Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Comparative studies of ground stone artifacts have been limited, due to widely varying terminology and typological schemes
restricted to material from one or two specific sites. Most interim site reports describe such artifacts only briefly. Yet ground stone
has important implications for the development of prehistoric technology and therefore deserves at least as much attention as is
routinely given to chipped stone tools. This article presents definitions of technological and morphological terms and a general
classification applicable to prehistoric Levantine sites. While morphological typology should certainly not be the final goal of
ground stone analyses, few would dispute the need for relatively standardized terminology that will permit communication of
finds.
Rsum
Les tudes comparatives du mobilier en pierre sont restes limites en raison d'une terminologie trs variable ainsi que d'une
typologie restreinte du matriel provenant seulement d'un ou deux sites. La plupart des rapports prliminaires ne dcrivent ces
objets que trs sommairement. Or, le mobilier en pierre joue un rle important dans le dveloppement de la technologie
prhistorique et mrite autant d'intrt que celui accord aux outils taills. Cet article prsente des dfinitions de termes
technologiques et morphologiques, ainsi qu'une classification gnrale applicable aux sites prhistoriques du Levant. La
typologie morphologique n'est pas le but final des analyses de mobilier en pierre mais est ncessaire afin de permettre les
comparaisons.
ABSTRACT. - Comparative studies of ground stone artifacts have been limited, due to widely varying terminology and typological
schemes restricted to material from one or two specific sites. Most interim site reports describe such artifacts only briefly. Yet
ground stone has important implications for the development of prehistoric technology and therefore deserves at least as much
attention as is routinely given to chipped stone tools. This article presents definitions of technological and morphological terms
and a general classification applicable to prehistoric Levantine sites. While morphological typology should certainly not be the
final goal of ground stone analyses, few would dispute the need for relatively standardized terminology that will permit com
munication
of finds.
RESUME. - Les tudes comparatives du mobilier en pierre sont restes limites en raison d'une terminologie trs variable ainsi
que d'une typologie restreinte du matriel provenant seulement d'un ou deux sites. La plupart des rapports prliminaires ne
dcrivent ces objets que trs sommairement. Or, le mobilier en pierre joue un rle important dans le dveloppement de la technologie
prhistorique et mrite autant d'intrt que celui accord aux outils taills. Cet article prsente des dfinitions de termes tech
nologiques
et morphologiques, ainsi qu'une classification gnrale applicable aux sites prhistoriques du Levant. La typologie
morphologique n'est pas le but final des analyses de mobilier en pierre mais est ncessaire afin de permettre les comparaisons.
(1) As previously noted by HOLE et al, 1969 170; KRAYBILL, 1977 487; HERSH, 1981 77f; RUNNELS, 1981 ; NIERL, 1983; VOIGT, 1983: 247. Type names, definitions and
numbering schemes all vary widely.
(2) Exceptions to this criticism include DORRELL, 1983;
NIERL, 1983; VOIGT, 1983; CLUZAN, 1984; MOUTON,
1984; ROODENBERG, 1986, though the typologies are still sitespecific and emphasize different attributes. The studies by NIERL
,1983; MOUTON, 1984 and ROODENBERG, 1986 are also
outstanding in their emphasis on ground stone technology.
(3) DUNNELL, 1971; cf. SOLECK1, 1969; NOY, 1979;
BANKS, 1980; HERSH, 1981; DAVIS, 1982; DORRELL, 1983;
MOHOLY-NAGY, 1983. Among comparative studies of wider
scope, KRAYBILL (1977) covers the entire Old World (but in
very general terms); essays by FUJIMOTO (1984, 1985) cover
the Levant (in Japanese); WRIGHT (1992) has a comprehensive
review of Levantine prehistoric material.
(4) SUMNER, 1967; SOLECKI, 1969; NOY, 1979; ADAMS,
1983; NIERL, 1983; MOUTON, 1984, ROODENBERG, 1986.
(5) E.g. BORDES, 1961; TIXIER, 1963; BAR-YOSEF, 1970.
53
54
(16)
SPETH,
(17)
(18)
TECHNOLOGICAL TERMS
TABLE 1
Stages in the reduction of ground stone tools and their products
(adapted from Bar-Yosef 1981a : Fig. 3)
BASIC TECHNOLOGY Selection of Raw Material
Rock type
Basalt Sandstone Granite etc.
Source type...
Bedrock Bedded Surface boulder etc.
