Annali online Unife (Università degli Studi di Ferrara)
Not a member yet
1987 research outputs found
Sort by
MESO2025 - Session 3. Regional identities: Coordinated by Dmytro Kiosak and Thomas Perrin
No full textArchaeologist have long sought to grasp regional identities of the past through the concept of archaeological culture and a related typo-chronological approach. In that sense, an archaeological culture cannot of course reflect a prehistoric ethnic reality, but serves as a flexible categorization, suggesting both persistence over time and the geographical consistency of comparable artifacts within the archaeological sites. To truly grasp prehistoric realities, however, one must look beyond these classifications and grasp the true duration and spatial dimension of these societies. By adopting this approach, these categorical units can acquire tangible historical significance: examining both advances and regressions allows a deeper understanding of human influence and action.
Classical archaeological culture is only one type of spatial and temporal distribution of material culture variability. Only by comparing the spatial and temporal distribution of different categories of artefacts can we propose the identification of prehistoric cultures. At different scales and using different approaches, regional facies or larger techno-complexes can also be identified. Do pattern of variability of lithics, ceramics, bone items, decorations coincide in time and space? Often they do not. Accordingly, we are interested in new approaches to understanding the nature of multicriteria variability: networks, spatialregression models, fuzzy sets approaches and agent-based modelling. These cases of inconsistency between the distributions of different categories of material culture have the greatest heuristic potential for understanding the nature of past identities.
Moreover, radiocarbon dating has given us a powerful new tool for testing typochronologies - and quite often, typochronologies fail this test. So, the question is why? Why did certain types of things that should have existed for a limited period of time actually exist for longer? Why did types that should have outlived each other actually coexist? What are the social mechanisms of innovation behind these cases?Archaeologist have long sought to grasp regional identities of the past through the concept of archaeological culture and a related typo-chronological approach. In that sense, an archaeological culture cannot of course reflect a prehistoric ethnic reality, but serves as a flexible categorization, suggesting both persistence over time and the geographical consistency of comparable artifacts within the archaeological sites. To truly grasp prehistoric realities, however, one must look beyond these classifications and grasp the true duration and spatial dimension of these societies. By adopting this approach, these categorical units can acquire tangible historical significance: examining both advances and regressions allows a deeper understanding of human influence and action.
Classical archaeological culture is only one type of spatial and temporal distribution of material culture variability. Only by comparing the spatial and temporal distribution of different categories of artefacts can we propose the identification of prehistoric cultures. At different scales and using different approaches, regional facies or larger techno-complexes can also be identified. Do pattern of variability of lithics, ceramics, bone items, decorations coincide in time and space? Often they do not. Accordingly, we are interested in new approaches to understanding the nature of multicriteria variability: networks, spatial regression models, fuzzy sets approaches and agent-based modelling. These cases of inconsistency between the distributions of different categories of material culture have the greatest heuristic potential for understanding the nature of past identities.Moreover, radiocarbon dating has given us a powerful new tool for testing typochronologies - and quite often, typochronologies fail this test. So, the question is why? Why did certain types of things that should have existed for a limited period of time actually exist for longer? Why did types that should have outlived each other actually coexist? What are the social mechanisms of innovation behind these cases?
MESO2025 - Session 4. People and their environment: Coordinated by Auréade Henry and Harry K. Robson
No full textThe nature of the relationships hunter-gatherer-fisher societies had with their natural environment is key to understanding their “being-in-the-world”. Indeed, while organic remains reflect the palaeoenvironment, they also offer a unique insight into daily subsistence strategies, settlement patterns, mobility, techniques, health, worldviews and cultural traditions.
Throughout the Mesolithic, the use of plants and animals has some uniformity and great heterogeneity over time and space, reflecting the diversity of environmental and socio-economic interactions at play. Although central, the place of organics within Mesolithic societies remains difficult to grasp due to taphonomic issues but also because historically, most remains of organic origin have received less attention than stone (and bone) artefacts that have been used as “diagnostic fossils” to define Mesolithic techno-cultural complexes.
