Through Time: Reconstructing Palaeolithic Occupations Through Use-Wear Analysis in the Middle Palaeolithic Site of Ciota Ciara (Borgosesia, Italy)

Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2024) 7:9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-024-00173-3 RESEARCH Through Time: Reconstructing Palaeolithic Occupations Through Use‑Wear Analysis in the Middle Palaeolithic Site of Ciota Ciara (Borgosesia, Italy) Gabriele L.F. Berruti1,2 · Diego E. Angelucci3 · Julie Arnaud1,2 · Claudio Berto2,4 · Sandro Caracausi1,2 · Roberto Cavicchi1 · Sara Daffara1,2 · Riccardo Galla1 · Trishia Gayle Palconit1 · Maurizio Zambaldi2,3,5 · Marta Arzarello1,2 Accepted: 1 March 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Lithic use-wear analysis, through defining site function and allowing reconstructing of patterns of human occupation, can contribute to our understanding of archaeological palimpsests. The Ciota Ciara cave represents an excellent case study for this methodology. Multidisciplinary research so far conducted on the materials recovered from the atrial sector of the cave distinguishes three archaeological units from a Middle Palaeolithic occupation of the site: stratigraphic units (SUs) 13, 14, and 15. Each unit is interpreted as referring to a period of numerous, superimposed episodes of human occupation, the characteristics of which we try to reconstruct and present in this work through use-wear studies. The functional analysis of lithic industries from the upper units (13 and 14) has already been published previously; here, we report corresponding new data from the lowest level, SU 15. By comparing the use-wear results from the three units and integrating the findings with data from the geoarchaeological, palaeontological, zooarchaeological, and technological studies, we attempt to reconstruct the different phases of human occupation represented in the site through time, contributing to current interpretations regarding settlement dynamics and human behaviour in the Middle Palaeolithic of north-western Italy. Keywords Ciota Ciara cave · Use-wear analysis · Middle Palaeolithic · Piedmont · Settlement Introduction The use of objects to extract resources or to create shelters is not an exclusively human trait; a bird can use different materials to build a nest (Campbell & Lack, 1985), a * Gabriele L.F. Berruti 1 Sezione di Scienze Preistoriche ed Antropologiche, Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università degli Studi di Ferrara, Corso Ercole I d’Este, 32 Ferrara, Italy 2 Associazione culturale 3P – Progetto Preistoria Piemonte, Via Lunga 38, San Mauro T.se, Italy 3 Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia, Università di Trento, Via Tommaso Gar, 14 Trento, Italy 4 Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmieście 26, /28 Warsaw, Poland 5 Centro de Arcquelogia da Universidade de Lisboa (UNIARQ)‑Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa, Universidade de Lisboa Alameda da Universidade, 1600‑214 Lisboa, Portugal chimpanzee can use a twig to capture termites, a sea otter can use stones as anvils to break the shell of molluscs (Hall & Schalle, 1964). Nonetheless, humans are unique in the extent to which they rely on technology, and Homo is characterised as a genus of obligated tool users (Kuhn, 1992). The surviving evidence of tools related to the Palaeolithic refers almost exclusively to knapped stone artefacts. Investigating how hominins have produced, designed, and used these tools in the past is crucial to our understanding of the evolution of human behaviour (Ambrose, 2001). During the last 70 years, archaeological research has featured different aspects of the study of lithic artefacts, such as morphology and classification (typological approach) (e.g. Bordes, 1961; Broglio & Kozlowski, 1984; Fernández Eraso & García Rojas, 2013; Laplace, 1964), methods and techniques of production (technological approach) (e.g. Boëda, 1993; Boëda et al., 1990; Chazan, 1997; Geneste, 1991; Moncel et al., 2020; Pelegrin et al., 1988; Peresani, 2003; Rey-Rodríguez et al., 2016; Tixier, 1978), procurement of raw materials (Andrefsky Jr., 1994; Aubry et al., 2012; Bailey et al., 2011; Vol.:(0123456789) 9 Page 2 of 27 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology (2024) 7:9 Journal of Paleolithic Archaeology Page 3 of 27 (2024) 7:9 ◂Fig. 1  A Southwest entrance of the Ciota Ciara cave. B Location of Piedmont and Monte Fenera. C View of the west side of the mountain. D Planimetry of the cave showing the areas investigated during the 1950–1960s, detail of the excavated area in the atrial sector of the cave (Berruti et al., 2023) Beller, 2023; Borrazzo & Etchichury, 2010; Doronicheva et al., 2016; Féblot-Augustins, 1997; Fernandes et al., 2008; Gurova et al., 2016; Mayor et al., 2022; Olivares et al., 2009; Pop et al., 2022; Tarriño et al., 2015; Vallejo Rodríguez et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2018), and tool use and function (Cahen et al., 1979; Carbonell et al., 1999; Faulks et al., 2011; Iwase, 2016; Keeley, 1980; Martín-Viveros & Ollé, 2020; Odell, 1988; Ollé et al., 2017; Pedergnana & Ollé, 2019; Rots, 2008; Semenov, 1964; Tringham et al., 1974; Vergès & Ollé, 2011). The functional analysis of prehistoric tools based on usewear traces emerged in the early 1900s with the pioneering works of Spurrell (1892) and Curwen (1930) but started to thrive only in 1957 with the work of Semenov and its diffusion after translation from Russian in 1964 (Semenov, 1964). In his work, he defined the fundamentals of the discipline: the use of microscopes to observe and interpret traces found on the surface of ancient tools by comparing them with traces produced experimentally (Semenov, 1964). Subsequently, aspects concerning the formation of traces depending on the type of raw material, tool morphology, hardness of contact material, and gesture applied during tool use were discussed (Odell, 1981; Semenov, 1964; Tringham et al., 1974). Throughout the years, the discipline has gone through many adaptations and developments according to changes in the methodological and theoretical frameworks (Calandra et al., 2019; Kimball et al., 1995; Tringham et al., 1974; Van Gijn, 2014), with recent discussions also concerning terminology (Marreiros et al., 2020). Many researchers underline that the discipline requires new quantitative techniques, while others focus on improving the accuracy of the method through developing more detailed experiments, employing more controlled protocols, or incorporating blind tests (e.g. Berruti & Cura, 2016; Cahen et al., 1979; Church & Ellis, 1996; Grace et al., 2010; Kohler & Parker, 1986; Lemorini et al., 2014; Marreiros et al., 2015; Ollé et al., 2017; Xhauflair et al., 2017). To date, studies concerning the application of use-wear analysis can be divided into different groups. The first includes studies that aim to expand the discipline with the adoption of new technologies or implementing the methodology on different types of raw material (e.g. Beyries et al., 1988; Borel et al., 2014; Calandra et al., 2019; d’Errico & Backwell, 2009; Faulks et al., 2011; Groman-Yaroslavski et al., 2022; Ollé & Vergès, 2014; Pedergnana, 2019; Pedergnana et al., (...truncated)