‘Prehistoric Technology’ 40 years later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy: Proceedings of the International Congress Verona (Italy) 20-23 April 2005 (original) (raw)

Abstract

ABSTRACT 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. 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 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).