Katherine Wright

A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the

Prehistoric Levant.
In: Paléorient. 1992, Vol. 18 N°2. 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.

Résumé
Les études comparatives du mobilier en pierre sont restées limitées en raison d'une terminologie très variable ainsi que d'une
typologie restreinte à du matériel provenant seulement d'un ou deux sites. La plupart des rapports préliminaires ne décrivent ces
objets que très sommairement. Or, le mobilier en pierre joue un rôle important dans le développement de la technologie
préhistorique et mérite autant d'intérêt que celui accordé aux outils taillés. Cet article présente des définitions de termes
technologiques et morphologiques, ainsi qu'une classification générale applicable aux sites préhistoriques du Levant. La
typologie morphologique n'est pas le but final des analyses de mobilier en pierre mais est nécessaire 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: Paléorient. 1992, Vol. 18 N°2.
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 études comparatives du mobilier en pierre sont restées limitées en raison d'une terminologie très variable ainsi
que d'une typologie restreinte à du matériel provenant seulement d'un ou deux sites. La plupart des rapports préliminaires ne
décrivent ces objets que très sommairement. Or, le mobilier en pierre joue un rôle important dans le développement de la technologie
préhistorique et mérite autant d'intérêt que celui accordé aux outils taillés. Cet article présente des définitions de termes tech
nologiques et morphologiques, ainsi qu'une classification générale applicable aux sites préhistoriques du Levant. La typologie
morphologique n'est pas le but final des analyses de mobilier en pierre mais est nécessaire 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.
(1) As previously noted by HOLE et al, 1969 170; KRAY-
BILL, 1977 487; HERSH, 1981 77f; RUNNELS, 1981 ; NIER-
:
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

LÉ, 1983; VOIGT, 1983: 247. Type names, definitions and

:

numbering schemes all vary widely.
(2) Exceptions to this criticism include DORRELL, 1983;
NIERLÉ, 1983; VOIGT, 1983; CLUZAN, 1984; MOUTON,
1984; ROODENBERG, 1986, though the typologies are still site-
specific and emphasize different attributes. The studies by NIERL
É,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.
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
(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.
: :

(4) SUMNER, 1967; SOLECKI, 1969; NOY, 1979; ADAMS, (9) WRIGHT, 1991, 1992; cf. JELINEK. 1976; TOTH, 1985;
1983; NIERLÉ, 1983; MOUTON, 1984, ROODENBERG, 1986. DIBBLE, 1987.
(5) E.g. BORDES, 1961; TIXIER, 1963; BAR-YOSEF, 1970. (10) MARKS, 1983 : xiii.

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.
(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 all-
:
purpose 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, JI-
LAT 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, BAS-
TA 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.
54
(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
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
(16) Discussion of raw material properties is based on
SPETH, 1972 Table 1.
(17) SPETH, 1972 : Table 1.
:
(18) HAYDEN, 1987 18.
:
 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), por-
phyritic 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).
(19) Cf. TOTH, 1985.
(20) WRIGHT, 1992.
55
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.
 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
MORPHOLOGICAL Tools ("retouched" pieces)
TYPOLOGY Perforated Tools
Grooved Tools
..Grinding slabs, Handstones. . .
Mortars , Pestles
Axes
Vessels :
Outils a posteriori Use
Pounders Grinding
,

Polishing Pebbles : Pounding

Worked Pebbles, Cobbles : ... Battering
Chopping . .
Cutting .... :
,

Chiseling. ... :
.... Polishing
Resharpening = edge rejuvenation, repecking, flaking
Transformation = modification to new tools
Post-depositional fragmentation

Size Pebble = diameter between 4 and 64 mm. Flake (24)

Cobble = diameter between 64 and 256 Blade (24)
mm. Unmodified boulder/cobble/pebble = surface no
Boulder = diameter greater than 256 mm. dule; no primary reduction.
Blank = "initial form" = product of primary reduct Flake Morphology
ion, prior to thinning and shaping of preform. Ventral Surface (25)
Core (23)
(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
(23) TIXIER, 1974: 14; HAYDEN, 1987: 26. exhibit the grinding surface on the ventral side (WRIGHT, 1992).

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 wedge-
shaped 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
"ANATOMICAL" TERMS FOR
DESCRIPTION OF INDIVIDUAL ARTIFACTS

(26) TIXIER, 1974 : 5. Note that HAYDEN'S (1987) use of An artifact is placed with the main (or most
this term to refer to a metate use surface is not the same as that
used here. heavily worn) use surface either facing up (querns,
(27) TIXIER, 1974 4. handstones, perforated stones, "shaft straighteners")
(28) TIXIER, 1974 5.
: : : :

(29) BORDES, 1968 24f.

(30) BORDES, 1968 24f.
(31) Cf. "estillar;" HAYDEN, 1987: 27.
(32) Cf. "repellar;" HAYDEN, 1987 35. (36) Cf. "affûtage;" TIXIER, 1974 22.
(33) TIXIER, 1974: 19f. (37) TIXIER, 1974 22.
:
:

(34) BORDES, 1969. (38) BORDES, 1970 199f. ; JELINEK, 1976 26.
: : :

(35) Cf. "afînar;" HAYDEN, 1987: 41. (39) TIXIER, 1974 14.
:

57
 A

'
/f ■-• ■ .*4
tf J

4 .à J
Í

(c) (d)

(b)
FIG. 2. - Anatomical terms for description of selected artifact types.
(b) Mortar
A = Face (Use Surface)
:
В = Sides
FE=DСВA(a)=Face
Grinding
Transverse
Face
Lateral
End
Longitudinal
Dorsal
(if (Use
bifacial)
Side
SlabSection
Surface)
(ifSection
unifacial) С = Dorsal Side
D = Transverse Section
:

(c) Handstone id) Pestle

A = Face (Use Surface) A = Face (Use Surface)
:
:

В = Lateral Side В = Shaft

С = End С = Transverse Section
D = Dorsal Side (if unifacial)
= Face (if bifacial)
E = Longitudinal Section
F = 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."

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
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
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 :

Blank Type Shape of Use Surface in Transverse Section

Flake Flat
Flaked Core Concave, dished
Flake or Core Concave, U
Umodified Boulder/Cobble/Pebble Concave, V
Indeterminate Convex, arc
Shape of Artifact in Transverse Section Convex, rounded
Irregular Convex, beveled
Piano-irregular Sinuous
Plano-convex Circular (perforations)
Triangular Number of Use Surfaces
Wedge Unifacial
Spherical Bifacial
Oval Unipolar
Tapered Bipolar
Lens Multiracial
Flat Shape of Use Surface in Long Section
Shape of Artifact in Plan Flat
Spherical Concave, dished
Discoidal Concave, U
Ovate Concave, V
Loaf shaped Convex, arc
Squared Convex, rounded
Irregular Convex, beveled
Other Sinuous
Shape of Use Surface in Plan Biconical (perforations)
Subcircular Cylindrical (perforations)
Oval Relationship of Use Surfaces
Squared Opposed
Rectangular Adjacent
Other 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 -
(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.
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
(41) WRIGHT, 1992.

60
use surfaces. The goal was to refine loose categories deviations were used to construct the following
of surface curvature via a simple measurement. The classification :
results were promising and the means and standard

Concave surfaces Convex surfaces

(a) Flat CI = 0-0.05 (a) Fiat : CI = 0- [-0.05]
(b) Dished : CI = 0.10-0 .40 (b) Arc-shaped : CI = -10.10-0.40]
:

(c) V-shaped CI = 0.45-0 .75 (c) Beveled : CI = -[0.45-0.75]

(d) U-shaped
:
(d) Rounded
(shallow) : CI = 0.80-1 .10 (gently) : CI = -10.80-1.10]
(e) U-shaped (e) Rounded
(deep) CI = 1.15-2 .00 (pronounced) 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.
A. Grinding slabs/querns
1. Block Quern 8. Trough Grinding Slab
2. Block Grinding Slab 9. Basin Quern
3. Boulder Quern 10. Basin Grinding Slab
4. Boulder Grinding Slab 11. Hollowed Quern
5. Saddle-shaped Quern 12. Hollowed Grinding Slab
6. Saddle-shaped Grinding Slab 13. Fragment
7. Trough Quern 14. Miscellaneous
B. Mortars
15. Pebble Mortar 20. Pillar Mortar
16. Bowl Mortar 21. Bedrock Mortar
17. Boulder Mortar 22. Fragment
18. On flaked/pecked boulder 23. Miscellaneous Mortar
19. Hollowed Mortar
C. Handstones
24. Bifacial Discoidal/Oval 45. /Wedged
25. /Lens 46. /Triangular
26. /Tapered 47. /Piano-irregular
27. /Planoconvex 48. Bifacial Rectilinear/Oval
28. /Flat 49. /Lens
29. /Wedged 50. /Tapered
30. /Triangular 51. /Planoconvex
31. /Piano-irregular 52. /Flat
32. Bifacial Ovate/Oval 53. /Wedged
33. /Lens 54. /Triangular
34. /Tapered 55. /Piano-irregular
35. /Planoconvex 56. Handstone on Flake
36. /Flat 57. Bell-shaped Muller
37. /Wedged 58. Handstone a posteriori
38. /Triangular 59. Unifacial Discoidal
39. /Piano-irregular 60. Unifacial Ovate
40. Bifacial Loaf/Oval 61. Unifacial Rectilinear
41. /Lens 62. Unifacial Loaf
42. /Tapered 63. Fragment
43. /Planoconvex 64. Miscellaneous Handstone
44. /Flat

61
 D. Pestles
65. Bipolar Cylindrical 70. Unipolar "Collared"
66. Unipolar Cylindrical 71. Soft Mini-pestle
67. Bipolar Conical 72. "Figurine" Pestle
68. Unipolar Conical 73. Fragment
69. Unipolar Knobbed 74. Miscellaneous Pestle
E. Pounders
75. Irregular Core Pounder 78. Cuboid
76. Spherical/irregular 79. Fragment
77. Spheroid
F. Polishing pebbles
80. Unifacial 82. Fragment
81. Bifacial

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

H. Axes and celts

89. Trapezoidal Axe 95. Preform
90. Trapezoidal Celt 96. Flaked/Ground "Knife"
91. Ovate Celt 97. Flaked "Hoe"
92. Chisel 98. Misc. Flaked Chopper
94. Miniature Celt 99. Fragment
93. Ebauchoir
I. Grooved stones
100 Shaft Straishtener 102 . Pattern-Incised Pebble
101. Cutmarked Slab 103. Miscellaneous
.

J. Perforated stones/disks
104. Counterpoise Weight 109. Loomweight
105. Perforated Axe-head 110. Macehead
106. Perforated Post Socket 111. "Pendant Palette"
107. Perforation on Disk 112. Unperforated Disk
108. Spindle Whorl 113. Miscellaneous
K. Stone vessels
114. Platter 125. Hollow-foot Vessel
115. "Potlid" Platter 126. Tripod Vessel
116. Drill-marked Platter 127. Quadripod Vessel
117. Globular Bowl 128. Spouted Vessel
118. Upright Bowl 129. Lugged/Handled Vessel
119. V-shaped Bowl 130. Miscellaneous Vessel
120 Carinated Bowl 131. Rim Fragment
121. Miniature Vessel 132. Base Fragment
122. Vase 133. Body Fragment
123. Fenestrated Vessel 134. Unfinished Vessel
124. Solid-foot Vessel
L. Multiple tools
135. Quern/Mortar 138. "Baguette" Pestle/Handstone
136. Grinding Slab/Mortar 139. Other Pestle/Handstone
137. Pestle/Bell Muller 140. Miscellaneous

62
 M. Debitage
141. Pecked Preform
142. Flake Core
N. Unidentifiable ground stone fragments
145. Possible Handstone/Quern 147. Unknown
146. Possible Vessel
DEFINITIONS OF ARTIFACT CLASSES
A. Grinding slabs/querns (fig. 4 : 1-12 b)
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. 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. 2 Block Grinding Slab
As No. 1, but use surface rectangular; striae
indicate lateral grinding.
No. 3 Boulder Quern
Blank : unmodified irregular boulder, no primary
reduction ; lacks naturally stable base. Preform : not
(42) In the literature, terms for grinding slabs and querns are
extremely variable (e.g. "grinding stone" "metáte", "meule",
"répercutant", 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. 5-
10, a.
:
63
143. Flake
144. Indeterminate Spall
applicable. Use surface : as No. 1, but use surface
may extend to edges of the boulder (44).
No. 4 Boulder Grinding Slab
As No. 3, but use surface rectangular; striae
imply lateral grinding (45).
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
As No. 5, but use surface rectangular; striae
imply lateral grinding (47).
No. 7 Trough Quern
Blank : core or unmodified boulder. Preform :
flaked or pecked. Use surface : oval in plan, S-
shaped 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. 8 Trough Grinding Slab
As No. 7, but use surface rectangular; striae
indicate lateral grinding (49).
(44) Cf. DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.7, 6; NIERLÉ, 1983 PI. 6,
71.
:
(45) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: fig. 70, a-d; NOY, 1979
fig. 11; NIERLÉ, 1983 PI. 7, 91.
(46) Cf. DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.7, 3,9,11,12,14; NIERLÉ,
1983 PI. 5, 58.
(47) Cf. PERROT, 1966 : fig. 19, 9-10; HOLE et al., 1969
:
171; fig. 71; NOY, 1979: fig. 10; NIERLÉ, 1983: PL 2, 19;
:
QADI in GEBEL et al, 1988 fig. 12, 1.
(48) Cf. STEKELIS and YIZRAELY, 1963 fig. 6; NIERLÉ,
:
1983 PI. 5, 61,62; PI. 6, 71 ; DORRELL, 1983 534f.
:
(49) Cf. NIERLÉ, 1983 PI. 5, 59.
:
:
64
 16

21
FIG. 5. - Artifact types : mortars.

No. 9 Basin Quern No. 13 Slab/Quern Fragment

Blank : variable. Preform : flaked or pecked on Fragment whose remaining use surface is con
exterior; modification of ridges. Use surface : cave; lacks evidence that it is from a vessel (s.v.).
Fragment with flat surface is classed as No. 145.
oval/concave, indicates rotary grinding, and is large
relative to the blank (50). No. 14 Miscellaneous Grinding Slab/Quern
No. 10 Basin Grinding Slab Grinding slab/quern not meeting any of the
above definitions.
As No. 9, but use surface rectangular; striae
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
Any quern with one oval use surface penetrating walls of use surface. Blank : variable. Use surfaces :
the side opposite it. subcircular plan, concave in section (dished to U-
shaped) ; deepest part is pitted from pounding.
No. 12 Hollowed Grinding Slab Grinding wear most pronounced on upper use sur
face near the opening. Formally distinct from vessels
As No. 11, but use surface rectangular; striae (s.v.) (52). Each type includes subtypes (a) unifacial;
indicate lateral grinding. (b) bifacial; (c) multiracial.

(50) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969 fig. 74, c-d; NOY, 1979 fig. 7- (52) DORRELL (1983 : 521f.) does not make this distinction.
NIERLÉ, 1983 PI. 1, 1. Under "Stone Vessels," his Types H, J, and L would be considered
:

(51) Cf. NIERLÉ, 1983 PL 5, 60. mortars according to the scheme presented here.
:

65
 40 42 43 44 45 46 47
FIG. 6. - Artifact types : handstones.

No. 15 Pebble Mortar No. 18 Mortar on flaked/pecked boulder

Blank : variable. Preform : may be flaked or Blank : variable (boulder). Preform : reduced by
pecked. Easily held in one hand. Use surface : sub- flaking and/or pecking on the exterior. Use surface :
circular in plan; variable in section (53). as No. 17.
No. 16 Bowl Mortar No. 19. Hollowed Mortar
Any mortar in which the use surface has pene
Blank variable. Preform : flaked or pecked. Ex trated the base (56).
terior lightly pecked but lacks an intentionally f
:

ashioned rim or base. Use surface : subcircular in No. 20 Pillar mortar

plan ; U-shaped in section ; large relative to the Blank : elongated boulder. Preform : flaked or
blank (54). pecked on exterior. Use surface : set into one end
of boulder; small relative to the blank (57).
No. 17 Boulder Mortar
Blank : unmodified irregular boulder. Preform No. 21 Bedrock Mortar
not applicable. No modification except on use sur Blank : in situ bedrock outcrop. Not to be con
:

face. Use surface : subcircular plan ; variable in sec fused with large, heavy boulder mortars. Use sur
tion (55). 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, (56) Cf. HOLE et al. 1969 fig. 76, с; DORRELL, 1983
;

b,d; NOY, 1979 fig. 3; DORRELL, 1983 524 (Type J; some fig. 225, 9.
:

of Types LI and L2). (57) Cf. EPSTEIN, 1988 fig. 6, 41-3; fig. 7, 46.
:

66
 о о
66 67
65
FIG. 7. - Artifact types : handstones, pestles.
No. 22 Mortar Fragment
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.
C. Handstones (fig. 6 : 24-47 ; fig. 7 : 48-62)
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
(58) Cf. "grinders," "grinding stones," "mullers" "molettes,"
"meules actives," "percutants," etc. (e.g. KIRKBRIDE, 1966; SO-
LECKI, 1969; DORRELL, 1983; NIERLÉ, 1983; CLUZAN,
1984; ROLLEFSON and SIMMONS, 1988).
67
70 72
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.
No. 24 Bifacial Discoidal/ 'Oval
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).
(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) LECHEVAL-
LIER 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 ; NIERLÉ,
:
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. 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.
No. 27 Bifacial Discoidal/Planoconvex
As No. 24 but opposed faces are flat and
rounded and meet at the sides.
No. 28 Bifacial Discoidal/Flat
As No. 24 but both faces are flat and parallel ;
sides are straight.
No. 29 Bifacial Discoidal/Wedged
As No. 28 but opposed faces are not in parallel
planes.
No. 30 Bifacial Discoidal/Triangular
As No. 24 but opposed faces are flat and
beveled.
No. 31 Bifacial Discoidal/Planoirregular
As No. 24 but opposed faces are flat and irregul
ar.
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. 33 Bifacial Ovate/Lens
As No. 32 but with use surfaces less convex
(i.e. arc-shaped) in section and with straight sides,
producing lens-shaped section.
No. 34 Bifacial Ovate/Tapered
As No. 32 but opposed use surfaces meet at the
sides and are more convex. Transverse section thus
has a tapered lenticular section.
No. 35 Bifacial Ovate/Planoconvex
As No. 32 but opposed faces are flat and
rounded and meet at the sides.
No. 36 Bifacial Ovate/Flat
As No. 32 but both faces are flat and parallel;
sides are straight.
No. 37 Bifacial Ovate/Wedged
As No. 36 but opposed faces are not in parallel
planes.
68
No. 38 Bifacial Ovate/Triangular
As No. 32 but opposed faces are flat and
beveled.
No. 39 Bifacial Ovate/Planoirregular
As No. 32 but opposed faces are flat and irregul
ar.
No. 40 Bifacial Loaf/Oval
Blank : variable. Loaf-shaped (see No. 62). Pre
form : often pecked. Use surfaces two opposed
surfaces with rounded transverse sections; rounded
:
sides.
No. 41 Bifacial Loaf/Lens
As No. 40 but with use surfaces less convex
(i.e. arc-shaped) in section and with straight sides,
producing lens-shaped section.
No. 42 Bifacial Loaf/Tapered
As No. 40 but opposed use surfaces meet at the
sides and are more convex. Transverse section thus
has a tapered lenticular section.
No. 43 Bifacial Loaf/Planoconvex
As No. 40 but opposed faces are flat and
rounded and meet at the sides.
No. 44 Bifacial Loaf/Flat
As No. 40 but opposed faces are flat and par
allel ; sides are straight.
No. 45 Bifacial Loaf/Wedged
As No. 44 but opposed faces are not in parallel
planes.
No. 46 Bifacial Loaf/Triangular
As No. 40 but opposed faces are flat and
beveled.
No. 47 Bifacial Loaf/Planoirregular
As No. 40 but opposed faces are flat and irregul
ar.
No. 48 Bifacial Rectilinear/Oval
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. 49 Bifacial Rectilinear/Lens
As No. 48 but with use surfaces less convex
(i.e. arc-shaped) in section and with straight sides,
producing lens-shaped section.
No. 50 Bifacial Rectilinear/Tapered
As No. 48 but opposed use surfaces meet at the
sides and are more convex. Transverse section thus
has a tapered lenticular section.
No. 51 Bifacial Rectilinear/Planoconvex
As No. 48 but opposed faces are flat and
rounded and meet at the sides.
No. 52 Bifacial Rectilinear/Flat
As No. 48 but opposed faces are flat and par
allel ; sides are straight.
No. 53 Bifacial Rectilinear/Wedged
As No. 52 but opposed faces are not in parallel
planes.
No. 54 Bifacial Rectilinear/Triangular
As No. 48 but opposed faces are flat and
beveled.
No. 55 Bifacial Rectilinear/Planoirregular
As No. 48 but opposed faces are flat and irregul
ar.
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.
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
(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 "à cône en champignon" (fig. 76 2).
:
69
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.
D. Pestles (fig. 7 : 65-72)
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 : sub-
circular 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).
(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) ; NIERLÉ, 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 ; NIERLÉ, 1983 PI. 4, 44,49,50.
No. 67 Bipolar Conical Pestle pounding directed into sharp edges at a variety of
angles. Easily held in one hand. Battered tools of
As No. 65, but plan is conical; use surfaces are materials other than flint are only classed as
of different diameters (63). pounders if battering has dulled irregular sharp
No. 68 Unipolar Conical Pestle edges (69).
As No. 67, but only one use surface has evidence No. 75 Irregular Core Pounder
of pounding (64). Blank : flint nodule or core. Irregular, angular
No. 69 Unipolar Knobbed Pestle polyhedron shape. Battering marks restricted to a
small area (< 25 %) of the blank.
Similar to No. 68, but the end lacking evidence
for pounding is shaped into a subspherical knob for No. 76 Spherical/Irregular
grasping the tool (65). Blank : as No. 75. Battering marks cover be
No. 70 Unipolar "Collared" Pestle tween 25 and 90 % of blank, but the tool is not
completely spherical and there are angular edges
Similar to No. 69, but the "knob" is elongated remaining.
and narrower than the lower part of shaft near the
use surface. The effect is of a use surface having a No. 77 Spheroid
"band" or "collar" around it (66).
Blank : as No. 75. Battering marks cover 90-
No. 71 Soft Mini-Pestle 100 % of the blank and the overall shape is a nearly
perfect sphere.
Blank : small elongated cobble of soft stone,
usually cylindrical, not intended for heavy pounding. No. 78 Cuboid
Use surfaces : bipolar or unipolar; flat, rounded or
pointed in section (67). As No. 77 but there are at least 2 flat facets
and the shape is closer to a cube than a sphere. Has
No. 72 "Figurine" Pestle evidence of grinding on the facets.
Any pestle in which either the shaft or proximal No. 79 Fragment
end has been carved or sculpted to an anthropomorp
hic, zoomorphic or other decorative form (68). Any broken flint core or nodule with battering
marks.
No. 73 Pestle Fragment
A fragment with a circular transverse section of F. Polishing pebbles (fig. 8 : 80-81)
an elongated shaft and/or evidence of pounding at
an end. Pebble or cobble, often waterworn, with brightly
No. 74 Miscellaneous Pestle polished surface(s). Usually flint or quartzite (other
materials occasionally encountered). Use surface :
A pestle which does not fall into the above broad, variable in plan, always slightly convex or
categories. flat in section (70).
No. 80 Unifacial Polishing Pebble
E. Pounders (fig. 8 75-78)
Blank : as above. Use surface : one.
:

Blank : core or angular nodule. Outils a poster No. 81 Bifacial Polishing Pebble
iori, generally flint, with battering fractures. The
latter are small wedge shaped internal fractures from As No. 80, but two opposed use surfaces.

(69) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969 fig. 79, a-c,f,g; KOZLOWSKI,

balls," fig.
(63) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 7, 6; PERROT, 1966: 1989 4. Other terms include "bolas,"
and "sling
:

fig. 17, 16; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.3, 4; DORRELL, 1983: "percuteurs," "pecking stones" "hammerstones"
stones," "stone
(e.g.
:

fig. 226, 8-9 (Types Bl, B2). LEAKEY 1948 48; WOODBURY 1954 86; DORRELL 1983
(64) Cf. DAVIS, 1982 fig. 3.3, 8; fig. 3.4, 1,5. 533; VOIGT, 1983 261). Ethnographic and experimental studies
:

(65) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966 fig. 7, 1,3; DORRELL, 1983 show that these can be used for pecking ground stone tools
:

fig. 221, 14; fig. 226, 13 (Type Sp). (WOODBURY, 1954: 86; ABBES, 1991). Studies by WIL-
:

(66) Cf. NOY, 1979 fig. 14, с; DAVIS, 1982 fig. 3.2, 3-5; LOUGHBY, 1985 and WRIGHT, 1992 indicate that forms of poun
DORRELL, 1983 fig. 221, 12 (Type Sp) ; LECHEVALLIER et ders reflect progressive reduction of a battering tool until it is no
:

al., 1989 fig. 4, 3. longer useful as such. Diameters of tools from Beidha decreased
:

(67) Cf. DORRELL, 1983 fig. 221, 8 (Type H). continuously from irregular to spheroid forms ; cuboids appeared
:

(68) Cf. PERROT, 1966: fig. 17, 4; DORRELL, 1983: to be spheroids adapted for use in grinding (WRIGHT, 1992).
:

fig. 221, 11 (Type Sp). (70) Cf. DORRELL, 1983 530; VOIGT, 1983 255.
:

70
 о о о
80 81

75 76 77 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

A fragment whose blank is as above and with Cobble with irregular traces of pecking (73).
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
Blank unmodified cobble. These artifacts have Cobble with traces of ochre.
traces of reduction by ad hoc use but with diffuse
:

use surfaces. No. 88 Small Slab Abrader

No. 83 Ground Cobble/Pebble Small, irregular tool of tabular sandstone, with
diffuse ground surface that is generally flat or con
Cobble or pebble with diffuse, irregular ground cave ("sandpaper"). Sometimes has ochre (74).
surface(s) (71).
No. 84 Ground Sphere H. Axes and celts (fig. 9)
Cobble ground on all sides to form a nearly Tool with a cutting edge, manufactured partly
perfect sphere (72). via abrasion (except Nos. 97-98). Blank : flake,

(73) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969 : 200; fig. 84, e.

(71) Cf. VOIGT, 1983 261. (74) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: 184; DORRELL, 1983: 524
(72) Cf. D0RRELL, 1983 fig. 228, 3. (Type K, under "Stone Vessels"); VOIGT, 1983 251.
:
:

71

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 use-
wear 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 M0R-
TENSEN, 1970.
(76) ROODENBERG, 1986.
72
%J \J
о
93
97
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 : unifa-
cially 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 semi-
steep 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 :
(77) HOLE et al, 1969 fig. 82, a; CLUZAN, 1984 fig.
2; fig. 69, 3; ROODENBERG, 1986: fig.55, 1 ("hache").
:
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. 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).
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).
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).
(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; DOR-
RELL, 1983 fig. 221, 10; fig. 228, 26; VOIGT, 1983 fig. 11 7,
: :
f; NOY, 1989 fig. 4, 4.
:
(79) Cf. "cognée"; ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 56-7; KIRK
:
BRIDE, 1966: fig. 10, 6-8; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.9, 4-6; DOR-
:
RELL, 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, с; 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.
:
73
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, pear-
shaped tool with flaking around widest end forming
a cutting edge and sometimes with a groove at the
narrow end (85).
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.
I. Grooved stones (fig. 10: 100-102)
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).
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).
(84) HOLE et al., 1969 fig. 83, i; DAVIS, 1982 fig. 3.5,
2.
(85) Cf. "chipped stone hoes" (HOLE et al, 1969, fig. 81,
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.

100
о о
о
104 105.,f~ -v. ,*T
QD
107 108 109
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)
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 à pêche", PERROT, 1966 fig. 20, 1-4.)
:
102
101
106
111 11 2
110
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).
(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.
:
74
No. 107 Perforation on Disk
Blank : cobble or pebble, flaked/pecked to dis-
coidal shape but irregular in thickness from one end
to another. Small perforation or drill mark, may be
central or off-center (94).
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. 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. 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).
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
K. Stone vessels (fig. 11)
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. 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. 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).
(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; ROODEN-
BERG, 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.
(101) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 7, 8; PERROT, 1966:
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.
:
 114 115

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

Any platter with a central drill-mark (103). Open bowl (RDO/HGT < 3) with flat base and
walls flaring outward toward rim. Outer rim
diameter exceeds base diameter. Rims tapered or
No. 117 Globular Bowl rounded ; walls thin relative to base. Generally deep
(HGT/DPTH < 2) (106).
A bowl is any vessel in which 1 < RDO/HGT
< 3. Exterior walls convex; rim varies. Outer rim No. 120 Carinated Bowl
diameter less than the maximum width of vessel.
Base flat or rounded (104). Any bowl with a carinated wall or
shoulder (107).
No. 118 Upright Bowl No. 121 Miniature Vessel
Bowl in which the outer rim diameter, the base Any vessel with rim diameter less than 100 mm
diameter and maximum diameter are approximately and height less than or equal to 100 mm. Varieties
equal (RDO = BD = W) (105). 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. (106) Cf. HENNESSY, 1969 fig. 12, 1-2; EPSTEIN, 1978
:

(105) Cf. ROODENBERG, 1986: fig. 77, 3-5; MOUTON, fig.3, b; DOLLFUS et al. 1988 PI. 3, 4.
: :

1984 fig. 61 1. (107) Cf. ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 80, 9.

:

76

135 136
141
FIG. 12. - Artifact types : multiple tools, debitage.
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).
(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.
:
1 37
1 38
142 1 43
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.
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).
(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
No. 130 Miscellaneous Vessel No. 140 Miscellaneous Multiple Tool
A vessel not falling into any of the above ca Any multiple tool not falling into the above
tegories (113). categories.

No. 131 Rim Fragment M. Debitage (fig. 12: 140-142)

Any fragment clearly belonging to a rim.
No. 141 Pecked Preform
No. 132 Base Fragment Nodule pecked to symmetrical shape suggesting
preform of a tool. Identification depends on manuf
Any fragment of a base or foot. acture patterns observed in an assemblage.
No. 133 Body Fragment No. 142 Flake Core
Nodule with at least three flake scars. Includes
Fragment exhibiting continuous change in wall cores from which primary flakes were detached to
thickness and exterior finishing, but not clearly part serve as blanks; and blanks for "core tools".
of a rim or base.
No. 143 Flake (111)
No. 134 Unfinished Vessel No. 144 Miscellaneous Indeterminate Spalls
Vessel with partially-obliterated traces of manuf Spalls that may be flakes but do not retain bulbs
acture. or platforms.

L. Multiple tools (fig. 12 135-138) N. Unidentifiable ground stone fragments

:

No. 145 Possible Handstone/Grinding Slab

Any artifacts falling into more than one of the Fragment with flat ground surface from hand-
above categories. stone or grinding slab.
No. 135 Quern/Mortar
No. 146 Possible Vessel
Any quern with mortar surface set into grinding
surface (114). Fragment suggesting a vessel but too small to
determine finishing.
No. 136 Grinding Slab/Mortar
Any grinding slab with mortar surface set into No. 147 Unknown
grinding surface (115). Unidentifiable ground stone fragment (UGSF).
No. 137 Pestle/Bell Muller
As No. 57 but with flake scars on shaft near
grinding surface (116). CONCLUSION
No. 138 "Baguette" Pestle/Handstone
Elongated (L/W > 3) rectangular cobble ground Ground stone artifacts are an underused source
on all sides ; subrectangular or oval transverse sec of information about technology, subsistence and
tion. Use surfaces diffuse. social relationships in the prehistoric Levant. It is
hoped that the foregoing will encourage better, more
No. 139 Other Pestle/Handstone consistent descriptions of ground stone artifacts, es
Any combination of the other categories of pecial y in preliminary site reports. It is also hoped
pestle and handstone. that excavators will preserve such artifacts without
washing them (since residue studies may prove suc
cessful in determining tool functions) (118) and that
(113) For this classification, it was considered preferable to possible debitage (e.g. non-flint flakes and nodules)
keep vessel categories simple. Thus, the "miscellaneous" category will be conserved when encountered in archaeologic
here includes types that can be added as separate categories for al deposits.
specific assemblages.
(114) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: 176, fig. 75; NOY, 1979:
fig. 6; NIERLÉ, 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; NIERLÉ, 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
Acknowledgements 1969 Reflections on typology and techniques in the Pale
olithic. Arctic Anthropology 6, 1 1-29.

:
For discussions about earlier versions of this paper, I 1970 Réflexions sur l'outil au Paléolithique. Compte
thank the following colleagues (none of whom bears any Rendu des Séances Mensuelles de la Société Pré
historique Française 1 199-202.
responsibility for flaws in this version) Daniela Burroni,

:
Brian Byrd, Geneviève Dollfus, Randy Donahue, Andrew CAUVIN J.

:
Garrard, Frank Hole, Nabil Qadi and the anonymous re 1963 Le Néolithique de Moukhtara (Liban-Sud). L'An
viewers. thropologie 67 489-512.

:
Katherine WRIGHT CLOSE A.
Institute of Archaeology, University College London 1978 The identification of style in lithic artifacts. World
31-34 Gordon Square, London WC1H OPY Archaeology 10, 2: 223-237.
CLUZAN S.
1984 L'outillage et les petits objets en pierre. In : LE
BIBLIOGRAPHY BRUN A. (éd.), Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia
(Chypre) 1977-1981 111-124. Paris Editions Re
cherche sur les Civilisations, Mémoire n° 41.

:
ABBES F. DAVIS M.
1991 Les percuteurs de Cheikh Hassan. Paper presented 1982 The Cayônii ground stone. In BRAIDWOOD R.
at "Table-ronde sur le traitement de la matière minér and BRAIDWOOD L. (eds), Prehistoric Village Ar

:
ale, animale et végétale au moyen du mobilier en chaeology in South-Eastern Turkey 73-174. BAR
pierre," Institut de Préhistoire Orientale, Jalès, Int. Sen 138. Oxford.

:
France, February 6, 1991. DIBBLE H.
ADAMS J. 1987 The interpretation of Middle Paleolithic scraper
1989 Methods for improving ground stone artifacts ana morphology. American Antiquity 52, 1 109-117.
lysis experiments in mano wear patterns. In

:
AMICK D. and MAULDIN R. (eds), Experiments DOLLFUS G.
:

in Lithic Technology 259-276. BAR Int. Ser. 528. 1985 Le travail de la pierre à Mallaha. Dossiers Histoire
Oxford. et Archéologie 100 69.
:

:
ADAMS R. MCC. DOLLFUS G., KAFAFI Z., REWERSKI J., VAILLANT N.,
1983 The Jarmo stone and pottery vessel industries. In COQUEUGNIOT E., DESSE J. and NEEF R.
BRAIDWOOD L.S. et al. (eds), Prehistoric Archae 1988 Abu Hamid, an early fourth millennium site in the
ologyAlong the Zagros Flanks. Oriental Institute Jordan Valley. In GARRARD A.N. and GEBEL
Publications 105 209-232. Chicago University H.G. (eds), The Prehistory of Jordan: 567- 601.
of Chicago Press. :
BAR Int. Ser. 396 (ii). Oxford.
:

BANKS K.
1980 DORRELL P.
The grinding implements of Wadi Kubbaniya. In
WENDORF F. and SCHILD R. (eds), Loaves and 1983 Appendix A Stone Vessels, Tools and Objects. In
:

KENYON K. and HOLLAND T.A. (eds), Jericho

:

:
Fishes : the Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya 239-
244. Dallas SMU Press. V. London British School of Archaeology in Jeru
:

salem.
:
:

BARTLETT K.
1933 Pueblo milling stones of the Flagstaff region and DUNNELL R.
their relation to others in the Southwest. Bulletin of 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. New York Free Press.
the Museum of Northern Arizona 3.
:

BAR-YOSEF O. EPSTEIN С
1970 The Epi-Paleolithic Cultures of Palestine. 1978 A new aspect of Chalcolithic culture. Bulletin of the
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, Jeru American Schools of Oriental Research 229 27-45.
salem. 1988 Basalt pillar figures from the Golan and the Huleh
:

1981 The Epi-Paleolithic complexes in the southern region. Israel Exploration Journal 38, 4 205-223.
vant. In CAUVIN J. and SANLAVILLE P. (éd),
:

Préhistoire du Levant 389-408. Paris CNRS. FUJIMOTO T.

:

1984 Grinding slabs, handstones, mortars, pestles and

:

BINFORD L. saddle querns : Epipaleolithic and Neolithic of the

1982 The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropologic Southern Levant. Bulletin of the Department of Ar
al Archaeology 1 5-31. chaeology, University of Tokyo 3 41-58 (in
1983 In Pursuit of the Past. London : Thames and Huds
:

Japanese with English summary).

:

on. 1985 Grinding slabs, handstones, mortars, pestles and

BINFORD L.R. and BINFORD S. saddle querns Epipaleolithic and Neolithic of the
1966 A preliminary analysis of functional variability in Northern Levant. Bulletin of the Department of Ar
:

the Mousterian of Levallois faciès. American An chaeology, University of Tokyo 4 1-30 (in Japanese
thropologist 68 238-295. with English summary).
:
:

BORDES F. FROST H.
1961 Typologie du Paléolithique, Ancien et Moyen I et 1984 Khirokitia : une pierre d'ancrage. In LE BRUN A.
II. Paris : Editions du CNRS. (éd.). Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1977-
:

1968 The Old Stone Age. New York McGraw-Hill Book 81 125-126. Paris : Editions Recherche sur les Ci
Company. vil sations, Mémoire n° 41.
:

79
GEBEL H., MUHEISEN M., NISSEN H., QADI N., MALLON R., KOEPPEL R. and NEUVILLE R.
and STARCK J. 1934 Teleilat Ghassul I. Rome Piazza della Pilotta, 35.
1988 Preliminary report on the first season of exeavations

:
at the late aceramic Neolithic site of Basta. In MARKS A.
GARRARD A.N. and GEBEL H.G. (eds). The Pre 1981 The Upper Paleolithic of the Levant. In CAUVIN

:
J. and SANLAVILLE P. (éd.). Préhistoire du Le

:
history of Jordan 101-134. BAR Int. Ser. 396 (ii).
Oxford. vant : 369-372. Colloques Internationaux du CNRS

:
No. 598. Lyon Maison de l'Orient.
GORING-MORRIS N. 1983 Introduction. In MARKS A.E. (éd.). Prehistory

: :
1987 At the Edge Terminal Pleistocene and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev III
therers in the Negev and Sinai. BAR Int. Ser. 361. ix-xv. Dallas SMU Press.
:

:
Oxford.

:
MOHOLY-NAGY H.
HAYDEN B. 1983 Jarmo artifacts of pecked and ground stone and
1987 Manufacture of metates using chipped stone tools. shell. In BRAIDWOOD L. S. et al. (eds). Prehis
toricArchaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. Orient

:
In HAYDEN B. (éd.). Lithic Studies Among the
Contemporary Highland Maya, Ch. 3. Tucson al Institute Publications 105 290-346. Chicago
:

University of Chicago Press.

:
University of Arizona Press.

:
MORTENSEN P.
HENNES S Y J. 1970 A preliminary study of the chipped stone industry
1969 Preliminary report on the first season of excavations from Beidha. Acta Archaeologica 41 1-54.
at Teleilat Ghassul. Levant 1 1-24.

:
MOUTON M.
:

HERSH T. 1984 La vaisselle en pierre. In LE BRUN A. (éd.).

1981 Grinding stones and food processing techniques of Fouilles récentes a Khirokitia, Chypre) 1977-1981

:
the Neolithic societies of Turkey and Greece. Ph.D. 97-109. Paris Editions Recherche sur les Civilisa
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Columbia tions,Mémoire n" 41.

:
University. Ann Arbor University Microfilms I NIERLÉ M.-C.
nternational.
:

1983 Mureybet et Cheikh Hassan, Syrie outillage de

HOLE E, FLANNERY K. and NEELY J. mouture et de broyage (9e et 8L millénaires). Ca

:
1969 Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Lu ran hiers de VEuphrate 3 177-216.

:
Plain : an Earlv Village Sequence from Khuzistan, NOY T.
Iran. Ann Arbor Museum of Anthropology, Univers 1979 Stone cupholes and querns from Gilgal I a pre-
ity of Michigan, Memoirs No. 1.
:

pottery Neolithic A site in Israel. Paléorient 5 233-

:
238.

:
JELINEK A.
1976 Form, function and style in lithic analysis. In CLE- 1989 Gilgal I, a pre-pottery Neolithic site, Israel. The
LAND C.B. (éd.). Cultural Change and Continuity 1985-1987 seasons. Paléorient 15, 1 11-18.
:

19-33. New York Academic Press.

:
:

OLSZEWSKI D.
:

JONES С E. R. 1986 The North Syrian Late Epipaleolithic. BAR Int. Ser.
1990 Archaeochemistry fact or fancy ? In WENDORF 309. Oxford.
E, SCHILD R. and CLOSE A. (eds). The Prehistory
:

of Wadi Kubbaniya Vol. 2 : Studies in Late Paleolit PERROT J.

hic Subsistence 260-266. Dallas Southern Metho 1951 La terrasse d'el-Khiam. In NEUVILLE R. (éd.).
dist University Press. Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique du Désert de
:
:

Judée 134-178. Archives de l'Institut de Paléontol

KERRICH J. and CLARKE D. ogie Humaine, Mémoire n° 24. Paris Masson et
:

1967 Notes on the possible misuse and errors of Cie, Editeurs.

lative percentage frequency graphs for the compari 1966 :
Le gisement natoufien de Mallaha, (Eynan), Israël.
son of prehistoric artifact assemblages. Proceedings L'Anthropologie 70, 5-6 437-484.
of the Prehistoric Society 33 57-69.
:

PERROT J., ZORI N. et REICH Y.

:

KIRKBRIDE D. 1967 Neve Ur, un nouvel aspect du Ghassoulien. Israel

1966 Five seasons at the Prc-Pottery Neolithic village of Exploration Journal 17, 4 201-232.
Beidha in Jordan a summary. Palestine Exploration
:

Quarterly 98 8-72. RAMBEAU F.

:

1988 Technologie de la gravure rupestre. L'Anthropologie

:

KOZLOWSKI S.K. 92, 1 255-270.

1989 Nemrik 9 a PPN site in northern Iraq. Paléorient
:

15, 25-31. ROLLEFSON G. and SIMMONS A.

:

1988 The Neolithic village of 'Ain Ghazal, Jordan

1:

KRAYBILL N. liminary report on the 1985 season. Bulletin of the

:

1977 Pre-agricultural tools for the preparation of foods American Schools of Oriental Research Supplement
in the Old World. In REED С (éd.). Origins of 25 93-106.
Agriculture 485-521. The Hague Mouton.
:

RONEN A., KAUFMAN D., GOPHNA R., BAKLEN N.,

:

LEAKEY L. SMITH P. and AM I EL A.

1948 The bolas in Africa. Man 48 48. 1975 The Epi-paleolithic site Hcfziba, central coastal
plain of Israel. Quarter 26 53-72.
:

LECHEVALLIER M., PHILIBERT D., RONEN A.

:

and SAMZUN A. ROODENBERG J.J.

1989 Une occupation khiamienne et sultanienne à Hatou- 1986 Le mobilier en pierre de Bouqras. Leiden Neder-
la? Paléorient 15, 1 : 1-10. lands Institut voor het Nabije Oosten.
:

80
ROUX V. Translated by M. Newcomer. Newsletter of Lithic
1985 Le matériel de broyage : étude ethnoarchéologique Technology Special Publication No. 1.
à Tichitt (R.I. Mauritanie). Paris Editions Recher TOTH N.
che sur les Civilisations, Mémoire n° 58.

:
1985 The Oldowan reassessed a close look at early stone
RUNNELS С. artifacts. Journal of Archaeological Science 12

:
1981 A Diachronic Study and Economie Analysis of 101-120.

:
stones from the Argolid. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington. Ann Arbor University VOIGT M.
Microfilms International. 1983 Hajji Firuz Tepe, Iran : the Neolithic Settlement.

:
SOLECKI R.L. Philadelphia The University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania.

:
1969 Milling tools and the Epipaleolithic in the Near
East. "Etudes sur le Quaternaire dans le Monde" WILLOUGHBY P.
989-994. Paris VIIIe Congrès Union Internationale

:
1985 Spheroids and battered stones in the early African
pour l'Etude du Quaternaire, Vol. 2.
:

Stone Age. World Archaeology 17 44-60.

SPETH J.

:
WOODBURY R.
1972 The mechanical basis of percussion flaking. Ameri
canAntiquity 37 34- 60. 1954 Prehistoric stone implements of northeastern Arizon
a.Papers of the Peabodv Museum of Archaeology
:

STEKELIS M. and YIZRAELY T. and Ethnology XXXIV.

1963 Excavations at Nahal Oren, preliminary report. WRIGHT K.
rael Exploration Journal 13 :1-12.
SUMNER W. 1991 The origins and development of ground stone a
s emblages in late Pleistocene southwest Asia. Palé-
1967 A typology of Middle Eastern saddle querns. M.A. orient 17, 1 19-45.
thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

:
1992 Ground Stone Assemblage Variation and Subsistence
TIXIER J. Strategies in the Levant, 22,000-5,500 b.p. Unpubl
1963 Typologie de L Epipaléolithique du Maghreb. Paris ished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropol
Arts et Métiers Graphiques. ogy, Yale University.
'

1974 Glossary for the description of stone tools with spe in press Early Holocene Ground Stone Assemblages from the
cial reference to the Epipaleolithic of the Maghreb. Levant. Levant XXV.

81