Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 30

Katherine Wright

A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the

Prehistoric Levant.
In: Paléorient. 1992, Vol. 18 N°2. pp. 53-81.

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

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

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

PALEORIENT, vol. 18/2 - 1992




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 The purpose of this article is to present such a
Eastern prehistoric sites have been hampered by classification for application to the prehistoric
inconsistent terminology (1). Many typologies are Levant. Discussions of space-time systematics,
based on a diverse mix of criteria, often loose ca specific assemblages and functional significance of
tegories of shape and size (2) ; most are descriptions the artifact classes are presented elsewhere (6).
of (often small) samples from one or two sites, The term "ground stone" is a misnomer (7).
usually without general definitions that can be ap Such tools may be made on flakes detached from
plied to different assemblages (3); others focus only cores; some exhibit retouch; others are analogous
on a few artifact classes (4) ; nearly all ignore ground to "core tools." Here, the term refers to any tools
stone debitage. Thus, comparisons of assemblages made by combinations of flaking, pecking, poundi
have been difficult to make. By contrast, chipped ng,grinding, drilling and incising. These include
stone studies employ relatively standard terms useful mortars, pestles, grinding slabs, handstones, grooved
for such comparisons (5). A standard descriptive and perforated stones, axes and other types. Howe
classification is a prerequisite for addressing the ver, figurines and beads are excluded. Although
significance of ground stone assemblage variations. 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
(1) As previously noted by HOLE et al, 1969 170; KRAY- ion of an original "functioning" toolkit. A similar
BILL, 1977 487; HERSH, 1981 77f; RUNNELS, 1981 ; NIER- situation has been documented for Levantine ground

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


numbering schemes all vary widely. stone assemblages (9). A morphological classifica
(2) Exceptions to this criticism include DORRELL, 1983; tion based on progressive lithic reduction is here
NIERLÉ, 1983; VOIGT, 1983; CLUZAN, 1984; MOUTON, considered the best way of describing assembl
1984; ROODENBERG, 1986, though the typologies are still site- ages(10). This approach avoids assumptions that
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 (6) WRIGHT, 1991, 1992. Specific instances of most of the
scope, KRAYBILL (1977) covers the entire Old World (but in types presented here are described and illustrated in WRIGHT,
very general terms); essays by FUJIMOTO (1984, 1985) cover 1992.
the Levant (in Japanese); WRIGHT (1992) has a comprehensive (7) RUNNELS, 1981 218f.
review of Levantine prehistoric material. (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.

morphological classes primarily reflect either stylis (c) Wherever possible, type names should em
tic"norms" or tool functions as inferred from eth ploy terms commonly used in the literature.
nographic analogy. Variations resulting from This typology depends on (a) definitions of raw
function or style will be better understood if tech material properties ; (b) definitions of technological
nological criteria are addressed first (11). terms; (c) definitions of "anatomical" terms for de
The classification given here is regional in scribing individual tools ; (d) definitions of vari
scope (12) and based on defined classes as distinct ables; (e) a type list; and (f) definitions of classes
from individual samples (13). It gives definitions (types). These are presented below.
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 RAW MATERIAL PROPERTIES
nation of 22 Levantine assemblages from diverse
environments, comprising 2,713 artifacts and (b)
comparison with ground stone presented in site re Ground stone involves diverse raw materials and
ports (14). The typology was constructed to meet there may be relationships between stone and tool
three prerequisites : types. Physical properties affecting these patterns
(a) It must be hierarchical, composed of larger may include hardness, density, brittleness and rough
classes to which subclasses may be added. This ness. Some of the most common raw materials used
facilitates addition of types when new assemblages in Levantine ground stone technology are as fo
are reviewed. The format is similar to that of wide llows :
ly-used chipped stone classifications (15); Flint. Flint is hard (Mohs = 7) and brittle with
(b) Classes must be based on explicit, easily-r high compressive strength and low tensile
eproduced attributes. 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
(11) JELINEK, 1976; MARKS 1983: xiii ; TOTH, 1985: face is roughened via battering. Flint would be best
107; OLSZEWSKI, 1986 79. Criticisms of chipped stone typo
logies such as those of Bordes center on the scope and interpre for pounding tools requiring an edge ("pecking

tationof the types (BINFORD and BINFORD 1966; KERRICH stones", "choppers").
and CLARKE, 1967 JELINEK, 1976; MARKS, 1981 371 ; BIN Basalt. Feldspar basalts are softer than flint
FORD, 1982 25; DIBBLE, 1987). Recent research stresses tech

nology, but no one disputes the need for classifications that permit (Mohs = 6) ; flaking is less controlled due to het

consistent description of finds (BINFORD,1983 96; DIBBLE, erogeneous texture. Basalt has lower compressive and
1987 116). It should be emphasized that despite functional names higher tensile strength than flint and is more resis

here assigned to artifact classes, the classification is not an all-


tant to deformation (17). Making vesicular basalt

purpose functional typology. Indeed, it is unlikely that such t artifacts with stone tools requires "pics" of denser
ypol gies can be created (MARKS, 1983 xiii). The classification
presented here will be useful for subsequent functional interpre materials with greater compressive strength, but they

tations if it is remembered that (a) establishing functional attr need not be harder. Nonvesicular basalts have these
ibutes depends entirely on the research questions asked qualities (18). Vesicular basalt has a natural, durable
(b) functional interpretations are most reliable at the level of more

inclusive tool classes (CLOSE, 1978: 234; GORING-MORRIS, roughness that limits the need for re-pecking after
1987 54); (c) general functions (e.g. "grinding") must be di grinding. Grits are not easily detached and basalt
stinguished from specific functions ("grain grinding"). Microwear thus permits long use-lives for grinding tools.

