993). In Meligunis Lipara VIII; Accademia di Scienze Lettere e Arti, Regione Siciliana; Assessorato dei Beni Culturali: Palermo, Italy, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  14. Armetta, F.; Giuffrida, D.; Martinelli, M.C.; Mollica Nardo, V.; Saladino, M.L.; Ponterio, R.C. Non-Invasive Investigation on Pigments of the Aeolian Islands Neolithic Pottery. Mater. Lett. 2023, 336, 133854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cavalier, M.; Brea, L.B.; Luigi, B.B.; Meligunís Lipàra. Vol. 1: La Stazione Preistorica Della Contrada Diana e La Necropoli Protostorica Di Lipari—LibroCo. Available online: https://www.libroco.it/dl/Madeleine-Cavalier-Luigi-BernabA-Brea-Bernabo-Brea-Luigi/Dario-Flaccovio/isbn/Meligunis-Lipara-Vol-1-La-stazione-preistorica-della-contrada-Diana-e-la-necropoli-protostorica-di-Lipari/cw594081988598270.html (accessed on 9 January 2025).
  16. Martinelli, M.C.; Tykot, R.H.; Vianello, A. Lipari (Aeolian Islands) Obsidian in the Late Neolithic. Artifacts, Supply and Function. Open Archaeol. 2019, 5, 46–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tykot, R.H. Geological Sources of Obsidian on Lipari and Artifact Production and Distribution in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Central Mediterranean. Open Archaeol. 2019, 5, 83–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Manni, M.; Coltelli, M.; Martinelli, M.C. Volcanic Events That Have Marked the Anthropic History of the Aeolian Islands. Ann. Geophys. 2019, 62, VO08. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Torrence, R.; Neall, V.; Doelman, T.; Rhodes, E.; McKee, C.; Davies, H.; Bonetti, R.; Guglielmetti, A.; Manzoni, A.; Oddone, M.; et al. Pleistocene Colonisation of the Bismarck Archipelago: New Evidence from West New Britain. Archaeol. Ocean. 2004, 39, 101–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chataigner, C.; Badalian, R.; Bigazzi, G.; Cauvin, M.-C.; Jrbashian, R.; Karapetian, S.G.; Norelli, P.; Oddone, M.; Poidevin, J.-L. Provenance Studies of Obsidian Artefacts from Armenian Archaeological Sites Using the Fission-Track Dating Method. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 2003, 323, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bellot-Gurlet, L.; Dorighel, O.; Poupeau, G. Obsidian Provenance Studies in Colombia and Ecuador: Obsidian Sources Revisited. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2008, 35, 272–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bigazzi, G.; Ercan, T.; Oddone, M.; Özdoḡan, M.; Yeḡingil, Z. Application of Fission Track Dating to Archaeometry: Provenance Studies of Prehistoric Obsidian Artifacts. Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas. 1993, 22, 757–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Summerhayes, G. Obsidian Network Patterns in Melanesia—Sources, Characterization and Distribution. Bull. Indo-Pac. Prehist. Assoc. 2009, 29, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Stewart, S.J.; Cernicchiaro, G.; Scorzelli, R.B.; Poupeau, G.; Acquafredda, P.; De Francesco, A. Magnetic Properties and 57Fe Mössbauer Spectroscopy of Mediterranean Prehistoric Obsidians for Provenance Studies. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 2003, 323, 188–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Golitko, M.; Meierhoff, J.; Terrell, J.E. Chemical Characterization of Sources of Obsidian from the Sepik Coast (PNG). Archaeol. Ocean. 2010, 45, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gratuze, B.; Barrandon, J.N.; Isa, K.A.; Cauvin, M.C. Non-Destructive Analysis of Obsidian Artefacts Using Nuclear Techniques: Investigation of Provenance of Near Eastern Artefacts. Archaeometry 1993, 35, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cann, J.R.; Renfrew, C. The Characterization of Obsidian and Its Application to the Mediterranean Region. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 1964, 30, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Coote, G.E.; Whitehead, N.E.; McCallum, G.J. A Rapid Method of Obsidian Characterisation by Inelastic Scattering of Protons. J. Radioanal. Chem. 1972, 12, 491–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Barca, D.; De Francesco, A.M.; Crisci, G.M. Application of Laser Ablation ICP-MS for Characterization of Obsidian Fragments from Peri-Tyrrhenian Area. J. Cult. Herit. 2007, 8, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Acquafredda, P.; Andriani, T.; Lorenzoni, S.; Zanettin, E. Chemical Characterization of Obsidians from Different Mediterranean Sources by Non-Destructive SEM-EDS Analytical Method. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1999, 26, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bellot-Gurlet, L.; Bourdonnec, F.-X.L.; Poupeau, G.; Dubernet, S. Raman Micro-Spectroscopy of Western Mediterranean Obsidian Glass: One Step towards Provenance Studies? J. Raman Spectrosc. 2004, 35, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chemical Fingerprinting and Source Tracing of Obsidian:  The Central Mediterranean Trade in Black Gold|Accounts of Chemical Research. Available online: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar000208p (accessed on 5 February 2025).
