Once the new version of the paper carried out by Carpentieri and Arzarello and entitled “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 " are reviewed and analyzed, we accept the manuscript in its current form. The comments previously exposed have been attended correctly so no new changes are required.

Dear editors,

Please find in attached file the pdf with my comments inserted in blue for the second round of review. I especially encourage the authors to fully consider the central question of the definition of the "opportunistic debitage" taking into account our remarks included in the following file, and to rework it before submitting the reviewed version.

Best regards,

David Hérisson

The paper “For our world with no sound. The concept of opportunism in the Italian context: a methodological evaluation of the lithic assemblages of Pirro Nord, Cà Belvedere di Montepoggiolo, Ciota Ciara cave and Riparo Tagliente.” discusses the question of weekly predetermined debitage in Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Italian assemblages. These productions were systematically under-estimated and under-studied by scholars because they have been considered as “simple” debitage with low behavioural significance. This study enters in the current dynamic of the definition of these weekly predetermined chaînes opératoires, often present in the lithic assemblages since the Lower Pleistocene and the first peopling of Europe. Such a study is thus welcomed, exploring an under-studied aspect of lithic technology.

I think some elements has to be improved to deliver a paper fully publishable. I just discuss some points here, detailed remarks have been done directly in the attached paper (see commentary column).

I suggest improving the figure of artefacts adding diacritic diagram (just adding arrows and numbers to the photographs or delivering the diacritic diagram that have been made as written by the authors). In fact, only with the photograph, it is hard to see the removal negative directions. Arrows or diacritic diagram will be helpful for readers.

If possible, the authors could add 3D schemes like fig. 1 to deliver a better view of the described chaînes opératoires. A or some examples of such a 3D scheme could be added to show the archaeological refits and the reconstructed chaînes opératoires.

It may be helpful to better distinguish the archaeological and the experimental description. A solution coud be to insert a sub-title.

I think the objectives of the experimentation could be more precisely explained.

I invite the authors to rephrase some sentences and to review the technological description paying attention to the use of correct technological terminology, or if terminological creation or rarity to precise the definitions employed.

And finally, I invite the authors to deeply explained and clarified the use of « opportunistic », is it a method, a concept, a debitage? The authors must give a detailed definition for these elements. It is a central question in the paper and the proposed definition and explanation are not enough clear and complete. I also suggest you to discuss the concept of « affordance » recently introduced in lithic technology by Eric Boëda, or also his proposal of the type C debitage (Boëda, 2013). It could give you the opportunity to clarify your position comparing the two proposals.

The paper entitled For our world with no sound. The concept of opportunism in the Italian context: a methodological evaluation of the lithic assemblages of Pirro Nord, Cà Belvedere di Montepoggiolo, Ciota Ciara cave and Riparo Tagliente by Marco Carpentieri and Marta Arzarello is indisputably a strong and large work on the explanation of the opportunistic débitage concept. To do this, the authors use four interesting Italian sites spanning the entire Pleistocene sequence. Data given by the authors are proper and attest a large amount of work, which is remarkable. However, there are several questions that must be explained and qualified in the text before being published. I would suggest some changes to enhance the paper:

First of all, in the introductory section, a bit of the discussion around the definition problems of the SSDD and other systems such as Quina, branched/ramified productions, etc. is missing. This would give greater consistency to the debate and to the problems raised in this work.

Regarding to section 3, in table 4, it would be interesting to see which are also the removal directions of the core-on-flakes. I also wonder if there are kombewa-type flakes and, if there are, what is the explanation given and to which operational chain they belong (are they independent? Why and how?).

The paper should also include more sub-sections with unequivocal titles helping the reading, which is dense and sometimes difficult to follow. Each sub-section would be devoted to one idea.

On the other hand, when the authors talk about “Pirro Nord and Cà Belvedere di Montepoggiolo’s flakes share common features. Quadrangular non-standardized shapes are widely attested, slightly longer than larger and with at least one cutting edge, usually on the lateral margin (Fig. 4,5). The dimensional range of the flakes, bearing or not cortex, is quite homogenous, confirming the shortness of the reduction sequences”, it would be a good option to present a detailed graphic device with the typometry of the elements analyzed. Likewise, quantify and measure the negatives of the last removals from cores. This would allow us to see the sizes and their relationship with the objectives of lithic production, the economy of the raw material, etc.

In this same section and in the following ones, we think that in figures 4, 5, 7, 14, 22 and 23, it would be positive to add the profiles and striking platforms of the pieces to see the morphology, if they are some prepared, etc. In the same way, it would help to better understand the analysis of the archaeological cores drawing on the photos with the negatives removals, adding the direction of the flakes with arrows, making a drawing of the cores with a diacritical lecture, etc. (for example in figures 2, 3, 12, 14 and 21 in the same way as in figure 1).

Also, it is necessary to highlight the piece that is being discussed when explaining some relevant point in the text, since otherwise it is difficult to follow what the authors are trying to underline. In most cases, reference is made to the figure but not to the part. For example, it would be better to put Fig. 2.1, 2.2, or 2.3.

Finally, a paper on lithic strategies without drawings of some relevant artifacts, schemes of the main reductions methods, etc., seems odd.

In section 4, the following statement should be qualified and explained in detail: “The presence of Levallois and Discoid productions within the context proves, on one side, that the exploitation of raw materials qualitatively regarded as inferior does not invalidate the possibility of using more complex flaking methods. On the other side, it underlines how the opportunistic debitage persists during these chronological phases resulting in being as much as an efficient and independent method for the manufacturing of functional products”. On the one hand, it is widely attested, as in many sites, the raw material does not condition the development of more complex technologies such as Levallois and discoid. There are also cases in which these are documented in other lower quality raw materials such as limestone, quartzite, sandstone, etc. And, on the other hand, in the presence of typical palimpsests that we have for most of the sites of these chronologies, it should be taken into account that it is difficult to link which populations have one technology and which another. That is to say, that complex productions such as Levallois or discoid coexist with other opportunists and it could be due to different occupations of diverse groups within the same palimpsest and what is the relationship between them is very difficult to determine.

Finally, we think that there is a lack of a section dedicated exclusively to the data discussion provided in the paper. This would be compared with other sites in the area and others in the nearby European region. This would help us to have a broader view of the resource management carried out by these populations in Western Europe and along a chronological range as broad as the one covered in this study.