Università degli Studi di Verona

Funded by:

International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the new independent States of the former Soviet Union

Consiglio Regionale del Veneto Consorzio per gli Studi Universitari in Verona

Supported by: Parlamento Europeo – Ufficio per l’Italia Consiglio Regionale del Veneto Soprintendenza Archeologica per il Veneto Soprintendenza Speciale al Museo Nazionale Preistorico ed Etnografico “Luigi Pigorini”, Roma Università degli Studi di Ferrara Università degli Studi di Lecce Università degli Studi di Padova Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Facoltà di Scienze Umanistiche, Roma A.A.I. Associazione Antropologica Italiana I.I.P.P., Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria, Firenze

Editorial coordination: Laura Longo Translations editor: Martina Dalla Riva Copy editing: Massimo Saracino All right reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form of by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Editor.

Organizers

Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona Università degli Studi di Verona

Meeting Coordinator

Laura Longo (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona) International Scientific Commitee

Patricia C. Anderson (CEPAM, Valbonne, France) Ignacio Clemente Conte (CSIC, Barcelona, Spain) Brian D. Hayden (SFU, Burnaby, Canada) Galina F. Korobkova (Institute for the Material Culture History, S. Petersburg, Russia) Cristina Lemorini (University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Italy) Tiziano Mannoni (University of Genua, Italy) George H. Odell (University of Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA) Linda R. Owen (Tübingen University, Germany) Natalia Skakun (Institute for the Material Culture History, S. Petersburg, Russia) Annelou van Gijn (Leiden University, The Netherlands)

National Advisory Board

Alessandra Aspes (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona) Paolo Bellintani (Soprintendenza Beni Archeologici della Provincia Autonoma di Trento) Anna M. Bietti Sestieri (Presidente dell’I.I.P.P., Firenze) Isabella Caneva (Università degli Studi di Lecce) Alberto Cazzella (Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”) Alessandro Guidi (Università degli Studi di Verona) Maria Rosa Iovino (Leiden University, The Netherlands) Giovanni Leonardi (Università degli Studi di Padova) Carlo Peretto (Università degli Studi di Ferrara)

Round Table Coordinators

Hugues Plisson (Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France) Natalia Skakun (Institute for the Material Culture History, S. Petersburg, Russia)

Editing & Graphic Design

Massimo Saracino (Università degli Studi di Verona) Editing Translations

Martina Dalla Riva (University of Birmingham) Website

Alexio Colognese, Massimo Malini, Massimo Saracino Local Organizing Committee

Anna Angelini, Caryn Belluzzo, Laurie Blaszkiewicz, Camilla Buin, Bruna Burato, Elena Castagnoli, Martina Dalla Riva, Giuseppe Fumagalli, Sofia Morello, Anna Muolo, Lucia Petri, Massimo Saracino, Eleni Zervou

Scientific Facilities supported by

Olympus Italia (Nadir Mariutto) Assing Italia (Dino Vergombello)

i

Contents 1. Foreword, Alessandra Aspes ..................................................................................................................................... vi 2. Preface, Alessandro Guidi ........................................................................................................................................ vii 3. Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................... viii 4. Introduction, Laura Longo, Natalia Skakun ............................................................................................................. xi 5. ORAL SESSION 5.1 Methodology S.A. Semenov and new perspectives on the experimental-traceological method .................................................................. 3 †GALINA F. KOROBKOVA Comprehensive analysis of prehistoric tools and its relevance for paleo-economic reconstructions ................................. 9 NATALIA N. SKAKUN The contribution of ethnoarchaeological macro- and microscopic wear traces to the understanding of archaeological hide-working processes ............................................................................................................................... 21 SYLVIE BEYRIES AND VEERLE ROTS Functional analysis of grinding stones: the blind-test contribution .................................................................................... 29 CAROLINE HAMON AND HUGUES PLISSON Sem functional analysis and the mechanism of microwear formation .................................................................................. 39 ANDREU OLLÉ AND JOSEP M. VERGÈS In the knapper's hands:identifying handedness from lithic production and use ................................................................... 51 NATALIE THAÏS UOMINI Kinematics in use-wear traces: an attempt of characterization through image digitalisation ............................................. 63 JUAN ANTONIO BARCELÓ ÁLVAREZ, JORDI PIJOAN-LÒPEZ, ANDREA TOSELLI AND ASSUMPCIÓ VILA I MITJÀ 5.2 Hunter-Gatherers Hafting traces on flint tools .................................................................................................................................................. 75 VEERLE ROTS Subsistence strategies at Zengpiyan, South China ................................................................................................................ 85 TRACEY LIE DAN LU Use-wear analysis of retouched lithic tools from the Abric Romanì Middle Palaeolithic site (Barcelona, Spain) ............. 93 KENNETH MARTÍNEZ MOLINA Typology, technology and use-wear: the necessary integration. An example from the Aurignacian site of San Cassiano (Arezzo, central Italy) ........................................................................................................................................... 103 SIMONA ARRIGHI, VALENTINA BORGIA, ADRIANA MORONI LANFREDINI AND ANNAMARIA RONCHITELLI Functional analysis of the backed tools coming from the Gravettian layers 23 and 22 of Paglicci Cave (Foggia, Italy) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 109 VALENTINA BORGIA Bilancino, a specialized site for “latent technology”: an integrated approach ................................................................... 121 BIANCAMARIA ARANGUREN, LAURA LONGO, ANNA LUNARDI AND ANNA REVEDIN The complexity of an Epigravettian site viewed from use-wear traces. Insights for the settlement dynamics in the Italian eastern Alps ............................................................................................................................................................... 131 SARA ZIGGIOTTI

