A Techno-Functional Interpretation of the Lithic Assemblage from Fontana Ranuccio (Anagni, Central Italy): an Insight into a MIS 11 Human Behaviour

Abstract

The techno-functional approach has been employed to better understand one of the more relevant artifact types generally found in Lower Palaeolithic sites: so-called small tools. Particularly, some Italian sites, such as Ficoncella, Isernia and others, have been the subject of specialized studies which provide evidence of an unexpected complexity of technical behaviours mainly related to highly specialized functional properties of the small tools. In this paper, we aim to enhance the debate on the topic by presenting a technofunctional study of the entire lithic assemblage coming from one of the most renown Middle Pleistocene sites in southern Europe, the open-air site of Fontana Ranuccio (Central Italy). Five groups of retouched tools have been identified: cutting tools, where retouch is usually applied to isolate a cutting edge on the blank; pointed tools, where retouch isolates a pointed edge; scrapers; and few other types of retouched tools such as notches and denticulates. We discuss a reconstruction of the reduction sequence in association with the functional features of the produced stone tools in order to better understand these Middle Pleistocene hominin behaviours. Broadly speaking, retouch seems to be used as a real technical process, not distinguishable from the reduction sequence. What seems relevant here is the need to modify the original morphology of flakes and cores in order to shape them into the final objectives of the production. In this perspective, blank production (débitage) and tool shaping (façonnage) are tightly interconnected one on the other.

Evidence for Earlier Stone Age ‘coastal use’: The site of Dungo IV, Benguela Province, Angola

“…These provide a chronology for removals and their relation to the volumetric patterns of the blank, and also, detail for a techno-functional analysis. The techno-functional analysis was based on Boe ¨da [203] and as applied by several others [204][205][206][207][208][209], which highlights the value of this approach when understanding stone tools with limited removals (e.g. pebble/cobble tools) or very short reduction…”

For Our World Without Sound: the Opportunistic Debitage in the Italian Context—a Methodological Evaluation of the Lithic Assemblages of Pirro Nord, Cà Belvedere di Montepoggiolo, Ciota Ciara Cave and Riparo Tagliente

“…During the Middle Pleistocene, simultaneously, along with an increase of archaeological evidence, a persistence of the opportunistic debitage can be attested throughout Europe. These assemblages are often associated with the first bifacial complexes (Barsky et al, 2013;Bourguignon et al, 2016;García-Medrano et al, 2015;Martínez & Garcia Garriga, 2016;Moncel et al, 2013Moncel et al, , 2014Preece & Parfitt, 2012;Santagata, 2016) or to small-medium flake ones (Aureli et al, 2016;Despriée et al, 2010;Gallotti & Peretto, 2015;Grimaldi et al, 2020;Muttillo et al, 2021;Ollé et al, 2013;Parfitt et al, 2008;Preece & Parfitt, 2012;Rocca et al, 2016), although terminological and methodological issues endure. The reduction sequences always comprise strong flexibility and versatility, translating in a constant adaptation to the raw material's morphology and optimisation of flake production.…”

Environmental evolution, faunal and human occupation since 2 Ma in the Anagni basin, central Italy

“…More recently, the application of the 40 Ar/ 39 Ar dating method on the volcanic deposits intercalated within the sedimentary successions of the Latin Valley has led to provide precise ages to several important Middle Pleistocene archaeological sites 11 , 12 . Among these, the abovementioned Ceprano site, as well as FR, where one of the richest bone-tool assemblages of Italy was recovered 6 , 10 , 13 , 14 , along with four human teeth 15 – 17 , lithic assemblage 18 , and a large vertebrate bone fossil record, which constitutes the local fauna for the homonymous, Late Galerian Faunal Unit of the Aurelian Mammal Age 19 , 20 .…”