Content uploaded by Emanuela Cristiani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emanuela Cristiani on Mar 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ground stone tool production and use in the
Late Upper Palaeolithic: The evidence from
Riparo Dalmeri (Venetian Prealps, Italy)
Emanuela Cristiani
1
, Cristina Lemorini
2
and Giampaolo Dalmeri
3
1
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, U.K.,
2
La Sapienza, University of
Rome, Rome, Italy,
3
Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, Trento, Italy
The site of Riparo Dalmeri yielded numerous flint, bone, and shell artifacts, as well as faunal and botanical
remains, 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 267
stones painted with anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and geometric designs. Here we report on ground
stone tools from Riparo Dalmeri investigated by means of an integrated technofunctional and experimental
approach to reconstruct their production and use. The results support the hypothesis that the ground stone
artifacts were employed in specialized activities (e.g., hide treatment, flintknapping) as well as in the
production of some of the painted stone artifacts.
Keywords: Riparo Dalmeri, ground stone tools, use wear analysis, Late Upper Palaeolithic, Late Epigravettian, painted stones
Introduction
Recent 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 for
Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Downing Street,
Cambridge, CB2 3ER (U.K.). Email: ec484@cam.ac.uk
34
ßTrustees of Boston University 2012
DOI 10.1179/0093469011Z.000000000 3 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 Alps
TheendofthePleistocenewasacrucialmoment
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
retreatoftheWu¨rm 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 the
Southern Dolomites
Among 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. 2srange Material dated
U.S. 26b UtC-6777 11,100¡60 13,130–12,900 Charcoal
U.S. 14 KI-3634 11,260¡100 13,310–12,940 Charcoal
U.S. 26e Rome-657 11,250¡100 13,300–12,940 Charcoal
U.S. 26d KIA-20345 11,340¡45 13,300–13,120 Charcoal
U.S. 65 KIA-20341 11,450¡50 13,410–13,210 Charcoal
U.S. 51 UtC-5040 11,550¡70 13,590–13,250 Charcoal
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
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
thesiteindicatesanopenalpineprairiewheresome
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 Dalmeri
The 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 operational
sequences for the
production of:
Backed and truncated
bladelets
- bladelets Scrapers
- blades/laminar flakes Burins
Unipolar debitage of
small cores or slabs with
single (rarely double)
percussion plane
Retouched blades
Dwelling Phase II Backed knives
Single operational sequence
for the production of:
Becs
- bladelets/big bladelets Retouched flakes
- blades Notched tools
Unipolar debitage of small
cores or slabs with single
(rarely double) percussion
plane
Bone tool industry Bones Dwelling Phases I/II Curated double points
(metapodial/long
bones from Cervus
elaphus and Capra ibex)
Two distinct operational
sequences for the
production of:
Curated tapered points
Antler - formal/curated tools Spatulas
(Cervus elaphus) - expedient tools Chisels
- indirect percussion Expedient points
- double longitudinal engraving Expedient awls on flakes
Expedient use of butchering flakes Expedient scrapers on flakes
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1 37
Figure 4 Plan view of the distribution of painted stones. Dashed line indicates the ritual area.
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
38 Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1
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 Tools
The 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.
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1 39
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).
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
40 Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1
Figure 7 Distributions of ground stone tools and painted stones.
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1 41
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.
Methods
The 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 manufacturing
traces; (U)5Use wear.
Item Phase Type
Length
(mm)
Width
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
Raw
material
State of
preservation
Adhesive
wear 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
pits
5 II Oval handstone 123 48 13 Limestone Slightly
altered
__
6 I Rectangular
handstone
33 36 11 Greenish
stone
Altered _ _
7 I Rectangular
handstone
83 41 11 Siltstone Altered _ _
8 II Rectangular
handstone
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 item
with ochre stripes
90 37 63 Limestone Slightly
altered
Ochre Pits (T)
Table 4 Ad hoc replicas of the ground stone tools from Riparo Dalmeri. (T)5Technological traces; (U)5Use wear.
