A Classification System For Ground Stone Tools From The Prehistoric Levant

Katherine Wright
A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the

Prehistoric Levant.
In: Palorient. 1992, Vol. 18 N2. pp. 53-81.
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.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Wright Katherine. A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. In: Palorient. 1992, Vol. 18 N2.
pp. 53-81.
doi : 10.3406/paleo.1992.4573
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/paleo_0153-9345_1992_num_18_2_4573
PALEORIENT, vol. 18/2 - 1992

A CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR GROUND STONE
TOOLS FROM THE PREHISTORIC LEVANT
K. WRIGHT
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.
Studies of ground stone assemblages from Near

Eastern prehistoric sites have been hampered by
inconsistent terminology (1). Many typologies are
based on a diverse mix of criteria, often loose ca
tegories
of shape and size (2) ; most are descriptions
of (often small) samples from one or two sites,
usually without general definitions that can be ap
plied to different assemblages (3); others focus only
on a few artifact classes (4) ; nearly all ignore ground
stone debitage. Thus, comparisons of assemblages
have been difficult to make. By contrast, chipped
stone studies employ relatively standard terms useful
for such comparisons (5). A standard descriptive
classification is a prerequisite for addressing the
significance of ground stone assemblage variations.
(6) WRIGHT, 1991, 1992. Specific instances of most of the

types presented here are described and illustrated in WRIGHT,
1992.
(7) RUNNELS, 1981 218f.
(8) JELINEK, 1976 22; cf. DIBBLE, 1987.
(9) WRIGHT, 1991, 1992; cf. JELINEK. 1976; TOTH, 1985;
DIBBLE, 1987.
(10) MARKS, 1983 : xiii.
: :
(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.
The purpose of this article is to present such a

classification for application to the prehistoric
Levant. Discussions of space-time systematics,
specific assemblages and functional significance of
the artifact classes are presented elsewhere (6).
The term "ground stone" is a misnomer (7).
Such tools may be made on flakes detached from
cores; some exhibit retouch; others are analogous
to "core tools." Here, the term refers to any tools
made by combinations of flaking, pecking, poundi
ng,grinding, drilling and incising. These include
mortars, pestles, grinding slabs, handstones, grooved
and perforated stones, axes and other types. Howe
ver, figurines and beads are excluded. Although
abrasion plays a prominent role in the technology,
a few artifact categories included here need not have
involved grinding (e.g. pounders, choppers).
Jelinek (8) suggests that chipped stone assembl
agesmainly reflect stages in progressive modificat
ion
of an original "functioning" toolkit. A similar
situation has been documented for Levantine ground
stone assemblages (9). A morphological classifica
tion
based on progressive lithic reduction is here
considered the best way of describing assembl
ages(10). This approach avoids assumptions that
53
morphological classes primarily reflect either stylis

tic"norms" or tool functions as inferred from eth
nographic
analogy. Variations resulting from
function or style will be better understood if tech
nological
criteria are addressed first (11).
The classification given here is regional in
scope (12) and based on defined classes as distinct
from individual samples (13). It gives definitions
applicable to Levantine assemblages of the Upper
Paleolithic through Chalcolithic time range (45,000
to 5,500 b.p.) It was derived from (a) direct exami
nation of 22 Levantine assemblages from diverse
environments, comprising 2,713 artifacts and (b)
comparison with ground stone presented in site re
ports
(14). The typology was constructed to meet
three prerequisites :
(a) It must be hierarchical, composed of larger
classes to which subclasses may be added. This
facilitates addition of types when new assemblages
are reviewed. The format is similar to that of wide
ly-used chipped stone classifications (15);
(b) Classes must be based on explicit, easily-r
eproduced attributes.
(c) Wherever possible, type names should em

ploy terms commonly used in the literature.
This typology depends on (a) definitions of raw
material properties ; (b) definitions of technological
terms; (c) definitions of "anatomical" terms for de
scribing
individual tools ; (d) definitions of vari
ables; (e) a type list; and (f) definitions of classes
(types). These are presented below.
RAW MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Discussion of raw material properties is based on

1972 Table 1.
SPETH, 1972 : Table 1.
HAYDEN, 1987 18.
:
54
(16)
SPETH,
(17)
(18)
(11) JELINEK, 1976; MARKS 1983: xiii ; TOTH, 1985:

107; OLSZEWSKI, 1986 79. Criticisms of chipped stone typo
logies such as those of Bordes center on the scope and interpre
tationof the types (BINFORD and BINFORD 1966; KERRICH
and CLARKE, 1967 JELINEK, 1976; MARKS, 1981 371 ; BIN
FORD, 1982 25; DIBBLE, 1987). Recent research stresses tech
nology, but no one disputes the need for classifications that permit
consistent description of finds (BINFORD,1983 96; DIBBLE,
1987 116). It should be emphasized that despite functional names
here assigned to artifact classes, the classification is not an allpurpose functional typology. Indeed, it is unlikely that such t
ypol gies
can be created (MARKS, 1983 xiii). The classification
presented here will be useful for subsequent functional interpre
tations if it is remembered that (a) establishing functional attr
ibutes depends entirely on the research questions asked
(b) functional interpretations are most reliable at the level of more
inclusive tool classes (CLOSE, 1978: 234; GORING-MORRIS,
1987 54); (c) general functions (e.g. "grinding") must be di
stinguished
from specific functions ("grain grinding"). Microwear
and residue analyses may prove useful for ground stone (ADAMS,
1989; JONES, 1990). See WRIGHT, 1992.
(12) Cf. BAR-YOSEF, 1970: 17.
(13) DUNNELL, 1971.
(14) WRIGHT, 1991, 1992 in press. The classification is i
ntended
primarily for Levantine material, but parallels are cited
from elsewhere in the Near East. The ground stone assemblages
from which this classification was developed come from the fo
l owing
sites UWAYNID 18, JILAT 6, JILAT 8, AZRAQ 17, JILAT 22, AZRAQ 32, WADI HAMMEH 27, AZRAQ 18, BEIDHA
(NATUFIAN), BEIDHA (PPNB), JILAT 7, JILAT 32, JILAT 26,
BA'JA, AZRAQ 31 (PPNB), DHUWEILA (PPNB), AZRAQ 31
5LATE NEOLITHIC), DHUWEILA (LATE NEOLITHIC), J
ILAT 25, JILAT 13, AIN GHAZAL (PPNC + YARMOUKIAN),
ABU HAMID. Unpublished material from AIN MALLAHA, BASTA and AIN GHAZAL (PPNB) was also made available to the
author. Direct examination of ground stone artifacts from these
sites was supplemented by examination of published assemblages.
The classification used here was developed from these sources.
Forthcoming reports by this author on specific Levantine assem
blages employ a slightly briefer version of the typology given here
(e.g. WRIGHT, 1992).
(15) BORDES, 1961; TIXIER, 1963; BAR-YOSEF, 1970.
Ground stone involves diverse raw materials and

there may be relationships between stone and tool
types. Physical properties affecting these patterns
may include hardness, density, brittleness and rough
ness. Some of the most common raw materials used
in Levantine ground stone technology are as fo
llows :
Flint. Flint is hard (Mohs = 7) and brittle with
high compressive strength and low tensile
strength (16). Low resistance to deformation by an
impact, conchoidal fracture and fine texture permit
predictability in flaking. These qualities make flint
disadvantageous for grinding tools, unless the sur
face is roughened via battering. Flint would be best
for pounding tools requiring an edge ("pecking
stones", "choppers").
Basalt. Feldspar basalts are softer than flint
(Mohs = 6) ; flaking is less controlled due to het
erogeneous
texture. Basalt has lower compressive and
higher tensile strength than flint and is more resis
tant to deformation (17). Making vesicular basalt
artifacts with stone tools requires "pics" of denser
materials with greater compressive strength, but they
need not be harder. Nonvesicular basalts have these
qualities (18). Vesicular basalt has a natural, durable
roughness that limits the need for re-pecking after
grinding. Grits are not easily detached and basalt
thus permits long use-lives for grinding tools.
Sandstone. Quartzitic sandstone is hard (Mohs
= 7) and can be flaked (with less control than flint,
as a result of its coarse, heterogeneous texture).
Coarse sandstones erode quickly under abrasion, a
drawback for long-lived grinding tools, since
roughening will be required. Sandstone probably
played a key role in manufacture (abrasion) of
ground stone tools.
Limestone. Limestone is soft (Mohs = 1-3.5)
but not brittle. Flaking is easily accomplished but
edges are quickly dulled. Hard limestone resists
deformation by an impact. These qualities make
FIG. 1. - Techniques in ground stone lithic reduction.