  33. Knight, C.L.F.; Hu, H.; Glascock, M.D.; Nelson, S.A. Obsidian Sub-Sources at the Zaragoza-Oyameles Quarry in Puebla, Mexico: Similarities with Altotonga and Their Distribution Throughout Mesoamerica. Lat. Am. Antiq. 2017, 28, 46–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Acquafredda, P.; Micheletti, F.; Muntoni, I.M.; Pallara, M.; Tykot, R.H. Petroarchaeometric Data on Antiparos Obsidian (Greece) for Provenance Study by SEM-EDS and XRF. Open Archaeol. 2019, 5, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Moutsiou, T. A Compositional Study (pXRF) of Early Holocene Obsidian Assemblages from Cyprus, Eastern Mediterranean. Open Archaeol. 2019, 5, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tykot, R.H. A Decade of Portable (Hand-Held) X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer Analysis of Obsidian in the Mediterranean: Many Advantages and Few Limitations. MRS Adv. 2017, 2, 1769–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Characterization of the Monte Arci (Sardinia) Obsidian Sources—ScienceDirect. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440396901302?via%3Dihub (accessed on 5 February 2025).
  38. Freund, K.P.; Tykot, R.H.; Vianello, A. Blade production and the consumption of obsidian in Stentinello period Neolithic Sicily. Comptes Rendus Palevol 2015, 14, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. High-Precision Non-Destructive X-Ray Fluorescence Method Applicable to Establishing the Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts—Giauque—1993—X-Ray Spectrometry—Wiley Online Library. Available online: https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/xrs.1300220111 (accessed on 5 February 2025).
  40. Bonizzoni, L.; Kulchytska, O.; Ruschioni, G. XRF Semi-Quantitative Analysis and Multivariate Statistics for the Classification of Obsidian Flows in the Mediterranean Area. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 3495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tykot, R.H. Non-Destructive pXRF on Prehistoric Obsidian Artifacts from the Central Mediterranean. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bigazzi, G.; Màrton, P.; Norelli, P.; Rozložnik, L. Fission Track Dating of Carpathian Obsidians and Provenance Identification. Int. J. Radiat. Appl. Instrum. Part D Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas. 1990, 17, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bigazzi, G.; Hadler Neto, J.C.; Iunes, P.J.; Osório Araya, A.M. Fission-Track Dating of South American Natural Glasses: An Overview. Radiat. Meas. 2005, 39, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bigazzi, G.; Bonadonna, F. Fission Track Dating of the Obsidian of Lipari Island (Italy). Nature 1973, 242, 322–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ambrose, S.H. Obsidian Dating and Source Exploitation Studies in Africa: Implications for the Evolution of Human Behavior. In Obsidian and Ancient Manufactured Glasses; University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2012; pp. 56–72. [Google Scholar]
  46. Westgate, J.; Sandhu, A.; Shane, P. Fission-Track Dating. In Chronometric Dating in Archaeology; Taylor, R.E., Aitken, M.J., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 127–158. ISBN 978-1-4757-9694-0. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wagner, G.A. Fission Track Dating of Apatites. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1968, 4, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gleadow, A.J.W. Fission-Track Dating Methods: What Are the Real Alternatives? Nucl. Tracks 1981, 5, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Westgate, J.; Naeser, N.; Alloway, B. Fission-Track Dating. In Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 643–662. [Google Scholar]
  50. Fitzgerald, P.G.; Gleadow, A.J.W. Fission-Track Geochronology, Tectonics and Structure of the Transantarctic Mountains in Northern Victoria Land, Antarctica. Chem. Geol. Isot. Geosci. Sect. 1988, 73, 169–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liritzis, I.; Laskaris, N. Fifty Years of Obsidian Hydration Dating in Archaeology. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 2011, 357, 2011–2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liritzis, I.; Stevenson, C.M. Obsidian and Ancient Manufactured Glasses; UNM Press: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-0-8263-5161-6. [Google Scholar]