Experimental
number
Raw
material Technology Type Grip Action Material
Adhesive
wear
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 ochre
Ochre
805a Siltstone Unmodified Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tannedhide
with ochre
–
805b Siltstone Abrasion (sandstone) Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tanned hide –
806 Siltstone Abrasion (sandstone) Polisher Hand Softening Dry-tanned hide
with 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 flint
flake on slab
Dry-tanned hide Ochre
812 Limestone Engraving with lithic
tool using direct
percussion
Seal Hand Stamping ochre
drawing
Dry-tanned hide Ochre
813 Limestone Engraving with lithic
tool using indirect
percussion
Artwork Hand Painting ochre
stripes
Limestone Ochre
816 Limestone Engraving with lithic
tool using direct
percussion
Artwork Hand Painting ochre
stripes
Limestone Ochre
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
42 Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1
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 Activity
The 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 6A
Striations (U) Hammerstone 6B
_ Hammerstone 6C
_ Hammerstone/
occasional slab
6D
Weak striations (U)/edge
rounding (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 with
ochre
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, wide
scratches (U)
–
– Deep striations (T)/leveling (T) and edge
rounding (U)
Pits (U) Striations (U)
– Striations (T)/weak leveling (T)
Pits (T) Few shallow striations (T)
Deep, wide
scratches
(T)
Few shallow striations (T)
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1 43
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 from
Riparo Dalmeri
The 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 core
abrasion
Four 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.
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
44 Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1
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 abrasion
A 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 ochre
One 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 hides
A 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 crushing
pigments
A 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 artwork
A 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
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1 45
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.
Conclusions
Evidence 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.
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
46 Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1
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.
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1 47
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.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dusˇan 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.
References
Adams, 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 Raw
Material 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 in
Italy During the Late Glacial Period: The Examples of Riparo
Dalmeri (Trento),’’ in J. P. Brugal and J. Desse, eds., Petits
animaux et societe´ s humaines. Du comple´ment alimentaire
aux ressources utilitaires.Actes des XXIV Rencontres
Internationales d’Arche´ologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes, 23–25
October 2003. Antibes: Editions APDCA, 131–136.
Aranguren, B., L. Longo, A. Lunardi, and A. Revedin. 2008.
‘‘Bilancino, a Specialized Site for ‘Latent Technology’: An
Integrated Approach,’’ in L. Longo and N. Skakun, eds.,
‘‘Prehistoric Technology’’ 40 Years Later: Functional Studies
and the Russian Legacy.BAR International Series 1783.
Oxford: B.A.R., 121–129.
Bagolini, B., and G. Dalmeri. 1983. ‘‘Site pale`olithique Tardif-
Me`solithique du lac de Terlago (Trento),’’ Preistoria Alpina 19:
189–196.
Bagolini, B., and A. Guerreschi. 1978. ‘‘Notizie preliminari sulle
ricerche 1977–1978 nell’insediamento paleolitico delle Viotte di
Bondone (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,’’ Annali
dell’Universita` di Ferrara 3/4: 61–105.
Bertola, S. 2008. ‘‘Ricerche sulle ocre e sui minerali potenzialmente
coloranti nel settore orientale dell’Altopiano di Asiago,’’ in
G. Dalmeri and S. Neri, eds., ‘‘Riparo Dalmeri e l’occupazione
epigravettiana,’’ 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. Rocci
Ris, 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 fa
cosmopolitismo 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.
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
48 Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1
Archeologia Preistorica Vol. 5. Firenze: Milleni, Museo
Fiorentino di Preistoria ‘‘Paolo Graziozi,’’ 39–94.
Bisi, F., A. Broglio, A. Guerreschi, and M. Radmilli. 1983.
‘‘L’e´pigravettien e´ volue´ et final dans la zone haute et moyenne
Adriatique,’’Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 38: 229–265.
Bosinski, G. 1990. Les civilisations de la Pre´histoire. Les chasseurs
du Pale´olithique supe´ rieur (40.000–10.000 av. J.-C.). Paris:
Editions Errance.
Broglio, A., and G. Dalmeri, eds. 2005. Pitture paleolitiche nelle
Prealpi Venete. Grotta di Fumane e Riparo Dalmeri. Verona:
Cierre Edizioni.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. ‘‘Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis
of Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program,’’ Radiocarbon 37: 425–
430.
Cardini, L. 1980. ‘‘La necropoli Mesolitica delle Arene Candide
(Liguria),’’ Memorie dell’Istituto Italiano di Paleontologia
Umana 3: 9–31.
Cassoli, P. F., G. Dalmeri, I. Fiore, and A. Tagliacozzo. 1999.
‘‘Abri Dalmeri (Trento-Italie): la chasse dans un gisement
Epigravettien de montagne,’’ in A. The`venin and P. Binz, eds.,
Actes du 5 Coll. Int. UISPP Grenoble (Ise`re, Francia). Paris:
Editions du CTHS, 459–464.
