Individuazione degli errori di scheggiatura nei diversi metodi di débitage del Paleolitico inferiore e medio. Gli esempi di Cà Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo (FC), Guado San Nicola 1 (IS), Riparo Tagliente (VR), Payre e Abri du Maras (Ardéche, Francia).

The understanding of the management of natural resources by prehistoric man through an analysis of stone tools is useful to create parameters for the study of the level of manual dexterity and subsistence strategies in the Paleolithic. The study of knapping errors in experimental and archaeological lithic collections can reveal the presence of beginners or of experienced knappers and offers a comprehensive overview on the various errors associated with different methods of knapping débitage. This is because each lithic collection presents its own techno-typological peculiarities, resulting from various factors, which involve a subdivision of the observable and recognizable characteristics for each technique and method of débitage that was involved. Contextualizing knapping-errors within the reduction sequence is also useful to understand whether the identified errors can or cannot be placed in the variability in which an expert knapper may also incur or whether they are due solely to lack of experience. The analysis of the experimental material also allows classification of errors in relation to their causes and their effects on the manufact. Through a comparison with lithic archaeological collections it is possible to observe the livelihood strategies and the way of explanation of the learning process within human groups. In a broader context, it is possible to understand the internal structure of the paleolithic communities, the division of labor within them and the different spatial localization of the daily activities performed. For a correct analysis focused on the study of knapping errors, a comparison between the archaeological material and experimental material is absolutely necessary. The experimental lithic assemblages are composed by two collections, the first from the Intensive Programme (IP Socrates-Erasmus) held at the CERP (European Centre for Prehistoric Research) of Isernia, the second constituted by lithic artifacts from experimental operations carried out by students of Lithic Technology class which took place at the University of Ferrara. The first step was a classification of knapping errors and the identification of causes and effects of a particular dexterity. Successively, the research focused on the study of records from five archaeological sites, aimed at finding the categories of errors previously recognized by experimentation. The case studies relate to two different contexts of Italian Lower Paleolithic, Ca Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo (FC) (Peretto et al., 1998) and Guado San Nicola 1 (IS) (Arzarello et al., 2009), and three sites of the Middle Paleolithic: Riparo Tagliente (VR) (Bartolomei et al., 1982), Payré (Moncel et al. 2002) and Abri du Maras (Moncel, 1996), the latter two being located in Ardéche, France. By comparison of lithic archaeological sites with experimental collections, it was observed that it is possible to find the same errors on experimentally reproduced artifacts and archaeological products. This lead us to understand not only that the raw material responds always in the same way to a certain gesture, but also that a particular gesture is an obligatory step in the learning process. This aspect has been proven true also in diachronic contexts, because there is no difference between the type of error identified, and the age of lithic assemblages. Indeed, the examined sites cover a range of 900 thousand years, but errors due to a particular gesture affect in the same way a product of the Lower Paleolithic of Ca’ Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo and an artifact of the Middle Paleolithic of Riparo Tagliente. It has proved difficult but not impossible, to make a clear distinction between a possible group of beginners from expert flint-knappers in the archaeological records, especially for the older sites like Monte Poggiolo and Guado San Nicola. On the other hand, It has been possible to identify the type of dexterity we were dealing with. The important result of this work is the interpretation of errors in the knapping, not only to classify the causes and effects, but especially to relate to a specific dexterity, whether it identifies a beginner or not. In conclusion, the identification of errors in knapping in archaeological contexts, allows to define not only the presence of beginning knappers in a site, but also to set the level of learning and the skill of a prehistoric group

Pirro Nord: the first paleoproject of Europe

none1noneC. BuonsantoBuonsanto, Cecili

Individuazione degli errori di scheggiatura nei diversi metodi di débitage del Paleolitico inferiore e medio. Gli esempi di Cà Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo (FC), Guado San Nicola 1 (IS), Riparo Tagliente (VR), Payre e Abri du Maras (Ardéche, Francia).

