- Email: [email protected]
Bedrock features: An overview
Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e4
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Bedrock features: An overview Brian Hayden Archaeology Department, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, v5a 1s6, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 6 March 2017 Accepted 31 March 2017 Available online xxx
A great deal of progress has been made by archaeologists in recognizing the importance of groundstone and bedrock features as well as in detailed descriptions of these features. We are now well positioned to undertake some of the more probing issues of what these features were used for and why they become common in some times and places but not others. In these endeavors, analysts should avail themselves of critical ethnographic observations and employ analytical frameworks like Design Theory. Of particular importance will be determining whether specific groundstone types were used primarily for processing high-effort feasting foods or whether they were used for processing daily subsistence foods. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bedrock features Ground stone artifacts Design theory Feasting
Nadel, Rosenberg, and colleagues should be congratulated for raising the archaeological profile of groundstone artifacts to some prominence after decades of neglect with the notable exceptions of a few specialists like Jenny Adams. This collection is another step in bringing studies of groundstone artifacts and features into the mainstream of archaeological analysis and theorizing. The authors have generally taken a step-wise approach in dealing with groundstone assemblages, preferring to tackle issues of recording, establishing a reliable and useful data base, and general overviews of the full scope of groundstone phenomena. Steps dealing with the use of groundstone features or broader implications for causes of the appearance or changes in groundstone assemblages are largely deferred to the future. I would suggest that a more holistic approach that combined the establishment of accurate data together with more theoretical explorations at several levels would be more productive and generate more interesting questions than a stepwise approach, although the emphasis on data vs. theory would obviously shift as progress is made. Thus, the question of what foods were prepared and how, the labor involved, costs and benefits of making and using groundstone, who made and who used groundstone, ownership, value, why groundstone was minimally used at some times and heavily used at other times, sociopolitical or ritual contexts, and other such theoretical issues should all be “on the table” for examination in my opinion. Despite this overall impression, there are some intriguing ideas about the uses of groundstone types in these papers, as well as a
E-mail address: [email protected].
cryptic and rather surprising note about use-wear and residue analyses being irrelevant for Rosenberg and Nadel's Natufian groundstone assemblages (this volume). A variety of residue techniques are now available involving lipid residues, the occurrence of oxalates and ergosterols from brewing (Isaksson et al., 2010; Dietrich et al., 2012), and potentially remnant DNA. The lack of ethnographic observations concerning the use of groundstone assemblages is also surprising, especially in papers dealing with California and Texas (e.g., Burton et al., this volume, and Gershtein et al., this volume). I would argue that even observations from far afield, such as the multiple cupules used to crack nuts in Vanuatu, are extremely valuable (Speiser, 1996, Plate 21:4,7,10e12). The attempts to develop a basic typology of bedrock features are certainly important contributions, although I think they could benefit from recourse to ethnographies in order to identify key attributes. For instance, mortars for pounding acorns in California were generally about 10 cm in diameter and less than 15 cm deep and often very shallow, whereas mortars for pounding small hard seeds were more than 25 cm deep (Dixon, 1905, pp. 135e6; Jackson, 2004, pp. 173e4). Thus, depths become important functional attributes in creating typologies. Typologies should also take into consideration the quantities of materials processed and developmental trajectories over the lifetime of the features. Several authors in this volume draw attention to intriguing patterns in their assemblages. Most notable is the upsurge of groundstone features noted by Rosenberg and Nadel, (especially “mortars” and grinding stones) in the Near Eastern Epipaleolithic. The occurrence of these features is largely associated with burial areas, followed by the reduction of types and a shift to residential locations in the subsequent PPNA period. It is gratifying to see some
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.03.066 1040-6182/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Hayden, B., Bedrock features: An overview, Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2017.03.066
