- Email: [email protected]
“Down to bedrock” – General perspectives on bedrock features
Quaternary International 439 (2017) 1e4
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
“Down to bedrock” e General perspectives on bedrock features
1. Introduction The alteration of natural landscapes by hominids is well-known since the Paleolithic. Some of the most obvious examples with visible impact on the landscapes are flint and chert quarries that left scars and cavities on rock surfaces and adjacent piles of stone debris (e.g. Vermeersch, 2002; Topping and Lynott, 2005; Barkai and Gopher, 2009; Rosenberg and Nadel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2011). Bedrock features such as mortars, cupmarks, cupules, grooves, slicks, basins and grinding surfaces, are also a form of rock alteration; however, due to their size they usually had a lesser impact on the landscape. Bedrock features first appear in Paleolithic contexts (e.g. Bednarik, 2008; Beaumont and Bednarik, 2015), and in some parts of the world they were used until the 20th century (e.g. Rucks, 1995 and see Guth, 2016 for more examples). These features cross-cut geographic and chronological boundaries (e.g. Bednarik, 2008; Adams, 2014, pp. 134e135; Nadel and Rosenberg, 2015; and see this volume). However, in contrast to many other categories of archaeological remains, bedrock features received relatively little contributions to scholarly attention and until recently, led to only a few focused field projects, in part due to the limitations of dating them and identifying their cultural context (many bedrock features are found on exposed rock ledges and floors of rock shelters and caves and thus lack clear association with datable remains). This situation is rapidly changing, and we now see a rising interest in documenting such features and attempting to understand their use and the role they played in past human societies. This is in part due to our better understanding of their significance on the one hand, and advances in cost-effective documentation and analytical technologies such as 3D modeling based on photogrammetry and structure from motion, laser scanning, macro- and microscopic use-wear analyses and residue analyses on the other. These provide new levels of data recording and analysis and excellent platforms for intra- and inter-site studies and comparisons. The term bedrock features or any other general term could be misleading. It is in a way similar to encompassing all flint tools under one category, an approach commonly in use. However, in studies of flint assemblages, production technologies are stressed on the one hand and the variety of tools are noted on the other. The tools are then studied in detail, and there are no claims that all were used for the same function or even related functions (e.g. Bordes, 1961; Tixier, 1963). It should therefore be noted that lumping all types of bedrock features, from tiny holes and cupules to deep narrow shafts, wide basins and grinding surfaces, into one category is only due to the utilized medium (any kind of bedrock) and not to the functions the features fulfilled. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.05.033 1040-6182/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Accumulated data reflects the manipulation of modified and unmodified stone implements for grinding in a variety of Paleolithic contexts, the majority of the earliest examples retrieved from Upper Paleolithic sites (e.g. Wright, 1991; Fullagar and Field, 1997; de Beaune, 2002, 2004; Piperno et al., 2004; Aranguren et al., 2008; Revedin et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2013; Mariotti Lippi et al., 2015; Revedin et al., 2015) while earlier examples for the usage of stone pounding/grinding implements by Neanderthals and modern humans in the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age (e.g. de Beaune, 2004; Van Peer et al., 2004) are rare. Until the Levantine Epipaleolithic pounding tools are uncommon, and while some evidence for pre-Natufian (Natufian culture, ca. 15,000e11,500 calBP) pounding tools were noted, it is clear that the emergence of this culture in the Levant marks an unprecedented rise in stone pounding technology, specifically pestles and bedrock features mainly in the form of deep and shallow mortars (e.g. Wright, 1991, 1994). While bedrock features are found in many parts of both the Old and New Worlds, it seems that so far most studies focused on features found in north America, especially in the southwest and western United States (e.g. McCarthy et al., 1985; Jackson, 1991; ~ eda, 2015; Buonasera, 2016; Duwe, 2016; Burton et al., Castan ~ eda, 2017) where ample ethnographic data is also 2017; Castan available (e.g. Rucks, 1995; Guth, 2016; Hayden, 2017), and in the southern Levant (e.g. Noy, 1979; Wright, 1991; Samzun, 1994; Younker, 1995; Grosman and Goren-Inbar, 2007; van den Brink, 2008; Eitam, 2008, 2009; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2009; Nadel and Rosenberg, 2010; Rosenberg and Nadel, 2011a, 2011b; Terradas et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2014; Nadel et al., 2015; Nadel and Rosenberg, 2016). The significance bedrock features had for past societies and their presence in a range of geographical and ecological settings led to a growing interest in these features in the last two decades. Indeed, bedrock feature studies play an increasingly integral role in any holistic archaeological research that deals with sites or periods where these are recorded, providing new avenues of research and interpretations. 2. Bedrock features: location, production, characteristics and use Bedrock features are present in a wide range of geographical settings and they appear within and near settlements, especially hamlets and villages. Noteworthy, they are mostly found on easily-accessed more-or-less flat surfaces, but there are cases where they are present on vertical faces of cliffs and huge boulders, as well as on the ceilings and walls of caves (Bednarik, 2008 and see ref. therein). Bedrock features sometimes occur in association with
2
D. Rosenberg, D. Nadel / Quaternary International 439 (2017) 1e4
petroglyphs and rock art (e.g. Lee, 1981; Whitely, 1987; Scott et al., 2004), possibly suggesting ritual use (see also Duwe, 2016). The features may appear as isolated phenomena (a single specimen or very few), but in many instances they occur in groups of dozens and even hundreds (e.g. Barrett and Gifford, 1933, pp. 143, 208; Samzun, 1994; Rucks, 1995; Goring-Morris et al., 1999; Rosenberg and Nadel, 2011a; Guth, 2016). Occasionally arrangements of pairs or clusters were noted (e.g. Samzun, 1994; Rosenberg and Nadel, 2011a); however, the chronology, function and meaning of these settings are mostly unclear. Production methods of bedrock features are in most cases vague. However, it seems quite clear that in many examples, both deliberate production and accumulated (use) wear are responsible for the creation of these features. While in regards to pounding implements it seems that pre-use alteration of the bedrock typically occurred, in the case of grinding surfaces (e.g. van den Brink, 2008) it seems that the prolonged use had an important role in the creation and modification of the natural bedrock surface. Bednarik (2008, pp. 85) suggested that “the production of cupules on extremely hard rock types was therefore a lengthy process demanding great physical power, accuracy and dedication.” Making a small cavity in a rock does not usually entail a lengthy, demanding and difficult process. It could even be the result of repetitious work as is the case of the small cavities produced by chimpanzees crashing nuts (e.g. Joulian, 1996; McGrew et al., 1997) and likely the pitted stones from the Lower Paleolithic site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel (Goren-Inbar et al., 2002). However, in many of the archaeological cases it seems that notable effort and thought were invested into the creation of the deeper and larger specimens. Various methods and techniques were used for bedrock feature production, and these may vary between types, pending mainly on their characteristics and dimensions. In many examples postutilization weathering of the surface hampers a coherent determination regarding the technology of production; however, in several studied examples, battering, pecking, chiseling, scraping, incising, grinding and abrading were used. We should also consider the use of water with an abrasive material such as sand as well as the impact of natural acids in bedrock feature production (e.g. Cline, 1984, pp. 40). Reports from the American southwest suggest that some groups chipped the rock in the initial production process (e.g. Sparkman, 1908, pp. 207; Cline, 1984, pp. 40). The range of dimensions and types reflects a plethora of functions and modes of operation. This is further reinforced by ethnographic accounts (see Rucks, 1995 and Guth, 2016 for ample examples from the American southwest). Furthermore, the