  53. Clark, D.L. The Obsidian Dating Method. Curr. Anthropol. 1961, 2, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Price, P.B.; Walker, R.M. Fossil Tracks of Charged Particles in Mica and the Age of Minerals. J. Geophys. Res. 1963, 68, 4847–4862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fleischer, R.L.; Price, P.B. Techniques for Geological Dating of Minerals by Chemical Etching of Fission Fragment Tracks. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1964, 28, 1705–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Price, P.B.; Walker, R.M. Chemical Etching of Charged-Particle Tracks in Solids. J. Appl. Phys. 1962, 33, 3407–3412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hurford, A.J.; Green, P.F. A Users’ Guide to Fission Track Dating Calibration. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 1982, 59, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tagami, T.; O’Sullivan, P.B. Fundamentals of Fission-Track Thermochronology. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2005, 58, 19–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Di Luzio, M.; Oddone, M.; Prata, M.; Alloni, D.; D’Agostino, G. Measurement of the Neutron Flux Parameters f and α at the Pavia TRIGA Mark II Reactor. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 2017, 312, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zanchetta, G.; Sulpizio, R.; Roberts, N.; Cioni, R.; Eastwood, W.J.; Siani, G.; Caron, B.; Paterne, M.; Santacroce, R. Tephrostratigraphy, Chronology and Climatic Events of the Mediterranean Basin during the Holocene: An Overview. Holocene 2011, 21, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bigazzi, G.; Coltelli, M.; Norelli, P. Nuove Età Delle Ossidiane Di Lipari Determinate Con Il Metodo Delle Tracce Di Fissione. In Proceedings of the GeoItalia, Bellaria-Igea Marina, Italy, 18 September 2003. [Google Scholar]
  62. Buchner, G. Ricerche Sui Giacimenti e Sulle Industrie Di Ossidiana in Italia. Riv. Sci. Preist. 1949, IV, 162–186. [Google Scholar]
  63. Martinelli, M.C.; Manni, M. The Prehistoric Obsidian of Lipari: Gabellotto and the so-Called Pomiciazzo Lava Flow (Lipari, Aeolian Islands). In Proceedings of the 6th Conference A. Rittmann, Catania, Italy, 18–20 September 2024. [Google Scholar]
Heritage 08 00069 g001
Figure 1. The Aeolian Islands archipelago.
Figure 1. The Aeolian Islands archipelago.
Heritage 08 00069 g001
Heritage 08 00069 g002
Figure 2. Map of the island of Lipari: the locations where geological samples and Lipari archaeological site samples have been collected are marked in red.
Figure 2. Map of the island of Lipari: the locations where geological samples and Lipari archaeological site samples have been collected are marked in red.
Heritage 08 00069 g002
Heritage 08 00069 g003
Figure 3. From left to right, obsidian fragments from geological samples 12, 12B and 13A, respectively.
Figure 3. From left to right, obsidian fragments from geological samples 12, 12B and 13A, respectively.
Heritage 08 00069 g003
Heritage 08 00069 g004
Figure 4. From left to right, top to bottom: obsidian fragments from archaeological samples MU2, MU4, MU9, MU10, MU12, MU13 and MU14, respectively.
Figure 4. From left to right, top to bottom: obsidian fragments from archaeological samples MU2, MU4, MU9, MU10, MU12, MU13 and MU14, respectively.
Heritage 08 00069 g004
Heritage 08 00069 g005
Figure 5. Graphical summary of the results outlined in Table 3 and Table 4, highlighting the relationship between the ages of obsidian geological samples (blue dots) and archaeological findings (red dots).
Figure 5. Graphical summary of the results outlined in Table 3 and Table 4, highlighting the relationship between the ages of obsidian geological samples (blue dots) and archaeological findings (red dots).
Heritage 08 00069 g005
Table 1. Obsidian geological samples used to characterize possible recruitment sites for Neolithic people.
Table 1. Obsidian geological samples used to characterize possible recruitment sites for Neolithic people.
SampleSampling AreaCoordinates
LIP2Canneto Dentro (at a desalination plant) agricultural soil with obsidian in secondary deposit)38°28′56″ N; 14°57′22″ E
LIP3Canneto Dentro (thepra layer)38°29′1″ N; 14°57′37″ E
LIP3ACanneto Dentro (thepra layer)38°29′1″ N; 14°57′37″ E
LIP4Vallone Fiume Bianco (thepra layer)38°29′44″ N; 14°56′ 2″ E
LIP5Vallone Fiume Bianco (in the river bed)38°29′44″ N; 14°56′2″ E
LIP6Vallone Fiume Bianco (at a modern pumice quarry—thepra layer)38°29′58″ N; 14°55′49″ E
LIP7Vallone Gabellotto (Pomiciazzo lava flow)38°29′42″ N; 14°57′24″ E
LIP12Monte Guardia (by surface collection)38°27′42″ N; 14°56′51″ E
LIP12AMonte Guardia (by surface collection)38°27′37″ N; 14°56′41″ E
LIP12BMonte Guardia (by surface collection)38°27′37″ N; 14°56′41″ E
LIP13AVallone Gabellotto (thepra layer from the right slope of the river)38°29′37″ N; 14°57′29″ E
Table 2. Obsidian archaeological samples from Neolithic archaeological sites.