limestone useful for pounding tools, if long-term
durability is not needed. Most limestones are easily
smoothed and require much repecking if used for
grinding.
Granite. Granite is a hard (Mohs = 6-7), porphyritic igneous rock composed largely of silica
quartz and alkali feldspars. Under abrasion, some
granites easily lose surface roughness and would
require repecking if used for grinding tools. Particles
are not easily detached, however, and thus ground
products would remain relatively free of grit.
Quartzite. Quartzite is a hard (Mohs = 7) meta
morphosed
sandstone. Flaking of fine-grained homo
geneous quartzites can be almost as easily controlled
as flint. Coarser quartzites of heterogeneous textures
permit less control in flaking; but the coarseness
may be desirable if the intended use of the tool is
for grinding.
An important determinant of tool forms is the
size of raw material blocks available for tool pro
duction
(19). Variations in the form of an original
nodule or block exerted a strong influence on sizes
and shapes of ground stone tools at certain Levantine
prehistoric sites (20).
TECHNOLOGICAL TERMS
Terms for ground stone reduction follow many

of the definitions used for chipped stone. Where they
are identical, previously published definitions are
cited. Figure 1 illustrates reduction techniques and
the traces they produce on artifacts. The usages in
this study differ slightly from previous ones (21).
The scheme below encompasses a variety of possible
reduction alternatives and is intended to be general
enough to account for the reduction of most artifact
types. Table 1 shows a working scheme for describ
ing
reduction stages. Detailed discussion of ground
stone technology is given elsewhere (22) ; only a
summary of relevant terms is given here.
Nodule = raw material from which reduction begins.
Source Waterworn, riverine ("wadi")
Loose surface boulder
Bedded outcrop (quarried)
Bedrock outcrop (in situ)
(21) RUNNELS, 1981; HERSH, 1981; NIERLE, 1983;
MOUTON, 1984; ROODENBERG, 1986; HAYDEN, 1987.
(22) WRIGHT, 1992.
(19) Cf. TOTH, 1985.

(20) WRIGHT, 1992.
55
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
Secondary Reduction/Roughout Debitage

Products
Coarse f laking. .... .Medium flakes
Preform
Pecking
Pecking fragments Preform
Retouch/Thinning
Edge/margin retouch. . Microf lakes
Tools
Pecking
Pecking fragments Tools
Grinding
Drilling
Particles. . . .
Coarse grinding. ....... Particles. . . .
Fine grinding.
Particles. . . .
Incising
Particles. . . .
Finishing
Polishing
Particles
Incising
Particles
Relief Decoration
Particles
Rim/Base finishing
Particles
Tools ("retouched" pieces)
MORPHOLOGICAL
TYPOLOGY
Perforated Tools
Grooved Tools
..Grinding slabs, Handstones. . .
Mortars , Pestles
Axes
Vessels
:
Use
Grinding
:
Pounding
: ... Battering
Chopping . .
Cutting .... :
Chiseling. ... :
.... Polishing
Resharpening = edge rejuvenation, repecking, flaking
Transformation = modification to new tools
Post-depositional fragmentation
,
Outils a posteriori
Pounders
Polishing Pebbles
Worked Pebbles, Cobbles
Size
Pebble = diameter between 4 and 64 mm.

Cobble = diameter between 64 and 256
mm.
Boulder = diameter greater than 256 mm.
Blank = "initial form" = product of primary reduct
ion, prior to thinning and shaping of preform.
Core (23)
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).
(23) TIXIER, 1974: 14; HAYDEN, 1987: 26.

56
Dorsal surface (26)

Platform = butt (27)
Bulb of Percussion (28)
Percussion
Direct (29)
Hard-hammer (30)
Primary Reduction = blank production
None = selection of raw nodule for use.
Splitting = quarrying (via wedging and poundi
ng)from bedrock.
Flaking = detachment of flakes either for use as
blanks or as debitage from a core to be used
as a blank.
Secondary Reduction/Roughout = shaping of pre
form (31)
Coarse flaking = removal of medium to large
flakes (ca. 30-200 mm).
Pecking = removal of amorphous pecking frag
ments ("pecking shatter") from a stable tar
get blank, via short percussions directed at
random angles to the blank (see fig. 1).
Retouch/Thinning = preform thinning and final
shaping (32)
Edge/Margin Retouch (33)
Retouch of accomodation(34)
Retouch of shaping (34) = any gracile flaking
which produces small flakes or microflakes
(< 30 mm) in shaping the artifact.
Pecking = as above but more gracile and regular
in spacing.
Grinding = preform abrasion = removal of micro
scopic rock particles.
Drilling = removal of particles via rotary motion
of a pointed object directed at 90 degrees
into a stable target (fig. 1).
Coarse grinding (35) (fig. 1).
Fine grinding (35)
Incising = cutting of narrow grooves (fig. 1).
Finishing = final, nonfunctional surface treatment.
Polishing = production of smooth surface which
reflects light and is visible to the naked eye.
Incising = as above.
Relief decoration = additional grinding on a
non-functional surface to produce decorative
patterns in relief.
Rim or Base finishing = abrasion producing

symmetrical rim or base.
Fire-treatment = any intentional firing of stone.
Use = reduction through use
Grinding = as above.
Pounding = percussion directed through a blunt
surface (fig. 1).
Battering = percussion of a mobile tool with
angular edges blunted by impact against a
stable target. Battering scars are internal
fractures from percussion force directed into
the moving tool. They are usually wedgeshaped and slightly hollow (fig. 1).
Chopping = percussion directed through a sharp
edge at 90 degrees to the target (fig. 1).
Cutting = slicing with cutting edge perpendicul
ar
to the target, along a path parallel to the
cutting edge (fig. 1).
Chiseling = cutting with sharp edge at angle less
than 90 degrees to target along a path per
pendicular
to cutting edge of the tool.
Resharpening = modification of working surface
Edge rejuvenation (36) = resetting an edge on a
cutting tool using the same process as orig
inally.
Repecking = rejuvenation of the roughness of a
grinding surface.
Ridge reduction = marginal flaking to expose
more working surface in an artifact with a
heavily-used concave use surface.
Transformation = modification into new tools (37)
Outils a posteriori = tools made on raw nodules
unmodified by primary or secondary reduc
tion(38)
Core tools = tools made on core blanks.
Flake tools = tools made on flake blanks.
Debitage (39)
Cores
Flakes
Blades
Pecking fragments/"shatter" = byproduct of
pecking
Grits = byproduct of grinding
(26) TIXIER, 1974 : 5. Note that HAYDEN'S (1987) use of

this term to refer to a metate use surface is not the same as that
used here.
(27) TIXIER, 1974 4.
(28) TIXIER, 1974 5.
(29) BORDES, 1968 24f.
(30) BORDES, 1968 24f.
(31) Cf. "estillar;" HAYDEN, 1987: 27.
(32) Cf. "repellar;" HAYDEN, 1987 35.
(33) TIXIER, 1974: 19f.
(34) BORDES, 1969.
(35) Cf. "afnar;" HAYDEN, 1987: 41.
An artifact is placed with the main (or most

heavily worn) use surface either facing up (querns,
handstones, perforated stones, "shaft straighteners")
57
Cf. "afftage;" TIXIER, 1974 22.

TIXIER, 1974 22.
BORDES, 1970 199f. ; JELINEK, 1976 26.
TIXIER, 1974 14.
:
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
: : :
: : : :
"ANATOMICAL" TERMS FOR

DESCRIPTION OF INDIVIDUAL ARTIFACTS
'
/f
- .*4
tf J
4 . J
(c)
(d)
(b)
FIG. 2. - Anatomical terms for description of selected artifact types.

(b) Mortar
A = Face (Use Surface)
= Sides
= Dorsal Side
FE=DA(a)=Face
Grinding
Transverse
Face
Lateral
End
Longitudinal
Dorsal
(if (Use
bifacial)
Side
SlabSection
Surface)
(ifSection
unifacial)
D = Transverse Section
id) Pestle
= Shaft
= Transverse Section
or facing the observer at 90 degrees from the line

of sight (pestles). Figure 2 shows the anatomy of
several artifact types.
Face (also "active face;" "use surface") = surface(s)
showing use.
Side = surface showing no clear indications of use.
Limits = boundaries of a use surface.
Margins - long lateral sides of an artifact.
Ends = shorter sides of an artifact.
Edge = restricted to the working edges of cutting
tools.
Base = resting side. A true base is only present if
there are traces of intentional shaping to create
a stable resting surface.
Ridge = a rim-like feature bordering a heavily used
surface.
Rim = a true rim is only present if there is symmetry

and finishing.
Shaft = the central part of a cylindrical tool such
as a pestle.
Longitudinal axis = axis of symmetry along longer
dimension.
Transverse axis = perpendicular to longitudinal
axis ; in same plane.
Opposed = faces on opposite sides of artifact, meet
ingnowhere.
Adjacent = faces are adjacent if they meet along
one limit.
Polar = refers to the ends of an elongated artifact
such as a pestle. If the artifact has evidence of
use on only one end, it is called "unipolar;" if
on two ends, "bipolar."
(c) Handstone
= Lateral Side
= End
D = Dorsal Side (if unifacial)
= Face (if bifacial)
E = Longitudinal Section
F = Transverse Section
58
WAF
LAF
RDO
HGT
FIG. 3. - Metric variables used in definitions of artifact classes.