Clottes, J. 1999. La vie et l’art des Magdale´niens en Arie`ge. Paris:
La maison des roches.
Cristiani, E. 2008. ‘‘Analisi funzionale dei manufatti in materia
dura animale del Riparo Dalmeri (Altopiano della Marcesina,
Trento),’’ in G. Dalmeri and S. Neri, eds., ‘‘Riparo Dalmeri e
l’occupazione epigravettiana,’’ Preistoria Alpina 43: 259–287.
Cristiani, E. 2009. ‘‘Aggiornamento dei manufatti in materia dura
animale 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 tra
il Pleistocene finale e l’Olocene antico nella regione alpina
orientale,’’ unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, La Sapienza,
University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Cristiani, E., and G. Dalmeri. 2011. ‘‘Functional Analysis of the
Decorated Ground Stone Tool from Terlago (TN),’’ Preistoria
Alpina 45: 185–191.
Cusinato, A. 1999. ‘‘L’industria litica epigravettiana di Riparo
Dalmeri,’’ in G. Bretschneider, ed., Rivista di Archeologia,
XXIII, 5–26.
Dalmeri, G. 1993. ‘‘Ricerche nel sito Tardopaleolitico-Mesolitico
di Terlago (Trentino). Tracce di strutture di abitato,’’ Natura
Bresciana 28: 433–461.
Dalmeri, G., and S. Neri. 2008. ‘‘Riparo Dalmeri: l’uomo e due stili
di raffigurazione. Analisi formale di quattro pietre decorate
con figure antropomorfe,’’ in G. Dalmeri and S. Neri, eds.,
‘‘Riparo Dalmeri e l’occupazione epigravettiana,’’ Preistoria
Alpina 43: 299–315.
Dalmeri, G., M. Bassetti, A. Cusinato, K. Kompatscher, and
M. Hrozny Kompatscher. 2005. ‘‘The Discovery of a Painted
Anthropomorphic Figure at Riparo Dalmeri and New Insights
into Alpine Epigravettian Art,’’ Preistoria Alpina 41: 163–169.
Dalmeri, G., M. Bassetti, A. Cusinato, K. Kompatscher, and
M. Hrozny Kompatscher. 2006. ‘‘Le site Epigravettien de
l’Abri Dalmeri: aspects artistiques a` la fin du Pale´olithique
supe´rieur 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 pietre
dipinte del sito epigravettiano di Riparo Dalmeri. Campagna
di ricerche 2001,’’ Preistoria Alpina 38: 3–34.
Dalmeri, G., A. Cusinato, K. Kompatscher, M. Hrozny
Kompatscher, M. Bassetti, and S. Neri. 2009. ‘‘The Ochre
Painted Stones from the Riparo Dalmeri (Trento).
Development of the Research on the Art and Rituality of the
Epigravettian Site,’’ Proceedings of the Hugo Obermaier
Society 49th Annual Meeting in Trento (10–14 of April,
2007). Preistoria Alpina 44: 95–119.
Delgado Raak, S., and R. Risch. 2008. ‘‘Lithic Perspectives on
Metallurgy: An Example from Copper and Bronze Age South-
East Iberia,’’ in L. Longo and N. Skakun, eds., ‘‘Prehistoric
Technology’’ 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian
Legacy.BAR International Series 1783. Oxford: B.A.R., 235–
252.
Dubreuil, L. 2004. ‘‘Long-Term Trends in Natufian Subsistence: A
Use-wear Analysis of Ground Stone Tools,’’ Journal of
Archaeological Science 31: 1613–1629.
Dubreuil, L. 2008. ‘‘Mortar Versus Grinding-Slabs Function in the
Context 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.BAR
International Series 1783. Oxford: B.A.R., 169–178.
Dubreuil, L., and L. Grosman. 2009. ‘‘Ochre and Hide-Working at
a Natufan Burial Place,’’ Antiquity 83: 935–954.
Fiore, I., and A. Tagliacozzo. 2005. ‘‘L’analisi dei resti faunistici: il
contesto paleoecologico e l’economia del sito,’’ in A. Broglio
and 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. ‘‘Riparo
Tagliente. La serie epigravettiana,’’ in A. Aspes, ed.,
Preistoria Veronese: Contributi e aggiornamenti. Memorie del
Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, II serie, Sez. Scienze
dell’Uomo 5. Verona: Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di
Verona, 42–47.
