Silex Neolit

7/31/2019 Silex Neolit

1/19

Functional analysis of stone grinding and polishing tools fromthe earliest Neolithic of north-western Europe

Caroline Hamon

UMR 7041 ArScan, Proto histoire europeenne, Maison de larcheologie, 21 allee de l Universite, F-92023 Nant erre cedex, France

Received 7 February 2007; received in revised form 11 October 2007; accepted 26 October 2007

Abstract

This reconstruction of grinding, pounding, hammering and abrading activities in the Early Neolithic of north-western Europe (Linearband-

keramik and Villeneuve-Saint-Germain cultures, 5100e4700 BC) is based on the study of 1289 sandstone tools from 17 sites located in the main

Paris basin river valleys (Aisne, Eure, Marne, Oise, Seine, Yonne). An original method of functional identification was elaborated, relying on

observation of use-wear with a stereoscopic microscope (under120). Identification of traces of use relied on an experimental referential of 92

samples. These include (1) grinding cereals, (2) pounding temper, colourants and various plants, (3) shaping mineral, vegetal and animal objects

by polishing (schist, limestones, bone, antler, wood), (4) softening skin. A significant observation concerns the use of small handstones for grain

dehusking and larger handstones for grain grinding. Recycling is a widespread feature, with multipurpose handstones and frequent reuse of lower

grinding tools for obtaining colourants. A change in the function of tools can also be observed between the Linearbandkeramik and the

Villeneuve-Saint-Germain.

2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Neolithic; Western Europe; Grinding and abrading tools; Use-wear analysis; Experimentation

1. Introduction

The Linearbandkeramik culture, which arose in central

Europe in the middle of the 6th millennium BC, reached the

northern half of France between 5100 BC and 4900 BC.

The introduction of a neolithic economy in north-western

Europe was accompanied by important technical innovations

that impacted both dietary habits and material culture. Dietary

habits were changed by cereal grinding, which became increas-

ingly important among domestic activities. Material culturechanges affected stone tools, bone tools and ornaments made

from shell, limestone and schist that were abraded or polished

during their manufacture and included ceramic manufacturing

requirements for pounding or grinding tempering material of

bone, flint, and crushed pottery. These grinding, pounding

and abrading activities required technological developments

of the stone equipment that archaeologists have traditionally

referred to as ground stone tools and more recently are

considering them macro-lithic tools (Adams et al.,

in press).

The first systematic studies of macrolithic tools were with

Near Eastern collections, where grinding stones were consid-

ered key in the emergence of agriculture. These studies devel-

oped the first real typologies (Nierle, 1982; Wright, 1992).

Ethno-archaeological studies undertaken in the 1980s advanced

functional approaches to stone tool use (Hayden, 1987; Roux,

1985). They contributed to the development of raw materialanalyses (Pommepuy, 1999; Schoumacker, 1993; Schneider,

2002) and socio-symbolic studies (Lidstrom-Holmberg, 1998)

that provided a broader reflection of their functional signifi-

cance. Based on residue identifications and optical observations

(Adams, 1988, 2002; De Beaune, 2000; Dubreuil, 2004; Fulla-

gar and Field, 1997; Gonzalez and Ibanez, 2002; Procopiou,

1998; Risch, 2002), the relevance of macro-lithic functional

analyses is becoming widely accepted as an indicator of pre-

historic technological and economic processes (Procopiou and

Treuil, 2002). Nonetheless, with the exception of a fewE-mail address: [email protected]

0305-4403/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.10.017

Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 1502e1520http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas
mailto:[email protected]://www.elsevier.com/locate/jashttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/jasmailto:[email protected]


2/19

important studies (Monchablon, 2002; Pavlu, 2000; Zimmer-

mann, 1988), very little research has been conducted on Line-

arbandkeramik macro-lithic tools.

The research reported upon here is intended to place early

neolithic sandstone tools from north-western Europe in their

technological and socio-economic context. The database con-

sists of 1289 stone tools from 17 Linearbandkeramik (5100e4900 BC) and Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (4900e4700 BC)

sites in the Paris Basin and the Belgian regions of Hainaut

and Hesbaye (Fig. 1) (Hamon, 2006). Particular attention is

paid to technological and functional attributes of the tools

and to their distribution within the sites. The focus is on the

methodology and results of an analytical approach that is

primarily functional. Specifically, a use-wear analysis is elab-

orated, that relies on optical comparisons between archaeolog-

ical and experimental use-wear traces.

