Flexible Stones: Ground Stone Tools from Franchthi Cave, Fascicle 14, Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece
242
Flexible Stones: Ground Stone Tools from Franchthi Cave, Fascicle 14, Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece
242Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780253221780 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Indiana University Press |
| Publication date: | 03/30/2010 |
| Series: | Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece , #14 |
| Pages: | 242 |
| Product dimensions: | 8.30(w) x 11.00(h) x 0.70(d) |
| Age Range: | 18 Years |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Flexible Stones: Ground Stone Tools from Franchthi Cave
By Anna Stroulia
Indiana University Press
Copyright © 2070 Anna StrouliaAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-253-22178-0
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
INTRODUCTION TO THE SITE AND ASSEMBLAGE
The site of Franchthi Cave is located on the tip of a limestone headland on the northern side of Kiladha Bay in the southern Argolid, northeastern Peloponnese (Fig. 1). Excavations carried out between 1967 and 1976 under the direction of Thomas W. Jacobsen revealed a rare, long, and complex sequence of human occupation spanning the Upper Palaeolithic through the end of the Neolithic period. Evidence of human activity came from two integral but distinct areas: the cave and the so-called Paralia.
The cave is a karstic formation about 150 m in length and 45 m in maximum width. At the very back is a small pool of water. About two-thirds of the interior of the cave is covered by huge boulders, the result of massive rock-falls at various points in the cave history. That is why excavation trenches were opened only in the front portion of the cave as well as on the terrace just outside the cave mouth. The trenches dug in this part of the site are: A, B, BE, C, D, E, F, F1, FF1, FA, FAN, FAS, G, G1, H, H Pedestal (or 'HPed'), HA, HB, H Terrace, H1, H1A, H1B, H2, H2A, H2A Pedestal (or 'H2APed'), and H2B (Jacobsen and Farrand 1987:2, 20–21) (Fig. 2).
Paralia (the Greek word for beach) refers to a zone about 15 m wide located below the cave mouth and along the modern shoreline. The trenches excavated on Paralia are: L5, L5NE, O5, O5N, O5NE, P5, PQ5, Q4, Q5S, Q5N, Q6N, Q6NE, and QR5 (Jacobsen and Farrand 1987:20–21) (Fig. 2). For the way the trenches of both cave and Paralia were defined, and combined or subdivided as excavation progressed, see Jacobsen and Farrand (2000:11–25). From now on I will use the term Franchthi to refer to the site as a whole (both cave and Paralia).
The investigations at Franchthi brought to light huge quantities of cultural and environmental remains. Among them are the 522 artifacts that make up the subject of this study: ground stone tools, raw material used for ground stone tool manufacture, as well as byproducts of such manufacture. This number includes a few uncertain cases. I should clarify here that I use the term 'tool' in this study to refer to a kind of artifact that is used to alter matter. For all other kinds of artifacts that do not qualify as tools in the above sense I use the term 'non-tool object.' This category includes, for example, vessels (they contain matter but do not alter it), figurines, and ornaments. The single ground stone figurine found at the site has already been published along with the figurines made of clay in a separate volume in the Franchthi series (Talalay 1993). The ground stone ornaments, along with those made of shell, clay, and bone, have been presented in the context of a dissertation thesis (Miller 1997). They will all be published in another volume in the Franchthi series (Perlès and Miller in preparation). The same volume will include a separate document on the few Franchthi ground stone non-tool objects that are not classified as figurines or ornaments (e.g., vessels).
My study comprises all the ground stone tools, related raw material, and byproducts of manufacture recovered on the surface of the site or during the excavations. However, not all specimens contained in the investigated area were necessarily recovered. Depending on their experience and background, some excavators may have been more able than others to identify this kind of material — especially tools modified through use rather than manufacture (a posteriori tools as I call them here), tools with minor evidence of use, or small fragments — in the rather rocky sediments of the site. Moreover, not all excavated sediments were water sieved, a factor that may have affected the degree of recovery for some of the smallest specimens (fragments of small cutting edge tools, for example).
Despite their ubiquitous presence among prehistoric remains in Greece (and elsewhere), ground stone tools have not attracted the kind of attention received by other categories of archaeological material (e.g., pottery or lithics). It is probably accurate to say that these constitute one of the most neglected prehistoric artifactual categories. Even today, it is not unheard of for some ground stone tools never to leave the excavated site, having been discarded by the very archaeologists who unearthed them. The most common treatment of such tools, however, consists of a few superficial pages in a preliminary report or final publication written (ironically) as part of a 'small finds' chapter by scholars with often no background in the study of this kind of material (e.g., Winn and Shimabuku 1989; Mould, Ridley, and Wardle 2000). Exceptions to this rule do exist, nevertheless: See, for example, the Ph.D. dissertations of Christopoulou (1979), Moundréa-Agrafioti (1981), Procopiou (1998), and Runnels (1981).
There are several reasons for this disciplinary neglect. 1. Ground stone tools consist of mostly mundane, unglamorous, sometimes simply unattractive, artifacts. It is not accidental that the formally manufactured, often polished tools usually referred to as axes or celts have received more attention in the literature than those known as handstones. 2. The large weight of many ground stone tools causes difficulties in transportation and storage, eventually affecting their study. 3. Perhaps most importantly, ground stone tools seem to be surrounded by a widespread assumption that they constitute straightforward pieces of evidence in no need of further scrutiny. The natural consequence of this neglect is that the potential of this material — as much as any other — to illuminate aspects of prehistoric life remains unexploited (see also Ebeling and Rowan 2004:108; Galdikas 1988; Lidström Holmberg 2004:199; Rowan and Ebeling 2008:2–3; Zurro, Risch, and Clemente Conte 2005:57–58).
The neglected status of ground stone tools is perhaps nowhere better reflected than in this very term used to describe them. The term 'ground stone tools' is a misnomer: the category that goes by this name includes not only tools made or used by grinding, but also others produced or used by percussion (see also Adams 1997:2; Ebeling and Rowan 2004:108; Wright 1991:21, 1992:53, 1993:93). In the last analysis, 'ground stone tools' is but a catch-all category that includes any stone tool that does not qualify as a chipped stone implement (see Fratt 1992:16). If negative, this is the most accurate definition of the 'ground stone tool' category to date and it is in this sense that the term is used in this volume. In spite of its problems, I decided to keep this term to avoid the negative 'non-chipped stone tools' and because I have been unable to come up with an alternative term that is accurate, concise, and positive at the same time. It is this definition of ground stone tools as a catch-all class, moreover, that underlines best the artificial nature of this category. It is likely that neither the category of ground stone tools as such nor the distinction between chipped and ground stone tools would have made much sense to the prehistoric makers and users of these artifacts. The same could probably be said about the distinction between stone and bone tools (see also Adams 2002:1; Perlès 2001:227–228). All may be no more than archaeological constructs that respond to the need for division of labor within the discipline rather than reflections of any prehistoric concepts, ideas, or distinctions.
If this marginalized subfield of Aegean (and other) archaeology is to be developed, it is important that we get to know what these artifacts referred to as ground stone tools actually are. For that, detailed analyses of specific assemblages are necessary. Such analyses will help us: 1. appreciate and understand the diversity and complexity of this artifactual category; 2. identify specific research problems; 3. begin to clarify the role of this material in the social, economic, and symbolic systems of which it was certainly part; 4. understand better other kinds of materials (e.g., lithics, bone tools, and ornaments), since ground stone tools were in one way or another involved in most, if not all, the prehistoric chaînes opératoires.
My goal in this study is to start filling some of the gaps in the Aegean prehistoric literature regarding this kind of material by providing the level of detail that is missing from the existing ground stone tool publications — a cause of frustration every time I tried to compare the Franchthi assemblage with other Aegean assemblages at other than the most superficial level. To this end I discuss the Franchthi material systematically in terms of raw material (and its procurement); manufacture; use; and morphological characteristics as these are determined by the form of the raw material used, by manufacture, and by use — I call these characteristics technomorphological. It is the emphasis on these aspects that make this a technological study. In its technological approach my work follows studies that are current in other subfields (e.g., lithics, pottery, bone tools) and, closer to home, the published studies of the Franchthi pottery and lithics by Vitelli (1993, 1999) and Perlès (1987, 1990, 2004) respectively. It is my belief that a close look at the choices made and not made in the technological domain is an important means to understanding something about the people responsible for these choices (see also Vitelli 1993:3–5).
Classification
Another symptom of the underdeveloped state of ground stone tool studies is the confusion characterizing nomenclature and classification. The situation is such that, as has been accurately pointed out, each study introduces a different system — this certainly applies to the existing publications of Aegean ground stone assemblages. The problem is exacerbated by the characteristics of the material itself. Ground stone tools constitute a notoriously difficult material to classify: many of them are a posteriori, having never been given a formal shape through manufacture, whereas the form of both a posteriori and fashioned tools often changed dramatically throughout their use life (see Agatzioti 2000:3–4; Dubreuil 2002:77–78).
I have not been able to find among the existing classification/nomenclature systems one that I consider suitable for the presentation of the Franchthi ground stone tool assemblage. The system I devised, however, is influenced to a large extent by the French tradition and in this respect leaves behind the confusion of classification and nomenclature that characterizes the Anglo-Saxon literature on ground stone tools (see Carter 1977:694–696; Kraybill 1977:487–488).
My system is rather simple and differs for the Neolithic and the pre-Neolithic components of the assemblage. I divided the Neolithic specimens — representing the vast majority of my material — into two large categories: passive and active. Introduced by Laming-Emperaire in 1979 (cited in de Beaune 1989b:28), this distinction is often used by French (speaking) tool specialists. The term 'passive' refers to tools that remain stable during use, 'active' describes tools that move during use. I should emphasize that in the Franchthi material (as in others), these two categories are not mutually exclusive, since many specimens played both active and passive roles at different stages of their use life. The specimens with both passive and active use wear were placed in one or the other category on the basis of what I considered the primary of the two kinds of use wear.
Both the active and passive categories were further subdivided into smaller groups. Most of these groups are more or less homogeneous; a single one in each category is heterogeneous. The relatively homogeneous groups are made up of tools that show similarities in use wear and its location on the tool body (again, since many specimens have multiple kinds of use wear, it was what I considered the primary among them that determined inclusion in one or the other group), in form (size and shape), and, to a larger or smaller degree, in raw material. Two such groups have been constructed for the passive category, six for the active one. An additional heterogeneous group in each category includes all the specimens that could not fit in any of the more or less homogeneous groups.
Thus, the passive category comprises a total of three groups:
1. Passive open tools (Popen);
2. Passive tools with cavity (Pcav);
3. Passive miscellanea (Pmisc).
The active category comprises a total of seven groups:
1. Active cutting edge tools (Acut);
2. Active discoidal tools (Adisc);
3. Active rectangular tools (Arect);
4. Active square or circular tools (Asquare-circ);
5. Active tools used with ends (Aend);
6. Active globular tools (Aglobe);
7. Active miscellanea (Amisc).
The terms I used for the relatively homogeneous groups emphasize either morphological or functional characteristics depending on what is the most distinctive feature for each group (for example, Passive tools with cavity, Active cutting edge tools, or Active globular tools).
The boundaries between the groups in each category are not always as clear-cut as I would have liked. Several tools could perhaps equally well have been assigned to a different group from that into which they were finally forced, or at least this is my conclusion after having transferred them back the multi-year process of my study. The classes of my classification scheme should thus be understood as fuzzier than they actually appear, and in some cases as representing points in a continuum (see also Woodbury 1954:85). This classification is constructed for analytical purposes (for the purposes of organizing the material and presenting it to other scholars), and it is uncertain to what degree it would have been useful or meaningful to Neolithic Franchthiotes.
My classification of the Neolithic material is, as mentioned above, based on a combination of criteria: form, use wear, and raw material. I chose to avoid a classification based mostly on morphological criteria, such as that devised by Wright (1992) for Levantine prehistoric tools, since this would not do justice to the dynamic character of the Franchthi material. As already mentioned, form is not a stable feature of these artifacts; this changed through use, maintenance, reuse, recycling, and/or post-depositional processes. Equally important, the form of the (many) a posteriori tools is one determined by use, not manufacture. On the other hand, I consider a classification that capitalizes on use, such as those that include, for example, classes called 'axes' or 'milling stones' (see, e.g., Adams 2002), an equally inappropriate choice for this assemblage, since we still lack a firm grasp of the precise uses of these tools.
For the Pre-Neolithic component of the assemblage I used a different approach. Since this is a small sample consisting of stratified specimens that are most often unique, I decided to present them in detail by period. This also seemed appropriate given that the Aegean pre-Neolithic ground stone tools are terra incognita: this is the first publication of such material.
Describing the material
My description of the material provides information on four fields: raw material, aspects of manufacture, technomorphological characteristics, and aspects of use. I introduce each of these fields below.
Raw material
Detailed discussions of the raw material and procurement methods are presented in different sections of this volume dedicated to specific portions of the assemblage. This section is meant to serve as a background for more detailed discussions. Most of the kinds of rocks used for the Franchthi ground stone tools are found in the geological formations of the Franchthi-Ermioni region. These have been studied by geologist Charles Vitaliano (1987). The geological map of an area of 125 km2 between Dhidhima in the north and Kranidi in the south surveyed by Vitaliano is published in Jacobsen and Farrand 1987 as plate 1.
Serpentinite, diabase, and basalt are found in the so-called Ophiolite Nappe underlying the Fournoi valley as well as in volcanic bodies in the Dhiskouria hills southwest of Ermioni and northwest of the Franchthi embayment at Vourlia. The formation called Flysch in the central part of the Franchthi-Ermioni region contains sandstones, whereas the so-called Later Cenozoic Deposits underlying most of the southern and southwestern part of the southern Argolid contain limestones, conglomerates, and sandstones. Limestone is the main ingredient of the formations called Pantokrator Limestone (from Megalovouni west to the sea near Vourlia bay), Breccia (found mostly along the south slope of the Dhidhima Range), and Limestone-Marl Sequence (in the chain of hills south of the Kranidi-Ermioni road) (van Andel and Vitaliano 1987; Vitaliano 1987). Peridotite deposits crop out north of Dhidhima (Vitaliano n.d.:11).
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Flexible Stones: Ground Stone Tools from Franchthi Cave by Anna Stroulia. Copyright © 2070 Anna Stroulia. Excerpted by permission of Indiana University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.