ii

The relationship between coastal and inland settlements in Mesolithic South-East Norway. An experimental approach ............................................................................................................................................................................... 141 LOTTE EIGELAND The functional significance of Sauveterrian microlithic assemblages: broadening the focus of investigation .................... 147 HUGUES PLISSON, LAURE DUBREUIL AND RAPHAËLLE GUILBERT 5.3 Food Producers Stone Axes as cultural markers: technological, functional and symbolic changes in bifacial tools during the transition from hunter-gatherers to sedentary agriculturalists in the southern Levant ........................................................ 159 RAN BARKAI AND RICHARD YERKES Mortar versus grinding-slabs: function in the context of the neolithization process in the Near East ................................. 169 LAURE DUBREUIL Economic efficiency of Meso-Eneolithic settlements in southern Caucasus: the results of the traceological analysis of stone instruments ................................................................................................................................................ 179 KETEVAN ESAKIA Harvesting technology during the Neolithic in South-West Europe .................................................................................... 183 JUAN JOSÉ IBÁÑEZ, IGNACIO CLEMENTE CONTE, BERNARD GASSIN, JUAN FRANCISCO GIBAJAS, JESÚS GONZÁLEZ URQUIJO, BELÉN MÁRQUEZ, SYLVIE PHILIBERT AND AMELIA RODRÍGUEZ RODRÍGUEZ Activities on 7 Early Neolithic houses belonging to Darion in Belgium. First results of lithic use-wear analysis .............. 197 PAULA JARDÓN GINER AND IVAN JADIN Looking for prehistoric basketry and cordage using inorganic remains: the evidence from stone tools ............................. 205 LINDA HURCOMBE Toolkits and technological choices at the Middle Neolithic site of Schipluiden, The Netherlands ...................................... 217 ANNELOU VAN GIJN The role of techno-funcitonal analysis of flint assemblages for the interpretation of internal arrangement of Eneolithic dwellings in the Vyatka river basin (Kirov Oblast, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia) ............................................ 227 TATIANA TSIGVINTSEVA 5.4 Complex Polities Lithic perspectives on metallurgy: an example from Copper and Bronze Age South-East Iberia ........................................ 235 SELINA DELGADO RAACK AND ROBERTO RISCH The use of metal tools in the production of bone artefacts at two Bronze Age sites of the south-western Balkans: a preliminary assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 253 ROZALIA CHRISTIDOU Use-wear traces on bone remains from Later Prehistoric settlements ................................................................................. 265 TAMARA A. SHAROVSKAYA Towards a global functional analysis ................................................................................................................................... 267 ALBERTO CAZZELLA AND GIULIA RECCHIA Anchor axes: a case-study of wear traces analysis on ethno-archaeological stone tools from Brazil. An anthropological reflection on functional meaning ................................................................................................................ 275 EMANUELA CRISTIANI, CRISTINA LEMORINI, DONATELLA SAVIOLA, SERGIO AUGUSTO DOMINGUES AND STELLA NUNZIANTE CESARO Manufacture and use of stone tools in the Caribbean Coast of Nicaragua. The analysis of the last phase of the shell midden KH-4 at Karoline (250-350 cal. AD) ............................................................................................................... 285 IGNACIO CLEMENTE CONTE, ERMENGOL GASSIOT BALLBÈ AND XAVIER TERRADAS BATLLE

iii

5.5 Burial Context From traces to function of ornaments: some Neolithic examples ......................................................................................... 297 SANDRINE BONNARDIN Use-wear analysis of long blades. Funeral contexts of the Neolithic-Chalcolithic in the North-East Iberia ...................... 309 JUAN FRANCISCO GIBAJA, ANTONI PALOM, XAVIER CLOP, XAVIER TERRADAS AND CELINE BRESSY Signs of deliberate damage on the weapons from Altay Neolithic burials ........................................................................... 317 NATALIA KUNGUROVA Projectile points as signs of violence in collective burials during 4th and 3rd millennia cal. BC in the North-East of the Iberian peninsula ........................................................................................................................................................ 321 BELEN MARQUEZ, JUAN FRANCISCO GIBAJA, JESUS EMILIO GONZALEZ, JUAN JOSE IBAÑEZ AND ANTONI PALOMO Sacrificial stone knives from Abusir ..................................................................................................................................... 327 ANDREA ŠAJNEROVÁ AND JIŘÍ SVOBODA Functional analysis as a tool for the interpretation of mortuary practices. A case-study of the Corded Ware Culture graves at Zielona, southern Poland ......................................................................................................................... 331 MAŁGORZATA WINIARSKA-KABACIŃSKA 6. POSTER SESSION 6.1 Methodology Identification of anthropic and non-anthropic traces on the osteological remains of Contrada Stretto-Partanna (Trapani, western Sicily, Italy): layers 1-16 ......................................................................................................................... 339 SALVATORE CHILARDI, ANNA GALDI, GIORGIO TROJSI AND SEBASTIANO TUSA Cooking and firing, on heated sandstone: an experimental approach by SEM ................................................................... 345 GAËLLE DUMARÇAY, ALEXANDRE LUCQUIN AND RAMIRO JAVIER MARCH An experimental approach to formation of use-wear traces on quartzite tools .................................................................... 355 LINDA HRONÍKOVÁ, PETRA PRIOROVÁ AND ANDREA ŠAJNEROVÁ The bone mattock from the Mesolithic site of Plawienko 31 (Pomerania, Poland). Use-wear analysis and experimental method for determination of function and manufacturing processes .............................................................. 359 BERNARDETA KUFEL AND MARCIN DIAKOWSKI Tracing traces from present to past. The use of shell, flint and stone artefacts on Morel and Anse à la Gourde, Guadeloupe, FWI ................................................................................................................................................................. 365 YVONNE M.J. LAMMERS-KEIJSERS Experimental testing with polished green stone axes and adzes: technology and use .......................................................... 369 ANNA LUNARDI