2. Stone tool classification

2.1. Some remarks about terminology

The terminologies used for stone tool classification (also la-

belled macrolithic tools, grinding stones, ground stone

implements or non-flaked tools) are as numerous as their

geographical and cultural contexts of discovery (Table 1). As

for grinding tools, American terminology is inspired by the

Spanish term mano for a hand-held grinder and a modified

American Indian term metate to label the stationary stone

on which the mano was used (see for example Adams, 2002,

pp. 99e127). The same tools are designated in English litera-

ture as handstones or grinders for the hand-held tools

and querns or slabs for their stationary counterparts,

and these labels are used in most of the classifications pro-

posed for Near-Eastern tools (Wright, 1992). The German

school uses terminology that combines tool use and morphol-ogy to define Mahlsteine including Laufer for the hand-

held tool and Unterlieger for the stationary counterpart

(see for example Zimmermann, 1988). In France, the impact

of Leroi-Gourhans work (Leroi-Gourhan, 1945) led to the inte-

gration of macrolithic tools in a broader system of artefact clas-

sification: meules for the stationary tool and molettes for

the hand-held tool used for cereal grinding (De Beaune, 2000;

Hamon, 2006). Similar terminological and linguistic correla-

tions could be made for all the categories of tools.

2.2. Proposed classification for the early Neolithic

of the Paris Basin

The 1170 stone tools from the Paris basin included in this

study are typically classified as grinding tools such as querns

and grinders, multifunctional tools such as netherstones, crush-

ing tools such as anvils, hammerstones and broyons (defini-

tion below) and abrading and polishing tools. Interestingly, so

far neither pestles nor mortars have been found in the Paris

Basin (Table 2, Fig. 2).

N

km

Villeneuve-Saint-Germain - BlicquyLinearbandkeramik

Aisne

Marne

Seine

Yonne

Ois

e

Fig. 1. Map of the Paris Basin and south Belgium in the Linearbandkeramik sphere: 17 sites studied in the Aisne, Eure, Marne, Seine and Yonne valleys.

1503C. Hamon / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 1502e1520


3/19

Linearbandkeramik grinders are loaf-shaped and manipu-

lated with two hands in reciprocal strokes. They are compati-

ble with large square or oval querns that have varyingly

concave working surfaces. Three categories of dimensions co-

exist.1

The shaping of Linearbandkeramik grinders was quiteelaborate with pre-forming accomplished first by flaking, fol-

lowed by pecking and with some items finished by smoothing.

Hammerstones include tools with obvious impact fractures

from forceful strokes on their ends and faces. Similar impact

fractures can occur on the upper surfaces of netherstones,

along with cuts, incisions and polished areas.

One type of tool has to be considered separately and is la-

belled here by the term broyon. Broyons were used inter-

changeably as crushers and grinders. Crushing strokes create

a pattern of dense fine impact fractures on the edges, whereas

grinding strokes create abrasion and sheen on the broad sur-

face. Far from a secondary use, this tool was purposefullyshaped to be used in a two-step task of crushing and grinding

substances.

Linearbandkeramik abrading and polishing tools have been

sorted into three main categories including polishers, hand-

abraders, and grooved abraders. Polishers served as working

surfaces for shaping objects (Adams, 2002, pp. 143e145).

The upper surfaces of Linearbandkeramik polishers are

slightly concave, uniformly smooth and have a continuous

sheen. Linearbandkeramik hand-abraders are less than 10 cm

long and can be used either in an active or passive position.

Made of coarse and porous sandstones, their surfaces are

covered with abrasive scratches.

Some grooved abraders have narrow grooves with v-shapedcross sections, and others have wider grooves with deep

u-shaped cross sections. Within the groove, the rock grains

are levelled.

Another category of handstones manipulated with only one

hand is particularly interesting for understanding Linearband-

keramik technological development. Despite having standard-

ized dimensions and shapes, they were clearly used in a wide

variety of tasks and made from a variety of rock types. They

were used with multidirectional strokes, circular and linear,

to grind, pound or soften all kind of materials. They complete

the general stone toolkit found in the lateral pits of the Linear-

bandkeramik longhouses.

This proposed classification constitutes a first and necessarystep for the understanding of the use of macrolithic tools from

the Early Neolithic of the Paris Basin. However, the develop-

ment of use-wear analysis techniques based on petrographic

determinations and on experimental comparative collections

is essential to determine the exact function and role of macro-

lithic tools in the activities that took place in Linearband-

keramik houses and villages.

3. Methodology for a use-wear analysis of stone tools

The methods chosen for functional analysis of macrolithic

tools are based on macroscopic and microscopic observationsof use-wear traces on working surfaces and of patterns that in-

dicate motor habits involved with tool use (Hamon, 2003). The

traces were first defined on experimental tools and then com-

pared to traces on archaeological material in order to define

their function in terms of the tasks in which they were used

and their manner of use. Microscopic observations were at

low power (less than 120) magnification, using a stereoscopic

microscope. Archaeological and experimental tools were

cleaned with demineralized water or, in the case of surfaces

with grease or colorant, with alcohol.

3.1. Raw material properties

Grinding and abrading tools are made of different types of

sandstones. Sandstones are sedimentary rocks composed of

quartz grains, together with rock fragments and feldspar grains.

Grain morphology and roundness are key to determining a

rocks geologic origin, transportation distance and transporta-

tion conditions (Foucault and Raoult, 1980). The classification

of sandstones is based on the proportion of each component

and on the nature of the cement (Folk, 1974). The rock matrix

can be composed of iron oxides, silicate, glauconie or calcium

carbonate and is different from cement which crystallizes

among the interstitial spaces after the formation of the rock.

Table 1

Terminological comparisons between French, English, American, German and Spanish terms used to designate grinding tools

Term Grinder Handstone Molette Laufer Mano

Language English English French German Spanish

Bibliography Wright, 1992 Leroi-Gourhan, 1945 Zimmermann, 1988 Adams, 2002; Hayden, 1987;

Mauldin. 1993

Term Quern Grinding slabs Meule Unterlieger Metate

Language English English French German American Indian

Bibliography David, 1998 Wright, 1992 Leroi-Gourhan, 1945 Zimmermann, 1988 Adams, 2002; Hayden, 1987;

Mauldin, 1993

Term Grinding equipment Grinding stones Moulin Mahlsteine Milling equipment

Language American American/English French German American

Bibliography David, 1998; Smith, 1986 Fullagar and Field, 1997;

Lidstrom-Holmberg, 1998

Leroi-Gourhan, 1945 Zimmermann, 1988 Schneider, 1996

1Querns: 30 15, 35 22 and 23 12 cm; grinders: 10 8, 18 12,

23 12 cm.

1504 C. Hamon / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 1502e1520


4/19

Table 2

Composition of the toolkit by site, with counts of the number of houses and cultural affiliation (LBK, Linearbandkeramik; VSG, Villeneuve-Saint-Germain, Cerny

Site Cuiry-les-

Chaudardes

les

Fontinette

Berry-au-

Bac le

Vieux

Tordoir

Bucy-le-

Long

la

Fosselle

Etigny

le

Brassot-

est

Villeneuve-

la-Guyard

les

Falaises

de Prepoux

Reims-

Tinqueux

la

Haubette

Passy

Sablonniere

Trosly-

Breuil

les

Obeaux

Pontpoint

le Fond

de

Rambourg

Poses

Sur

la

Mare

Bucy-le-

Long le

Fond du

Petit

Marais

Bucy-le-

Long la

Fosse

Tounise

Vignely

la

Porte

aux

Bergers

Culture Lbk Lbk Lbk Lbk VSG VSG VSG VSG VSG VSG VSG VSG VSG

Number of

houses

33 6 15 6 4 3 6 4 3 10 6 5 5

Grinder 8 5 2 2 9 1 2 15 79 8 3 1 8

Quern 39 10 21 5 7 2 12 21 64 28 7 6 9

Broyon 1 20 1 1 1

Anvil 1 6 1 4 1

Hammerstone 27 5 43 1 4 4 15 6 13 1

Netherstone 6 1 1 2 1 1 6

Hand polisher 7 1 8 3 3 4 1

Groovedpolisher

7 31 1 1 1 8 3 4 2

Small

handstones

10 4 3 1 6 159 23 1

Polished items 47 1 25

Undetermined 9 16 77 7 5 16 84 12 14 5

Grinder.

hammerstone

3

Quern

hammerstone

9 2

Quern anvil 2

Mortar

indeterminate

1

Small handstone

indeterminate

5

Lower grooved

abrader

1

Netherstone.

handstone

1

Total 131 41 252 10 31 12 28 75 387 105 36 42 32


5/19

The cementation process affects the porosity and durability of

the rock (Adams et al., 1994).

A petrographic analysis of the sandstones used by neolithic

people throughout the Paris Basin was conducted in collabora-

tion with the Geological Department of the University of

Reims and Lyon (see Blanchet et al., 1989; Hamon, 2006).

It focused on the identification of tertiary sandstones exploited

in the Aisne valley, such as the Auversien, Cuisien and Spar-

nacien layers for grinding tools (Table 3). Within the Paris Ba-

sin, the sandstone selected for tool manufacture is local with

sources located less than 5 km from each site.

Sandstone blocks were chosen for experimentation based

on petrographic distinctions and by comparisons between the

natural blocks from alluvial deposits and stone tools from ar-

chaeological sites in the Aisne Valley. Considering the impor-

tant vertical and lateral variations that affect the texture and

cementation of different types of sandstones, this comparison

could not rely entirely on the accuracy of source identification.

The physical properties (texture and cohesion) of each sand-

stone were also taken into account when choosing the proper

blocks for experimental tools. Ultimately, several qualities of

sandstone were recognized as functional. Fine-grained, well-

cemented and quartzitic sandstone was preferred for cereal

grinding because they are characterized by a high proportion

of durable quartz grains and bonded by well-developed sili-

ceous cement (arkoses or sub-arkoses) which inhibits flour

contamination by loosened rock grains. Poorly cemented, po-

rous and coarse sandstone rocks were suitable for abrading

tasks and were mainly glauconious sandstone although some

ferruginous sandstone rocks (graywacke) were also used. Con-

sequently, a range of sandstone rocks, with varying degrees ofcohesiveness and porosity, were used for grinding, pounding,

abrading and softening tasks by Neolithic people.

3.2. Use-wear definition and observation

Following a macroscopic level of analysis and according to

previous experimental and archaeological observations, use-

wear on macrolithic tools consists of striations, percussion im-

pacts and sheen or polish. The use-wear analysis discussed

here on sandstone is based on three main types of traces visi-

ble with low magnification (Hamon, 2003):

(1) Levelling of the microtopography is caused by abrasion of

the grains and removal of loosely cemented grains. Such

damage is visible at very low magnifications (less than

10). The more the levelling, the more melted or contig-

uous the rock grains appear.

(2) Modifications of the interstitial spaces between grains can be

observed with magnifications between 10 and 40. On

porous rocks, grains are detached from the rock during

work. On well-cemented rocks, the interstitial space can

become filled with a specific type of residue, or reaction

product (Adams, 2002, p. 31). It can be described as a trans-

lucid fluid substance, distinct from the matrix or cement,

which covers thewhole surface or develops only on the facesof the grains.

(3) Modifications of the angles, edges, profiles and faces of the

grains can be observed at magnifications above 60 and are

described as fractures, edge rounding and abrasion.

3.3. Discussion about hypotheses of use-wear formation

How can the formation of use-wear traces be explained

(Fig. 3)? Macroscopic observations alone cannot give a true

image of the interacting mechanisms. Tribologists have recog-

nized that both mechanical and tribochemical actions2 contrib-

ute to the creation of use-wear traces, some of which are onlyvisible with high power magnification (Adams, 1988, 2002;

Fullagar and Field, 1997; Procopiou et al., 1996). Surface

levelling, grain rounding and fracturing and grain removal

are mainly mechanical actions. Tribochemical actions may

play a greater role in the formation of surficial residues that

are visible to us as sheen or polish (Adams, 1988, 2002). Pol-

ish could be created by interactions among processed sub-

stances and the rock, and by chemical interactions between

water and silica contained in the processed cereals and in

Cereal grinding

Softening

Crushing / grinding

grinder

handstones

anvil / slab

broyon

Abrading / Polishing

abrader / polisher

quern

broyon

anvil / slab

Grinding

anvil / slab

handstones

Fig. 2. Schematic of strokes used with stone tools for grinding, pounding, soft-

ening and abrading activities.

2Tribologists study friction, lubrication and wear on surfaces that are in rel-

ative motion.

1506 C. Hamon / Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2008) 1502e1520


6/19

Table 3

Petrographical analysis of geological and archaeological samples from the Aisne valley

Site/no. inv./M2 Type Macro-scopic

description

Grain size

(mm)

Minerals Structure,

sorting

and grains

morphology

Matrix/cement

Feldspar Plagio-clases Rock

fragments

Other Si Ca Silt/

micaceous

Quartz

over-

growth

%

1 Trosly-

Breuil

(VSG)

Quern

fragment

Fine well-

cemented

Over 0.5 x e x Black

minerals

Well-sorted

sub-rounded

x

around

10%

x

around

5%

x

Documents

Silex Neolit