A Classification System for Ground Stone Tools from the Prehistoric Levant. (original) (raw)

PALEORIENT, vol. 18/2 - 1992

A CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR GROUND STONE TOOLS FROM THE PREHISTORIC LEVANT

K. WRIGHT

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

(1) As previously noted by HOLE et al, 1969 : 170; KRAY- BILL, 1977 : 487; HERSH, 1981 : 77f; RUNNELS, 1981 ; NIER- LÉ, 1983; VOIGT, 1983: 247. Type names, definitions and numbering schemes all vary widely. (2) Exceptions to this criticism include DORRELL, 1983; NIERLÉ, 1983; VOIGT, 1983; CLUZAN, 1984; MOUTON, 1984; ROODENBERG, 1986, though the typologies are still site- specific and emphasize different attributes. The studies by NIERLÉ, 1983; MOUTON, 1984 and ROODENBERG, 1986 are also outstanding in their emphasis on ground stone technology. (3) DUNNELL, 1971; cf. SOLECK1, 1969; NOY, 1979; BANKS, 1980; HERSH, 1981; DAVIS, 1982; DORRELL, 1983; MOHOLY-NAGY, 1983. Among comparative studies of wider scope, KRAYBILL (1977) covers the entire Old World (but in very general terms); essays by FUJIMOTO (1984, 1985) cover the Levant (in Japanese); WRIGHT (1992) has a comprehensive review of Levantine prehistoric material. (4) SUMNER, 1967; SOLECKI, 1969; NOY, 1979; ADAMS, 1983; NIERLÉ, 1983; MOUTON, 1984, ROODENBERG, 1986. (5) E.g. BORDES, 1961; TIXIER, 1963; BAR-YOSEF, 1970.

The purpose of this article is to present such a classification for application to the prehistoric Levant. Discussions of space-time systematics, specific assemblages and functional significance of the artifact classes are presented elsewhere (6).

The term "ground stone" is a misnomer (7). Such tools may be made on flakes detached from cores; some exhibit retouch; others are analogous to "core tools." Here, the term refers to any tools made by combinations of flaking, pecking, pounding, grinding, drilling and incising. These include mortars, pestles, grinding slabs, handstones, grooved and perforated stones, axes and other types. However, figurines and beads are excluded. Although abrasion plays a prominent role in the technology, a few artifact categories included here need not have involved grinding (e.g. pounders, choppers).

Jelinek (8) suggests that chipped stone assemblages mainly reflect stages in progressive modification of an original "functioning" toolkit. A similar situation has been documented for Levantine ground stone assemblages (9). A morphological classification based on progressive lithic reduction is here considered the best way of describing assemblages (10). This approach avoids assumptions that

(6) WRIGHT, 1991, 1992. Specific instances of most of the types presented here are described and illustrated in WRIGHT, 1992. (7) RUNNELS, 1981 : 218f. (8) JELINEK, 1976 : 22; cf. DIBBLE, 1987. (9) WRIGHT, 1991, 1992; cf. JELINEK. 1976; TOTH, 1985; DIBBLE, 1987. (10) MARKS, 1983 : xiii.

53