Bone tools use-wear analysis and image analysis: test of 3D digital restoration of worked and used surfaces .................. 375 YOLAINE MAIGROT Barbed and tanged arrowhead of extra-Cantabrian Solutrean: experimental progamme .................................................. 379 BELEN MÁRQUEZ AND JUAN FRANCISCO MUÑOZ

Food preparation traces in ceramics. Functional interpretation of pots and jugs from Sant’Antimo (Piombino– Central Italy) based on organic residues .............................................................................................................................. 383 ALESSANDRA PECCI AND LAURA SALVINI

iv

6.2 Hunter-Gatherers The bone assagaies of Grotta Continenza (Trasacco, L’Aquila, Italy): technological and microscopic analysis ............... 391 PAOLA ASTUTI AND ANNACHIARA GALOTTA Stone tools and early agriculture at Kuk Swamp, Papua New Guinea ................................................................................. 395 RICHARD FULLAGAR, JUDITH FIELD, TIM DENHAM AND CAROL LENTFER Villa Ladronaia: a Middle Palaeolithic site near Cecina (Livorno, Italy) .......................................................................... 399 PAOLO GIUNTI Hunting, what? Early Mesolithic backed points in north-eastern Italy ................................................................................ 405 STEFANO GRIMALDI Payre (Ardèche, France) early Middle Palaeolithic site. An example of macroscopic traces on tools and flakes: utilization as side-scrapers and stone tips in an OIS 5 human occupation ......................................................................... 409 MARIE-HÉLÈNE MONCEL AND MARIA GEMA CHACÓN NAVARRO Functional inferences of flint implements of the Mousterian site at La Mouline (St. Astier, Dordogne, France) ................ 415 AMARANTA PASQUINI Blade technology of the eastern Bromme (Podol culture, Valdai Uplands. Allerød- Dryas III (11.8 – 10.2 ka) ................. 421 GALINA V. SINITSYNA Engraved stones from the San Bartolomeo Upper Palaeolithic flint workshop (Abruzzo, central Italy) ............................. 427 BARBARA ZAMAGNI Perforated bone plates and string production in the Mesolithic: a case-study from site Stanovoye 4, Upper Volga .......... 429 MIKHAIL ZHILIN 6.3 Food Producers Sickles of early farmers of Azerbaijan .................................................................................................................................. 435 ROZA ARAZOVA Production and function(s) of obsidian tools at the Neolithic site of Contrada Diana (Aeolian Islands, Sicily) ................. 439 MARIA ROSA IOVINO AND MARIA CLARA MARTINELLI Neolithic bone needles and vegetal fibres working: experimentation and use-wear analysis. ............................................. 445 ALEXANDRA LEGRAND Eneolithic flint workshop-settlements in north-eastern Bulgaria ........................................................................................ 451 BORIANA IVANOVA MATEVA Cereal harvesting and processing at the Middle Neolithic site of Schipluiden, a coastal site in the Lower-Rhine basin .................................................................................................................................................................................... 453 CHANNAH NIEUWENHUIS AND ANNELOU VAN GIJN The Neolithic settlement of Lugo di Grezzana (Verona, Italy). A lessinic flint emporium .................................................... 457 FULVIA ELETTRA OCCHINI Use wear analysis: application on the Ripatetta lithic industry. Preliminary results .......................................................... 461 CRISTIANA PETRINELLI PANNOCCHIA Functional analysis of tools used in ancient ceramic production ......................................................................................... 465 LUBOV YAKOVLEVA AND NATALIA N. SKAKUN 6.4 Complex Polities Microwear analysis and metal tools. The study of use wears traces and the contribution to the understanding of protohistoric societies ........................................................................................................................................................... 471

v

CARMEN GUTIÉRREZ SÁEZ, ANDRES GARCÍA MOLDES, E. JIMÉNEZ ARÉS, R. MÁRQUEZ GONZÁLEZ AND C. CAMPAYO GARCÍA The so called “selci strane di Breonio”: an ethno-archaeological and social case in the Lessini Mountains (Verona) ................................................................................................................................................................................ 475 LAURA LONGO, GIORGIO CHELIDONIO Stone vase drilling in Bronze Age Crete ............................................................................................................................... 479 ELISE MORERO, HARA PROCOPIOU, ROBERTO VARGIOLU AND HASSAN ZAHOUANI

The lock of heaven’s doors ................................................................................................................................................... 483 OLIVIA MUSSO AND CRISTINA SIMONETTI 6.5 Burial Context Stone Age burial sites in eastern Tatarstan: use-wear and technological analyses of the flint assemblages ....................... 489 MADINA GALIMOVA Ethno-historical analogies and functional contexts: grinding/pestling tools from the Iron Age site of Monte Loffa (Verona, Italy) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 495 MARA MIGLIAVACCA, ANGELA ATZORI AND LAURA LONGO 7. ROUND TABLE From East to West: functional analysis and the analogical reasoning. A reflection on scientific practice Technician or researcher? A visual answer ......................................................................................................................... 503 HUGUES PLISSON AND ALIETTE LOMPRÉ One who had never been false to himself .............................................................................................................................. 509 ANATOLIY K. FILIPPOV A story of the missing chapter: Sergey Semenov and his discovery ...................................................................................... 513 SERGEY A. VASIL'EV From production traces to social organisation: towards an epistemology of functional analysis ....................................... 519 ROBERTO RISCH Tool functions and ethnographical analogies ....................................................................................................................... 529 NATALIA N. SKAKUN AND NATALIA A. ALEKSASHENKO S.A. Semenov and his outstanding discovery in 20th century archaeology ........................................................................... 533 †GALINA F. KOROBKOVA Experimental archaeology: the Italian experience ............................................................................................................... 537 TIZIANO MANNONI Typology, function, use-wear and context: where is the common vision? ............................................................................ 539 MARIA GUROVA 8. Functional analysis: Lewis Binford and his contribution † Amilcare Bietti ............................................................ 547 9. Recalling friends .......................................................................................................................................................... 553 † Thomas Loy † Amilcare Bietti † Galina F. Korobkova 10. List of participants ...................................................................................................................................................... 555

vi

Foreword

In 2005 Verona became the centre for an event of particular importance for prehistoric archaeology, and in particular for functional studies. The international Congress “Prehistoric Technology : 40 years later. Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy” promoted by the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale in Verona and by the Università degli Studi di Verona, saw the participation of numerous scholars from all over the world, who engaged in a lively scientific debate, the outcome of which is contained in these Proceedings. The proposal for a re-interpretation of the figure of S.A. Semenov, the pioneer and forerunner of the functional analysis, is a great achievement for the discipline of Prehistoric Studies, the merit of which goes to Laura Longo, scientific co-ordinator of the meeting, besides being, along with Natalia Skakun, the editor of the present publication. Naturally, the conclusion of a Congress is the publication of the research results presented therein. In this case, the Museo di Storia Naturale in Verona, is proud to have contributed to the spreading and up-dating of functional studies throughout the world of prehistoric research. We wish these Proceedings may enhance the potentials of the discipline and become a useful tool in the hands of those, but not only, who are specialized in the field. I would finally like to highlight the importance of the conferment, on behalf of Università degli Studi di Verona, of the Laurea Honoris Causa to Lewis Binford, pioneer of the “New Archaeology”, of whom one of the earlier followers was the friend Amilcare Bietti who, although since very recently no longer with us, gave his humane and scientific contribution by granting his lively and constructive participation to the Congress.

Alessandra Aspes

vii

Preface

A Congress dedicated to a pivotal/great/significantfigure of the 20th century archaeology, like Semenov, is not only a wonderful occasion to have an up-to-date panorama of the present research in this field, but, at the same time, as it is clear in many of the papers presented, an incomparable “window” on the intellectual life of a scholar and on the legacy he left us (in our case a powerful methodological tool, the functional analysis), all matters about which the Congress allowed us to have a clearer idea. To me, a proto-history expert who frequently works on the history of prehistoric archaeology, Semenov was simply the man who, in the Fifties, with the help of the microscope, made the first researches on the weartraces, whose results were collected in the famous book Prehistoric Technology (Guidi 1988, pp.108,133-34). When I wrote my book on the history of palethnology, I did not reflect about Semenov as a middle-aged person in the 1950s; as a matter of fact, his research in this field of enquiry began long before, at least in the 1930s. This fact throws an extremely different light on him. In the darker period of Soviet archaeology, caricaturated by Stalin and Marr as a sad and trite version of the orthodox “stage theory”, Semenov belongs to a very selected patrol of great scholars, whose ideas anticipated many acquisitions of modern archaeology. One of these man was Efimenko, with his fundamental Palaeolithic settlement excavations; other two outstanding figures were Tretjakov, who was the first scholar (1934) to study fingerprints on pottery to infer the residential rules in the prehistoric communities, and Vavilov the pioneer of every modern study on the origin and spread of agriculture (Vavilov 1926, 1935). Semenov worked in that heavy political and intellectual climate; it is not a case that his research will be fully understood and applied only after the end of the Stalinist regime. Today the functional analysis is a widely utilized methodological tool, overall between the Palaeolitchic archaeology scholars. My idea is that this Congress Proceedings can be a wonderful starting point for a wider application of functional analysis in the study of too often neglected or badly interpreted problems of the Bronze and Iron Age archaeology, from the weartraces on swords and on other metal weapons to the use of grinding stones; moreover it can be usefully employed by Classical and Medieval archaeologists. In the years to come we will need more and more functional analysis to test our explanations and/or to build new research projects.