Table 2. Obsidian archaeological samples from Neolithic archaeological sites.
SampleSampling AreaExcavation Year
MU2Lipari, Contrada Diana, Trench XVII, Square E, Cut 41953
MU4Lipari Castellaro1957
MU6Salina, Rinicedda, Area A, Cuts 2–61989
MU7Salina, Rinicedda, Square L-M 42–44 US 6, Cut 12008
MU9Salina, Rinicedda, Square N43 US 6, Cut 32008
MU10Salina, Rinicedda, Square N44 US 6, Cut 22008
MU12Salina, Rinicedda, Square O44 US 7, Cut 12008
MU13Salina, Rinicedda, Square M45 US 7, Cut 32008
MU14Lipari, Canneto–Acquacalda, neolithic quarry1977
Table 3. Numerical values of the parameters to be used in the age equation.
Table 3. Numerical values of the parameters to be used in the age equation.
Φ1.48 × 1015 n/cm2
σ580.2 barn
λ f 7.03 × 10−17 y−1
η137.88
Table 4. FTD ages obtained for obsidian geological samples used to characterize possible recruitment sites for Neolithic people.
Table 4. FTD ages obtained for obsidian geological samples used to characterize possible recruitment sites for Neolithic people.
SampleSampling AreaStratigraphy Age (y)FTD Age (y)
LIP2Canneto Dentro9000–8000 *9714 ± 5610
LIP3Canneto Dentro9000–800010,587 ± 3747
LIP3ACanneto Dentro9000–80009265 ± 6557
LIP4Vallone Fiume Bianco9000–80009491 ± 1885
LIP5Vallone Fiume Bianco9000–800010,473 ± 6049
LIP6Vallone Fiume Bianco9000–800010,019 ± 4101
LIP7Vallone Gabellotto8700–840010,183 ± 2739
LIP12Monte Guardia27,000–24,00021,306 ± 4778
LIP12AMonte Guardia27,000–24,00025,117 ± 5977
LIP12BMonte Guardia27,000–24,00028,969 ± 8086
LIP13AVallone Gabellotto8700–840011,922 ± 3208
* The age of Canneto Dentro has been assumed from geological studies, but never directly dated until the present work.
Table 5. FTD ages obtained for obsidian archaeological samples from the Lipari and Salina sites.
Table 5. FTD ages obtained for obsidian archaeological samples from the Lipari and Salina sites.
SampleArchaeological SiteExcavation ContextFTD Age (y)
MU2Lipari, Contrada DianaTrench XVII, E (1953)12,276 ± 6148
MU4Lipari Castellaro(1957)8660 ± 6129
MU6Salina, RiniceddaSquare A (1989)11,749 ± 1707
MU7Salina, RiniceddaSquare L-M 42–44 US 6 (2008)10,726 ± 5371
MU9Salina, RiniceddaSquare N43 US6 (2008)13,461 ± 6031
MU10Salina, RiniceddaSquare N44 US6 (2008)10,261 ± 7261
MU12Salina, RiniceddaSquare O44 US7 (2008)13,063 ± 4951
MU13Salina, RiniceddaSquare M45 US7 (2008)14,740 ± 4935
MU14Lipari, Canneto–AcquacaldaSecond quarry (1977)8256 ± 4772
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martinelli, M.C.; Bonizzoni, L.; Coltelli, M.; Manni, M.; Pefano, A.; Oddone, M.; Guglielmetti, A. Fission Track Dating of Obsidian Samples from Lipari Neolithic Settlements. Heritage 2025, 8, 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8020069

AMA Style

Martinelli MC, Bonizzoni L, Coltelli M, Manni M, Pefano A, Oddone M, Guglielmetti A. Fission Track Dating of Obsidian Samples from Lipari Neolithic Settlements. Heritage. 2025; 8(2):69. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8020069

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martinelli, Maria Clara, Letizia Bonizzoni, Mauro Coltelli, Marco Manni, Arianna Pefano, Massimo Oddone, and Alessandra Guglielmetti. 2025. "Fission Track Dating of Obsidian Samples from Lipari Neolithic Settlements" Heritage 8, no. 2: 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8020069

APA Style

Martinelli, M. C., Bonizzoni, L., Coltelli, M., Manni, M., Pefano, A., Oddone, M., & Guglielmetti, A. (2025). Fission Track Dating of Obsidian Samples from Lipari Neolithic Settlements. Heritage, 8(2), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8020069

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop