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

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