Formicola, E., P. Pettitt, R. Maggi, and R. Hedges. 2005. ‘‘Tempo
and Mode of the Formation of the Late Epigravettian
Necropolis of Arene Candide Cave (Italy): Direct
Radiocarbon Evidence,’’ Journal of Archaeological Science
32: 1598–1602.
Fullagar, R., and J. H. Field. 1997. ‘‘Pleistocene Seed-Grinding
Implements 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 Natural
Origin of Hematite-Based Red Pigments in Archaeological
Contexts: The Case of Riparo Dalmeri (Trento, Italy),’’
Archaeometry 53: 950–962.
Guerreschi, A. 1984. ‘‘Il sito epigravettiano di Andalo (Trento) ed
alcune considerazioni sull’Epigravettiano finale nel nord
Italia,’’ Preistoria Alpina 20: 15–38.
Gurioli, F. 2008. ‘‘Analisi tecnologica dei manufatti in materia
dura 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 Grinding
and 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 of
Grinding Stones: The Blind-Test Contribution,’’ in L. Longo
and N. Skakun, eds., ‘‘Prehistoric Technology’’ 40 Years Later:
Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy.BAR International
Series 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. ‘‘Geoarchaeology
of the Kostenki–Borshchevo Sites, Don River Valley, Russia,’’
Geoarchaeology 22: 181–228.
Lemorini, C., P. Rossetti, A. Cusinato, G. Dalmeri, M. Hrozny
Kompatscher, and K. Kompatscher. 2006. ‘‘L’analisi delle
tracce d’uso e l’elaborazione spaziale: il riconoscimento di
un’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’e´volution des groupes humains e´pigravettiens
d’Italie Nord Orientale: la production lithique de l’US 15a-65
du Riparo Dalmeri,’’ in G. Dalmeri and S. Neri, eds., ‘‘Riparo
Dalmeri e l’occupazione epigravettiana,’’ Preistoria Alpina 43:
191–208.
Peresani, M., ed. 2004. 12.000 anni fa al Bus de La Lum. Un
accampamento paleolitico sull’Altopiano del Cansiglio.
Pordenone: Societa` Naturalisti S. Zenari.
Piperno, D. R., E. Weiss, I. Holst, D. Nadel. 2004. ‘‘Processing of
Wild Cereal Grains in the Upper Palaeolithic Revealed by
Starch Grain Analysis,’’ Nature 430: 670–672.
Procopiou, H., P. Anderson, F. Formenti, and J. J. Tresseras. 2002.
‘‘Etude des matie`res transforme´es sur les outils de mouture:
identification des re´sidus et des traces d’usure par analyse
chimique et par observations en microscope optique et e´lectro-
nique,’’ in R. Treuil and H. Procopiou, eds., Moudre et Broyer,
Vol. I: Me´thodes: Pe´trographie, chimie, trace´ ologie, expe´rimen-
tation, ethnoarche´ ologie. Paris: CTHS, 111–128.
Ravazzi, C. 2003. ‘‘An Overview of the Quaternary Continental
Stratigraphic Units Based on Biological and Climatic Events in
Italy,’’ Il Quaternario, Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences
16: 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-Old
Evidence of Plant Food Processing,’’ Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science 107: 18815–18819.
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1 49
Rosano`, P., and S. Pellizzaro. 2005. ‘‘Analisi chimico-stratigrafico
di tre pietre dipinte con ocra,’’ in A. Broglio and G. Dalmeri,
eds., Pitture paleolitiche nelle Prealpi Venete - Grotta di Fumane
e Riparo Dalmeri. Verona: Cierre Edizioni, 139–143.
Rots, V. 2010. Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools. A
Methodology. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Svoboda, J., M. Kra´lı´k, V. Cul ı´kova´, S
ˇ.Hladilova´, M. Nova´k,
M. Ny´vltova´Fisˇa´ kova´, D. Ny´ vlt, and M. Zelinkova´ . 2009.
‘‘Pavlov VI: An Upper Paleolithic Living Unit,’’ Antiquity 83:
282–295.
Zampetti,D.,C.Lemorini,andM.Massussi.2007.‘‘Art
et vie quotidienne dans l’e´pigravettien final,’’ in S. de
Beaune, ed., Chasseurs-cuilleurs. Comment vivaient nos
ancetres du Pale´olitique supe´rieur. Me´thodes d’analyse et
d’interpre´tation en Pre´historie. Paris: CNRS editions, 171–
185.
Cristiani et al. Palaeolithic ground stone tools, Italy
50 Journal of Field Archaeology 2012 VOL.37 NO.1