Size of block.. Pebble (4-64 mm); Cobble (65-256 mm); Boulder (256+)
Primary Reduction: Initial Preparation and Blank Production
None
Unmodi f ied raw block
Splitting from bedded source. .. .Quarried blank
Flaking
Core, Flake, Debitage
SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY
Selection of Blanks
Chosen blanks
Discarded blanks
Unprepared (raw blocks)
Prepared
Cores
Flakes
Outils a posteriori
Pounders
Polishing Pebbles
Worked Pebbles, Cobbles
Size
Flake (24)
Blade (24)
Unmodified boulder/cobble/pebble = surface no
dule;
no primary reduction.
Flake Morphology
Ventral Surface (25)
(24) TIXIER, 1974 14.
surface"
(25) for
TIXIER,
the side1974
opposite
5. HAYDEN'S
a metate use(1987)
surfaceusage
is notof the
"ventral
same
as that used here. Some ground stone artifacts made on large flakes
exhibit the grinding surface on the ventral side (WRIGHT, 1992).
57
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
: : :
: : : :
'
/f
- .*4
tf J
4 . J
(c)
(d)
(b)
id) Pestle
A = Face (Use Surface)
= Shaft
= Transverse Section
(c) Handstone
A = Face (Use Surface)
= Lateral Side
= End
D = Dorsal Side (if unifacial)
= Face (if bifacial)
E = Longitudinal Section
F = Transverse Section
58
WAF
LAF
RDO
HGT
VARIABLES
Concave surfaces
CI
(a) Flat
CI
(b) Dished :
(c) V-shaped CI
(d) U-shaped
(shallow) : CI
(e) U-shaped
CI
(deep)
= 0-0.05
= 0.10-0 .40
= 0.45-0 .75
= 0.80-1 .10
= 1.15-2 .00
CI = 0- [-0.05]
CI = -10.10-0.40]
CI = -[0.45-0.75]
CI = -10.80-1.10]
CI = -[1.15-2.00]
These categories are used in definitions of querns, mortars, handstones and pestles (see below).
TYPE LIST
The following list gives names and numbers of the artifact classes. Nomenclature is discussed in the
definitions. Figures 4 through 12 illustrate most but not all of the types.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Block Quern
Block Grinding Slab
Boulder Quern
Boulder Grinding Slab
Saddle-shaped Quern
Saddle-shaped Grinding Slab
Trough Quern
Pebble Mortar
Bowl Mortar
Boulder Mortar
On flaked/pecked boulder
Hollowed Mortar
A. Grinding slabs/querns
8. Trough Grinding Slab
9. Basin Quern
10. Basin Grinding Slab
11. Hollowed Quern
12. Hollowed Grinding Slab
13. Fragment
14. Miscellaneous
B. Mortars
20.
21.
22.
23.
Pillar Mortar
Bedrock Mortar
Fragment
Miscellaneous Mortar
C. Handstones
45.
/Wedged
46.
/Triangular
47.
/Piano-irregular
48. Bifacial Rectilinear/Oval
49.
/Lens
50.
/Tapered
51.
/Planoconvex
52.
/Flat
53.
/Wedged
54.
/Triangular
55.
/Piano-irregular
56. Handstone on Flake
57. Bell-shaped Muller
58. Handstone a posteriori
59. Unifacial Discoidal
60. Unifacial Ovate
61. Unifacial Rectilinear
62. Unifacial Loaf
63. Fragment
64. Miscellaneous Handstone
61
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
Bipolar Cylindrical
Unipolar Cylindrical
Bipolar Conical
Unipolar Conical
Unipolar Knobbed
D. Pestles
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
Unipolar "Collared"
Soft Mini-pestle
"Figurine" Pestle
Fragment
Miscellaneous Pestle
E. Pounders
78. Cuboid
79. Fragment
F. Polishing pebbles
82. Fragment
Trapezoidal Axe
Trapezoidal Celt
Ovate Celt
Chisel
Miniature Celt
Ebauchoir
J. Perforated stones/disks
Counterpoise Weight
109. Loomweight
Perforated Axe-head
110. Macehead
111. "Pendant Palette"
Perforated Post Socket
Perforation on Disk
112. Unperforated Disk
Spindle Whorl
113. Miscellaneous
Platter
"Potlid" Platter
Drill-marked Platter
Globular Bowl
Upright Bowl
V-shaped Bowl
Carinated Bowl
Miniature Vessel
Vase
Fenestrated Vessel
Solid-foot Vessel
135. Quern/Mortar
136. Grinding Slab/Mortar
137. Pestle/Bell Muller
K. Stone vessels
125. Hollow-foot Vessel
126. Tripod Vessel
127. Quadripod Vessel
128. Spouted Vessel
129. Lugged/Handled Vessel
130. Miscellaneous Vessel
131. Rim Fragment
132. Base Fragment
133. Body Fragment
134. Unfinished Vessel
L. Multiple tools
138. "Baguette" Pestle/Handstone
139. Other Pestle/Handstone
140. Miscellaneous
62
M. Debitage
143. Flake
144. Indeterminate Spall
63
(42) In the literature, terms for grinding slabs and querns are
extremely variable (e.g. "grinding stone" "mette", "meule",
"rpercutant", etc. Although the term "quern" is widely em
ployed
to refer to a rotary handmill such as used since historic
times (HOLE et al, 1969 170; RUNNELS, 1981), there was a
need for a term to distinguish more primitive grinding tools i
nvolving
rotary motion from those involving lateral grinding.
"Quern" was considered acceptable. For French equivalents,
ROUX (1985 45) uses "meule plane" and "meule-rnortier" but
these terms would be misleading in the scheme used here. Conseq
uently, the term "meule" is used here as an equivalent of grin
ding slab (lateral motion) and "moulin" is used as the equivalent
of "quern" (rotary motion). Neither the English "quern" nor the
French "moulin" is entirely satisfactory but these seem to be the
best terms available.
(43) Cf. CLUZAN, 1984 fig. 65, 2; WRIGHT, 1992 fig. 510, a.
64
16
21
FIG. 5. - Artifact types : mortars.
No. 9 Basin Quern
(50) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969 fig. 74, c-d; NOY, 1979 fig. 7NIERL, 1983 PI. 1, 1.
(51) Cf. NIERL, 1983 PL 5, 60.
65
42
40
43
44
45
FIG. 6. - Artifact types : handstones.
46
47
: :
66
65
66
67
70
72
67
: :
: :
69
No. 76 Spherical/Irregular
Blank : as No. 75. Battering marks cover be
tween
25 and 90 % of blank, but the tool is not
completely spherical and there are angular edges
remaining.
No. 77 Spheroid
Blank : as No. 75. Battering marks cover 90100 % of the blank and the overall shape is a nearly
perfect sphere.
No. 78 Cuboid
As No. 77 but there are at least 2 flat facets
and the shape is closer to a cube than a sphere. Has
evidence of grinding on the facets.
No. 79 Fragment
Any broken flint core or nodule with battering
marks.
75-78)
E. Pounders (fig. 8
70
80
75
76
77
81
78
88
84
85
86
87
FIG. 8. - Artifact types : pounders, polishing stones, worked pebbles and cobbles.
No. 82 Polishing Pebble Fragment
%J
\J
93
97
95
96
FIG. 9. - Artifact types : axes and celts.
blade, or core of any stone other than flint. The
exclusion of flint axes and celts from this typology
is arbitrary. The chief technological difference be
tween
flint and non-flint axes/celts lies in the role
of pecking and grinding/polishing in manufacture.
Pecking is not used for flint celts and grinding is
often limited to the bit (75).
The classification here modifies types defined
by Roodenberg (76). Roodenberg distinguishes
manufacturing striae on the bit (visible to the naked
eye) from use-wear striae (visible at 40x), but it is
not clear that this distinction can be consistently
applied. Resharpening and reuse often obscure usewear traces. Here, the categories of traces on the bit
are all defined as visible to the naked eye. They
include : presence/absence of polishing, grinding,
flake scars and whether flake scars are superimposed
on a polished bit (or vice versa). These may reflect
manufacture, use or resharpening. Roodenberg's
types also incorporate percussion traces on the butt.
Here, these categories include flaking and pecking.
(75) Thus, terminology used here differs from that of M0RTENSEN, 1970.
(76) ROODENBERG, 1986.
72
No. 92 Chisel
Blank : thick blade. Elongated, with parallel lat
eral sides and oval or triangular transverse section.
L/W ratio > 2. Butt : percussion traces. Bit : unifa
cially or bifacially ground/polished; symmetrical or
asymmetrical in section. Bit length less than or equal
to maximum width of tool. Retouch : as No. 89.
Edge angle : 60-75 if resharpening has not been
extensive (80).
No. 93 Ebauchoir
Blank thick blade. Similar to No. 92, but thin
ner and without percussion on butt. May be facetted
on shaft. L/W ratio > 2. Butt : no percussion traces.
Bit : narrow, thin, bifacially ground and polished ;
symmetrical or asymmetrical in section. Bit length
less than or equal to maximum width of tool. Edge
angle : less than 60 (81).
2.
: :
b.)
(86) Cf. PERROT, 1966 fig. 20, 21,23 ; HOLE et al., 1969
fig. 80; CLUZAN, 1984: fig. 71, 3; LECHEVALLIER et al.,
1989 fig. 4, 6.
(87) Cf. PERROT, 1966 fig. 20, 3-12; HOLE et al., 1969
fig. 83, a-f; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 222, 1-11.
(88) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: 192; DORRELL, 1983:
fig. 222, 17; fig. 226, 17; NOY, 1989: fig. 4, 1.
(89) Cf. PERROT, 1951 : 172f. ; PERROT, 1966 fig. 21, 15
HOLE et al. 1969 : fig. 86; VOIGT, 1983 : fig. 118 ("stamps");
CLUZAN, 1984 fig. 73-75.
(84) HOLE et al., 1969 fig. 83, i; DAVIS, 1982 fig. 3.5,
(85) Cf. "chipped stone hoes" (HOLE et al, 1969, fig. 81,
73
: :
102
100
101
104
106
QD
107
108
109
111
11 2
110
FIG. 10. - Artifact types : grooved and perforated stones.
No. 103 Miscellaneous Grooved Stone
Any grooved or incised stone not falling into
the above categories (90)
Blank : cobble or pebble, flaked/pecked to discoidal shape but irregular in thickness from one end
to another. Small perforation or drill mark, may be
central or off-center (94).
: :
75
115
114
117
1 21
119
1 22
1 24
1 25
1 23
1 26
FIG. 11. - Artifact types : stone vessels.
with
carinated
wall
or
: :
76
1 37
135
136
1 38
141
142
1 43
(110) Cf. ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 75, fig. 76, fig. 79.
(111) Cf. MOUTON, 1984: fig. 58, 5-9,11,16
(112) Cf. MOUTON, 1984: fig. 58, 10.
: :
77
135-138)
1969
1970
Acknowledgements
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Les percuteurs de Cheikh Hassan. Paper presented
at "Table-ronde sur le traitement de la matire minr
ale, animale et vgtale au moyen du mobilier en
pierre," Institut de Prhistoire Orientale, Jals,
France, February 6, 1991.
ADAMS J.
1989
Methods for improving ground stone artifacts ana
lysis experiments in mano wear patterns. In
AMICK D. and MAULDIN R. (eds), Experiments
in Lithic Technology 259-276. BAR Int. Ser. 528.
Oxford.
ADAMS R. MCC.
1983
The Jarmo stone and pottery vessel industries. In
BRAIDWOOD L.S. et al. (eds), Prehistoric Archae
ologyAlong the Zagros Flanks. Oriental Institute
Publications 105 209-232. Chicago University
of Chicago Press.
BANKS K.
1980
The grinding implements of Wadi Kubbaniya. In
WENDORF F. and SCHILD R. (eds), Loaves and
Fishes : the Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya 239244. Dallas SMU Press.
BARTLETT K.
1933
Pueblo milling stones of the Flagstaff region and
their relation to others in the Southwest. Bulletin of
the Museum of Northern Arizona 3.
BAR-YOSEF O.
1970
The Epi-Paleolithic Cultures of Palestine.
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, Jeru
salem.
1981
The Epi-Paleolithic complexes in the southern
vant. In CAUVIN J. and SANLAVILLE P. (d),
Prhistoire du Levant 389-408. Paris CNRS.
BINFORD L.
1982
The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropologic
al
Archaeology 1 5-31.
1983
In Pursuit of the Past. London : Thames and Huds
on.
BINFORD L.R. and BINFORD S.
1966
A preliminary analysis of functional variability in
the Mousterian of Levallois facis. American An
thropologist
68 238-295.
BORDES F.
1961
Typologie du Palolithique, Ancien et Moyen I et
II. Paris : Editions du CNRS.
1968
The Old Stone Age. New York McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
ABBES F.
1991
CAUVIN J.
1963
Le Nolithique de Moukhtara (Liban-Sud). L'An
thropologie
67 489-512.
CLOSE A.
1978
The identification of style in lithic artifacts. World
Archaeology 10, 2: 223-237.
CLUZAN S.
1984
L'outillage et les petits objets en pierre. In : LE
BRUN A. (d.), Fouilles rcentes Khirokitia
(Chypre) 1977-1981 111-124. Paris Editions Re
cherche
sur les Civilisations, Mmoire n 41.
DAVIS M.
1982
The Caynii ground stone. In BRAIDWOOD R.
and BRAIDWOOD L. (eds), Prehistoric Village Ar
chaeology
in South-Eastern Turkey 73-174. BAR
Int. Sen 138. Oxford.
DIBBLE H.
1987
The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper
morphology. American Antiquity 52, 1 109-117.
DOLLFUS G.
1985
Le travail de la pierre Mallaha. Dossiers Histoire
et Archologie 100 69.
DOLLFUS G., KAFAFI Z., REWERSKI J., VAILLANT N.,
COQUEUGNIOT E., DESSE J. and NEEF R.
1988
Abu Hamid, an early fourth millennium site in the
Jordan Valley. In GARRARD A.N. and GEBEL
H.G. (eds), The Prehistory of Jordan: 567- 601.
BAR Int. Ser. 396 (ii). Oxford.
DORRELL P.
1983
Appendix A Stone Vessels, Tools and Objects. In
KENYON K. and HOLLAND T.A. (eds), Jericho
V. London British School of Archaeology in Jeru
salem.
DUNNELL R.
1971
Systematics in Prehistory. New York Free Press.
EPSTEIN
1978
A new aspect of Chalcolithic culture. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 229 27-45.
1988
Basalt pillar figures from the Golan and the Huleh
region. Israel Exploration Journal 38, 4 205-223.
FUJIMOTO T.
1984
Grinding slabs, handstones, mortars, pestles and
saddle querns : Epipaleolithic and Neolithic of the
Southern Levant. Bulletin of the Department of Ar
chaeology,
University of Tokyo 3 41-58 (in
Japanese with English summary).
1985
Grinding slabs, handstones, mortars, pestles and
saddle querns Epipaleolithic and Neolithic of the
Northern Levant. Bulletin of the Department of Ar
chaeology,
University of Tokyo 4 1-30 (in Japanese
with English summary).
FROST H.
1984
Khirokitia : une pierre d'ancrage. In LE BRUN A.
(d.). Fouilles rcentes Khirokitia (Chypre) 197781 125-126. Paris : Editions Recherche sur les Ci
vil sations,
Mmoire n 41.
79
1:
: :
TOTH N.
1985
VOIGT M.
1983
Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran : the Neolithic Settlement.
Philadelphia The University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania.
WILLOUGHBY P.
1985
Spheroids and battered stones in the early African
Stone Age. World Archaeology 17 44-60.
WOODBURY R.
Prehistoric stone implements of northeastern Arizon
1954
a.Papers of the Peabodv Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology XXXIV.
WRIGHT K.
The origins and development of ground stone a
1991
s emblages
in late Pleistocene southwest Asia. Palorient 17, 1 19-45.
1992
Ground Stone Assemblage Variation and Subsistence
Strategies in the Levant, 22,000-5,500 b.p. Unpubl
ished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropol
ogy,
Yale University.
in press
Early Holocene Ground Stone Assemblages from the
Levant. Levant XXV.
'
RUNNELS .
1981
A Diachronic Study and Economie Analysis of
stones from the Argolid. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington. Ann Arbor University
Microfilms International.
SOLECKI R.L.
1969
Milling tools and the Epipaleolithic in the Near
East. "Etudes sur le Quaternaire dans le Monde"
989-994. Paris VIIIe Congrs Union Internationale
pour l'Etude du Quaternaire, Vol. 2.
SPETH J.
1972
The mechanical basis of percussion flaking. Ameri
canAntiquity 37 34- 60.
STEKELIS M. and YIZRAELY T.
1963
Excavations at Nahal Oren, preliminary report.
rael Exploration Journal 13 :1-12.
SUMNER W.
1967
A typology of Middle Eastern saddle querns. M.A.
thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
TIXIER J.
Typologie de L Epipalolithique du Maghreb. Paris
1963
Arts et Mtiers Graphiques.
1974
Glossary for the description of stone tools with spe
cial reference to the Epipaleolithic of the Maghreb.
ROUX V.
1985
81