2
B. Hayden / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e4
initial interpretive balloons sent aloft relating the Natufian bedrock features to ritual activities. I would expect that burials þ ritual þ food ¼ feasting, and surely, mortuary feasting can be inferred from these and other contexts as Yeshurun et al. (2013) have demonstrated at Raqefet (see also, Hayden, 2004, 2011). The Natufian mortuary contexts may signal an emphasis on early groundstone used to prepare labor-intensive foods by pounding/ grinding in predominantly feasting frameworks. The range of bedrock features described by Rosenberg and Nadel (this volume) could have been used for preparing a number of different types of feasting foods including cereal breads, gruels, acorn soups or breads, and beer (smaller depressions for malting, coarse grinding or pounding, and larger features for brewing). Given the importance of bedrock mortars in California for making acorn meal especially for feasts (Dixon, 1905) and the Natufian use of acorns, it is surprising that Rosenberg and Nadel did not mention this as a possible use for Natufian mortars, and that Burton et al. (this volume) did not relate their features to the Near Eastern bedrock mortars. Interestingly, bedrock mortars in southern Californian archaeology appear to be largely associated with ritual and feasting sites (Robinson, 2010, pp. 99e100,103). In these cases, bedrock mortars were owned and inherited, and acorn resources were controlled by elites. Thus, it appears that groundstone products were prestige goods or even wealth. These considerations bring up several interesting questions. To what degree can changes in bedrock features be related to possible changes in food types or preparations (for instance, a shift from the use of acorns to the use of cereals; or a shift from gruel preparations to breads or even brewing)? Another major topic that needs to be more closely examined involves the costs and benefits of using groundstone technologies to process foods. Is it really calorically worthwhile to spend three to five hours per day grinding grains when they could simply be boiled up like rice (see Hayden et al., 2017)? Was acorn meal cost effective to make for daily subsistence or was it a specialty food used primarily for feasts, as Dixon (1905, pp. 316e7,325,327) and Gayton (1945) observed among the Maidu and Yokuts of California?
If the use of early groundstone was predominantly associated with feasting, the initial upsurge in the use of groundstone may reflect the beginning of feasting systems. Similarly, the subsequent shift of groundstone contexts to houses, may reflect a change in social organization from the predominant role of corporate kinship group feasts (with main rituals focused on cemeteries) to more independent nuclear families (with major rituals occurring at their homes for marriages, burials, or house feasts–see Hayden, 2014). On the other hand, this shift and the later disappearance of bedrock mortars in the PPNB may be due to other factors such as increased reliance on grinding, more reliance on cereals and less use of acorns, or different food preparation techniques or technologies such as the use of wooden mortars and pestles. At least in some €bekli Tepe, bedrock features continued to be other areas, such as Go strongly associated with ritual contexts in the PPNA and PPNB periods, to the tune of over 150 cubic meters (Hermann and Schmidt, 2012). Some of the larger features (similar to the large pit at Raqefet), including large limestone “barrels” or “troughs” (with capacities up to 160 L and containing oxalate residuesdDietrich et al., 2012, p. 687), may have served in brewing or as cisterns, but there were many smaller cups as well, together with numerous basalt and limestone mortars and grinding stones (Oliver Dietrich, Personal communication). In fact, the large € bekli are remarkably bedrock features with these capacities at Go similar to similar bedrock features in Mexico used to ferment maguey hearts into alcoholic beverages (Fig. 1; Bruman, 2000:Fig. 10). Rosh Zin is also very likely to be a ritual site with its monolith housed in a small structure. One wonders if there were not bedrock mortars or features at the PPNB burial site of Kfar HaHoresh as well (Goring-Morris, 2005). Contra Rosenberg and Nadel, the very high labor inputs required to grind grains make me skeptical that any shift to grinding was the result of trying to increase the amount of food from a limited area or to increase the efficiency of food preparation (see Hayden et al., 2017). Although this has been a standard assumption, I would argue that grinding or pounding is not “a more suitable and efficient way of producing food.”
Fig. 1. Large pits hand hewn out of sandstone bedrock used to ferment pounded maguey hearts to make alcoholic beverages. Recorded by Henry Bruman in 1938 in Nayarit, Mexico (Bruman, 2000:Fig. 10).