We organized this first international Congress on this matter in Italy with a culpable delay; it is time for everyone (scholars and cultural institutions) to work hard in order to fill this unjustifiable gap! Alessandro Guidi Bibliography GUIDI, A., 1988. Storia della Paletnologia. Roma-Bari. TRETJAKOV, P.N., 1934. O istori doklassovogo obščestva verchnego Povolžia. Izvestija GAIMK 106, 97-180. VAVILOV, N.I., 1926. Studies on the Origins of Cultivated Plants. Bulletin of Applied Botany and Plant Breeding, XVI, 2. VAVILOV, N.I., 1951 (1935). Phytogeographic basis of Plant Breeding. Chronica Botanica.

viii

Acknowledgements

Many colleagues and friends helped Dr. Natalia Skakun and myself in developing the initial conceiving of these Proceedings. It has not been easy to prepare and assemble this substantial volume, however the co-operation among authors, editors, collaborators and institutions had the best on distance, time and budget constrains finally succeeding in the achievement of this publication. Our more than precious collaborators Massimo Saracino and Martina Dalla Riva helped us with the editing and the final layout of the book: a special thank to them for their painstaking work and support. We wish to warmly thank Hugues Plisson for supplying generously his advice at all times. In occasion of the Congress in April 2005, a CD reprint of the 1964 edition “Prehistoric Technology” translated by Thompson was produced. We are grateful to Dr. Michael W. Thompson for having allowed the reproduction of such a significant publication, now out of print, and we thank the Istituto Italiano di Preistoria e Protostoria for having financially sustained it. Many thanks also to Dr. Alessandra Aspes, Director of the Museo di Storia Naturale di Verona, who has financially supported this publication as well as actively encouraged its realization. We are also grateful to Prof. Alessandro Guidi, of the Università di Verona, for his enthusiastic advice at all times and to the Consorzio Studi Universitari for contributing financially to the publication of this volume. The INTAS grant (No. 03-69-441) allowed a very large delegation of Russian scholars (20) to take part to the Congress and the publication of the volume “The roots of use-wear: selected papers of S. A. Semenov” which included a series of articles by S.A. Semenov for the first time a precious translated into English by L. Vishnyatsky and published by the Museo di Storia Naturale in Verona. A grant from Regione Veneto also contributed to the publication of these Proceedings.

Many thanks to the Archaeopress/British Archaeological Reports, in the person of David Davison and his collaborators for their patient work and support at all times. Without the financial support of all these institutions, and the synergy among colleagues and friends, only some of whom have been mentioned here, this publication would not have been possible. Thank you again. Laura Longo and Natalia Skakun

ix

Introduction

“Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later: functional studies and the Russian Legacy

Interpreting Stone Tools

Laura Longoa and Natalia Skakunb aMuseo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Italy

bInstitute for the History of Material Culture, St. Petersburg, Russia

Clearly what was needed was some way of identifying activities, some concepts with linked definitions that would permit me to recognize a past activity from empirical techniques that could be used for isolating activity

areas. I hoped that if we could see such areas then we might be able to develop concepts and definitions sufficient to identify activities (Binford, 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology, 6-7)

The main goal of archaeology, through the recognition of the fundamental relationship between stone tools production and human behaviour, should be the reconstruction of relationships between the techniques, economies and social dynamics performed by human groups. Despite the application of numerous and diverse types of methods and the development of many typological schemes, the behavioural significance of lithic production variability has remained mostly unsolved, generating lively discussion in the scientific community. Many of the arguments feeding the never-ending “New Archaeology” debate/s, some of which still relevant in Post-processual theoretical framework, had already been discussed at length by S. A. Semenov, as already embedded in his methodological approach. In fact he discovered and elaborated a proper methodology devoted to the investigation of tools functions by means of the experimental-traceological analyses, which was a real breakthrough in archaeology. The publication (1964) of his seminal work entitled “Prehistoric Technology” in English contributed to the world recognition and rapid development of the experimental and use-wear studies in many countries (for historical reviews see: Cook, Dumont, 1987; Levitt, 1979; Olausson; 1978). This work opened for archaeologists a new and very promising research field. Considering the holistic of his approach it should be stressed that Semenov never considered the results of the study of use-wear traces on ancient tools as a final objective of the research. For him these results were just a step towards the solution of different general questions, including such important issues like the reconstruction of technological development and disclosures about the economic and social consequences of technological progress (Bordes, 1967; 1972; Binford, 1978; Crabtree, 1982; O’Connel, 1995; White, Thomas, 1972). The intense synergetic relationship between archaeological remains and their replicas, between experimental procedures and the step by step observation of the replicative phenomenon, the comparison between the traces observed both on the archaeological and experimental artefacts, allows to better contextualize the complex meaning of behavioural dynamics of which the artefact is, in the majority of cases, the only tangible evidence. Thanks to its heuristic approach, functional analysis (or traceology as Semenov’s preferred to call such methodological framework, Anderson et al., 2005) considers any artefact as a process, by means of which it is possible to reconstruct the technological and cultural path of a given human groups. Since the word traceology in Russian assumes a very wide meaning which does not find in all the languages a correspondent meaningful translation here we are using as well the concept of “function” more than the sole “use-wear”. In archaeology the term “function” is commonly employed to denote use, utility or duty. More than that it can be used as well to refer to the interdependence between parts of a cultural system. In this assumption it is adopted in this text too. This is why the legacy left by the great scientist S. A. Semenov was brought to the fore in the 2005 meeting in Verona, where it proved, once again, its topical and fundamental value. The conference gave us the opportunity to celebrate Semenov’s founder opus (Prehistoric Technology) as well as a large part of the scientist’s methodological work, which culminated in the English translation and publication of Semenov’s most significative scientific articles (in: Longo, Skakun, 2005). More than that, it gave us the chance to gather, for the first time outside the Russian borders, a consistent number of Russian scientists (20) who have constantly

x

worked at further developing Semenov’s teachings. Together with more than 180 scientists from all over the world the Russian Legacy attended the conference, of which these proceedings represent a reference volume, i.e. a sort of status quo of the discipline. At the same time, this volume is also a tribute to the great Russian scientist and demonstrates how Semenov is still nowadays an exceptional figure for archaeology, and how his work has still such global scale support from a very relevant number of researchers. The world wide application of his methodology is definitely, a commensurate response to his scientific importance, even though his name is not found among those included in the Encyclopaedia of the great archaeologists (edited by Murray, 1999)! Semenov’s definition of traceology clearly frames the main attempt of his approach: “the study of artifacts’ production, functions and ways of use by analysing wear traces on their surfaces” (Levitt 1979). Traceology is probably among the most fundamental approaches in archaeology which deals with the material traces of past activities, its heuristics is included in any interpretation of past remains, inevitably involving (explicitly or not) models based upon historical, ethnographical and/or experimental references, but also because its contribution represents the cross-section for the understanding of technological, economical and social structures of past cultures(Anderson-Gerfaud, 1981; Cahen et al., 1979; Frison, 1968; Fullagar, 1998; Gendel, Pirnay, 1982; Grace et al., 1985; Hayden, 1979; Keeley and Newcomer, 1977; Keeley, 1980; Levi-Sala, 1986; Loy, 1983; Mansur, 1982; Tringham et al. 1974; Odell, 2006; inter alia). One of the main principles Semenov followed in his work was the comprehensive approach to the studied materials. It includes the all-round study of raw materials and technologies of tool manufacture and formation, the identification of tool functions with the help of microanalysis, the verification of the interpretations by experimental and ethnographic comparisons, the data coming from analyses of archaeological contexts and paleoenvironments. Once established the correlation between blank and working edge (both in terms of its morphology and functional potential) each blank category derives from technical choices which conditioned the potential function of the tool (“the instrument constructed for a project”, Ingold, 1986). In this way functional analysis allows to consider the “phenomenon-artefact” as a process by means of which it is possible to go back along the technological, cultural and adaptive development of human groups. This speculative procedure is composed of different phases which include the analytical de-composition of the event: in the functional perspective one observe the different morphological parameters and then the utilization ones. The different aspects are then related with the rest of the archaeological record as well as with data collected during experimental reproduction. Within the deductive process we then re-assemble all these data, even considering the ethno-archaeological comparisons, by applying the analogical reasoning (Owen, Poor, 1999) Functional analysis nowadays is characterized by the strict interaction between the experimental reconstruction, microscopic observation and archaeometrical data and ethno-analogical records in order to propose an interpretive model for the tool assemblage. Rather than indulge in classification or in the creation of a functional typology (Breuil, 1954; Vayson de Pradenne, 1921), Semenov opted to elaborate a method to describe the technical processes of action on materials performed by other materials. This approach leads traceology since its first theoretical assessment (Semenov, 1970) to became the theoretical framework which “regards the cultural terms as representing technological stages” (Thompson, 1965/1998) and the investigative tool for the understanding of past human behaviors. In fact Semenov, as Leroi-Gourhan (Audouze, 2002) was not only interested in research concerning flint tools but also bone and wood artefacts as well as “the technology involved in just about every aspect of prehistoric man’s material world” (Longo, Skakun, 2005). This open-minded approach with the Anglo-American school, on whom Semenov had a great influence as Odell (2006) recently reminded us, ended with the development of the cultural ecology perspective and then with the New Archaeology application of quantitative methods to the study of formal variables pioneered by Lewis and Sally Binford even though Semenov absence from the theoretical discussion, because of his isolation, limited his relevance to the contemporary research enhancement. The challenging debate with European and especially French archaeologists, such as François Bordes, started during the 1960s, producing the famous “functional analysis” vexata questio, after the Binfords’article appeared on American Anthropologist in 1966. The 1970 Semenov’s paper, published in Quatär, entitled “The form and

xi

functions of oldest tools” had the effect of a stone in a pond and re-sharpened the debate with F. Bordes1 (1967, 1972).

What is most striking, when reading Semenov’s works, is how much of future (and/or partially contemporary) issues - either the New Archaeology or the Structuralist approaches in Archaeology, led by Binford, in USA, and Leroi-Gourhan, in France and their followers – are deeply rooted in Semenov’s traceology theoretical framework! A question will forever remain unanswered: what would have happened if they had ever met? The protagonists of this very acute and significant debate, in fact, never met. However, some of their students and archaeologists following in their footsteps, did meet and had the chance to exchange the knowledge acquired by these masters. We would dare to consider the meeting in Verona as sort of virtual, “a posteriori”, meeting between different approaches elaborated world-wide, around the concept of the ethnoarchaeological reasoning. Papers presented during the conference in Verona and published herewith, demonstrate a highly potential of innovation and the wide range of application of traceology. The thematic diversity of the presented papers, as well as the broadness of their chronological span and geographical setting testify the great potential traceology-functional analyses have at all levels of archaeological research. In addition, and this is particularly gratifying, the content of the papers shows that approaches applied by representatives of the Russian and Western traceological schools have drawn closer, as well as their views on the objectives pursued by use-wear studies. Both schools (the huge “traceology family”as Natalia Skakun likes to call all people working in this discipline) treat functional analysis not as just a narrow technique for deciphering use-wear traces, but in his proper meaning as a complex methodology, which has become a veritable discipline, providing us with a valid basis fundamental to reconstruct and to interpret many aspects of prehistory and ancient history. The progress in mutual understanding was greatly facilitated by international meetings, discussions, open information exchange, working jointly in international projects, and, which is probably most important of all, by the active personal interest of many functional analysts in the creation of a scientific community holding the same views and pursuing the same goals. We feel that the present volume is the result of a team work, which will contribute to a fuller realization of Semenov’s fundamental ideas, will show the present level of traceological studies, will serve as a good example for young scholars in demonstrating the basic directions of traceology, and will give an impulse for new significant work necessary for further development of our discipline, which represents a peculiar realm within archaeology. These proceedings are divided into 5 sessions, according to the wide range of investigation to which functional analysis can be applied, considering as well the new methodological contributions to Semenov’s first investigative approach.

Sessions are organized according to the techno-economical development of human groups. Each session hosts a number of papers embracing a wide chronological span as well as a varied geographical settings. The Methodology session with 7 papers and 9 posters, ranging from the historical framework proposed by G.F. Korobkova to image digitalization attempt to characterize kinematics in use-wear traces proposed by the Spanish research group of J. A. Barcelo and colleagues, demonstrates how intense is the research involved in up-dating and enhancing the different aspects of analytic techniques (to which Semenov was always very much interested until his last years as the paper of Plisson will remind us). The session on Hunter-Gatherers sees 9 papers and 9, dealing with different archaeological contexts: from the African Middle Stone Age (proposed by V. Rots) to the Alpine Sauvetterian microlithic assemblages presented by H. Plisson and colleagues. The complexity of the Food Producers is presented by 8 papers and 8, dealing with different chronological and geographical contexts from southern Levant (by R. Barkay and R. Yerkes), to the Eneolithic flint assemblages of Republic of Tatarstan (presented by T. Tsigvintseva). Complex Polities are presented by 6 papers and 5 posters, dealing with the material production accompanying the down of metal working. Researches carried out in all the continents are presented in this session from south-est Iberia (by Delgado Raack and Risch) to the Caribbean shell midden described by Clemente Conte and colleagues.

1 It has to be recognize, however, that even F. Bordes learned something from his articles: see the discussion in Des buts, problèmes et limites de l’archéologie paléolithique, published in Quaternaria.

xii

The analyses carried out on the artefacts found within the Burial Contexts had been discussed in 6 papers and 1 poster, where it is possible to realize how this archaeological records can be investigated from the functional perspective starting by the interesting studies of Bonnardin on Neolithic ornaments to the interpretation of the mortuary practices analyzed by Winiarska-Kabacinska in the Polish site of Zielona. Round Table: A discussion of the theoretical and epistemological implications of functional analysis started during the 1960s both among the western and eastern archaeological academies and the marxist based view to human activities evidenced by Semenov’s approach leads to reflect on the material indicators of social production, necessary in order to determine functional analysis position and its heuristic value in archaeology (Risch 2005). By establishing a cause-effect relationship between human labour and matter trough traceology and functional studies it finally possible to model an answer to the basic questions of the beginning of this text: what is being produced? how is it being produced? who produces it? In 1859, when Darwin’s “Origins of Species” was firstly published and Boucher de Perthes’ hand axes were authenticated, the idea that “relics of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economical forms of society as do the fossil bones for the deteremination of extinct species” was already acknowledged. It necessitates almost a century (Semenov, 1957; 1964 inter alia, in Longo and Skakun, 2005) before “functional analysis was able to offer a way to place our ideas about the economic development of societies (economic theory) within the study of their material remains” (Risch, 2008, in this volume). S. A. Semenov’s work provides an extraordinary powerful framework for investigating about techniques and their evolution on methodological plane while at theoretical level it still offer a potential source of insights and interrogations regarding prehistoric societies. His real originality, his capacity to combine in the unique approach of functional analysis micro-wear traces, ethnoarchaeological investigation and experimental reconstructions put him as a milestone for prehistoric archaeology and found in the last 40 years a lot of enthusiastic followers both among western and eastern scientists. This Volume wants to be a tribute to the great father of the discipline. We also wanted to present the reasons why during the Conference the University of Verona awarded Prof. Lewis R. Binford with the Laurea Honoris Causa by producing the paper written by prof. Amilcare Bietti. As well we wanted to pay our tribute to leading scientists who left us during the years which took to produce the present volume: Galina F. Korobkova, the first pupil of Semenov, Thomas Loy, who greatly innovated the analytical techniques for functional interpretation, and the unforgettable Amilcare Bietti, the very first Italian paletnologist who understand the powerful potential of the functional approach. His intellectual reference and scientific support had been in these years a great light for Italian prehistoric archaeologists. Finally, last but not least, Laura and Natalia are really thankful to Massimo Saracino and Martina Dalla Riva which painstaking work and enthusiasm never fell to be a professional and responsive support. Without their help this volume would had never see the light.

Bibliography ANDERSON-GERFAUD, P. 1981. Contribution Méthodologique a l'analyse des microtraces d'utilisation sur les

outils préhistoriques. Thèse de 3e cycle. Université de Bordeaux. ANDERSON, P. C., KOROBKOVA, G.F., LONGO, L., PLISSON, H., SKAKUN, N. 2005. Various view

points on the work of S. A. Semenov. In Longo L., Skakun N. (eds) The roots of use-wear analysis: selected papers of S. A. Semenov. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, II serie, Scienze dell’Uomo, 7, 11-19.

AUDOUZE, F. 2002. Leroi-Gourhan, a Philospher of technique and evolution. Journal of Archaeological Research, 10(4), 277-306.

BINFORD, L.R., BINFORD, S., 1966. A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois facies. American Anthropologist, 68, 2, 238-295.

BINFORD L.R., 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, NY. BORDES F. 1967, Considérations sur la typologie et les techniques dans le Paléolithique, Quatär, 18, 25-55. BORDES, F., RIGAUD, J.PH., DE SONNEVILLE-BORDES, D., 1972. Des buts, problemes et limites de

l’archaeologie paleolithique. Quaternaria, 16, 15–37. BORDES, F. 1972. A Tale of Two Caves. Bordeaux. BREUIL, H., 1954, Prolégomènes à une classification préhistorique, B. S. P. F., 51, 7-15.

xiii

CAHEN, D., KEELEY, L.H., VAN NOTEN, F.L., 1979. Stone tools, tool kits and human behaviour in Prehistory. Current Anthropology, 20 (4),661-683.

COOK, J., DUMONT, J., 1987. The Development and application of microwear analysis since 1964. In Sieveking, G. de G. and Newcomer, M.H. (eds.) The Human Uses of Flint and Chert: Proceedings of the Fourth International Flint Symposium. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 53-61

CRABTREE, D. E., 1982. An Introduction to Flint working. Occasional Papers of the Idaho Museum of Natural History, 28, Second Edition, Pocatello, Idaho.

FRISON, G.C., 1968. A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools. American Antiquity, 33(2), 149-155. FULLAGAR, R., 1998. A closer look. Recent Australian studies of stone tools. Sidney Universiy Archaeological

Methods, 6. GENDEL, P.A., PIRNAY, L., 1982. Microwear Analysis of Experimental Stone Tools: Further Test Results.

Studia Prehistorica Belgica, 2, 251-65. GRACE, R., GRAHAM, I.D.G., NEWCOMER, M.H.,1985. The Quantification of Microwear Polishes. World

Archaeology, 17(1), 112-120. HAYDEN, B., KAMMINGA, J., 1979. An introduction to Use-Wear: the first CLUW, In B. Hayden (ed)

Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, Studies in Archaeology, Academic Press, 1-13. INGOLD, T., 1986. The appropriation of nature. Essays on human ecology and social relations, Manchester

University Press. KEELEY, L.H., NEWCOMER, M.H., 1977. Microwear Analysis of Experimental Flint Tools: a Test Case.

Journal of Archaeological Science, 4(1), 29-62. KEELEY, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: a Microwear Analysis. University of

Chicago Press. Chicago. LEVI SALA, I., 1986. A Word of Caution: Use Wear and Post-depositional Surface Modification. Journal of

Archaeological Science, 13, LONGO L., SKAKUN N., 2005. The roots of use-wear analysis: selected papers of S. A. Semenov. Memorie del

Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, II serie, Scienze dell’Uomo, 7. LEVITT, J., 1979. A review of experimental traceological research in USRR. In B. Hayden (ed) Lithic Use-

Wear Analysis, Studies in Archaeology, Academic Press, 27-38. LOY, T., 1983. Prehistoric blood residues: Detection on tool surfaces and identification of species of origin. Science, 220. MANSUR, M.E., 1982. Microwear analysis of natural and use striations: New clues to the mechanism of

striation formation. In D. Cahen (ed.) Tailler! pour quoi faire: Préhistoire et technologie lithique 2. Recent progress in microwear studies. Studia Prehistorica Belgica. 2, 213-233

MURRAY, T. (ed.), 1999. Encyclopedia of Archaeology. The great archaeologists, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara. NEWCOMER, M.H., GRACE, R., UNGER-HAMILTON, R., 1986. Investigating microwear polishes with

blind tests. Journal of Archaeological Science,13, 203-217. O’CONNEL, J.F., 1995. Ethnoarchaeology needs a general theory of behaviour. Journal of Archaeological

Research, 3, 205-255. ODELL, G., 2006. Lithic Technology, OLAUSSON, D.S. 1978. Starting from scratch: The history of edge wear research from 1838-1978. Lithic

Technology, 9, 48-60. OWEN, L. R., POOR, M., 1999. Ethno-Analogy and the reconstruction of prehistoric artefact use and

production. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte, 14, Tubingen. SEMENOV, S.A.,1964. Prehistoric Technology. Adams and Dart. London SEMENOV, S. A., 1970. The form and funktions of the oldest tools. Quatär, 21, 1-20. SPAULDING, A.C., 1960. The dimensions of Archaeology. In: G.E Dole, R. L. Carneiro (eds) Essays in the

Science of Culture: In Honour of Leslie A.White. Crowell Co., NY, 437-456. SPAULDING, A.C., 1968. Explanation in Archaeology. In: L.R. Binford, S. Binford. (eds) New perspectives in

Archaeology. Chicago, Aldine, 33-39. THOMPSON, M. W., 1965/1998. Marxism and culture. Antiquity, 39, 108-116. TRINGHAM, R., COOPER, G., ODELL, G., VOYTEK, B., WHITMAN, A., 1974. Experimentation in the

formation of edge damage: A new approach to lithic analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1, 171-196. VAYSON DE PRADENNE, A., 1921. Communications sur “les fonds commun aux industries de la pierre”,

L’Anthropologie, 31, 45-347. WHITE, J.P., THOMAS, D.H., 1972. What mean these stones ? Ethno-taxonomic models and archaeological

interpretation in the New Guinea Highlands. In D.L. Clarke (ed.) Methods in Archaeology. Methuen. London. 275-308.

xv

ORAL SESSION

5.1. Methodology