and residue analyses may prove useful for ground stone (ADAMS, Sandstone. Quartzitic sandstone is hard (Mohs
1989; JONES, 1990). See WRIGHT, 1992.
(12) Cf. BAR-YOSEF, 1970: 17. = 7) and can be flaked (with less control than flint,
(13) DUNNELL, 1971. as a result of its coarse, heterogeneous texture).
(14) WRIGHT, 1991, 1992 in press. The classification is i Coarse sandstones erode quickly under abrasion, a
ntended primarily for Levantine material, but parallels are cited drawback for long-lived grinding tools, since
from elsewhere in the Near East. The ground stone assemblages
from which this classification was developed come from the fo roughening will be required. Sandstone probably
l owing sites UWAYNID 18, JILAT 6, JILAT 8, AZRAQ 17, JI- played a key role in manufacture (abrasion) of
LAT 22, AZRAQ 32, WADI HAMMEH 27, AZRAQ 18, BEIDHA ground stone tools.


BA'JA, AZRAQ 31 (PPNB), DHUWEILA (PPNB), AZRAQ 31 Limestone. Limestone is soft (Mohs = 1-3.5)
5LATE NEOLITHIC), DHUWEILA (LATE NEOLITHIC), J but not brittle. Flaking is easily accomplished but
ILAT 25, JILAT 13, AIN GHAZAL (PPNC + YARMOUKIAN), edges are quickly dulled. Hard limestone resists
ABU HAMID. Unpublished material from AIN MALLAHA, BAS- deformation by an impact. These qualities make
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 (16) Discussion of raw material properties is based on
blages employ a slightly briefer version of the typology given here SPETH, 1972 Table 1.
(e.g. WRIGHT, 1992). (17) SPETH, 1972 : Table 1.

(15) BORDES, 1961; TIXIER, 1963; BAR-YOSEF, 1970. (18) HAYDEN, 1987 18.

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

limestone useful for pounding tools, if long-term TECHNOLOGICAL TERMS

durability is not needed. Most limestones are easily
smoothed and require much repecking if used for
Granite. Granite is a hard (Mohs = 6-7), por- Terms for ground stone reduction follow many
phyritic igneous rock composed largely of silica of the definitions used for chipped stone. Where they
quartz and alkali feldspars. Under abrasion, some are identical, previously published definitions are
granites easily lose surface roughness and would cited. Figure 1 illustrates reduction techniques and
require repecking if used for grinding tools. Particles the traces they produce on artifacts. The usages in
are not easily detached, however, and thus ground this study differ slightly from previous ones (21).
products would remain relatively free of grit. The scheme below encompasses a variety of possible
reduction alternatives and is intended to be general
Quartzite. Quartzite is a hard (Mohs = 7) meta enough to account for the reduction of most artifact
morphosed sandstone. Flaking of fine-grained homo types. Table 1 shows a working scheme for describ
geneous quartzites can be almost as easily controlled ing reduction stages. Detailed discussion of ground
as flint. Coarser quartzites of heterogeneous textures stone technology is given elsewhere (22) ; only a
permit less control in flaking; but the coarseness summary of relevant terms is given here.
may be desirable if the intended use of the tool is
for grinding. Nodule = raw material from which reduction begins.
An important determinant of tool forms is the Source Waterworn, riverine ("wadi")
size of raw material blocks available for tool pro Loose surface boulder
duction (19). Variations in the form of an original Bedded outcrop (quarried)
nodule or block exerted a strong influence on sizes Bedrock outcrop (in situ)
and shapes of ground stone tools at certain Levantine
prehistoric sites (20).
(21) RUNNELS, 1981; HERSH, 1981; NIERLE, 1983;
(19) Cf. TOTH, 1985. MOUTON, 1984; ROODENBERG, 1986; HAYDEN, 1987.
(20) WRIGHT, 1992. (22) WRIGHT, 1992.

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
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
Edge/margin retouch. . Microf lakes Tools
Pecking Pecking fragments Tools
Drilling Particles. . . .
Coarse grinding. ....... Particles. . . .
Fine grinding. Particles. . . .
Incising Particles. . . .
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
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.

(25) for
the side1974
a metate use(1987)
is notof the

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).

Dorsal surface (26) Rim or Base finishing = abrasion producing
Platform = butt (27) symmetrical rim or base.
Bulb of Percussion (28) Fire-treatment = any intentional firing of stone.
Percussion Use = reduction through use
Direct (29) Grinding = as above.
Hard-hammer (30) Pounding = percussion directed through a blunt
surface (fig. 1).
Primary Reduction = blank production Battering = percussion of a mobile tool with
None = selection of raw nodule for use. angular edges blunted by impact against a
Splitting = quarrying (via wedging and poundi stable target. Battering scars are internal
ng)from bedrock. fractures from percussion force directed into
Flaking = detachment of flakes either for use as the moving tool. They are usually wedge-
blanks or as debitage from a core to be used shaped and slightly hollow (fig. 1).
as a blank. Chopping = percussion directed through a sharp
Secondary Reduction/Roughout = shaping of pre edge at 90 degrees to the target (fig. 1).
form (31) Cutting = slicing with cutting edge perpendicul
Coarse flaking = removal of medium to large ar to the target, along a path parallel to the
flakes (ca. 30-200 mm). cutting edge (fig. 1).
Pecking = removal of amorphous pecking frag Chiseling = cutting with sharp edge at angle less
ments ("pecking shatter") from a stable tar than 90 degrees to target along a path per
get blank, via short percussions directed at pendicular to cutting edge of the tool.
random angles to the blank (see fig. 1). Resharpening = modification of working surface
Retouch/Thinning = preform thinning and final Edge rejuvenation (36) = resetting an edge on a
shaping (32) cutting tool using the same process as orig
Edge/Margin Retouch (33) inally.
Retouch of accomodation(34) Repecking = rejuvenation of the roughness of a
Retouch of shaping (34) = any gracile flaking grinding surface.
which produces small flakes or microflakes Ridge reduction = marginal flaking to expose
(< 30 mm) in shaping the artifact. more working surface in an artifact with a
Pecking = as above but more gracile and regular heavily-used concave use surface.
in spacing. Transformation = modification into new tools (37)
Grinding = preform abrasion = removal of micro Outils a posteriori = tools made on raw nodules
scopic rock particles. unmodified by primary or secondary reduc
Drilling = removal of particles via rotary motion tion(38)
of a pointed object directed at 90 degrees Core tools = tools made on core blanks.
into a stable target (fig. 1).
Coarse grinding (35) (fig. 1). Flake tools = tools made on flake blanks.
Fine grinding (35) Debitage (39)
Incising = cutting of narrow grooves (fig. 1). Cores
Finishing = final, nonfunctional surface treatment. Flakes
Polishing = production of smooth surface which Blades
reflects light and is visible to the naked eye. Pecking fragments/"shatter" = byproduct of
Incising = as above. pecking
Relief decoration = additional grinding on a Grits = byproduct of grinding
non-functional surface to produce decorative
patterns in relief.

(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.


/f ■-• ■ .*4
tf J

4 .à J

(c) (d)

FIG. 2. - Anatomical terms for description of selected artifact types.
(b) Mortar
A = Face (Use Surface)
В = Sides
(if (Use
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 Rim = a true rim is only present if there is symmetry
of sight (pestles). Figure 2 shows the anatomy of and finishing.
several artifact types. Shaft = the central part of a cylindrical tool such
Face (also "active face;" "use surface") = surface(s) as a pestle.
showing use. Longitudinal axis = axis of symmetry along longer
Side = surface showing no clear indications of use. dimension.
Limits = boundaries of a use surface. Transverse axis = perpendicular to longitudinal
Margins - long lateral sides of an artifact. axis ; in same plane.
Ends = shorter sides of an artifact. Opposed = faces on opposite sides of artifact, meet
Edge = restricted to the working edges of cutting ingnowhere.
tools. Adjacent = faces are adjacent if they meet along
Base = resting side. A true base is only present if one limit.
there are traces of intentional shaping to create Polar = refers to the ends of an elongated artifact
a stable resting surface. such as a pestle. If the artifact has evidence of
Ridge = a rim-like feature bordering a heavily used use on only one end, it is called "unipolar;" if
surface. on two ends, "bipolar."





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.

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.
The classification is based on variations in blank Of the nominal variables used in the typology, the
type; artifact shape in plan and section; presence/ab most important are the following :
sence of secondary reduction, grinding, finishing and
resharpening ; the number, shapes, and distribution

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 ments dl, d2, and d3 were assigned negative values.
or convexity of use surfaces. The rationale is that For concave surfaces, dl, d2, and d3 were assigned
concavity and convexity of certain tools would positive values. From these, an index of concavity
change with prolonged use (40). To measure curvat (CI) was created, such that :
ure, the limits of the use surface were located.
Using a profile gauge, the long cross-section of the Concavity/ Convexity Index (CI) = dl + d2 + d3
surface was traced onto graph paper. A straight line LAF
from each end of the surface was drawn (= LAF, or A surface perfectly flat in section has an index of
"Length of Active Face"). Perpendiculars were zero. When the surface is concave, CI > 0 ; and when
drawn extending to the use surface (dl, d2, d3) the surface is convex, CI < 0.
(fig. 4). For a convex surface, the "depth" measure -
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.

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).

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

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

M. Debitage
141. Pecked Preform 143. Flake
142. Flake Core 144. Indeterminate Spall
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
Lower, stationary stone in a pair of grinding imply lateral grinding (45).
tools. Most grinding is in a plane parallel to the side
on which artifact rests. Blank : variable. Preform No. 5 Saddle-shaped Quern
variable. Use surfaces : broad, long in plan ; concave
or flat in section; may have striae. Heaviest wear Blank : variable. Preform : pecked or flaked on
side opposite use surface. Opposed lateral sides par
from grinding
slabs" have rectangular
is at deepest
use part
of face.
or wear
striae allel; has concave/convex ("saddle") shape. Use sur
indicating lateral grinding in a linear path. "Querns" face oval in plan, "dished" in long section. Surface
extends to sides and ends of blank and is thus
have oval use surfaces or wear striae indicating
rotary grinding in an oval path (42). Each type i "open." No ridges (46).
ncludes subtypes (a) unifacial ; (b) bifacial ; (c) multi No. 6 Saddle-shaped Grinding Slab
As No. 5, but use surface rectangular; striae
No. 1 Block Quern imply lateral grinding (47).
Blank : unmodified tabular-stone boulder with
naturally stable base. Preform : not applicable. Use No. 7 Trough Quern
surface : unifacial, oval in plan, dished or U- shaped Blank : core or unmodified boulder. Preform :
in section. Surface is "closed" (surrounded on all flaked or pecked. Use surface : oval in plan, S-
sides) and small relative to blank (length of surface shaped in long section, curving downward from
less than 50 % of length of artifact). No ridges; face "shelf at high proximal end to an opening at the
is set into blank without other modification (43). thin distal end. Side walls may rise steeply from the
No. 2 Block Grinding Slab use surface. May have flake scars on lateral ridges,
for reduction of side walls. Surface is thus large
As No. 1, but use surface rectangular; striae relative to blank, "closed" on three sides, open on
indicate lateral grinding. one side. Base usually unstable (48).
No. 3 Boulder Quern No. 8 Trough Grinding Slab
Blank : unmodified irregular boulder, no primary As No. 7, but use surface rectangular; striae
reduction ; lacks naturally stable base. Preform : not indicate lateral grinding (49).

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

nvolving rotary motion from those involving lateral grinding. 71.


"Quern" was considered acceptable. For French equivalents, (45) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: fig. 70, a-d; NOY, 1979
ROUX (1985 45) uses "meule plane" and "meule-rnortier" but fig. 11; NIERLÉ, 1983 PI. 7, 91.
these terms would be misleading in the scheme used here. Conseq (46) Cf. DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.7, 3,9,11,12,14; NIERLÉ,

uently, the term "meule" is used here as an equivalent of grin 1983 PI. 5, 58.
ding slab (lateral motion) and "moulin" is used as the equivalent (47) Cf. PERROT, 1966 : fig. 19, 9-10; HOLE et al., 1969

of "quern" (rotary motion). Neither the English "quern" nor the 171; fig. 71; NOY, 1979: fig. 10; NIERLÉ, 1983: PL 2, 19;

French "moulin" is entirely satisfactory but these seem to be the QADI in GEBEL et al, 1988 fig. 12, 1.
best terms available. (48) Cf. STEKELIS and YIZRAELY, 1963 fig. 6; NIERLÉ,

(43) Cf. CLUZAN, 1984 fig. 65, 2; WRIGHT, 1992 fig. 5- 1983 PI. 5, 61,62; PI. 6, 71 ; DORRELL, 1983 534f.

10, a. (49) Cf. NIERLÉ, 1983 PI. 5, 59.




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.

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.

о о
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
Fragment with concave surface indicating shape and transverse section shape (defined by con
pounding but no finishing suggesting that it is from vexity, as discussed above). Plan shape is separated
a vessel. from transverse shape by a slash (/). Thus "bifacial
discoidal/oval" refers to a handstone with two use
No. 23 Miscellaneous Mortar surfaces, discoidal in plan and oval in transverse
Mortar not falling any of the above categories. section.
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 :
Upper, mobile stone in a pair of grinding often pecked. Use surfaces : two opposed surfaces
tools (58). Blank : flake, core or unmodified cobble. with rounded transverse sections and rounded
Use surfaces : broad, covering large areas of blank; sides (59).
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 (59) For discoidal handstones, cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966 fig. 9,
has a flat use surface it is distinguished from a 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

(58) Cf. "grinders," "grinding stones," "mullers" "molettes," In GEBEL et al, 1988 fig. 12, 6-7; VOIGT, 1983 251. For
"meules actives," "percutants," etc. (e.g. KIRKBRIDE, 1966; SO- loaf handstones, cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966 fig. 9, 1 ; NIERLÉ,

LECKI, 1969; DORRELL, 1983; NIERLÉ, 1983; CLUZAN, 1983 PI. 4, 27,29. For rectilinear handstones, cf. DAVIS, 1982

1984; ROLLEFSON and SIMMONS, 1988). fig. 3.5; fig. 3-6, 9.


No. 25 Bifacial Discoidal/Lens No. 38 Bifacial Ovate/Triangular
As No. 24 but with use surfaces less convex As No. 32 but opposed faces are flat and
(arc-shaped) in section and with straight sides, pro beveled.
ducing lens-shaped transverse section.
No. 39 Bifacial Ovate/Planoirregular
No. 26 Bifacial Discoidal/Tapered
As No. 32 but opposed faces are flat and irregul
As No. 24 but opposed use surfaces meet at the ar.
sides and are more convex. Transverse section thus
has a tapered lenticular section. No. 40 Bifacial Loaf/Oval
No. 27 Bifacial Discoidal/Planoconvex Blank : variable. Loaf-shaped (see No. 62). Pre
form : often pecked. Use surfaces two opposed
As No. 24 but opposed faces are flat and surfaces with rounded transverse sections; rounded

rounded and meet at the sides. sides.
No. 28 Bifacial Discoidal/Flat
No. 41 Bifacial Loaf/Lens
As No. 24 but both faces are flat and parallel ;
sides are straight. As No. 40 but with use surfaces less convex
(i.e. arc-shaped) in section and with straight sides,
No. 29 Bifacial Discoidal/Wedged producing lens-shaped section.
As No. 28 but opposed faces are not in parallel No. 42 Bifacial Loaf/Tapered
As No. 40 but opposed use surfaces meet at the
No. 30 Bifacial Discoidal/Triangular sides and are more convex. Transverse section thus
As No. 24 but opposed faces are flat and has a tapered lenticular section.
beveled. No. 43 Bifacial Loaf/Planoconvex
No. 31 Bifacial Discoidal/Planoirregular As No. 40 but opposed faces are flat and
As No. 24 but opposed faces are flat and irregul rounded and meet at the sides.
No. 44 Bifacial Loaf/Flat
No. 32 Bifacial Ovate/Oval As No. 40 but opposed faces are flat and par
Blank : variable. Ovate tool (see No. 60). Pre allel ; sides are straight.
form : often pecked. Use surfaces : two (opposed),
with rounded transverse sections; rounded sides. No. 45 Bifacial Loaf/Wedged
No. 33 Bifacial Ovate/Lens As No. 44 but opposed faces are not in parallel
As No. 32 but with use surfaces less convex
(i.e. arc-shaped) in section and with straight sides, No. 46 Bifacial Loaf/Triangular
producing lens-shaped section.
As No. 40 but opposed faces are flat and
No. 34 Bifacial Ovate/Tapered beveled.
As No. 32 but opposed use surfaces meet at the No. 47 Bifacial Loaf/Planoirregular
sides and are more convex. Transverse section thus
has a tapered lenticular section. As No. 40 but opposed faces are flat and irregul
No. 35 Bifacial Ovate/Planoconvex
No. 48 Bifacial Rectilinear/Oval
As No. 32 but opposed faces are flat and
rounded and meet at the sides. Blank variable. Rectilinear tool (see No. 61).
Preform : flaked or pecked. Use surfaces : two op

No. 36 Bifacial Ovate/Flat posed surfaces with convex, rounded transverse sec
As No. 32 but both faces are flat and parallel; tions and rounded sides.
sides are straight.
No. 49 Bifacial Rectilinear/Lens
No. 37 Bifacial Ovate/Wedged As No. 48 but with use surfaces less convex
As No. 36 but opposed faces are not in parallel (i.e. arc-shaped) in section and with straight sides,
planes. producing lens-shaped section.

No. 50 Bifacial Rectilinear/Tapered surfaces one, with variable transverse section

As No. 48 but opposed use surfaces meet at the
sides and are more convex. Transverse section thus No. 61 Unifacial Rectilinear Handstone
has a tapered lenticular section. Blank : variable. Final tool form is square or
No. 51 Bifacial Rectilinear/Planoconvex rectangular in plan and variable in section. Use sur
faces : one, with variable transverse section.
As No. 48 but opposed faces are flat and
rounded and meet at the sides. No. 62 Unifacial Loaf Handstone
Blank : variable. Final form is loaf-shaped
No. 52 Bifacial Rectilinear/Flat (elongated oval) in plan (L/W = 1.75-2.0 ±), variable
As No. 48 but opposed faces are flat and par in section. Use surfaces : one, with variable trans
allel ; sides are straight. verse section shape.
No. 53 Bifacial Rectilinear/Wedged No. 63 Handstone Fragment
As No. 52 but opposed faces are not in parallel A fragment is identified as a handstone if the
planes. ground surface is convex relative to what remains
of the blank. Similar fragments with flat surfaces
No. 54 Bifacial Rectilinear/Triangular are classified as No. 145.
As No. 48 but opposed faces are flat and No. 64 Miscellaneous Handstone
beveled. Handstone which does not fall into any of the
No. 55 Bifacial Rectilinear/Planoirregular preceding classes.
As No. 48 but opposed faces are flat and irregul
ar. D. Pestles (fig. 7 : 65-72)
No. 56 Handstone on Flake
Upper, mobile stone in a pair of pounding tools.
Blank : large flake. Use surface : if unifacial, Blank : core or unmodified cobble. Preform
located on the ventral surface. If bifacial, the tool often pecked to even elongated shape. Use surfaces
is piano-irregular or planoconvex in transverse sec constricted in plan and confined to one or more of

tion. May have flaked retouch on sides near use the ends of an elongated blank. Use surface : sub-
surface. circular or slightly oval in plan, sometimes irregular;
No. 57 Bell-Shaped Muller convex (arc-shaped), rounded, or flat in section.
There are often flake scars on the sides, with the
Blank : variable. Preform is usually pecked ; negative bulb of percussion near the use surface,
bell-shaped in plan and oval or circular in section. showing the direction of use. Subtypes are defined
Length/Width ratio (L/W) < 2. Use surface : unifac by convexity categories (see above) : (a) flat; (b)
ial, with a flat or slightly convex (arc-shaped) use arc-shaped; (c) beveled; (d) rounded (gentle); (e)
surface (60). No evidence of pounding (see No. 137). rounded (pronounced).
No. 58 Irregular Handstone a posteriori No. 65 Bipolar Cylindrical Pestle
Blank : unmodified pebble or cobble of irregular Blank : elongated cobble. Preform : reduced by
shape. Use surface : single grinding surface. pecking to an even elongated shape, cylindrical in
plan, subcircular in section. Use surfaces : two faces
No. 59 Unifacial Discoidal Handstone on opposing ends bear evidence of pounding, i.e.
Blank : variable. Final tool form is subcircular battering marks and/or flake scars struck off the
in plan (L/W = 1 ±) and variable in section. Use shaft alongside the face. Faces are flat or convex
surfaces : one, with variable transverse section (arc-shaped or rounded) and of similar diamet
shape. ers (61).
No. 60 Unifacial Ovate Handstone No. 66 Unipolar Cylindrical Pestle
Blank : variable. Final tool form is ovate in plan As No. 65, but only one use surface has evidence
(L/W = 1.5-1.75 ±) and variable in section. Use 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,
(60) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966 fig. 7, 2; HOLE et al. 1969 1983 fig. 226, 10-12 (Types Cl, C2, CX) ; NIERLÉ, 1983 PI. 8,
fig. 79, d-c; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 221, 10. The French equival 108,110; LECHEVALLIER et al. 1989 fig. 4, 7.

ent is that of CLUZAN, 1984 122 and fig. 76, 2. CLUZAN also (62) Cf. PERROT, 1966: fig. 17, 12,17 (?) ; DAVIS, 1982:
: :

calls this "à cône en champignon" (fig. 76 2). 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
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

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.

о о о
80 81

75 76 77 78


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.

%J \J

FIG. 9. - Artifact types : axes and celts.

blade, or core of any stone other than flint. The No. 89 Trapezoidal Axe
exclusion of flint axes and celts from this typology
is arbitrary. The chief technological difference be Blank : variable. Robust elongated axe (L/W >
tween flint and non-flint axes/celts lies in the role 2) ; trapezoidal in plan ; oval or rectangular in trans
of pecking and grinding/polishing in manufacture. verse section. Butt : pecked or flaked. Bit : unifa-
Pecking is not used for flint celts and grinding is cially or bifacially ground and polished. Bit length
often limited to the bit (75). equal to maximum width (i.e. tool is widest at the
bit). Retouch : if present, flake scars generally semi-
The classification here modifies types defined steep and squamous ; may be either "under" the
by Roodenberg (76). Roodenberg distinguishes ground/polished surface (scars dulled by edge grind
manufacturing striae on the bit (visible to the naked ing); or superimposed on a ground edge (flaking
eye) from use-wear striae (visible at 40x), but it is rejuvenation). Edge angle generally greater than
not clear that this distinction can be consistently 75o(77).

applied. Resharpening and reuse often obscure use-

wear traces. Here, the categories of traces on the bit No. 90 Trapezoidal Celt
are all defined as visible to the naked eye. They
include : presence/absence of polishing, grinding, Blank : variable. Size medium to small, shape
flake scars and whether flake scars are superimposed trapezoidal. Smaller than No. 89 ; L/W < 2. Butt :
on a polished bit (or vice versa). These may reflect traces of pecking or flaking. Bit : unifacially or
manufacture, use or resharpening. Roodenberg's bifacially ground and polished; symmetrical or
types also incorporate percussion traces on the butt. asymmetrical in section. Bit length equal to max
Here, these categories include flaking and pecking. imum width of tool. Retouch : as No. 89. Edge angle :

(75) Thus, terminology used here differs from that of M0R-

TENSEN, 1970. (77) HOLE et al, 1969 fig. 82, a; CLUZAN, 1984 fig.
(76) ROODENBERG, 1986. 2; fig. 69, 3; ROODENBERG, 1986: fig.55, 1 ("hache").

ca. 40-70° if resharpening has not been exten No. 96 Flaked/Ground "Knife"
sive(78). Elongated (L/W > 2) non-flint tool ground on
No. 91 Ovate Celt sides but flaked along the long lateral edges. No
evidence of polishing or grinding on the edges (84).
Blank : variable. Thick, ovate tool with lower
L/W ratio than Nos. 89-90. Butt : traces of percuss No. 97 Flaked "Hoe"
ion.Bit : unifacially or bifacially ground or pol Blank : non-flint flake or thin core. Thin, pear-
ished. Bit length less than maximum width of the
tool (i.e. tool is widest at a point between the butt shaped tool with flaking around widest end forming
and the bit). Retouch : as in No. 89. Edge angle : a cutting edge and sometimes with a groove at the
70-85°, if resharpening has not been extensive (79). narrow end (85).

No. 92 Chisel No. 98 Miscellaneous Flaked Chopper

Blank : thick blade. Elongated, with parallel lat Any robust chopping tool with an irregular
eral sides and oval or triangular transverse section. flaked bit but no evidence of grinding or polishing.
L/W ratio > 2. Butt : percussion traces. Bit : unifa Includes pebble choppers (86).
cially or bifacially ground/polished; symmetrical or No. 99 Axe/Celt Fragment
asymmetrical in section. Bit length less than or equal Fragment with a flaked, ground or polished edge
to maximum width of tool. Retouch : as No. 89. and/or a butt fragment.
Edge angle : 60-75° if resharpening has not been
extensive (80).
I. Grooved stones (fig. 10: 100-102)
No. 93 Ebauchoir
Blank thick blade. Similar to No. 92, but thin Any tool with a groove, i.e. a concave use sur
ner and without percussion on butt. May be facetted face over 3 times longer than it is wide; lenticular

on shaft. L/W ratio > 2. Butt : no percussion traces. in plan; V- or U-shaped in transverse section.
Bit : narrow, thin, bifacially ground and polished ; No. 100 Shaft Straightener
symmetrical or asymmetrical in section. Bit length Blank variable. Use surface : long relative to
less than or equal to maximum width of tool. Edge

angle : less than 60° (81). width and depth; lenticular in plan; flat, convex, or
concave in long section; dished or U- shaped in
No. 94 Miniature Celt transverse section. Width of groove rarely exceeds
15 mm. Interior of surface often highly polished
Any celt of which length is less than 70 mm. through use; may have traces of residue (87).
May have traces indicating that it is a long-used,
resharpened stage of a once-larger celt (82). No. 101 Cutmarked Slab
Any stone with a long, narrow cut mark, len
No. 95 Axe/Celt Preform ticular in plan, always sharply angled V shape in
Axe or celt which lacks an edge or is otherwise transverse section (cf. "slicing slabs") (88).
unfinished. Distinguished from dulled axes by ab No. 102 Patterned-Incised Pebble/Cobble
sence of any tapering from the butt to the opposite
end; and from small pestles by the preparation of Any pebble or cobble with patterned incisions
the butt and the asymmetrical (non-circular) distal (parallel, crossed, other) but lacks other use surfaces.
end (83). Excludes anthropomorphic or animal figurines (89).

(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- (84) HOLE et al., 1969 fig. 83, i; DAVIS, 1982 fig. 3.5,
RELL, 1983 fig. 221, 10; fig. 228, 26; VOIGT, 1983 fig. 11 7, 2.
: :

f; NOY, 1989 fig. 4, 4. (85) Cf. "chipped stone hoes" (HOLE et al, 1969, fig. 81,

(79) Cf. "cognée"; ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 56-7; KIRK b.)


BRIDE, 1966: fig. 10, 6-8; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.9, 4-6; DOR- (86) Cf. PERROT, 1966 fig. 20, 21,23 ; HOLE et al., 1969

RELL, 1983: fig. 221, 15,19; VOIGT, 1983: fig. 117, g. (80) fig. 80; CLUZAN, 1984: fig. 71, 3; LECHEVALLIER et al.,

DAVIS, 1982 fig. 3.9, 8,10 (?) ; ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 54, 1989 fig. 4, 6.
1-3. (87) Cf. PERROT, 1966 fig. 20, 3-12; HOLE et al., 1969

(81) HOLE et al, 1969 fig. 84, с; ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 83, a-f; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 222, 1-11.
: :

104 and fig. 54, 4-6; DORRELL, 1983 : fig. 221, 16. (88) Cf. HOLE et al, 1969: 192; DORRELL, 1983:

(82) KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 10, 2-4; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 222, 17; fig. 226, 17; NOY, 1989: fig. 4, 1.
fig. 3.8, 1-6; DORRELL, 1983: fig. 221, 17; ROODENBERG, (89) Cf. PERROT, 1951 : 172f. ; PERROT, 1966 fig. 21, 15
1986: fig. 58, 1-4 ("hachette"). HOLE et al. 1969 : fig. 86; VOIGT, 1983 : fig. 118 ("stamps");

(83) Cf. CLUZAN, 1984 fig. 67, 1 ; fig. 70, 3. CLUZAN, 1984 fig. 73-75.


100 101

о о

104 105.,f~ -v. ,*T 106


107 108 109 111 11 2

FIG. 10. - Artifact types : grooved and perforated stones.

No. 103 Miscellaneous Grooved Stone single large off-center perforation set into the nar
Any grooved or incised stone not falling into rower end of the blank. Has no cutting edge (91).
the above categories (90) No. 105 Perforated Axe-head
J. Perforated stones (fig. 10: 104-112) Flaked and/or pecked cobble with single large
off-center perforation and a ground cutting edge at
Characterized by a perforation (which connects the end opposite the perforation (92).
two sides of an artifact), or drill marks (which do
not fully penetrate opposing sides). Perforation is No. 106 Perforated Post-Socket
always subcircular or circular in plan and biconical Blank : cobble or boulder, unmodified or
or cylindrical in section. (Note : beads and pendants flaked/pecked into subcircular preform. Perforation
are excluded.). set into center of blank and is large relative to the
No. 104 Counterpoise Weight blank. Perforation diameter suggests "posthole" but
Blank : large pebble or cobble, generally pecked functions may vary (93).
and ground to symmetrical shape. Use surface : a
(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.,

(90) Includes grooved or notched "waisted" pebbles (cf. 1967: fig. 14,5; CAUVIN, 1963 fig. 11.
"poids à pêche", PERROT, 1966 fig. 20, 1-4.) (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 dis- Vessels must have (1) a well-defined, uniform
coidal shape but irregular in thickness from one end rim; (2) a well-defined base; (3) a continuous ex
to another. Small perforation or drill mark, may be terior surface ; (4) consistent (or gradually changing)
central or off-center (94). thickness of walls ; (5) exterior finishing. A vessel
fragment must have a definite rim or base, or walls
No. 108 Spindle Whorl of continuously changing thickness and exterior fin
ishing. Classifications are based on relationships be
Blank : pebble, ground to small (ca. 30-60 mm tween vessel height (HGT), outer rim diameter
diameter) discoidal preform and even in thickness (RDO), inner rim diameter (RDI), depth (DPTH) and
(about 5-15 mm). Perforation always centrally the openness of the walls (see figure 4 for definitions
placed. May be incomplete and have two opposed of metric variables). These are considered to reflect
drill marks. A "preform" for a spindle whorl has the lithic reduction and possible ranges of function.
same size and shape characteristics but neither per Each vessel category may exist in (a) "fine wares"
foration nor drill marks (see No. 112) (95). (maximum wall thickness < 20 mm) or (b) "coarse
wares" (maximum wall thickness > 20 mm). These
No. 109 Loomweight can be refined for specific assemblages (100).
Blank : pebble or small cobble. Preform : pecked No. 114 Platter
and ground to symmetrical biconical or spherical
shape. Perforation always centrally placed. Artifact Shallow vessel with large ratio of outer rim
size usually 40-80 mm diameter; perforation about diameter to height (RDO/HGT > 3) and large ratio
15-25 mm diameter. No stress breaks at perforation of inner rim diameter to depth (RDI/DPTH > 3).
openings (see No. 110). Some of these artifacts may Base flat or rounded; walls splayed or upright. Size
have actually functioned as spindle whorls (96). variable, but RDI exceeds 100 mm. Variants may
include (i) oval platters with convex walls ; (ii) oval
No. 110 Macehead platters with upright walls ; (iii) rectangular platters
with convex walls ; (iv) rectangular platters with
Similiar to No. 109 but often piriform, wider at upright walls, etc (101).
one end than the other; usually polished; stress
breaks at one perforation opening (97). No. 115 "Potlid" Platter
No. Ill Perforated "Pendant Palette" Vessel with large ratio of outer rim diameter to
height (RDO/HGT > 3) and little or no depth, i.e.
Perforation on one end of an elongated blank a circular or rectilinear slab with only a slight de
finely ground to rectangular plan shape and of even pres ion. Base is flat and sides upright or slightly
thickness (about 10-15 mm) across the entire arti convex (102).
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
No. 112 Unperforated Disk mixture of criteria, e.g. profile shape, base shape, artifact size
(ADAMS, 1983; DORRELL, 1983; MOUTON, 1984; ROODEN-
Any small subcircular object without perfor BERG, 1986; EPSTEIN, 1988), but employ different definitions
ation. May often be preforms for spindle whorls, if and terminology. This is because they are in reality groupings of
diameter is less than about 70 mm and if thickness artifacts from one or two sites, instead of true classifications
(DUNNELL, 1972). The classification given here is intentionally
is even across the artifact (99). general and does not attempt to be comprehensive for all varia
tions. Many artifacts called mortars in the literature are more ac
No. 113 Miscellaneous Perforated Stone curately described as vessel-mortars, since they exhibit fine
finishing, rims and bases, and continuous or gradually changing
Any perforated or drilled stone not of the above wall thickness. Many Kebaran through Natufian artifacts found in
archaeological association with pestles, or with other evidence
categories. 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);

(94) Cf. PERROT, 1966 fig. 20, 18-20; DORRELL, 1983 RONEN et al, 1975 fig. 9 (No. 119, V-shaped Bowl-Mortar).

fig. 227, 2-4; CLUZAN, 1984 fig. 71:5. Note that the more general category of "bowl mortars" (No. 16)

(95) Cf. HOLE et a/., 1969 fig. 85, e-f. refers to small mortars lacking fine finishing, rims, bases and
: :

(96) Cf. VOIGT 1983 fig. 177, h. continuous or gradually changing wall thickness.
(97) Cf. DOLLFUS et al. 1988 P1.3, 1-2. (101) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 7, 8; PERROT, 1966:

(98) Cf. KIRKBRIDE, 1966: fig. 9, 4,8,9; DAVIS, 1982: fig. 16, 13; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 224, 1-12; MOUTON, 1984 :

fig. 3.16, 1-2; DORRELL, 1983 fig. 230, 12-13. fig. 57, 1-4; fig. 59; ROODENBERG, 1986: fig. 77, 7-9;

(99) Cf. DAVIS, 1982: fig. 3.13, 12-13; DORRELL, 1983: fig. 81, 1-7; NOY, 1989 fig. 4, 6.

fig. 228, 4. (102) Cf. MOUTON, 1984: fig. 62, 1.


114 115


1 21

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.


1 37
135 136

1 38

141 142 1 43
FIG. 12. - Artifact types : multiple tools, debitage.

No. 122 Vase No. 125 Hollow-foot Vessel

Open form in which the ratio of outer rim Any vessel resting on a foot which has been
diameter to height is less than 1 (RDO/HGT < 1). hollowed out; similar to a fenestrated foot but with
Generally deep (RDI/DPTH < 3, HGT/DPTH < 2). out"windows" or legs.
Walls straight or flared, base is variable.
No. 126 Tripod Vessel
No. 123 Fenestrated Vessel
Vessel resting on a stand of three legs.
Any vessel on a stand of three or more legs
which terminate in a ring- shaped pedestal ; the stand No. 127 Quadripod Vessel
thus forms small "windows." The pedestal is a true Vessel resting on a stand of four legs (110).
ring (not to be confused with a ring base) (108). No. 128 Spouted Vessel
No. 124 Solid-foot Vessel Vessel with any kind of spout (111).
Any vessel resting on a solid pedestal. Pedestal No. 129 Lugged/Handled Vessel
walls may be straight or flared. Base may be flat,
concave, or a ring base (109). Vessel having any kind of lug or handle (112).

(108) Cf. MALLON et al. 1934 PI. 33, 2; PERROT et ai, (110) Cf. ROODENBERG, 1986 fig. 75, fig. 76, fig. 79.
1967 fig. 13, 1-2; EPSTEIN, 1978 fig. 13, a. (111) Cf. MOUTON, 1984: fig. 58, 5-9,11,16
: :

(109) WRIGHT, 1992: fig. 5-63c. (112) Cf. MOUTON, 1984: fig. 58, 10.

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
fig. 5-25.
tool Note
that the French term (117) TIXIER, 1974 14.
(118) JONES, 1990.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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).

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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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-


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.



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.



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


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.




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




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.

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.


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.