The understanding of the management of natural resources by prehistoric man through an analysis of stone tools is useful to create parameters for the study of the level of manual dexterity and subsistence strategies in the Paleolithic. The study of knapping errors in experimental and archaeological lithic collections can reveal the presence of beginners or of experienced knappers and offers a comprehensive overview on the various errors associated with different methods of knapping débitage. This is because each lithic collection presents its own techno-typological peculiarities, resulting from various factors, which involve a subdivision of the observable and recognizable characteristics for each technique and method of débitage that was involved. Contextualizing knapping-errors within the reduction sequence is also useful to understand whether the identified errors can or cannot be placed in the variability in which an expert knapper may also incur or whether they are due solely to lack of experience. The analysis of the experimental material also allows classification of errors in relation to their causes and their effects on the manufact. Through a comparison with lithic archaeological collections it is possible to observe the livelihood strategies and the way of explanation of the learning process within human groups. In a broader context, it is possible to understand the internal structure of the paleolithic communities, the division of labor within them and the different spatial localization of the daily activities performed. For a correct analysis focused on the study of knapping errors, a comparison between the archaeological material and experimental material is absolutely necessary. The experimental lithic assemblages are composed by two collections, the first from the Intensive Programme (IP Socrates-Erasmus) held at the CERP (European Centre for Prehistoric Research) of Isernia, the second constituted by lithic artifacts from experimental operations carried out by students of Lithic Technology class which took place at the University of Ferrara. The first step was a classification of knapping errors and the identification of causes and effects of a particular dexterity. Successively, the research focused on the study of records from five archaeological sites, aimed at finding the categories of errors previously recognized by experimentation. The case studies relate to two different contexts of Italian Lower Paleolithic, Ca Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo (FC) (Peretto et al., 1998) and Guado San Nicola 1 (IS) (Arzarello et al., 2009), and three sites of the Middle Paleolithic: Riparo Tagliente (VR) (Bartolomei et al., 1982), Payré (Moncel et al. 2002) and Abri du Maras (Moncel, 1996), the latter two being located in Ardéche, France. By comparison of lithic archaeological sites with experimental collections, it was observed that it is possible to find the same errors on experimentally reproduced artifacts and archaeological products. This lead us to understand not only that the raw material responds always in the same way to a certain gesture, but also that a particular gesture is an obligatory step in the learning process. This aspect has been proven true also in diachronic contexts, because there is no difference between the type of error identified, and the age of lithic assemblages. Indeed, the examined sites cover a range of 900 thousand years, but errors due to a particular gesture affect in the same way a product of the Lower Paleolithic of Ca’ Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo and an artifact of the Middle Paleolithic of Riparo Tagliente. It has proved difficult but not impossible, to make a clear distinction between a possible group of beginners from expert flint-knappers in the archaeological records, especially for the older sites like Monte Poggiolo and Guado San Nicola. On the other hand, It has been possible to identify the type of dexterity we were dealing with. The important result of this work is the interpretation of errors in the knapping, not only to classify the causes and effects, but especially to relate to a specific dexterity, whether it identifies a beginner or not. In conclusion, the identification of errors in knapping in archaeological contexts, allows to define not only the presence of beginning knappers in a site, but also to set the level of learning and the skill of a prehistoric group

The flintknapping errors at the service of learning

The flintknapping mistakes is helpful for recognizing beginners flintknappers and, through the stigmata on the stone-tools, the peculiarities of the theoretical and practical knowledge, of the manuality skill ("knowledge and know-how” Harlacker 2006 ), of savoir-faire, which fit into the broader framework of the flintknapping learning process. The presence of mistakes in an archaeological record allows to recognize the presence of beginners flintknappers in a prehistoric site; hence the need to distinguish between error and accident. An accident is something unexpected, that produces a different morphology precluding the stone-tool functionality (Baena, 1998) and that implies a chance that can happen to a skilled person in the act of doing what it can do. The error term is used instead to highlight a feature found in the different phases of the learning process and therefore attributable to a beginner flintknapper (Shelley, 1990): thus, the error is due to inexperience and incompetence and it happens to those who lack the skills to perform a particular action doing it in a wrong way. The distinction between accident and error allows to understand the causes related to the various mistakes recognized in a lithic assemblage also on the grounds of the comparison between archaeological and experimental material. The two case studies, Ca 'Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo (FC) (Peretto et al., 1998) and Guado San Nicola 1 (IS) (Arzarello et al., 2009), allow to individualize peculiar errors for the different débitage methods, since they are two different contexts of the Lower Paleolithic

Characterization of human knapping behaviors: an experimental approach for the recognition of knapping errors and novice flint-knappers.