Please cite this article in press as: Hayden, B., Bedrock features: An overview, Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2017.03.066
B. Hayden / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e4
The detailed recording and methodology used by Filin et al. (this volume) is impressive and insightful, as is the wide range of bedrock features that they have recorded. The deep narrow “mortars” from Raqefet Cave are among the most puzzling at 50þ cm. deep and less than 10 cm in bottom diameter. At these depths, it would be very difficult to even reach the bottoms. Surely, the description of them as “mortars” should be changed since it is difficult to imagine how they could have served a pounding function, or indeed, any food processing function at all. Interestingly, no one has even speculated as to how such features could have been made using only stone tools, or perhaps abrading implements. I would hazard the suggestion that they were not for processing foods at all, but for securing upright poles. The internal incisions in one of these features does not make sense in terms of food processing, and the slabs of rock near another one of these features would be typical items used as wedges to reinforce poles. In addition, in Guatemala, I have seen postholes for stall structures in market plazas plugged with rocks so that they could be easily opened and did not accumulate debris while not in use. This was similar in appearance to the rock “plugged” mortars the authors recorded at Raqefet Cave (Nadel and Rosenberg, 2010). It is not clear whether these deep features might conform to any alignments or geometrical distributions. Also of interest are similar types of deep narrow bedrock features in Texas (Amanda Casteneda, this volume, and personal communication). Nor does the huge basin reported by Filin et al. (this volume) make any sense as a feature used for pounding food. With a volume of 119 L, it could have been used for food storage (possibly for feasts) or perhaps even for brewing if the rock was impermeable or lined with a skin or lined with clay as done with traditional Chinese fermentation (Zhang et al., 2007). The size is comparable to the €bekli Tepe, interpreted as limestone “barrels” and “troughs” at Go brewing vats (Dietrich et al., 2012, p. 687). By way of comparison, it would be interesting to know the dimensions of the “large” and deep mortars in the MB1 areas described by Burton et al. (this volume) in California. In southern California, there are accounts of food being stored in caves for use in feasts (Robinson, 2010, 100) and one might wonder if caves, or the areas in front of them, in general, may have important locations for feasts and rituals whether in the Natufian or other contexts. In terms of data recording, it is not clear to me what the density or nearest neighbor statistics may mean, especially since they sometimes conflate all types of bedrock features rather than examining specific types. Nor is occupation period taken into account. Perhaps such measures should be made in numbers or total volume (e.g., of basin mortars) per square meter per 1000 years. The polished and grooved surface on the side of a tufa mound reported by Gershtein et al. (this volume) is curious, indeed. Of all the explanations they mention, the one that seems the most reasonable to me is that after using the mortars on the top of the mound, people slid down the side thus polishing the surface over hundreds or thousands of years, and maybe dragged implements with them that made incisions in the polished surface. The deeper grooves seem more intentional. While symbolism and ritual are currently fashionable topics in archaeology, it would be good to remember that people also make graffiti and doodles for non-ritual and non-symbolic reasons especially when they are waiting for someone or something and are bored. Here, I would draw attention to the graffiti scratched on the inside of an elevator door at Simon Fraser University, presumably while students waited for the slow ascent to another floor (Fig. 2). In this example, there is also a tendency for lines to be oriented vertically. I have great difficulty seeing anything symbolic or ritual in the grooves at Skiles Shelter and suggest that other interpretations be explored. In sum, there is a great deal of material here that stimulates
3
Fig. 2. Graffiti on the inside of an elevator door at Simon Fraser University illustrating the linear marking of surfaces by people waiting for something to arrive. There is little symbolic content evident in these markings and no deep ideological statement intended. Frame is c. 60 90 cm.