Over the past decades, a range of techniques have developed, allowing us to identify “invisible” or undeterminable remains (e.g., through proteomics, microscopic or organic residue analyses), interpret incremental patterns (e.g., cementochronology), and traces (e.g., traceology on inorganic and organic remains, dental use-wear). These advances have broadened our interdisciplinary research frameworks and have significantly increased the body of knowledge about Mesolithic environments, used taxa and palaeoethnoecological practices.
This session deals with the interactions of Mesolithic humans with their biological environment, focusing on how specific components of this environment were acquired, prepared/transformed, used and/or discarded, and what these actions may have implied in societal terms (economy, social organisation, territories, seasonality, diet, etc.). We welcome contributions dealing with palaeoenvironmental, palaeoclimatic and/or palaeoeconomic reconstructions based on plant, animal, fungal or bacterial remains.The nature of the relationship’s hunter-gatherer-fisher societies had with their natural environment is key to understanding their “being-in-the-world”. Indeed, while organic remains reflect the palaeoenvironment, they also offer a unique insight into daily subsistence strategies, settlement patterns, mobility, techniques, health, worldviews and cultural traditions.
Throughout the Mesolithic, the use of plants and animals has some uniformity and great heterogeneity over time and space, reflecting the diversity of environmental and socio-economic interactions at play. Although central, the place of organics within Mesolithic societies remains difficult to grasp due to taphonomic issues but also because historically, most remains of organic origin have received less attention than stone (and bone) artefacts that have been used as “diagnostic fossils” to define Mesolithic techno-cultural complexes.
Over the past decades, a range of techniques have developed, allowing us to identify “invisible” or undeterminable remains (e.g., through proteomics, microscopic or organic residue analyses), interpret incremental patterns (e.g., cementochronology), and traces (e.g., traceology on inorganic and organic remains, dental use-wear). These advances have broadened our interdisciplinary research frameworks and have significantly increased the body of knowledge about Mesolithic environments, used taxa and palaeoethnoecological practices.
This session deals with the interactions of Mesolithic humans with their biological environment, focusing on how specific components of this environment were acquired, prepared/transformed, used and/or discarded, and what these actions may have implied in societal terms (economy, social organisation, territories, seasonality, diet, etc.). We welcome contributions dealing with palaeoenvironmental, palaeoclimatic and/or palaeoeconomic reconstructions based on plant, animal, fungal or bacterial remains.
MESO2025 - Session 6. Settlements and dwellings: Coordinated by Daniel Groß and Nicky Milner
No full textThis session delves into the details of Mesolithic settlement patterns and dwellings through intrasite analysis. Recent archaeological excavations and methodological advancements have broadened our understanding on Mesolithic dwellings, prompting a reevaluation of traditional interpretations and unveiling fresh insights into prehistoric lifeways. Increasingly, evidence is contesting the model of fully mobile lifestyles and seasonal occupation patterns, and thus presents unique challenges and opportunities for understanding settlement organisation at a micro-scale level.
Key areas of discussion include the latest developments in the field, such as highresolution excavation techniques, advanced dating methods, and innovative scientific and analytical approaches. By zooming in on individual settlement sites, we aim to unravel the complexities of Mesolithic settlements and dwelling structures, including their architectural features, spatial organisation, and functional aspects. Moreover, we will critically examine the sources of evidence, considering the reliability and interpretative implications of archaeological data, stratigraphic sequences, and environmental proxies.
Through a synthesis of interdisciplinary perspectives and case studies from diverse geographic regions, this session seeks to address fundamental questions regarding Mesolithic settlement patterns and the socio-economic dynamics that were the foundation of these communities. We want to discuss the intertwinement of artefacts, constructions, elusive features and activities and also welcome theoretical and methodological studies that advance our knowledge of Mesolithic lifeways and prehistoric settlement organisation on an intrasite level.This session delves into the details of Mesolithic settlement patterns and dwellings through intrasite analysis. Recent archaeological excavations and methodological advancements have broadened our understanding on Mesolithic dwellings, prompting a reevaluation of traditional interpretations and unveiling fresh insights into prehistoric lifeways. Increasingly, evidence is contesting the model of fully mobile lifestyles and seasonal occupation patterns, and thus presents unique challenges and opportunities for understanding settlement organisation at a micro-scale level.
Key areas of discussion include the latest developments in the field, such as highresolution excavation techniques, advanced dating methods, and innovative scientific and analytical approaches. By zooming in on individual settlement sites, we aim to unravel the complexities of Mesolithic settlements and dwelling structures, including their architectural features, spatial organisation, and functional aspects. Moreover, we will critically examine the sources of evidence, considering the reliability and interpretative implications of archaeological data, stratigraphic sequences, and environmental proxies.
Through a synthesis of interdisciplinary perspectives and case studies from diverse geographic regions, this session seeks to address fundamental questions regarding Mesolithic settlement patterns and the socio-economic dynamics that were the foundation of these communities. We want to discuss the intertwinement of artefacts, constructions, elusive features and activities and also welcome theoretical and methodological studies that advance our knowledge of Mesolithic lifeways and prehistoric settlement organisation on an intrasite level
MESO2025 - Session 12. Current research and Mesolithic narratives: Coordinated by Colas Guéret and Adriana Soto Sebastián
No full textBeyond their definition of hunter-gatherer-fisher societies, Mesolithic communities constituted diverse and complex realities. The research carried out on those populations reveals: the development and adoption of different strategies of exploitation and relationship with the environment, along with different ways of mobility and territoriality; the exploration of new spaces; the dynamism of their contact and exchange networks; the construction of different identities; their technological, artistic and symbolic practices; and their social and spatial organisation, among many other issues. These heterogeneous and dynamic realities can only be tackled successfully from a plurality of perspectives, approaches, methodologies, and interpretations.
This session aims to include all those proposals that do not fit in the topics addressed in the other sessions, but which reflect the diversity of narratives and perspectives that encompass Mesolithic research. In this sense, the following issues will be welcomed: presentations of projects or new lines of research, with innovative thematic, methodological, and/or theoretical approaches; results of fieldwork and discoveries; analysis of materials and archaeological contexts; collaborative projects (collaborative databases, networks, etc.); and dissemination and social valorisation activities about Mesolithic research, as well as its impact on current societies. In short, all those efforts that constitute and build from plural and diverse perspectives our knowledge about Mesolithic societies.Beyond their definition of hunter-gatherer-fisher societies, Mesolithic communities constituted diverse and complex realities. The research carried out on those populations reveals: the development and adoption of different strategies of exploitation and relationship with the environment, along with different ways of mobility and territoriality; the exploration of new spaces; the dynamism of their contact and exchange networks; the construction of different identities; their technological, artistic and symbolic practices; and their social and spatial organisation, among many other issues. These heterogeneous and dynamic realities can only be tackled successfully from a plurality of perspectives, approaches, methodologies, and interpretations.
This session aims to include all those proposals that do not fit in the topics addressed in the other sessions, but which reflect the diversity of narratives and perspectives that encompass Mesolithic research. In this sense, the following issues will be welcomed: presentations of projects or new lines of research, with innovative thematic, methodological, and/or theoretical approaches; results of fieldwork and discoveries; analysis of materials and archaeological contexts; collaborative projects (collaborative databases, networks, etc.); and dissemination and social valorisation activities about Mesolithic research, as well as its impact on current societies. In short, all those efforts that constitute and build from plural and diverse perspectives our knowledge about Mesolithic societies
Piante geografiche e innesti fenomenologici: Da ecumene alla friche
No full textIn our article we address some ambiguities of the model of dwelling resulting from the grafting of Merleau-Ponty\u27s phenomenology and Berque\u27s geography. We argue that this constitutes a theoretical retreat from Merleau-Ponty\u27s ontological advances. More constructively, we propose an alternative graft, between Ricoeur\u27s hermeneutics of historical consciousness and Berque\u27s eco-hermeneutics, which constitutes its geographical and natural complement. Beyond this perspective, which we still consider to be marked by subjectivism and anthropocentrism, with and beyond Merleau-Ponty we will trace the outlines of an impersonal perspective of in-habitation, having, with Marc Richir, the flesh-chôra nexus as our guiding thread. In the last part of the article, we try to correspond the speculative proposal to concrete developments. Thus, a parable is traced from ecumene to friche, a mirror of chôra, concretised in Clément\u27s moving garden and third landscape.Nel nostro articolo affrontiamo alcune ambiguità del modello di abitare risultante dall’innesto della fenomenologia di Merleau-Ponty e la geografia di Berque. Riteniamo che questo costituisca un arretramento teorico rispetto agli avanzamenti ontologici di Merleau-Ponty. Più costruttivamente, proponiamo un alternativo innesto, tra l’ermeneutica della coscienza storica di Ricoeur e l’eco-ermeneutica di Berque che ne costituisce il completamento geografico e naturale. Oltre questa prospettiva, che consideriamo ancora marcata da soggettivismo e da antropocentrismo, con e oltre Merleau-Ponty tracceremo i lineamenti per una prospettiva impersonale di in-abitare, avendo, con Marc Richir, come filo conduttore il nesso carne-chôra. Nell’ultima parte dell’articolo cerchiamo di corrispondere la proposta speculativa a sviluppi concreti. Viene così tracciata una parabola da ecumene alla friche, specchio di chôra, concretizzata nel giardino in movimento e nel terzo paesaggio di Clément.
Per una filosofia terrestre: L’attuale convergenza di filosofia e geografia e le sue radici storico-culturali nella crisi della ragione
No full textI start from some considerations on the current convergence of philosophical research and geographical research, which configures a true "terrestrial philosophy" and which has its forerunner in Maurice Merleau-Ponty and contemporary points of reference in the work of Augustin Berque, Tim Ingold, by Dipesh Chakrabarty. I try therefore to show how the paradigm of a geographical and terrestrial history has its roots in the crisis of classical reason that affected European culture between the second half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th. I focus therefore on the new sense of space and depth that took hold at the end of the 19th century, with the pictorial revolution that culminated in the work of Paul Cézanne and, in particular, on some aspects of the work of Aloïs Riegl. Subsequently, I investigate how a new sense of history and the terrestrial develops with research on realism, on everyday life, on the epistemology of the fragment, on the "intermediate space" ("the Anteroom") of Eric Auerbach and Sigfried Kracauer. Then I return to some aspects of the theory of history and the institution that Merleau-Ponty outlines in the course at the Collège de France Institution and passivity of 1954-1955 (Italian translation Mimesis, Milan, 2023). In drawing conclusions, obviously provisional, I try to outline the prospects of research on the topic of geographical history or historical geography that derive from the models I focused on previously.Parto da alcune considerazioni sul convergere attuale di ricerca filosofica e ricerca geografica, che configura una vera e propria “filosofia terrestre” e che ha un suo precorritore in Maurice Merleau-Ponty e dei punti di riferimento contemporanei nell’opera di Augustin Berque, di Tim Ingold, di Dipesh Chakrabarty. Cerco quindi di mostrare come il paradigma di una storia geografica e terrestre abbia le sue radici nella crisi della ragione classica che ha investito la cultura europea fra la seconda metà del XIX secolo e i primi decenni del XX. Mi soffermo quindi sul nuovo senso dello spazio e della profondità che prende piede, alla fine del XIX secolo, con la rivoluzione pittorica che culmina nell’opera di Paul Cézanne e, in particolare, su alcuni aspetti dell’opera di Aloïs Riegl. Successivamente, indago come un nuovo senso della storia e del terrestre si sviluppi con le ricerche sul realismo, sulla vita quotidiana, sull’epistemologia del frammento, sullo “spazio intermedio” (“the Anteroom”) di Eric Auerbach e Sigfried Kracauer. Torno poi su alcuni aspetti della teoria della storia e dell’istituzione che Merleau-Ponty delinea nel corso al Collège de France L’istituzione, la passività del 1954-1955 (tr. it. Mimesis, Milano, 2023). In sede di conclusioni, ovviamente provvisorie, cerco di schizzare le prospettive della ricerca sul tema di una storia geografica o di una geografia storica che derivano dai modelli su cui mi sono soffermato in precedenza
I fiumi che siamo : Rivendicazioni di identità narrativa indigena per giustificare la concessione della personalità giuridica a un fiume
No full textThis article, anchored in Indigenous narratives, identifies the core arguments for granting juridical personhood to rivers and appointing Indigenous citizens as their legal guardians. The core arguments are as follows: for Indigenous peoples, dwelling on riverbanks is a matter of identity. This identity manifests itself through various interpersonal practices, including language – thus, narratives – and caring. The analysis of sampled narratives has uncovered valid rationales for granting legal personhood to rivers due to identities common to rivers and their dwellers, rivers’ specific capabilities, and their actantial features (rivers can act). Both legal personhood for rivers and Indigenous dwellers playing the role of their legal guardians are unique legal institutions to fulfil the critical interests and capabilities of rivers in times when these fragile ecosystems are under threat. We illustrate this by using the Amazon and Oder rivers as examples and referring to the Yanomami’s and Olga Tokarczuk’s narrative accounts.Questo articolo, appoggiandosi alle narrazioni indigene, identifica gli argomenti principali per concedere la personalità giuridica ai fiumi e nominare i cittadini indigeni come loro tutori legali. Le argomentazioni principali sono le seguenti: per i popoli indigeni, abitare sulle rive dei fiumi è una questione di identità. Questa identità si manifesta attraverso varie pratiche interpersonali, tra cui il linguaggio – quindi le narrazioni – e la cura. L’analisi delle narrazioni ha evidenziato validi motivi per concedere la personalità giuridica ai fiumi in virtù del legame esistente tra i fiumi e i loro abitanti, delle caratteristiche specifiche dei fiumi e della loro agency. Sia la personalità giuridica dei fiumi sia il ruolo di custodi legali degli abitanti rivieraschi sono istituzioni giuridiche essenziali per soddisfare gli interessi e le capacità critiche dei fiumi in un momento in cui questi fragili ecosistemi sono minacciati. Lo illustriamo utilizzando come esempi il Rio delle Amazzoni e il fiume Oder, e facendo riferimento ai racconti degli Yanomami e di Olga Tokarczuk
MESO2025 - Session 9. Understanding the social context: Coordinated by Emanuela Cristiani and Oreto García Puchol
No full textApproaching Mesolithic social life is fundamental for understanding social relationships among the last hunter-gatherer societies, encompassing various scales from local, regional and interregional connections. Research has focused on explaining the degree of complexity revealed by funerary practices, symbolic actions, hunter-gatherer and fishing strategies, storage practices, technological development, cultural transmission processes, mobility patterns and emerging sedentarisation processes and their implications in changing social strategies.
This session invites papers that aim to integrate data regarding the social organization of Mesolithic communities. We welcome different scientific approaches, including explanations covering different research lines from cultural, geospatial, and biological data. We encourage researchers to present works that test and describe hypotheses about social relationships across different spatial and temporal scales in Mesolithic societies. These works should focus on local settlements and regional analysis involving bioarchaeological data (anthropological and biomolecular analysis for approaching health, diet and kindship patterns) and cultural and contextual information (for addressing social patterns from material cultural records). We are particularly interested in works based on recent approaches to cutting-edge scientific developments, including ancient DNA, isotopic results, histological data, use-wear and residues analysis, dental calculus evidence, cultural patterns, and social network analysis. Approaching Mesolithic social life is fundamental for understanding social relationships among the last hunter-gatherer societies, encompassing various scales from local, regional and interregional connections. Research has focused on explaining the degree of complexity revealed by funerary practices, symbolic actions, hunter-gatherer and fishing strategies, storage practices, technological development, cultural transmission processes, mobility patterns and emerging sedentarisation processes and their implications in changing social strategies.
This session invites papers that aim to integrate data regarding the social organization of Mesolithic communities. We welcome different scientific approaches, including explanations covering different research lines from cultural, geospatial, and biological data. We encourage researchers to present works that test and describe hypotheses about social relationships across different spatial and temporal scales in Mesolithic societies. These works should focus on local settlements and regional analysis involving bioarchaeological data (anthropological and biomolecular analysis for approaching health, diet and kindship patterns) and cultural and contextual information (for addressing social patterns from material cultural records). We are particularly interested in works based on recent approaches to cutting-edge scientific developments, including ancient DNA, isotopic results, histological data, use-wear and residues analysis, dental calculus evidence, cultural patterns, and social network analysis
Il nesso intrinseco di etica, religione e storia. La lezione di Ernst Troeltsch
No full textEthics, religion, and history are the three decisive topics of Ernst Troeltsch\u27s work. Rather than thematizing each of them, the article intends to point out the deep and inextricable connections that bind them together. In this way, it will become clear that - from a Troeltschian perspective - the discussion on ethics cannot be carried through to the end without coming to terms with the transformation of modern Christianity and the historicity of values; that the problem of the absoluteness of Christianity is aggravated by the historicist perspective and carries strong moral implications; and that at the basis of the project of a material philosophy of history, there are ethical contents and a religious impulse. In its apparent outdatedness, Troeltsch\u27s framework is extremely stimulating for contemporary speculations.Etica, religione e storia sono i tre interessi decisivi dell’opera di Ernst Troeltsch. Più che tematizzare ciascuno di essi, l\u27intento dell\u27articolo è rilevare i profondi e inestricabili nessi che li legano l’uno all’altro. In tal modo, risulterà evidente che – nell’ottica troeltschiana – non si può portare sino in fondo la discussione sull’etica senza fare i conti con la trasformazione del cristianesimo moderno e con la storicità dei valori; che il problema dell’assolutezza del cristianesimo è aggravato dall’ottica storicistica e reca in sé forti implicazioni morali; e che alla base del progetto di una filosofia materiale della storia vi sono contenuti etici e un impulso religioso. Nella sua apparente inattualità, l’impianto di Troeltsch risulta oltremodo stimolante per le speculazioni contemporanee.
Spazi eterotopi, spazi altri: Progettare un paesaggio comune
No full textReferring to the Foucauldian thesis that heterotopia has as its rule the fact of juxtaposing in a real place other and different places that would normally be incompatible, this contribution would like to reflect on the presence and intelligibility of spaces others, which have the particular characteristic of being connected to all other spaces, but in such a way as to suspend the relationships that they themselves designate. The heterotope space that we will investigate is the ‘third landscape’ of Gilles Clément, a place at the threshold between the city and the countryside, not the object of anthropic practices. We will show that these abandoned places represent the necessary condition of the anthropised landscape and that, as such, they invite us to refound a new idea of landscape. By reactivating the category of the common we will reflect on the possibility of rethinking landscape in a structurally processual logic, abandoning, once and for all, the dichotomy underlying our way of living and thinking about landscape.Riferendoci alla tesi foucaultiana secondo cui l’eterotopia abbia come regola il fatto di giustapporre in un luogo reale altri e diversi luoghi che, normalmente, sarebbero incompatibili, questo contributo vorrebbe riflettere sulla presenza e sull’intelligibilità degli spazi altri, che hanno la particolare caratteristica di essere connessi a tutti gli altri spazi, ma in modo tale da sospendere i rapporti che essi stessi designano. Lo spazio eterotopo che indagheremo è il “terzo paesaggio” di Gilles Clément, un luogo alla soglia tra la città e la campagna, non oggetto di pratiche antropiche. Dimostreremo che questi luoghi abbandonati rappresentano la condizione necessaria del paesaggio antropizzato e che, come tali, invitano a rifondare una nuova idea di paesaggio. Riattivando la categoria del comune, rifletteremo sulla possibilità di ripensare il paesaggio in una logica strutturalmente processuale, abbandonando, una volta per tutte, la dicotomia sottesa al nostro modo di vivere e di pensare il paesaggio.