features are not always symmetrical, and this may allude to the versatile manner in which they were utilized. Some bedrock features had a long life-history and this, combined with the resulting bedrock alteration from their original pre-use forms and sizes as work progressed necessitates caution when analyzing these complex and multifaceted features. Bearing this in mind, we can state that there is a clear association of bedrock features with women's work, especially from ethnographic studies in the U.S., and women are frequently mentioned grinding or pounding food in groups of two or more individuals, usually relatives (e.g. Ortiz, 1991; Rucks, 1995; DickBissonnette, 1998; Guth, 2016, table 18). It is also clear from both archaeological and ethnographic accounts that bedrock features were used in various spatial and social contexts (domestic, public and ceremonial). We also know that various foodstuffs (e.g. grains, seeds, fruits, pods, roots, herbs, tubers, meat and fish) were processed and prepared with the aid of bedrock features (e.g. Ortiz, 1991; Rucks, 1995; Rosenberg, 2008; Guth, 2016, table 14) in addition to medicine, tobacco and spices. A few accounts also mentioned these as musical instruments (e.g. Robinson, 1958;
Cooke, 1964; Bednarik, 2008). While their role in food preparation was clearly of special significance, certain bedrock features may have been part of some ritual activity, used as accessories imperative for the success of the ritual itself. As has been stated in the past (Heizer, 1953; Parkman, 1986, 1993; Bednarik, 2008), it is plausible that smaller bedrock features (cupules) served a more ritualistic purpose than the larger features. However, it is not always easy to support this while analysing the archaeological record. Without the aid of written sources or data collected from ethnographic informants, it seems merely wishful thinking, although archaeological contextual data may hint for such use, especially in the case of burial sites (e.g. Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2013). One should also mention various tools and accessories that were operated within the context of bedrock feature use. These range from temporary milling huts that were used for shade and against the rain, pestles, usually from stone or wood, upper grinding stones (in the case of grinding surfaces), milling brushes used for sweeping and cleaning, baskets used for sifting and as containers for the processed substances and hopper baskets used as an extension to the features’ natural walls (e.g. Dixon, 1905, pp. 177; Gifford, 1932; Barrett and Gifford, 1933, pp. 143, 207; Voegelin, 1938, pp. 30e31; Alvarez and Peri, 1987, pp. 12). Many of these implements are usually absent from the archaeological record but are well documented in ethnographic accounts. 3. Discussion Bedrock features reflect a complex and versatile archaeological phenomenon, manufactured in a variety of rock types and in a wide range of dimensions and shapes in almost all geological and ecological settings where archaeological sites are found. They are entangled with embedded social data and reflect a plethora of past human behaviors and adaptation strategies. Their significance as a proxy for understanding past societies and recent technological advances providing better documentation methods seem to have promoted a new wave of interest focused on bedrock feature studies. In this spirit the current Quaternary International volume is an outcome of a thematic session held in the 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) in San Francisco (April 15e19, 2015) titled “Bedrock features (mortars, slicks, cupules, grooves, etc.): Documentation, analysis and interpretation.” The session included nine papers and was strengthened by two discussion papers presented by Prof. Brian Hayden and Prof. Mary Lou Larson. The papers presented in that session covered topics such as residues of ancient food preparation in sheltered milling features; bedrock features in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands; shiny grooved surfaces: the case study of the Skiles rockshelter, Lower Pecos, Texas; Ground stone shrines in the Pueblo Southwest; Intra- and inter-site geometrical high-resolution analyses of deep Natufian bedrock mortars; Ground stone landscapes of the ancestral Pueblo World; Socialized landscapes of the southern Plains: bedrock ground stone surfaces on the Chaquaqua Plateau, Colorado; Boulders, outcrops, caves: cultural use of landscape features in southern California, and an overview of the south Levantine Natufian and PPNA bedrock phenomenon. The success of this session led us to pursue the publication of the current thematic issue and high impact of Quaternary International. After this introductory paper, a paper by Burton et al. (2017) brings new data concerning the documentation of boulders, outcrops and caves in the San Diego region of California, followed by a paper by ~ eda (2017) that characterized ground stone bedrock feature Castan variation in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. A contribution by