thoughts and questions. As yet, there are few answers, but the groundwork for groundstone has been carefully laid for future studies. I would suggest that a much stronger emphasis should be placed on the rich ethnographic observations dealing with groundstone, including their non-food uses, e.g., as whetstones and pole supports among other things. The issues of what foods such features could have been used to process needs to be broadened to consider their possible uses in preparing nut or even fish oils, bone grease, and beers. More information needs to be provided as to the range of foods that could have been usefully processed using groundstone features. This would entail a detailed examination of the food species locally available. The general assumption that all groundstone was used for processing cereals, small seeds, or nuts needs to be re-evaluated, as does the assumption that grinding or pounding technologies provide the best caloric return in preparing foods. In addition, I would advocate the use of design theory as a framework for better analyzing and understanding groundstone technologies. Such a framework incorporates manufacturing and transport costs, social contexts, quantities needing to be processed, alternative technologies, and other cost-benefit considerations (see Horsfall, 1987; Hayden, 1998). Whether the foods processed were considered daily fares or prestige foods will be of paramount importance in understanding these technologies. Of major importance in this social realm is, of course, the importance of feasting. References Bruman, H., 2000. Alcohol in Ancient Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Dietrich, Oliver, Heun, M., Notroff, J., Schmidt, K., Zarnkow, M., 2012. The role of cult
Please cite this article in press as: Hayden, B., Bedrock features: An overview, Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2017.03.066
4
B. Hayden / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e4
and feasting in the emergence of Neolithic communities. Antiquity 86, 674e695. Dixon, Roland, 1905. The Northern Maidu. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 17 (3), 119e258. Gayton, A., 1945. Yokuts and Western Mono social organization. Am. Anthropol. 47, 409e426. Goring-Morris, N., 2005. Life, death and the emergence of differential status in the Newar Eastern Neolithic: evidence from Kfar HaHoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel. In: Clarke, J. (Ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 89e105. Hayden, B., 1998. Practical and prestige technologies. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 5, 1e55. Hayden, B., 2004. Sociopolitical organization in the Natufian. In: Delage, C. (Ed.), Last Hunter-Gatherer Societies in the Near East. BAR International, Oxford, pp. 263e308. Hayden, B., 2011. Feasting and social dynamics in the Epipaleolithic of the fertile crescent. In: Aranda, G., Monton-Subias, S., Sanchez, M. (Eds.), Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 31e63. Hayden, B., 2014. The Power of Feasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hayden, B., Nixon-Darcus, L., Ansell, L., 2017. Our ‘daily bread’? The origins of grinding grains and breadmaking. In: Steel, L., Zinn, K. (Eds.), Exploring the Materiality of Food ‘Stuffs’. Routledge, London.
Horsfall, Gayel, 1987. A design theory perspective on variability in grinding stones. In: Hayden, B. (Ed.), Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 332e378. €bekli Tepe. In: Klimscha, F., Hermann, Richard, Schmidt, Klaus, 2012. Go Eichmann, R., Schuler, C., Fahlbusch, H. (Eds.), Wasserwirtschaftliche Innovationen im Arch€ aologischen Context. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden, pp. 57e68. Isaksson, Sven, Karlsson, Christina, Erikson, Thomas, 2010. Ergosterol (5, 7, 22ergostatrien-3beta-ol) as a potential biomarker for alcohol fermentation in lipid residues from prehistoric pottery. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 3263e3268. Jackson, Thomas, 2004. Pounding acorn: Women's production in social and economic focus. In: Raab, M., Jones, T. (Eds.), Prehistoric California. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 172e181. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., 2010. New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features (mortars and cupmarks). Euroasian Prehist. 7 (1), 65e87. Robinson, David, 2010. Resolving archaeological and ethnographic tensions: a case study from South-Central California. In: Garrow, D., Yarrow, T. (Eds.), Archaeology and Anthropology. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 84e109. Speiser, Felix, 1996. Vanuatu. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Yeshurun, Reuven, Bar-Oz, Guy, Nadel, Dani, 2013. The social role of food in the Natufian cemetery of Raqefet Cave. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 32, 511e526. Zhang, Y., Yang, R., Zhang, Q., Liu, Z., 2007. Design of an artificial pit for the fermentation of Chinese liquor. J. Inst. Brew. 113, 374e380.
Please cite this article in press as: Hayden, B., Bedrock features: An overview, Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2017.03.066
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Bedrock features: An overview Brian Hayden Archaeology Department, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, v5a 1s6, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 6 March 2017 Accepted 31 March 2017 Available online xxx
A great deal of progress has been made by archaeologists in recognizing the importance of groundstone and bedrock features as well as in detailed descriptions of these features. We are now well positioned to undertake some of the more probing issues of what these features were used for and why they become common in some times and places but not others. In these endeavors, analysts should avail themselves of critical ethnographic observations and employ analytical frameworks like Design Theory. Of particular importance will be determining whether specific groundstone types were used primarily for processing high-effort feasting foods or whether they were used for processing daily subsistence foods. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bedrock features Ground stone artifacts Design theory Feasting
Nadel, Rosenberg, and colleagues should be congratulated for raising the archaeological profile of groundstone artifacts to some prominence after decades of neglect with the notable exceptions of a few specialists like Jenny Adams. This collection is another step in bringing studies of groundstone artifacts and features into the mainstream of archaeological analysis and theorizing. The authors have generally taken a step-wise approach in dealing with groundstone assemblages, preferring to tackle issues of recording, establishing a reliable and useful data base, and general overviews of the full scope of groundstone phenomena. Steps dealing with the use of groundstone features or broader implications for causes of the appearance or changes in groundstone assemblages are largely deferred to the future. I would suggest that a more holistic approach that combined the establishment of accurate data together with more theoretical explorations at several levels would be more productive and generate more interesting questions than a stepwise approach, although the emphasis on data vs. theory would obviously shift as progress is made. Thus, the question of what foods were prepared and how, the labor involved, costs and benefits of making and using groundstone, who made and who used groundstone, ownership, value, why groundstone was minimally used at some times and heavily used at other times, sociopolitical or ritual contexts, and other such theoretical issues should all be “on the table” for examination in my opinion. Despite this overall impression, there are some intriguing ideas about the uses of groundstone types in these papers, as well as a
E-mail address: [email protected].
cryptic and rather surprising note about use-wear and residue analyses being irrelevant for Rosenberg and Nadel's Natufian groundstone assemblages (this volume). A variety of residue techniques are now available involving lipid residues, the occurrence of oxalates and ergosterols from brewing (Isaksson et al., 2010; Dietrich et al., 2012), and potentially remnant DNA. The lack of ethnographic observations concerning the use of groundstone assemblages is also surprising, especially in papers dealing with California and Texas (e.g., Burton et al., this volume, and Gershtein et al., this volume). I would argue that even observations from far afield, such as the multiple cupules used to crack nuts in Vanuatu, are extremely valuable (Speiser, 1996, Plate 21:4,7,10e12). The attempts to develop a basic typology of bedrock features are certainly important contributions, although I think they could benefit from recourse to ethnographies in order to identify key attributes. For instance, mortars for pounding acorns in California were generally about 10 cm in diameter and less than 15 cm deep and often very shallow, whereas mortars for pounding small hard seeds were more than 25 cm deep (Dixon, 1905, pp. 135e6; Jackson, 2004, pp. 173e4). Thus, depths become important functional attributes in creating typologies. Typologies should also take into consideration the quantities of materials processed and developmental trajectories over the lifetime of the features. Several authors in this volume draw attention to intriguing patterns in their assemblages. Most notable is the upsurge of groundstone features noted by Rosenberg and Nadel, (especially “mortars” and grinding stones) in the Near Eastern Epipaleolithic. The occurrence of these features is largely associated with burial areas, followed by the reduction of types and a shift to residential locations in the subsequent PPNA period. It is gratifying to see some
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.03.066 1040-6182/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Hayden, B., Bedrock features: An overview, Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2017.03.066
2
B. Hayden / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e4
initial interpretive balloons sent aloft relating the Natufian bedrock features to ritual activities. I would expect that burials þ ritual þ food ¼ feasting, and surely, mortuary feasting can be inferred from these and other contexts as Yeshurun et al. (2013) have demonstrated at Raqefet (see also, Hayden, 2004, 2011). The Natufian mortuary contexts may signal an emphasis on early groundstone used to prepare labor-intensive foods by pounding/ grinding in predominantly feasting frameworks. The range of bedrock features described by Rosenberg and Nadel (this volume) could have been used for preparing a number of different types of feasting foods including cereal breads, gruels, acorn soups or breads, and beer (smaller depressions for malting, coarse grinding or pounding, and larger features for brewing). Given the importance of bedrock mortars in California for making acorn meal especially for feasts (Dixon, 1905) and the Natufian use of acorns, it is surprising that Rosenberg and Nadel did not mention this as a possible use for Natufian mortars, and that Burton et al. (this volume) did not relate their features to the Near Eastern bedrock mortars. Interestingly, bedrock mortars in southern Californian archaeology appear to be largely associated with ritual and feasting sites (Robinson, 2010, pp. 99e100,103). In these cases, bedrock mortars were owned and inherited, and acorn resources were controlled by elites. Thus, it appears that groundstone products were prestige goods or even wealth. These considerations bring up several interesting questions. To what degree can changes in bedrock features be related to possible changes in food types or preparations (for instance, a shift from the use of acorns to the use of cereals; or a shift from gruel preparations to breads or even brewing)? Another major topic that needs to be more closely examined involves the costs and benefits of using groundstone technologies to process foods. Is it really calorically worthwhile to spend three to five hours per day grinding grains when they could simply be boiled up like rice (see Hayden et al., 2017)? Was acorn meal cost effective to make for daily subsistence or was it a specialty food used primarily for feasts, as Dixon (1905, pp. 316e7,325,327) and Gayton (1945) observed among the Maidu and Yokuts of California?
If the use of early groundstone was predominantly associated with feasting, the initial upsurge in the use of groundstone may reflect the beginning of feasting systems. Similarly, the subsequent shift of groundstone contexts to houses, may reflect a change in social organization from the predominant role of corporate kinship group feasts (with main rituals focused on cemeteries) to more independent nuclear families (with major rituals occurring at their homes for marriages, burials, or house feasts–see Hayden, 2014). On the other hand, this shift and the later disappearance of bedrock mortars in the PPNB may be due to other factors such as increased reliance on grinding, more reliance on cereals and less use of acorns, or different food preparation techniques or technologies such as the use of wooden mortars and pestles. At least in some €bekli Tepe, bedrock features continued to be other areas, such as Go strongly associated with ritual contexts in the PPNA and PPNB periods, to the tune of over 150 cubic meters (Hermann and Schmidt, 2012). Some of the larger features (similar to the large pit at Raqefet), including large limestone “barrels” or “troughs” (with capacities up to 160 L and containing oxalate residuesdDietrich et al., 2012, p. 687), may have served in brewing or as cisterns, but there were many smaller cups as well, together with numerous basalt and limestone mortars and grinding stones (Oliver Dietrich, Personal communication). In fact, the large € bekli are remarkably bedrock features with these capacities at Go similar to similar bedrock features in Mexico used to ferment maguey hearts into alcoholic beverages (Fig. 1; Bruman, 2000:Fig. 10). Rosh Zin is also very likely to be a ritual site with its monolith housed in a small structure. One wonders if there were not bedrock mortars or features at the PPNB burial site of Kfar HaHoresh as well (Goring-Morris, 2005). Contra Rosenberg and Nadel, the very high labor inputs required to grind grains make me skeptical that any shift to grinding was the result of trying to increase the amount of food from a limited area or to increase the efficiency of food preparation (see Hayden et al., 2017). Although this has been a standard assumption, I would argue that grinding or pounding is not “a more suitable and efficient way of producing food.”
Fig. 1. Large pits hand hewn out of sandstone bedrock used to ferment pounded maguey hearts to make alcoholic beverages. Recorded by Henry Bruman in 1938 in Nayarit, Mexico (Bruman, 2000:Fig. 10).
Please cite this article in press as: Hayden, B., Bedrock features: An overview, Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2017.03.066
B. Hayden / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e4
The detailed recording and methodology used by Filin et al. (this volume) is impressive and insightful, as is the wide range of bedrock features that they have recorded. The deep narrow “mortars” from Raqefet Cave are among the most puzzling at 50þ cm. deep and less than 10 cm in bottom diameter. At these depths, it would be very difficult to even reach the bottoms. Surely, the description of them as “mortars” should be changed since it is difficult to imagine how they could have served a pounding function, or indeed, any food processing function at all. Interestingly, no one has even speculated as to how such features could have been made using only stone tools, or perhaps abrading implements. I would hazard the suggestion that they were not for processing foods at all, but for securing upright poles. The internal incisions in one of these features does not make sense in terms of food processing, and the slabs of rock near another one of these features would be typical items used as wedges to reinforce poles. In addition, in Guatemala, I have seen postholes for stall structures in market plazas plugged with rocks so that they could be easily opened and did not accumulate debris while not in use. This was similar in appearance to the rock “plugged” mortars the authors recorded at Raqefet Cave (Nadel and Rosenberg, 2010). It is not clear whether these deep features might conform to any alignments or geometrical distributions. Also of interest are similar types of deep narrow bedrock features in Texas (Amanda Casteneda, this volume, and personal communication). Nor does the huge basin reported by Filin et al. (this volume) make any sense as a feature used for pounding food. With a volume of 119 L, it could have been used for food storage (possibly for feasts) or perhaps even for brewing if the rock was impermeable or lined with a skin or lined with clay as done with traditional Chinese fermentation (Zhang et al., 2007). The size is comparable to the €bekli Tepe, interpreted as limestone “barrels” and “troughs” at Go brewing vats (Dietrich et al., 2012, p. 687). By way of comparison, it would be interesting to know the dimensions of the “large” and deep mortars in the MB1 areas described by Burton et al. (this volume) in California. In southern California, there are accounts of food being stored in caves for use in feasts (Robinson, 2010, 100) and one might wonder if caves, or the areas in front of them, in general, may have important locations for feasts and rituals whether in the Natufian or other contexts. In terms of data recording, it is not clear to me what the density or nearest neighbor statistics may mean, especially since they sometimes conflate all types of bedrock features rather than examining specific types. Nor is occupation period taken into account. Perhaps such measures should be made in numbers or total volume (e.g., of basin mortars) per square meter per 1000 years. The polished and grooved surface on the side of a tufa mound reported by Gershtein et al. (this volume) is curious, indeed. Of all the explanations they mention, the one that seems the most reasonable to me is that after using the mortars on the top of the mound, people slid down the side thus polishing the surface over hundreds or thousands of years, and maybe dragged implements with them that made incisions in the polished surface. The deeper grooves seem more intentional. While symbolism and ritual are currently fashionable topics in archaeology, it would be good to remember that people also make graffiti and doodles for non-ritual and non-symbolic reasons especially when they are waiting for someone or something and are bored. Here, I would draw attention to the graffiti scratched on the inside of an elevator door at Simon Fraser University, presumably while students waited for the slow ascent to another floor (Fig. 2). In this example, there is also a tendency for lines to be oriented vertically. I have great difficulty seeing anything symbolic or ritual in the grooves at Skiles Shelter and suggest that other interpretations be explored. In sum, there is a great deal of material here that stimulates
3
Fig. 2. Graffiti on the inside of an elevator door at Simon Fraser University illustrating the linear marking of surfaces by people waiting for something to arrive. There is little symbolic content evident in these markings and no deep ideological statement intended. Frame is c. 60 90 cm.
thoughts and questions. As yet, there are few answers, but the groundwork for groundstone has been carefully laid for future studies. I would suggest that a much stronger emphasis should be placed on the rich ethnographic observations dealing with groundstone, including their non-food uses, e.g., as whetstones and pole supports among other things. The issues of what foods such features could have been used to process needs to be broadened to consider their possible uses in preparing nut or even fish oils, bone grease, and beers. More information needs to be provided as to the range of foods that could have been usefully processed using groundstone features. This would entail a detailed examination of the food species locally available. The general assumption that all groundstone was used for processing cereals, small seeds, or nuts needs to be re-evaluated, as does the assumption that grinding or pounding technologies provide the best caloric return in preparing foods. In addition, I would advocate the use of design theory as a framework for better analyzing and understanding groundstone technologies. Such a framework incorporates manufacturing and transport costs, social contexts, quantities needing to be processed, alternative technologies, and other cost-benefit considerations (see Horsfall, 1987; Hayden, 1998). Whether the foods processed were considered daily fares or prestige foods will be of paramount importance in understanding these technologies. Of major importance in this social realm is, of course, the importance of feasting. References Bruman, H., 2000. Alcohol in Ancient Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Dietrich, Oliver, Heun, M., Notroff, J., Schmidt, K., Zarnkow, M., 2012. The role of cult
Please cite this article in press as: Hayden, B., Bedrock features: An overview, Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2017.03.066
4
B. Hayden / Quaternary International xxx (2017) 1e4
and feasting in the emergence of Neolithic communities. Antiquity 86, 674e695. Dixon, Roland, 1905. The Northern Maidu. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 17 (3), 119e258. Gayton, A., 1945. Yokuts and Western Mono social organization. Am. Anthropol. 47, 409e426. Goring-Morris, N., 2005. Life, death and the emergence of differential status in the Newar Eastern Neolithic: evidence from Kfar HaHoresh, Lower Galilee, Israel. In: Clarke, J. (Ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on the Transmission and Transformation of Culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 89e105. Hayden, B., 1998. Practical and prestige technologies. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 5, 1e55. Hayden, B., 2004. Sociopolitical organization in the Natufian. In: Delage, C. (Ed.), Last Hunter-Gatherer Societies in the Near East. BAR International, Oxford, pp. 263e308. Hayden, B., 2011. Feasting and social dynamics in the Epipaleolithic of the fertile crescent. In: Aranda, G., Monton-Subias, S., Sanchez, M. (Eds.), Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 31e63. Hayden, B., 2014. The Power of Feasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hayden, B., Nixon-Darcus, L., Ansell, L., 2017. Our ‘daily bread’? The origins of grinding grains and breadmaking. In: Steel, L., Zinn, K. (Eds.), Exploring the Materiality of Food ‘Stuffs’. Routledge, London.
Horsfall, Gayel, 1987. A design theory perspective on variability in grinding stones. In: Hayden, B. (Ed.), Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 332e378. €bekli Tepe. In: Klimscha, F., Hermann, Richard, Schmidt, Klaus, 2012. Go Eichmann, R., Schuler, C., Fahlbusch, H. (Eds.), Wasserwirtschaftliche Innovationen im Arch€ aologischen Context. Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden, pp. 57e68. Isaksson, Sven, Karlsson, Christina, Erikson, Thomas, 2010. Ergosterol (5, 7, 22ergostatrien-3beta-ol) as a potential biomarker for alcohol fermentation in lipid residues from prehistoric pottery. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 3263e3268. Jackson, Thomas, 2004. Pounding acorn: Women's production in social and economic focus. In: Raab, M., Jones, T. (Eds.), Prehistoric California. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 172e181. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., 2010. New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features (mortars and cupmarks). Euroasian Prehist. 7 (1), 65e87. Robinson, David, 2010. Resolving archaeological and ethnographic tensions: a case study from South-Central California. In: Garrow, D., Yarrow, T. (Eds.), Archaeology and Anthropology. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 84e109. Speiser, Felix, 1996. Vanuatu. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Yeshurun, Reuven, Bar-Oz, Guy, Nadel, Dani, 2013. The social role of food in the Natufian cemetery of Raqefet Cave. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 32, 511e526. Zhang, Y., Yang, R., Zhang, Q., Liu, Z., 2007. Design of an artificial pit for the fermentation of Chinese liquor. J. Inst. Brew. 113, 374e380.
Please cite this article in press as: Hayden, B., Bedrock features: An overview, Quaternary International (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2017.03.066