The branch of experimental archaeology focused on the recognition of knapping mistakes and marks, on the basis of the débitage products achieved either by beginners or experts knappers, nowadays can rely on a noteworthy bibliography. In the present study the author presents the results of a comparative analysis carried out taking into account, on the one hand, the experimental material obtained by beginner flintknappers and, on the other, two archaeological samples: Ca 'Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo (FC) (Peretto et al., 1998) and Guado San Nicola 1 (IS) (Arzarello et al., 2009), which allow to individualize peculiar errors for the different débitage methods, since they are two different contexts of the Lower Paleolithic. On the basis of some common features recognized and highlighted by the comparative approach adopted, is possible to isolate a series of knapping mistakes among the Paleolithic assemblage analyzed, also making a distinguish between between error and accident. An accident is something unexpected, that produces a different morphology precluding the stone-tool functionality (Baena, 1998) and that implies a chance that can happen to a skilled person in the act of doing what it can do. The error term is used instead to highlight a feature found in the different phases of the learning process and therefore attributable to a beginner flintknapper (Shelley, 1990): thus, the error is due to inexperience and incompetence and it happens to those who lack the skills to perform a particular action doing it in a wrong way. In this way is possible to recognize beginners flintknappers and, through the stigmata on the stone-tools, the peculiarities of the theoretical and practical knowledge, of the manuality skill ("knowledge and know-how” Harlacker 2006), of savoir-faire, which fit into the broader framework of the flintknapping learning process

INTERNATIONAL ERASMUS MUNDUS MASTER QUATERNARY AND PREHISTORY. MASTER THESES 2006/2007

none3noneC. Buonsanto; M. Arzarello; C. PerettoBuonsanto, Cecilia; Arzarello, Marta; Peretto, Carl

Characterization of human knapping behaviors: an experimental approach for the recognition of knapping errors and novice flint-knappers.

The branch of experimental archaeology focused on the recognition of knapping mistakes and marks, on the basis of the débitage products achieved either by beginners or experts knappers, nowadays can rely on a noteworthy bibliography. In the present study the author presents the results of a comparative analysis carried out taking into account, on the one hand, the experimental material obtained by beginner flintknappers and, on the other, two archaeological samples: Ca 'Belvedere di Monte Poggiolo (FC) (Peretto et al., 1998) and Guado San Nicola 1 (IS) (Arzarello et al., 2009), which allow to individualize peculiar errors for the different débitage methods, since they are two different contexts of the Lower Paleolithic. On the basis of some common features recognized and highlighted by the comparative approach adopted, is possible to isolate a series of knapping mistakes among the Paleolithic assemblage analyzed, also making a distinguish between between error and accident. An accident is something unexpected, that produces a different morphology precluding the stone-tool functionality (Baena, 1998) and that implies a chance that can happen to a skilled person in the act of doing what it can do. The error term is used instead to highlight a feature found in the different phases of the learning process and therefore attributable to a beginner flintknapper (Shelley, 1990): thus, the error is due to inexperience and incompetence and it happens to those who lack the skills to perform a particular action doing it in a wrong way. In this way is possible to recognize beginners flintknappers and, through the stigmata on the stone-tools, the peculiarities of the theoretical and practical knowledge, of the manuality skill ("knowledge and know-how” Harlacker 2006), of savoir-faire, which fit into the broader framework of the flintknapping learning process

Global Quality Cultural Heritage Management

none3noneC. Buonsanto; L. Oosterbeek; M. QuaglioloBuonsanto, Cecilia; L., Oosterbeek; M., Quagliol