D. Rosenberg, D. Nadel / Quaternary International 439 (2017) 1e4
Lynch et al. (2017) focuses on the socialized landscapes of the southern Plains through a study of the bedrock surfaces on the Chaquaqua Plateau, Colorado. It is followed by a paper by Crater Gershtein et al. (2017) that targeted a high-resolution mapping and analysis of shiny grooved rock surface at the Skiles Shelter, Lower Pecos, Texas. The two papers that finalize this thematic volume focus on the southern Levant, including a paper by Rosenberg and Nadel (2017) that addresses the significance of the morphometric and contextual variation in stone hewn mortars during the Natufian-PPNA transition in the southern Levant and a paper by Filin et al. (2017) that presents high resolution intra- and intersite geometrical analyses of Natufian bedrock features. The last paper is by Hayden (2017), addressing additional aspects and important issues pertaining to bedrock features. We are confident that the current volume and recent papers published elsewhere provide valuable new data, methods and interpretations regarding bedrock features. These offer substantial boost to bedrock feature research and will hopefully provide fertile ground for future analyses, interpretations and discussions. Acknowledgments We would like to thank all the participants in the thematic session titled “Bedrock features (mortars, slicks, cupules, grooves, etc.): Documentation, Analysis and Interpretation” held during the 80th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) in San Francisco (April 15e19, 2015) co-organized by Lynch, Rosenberg and Nadel and all contributors for this special issue of Quaternary International. We thank Elizabeth Lynch for her ideas, enthusiasm and contribution to the organization of the session. Our warmest thanks go to our discussants Prof. Brian Hayden and Prof. Mary-Lou Larsson for their insightful and inspiring contributions to the SAA session. We would like also to thank R. Chasan for her comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. References Adams, J.L., 2014. Ground Stone Analysis e a Technological Approach. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Alvarez, S.H., Peri, D.W., 1987. Acorns: the staff of life. News Native Calif. 1 (4), 10e14. Aranguren, B., Becattini, R., Lippi, M.M., Revedin, A., 2008. Grinding flour in upper Palaeolithic Europe (25000 years bp). Antiquity 81, 845e855. Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2009. Changing the face of the earth: human behavior at sede ilan, an extensive loweremiddle Paleolithic quarry site in Israel. In: Adams, B., Blades, B. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 174e185. Barrett, S.A., Gifford, W.E., 1933. Miwok material culture: indian life of the Yosemite region. Bull. Public Mus. City Milwaukee 2 (4), 117e377. Beaumont, P.B., Bednarik, R.G., 2015. Concerning a cupule sequence on the edge of the Kalahari Desert in South Africa. Rock Art Res. 32 (2), 163e177. Bednarik, R.J., 2008. Cupules. Rock Art Res. 25 (1), 61e100. Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. Imprimeries Delmas, Bordeaux. Buonasera, T., 2016. Lipid residues preserved in sheltered bedrock features at gila cliff dwellings national monument, New Mexico. J. Lithic Stud. 3 (3), 78e101. Burton, M.M., Adams, J.L., Willis, M.D., Nadel, D., 2017. Boulders, outcrops, caves: documenting cultural use of landscape features in the San Diego region of California. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 5e24. ~ eda, A.M., 2015. The Hole Story: Understanding Ground Stone Bedrock Castan Feature Variation in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthropology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas. ~ eda, A.M., 2017. Characterizing ground stone bedrock feature variation in the Castan Lower Pecos Canyonlands. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 25e49. Cline, L.L., 1984. Just before Sunset. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego. Cooke, C.K., 1964. Rock gongs and grindstones: plumtree area, southern Rhodesia. South Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 19 (75), 70. ~ eda, A.M., Buonasera, T., Crater Gershtein, E., Willis, M., Black, S.L., Castan Koenig, C.W., Shipp, J., Nadel, D., 2017. High-resolution mapping and analysis of shiny grooved rock surfaces: the case study of the Skiles Shelter, Lower Pecos, Texas. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 69e82. olithique. In: de Beaune, S.A., 2002. Origine du materiel de broyage au Pale ologie et Histoire. Procopiou, H., Treuil, R. (Eds.), Modure et Broyer II e Arche
3
des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris, pp. 27e44. Le Comite de Beaune, S.A., 2004. The invention of technology: prehistory and cognition. Curr. Anthropol. 45, 139e162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/381045. Dick-Bissonnette, L.E., 1998. Gender and authority among the yokoch, mono, and miwok of central California. J. Anthropol. Res. 54 (1), 49e72. Dixon, R.B., 1905. The northern Maidu. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 17 (3), 119e346. Duwe, S., 2016. Cupules and the creation of the Tewa world. J. Lithic Stud. 3 (3), 147e168. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/jls.v3i3.1500. Eitam, D., 2008. Plant food in the Late Natufian: the oblong conical mortars as a case study. J. Israel Prehist. Soc. 38, 133e153. Eitam, D., 2009. Late Epipalaeolithic rock-cut installations and groundstone tools in orient 35 (1), 75e104. the southern Levant. Pale Filin, S., Miller, V., Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2017. Intra- and inter-site high resolution geometrical analyses of Natufian bedrock features. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 94e107. Fullagar, R., Field, J., 1997. Pleistocene seed-grinding implements from the Australian arid zone. Antiquity 71, 300e307. Gifford, E.W., 1932. The northfork mono. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. 31 (2), 15e65. Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., Melamed, Y., Kislev, M., 2002. Nuts, nut cracking, and pitted stones at Gesher Benot Ya’akov, Israel. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99 (4), 2455e2460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607872113. Goring-Morris, N., Goldberg, P., Goren, Y., Baruch, U., Bar-Yosef, D., 1999. Saflulim: a Late Natufian base camp in the central Negev highlands. Isr. Palest. Explor. Q. 131, 1e29. Grosman, L., Goren-Inbar, N., 2007. “Taming” rocks and changing landscapes. Curr. Anthropol. 48 (5), 732e740. Guth, R., 2016. The Context and Utilization of Bedrock Features in Light of the Ethnographic Record in California. M.A. Thesis. University of Haifa, Haifa. Hayden, B., 2017. Bedrock features: An overview. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 108e111. Heizer, R.F., 1953. Sacred rain-rocks of northern California. Rep. Univ. Calif. Archaeol. Surv. 20, 33e38. Jackson, T.L., 1991. Pounding acorn: women's production as social and economic focus. In: Gero, J.M., Conkey, M.W. (Eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 301e325. Joulian, F., 1996. In: Mellars, P., Gibson, K.R. (Eds.), Modelling the Early Human Mind. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 173e189. Lee, G., 1981. The rock art of Soxtonocmu, an inland Chumash Village. J. Calif. Gt. Basin Anthropol. 3 (1), 116e126. Liu, L., Bestel, S., Shi, J., Song, Y., Chen, X., 2013. Paleolithic human exploitation of plant foods during the last glacial maximum in North China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 (14), 5380e5385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217864110. Lynch, E.M., Matthews, N.A., Noble, T., 2017. Socialized landscapes of the southern Plains: bedrock ground stone surfaces on the Chaquaqua plateau, Colorado. Quat. Int. This volume. Mariotti Lippi, M.M., Foggi, B., Aranguren, B., Ronchitelli, A., Revedin, A., 2015. Multistep food plant processing at Grotta Multistep food plant processing at Grotta Paglicci (Southern Italy) around 32,600 cal. B.P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (39), 12075e12080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505213112. McCarthy, H.R., Hicks, A., Blount, C.M., 1985. Appendix F, a functional analysis of bedrock mortars: western mono food processing in the southern Sierra Nevada. In: Cultural Resources of the Crane Valley Hydroelectric Project Area, