Ground stone tool production and use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic: The evidence from Riparo...

Ground stone tool production and use in theLate Upper Palaeolithic: The evidence fromRiparo Dalmeri (Venetian Prealps, Italy)

Emanuela Cristiani1, Cristina Lemorini2 and Giampaolo Dalmeri3

1McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, U.K., 2La Sapienza, University ofRome, Rome, Italy, 3Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Trento, Italy

The site of Riparo Dalmeri yielded numerous flint, bone, and shell artifacts, as well as faunal and botanicalremains, which are evidence of the Late Upper Palaeolithic (or Late Epigravettian culture, ca. 16,000–12,000 CAL B.P.) occupation of the Alps region. The importance of the site is related to the discovery of 267stones painted with anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and geometric designs. Here we report on groundstone tools from Riparo Dalmeri investigated by means of an integrated technofunctional and experimentalapproach to reconstruct their production and use. The results support the hypothesis that the ground stoneartifacts were employed in specialized activities (e.g., hide treatment, flintknapping) as well as in theproduction of some of the painted stone artifacts.

Keywords: Riparo Dalmeri, ground stone tools, use wear analysis, Late Upper Palaeolithic, Late Epigravettian, painted stones

IntroductionRecent results from use wear and residue analyses

demonstrate that ground stone tools can be used to

address questions about subsistence strategies and for

reconstructing functional choices made by Palaeo-

lithic groups. For instance, use wear along with

microbotanical residues have been found on ground

stone tools worldwide suggesting that humans began

processing vegetal resources using stone pounding

and grinding implements at least 30,000 years ago at

the sites of Cuddie Springs in Australia (Fullagar and

Field 1997), Bilancino II, Italy (Revedin et al. 2010),

Kostenki 16-Uglyanka, Russia (Holliday et al. 2007),

and Pavlov VI, Czech Republic (Svoboda et al. 2009).

Somewhat later, in the Levant, intensified plant

processing—especially of legumes and cereals—is

related to the use of flat-surfaced grinding implements,

as demonstrated at preagricultural Natufian sites

(Dubreuil 2004, 2008) by means of use wear analysis

and starch residues on grinding stones (Piperno et al.

2004). In Italy, the use of ground stone tools during the

Upper Palaeolithic has been documented, even if it is

not well understood. Apart from an isolated early

example from the open-air site of Bilancino II in

Tuscany (Aranguren et al. 2008; Revedin et al. 2010),

which is dated to the Gravettian culture (Upper

Palaeolithic, ca. 29,000–20,000 CAL B.P.), ground

stone tools are known only from the Late

Epigravettian (Upper Palaeolithic, ca. 16,000–12,000

CAL B.P.). These artifacts are made out of stone pebbles

and slabs and were found at different sites located in

river valleys, as well as on the mid-altitude plateau on

the southern margins of the Alps, such as at Riparo

Tagliente (250 masl in Valpantena, Lessini Mountains)

(F. Fontana, personal communication 2010), Bus de la

Lum (1070 masl on the Cansiglio Plateau) (Peresani

2004), Andalo (1039 masl) (Bagolini and Dalmeri 1983;

Guerreschi 1984), and Viotte and Terlago (1560 and

448 masl, respectively, both in the basin of the Sarca

River) (Bagolini and Guerreschi 1978; Bagolini and

Dalmeri 1983; Dalmeri 1993; Cristiani and Dalmeri

2011). With the exception of the tools from Bus de la

Lum (Peresani 2004: 91–94), all of the tools await

detailed analyses. In Liguria, ochre-stained grinding

stones have also been found in association with Late

Epigravettian funerary contexts at the Arene Candide

necropolis (Cardini 1980; Formicola et al. 2005).

Here we present the results of technofunctional and

use wear analyses of ground stone objects found at

Riparo Dalmeri, an important Epigravettian site

in the Alps. In order to interpret the function of

these artifacts, an experimental protocol used replicas

of the archaeological objects. Below we describe the

regional and archaeological context of the examined

ground stone implements, our methods, and experi-

mental protocol. Finally, we present the results of use

wear analysis of archaeological specimens and discuss

these results in the context of the functional characte-

rization of the site as well as the symbolic activities

Corresponding author: Emanuela Cristiani, McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Downing Street,Cambridge, CB2 3ER (U.K.). Email: [email protected]

34� Trustees of Boston University 2012DOI 10.1179/0093469011Z.0000000003 Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL. 37 NO. 1

that took place during the first occupational phase as

suggested by the discovery of 267 red painted stones.

We conclude that while most of the ground stone

artifacts were used in quotidian activities such as hide

processing and flintknapping, some artifacts could

have been involved in the preparation/maintenance of

the red painted stones.

Late Pleistocene Adaptations in the AlpsThe end of the Pleistocene was a crucial moment

in the prehistory of northern Italy, which wit-

nessed the first human reoccupation of the Alps

triggered by favorable environmental conditions

after the Last Glacial Maximum (between 25,000

and 18,000 CAL B.P.), (Ravazzi 2003) due to the

retreat of the Wurm glaciers. By the Oldest Dryas

(16,500 CAL B.P.) Late Epigravettian groups were

already present in the valley bottoms of the

southern Alps (e.g., at Riparo Tagliente) (Bisi

et al. 1983; Bartolomei et al. 1985; Fontana et al.

2002), and humans reached middle altitudes by the

Allerød late glacial interstadial (13,450 CAL B.P.) as

documented at Riparo Dalmeri on the Asiago-

Sette Comuni Plateau (Dalmeri et al. 2002).

Marked diversification in site function and settle-

ment patterns are fundamental traits in the

Alps during the Pleistocene. In particular, Late

Epigravettian groups established semipermanent

occupations on valley floors, characterized by the

functional articulation of settlement spaces (e.g.,

with the presence of workshops for flintknapping,

dwelling structures, butchering areas, etc.) and

mid-altitude seasonal camps where specialized

tasks such as hunting ungulates from the Alpine

prairie (mostly Capra ibex), meat processing, and

hide and flintworking were carried out (Bertola

et al. 2007).

Riparo Dalmeri: An Epigravettian Site in theSouthern DolomitesAmong the mid-altitude Late Epigravettian occupa-

tions of the southern Alps, Riparo Dalmeri on the

Asiago-Sette Comuni Plateau (FIGS. 1, 2A–B) has played

a key role in revealing the socioeconomic dynamics of

settlements and resource exploitation, owing to good

preservation of different aspects of the archaeological

record: dwelling structures, animal bones, knapped

stone tools, bone tool industries, ground stone artifacts,

ornaments, human remains, and specialized functional

spaces for flintworking, butchering activities, and waste.

Furthermore, Riparo Dalmeri has provided evidence of

symbolic activities in the form of 267 stones painted

in red that have zoomorphic, anthropomorphic, and

geometric motifs (Dalmeri et al. 2002; Dalmeri et al.

2005, 2006; Dalmeri et al. 2009).

The site overlooks the head of a small periglacial

valley, a tributary of the deep canyon of the

Valsugana (Trentino), crossed by the Brenta River

at about 1240 masl. The anthropogenic deposits have

been radiocarbon dated to the Late Upper Palaeo-

lithic (Late Epigravettian culture). Thus, Riparo

Dalmeri is ideally situated for understanding moun-

tain exploitation by human groups during this period.

Since 1991, stratigraphic excavations have revealed

a series of anthropogenic levels related to the Late

Epigravettian (FIG. 3). Among the layers, two princi-

pal dwelling phases have been identified. These early

Figure 1 Map showing the Riparo Dalmeri site.

Figure 2 A) Riparo Dalmeri; B) The excavation area.

Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy

Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL. 37 NO. 1 35

phases are defined by three dates that range from

13,400 to 12,900 CAL B.P. (Dalmeri et al. 2005)

(TABLE 1). The first layers (FIG. 3: U.S. 65 and U.S.

15a) represent the earliest human occupation of the

site, characterized by the presence of hearths, a

dwelling structure, and rich cultural components such

as a lithic industry and faunal and charcoal remains.

A total of 267 stones painted with red ochre are

associated with this earliest phase of occupation.

Another interesting discovery made just outside of

Figure 3 Stratigraphy of Riparo Dalmeri. Copyright by Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali (Trento). U.S.5stratigraphic unit.

On the upper right is a plan view of the excavated area with the location of the dwelling; the grid interval is 1 sq m.

Table 1 Radiocarbon dates for Riparo Dalmeri were obtained from the following laboratories: UtC (Faculteit der Natur -en Sterrenkunde, University of Utrecht, Holland); Rome (Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, University of Rome, Italy);and KI, KIA (Leibniz Labor, University of Kiel, Germany). Dates were calibrated using the OxCal v.3.10 software program(Bronk Ramsey 1995).

Layer Laboratory number Age B.P. CAL B.P. 2s range Material dated

U.S. 26b UtC-6777 11,100¡60 13,130–12,900 CharcoalU.S. 14 KI-3634 11,260¡100 13,310–12,940 CharcoalU.S. 26e Rome-657 11,250¡100 13,300–12,940 CharcoalU.S. 26d KIA-20345 11,340¡45 13,300–13,120 CharcoalU.S. 65 KIA-20341 11,450¡50 13,410–13,210 CharcoalU.S. 51 UtC-5040 11,550¡70 13,590–13,250 Charcoal


36 Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL. 37 NO. 1

the rockshelter involves two pits that were filled with

ibex horn cores and sealed with one of the painted

stones. The second series of anthropogenic horizons—

dwelling surfaces U.S. 26c and U.S. 26b—contain

unambiguous hearths and a subcircular feature inter-

preted as a hut (FIG. 3: feature appears in plan view).

These layers were also associated with a lithic industry,

bone tools, and faunal remains. No painted stones

were recovered from these stratigraphically later units.

The chronological placement of level U.S. 26b, radio-

carbon dated to 13,130–12,900 CAL B.P. (TABLE 1), is

consistent with the technological and typological

features of the lithic industry typical of the Late

Epigravettian. The calibrated dates from these strati-

graphically separated horizons are statistically indis-

tinguishable and may suggest a brief period of

occupation before final abandonment of the site.

Paleoenvironmental reconstruction in the vicinity of

the site indicates an open alpine prairie where some

wooded areas of pines and larches were beginning to

develop (Broglio and Dalmeri 2005; Bertola et al. 2007).

Faunal analysis suggests that the shelter was exploited

for hunting ibex (Capra ibex), which represents about

90% of the identifiable faunal remains, during summer

and autumn (Cassoli et al. 1999). Other animals such as

deer, roebuck and chamois, and more sporadically bear

and badger, were also hunted and butchered (Cassoli

et al. 1999; Albertini and Tagliacozzo 2004; Fiore and

Tagliacozzo 2005). The ibex remains, including those

with butchering marks, along with percussion flakes

indicate that the carcasses were processed inside the

shelter, which was periodically cleaned of the largest

fragments. The faunal analysis also underscore the

importance of bird hunting (Fiore and Tagliacozzo

2005) and fishing of barbel and chub, and less frequently

trout, grayling, and pike (Albertini and Tagliacozzo

2004). These data suggest that the Riparo Dalmeri

hunters exploited the alpine prairies of the plateau at

1200–1350 masl and the conifer forests at slightly lower

elevations, in addition to the valley bottom with the

Brenta River at about 200 masl. The technological and

typological features of the lithic and bone tools

(TABLE 2) are similar to other lithic assemblages from

Epigravettian sites in northern Italy dated to the Bølling

and Allerød temperate interstadials (Montoya 2008).

The use wear analysis carried out on both flint and bone

tools revealed that Riparo Dalmeri was used primarily

as a place for hunting, butchering, and hide treatment

(Lemorini et al. 2006; Cristiani 2008, 2009).

The Painted Stones from Riparo DalmeriThe discovery of a large number of red ochre-painted

stones substantiated the view that Epigravettian art

and symbolic behavior are more complex than

previously imagined (Dalmeri et al. 2005, 2006;

Dalmeri et al. 2009). The majority come from the

earliest levels of occupation (FIGS. 3–4: U.S. 65), with

others abandoned in the inner part of the shelter on

Table 2 Technological and typological features of lithic and bone tool industries from Riparo Dalmeri.

Raw material Technology Typology

Lithic industry(after Cusinato 1999; Montoya 2008) Biancone flint Dwelling Phase I Backed points

Scaglia rossa(pink limestone)

Two distinct operationalsequences for theproduction of:

Backed and truncatedbladelets

- bladelets Scrapers- blades/laminar flakes BurinsUnipolar debitage ofsmall cores or slabs withsingle (rarely double)percussion plane

Retouched blades

Dwelling Phase II Backed knives

Single operational sequencefor the production of:

Becs

- bladelets/big bladelets Retouched flakes

- blades Notched toolsUnipolar debitage of smallcores or slabs with single(rarely double) percussionplane

Bone tool industry Bones Dwelling Phases I/II Curated double points(metapodial/longbones from Cervuselaphus and Capra ibex)

Two distinct operationalsequences for theproduction of:

Curated tapered points

Antler - formal/curated tools Spatulas(Cervus elaphus) - expedient tools Chisels

- indirect percussion Expedient points- double longitudinal engraving Expedient awls on flakesExpedient use of butchering flakes Expedient scrapers on flakes



Figure 4 Plan view of the distribution of painted stones. Dashed line indicates the ritual area.



top of a cryoclastic breccia (U.S. 15a). The spatial

distribution of the stones indicates that a fan-shaped

area of ca. 30 sq m and more than 4 m wide oriented

east-west towards the rock wall was reserved for

ritual activities (FIG. 4: indicated by dashed line).

Most of the stones were found with the decorated

side facing down and were often in small piles

(Dalmeri et al. 2009). This distribution suggests the

intentional concealment of the painted images.

Twenty-four stones feature painted symbols such as

simple ochre marks and clearly outlined dots as

well as more complex painted motifs of ‘‘branches’’

or ‘‘crosses,’’ applied to the upward-facing sides

(Dalmeri et al. 2009).

The restoration of the painted stones revealed

zoomorphic and anthropomorphic motifs, hands,

signs, red color spots associated with linear engrav-

ings, bas-relief color, uniform color related to one or

more surfaces, and composite figures on both sides

of the stones. The paintings were applied to oolitic

limestone selected from the accumulation of rocks

that collapsed from the cave ceiling before the

human occupation of the shelter (FIGS. 3–4: U.S.

15a). A chemical analysis of the red pigment was

conducted by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and Fourier

transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). The latter

technique revealed the use of hematite and, on four

stones, an organic component in the pictorial film

interpreted as beeswax, probably used as a binder

for some paintings (Rosano and Pellizzaro 2005). As

for the procurement and processing of the red

pigment, archaeometric analysis (XRF, FTIR, scan-

ning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive x-ray

spectroscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and

Raman spectroscopy) indicates that the hematite-

based pigments were produced by the alteration

of goethite nodules (Gialanella et al. 2011). Geolo-

gical prospecting in a 450 sq km area around the site

revealed that these minerals are very common in the

surrounding landscape. Some of the goethite nodules

from the anthropogenic layers of Riparo Dalmeri

display traces of friction and crushing (Bertola

2008).

The majority of the paintings were applied to flat

surfaces although convex and concave surfaces were

also used (19.6% and 17.2%, respectively, of the total

painted stones) (Dalmeri et al. 2009). The dimen-

sional analyses indicated that standardized sizes of

limestone slabs were selected for the principal

pictorial categories and that bigger stones were used

for the zoomorphic and geometric figures (Dalmeri

et al. 2009). The limestone slabs were not modified

before painting, although some large stones (e.g., the

anthropomorphic figure in FIG. 5) (Dalmeri et al.

2005) were shaped along their edges and formed by

scraping and abrasion on their flat surfaces before

being painted (Dalmeri and Neri 2008). The stone

decorated with bas-relief color was also modified on

its surfaces, and was selected for the technofunctional

analysis described below.

The extraordinary number of painted stones from

Riparo Dalmeri represents an unusual discovery,

with few comparanda in Italy or elsewhere. In fact,

painted stones of this type are rarely found in such

concentrations in stratigraphic contexts (but see

Bosinski 1990; Clottes 1999). In the same general

region as Riparo Dalmeri, only the Epigravettian

hunters who settled in Riparo Villabruna (Val

Cismon) created painted stones that show stylistic

affinity with the artifacts from Riparo Dalmeri

(Bertola et al. 2007; Broglio and Dalmeri 2005).

The Ground Stone ToolsThe ground stone industry from Riparo Dalmeri is

composed of 12 tools (FIG. 6). The majority (eight)

come from the earliest human occupations of the site

(Phase I: U.S. 15, 26c-d, 26d, 65, 97, and 100)

whereas the other four come from the later levels

(Phase II: U.S. 1, 12, and 23) (TABLE 3). The single

painted stone selected for technofunctional analysis

was recovered from the earliest levels along with all of

the other painted stones discovered at Riparo

Dalmeri. The distribution of the ground stone tools

is consistent with the spatial distribution of the

painted stones during the earliest phase of occupation

(FIG. 7: areas indicated by dashed line). The ground

stones are made from locally available sedimentary

rocks: limestone, unspecified greenish stones, and

siltstone. The rocks have a uniform texture and fine

Figure 5 Red painted stone with anthropomorphic motif.

The white arrows show the retouch to shape the stone.



grain size (limestone) or a slightly coarse grain size

(limestone, greenish rock, siltstone). The ground

stone tools are defined by shape and include one

oval handstone, three rectangular handstones,

one slab, three hammerstones, one hammerstone/

slab, one clepsydra-shaped tool (i.e., a cylinder

Figure 6 Ground stone tools and bas-relief artwork from Riparo Dalmeri (see table 3 for description).



Figure 7 Distributions of ground stone tools and painted stones.



characterized by a narrowing in the central part), one

polisher, and one rectangular fragment of limestone

with a surface painted with stripes of ochre (FIG. 6;

TABLE 3). Raw material, consisting of pebbles and

fragments of rock, was intentionally selected from the

debris inside the shelter and/or brought to the site for

specific uses that related to flintknapping, hide

processing, and artistic depictions.

MethodsThe technofunctional study of the ground stone tools

from Riparo Dalmeri was aimed at identifying the

production sequences and functions of these artifacts

by analyzing traces of use. This method is commonly

applied to the study of knapped stone industries. Its

application to other archaeological materials—i.e.,

polished tools or grinding slabs, grinders, pestles,

Table 3 Ground stone tools from Riparo Dalmeri: use wear and inferred function. (T)5Technological manufacturingtraces; (U)5Use wear.

Item Phase TypeLength(mm)

Width(mm)

Thickness(mm)

Rawmaterial

State ofpreservation

Adhesivewear Fatigue wear

1 I Hammerstone 87 51 35 Limestone Alterated _ Pits (U)2 I Hammerstone 62 98 31 Limestone Preserved _ Edge removals

(U)/pits (U)3 I Hammerstone 92 73 24 Limestone Preserved _ Edge removals (U)4 I Hammerstone/slab 86 82 19 Siltstone Preserved _ Edge removals/few

pits5 II Oval handstone 123 48 13 Limestone Slightly

altered_ _

6 I Rectangularhandstone

33 36 11 Greenishstone

Altered _ _

7 I Rectangularhandstone

83 41 11 Siltstone Altered _ _

8 II Rectangularhandstone

115 36 10 Siltstone Altered _ _

9 II Polisher 59 49 47 Limestone Preserved Ochre _

10 II Clepsydra tool 43 23 19 Siltstone Altered _ Weak pits (T)

11 I Slab 83 116 48 Limestone Preserved Ochre Edge removals(T)/pits (U)

12 I Rectangular itemwith ochre stripes

90 37 63 Limestone Slightlyaltered

Ochre Pits (T)

Table 4 Ad hoc replicas of the ground stone tools from Riparo Dalmeri. (T)5Technological traces; (U)5Use wear.

Experimentalnumber

Rawmaterial Technology Type Grip Action Material

Adhesivewear

804 Siltstone Abrasion Polisher Hand Leveling Limestone –804a Siltstone Abrasion Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tanned hide –805 Siltstone Abrasion (sandstone

and ochre)Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tanned hide

with ochreOchre

805a Siltstone Unmodified Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tannedhidewith ochre

–

805b Siltstone Abrasion (sandstone) Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tanned hide –

806 Siltstone Abrasion (sandstone) Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tanned hidewith ochre

Ochre

810 Greenish stone Unmodified Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tanned hide –

810a Greenish stone Unmodified Polisher Hand Leveling Limestone –

810b Greenish stone Abrasion (sandstone) Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tanned hide –

811 Limestone No Slab Hand Cutting with flintflake on slab

Dry-tanned hide Ochre

812 Limestone Engraving with lithictool using directpercussion

Seal Hand Stamping ochredrawing

Dry-tanned hide Ochre

813 Limestone Engraving with lithictool using indirectpercussion

Artwork Hand Painting ochrestripes

Limestone Ochre

816 Limestone Engraving with lithictool using directpercussion

Artwork Hand Painting ochrestripes

Limestone Ochre



etc.—is rare, although studies that demonstrate the

potential for use wear analyses of other classes of

implements are increasing (e.g., Adams et al. 2009;

Delgado Raak and Risch 2008; Dubreuil 2004, 2008;

Hamon 2008; Hamon and Plisson 2008; Procopiou

et al. 2002). Scholars who study ground stone

implements through technological and use wear

approaches have focused mainly on plant processing.

Nevertheless, ground stone tools are used for a

variety of purposes that may be identified through

technofunctional analysis, which can reveal pre-

viously unrealized behaviors of prehistoric commu-

nities (e.g., Dubreuil 2004; Dubreuil and Grosman

2009).

The theoretical framework for the analysis of

ground stone tools from Riparo Dalmeri was

established by Adams and colleagues (2009). Their

analytical approach was focused on interpreting the

mechanisms that lay behind the formation of use

wear on unknapped stone tools. In particular, they

defined four categories of surface wear borrowed

from tribology (a branch of mechanical engineering

that studies interactive surfaces in relative motion):

adhesive wear (leaving residues), fatigue wear (con-

choidal fractures or edge removals), abrasive wear

(leaving leveling or rounding of edge grains and

striations), and tribochemical wear (leaving polishes).

Using these categories, we were able to infer both

technological and functional characteristics of the

ground stone implements. In addition, we used a

reference collection of use wear on experimentally

manufactured ground stone to interpret the archae-

ological artifacts. Our analytical procedure was to

first observe experimental and archaeological use

wear with the naked eye, and then to conduct a low-

power analysis (Rots 2010: 29) using a Nikon SMZ

stereomicroscope (objective 0.5x; oculars 10x; mag-

nification range 0.75x–7.5x) equipped with optical

light fibers.

Experimental ActivityThe reference collection used for the interpretation of

the archaeological ground stone tools was composed

of experimentally manufactured artifacts produced

and used for a wide range of activities in addition to

artifacts created ad hoc for the study of ground stone

from Riparo Dalmeri. A series of 13 experiments

(TABLE 4) was performed using unmodified local

stones (e.g., siltstone, limestone) collected in the

vicinity of the site. In order to create the experimental

program, we assumed that hunting, carcass and meat

processing, hide tanning, and rock paintings were the

main activities carried out at the site, as indicated by

functional analyses of flint and bone artifacts

(Lemorini et al. 2006; Cristiani 2008, 2009, 2010;

Gurioli 2008) as well as by the faunal data (Cassoli

et al. 1999; Albertini and Tagliacozzo 2004; Fiore and

Tagliacozzo 2005) and the study of ochre-painted

stones (Dalmeri et al. 2005; Dalmeri et al. 2009).

Experimental ground stone artifacts were employed

in activities including flintknapping and core abra-

sion, softening hides, dyeing leather with ochre,

shaping limestone surfaces, and crushing nodules

rich in iron oxides (e.g., hematite). The last two

activities were selected because the majority of the

ground stone objects were recovered from the earliest

Abrasive wear Inferred function Figure

Striations (U) Hammerstone 6AStriations (U) Hammerstone 6B

_ Hammerstone 6C_ Hammerstone/

occasional slab6D

Weak striations (U)/edgerounding (U)

Hide polisher 6E

Striations (T)/leveling (T) Hide polisher? 6F

Striations (T?,U?)/leveling(T?,U?)

Hide polisher?Stone polisher?

6G

Striations (T?,U?)/leveling(T?,U?)

Hide polisher?Stone polisher?

6H

Striations (U)/edge rounding(U)

Hide polisher withochre

6I

Striations (T)/edge rounding(U)

Softening tool 6L

Striations (U) Slab 6M

_ Artwork 6N

Table 3 Extended.

Table 4 Extended.

Fatigue wear Abrasive wear

– Deep striations (U)/leveling (U)– Shallow striations (U)/edge rounding (U)– Striations (T, U)/leveling (T) and edge

rounding (U)– Wide, shallow striations (U)/developed

edge rounding (U)– Deep striations (T)/shallow striations (U)/

leveling (T) and edge rounding (U)– Deep striations (T)/wide, shallow striations

(U)/leveling (T) and edge rounding (U)– Wide, shallow striations (U)/edge

rounding (U)Deep, widescratches (U)

–

– Deep striations (T)/leveling (T) and edgerounding (U)

Pits (U) Striations (U)

– Striations (T)/weak leveling (T)

Pits (T) Few shallow striations (T)

Deep, widescratches(T)

Few shallow striations (T)



levels of occupation, which included the painted stones

in particular (Dalmeri et al. 2005; Dalmeri et al. 2009).

The surfaces of some painted stones were evened out

by scraping and abrading just before being painted

with red ochre in particular (Dalmeri and Neri 2008),

and The pigment used for the paintings was prepared

in situ by processing thermally treated goethite

nodules (Gialanella et al. 2011).

A total of 40 tools, comprising the experimental

collection of the Laboratory for Technological and

Functional Study of Material Culture of the Museo

delle Origini (La Sapienza, University of Rome), were

used to aid the archaeological interpretation. Since

technological analysis of the flint assemblage demon-

strated that knapping was carried out in all occupa-

tional layers of the site, the possible use of some of

the ground stone artifacts to knap and retouch flint

cores and blanks was taken into account. As

experimental comparisons for these activities, 11

experimentally manufactured hammerstones and

three retouchers, which were already among the

authors’ reference collections, were compared to the

archaeological tools. Additional experiments aimed

at the reproduction of technological features were

also carried out. Specifically, the surfaces of the

ground stone artifacts were prepared by abrasion

(TABLE 4: Experimental nos. 804, 804a, 805, 805b,

806, 810b) and by engraving with direct percussion

(TABLE 4: Experimental nos. 812 and 816) and

indirect percussion (TABLE 4: Experimental no. 813).

The Functions of Ground Stone Tools fromRiparo DalmeriThe comparison of archaeological use wear with

experimental replicas (TABLE 3) indicates that the

ground stone items from Riparo Dalmeri were used

for different purposes. These include flintknapping

and abrading flint cores, hide processing and stone

abrasion, hide treatment using ochre, softening hide,

cutting activities, crushing nodules rich in iron oxides,

and producing bas-relief artwork.

Hammerstones for flintknapping and coreabrasionFour unmodified pebbles, three of which were

fragments of limestone and one of which was an

unmodified slab of siltstone (FIG. 6A–D; TABLE 3), were

Figure 8 Use wear on ground stone artifacts from Riparo Dalmeri and experimental comparisons. Scale is 1 mm. A) Traces of

flintworking on a limestone hammerstone (FIG. 6A); B) Use wear on an experimental pebble used for bladelet retouching; C)

Traces from flintknapping on a limestone hammerstone (FIG. 6B); D) Experimental use wear produced during flintknapping.



utilized for flintknapping and core abrasion. The

extremities of the tools show edge removals and rare

pits that can be connected to flintknapping. Striations

can be related to abrasion of flint ridges during the

knapping process on the basis of comparison with

experimental hammerstones and abraders (Zampetti

et al. 2007: 174–176) (FIG. 8A–D). The limited devel-

opment of the use wear suggests that these were

expedient hammerstones. The size and especially the

weight of the implements are consistent with small-

medium hammerstones used to knap bladelets

(Zampetti et al. 2007), the main lithic component at

the site.

Polishers for hide processing and stone abrasionA limestone pebble (FIG. 6E; TABLE 3) is characterized

by shallow, dense striations and an intense rounding

of edge grains gently spread over the end surface,

which suggests its use in hide-softening procedures.

Another small, fragmentary polisher made out of

local greenish stone (FIG. 6F; TABLE 3) suffered sur-

face alteration that affected use wear analysis.

Nevertheless, experiments testify to the inefficiency

of greenstone for smoothing limestone and its

effectiveness for softening hide, so it is highly

probable that this tool was used for the latter activity

after being shaped by stone abrasion, as the faceted

and striated surfaces show (FIG. 9A–C). Furthermore,

there are two siltstone plaquettes (FIG. 6G–H; TABLE 3)

that show some exfoliation that partly removed the

outer surface. Like the greenish stone polisher, these

tools have faceting and striations on the extremities

but the surfaces have no grain rounding from hide

working. Since the experiments verified the efficiency

of siltstone in both hide and stone processing, it is

impossible to determine whether the tools were

abraded before being used as hide polishers or

whether they were used for stone scraping only.

Polisher for hide processing using ochreOne piece of limestone (FIG. 6I; TABLE 3) has an area

with rounding of edge grains and shallow striations

associated with ochre residues. The ochre was

processed as powder since there are no pits suggesting

that it was used to crush the small nodules of

hematite. Moreover, the presence of rounding instead

of leveling on the edge grains testifies to contact with

a surface softer than a stone slab. The combination of

use wear features suggests that the artifact was used

as a polisher to spread color on a soft surface,

perhaps on hides. Localized rounded and matte

patches, which are similar to traces that developed

on experimental tools by repeated friction with hands

during use, indicate the grip area.

Softening tool for hidesA siltstone pebble was roughly shaped and abraded in

the odd form of a clepsydra (FIG. 6L; TABLE 3), as

suggested by the presence of weak pits and striations

on the medial part of the tool. The shape of the artifact

is unique in the Epigravettian of Italy. Use wear

located on the base of the tool consists of edge

rounding, short and shallow striations, and a flat

profile (FIG. 9D). On the basis of experimental compar-

isons, these modifications represent the combined

actions of pressing and scraping on a soft surface.

Moreover, localized rounded and matte patches on the

medial portion of the tool indicate the grip area.

According to use wear, we tentatively suggest that this

peculiar tool was used for softening small pieces of

material such as strips of leather.

Slab used for cutting activities and crushingpigmentsA flat limestone slab (FIG. 6M; TABLE 3) has removals

along its outer edges. The slab shows petrographic

and dimensional similarities with those utilized for

painted stones found in the same levels. Also, the

modification of the original profile is similar to that

observed for some of the painted stones, including

one example of a large slab bearing an anthropo-

morphic figure (FIG. 5). The utilized area, one of the

two main flat surfaces, has two types of wear: small

pits located at the center of the used surface (FIG. 10B–

C), and overlapping deep, V-shaped striations

(FIG. 10A–B). As revealed through experimental work

and supported by recent archaeometric analyses of

hematite-based red pigments from Riparo Dalmeri

(Gialanella et al. 2011), pits are connected with

crushing goethite nodules (FIG. 10D), large quantities

of which were found at the site (Bertola 2008),

whereas striations were produced by cutting with

flint. The presence of pits overlapping the striations

and ochre inside the striations suggest that ochre

smashing took place after cutting. Among the

hammerstones, there is one made from a slab of

siltstone (FIG. 6D; TABLE 3), which has pits on the

central area of one flat surface. The type of use wear

and its distribution suggest that the slab was also

used briefly as a surface for crushing material with a

stone pestle.

Bas-relief artworkA roughly rectangular, small fragment of limestone

from the rockshelter contains parallel stripes of red

ochre, obliquely oriented to the painted surface

(FIG. 6N; TABLE 3). The initial hypothesis that the

item was a stamp for printing colored stripes on

various surfaces was discarded since the experimental

limestone objects used for this purpose absorbed the

color, acquiring a homogeneous red-pink shade that

was unlike the surface of the archaeological object.

Observation with the stereomicroscope revealed that

the stripes were painted on small elevations of the

natural surface (FIG. 11A). Linear features observed



on the low surfaces between elevated stripes suggest

that the naturally wavy surface was accentuated. A

replica of the item produced by carving the surface

with a pointed stone tool (using indirect percussion

with a calcareous hammerstone) supported this

hypothesis (FIG. 10B). Therefore, we interpreted the

item as an art object produced with stone tools and

colored with ochre, probably applied with a ‘‘paint-

brush;’’ the replica was painted using a small piece of

hide soaked with ochre powder mixed with water.

ConclusionsEvidence for the use of ground stone tools in the

Upper Palaeolithic is rare. This is particularly true for

sites in Italy where few examples of Upper Palaeo-

lithic ground stone tools are known. Recently, the

discovery of a single ground stone item at the

Gravettian site of Bilancino (Toscany) demonstrated

the potential use of these tools for reconstructing

Palaeolithic lifeways. Evidence from this site indicates

that the ground stone tool was used for processing

aquatic plants around 30,000 years ago (Aranguren

et al. 2008).

The lithic assemblage of Riparo Dalmeri, a key site

for the Late Epigravettian exploitation of the Alps,

contributes to our understanding of Upper Palaeo-

lithic ground stone tools. The technological and use

wear analyses were integrated with our experimental

studies to provide plausible interpretations of the

analytical observations. Our analysis of the Riparo

Dalmeri ground stone tools offers clues for interpret-

ing their production and use, as well as for under-

standing the function of the site. The tools served

four main functions: treatment of hides, flintknap-

ping, processing ochre, and stone working. Small

polishers were utilized in the last stages of hide

treatment (for softening, dyeing, etc.), which also

involved ochre. These results support the functional

characterization of the site as a mid-altitude camp for

highly specialized seasonal tasks, which had already

been suggested on the basis of faunal and use wear

analyses carried out on flint and bone tools (Cassoli

Figure 9 Use wear on the ground stone artifacts from Riparo Dalmeri and experimental comparison. A) Use wear (faceting,

striations, and grain rounding) on a greenish stone polisher (FIG. 6F). Scale is 5 mm; B) Detail of the striations identified on the

greenish stone polisher. Scale is 1 cm; C) Experimental use wear produced on a greenish stone slab after stone abrasion. Scale

is 1 mm; D) Edge rounding, striations, and flat profile on a siltstone, clepsydra-shaped tool (FIG. 6L). Scale is 1 cm.



et al. 1999; Lemorini et al. 2006; Cristiani 2008, 2009).

The distribution of ground stone tools (FIG. 3) indicates

that the last stage of hide processing might have taken

place outside the fan-shaped area at the site, which also

contained a concentration of painted stones.

Flintknapping represents another important activ-

ity during the principal occupation phases of the

rockshelter (Montoya 2008). All analyzed hammer-

stones come from the earliest occupational levels

where two main strategies of flintknapping have been

identified in the production of blades, laminar flakes,

and bladelets (TABLE 2) (Montoya 2008). Limited use

wear on the hammerstones suggests that these were

expedient tools. Their size and weight are consistent

with small-medium stones used to knap bladelets

(Zampetti et al. 2007), one of the most abundant

types of lithic tools found at the site (Montoya 2008).

Ochre is present throughout the occupation of the

shelter, and is related to both quotidian activities

(e.g., hide processing) and possible ritual practices

(e.g., stone painting). Although the rituals carried out

by Late Epigravettian groups at Riparo Dalmeri are

not well understood, it is worth mentioning that the

267 painted stones are contemporary with some of

the ground stone artifacts presented here. In parti-

cular, the stratigraphic analysis shows that a lime-

stone slab used for crushing ochre nodules and a

siltstone slab, probably utilized in stone working, are

contemporary with the painted stones. Moreover, the

limestone slab was discovered in the fan-shaped area

outside the presumed hut where the concentration of

painted artifacts was also recovered (FIG. 7). It is also

interesting that the dimensions of this ground stone

tool are similar to the painted stones and that it was

shaped in the same way (by edge removals around the

border of the stone). Therefore, we cannot exclude

the possibility that an unpainted blank was recycled

as a functional tool.

We hypothesize that while some artifacts were used as

part of a toolkit for hide processing throughout the

occupation of the site, the ground stone tools used to

process stone and ochre could have played a role in

shaping the material later used for painting. In fact,

although the use wear on these tools does not prove their

Figure 10 Use wear on ground stone artifacts from Riparo Dalmeri and experimental comparison. A) Striations from cutting

activities on a limestone slab (FIG. 6M). Scale is 1 mm; B) Pits, striations, and red residues on the limestone slab. Scale is 1 cm;

C) Pits and red residues on the archaeological slab. Scale is 1 mm; D) Experimental use wear produced after crushing lumps of

ochre and goethite nodules. Scale is 1 mm.



ritual connotation, their depositional context suggests

they were involved in the preparation of the painted

stones (e.g., leveling calcareous surfaces for painting,

production of ochre powder, etc.) and, therefore, could

have at least indirectly shared their ritual nature.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank Dusan Boric and Nicolo

Mazzucco for comments on earlier versions of the paper.

We are also grateful to Stefano Neri for his assistance

while writing the paper as well as for photo editing, and

to the two anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Emanuela Cristiani (Ph.D. 2010, La Sapienza,

University of Rome) specializes in technological and

use wear analyses of tools and ornaments. Her research

focuses on the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Early

Neolithic societies of northern Italy and the Balkans.

She is particularly interested in the modes of flint, bone,

and antler use among the last Pleistocene and Early

Holocene hunter-gatherers as well as in technofunctional

changes related to the transition to farming. She has co-

authored articles on stone and bone technologies from

the Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Early Neolithic.

Cristina Lemorini (Ph.D. 1997, University of Leiden)

is a Professor in the Antiquities Department of La

Sapienza, University of Rome. She has worked

extensively on use wear analysis of prehistoric lithic

assemblages from the Palaeolithic to the Bronze Age in

Italy, France, Portugal, Israel, Turkey, and Kenya.

She is now coordinating an interdisciplinary project

concerned with the combined analysis of use wear and

residues (using FTIR spectroscopy).

Giampaolo Dalmeri (B.A. 1977, University of Ferrara) is

Curator of the Prehistoric and Palaentological section of

the Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali of Trento. His

research concerns the peopling of the Alps as well as the

Epigravettian and Mesolithic occupations of the Trentino

region. In 1990, he discovered the Riparo Dalmeri shelter

and started a series of interdisciplinary research projects

focused on the reconstruction of mobility strategies, raw

material exploitation, paleoecological reconstruction, and

artistic and ritual behavior of the Upper Palaeolithic

hunter-gatherer groups who inhabited the site. He is co-

author of several articles on the subject.

ReferencesAdams, J., S. Delgado, L. Dubreuil, C. Hamon, H. Plisson, and R.

Risch. 2009. ‘‘Functional Analysis of Macro-Lithic Artefacts,’’in F. Sternke, L. Costa, and L. Eigeland, eds., Non-Flint RawMaterial Use in Prehistory: Old Prejudices and New Directions.Proceedings of the 25th Congress of the U.I.S.P.P. Oxford:Archaeopress, 43–66.

Albertini, D., and A. Tagliacozzo. 2004. ‘‘Fresh Water Fishing inItaly During the Late Glacial Period: The Examples of RiparoDalmeri (Trento),’’ in J. P. Brugal and J. Desse, eds., Petitsanimaux et societes humaines. Du complement alimentaireaux ressources utilitaires. Actes des XXIV RencontresInternationales d’Archeologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, 23–25October 2003. Antibes: Editions APDCA, 131–136.

Aranguren, B., L. Longo, A. Lunardi, and A. Revedin. 2008.‘‘Bilancino, a Specialized Site for ‘Latent Technology’: AnIntegrated Approach,’’ in L. Longo and N. Skakun, eds.,‘‘Prehistoric Technology’’ 40 Years Later: Functional Studiesand the Russian Legacy. BAR International Series 1783.Oxford: B.A.R., 121–129.

Bagolini, B., and G. Dalmeri. 1983. ‘‘Site paleolithique Tardif-Mesolithique du lac de Terlago (Trento),’’ Preistoria Alpina 19:189–196.

Bagolini, B., and A. Guerreschi. 1978. ‘‘Notizie preliminari sullericerche 1977–1978 nell’insediamento paleolitico delle Viotte diBondone (Trento),’’ Preistoria Alpina 14: 7–31.

Bartolomei, G., A. Broglio, L. Cattani, M. Cremaschi,A. Guerreschi, E. Mantovani, C. Peretto, and B. Sala. 1985.‘‘I depositi wurmiani del Riparo Tagliente,’’ Annalidell’Universita di Ferrara 3/4: 61–105.

Bertola, S. 2008. ‘‘Ricerche sulle ocre e sui minerali potenzialmentecoloranti nel settore orientale dell’Altopiano di Asiago,’’ inG. Dalmeri and S. Neri, eds., ‘‘Riparo Dalmeri e l’occupazioneepigravettiana,’’ Preistoria Alpina 43: 289–298.

Bertola, S., A. Broglio, P. Cassoli, C. Cilli, A. Cusinato,G. Dalmeri, M. De Stefani, I. Fiore, F. Fontana,G. Giacobini, A. Guerreschi, F. Gurioli, C. Lemorini,J. Liagre, G. Malerba, C. Montoya, M. Peresani, A. RocciRis, P. Rossetti, A. Tagliacozzo, and S. Ziggiotti. 2007.‘‘L’Epigravettiano recente nell’area prealpina e alpina orien-tale,’’ in F. Martini, ed., L’Italia tra 15.000 e 10.000 anni facosmopolitismo e regionalita nel Tardoglaciale. Studi di

Figure 11 Bas-relief artwork from Riparo Dalmeri. A) Detail of the carved stripes that decorate the artifact (FIG. 6N). Scale is

1 mm; B) Experimental replica of the artwork. Detail shows carved grooves produced by indirect percussion. Scale is 1 mm.



Archeologia Preistorica Vol. 5. Firenze: Milleni, MuseoFiorentino di Preistoria ‘‘Paolo Graziozi,’’ 39–94.

Bisi, F., A. Broglio, A. Guerreschi, and M. Radmilli. 1983.‘‘L’epigravettien evolue et final dans la zone haute et moyenneAdriatique,’’Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 38: 229–265.

Bosinski, G. 1990. Les civilisations de la Prehistoire. Les chasseursdu Paleolithique superieur (40.000–10.000 av. J.-C.). Paris:Editions Errance.

Broglio, A., and G. Dalmeri, eds. 2005. Pitture paleolitiche nellePrealpi Venete. Grotta di Fumane e Riparo Dalmeri. Verona:Cierre Edizioni.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. ‘‘Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysisof Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program,’’ Radiocarbon 37: 425–430.

Cardini, L. 1980. ‘‘La necropoli Mesolitica delle Arene Candide(Liguria),’’ Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di PaleontologiaUmana 3: 9–31.

Cassoli, P. F., G. Dalmeri, I. Fiore, and A. Tagliacozzo. 1999.‘‘Abri Dalmeri (Trento-Italie): la chasse dans un gisementEpigravettien de montagne,’’ in A. Thevenin and P. Binz, eds.,Actes du 5 Coll. Int. UISPP Grenoble (Isere, Francia). Paris:Editions du CTHS, 459–464.

Clottes, J. 1999. La vie et l’art des Magdaleniens en Ariege. Paris:La maison des roches.

Cristiani, E. 2008. ‘‘Analisi funzionale dei manufatti in materiadura animale del Riparo Dalmeri (Altopiano della Marcesina,Trento),’’ in G. Dalmeri and S. Neri, eds., ‘‘Riparo Dalmeri el’occupazione epigravettiana,’’ Preistoria Alpina 43: 259–287.

Cristiani, E. 2009. ‘‘Aggiornamento dei manufatti in materia duraanimale dal Riparo Dalmeri (TN). Inquadramento morfolo-gico ed analisi tecno-funzionale,’’ Preistoria Alpina 44: 173–178.

Cristiani, E. 2010. ‘‘Lo sfruttamento delle materie dure animali trail Pleistocene finale e l’Olocene antico nella regione alpinaorientale,’’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, La Sapienza,University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Cristiani, E., and G. Dalmeri. 2011. ‘‘Functional Analysis of theDecorated Ground Stone Tool from Terlago (TN),’’ PreistoriaAlpina 45: 185–191.

Cusinato, A. 1999. ‘‘L’industria litica epigravettiana di RiparoDalmeri,’’ in G. Bretschneider, ed., Rivista di Archeologia,XXIII, 5–26.

Dalmeri, G. 1993. ‘‘Ricerche nel sito Tardopaleolitico-Mesoliticodi Terlago (Trentino). Tracce di strutture di abitato,’’ NaturaBresciana 28: 433–461.

Dalmeri, G., and S. Neri. 2008. ‘‘Riparo Dalmeri: l’uomo e due stilidi raffigurazione. Analisi formale di quattro pietre decoratecon figure antropomorfe,’’ in G. Dalmeri and S. Neri, eds.,‘‘Riparo Dalmeri e l’occupazione epigravettiana,’’ PreistoriaAlpina 43: 299–315.

Dalmeri, G., M. Bassetti, A. Cusinato, K. Kompatscher, andM. Hrozny Kompatscher. 2005. ‘‘The Discovery of a PaintedAnthropomorphic Figure at Riparo Dalmeri and New Insightsinto Alpine Epigravettian Art,’’ Preistoria Alpina 41: 163–169.

Dalmeri, G., M. Bassetti, A. Cusinato, K. Kompatscher, andM. Hrozny Kompatscher. 2006. ‘‘Le site Epigravettien del’Abri Dalmeri: aspects artistiques a la fin du Paleolithiquesuperieur en Italie du Nord,’’ L’Anthropologie 110: 511–529.

Dalmeri, G., M. Bassetti, A. Cusinato, K. Kompatscher,M. Hrozny Kompatscher, and M. Lanzinger. 2002. ‘‘Le pietredipinte del sito epigravettiano di Riparo Dalmeri. Campagnadi ricerche 2001,’’ Preistoria Alpina 38: 3–34.

Dalmeri, G., A. Cusinato, K. Kompatscher, M. HroznyKompatscher, M. Bassetti, and S. Neri. 2009. ‘‘The OchrePainted Stones from the Riparo Dalmeri (Trento).Development of the Research on the Art and Rituality of theEpigravettian Site,’’ Proceedings of the Hugo ObermaierSociety 49th Annual Meeting in Trento (10–14 of April,2007). Preistoria Alpina 44: 95–119.

Delgado Raak, S., and R. Risch. 2008. ‘‘Lithic Perspectives onMetallurgy: An Example from Copper and Bronze Age South-East Iberia,’’ in L. Longo and N. Skakun, eds., ‘‘PrehistoricTechnology’’ 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the RussianLegacy. BAR International Series 1783. Oxford: B.A.R., 235–252.

Dubreuil, L. 2004. ‘‘Long-Term Trends in Natufian Subsistence: AUse-wear Analysis of Ground Stone Tools,’’ Journal ofArchaeological Science 31: 1613–1629.

Dubreuil, L. 2008. ‘‘Mortar Versus Grinding-Slabs Function in theContext of the Neolithization Process in the Near East,’’ in L.Longo and N. Skakun, eds., ‘‘Prehistoric Technology’’ 40 Years

Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. BARInternational Series 1783. Oxford: B.A.R., 169–178.

Dubreuil, L., and L. Grosman. 2009. ‘‘Ochre and Hide-Working ata Natufan Burial Place,’’ Antiquity 83: 935–954.

Fiore, I., and A. Tagliacozzo. 2005. ‘‘L’analisi dei resti faunistici: ilcontesto paleoecologico e l’economia del sito,’’ in A. Broglioand G. Dalmeri, eds., Pitture paleolitiche nelle Prealpi Venete.Grotta di Fumane e Riparo Dalmeri. Verona: Cierre Edizioni,116–121.

Fontana, F., A. Guerreschi, and J. Liagre. 2002. ‘‘RiparoTagliente. La serie epigravettiana,’’ in A. Aspes, ed.,Preistoria Veronese: Contributi e aggiornamenti. Memorie delMuseo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, II serie, Sez. Scienzedell’Uomo 5. Verona: Museo Civico di Storia Naturale diVerona, 42–47.

Formicola, E., P. Pettitt, R. Maggi, and R. Hedges. 2005. ‘‘Tempoand Mode of the Formation of the Late EpigravettianNecropolis of Arene Candide Cave (Italy): DirectRadiocarbon Evidence,’’ Journal of Archaeological Science32: 1598–1602.

Fullagar, R., and J. H. Field. 1997. ‘‘Pleistocene Seed-GrindingImplements from the Australian Arid Zone,’’ Antiquity 71: 300.

Gialanella, S., R. Belli, G. Dalmeri, I. Lonardelli, M. Mottarelli,M. Montagna, and L. Toniutti. 2011. ‘‘Artificial or NaturalOrigin of Hematite-Based Red Pigments in ArchaeologicalContexts: The Case of Riparo Dalmeri (Trento, Italy),’’Archaeometry 53: 950–962.

Guerreschi, A. 1984. ‘‘Il sito epigravettiano di Andalo (Trento) edalcune considerazioni sull’Epigravettiano finale nel nordItalia,’’ Preistoria Alpina 20: 15–38.

Gurioli, F. 2008. ‘‘Analisi tecnologica dei manufatti in materiadura animale dell’Epigravettiano recente di Riparo Dalmeri(Altopiano della Marcesina, Trento),’’ in G. Dalmeri and S.Neri, eds., ‘‘Riparo Dalmeri e l’occupazione epigravettiana,’’Preistoria Alpina 43: 237–258.

Hamon, C. 2008. ‘‘Functional Analysis of Stone Grindingand Polishing Tools from the Earliest Neolithic of North-Western Europe,’’ Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 1502–1520.

Hamon, C., and H. Plisson. 2008. ‘‘Functional Analysis ofGrinding Stones: The Blind-Test Contribution,’’ in L. Longoand N. Skakun, eds., ‘‘Prehistoric Technology’’ 40 Years Later:Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. BAR InternationalSeries 1783. Oxford: B.A.R., 29–38.

Holliday, V. T., J. F. Hoffecker, P. Goldberg, R. I. Macphail, S. L.Forman, M. Anikovich, and A. Sinitsyn. 2007. ‘‘Geoarchaeologyof the Kostenki–Borshchevo Sites, Don River Valley, Russia,’’Geoarchaeology 22: 181–228.

Lemorini, C., P. Rossetti, A. Cusinato, G. Dalmeri, M. HroznyKompatscher, and K. Kompatscher. 2006. ‘‘L’analisi delletracce d’uso e l’elaborazione spaziale: il riconoscimento diun’area specializzata nel sito epigravettiano di Riparo Dalmeri,livelli 26b e 26c (Trento),’’ Preistoria Alpina 41: 171–197.

Montoya, C. 2008. ‘‘Apport de l’analyse technique a la compre-hension de l’evolution des groupes humains epigravettiensd’Italie Nord Orientale: la production lithique de l’US 15a-65du Riparo Dalmeri,’’ in G. Dalmeri and S. Neri, eds., ‘‘RiparoDalmeri e l’occupazione epigravettiana,’’ Preistoria Alpina 43:191–208.

Peresani, M., ed. 2004. 12.000 anni fa al Bus de La Lum. Unaccampamento paleolitico sull’Altopiano del Cansiglio.Pordenone: Societa Naturalisti S. Zenari.

Piperno, D. R., E. Weiss, I. Holst, D. Nadel. 2004. ‘‘Processing ofWild Cereal Grains in the Upper Palaeolithic Revealed byStarch Grain Analysis,’’ Nature 430: 670–672.

Procopiou, H., P. Anderson, F. Formenti, and J. J. Tresseras. 2002.‘‘Etude des matieres transformees sur les outils de mouture:identification des residus et des traces d’usure par analysechimique et par observations en microscope optique et electro-nique,’’ in R. Treuil and H. Procopiou, eds., Moudre et Broyer,Vol. I: Methodes: Petrographie, chimie, traceologie, experimen-tation, ethnoarcheologie. Paris: CTHS, 111–128.

Ravazzi, C. 2003. ‘‘An Overview of the Quaternary ContinentalStratigraphic Units Based on Biological and Climatic Events inItaly,’’ Il Quaternario, Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences16: 11–18.

Revedin, A., B. Aranguren, R. Becattini, L. Longo, E. Marconi,M. Mariotti Lippi, N. Skakun, A. Sinitsyn, E. Spiridonova,and J. R. Svoboda. 2010. ‘‘Thirty Thousand-Year-OldEvidence of Plant Food Processing,’’ Proceedings of theNational Academy of Science 107: 18815–18819.



Rosano, P., and S. Pellizzaro. 2005. ‘‘Analisi chimico-stratigraficodi tre pietre dipinte con ocra,’’ in A. Broglio and G. Dalmeri,eds., Pitture paleolitiche nelle Prealpi Venete - Grotta di Fumanee Riparo Dalmeri. Verona: Cierre Edizioni, 139–143.

Rots, V. 2010. Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools. AMethodology. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

Svoboda, J., M. Kralık, V. Culıkova, S. Hladilova, M. Novak,M. Nyvltova Fisakova, D. Nyvlt, and M. Zelinkova. 2009.

‘‘Pavlov VI: An Upper Paleolithic Living Unit,’’ Antiquity 83:282–295.

Zampetti, D., C. Lemorini, and M. Massussi. 2007. ‘‘Artet vie quotidienne dans l’epigravettien final,’’ in S. deBeaune, ed., Chasseurs-cuilleurs. Comment vivaient nosancetres du Paleolitique superieur. Methodes d’analyse etd’interpretation en Prehistorie. Paris: CNRS editions, 171–185.



Ground stone tool production and use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic: The evidence from Riparo...

Documents

Transcript of Ground stone tool production and use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic: The evidence from Riparo...