KEY L = Length of artifact ; W = Width of artifact ; T = Thickness of artifact ; MT = Maximum thickness of artifact ; LAF = Length
of use surface; WAF - Width of use surface; dl, d2, d3 = depths of use surface; PD = Perforation diameter; BL = Bit length; EA =
Edge angle; D = Diameter of artifact; HGT = Height from base to rim; RDI = Inner rim diameter; RDO = Outer rim diameter; DPTH
= Depth (vessels) ; BD = Base diameter.
59
VARIABLES
of working surfaces ; and macroscopic wear patterns

of the working surfaces. Metric variables used in
construction of the typology are shown in figure 3.
Of the nominal variables used in the typology, the
most important are the following :
The classification is based on variations in blank

type; artifact shape in plan and section; presence/ab
sence
of secondary reduction, grinding, finishing and
resharpening ; the number, shapes, and distribution
Blank Type
Flake
Flaked Core
Flake or Core
Umodified Boulder/Cobble/Pebble
Indeterminate
Shape of Artifact in Transverse Section
Irregular
Piano-irregular
Plano-convex
Triangular
Wedge
Spherical
Oval
Tapered
Lens
Flat
Shape of Artifact in Plan
Spherical
Discoidal
Ovate
Loaf shaped
Squared
Irregular
Other
Shape of Use Surface in Plan
Subcircular
Oval
Squared
Rectangular
Other
Shape of Use Surface in Transverse Section

Flat
Concave, dished
Concave, U
Concave, V
Convex, arc
Convex, rounded
Convex, beveled
Sinuous
Circular (perforations)
Number of Use Surfaces
Unifacial
Bifacial
Unipolar
Bipolar
Multiracial
Shape of Use Surface in Long Section
Flat
Concave, dished
Concave, U
Concave, V
Convex, arc
Convex, rounded
Convex, beveled
Sinuous
Biconical (perforations)
Cylindrical (perforations)
Relationship of Use Surfaces
Opposed
Adjacent
Superimposed
One variable measures the degree of concavity

or convexity of use surfaces. The rationale is that
concavity and convexity of certain tools would
change with prolonged use (40). To measure curvat
ure, the limits of the use surface were located.
Using a profile gauge, the long cross-section of the
surface was traced onto graph paper. A straight line
from each end of the surface was drawn (= LAF, or
"Length of Active Face"). Perpendiculars were
drawn extending to the use surface (dl, d2, d3)
(fig. 4). For a convex surface, the "depth" measure -
ments dl, d2, and d3 were assigned negative values.

For concave surfaces, dl, d2, and d3 were assigned
positive values. From these, an index of concavity
(CI) was created, such that :
Concavity/ Convexity Index (CI) = dl + d2 + d3
LAF
A surface perfectly flat in section has an index of
zero. When the surface is concave, CI > 0 ; and when
the surface is convex, CI < 0.
A study was made of concavity of use surfaces
from Neolithic sites (41), to determine whether the
variable CI would permit clear distinctions between
(40) Cf. BARTLETT, 1933; VOIGT, 1983 : 247. Microwear

studies may prove promising (ADAMS, 1989). For the moment,
the need is for simpler morphological measures to permit commun
ication of finds.
(41) WRIGHT, 1992.

60
use surfaces. The goal was to refine loose categories

of surface curvature via a simple measurement. The
results were promising and the means and standard
Concave surfaces
CI
(a) Flat
CI
(b) Dished :
(c) V-shaped CI
(d) U-shaped
(shallow) : CI
(e) U-shaped
CI
(deep)
deviations were used to construct the following

classification :
Convex surfaces
(a) Fiat :
(b) Arc-shaped :
(c) Beveled :
(d) Rounded
(gently) :
(e) Rounded
(pronounced)
= 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
24. Bifacial Discoidal/Oval

25.
/Lens
26.
/Tapered
27.
/Planoconvex
28.
/Flat
29.
/Wedged
30.
/Triangular
31.
/Piano-irregular
32. Bifacial Ovate/Oval
33.
/Lens
34.
/Tapered
/Planoconvex
35.
36.
/Flat
37.
/Wedged
38.
/Triangular
39.
/Piano-irregular
40. Bifacial Loaf/Oval
41.
/Lens
42.
/Tapered
43.
/Planoconvex
44.
/Flat
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
75. Irregular Core Pounder

76. Spherical/irregular
77. Spheroid
80. Unifacial
81. Bifacial
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
G. Worked pebbles and cobbles

83. Ground Cobble/Pebble
86. Flaked Cobble/Pebble
84. Ground Sphere
87. Ochred Cobble/Pebble
85. Pecked Cobble/Pebble
88. Small Slab Abrader
89.
90.
91.
92.
94.
93.
Trapezoidal Axe
Trapezoidal Celt
Ovate Celt
Chisel
Miniature Celt
Ebauchoir
100 Shaft Straishtener

101. Cutmarked Slab
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120
121.
122.
123.
124.
H. Axes and celts

95. Preform
"Knife"
96. Flaked/Ground
"Hoe"
97. Flaked
98. Misc. Flaked Chopper
99. Fragment
I. Grooved stones
102 . Pattern-Incised Pebble
103. Miscellaneous
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
141. Pecked Preform

142. Flake Core
N. Unidentifiable ground stone fragments

145. Possible Handstone/Quern
147. Unknown
146. Possible Vessel
DEFINITIONS OF ARTIFACT CLASSES
applicable. Use surface : as No. 1, but use surface

may extend to edges of the boulder (44).
A. Grinding slabs/querns (fig. 4 : 1-12 b)
No. 4 Boulder Grinding Slab

As No. 3, but use surface rectangular; striae
imply lateral grinding (45).
Lower, stationary stone in a pair of grinding

tools. Most grinding is in a plane parallel to the side
on which artifact rests. Blank : variable. Preform
variable. Use surfaces : broad, long in plan ; concave
or flat in section; may have striae. Heaviest wear
from grinding
slabs"
have rectangular
is at deepest
use part
surfaces
of face.
or wear
"Grinding
striae
indicating lateral grinding in a linear path. "Querns"
have oval use surfaces or wear striae indicating
rotary grinding in an oval path (42). Each type i
ncludes
subtypes (a) unifacial ; (b) bifacial ; (c) multi
racial.
No. 5 Saddle-shaped Quern

Blank : variable. Preform : pecked or flaked on
side opposite use surface. Opposed lateral sides par
allel; has concave/convex ("saddle") shape. Use sur
face oval in plan, "dished" in long section. Surface
extends to sides and ends of blank and is thus
"open." No ridges (46).
No. 6 Saddle-shaped Grinding Slab
imply lateral grinding (47).
No. 1 Block Quern

Blank : unmodified tabular-stone boulder with
naturally stable base. Preform : not applicable. Use
surface : unifacial, oval in plan, dished or U- shaped
in section. Surface is "closed" (surrounded on all
sides) and small relative to blank (length of surface
less than 50 % of length of artifact). No ridges; face
is set into blank without other modification (43).
No. 7 Trough Quern

Blank : core or unmodified boulder. Preform :
flaked or pecked. Use surface : oval in plan, Sshaped in long section, curving downward from
"shelf at high proximal end to an opening at the
thin distal end. Side walls may rise steeply from the
use surface. May have flake scars on lateral ridges,
for reduction of side walls. Surface is thus large
relative to blank, "closed" on three sides, open on
one side. Base usually unstable (48).
No. 2 Block Grinding Slab

indicate lateral grinding.
No. 8 Trough Grinding Slab
No. 3 Boulder Quern

Blank : unmodified irregular boulder, no primary
reduction ; lacks naturally stable base. Preform : not

indicate lateral grinding (49).
63
(44) Cf. DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.7, 6; NIERL, 1983 PI. 6,

71.
(45) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: fig. 70, a-d; NOY, 1979
fig. 11; NIERL, 1983 PI. 7, 91.
(46) Cf. DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.7, 3,9,11,12,14; NIERL,
1983 PI. 5, 58.
(47) Cf. PERROT, 1966 : fig. 19, 9-10; HOLE et al., 1969
171; fig. 71; NOY, 1979: fig. 10; NIERL, 1983: PL 2, 19;
QADI in GEBEL et al, 1988 fig. 12, 1.
(48) Cf. STEKELIS and YIZRAELY, 1963 fig. 6; NIERL,
1983 PI. 5, 61,62; PI. 6, 71 ; DORRELL, 1983 534f.
(49) Cf. NIERL, 1983 PI. 5, 59.
:
(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
No. 13 Slab/Quern Fragment
Blank : variable. Preform : flaked or pecked on

exterior; modification of ridges. Use surface :
oval/concave, indicates rotary grinding, and is large
relative to the blank (50).
Fragment whose remaining use surface is con

cave; lacks evidence that it is from a vessel (s.v.).
Fragment with flat surface is classed as No. 145.
No. 14 Miscellaneous Grinding Slab/Quern
Grinding slab/quern not meeting any of the
above definitions.
No. 10 Basin Grinding Slab

indicate lateral grinding (51).
B. Mortars (fig. 5 : 15-21)
No. 11 Hollowed Quern
Lower, stationary stone in a pair of tools used

for pounding and "vertical rotary grinding" on side
walls of use surface. Blank : variable. Use surfaces :
subcircular plan, concave in section (dished to Ushaped) ; deepest part is pitted from pounding.
Grinding wear most pronounced on upper use sur
face near the opening. Formally distinct from vessels
(s.v.) (52). Each type includes subtypes (a) unifacial;
(b) bifacial; (c) multiracial.
Any quern with one oval use surface penetrating

the side opposite it.
No. 12 Hollowed Grinding Slab
indicate lateral grinding.
(52) DORRELL (1983 : 521f.) does not make this distinction.

Under "Stone Vessels," his Types H, J, and L would be considered
mortars according to the scheme presented here.
(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
No. 17 Boulder Mortar

Blank : unmodified irregular boulder. Preform
not applicable. No modification except on use sur
face. Use surface : subcircular plan ; variable in sec
tion (55).
No. 18 Mortar on flaked/pecked boulder

Blank : variable (boulder). Preform : reduced by
flaking and/or pecking on the exterior. Use surface :
as No. 17.
No. 19. Hollowed Mortar
Any mortar in which the use surface has pene
trated the base (56).
No. 20 Pillar mortar
Blank : elongated boulder. Preform : flaked or
pecked on exterior. Use surface : set into one end
of boulder; small relative to the blank (57).
No. 21 Bedrock Mortar
Blank : in situ bedrock outcrop. Not to be con
fused with large, heavy boulder mortars. Use sur
face : subcircular in plan; variable in section.
(53) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 7, 9,12; PERROT, 1966:

fig. 16, 11 ; fig. 20, 22; HOLE et ai, 1969 fig. 77, a-b; NOY,
1979 fig. 2; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 226, 1-2 (Types LI, L2).
(54) Cf. DORRELL, 1983 524 (Type HI some of Type LI).
(55) Cf. PERROT, 1966 fig. 10; HOLE et ai, 1969 fig.76,
b,d; NOY, 1979 fig. 3; DORRELL, 1983 524 (Type J; some
of Types LI and L2).
(56) Cf. HOLE et al. 1969 fig. 76, ; DORRELL, 1983

fig. 225, 9.
(57) Cf. EPSTEIN, 1988 fig. 6, 41-3; fig. 7, 46.
No. 15 Pebble Mortar

Blank : variable. Preform : may be flaked or
pecked. Easily held in one hand. Use surface : subcircular in plan; variable in section (53).
: :
No. 16 Bowl Mortar

Blank variable. Preform : flaked or pecked. Ex
terior
lightly pecked but lacks an intentionally f
ashioned
rim or base. Use surface : subcircular in
plan ; U-shaped in section ; large relative to the
blank (54).
66
65
66
67
70
72
FIG. 7. - Artifact types : handstones, pestles.

No. 22 Mortar Fragment
grinding slab/quern if it can be easily manipulated.

Handstones are named by number of faces, plan
shape and transverse section shape (defined by con
vexity,
as discussed above). Plan shape is separated
from transverse shape by a slash (/). Thus "bifacial
discoidal/oval" refers to a handstone with two use
surfaces, discoidal in plan and oval in transverse
section.
Fragment with concave surface indicating

pounding but no finishing suggesting that it is from
a vessel.
No. 23 Miscellaneous Mortar
Mortar not falling any of the above categories.
No. 24 Bifacial Discoidal/ 'Oval
C. Handstones (fig. 6 : 24-47 ; fig. 7 : 48-62)
Blank : variable, often a water-worn stream

cobble. Subcircular tool (see No. 59). Preform :
often pecked. Use surfaces : two opposed surfaces
with rounded transverse sections and rounded
sides (59).
Upper, mobile stone in a pair of grinding

tools (58). Blank : flake, core or unmodified cobble.
Use surfaces : broad, covering large areas of blank;
elongated or constricted in plan; convex or flat in
section ; may have striae. Evidence of pounding is
absent (see Multiple Tools). When such an artifact
has a flat use surface it is distinguished from a
67
(58) Cf. "grinders," "grinding stones," "mullers" "molettes,"

"meules actives," "percutants," etc. (e.g. KIRKBRIDE, 1966; SOLECKI, 1969; DORRELL, 1983; NIERL, 1983; CLUZAN,
1984; ROLLEFSON and SIMMONS, 1988).
: :
(59) For discoidal handstones, cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966 fig. 9,

2-3; PERROT, 1966 fig. 19, 1,4-8; HOLE et al., 1969 fig.78,
a-f; NOY, 1979: fig. 14, b; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.5, 1,7,8;
fig. 3.6; DORRELL, 1983 537 (Types AI, A2, B) LECHEVALLIER et al., 1989: fig. 4, 10. For ovate handstones, cf. QADI
In GEBEL et al, 1988 fig. 12, 6-7; VOIGT, 1983 251. For
loaf handstones, cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966 fig. 9, 1 ; NIERL,
1983 PI. 4, 27,29. For rectilinear handstones, cf. DAVIS, 1982
fig. 3.5; fig. 3-6, 9.
No. 25 Bifacial Discoidal/Lens

As No. 24 but with use surfaces less convex
(arc-shaped) in section and with straight sides, pro
ducing
lens-shaped transverse section.
No. 38 Bifacial Ovate/Triangular

As No. 32 but opposed faces are flat and
beveled.
No. 26 Bifacial Discoidal/Tapered

As No. 24 but opposed use surfaces meet at the
sides and are more convex. Transverse section thus
has a tapered lenticular section.
As No. 32 but opposed faces are flat and irregul

ar.
No. 39 Bifacial Ovate/Planoirregular
No. 40 Bifacial Loaf/Oval
No. 27 Bifacial Discoidal/Planoconvex

rounded and meet at the sides.
Blank : variable. Loaf-shaped (see No. 62). Pre

form : often pecked. Use surfaces two opposed
surfaces with rounded transverse sections; rounded
sides.
No. 28 Bifacial Discoidal/Flat

As No. 24 but both faces are flat and parallel ;
sides are straight.
No. 41 Bifacial Loaf/Lens

(i.e. arc-shaped) in section and with straight sides,
producing lens-shaped section.
No. 29 Bifacial Discoidal/Wedged

As No. 28 but opposed faces are not in parallel
planes.
No. 42 Bifacial Loaf/Tapered

No. 30 Bifacial Discoidal/Triangular

beveled.
No. 43 Bifacial Loaf/Planoconvex
No. 31 Bifacial Discoidal/Planoirregular

ar.

No. 44 Bifacial Loaf/Flat
As No. 40 but opposed faces are flat and par
allel ; sides are straight.
No. 32 Bifacial Ovate/Oval

Blank : variable. Ovate tool (see No. 60). Pre
form : often pecked. Use surfaces : two (opposed),
with rounded transverse sections; rounded sides.
No. 45 Bifacial Loaf/Wedged

planes.
No. 33 Bifacial Ovate/Lens

No. 46 Bifacial Loaf/Triangular

beveled.
No. 34 Bifacial Ovate/Tapered

No. 47 Bifacial Loaf/Planoirregular
No. 35 Bifacial Ovate/Planoconvex

No. 48 Bifacial Rectilinear/Oval

ar.
Blank variable. Rectilinear tool (see No. 61).

Preform : flaked or pecked. Use surfaces : two op
posed
surfaces with convex, rounded transverse sec
tions and rounded sides.
No. 36 Bifacial Ovate/Flat

As No. 32 but both faces are flat and parallel;
sides are straight.
No. 49 Bifacial Rectilinear/Lens

No. 37 Bifacial Ovate/Wedged

planes.
68
surfaces one, with variable transverse section

shape.
No. 61 Unifacial Rectilinear Handstone
Blank : variable. Final tool form is square or
rectangular in plan and variable in section. Use sur
faces : one, with variable transverse section.
No. 62 Unifacial Loaf Handstone
Blank : variable. Final form is loaf-shaped
(elongated oval) in plan (L/W = 1.75-2.0 ), variable
in section. Use surfaces : one, with variable trans
verse section shape.
No. 63 Handstone Fragment
A fragment is identified as a handstone if the
ground surface is convex relative to what remains
of the blank. Similar fragments with flat surfaces
are classified as No. 145.
No. 64 Miscellaneous Handstone
Handstone which does not fall into any of the
preceding classes.
:
No. 50 Bifacial Rectilinear/Tapered

No. 51 Bifacial Rectilinear/Planoconvex
No. 52 Bifacial Rectilinear/Flat
As No. 48 but opposed faces are flat and par
allel ; sides are straight.
No. 53 Bifacial Rectilinear/Wedged
planes.
No. 54 Bifacial Rectilinear/Triangular
beveled.
No. 55 Bifacial Rectilinear/Planoirregular
ar.
D. Pestles (fig. 7 : 65-72)
No. 56 Handstone on Flake

Blank : large flake. Use surface : if unifacial,
located on the ventral surface. If bifacial, the tool
is piano-irregular or planoconvex in transverse sec
tion. May have flaked retouch on sides near use
surface.
(60) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966 fig. 7, 2; HOLE et al. 1969

fig. 79, d-c; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 221, 10. The French equival
ent
is that of CLUZAN, 1984 122 and fig. 76, 2. CLUZAN also
calls this " cne en champignon" (fig. 76 2).
(61) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 7, 4; PERROT, 1966:

fig. 17, 9,13-14; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.3, 1,5,6; DORRELL,
1983 fig. 226, 10-12 (Types Cl, C2, CX) ; NIERL, 1983 PI. 8,
108,110; LECHEVALLIER et al. 1989 fig. 4, 7.
(62) Cf. PERROT, 1966: fig. 17, 12,17 (?) ; DAVIS, 1982:
fig. 3.4, 1 ; NIERL, 1983 PI. 4, 44,49,50.
No. 57 Bell-Shaped Muller

Blank : variable. Preform is usually pecked ;
bell-shaped in plan and oval or circular in section.
Length/Width ratio (L/W) < 2. Use surface : unifac
ial, with a flat or slightly convex (arc-shaped) use
surface (60). No evidence of pounding (see No. 137).
: :
No. 58 Irregular Handstone a posteriori

Blank : unmodified pebble or cobble of irregular
shape. Use surface : single grinding surface.
No. 59 Unifacial Discoidal Handstone

Blank : variable. Final tool form is subcircular
in plan (L/W = 1 ) and variable in section. Use
surfaces : one, with variable transverse section
shape.
No. 60 Unifacial Ovate Handstone
Blank : variable. Final tool form is ovate in plan
(L/W = 1.5-1.75 ) and variable in section. Use
Upper, mobile stone in a pair of pounding tools.

Blank : core or unmodified cobble. Preform
often pecked to even elongated shape. Use surfaces
constricted in plan and confined to one or more of
the ends of an elongated blank. Use surface : subcircular or slightly oval in plan, sometimes irregular;
convex (arc-shaped), rounded, or flat in section.
There are often flake scars on the sides, with the
negative bulb of percussion near the use surface,
showing the direction of use. Subtypes are defined
by convexity categories (see above) : (a) flat; (b)
arc-shaped; (c) beveled; (d) rounded (gentle); (e)
rounded (pronounced).
No. 65 Bipolar Cylindrical Pestle
Blank : elongated cobble. Preform : reduced by
pecking to an even elongated shape, cylindrical in
plan, subcircular in section. Use surfaces : two faces
on opposing ends bear evidence of pounding, i.e.
battering marks and/or flake scars struck off the
shaft alongside the face. Faces are flat or convex
(arc-shaped or rounded) and of similar diamet
ers
(61).
No. 66 Unipolar Cylindrical Pestle
As No. 65, but only one use surface has evidence
of pounding (62).
69
No. 67 Bipolar Conical Pestle

As No. 65, but plan is conical; use surfaces are
of different diameters (63).
pounding directed into

angles. Easily held in
materials other than
pounders if battering
edges (69).
No. 68 Unipolar Conical Pestle

As No. 67, but only one use surface has evidence
of pounding (64).
No. 75 Irregular Core Pounder

Blank : flint nodule or core. Irregular, angular
polyhedron shape. Battering marks restricted to a
small area (< 25 %) of the blank.
No. 69 Unipolar Knobbed Pestle

Similar to No. 68, but the end lacking evidence
for pounding is shaped into a subspherical knob for
grasping the tool (65).
No. 70 Unipolar "Collared" Pestle
Similar to No. 69, but the "knob" is elongated
and narrower than the lower part of shaft near the
use surface. The effect is of a use surface having a
"band" or "collar" around it (66).
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. 71 Soft Mini-Pestle

Blank : small elongated cobble of soft stone,
usually cylindrical, not intended for heavy pounding.
Use surfaces : bipolar or unipolar; flat, rounded or
pointed in section (67).
No. 72 "Figurine" Pestle
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.
Any pestle in which either the shaft or proximal

end has been carved or sculpted to an anthropomorp
hic,
zoomorphic or other decorative form (68).
No. 79 Fragment
Any broken flint core or nodule with battering
marks.
No. 73 Pestle Fragment

A fragment with a circular transverse section of
an elongated shaft and/or evidence of pounding at
an end.
F. Polishing pebbles (fig. 8 : 80-81)

Pebble or cobble, often waterworn, with brightly
polished surface(s). Usually flint or quartzite (other
materials occasionally encountered). Use surface :
broad, variable in plan, always slightly convex or
flat in section (70).
No. 74 Miscellaneous Pestle

A pestle which does not fall into the above
categories.
No. 80 Unifacial Polishing Pebble

Blank : as above. Use surface : one.
75-78)
E. Pounders (fig. 8
sharp edges at a variety of

one hand. Battered tools of
flint are only classed as
has dulled irregular sharp
No. 81 Bifacial Polishing Pebble

As No. 80, but two opposed use surfaces.

fig. 17, 16; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.3, 4; DORRELL, 1983:
fig. 226, 8-9 (Types Bl, B2).
(64) Cf. DAVIS, 1982 fig. 3.3, 8; fig. 3.4, 1,5.
(65) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966 fig. 7, 1,3; DORRELL, 1983
fig. 221, 14; fig. 226, 13 (Type Sp).
(66) Cf. NOY, 1979 fig. 14, ; DAVIS, 1982 fig. 3.2, 3-5;
DORRELL, 1983 fig. 221, 12 (Type Sp) ; LECHEVALLIER et
al., 1989 fig. 4, 3.
(67) Cf. DORRELL, 1983 fig. 221, 8 (Type H).
(68) Cf. PERROT, 1966: fig. 17, 4; DORRELL, 1983:
fig. 221, 11 (Type Sp).
(69) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969 fig. 79, a-c,f,g; KOZLOWSKI,

1989
4. Other terms
include
"bolas,"
balls," fig.
"percuteurs,"
"pecking
stones"
and "sling
"hammerstones"
stones," "stone
(e.g.
LEAKEY 1948 48; WOODBURY 1954 86; DORRELL 1983
533; VOIGT, 1983 261). Ethnographic and experimental studies
show that these can be used for pecking ground stone tools
(WOODBURY, 1954: 86; ABBES, 1991). Studies by WILLOUGHBY, 1985 and WRIGHT, 1992 indicate that forms of poun
ders reflect progressive reduction of a battering tool until it is no
longer useful as such. Diameters of tools from Beidha decreased
continuously from irregular to spheroid forms ; cuboids appeared
to be spheroids adapted for use in grinding (WRIGHT, 1992).
(70) Cf. DORRELL, 1983 530; VOIGT, 1983 255.
:
70
Blank : core or angular nodule. Outils a poster

iori, generally flint, with battering fractures. The
latter are small wedge shaped internal fractures from

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
No. 85 Pecked Cobble/Pebble

Cobble with irregular traces of pecking (73).
A fragment whose blank is as above and with

visible traces of polish.
No. 86 Flaked Cobble/Pebble

Cobble with one or two flake scars.
G. Worked pebbles and cobbles (fig. 8 : 84-88)
No. 87 Ochred Cobble/Pebble

Cobble with traces of ochre.
Blank unmodified cobble. These artifacts have

traces of reduction by ad hoc use but with diffuse
use surfaces.
No. 88 Small Slab Abrader

Small, irregular tool of tabular sandstone, with
diffuse ground surface that is generally flat or con
cave ("sandpaper"). Sometimes has ochre (74).
No. 83 Ground Cobble/Pebble

Cobble or pebble with diffuse, irregular ground
surface(s) (71).
No. 84 Ground Sphere
H. Axes and celts (fig. 9)
Cobble ground on all sides to form a nearly

perfect sphere (72).
Tool with a cutting edge, manufactured partly

via abrasion (except Nos. 97-98). Blank : flake,
(73) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969 : 200; fig. 84, e.
(74) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: 184; DORRELL, 1983: 524
(Type K, under "Stone Vessels"); VOIGT, 1983 251.
:
(71) Cf. VOIGT, 1983 261.

(72) Cf. D0RRELL, 1983 fig. 228, 3.
71
%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.
No. 89 Trapezoidal Axe
Blank : variable. Robust elongated axe (L/W >

2) ; trapezoidal in plan ; oval or rectangular in trans
verse section. Butt : pecked or flaked. Bit : unifacially or bifacially ground and polished. Bit length
equal to maximum width (i.e. tool is widest at the
bit). Retouch : if present, flake scars generally semisteep and squamous ; may be either "under" the
ground/polished surface (scars dulled by edge grind
ing); or superimposed on a ground edge (flaking
rejuvenation). Edge angle generally greater than
75o(77).
No. 90 Trapezoidal Celt
Blank : variable. Size medium to small, shape
trapezoidal. Smaller than No. 89 ; L/W < 2. Butt :
traces of pecking or flaking. Bit : unifacially or
bifacially ground and polished; symmetrical or
asymmetrical in section. Bit length equal to max
imum width of tool. Retouch : as No. 89. Edge angle :
(75) Thus, terminology used here differs from that of M0RTENSEN, 1970.
(76) ROODENBERG, 1986.
72
(77) HOLE et al, 1969 fig. 82, a; CLUZAN, 1984 fig.

2; fig. 69, 3; ROODENBERG, 1986: fig.55, 1 ("hache").
No. 96 Flaked/Ground "Knife"

Elongated (L/W > 2) non-flint tool ground on
sides but flaked along the long lateral edges. No
evidence of polishing or grinding on the edges (84).
No. 97 Flaked "Hoe"
Blank : non-flint flake or thin core. Thin, pearshaped tool with flaking around widest end forming
a cutting edge and sometimes with a groove at the
narrow end (85).
ca. 40-70 if resharpening has not been exten

sive(78).
No. 91 Ovate Celt
Blank : variable. Thick, ovate tool with lower
L/W ratio than Nos. 89-90. Butt : traces of percuss
ion.Bit : unifacially or bifacially ground or pol
ished.
Bit length less than maximum width of the
tool (i.e. tool is widest at a point between the butt
and the bit). Retouch : as in No. 89. Edge angle :
70-85, if resharpening has not been extensive (79).
No. 98 Miscellaneous Flaked Chopper

Any robust chopping tool with an irregular
flaked bit but no evidence of grinding or polishing.
Includes pebble choppers (86).
No. 99 Axe/Celt Fragment
Fragment with a flaked, ground or polished edge
and/or a butt fragment.
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
: :
(78) Cf. "herminette" ; ROODENBERG, 1986: 108f. and

fig. 59; see variants In: KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 10, 5; HOLE
et ai, 1969 fig. 82, b-c ; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.8, 11-12; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 221, 10; fig. 228, 26; VOIGT, 1983 fig. 11 7,
f; NOY, 1989 fig. 4, 4.
(79) Cf. "cogne"; ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 56-7; KIRK
BRIDE, 1966: fig. 10, 6-8; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.9, 4-6; DORRELL, 1983: fig. 221, 15,19; VOIGT, 1983: fig. 117, g. (80)
DAVIS, 1982 fig. 3.9, 8,10 (?) ; ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 54,
1-3.
(81) HOLE et al, 1969 fig. 84, ; ROODENBERG, 1986
104 and fig. 54, 4-6; DORRELL, 1983 : fig. 221, 16.
(82) KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 10, 2-4; DAVIS, 1982:
fig. 3.8, 1-6; DORRELL, 1983: fig. 221, 17; ROODENBERG,
1986: fig. 58, 1-4 ("hachette").
(83) Cf. CLUZAN, 1984 fig. 67, 1 ; fig. 70, 3.
No. 102 Patterned-Incised Pebble/Cobble

Any pebble or cobble with patterned incisions
(parallel, crossed, other) but lacks other use surfaces.
Excludes anthropomorphic or animal figurines (89).
No. 95 Axe/Celt Preform

Axe or celt which lacks an edge or is otherwise
unfinished. Distinguished from dulled axes by ab
sence
of any tapering from the butt to the opposite
end; and from small pestles by the preparation of
the butt and the asymmetrical (non-circular) distal
end (83).
No. 94 Miniature Celt

Any celt of which length is less than 70 mm.
May have traces indicating that it is a long-used,
resharpened stage of a once-larger celt (82).
Any tool with a groove, i.e. a concave use sur

face over 3 times longer than it is wide; lenticular
in plan; V- or U-shaped in transverse section.
No. 100 Shaft Straightener
Blank variable. Use surface : long relative to
width and depth; lenticular in plan; flat, convex, or
concave in long section; dished or U- shaped in
transverse section. Width of groove rarely exceeds
15 mm. Interior of surface often highly polished
through use; may have traces of residue (87).
No. 101 Cutmarked Slab
Any stone with a long, narrow cut mark, len
ticular
in plan, always sharply angled V shape in
transverse section (cf. "slicing slabs") (88).
:
I. Grooved stones (fig. 10: 100-102)
102
100
101
104
105.,f~ -v. ,*T
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)
single large off-center perforation set into the nar

rower end of the blank. Has no cutting edge (91).
No. 105 Perforated Axe-head
Flaked and/or pecked cobble with single large
off-center perforation and a ground cutting edge at
the end opposite the perforation (92).
No. 106 Perforated Post-Socket
Blank : cobble or boulder, unmodified or
flaked/pecked into subcircular preform. Perforation
set into center of blank and is large relative to the
blank. Perforation diameter suggests "posthole" but
functions may vary (93).
J. Perforated stones (fig. 10: 104-112)

Characterized by a perforation (which connects
two sides of an artifact), or drill marks (which do
not fully penetrate opposing sides). Perforation is
always subcircular or circular in plan and biconical
or cylindrical in section. (Note : beads and pendants
are excluded.).
No. 104 Counterpoise Weight
Blank : large pebble or cobble, generally pecked
and ground to symmetrical shape. Use surface : a
(90) Includes grooved or notched "waisted" pebbles (cf.

"poids pche", PERROT, 1966 fig. 20, 1-4.)
74
(91) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966 fig. 9, 5-6; FROST, 1984 125

and fig. 11.
(92) Cf. MALLON et ai, 1934: fig. 25; PERROT et al.,
1967: fig. 14,5; CAUVIN, 1963 fig. 11.
(93) HOLE et ai, 1969 fig. 85, d.
No. 107 Perforation on Disk
K. Stone vessels (fig. 11)
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).
Vessels must have (1) a well-defined, uniform

rim; (2) a well-defined base; (3) a continuous ex
terior
surface ; (4) consistent (or gradually changing)
thickness of walls ; (5) exterior finishing. A vessel
fragment must have a definite rim or base, or walls
of continuously changing thickness and exterior fin
ishing.
Classifications are based on relationships be
tween
vessel height (HGT), outer rim diameter
(RDO), inner rim diameter (RDI), depth (DPTH) and
the openness of the walls (see figure 4 for definitions
of metric variables). These are considered to reflect
lithic reduction and possible ranges of function.
Each vessel category may exist in (a) "fine wares"
(maximum wall thickness < 20 mm) or (b) "coarse
wares" (maximum wall thickness > 20 mm). These
can be refined for specific assemblages (100).
No. 108 Spindle Whorl

Blank : pebble, ground to small (ca. 30-60 mm
diameter) discoidal preform and even in thickness
(about 5-15 mm). Perforation always centrally
placed. May be incomplete and have two opposed
drill marks. A "preform" for a spindle whorl has the
same size and shape characteristics but neither per
foration
nor drill marks (see No. 112) (95).
No. 109 Loomweight
Blank : pebble or small cobble. Preform : pecked
and ground to symmetrical biconical or spherical
shape. Perforation always centrally placed. Artifact
size usually 40-80 mm diameter; perforation about
15-25 mm diameter. No stress breaks at perforation
openings (see No. 110). Some of these artifacts may
have actually functioned as spindle whorls (96).
No. 114 Platter

Shallow vessel with large ratio of outer rim
diameter to height (RDO/HGT > 3) and large ratio
of inner rim diameter to depth (RDI/DPTH > 3).
Base flat or rounded; walls splayed or upright. Size
variable, but RDI exceeds 100 mm. Variants may
include (i) oval platters with convex walls ; (ii) oval
platters with upright walls ; (iii) rectangular platters
with convex walls ; (iv) rectangular platters with
upright walls, etc (101).
No. 110 Macehead

Similiar to No. 109 but often piriform, wider at
one end than the other; usually polished; stress
breaks at one perforation opening (97).
No. 115 "Potlid" Platter

Vessel with large ratio of outer rim diameter to
height (RDO/HGT > 3) and little or no depth, i.e.
a circular or rectilinear slab with only a slight de
pres ion.
Base is flat and sides upright or slightly
convex (102).
No. Ill Perforated "Pendant Palette"

Perforation on one end of an elongated blank
finely ground to rectangular plan shape and of even
thickness (about 10-15 mm) across the entire arti
fact. Generally rectangular in long and transverse
sections (98).
(100) Stone vessel typologies vary significantly. For a detai

ledreview, see WRIGHT, 1992. Most typologies are based on a
mixture of criteria, e.g. profile shape, base shape, artifact size
(ADAMS, 1983; DORRELL, 1983; MOUTON, 1984; ROODENBERG, 1986; EPSTEIN, 1988), but employ different definitions
and terminology. This is because they are in reality groupings of
artifacts from one or two sites, instead of true classifications
(DUNNELL, 1972). The classification given here is intentionally
general and does not attempt to be comprehensive for all varia
tions. Many artifacts called mortars in the literature are more ac
curately
described as vessel-mortars, since they exhibit fine
finishing, rims and bases, and continuous or gradually changing
wall thickness. Many Kebaran through Natufian artifacts found in
archaeological association with pestles, or with other evidence
suggesting their use as mortars, should be classified as such. Here,
these artifacts would be classified according to the vessel typo
logy, but with the name "vessel-mortar." For example PERROT,
1966 fig. 15, 14; fig. 16, 1 (No. 124, Solid-foot Vessel-Mortar);
RONEN et al, 1975 fig. 9 (No. 119, V-shaped Bowl-Mortar).
Note that the more general category of "bowl mortars" (No. 16)
refers to small mortars lacking fine finishing, rims, bases and
continuous or gradually changing wall thickness.
fig. 16, 13; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 224, 1-12; MOUTON, 1984 :
fig. 57, 1-4; fig. 59; ROODENBERG, 1986: fig. 77, 7-9;
fig. 81, 1-7; NOY, 1989 fig. 4, 6.
(102) Cf. MOUTON, 1984: fig. 62, 1.
No. 112 Unperforated Disk

Any small subcircular object without perfor
ation. May often be preforms for spindle whorls, if
diameter is less than about 70 mm and if thickness
is even across the artifact (99).
No. 113 Miscellaneous Perforated Stone
Any perforated or drilled stone not of the above

categories.
: :
(94) Cf. PERROT, 1966 fig. 20, 18-20; DORRELL, 1983

fig. 227, 2-4; CLUZAN, 1984 fig. 71:5.
(95) Cf. HOLE et a/., 1969 fig. 85, e-f.
(96) Cf. VOIGT 1983 fig. 177, h.
(97) Cf. DOLLFUS et al. 1988 P1.3, 1-2.
(98) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 9, 4,8,9; DAVIS, 1982:
fig. 3.16, 1-2; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 230, 12-13.
(99) Cf. DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.13, 12-13; DORRELL, 1983:
fig. 228, 4.
75
115
114
117
1 21
119
1 22
1 24
1 25
1 23
1 26
FIG. 11. - Artifact types : stone vessels.
No. 116 Drill-marked Platter
No. 119 V-shaped Bowl

Open bowl (RDO/HGT < 3) with flat base and
walls flaring outward toward rim. Outer rim
diameter exceeds base diameter. Rims tapered or
rounded ; walls thin relative to base. Generally deep
(HGT/DPTH < 2) (106).
Any platter with a central drill-mark (103).

No. 117 Globular Bowl
A bowl is any vessel in which 1 < RDO/HGT
< 3. Exterior walls convex; rim varies. Outer rim
diameter less than the maximum width of vessel.
Base flat or rounded (104).
No. 120 Carinated Bowl

Any bowl
shoulder (107).
with
carinated
wall
or
Bowl in which the outer rim diameter, the base

diameter and maximum diameter are approximately
equal (RDO = BD = W) (105).
Any vessel with rim diameter less than 100 mm

and height less than or equal to 100 mm. Varieties
may include any of the other types listed.
(103) Cf. PERROT, 1966: fig. 18.

(104) Cf. DORRELL, 1983: fig. 224, 13-14; MOUTON,
1984 fig. 60, 1-5; ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 73, 1-13; fig. 74,
1-7; fig. 78, 4-7.
(105) Cf. ROODENBERG, 1986: fig. 77, 3-5; MOUTON,
1984 fig. 61 1.
(106) Cf. HENNESSY, 1969 fig. 12, 1-2; EPSTEIN, 1978

fig.3, b; DOLLFUS et al. 1988 PI. 3, 4.
(107) Cf. ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 80, 9.
:
: :
No. 121 Miniature Vessel
No. 118 Upright Bowl
76
1 37
135
136
1 38
141
142
1 43
FIG. 12. - Artifact types : multiple tools, debitage.

No. 125 Hollow-foot Vessel
Any vessel resting on a foot which has been
hollowed out; similar to a fenestrated foot but with
out"windows" or legs.
(108) Cf. MALLON et al. 1934 PI. 33, 2; PERROT et ai,

1967 fig. 13, 1-2; EPSTEIN, 1978 fig. 13, a.
(109) WRIGHT, 1992: fig. 5-63c.
(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.
No. 126 Tripod Vessel

Vessel resting on a stand of three legs.
No. 127 Quadripod Vessel
Vessel resting on a stand of four legs (110).
No. 128 Spouted Vessel
Vessel with any kind of spout (111).
No. 129 Lugged/Handled Vessel

Vessel having any kind of lug or handle (112).
: :
No. 122 Vase

Open form in which the ratio of outer rim
diameter to height is less than 1 (RDO/HGT < 1).
Generally deep (RDI/DPTH < 3, HGT/DPTH < 2).
Walls straight or flared, base is variable.
No. 123 Fenestrated Vessel
Any vessel on a stand of three or more legs
which terminate in a ring- shaped pedestal ; the stand
thus forms small "windows." The pedestal is a true
ring (not to be confused with a ring base) (108).
No. 124 Solid-foot Vessel
Any vessel resting on a solid pedestal. Pedestal
walls may be straight or flared. Base may be flat,
concave, or a ring base (109).
77
No. 130 Miscellaneous Vessel

tegories
No. 140 Miscellaneous Multiple Tool

Any multiple tool not falling into the above
categories.
A vessel not falling into any of the above ca

(113).
No. 131 Rim Fragment
M. Debitage (fig. 12: 140-142)
Any fragment clearly belonging to a rim.
Vessel with partially-obliterated traces of manuf

acture.
No. 141 Pecked Preform

Nodule pecked to symmetrical shape suggesting
preform of a tool. Identification depends on manuf
acture patterns observed in an assemblage.
No. 142 Flake Core
Nodule with at least three flake scars. Includes
cores from which primary flakes were detached to
serve as blanks; and blanks for "core tools".
No. 143 Flake (111)
No. 144 Miscellaneous Indeterminate Spalls
Spalls that may be flakes but do not retain bulbs
or platforms.
L. Multiple tools (fig. 12
N. Unidentifiable ground stone fragments
No. 132 Base Fragment

Any fragment of a base or foot.
No. 133 Body Fragment
Fragment exhibiting continuous change in wall
thickness and exterior finishing, but not clearly part
of a rim or base.
No. 134 Unfinished Vessel
135-138)
No. 145 Possible Handstone/Grinding Slab

Fragment with flat ground surface from handstone or grinding slab.
Any artifacts falling into more than one of the

above categories.
No. 135 Quern/Mortar
Any quern with mortar surface set into grinding
surface (114).
No. 136 Grinding Slab/Mortar
Any grinding slab with mortar surface set into
grinding surface (115).
No. 137 Pestle/Bell Muller
As No. 57 but with flake scars on shaft near
grinding surface (116).
No. 138 "Baguette" Pestle/Handstone
Elongated (L/W > 3) rectangular cobble ground
on all sides ; subrectangular or oval transverse sec
tion. Use surfaces diffuse.
No. 139 Other Pestle/Handstone
Any combination of the other categories of
pestle and handstone.
No. 146 Possible Vessel

Fragment suggesting a vessel but too small to
determine finishing.
No. 147 Unknown
Unidentifiable ground stone fragment (UGSF).
CONCLUSION
Ground stone artifacts are an underused source
of information about technology, subsistence and
social relationships in the prehistoric Levant. It is
hoped that the foregoing will encourage better, more
consistent descriptions of ground stone artifacts, es
pecial y
in preliminary site reports. It is also hoped
that excavators will preserve such artifacts without
washing them (since residue studies may prove suc
cessful
in determining tool functions) (118) and that
possible debitage (e.g. non-flint flakes and nodules)
will be conserved when encountered in archaeologic
al
deposits.
(113) For this classification, it was considered preferable to

keep vessel categories simple. Thus, the "miscellaneous" category
here includes types that can be added as separate categories for
specific assemblages.
(114) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: 176, fig. 75; NOY, 1979:
fig. 6; NIERL, 1983 fig. 11, 76,95; PL 6, 76; PI. 7, 95. Va
riants may include saddle-shaped, basin, etc.
(115) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: 176, fig. 77; NOY, 1979:
fig. 9; NIERL, 1983 PI. 2, 23,24. Variants may include sad
dle-shaped,
basin, etc.
(116) cf.. DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.2, 1; GORING-MORRIS,
1987 : 328 ;isWRIGHT,
"broyeur"
reserved for
1992multiple
fig. 5-25.
tool Note
handstone/pestles.
that the French term
:
(117) TIXIER, 1974 14.

(118) JONES, 1990.
78
1969
For discussions about earlier versions of this paper, I

thank the following colleagues (none of whom bears any
responsibility for flaws in this version) Daniela Burroni,
Brian Byrd, Genevive Dollfus, Randy Donahue, Andrew
Garrard, Frank Hole, Nabil Qadi and the anonymous re
viewers.
Katherine WRIGHT
Institute of Archaeology, University College London
31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H OPY
1970
Reflections on typology and techniques in the Pale

olithic. Arctic Anthropology 6, 1 1-29.
Rflexions sur l'outil au Palolithique. Compte
Rendu des Sances Mensuelles de la Socit Pr
historique
Franaise 1 199-202.
:
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
MALLON R., KOEPPEL R. and NEUVILLE R.

1934
Teleilat Ghassul I. Rome Piazza della Pilotta, 35.
MARKS A.
1981
The Upper Paleolithic of the Levant. In CAUVIN
J. and SANLAVILLE P. (d.). Prhistoire du Le
vant : 369-372. Colloques Internationaux du CNRS
No. 598. Lyon Maison de l'Orient.
1983
Introduction. In MARKS A.E. (d.). Prehistory
and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev III
ix-xv. Dallas SMU Press.
MOHOLY-NAGY H.
1983
Jarmo artifacts of pecked and ground stone and
shell. In BRAIDWOOD L. S. et al. (eds). Prehis
toricArchaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. Orient
al
Institute Publications 105 290-346. Chicago
University of Chicago Press.
MORTENSEN P.
1970
A preliminary study of the chipped stone industry
from Beidha. Acta Archaeologica 41 1-54.
MOUTON M.
1984
La vaisselle en pierre. In LE BRUN A. (d.).
Fouilles rcentes a Khirokitia, Chypre) 1977-1981
97-109. Paris Editions Recherche sur les Civilisa
tions,Mmoire n" 41.
NIERL M.-C.
1983
Mureybet et Cheikh Hassan, Syrie outillage de
mouture et de broyage (9e et 8L millnaires). Ca
hiers de VEuphrate 3 177-216.
NOY T.
1979
Stone cupholes and querns from Gilgal I a prepottery Neolithic A site in Israel. Palorient 5 233238.
1989
Gilgal I, a pre-pottery Neolithic site, Israel. The
1985-1987 seasons. Palorient 15, 1 11-18.
OLSZEWSKI D.
1986
The North Syrian Late Epipaleolithic. BAR Int. Ser.
309. Oxford.
PERROT J.
1951
La terrasse d'el-Khiam. In NEUVILLE R. (d.).
Le Palolithique et le Msolithique du Dsert de
Jude 134-178. Archives de l'Institut de Palontol
ogie
Humaine, Mmoire n 24. Paris Masson et
Cie, Editeurs.
1966
Le gisement natoufien de Mallaha, (Eynan), Isral.
L'Anthropologie 70, 5-6 437-484.
PERROT J., ZORI N. et REICH Y.
1967
Neve Ur, un nouvel aspect du Ghassoulien. Israel
Exploration Journal 17, 4 201-232.
RAMBEAU F.
1988
Technologie de la gravure rupestre. L'Anthropologie
92, 1 255-270.
ROLLEFSON G. and SIMMONS A.
1988
The Neolithic village of 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan
liminary report on the 1985 season. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement
25 93-106.
RONEN A., KAUFMAN D., GOPHNA R., BAKLEN N.,
SMITH P. and AM I EL A.
1975
The Epi-paleolithic site Hcfziba, central coastal
plain of Israel. Quarter 26 53-72.
ROODENBERG J.J.
1986
Le mobilier en pierre de Bouqras. Leiden Nederlands Institut voor het Nabije Oosten.
:
1:
: :
GEBEL H., MUHEISEN M., NISSEN H., QADI N.,

and STARCK J.
1988
Preliminary report on the first season of exeavations
at the late aceramic Neolithic site of Basta. In
GARRARD A.N. and GEBEL H.G. (eds). The Pre
history of Jordan 101-134. BAR Int. Ser. 396 (ii).
Oxford.
GORING-MORRIS N.
1987
At the Edge Terminal Pleistocene
therers in the Negev and Sinai. BAR Int. Ser. 361.
Oxford.
HAYDEN B.
1987
Manufacture of metates using chipped stone tools.
In HAYDEN B. (d.). Lithic Studies Among the
Contemporary Highland Maya, Ch. 3. Tucson
University of Arizona Press.
HENNES S Y J.
1969
Preliminary report on the first season of excavations
at Teleilat Ghassul. Levant 1 1-24.
HERSH T.
1981
Grinding stones and food processing techniques of
the Neolithic societies of Turkey and Greece. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Columbia
University. Ann Arbor University Microfilms I
nternational.
HOLE E, FLANNERY K. and NEELY J.
1969
Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Lu ran
Plain : an Earlv Village Sequence from Khuzistan,
Iran. Ann Arbor Museum of Anthropology, Univers
ity
of Michigan, Memoirs No. 1.
JELINEK A.
1976
Form, function and style in lithic analysis. In CLELAND C.B. (d.). Cultural Change and Continuity
19-33. New York Academic Press.
JONES E. R.
1990
Archaeochemistry fact or fancy ? In WENDORF
E, SCHILD R. and CLOSE A. (eds). The Prehistory
of Wadi Kubbaniya Vol. 2 : Studies in Late Paleolit
hic
Subsistence 260-266. Dallas Southern Metho
dist University Press.
KERRICH J. and CLARKE D.
1967
Notes on the possible misuse and errors of
lative percentage frequency graphs for the compari
son
of prehistoric artifact assemblages. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society 33 57-69.
KIRKBRIDE D.
1966
Five seasons at the Prc-Pottery Neolithic village of
Beidha in Jordan a summary. Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 98 8-72.
KOZLOWSKI S.K.
1989
Nemrik 9 a PPN site in northern Iraq. Palorient
15, 25-31.
KRAYBILL N.
1977
Pre-agricultural tools for the preparation of foods
in the Old World. In REED (d.). Origins of
Agriculture 485-521. The Hague Mouton.
LEAKEY L.
1948
The bolas in Africa. Man 48 48.
LECHEVALLIER M., PHILIBERT D., RONEN A.
and SAMZUN A.
1989
Une occupation khiamienne et sultanienne Hatoula? Palorient 15, 1 : 1-10.
80
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.
'
The Oldowan reassessed a close look at early stone

artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12
101-120.
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.
Translated by M. Newcomer. Newsletter of Lithic

Technology Special Publication No. 1.
:
Le matriel de broyage : tude ethnoarchologique

Tichitt (R.I. Mauritanie). Paris Editions Recher
che
sur les Civilisations, Mmoire n 58.
:
ROUX V.
1985
81

A Classification System For Ground Stone Tools From The Prehistoric Levant

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Classification System For Ground Stone Tools From The Prehistoric Levant

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Katherine Wright

A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

PALEORIENT, vol. 18/2 - 1992

Studies of ground stone assemblages from Near

(6) WRIGHT, 1991, 1992. Specific instances of most of the

The purpose of this article is to present such a

morphological classes primarily reflect either stylis

(c) Wherever possible, type names should em

Discussion of raw material properties is based on

(11) JELINEK, 1976; MARKS 1983: xiii ; TOTH, 1985:

Ground stone involves diverse raw materials and

FIG. 1. - Techniques in ground stone lithic reduction.

Terms for ground stone reduction follow many

(19) Cf. TOTH, 1985.

Secondary Reduction/Roughout Debitage

Pebble = diameter between 4 and 64 mm.

(23) TIXIER, 1974: 14; HAYDEN, 1987: 26.

Dorsal surface (26)

Rim or Base finishing = abrasion producing

(26) TIXIER, 1974 : 5. Note that HAYDEN'S (1987) use of

An artifact is placed with the main (or most

Cf. "afftage;" TIXIER, 1974 22.

"ANATOMICAL" TERMS FOR

FIG. 2. - Anatomical terms for description of selected artifact types.

or facing the observer at 90 degrees from the line

Rim = a true rim is only present if there is symmetry

FIG. 3. - Metric variables used in definitions of artifact classes.

of working surfaces ; and macroscopic wear patterns

The classification is based on variations in blank

Shape of Use Surface in Transverse Section

One variable measures the degree of concavity

ments dl, d2, and d3 were assigned negative values.

(40) Cf. BARTLETT, 1933; VOIGT, 1983 : 247. Microwear

(41) WRIGHT, 1992.

use surfaces. The goal was to refine loose categories

deviations were used to construct the following

24. Bifacial Discoidal/Oval

75. Irregular Core Pounder

G. Worked pebbles and cobbles

100 Shaft Straishtener

H. Axes and celts

141. Pecked Preform

N. Unidentifiable ground stone fragments

applicable. Use surface : as No. 1, but use surface

A. Grinding slabs/querns (fig. 4 : 1-12 b)

No. 4 Boulder Grinding Slab

Lower, stationary stone in a pair of grinding

No. 5 Saddle-shaped Quern

No. 1 Block Quern

No. 7 Trough Quern

No. 2 Block Grinding Slab

No. 8 Trough Grinding Slab

No. 3 Boulder Quern

As No. 7, but use surface rectangular; striae

(44) Cf. DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.7, 6; NIERL, 1983 PI. 6,

No. 13 Slab/Quern Fragment

Blank : variable. Preform : flaked or pecked on

Fragment whose remaining use surface is con

No. 10 Basin Grinding Slab

B. Mortars (fig. 5 : 15-21)

No. 11 Hollowed Quern

Lower, stationary stone in a pair of tools used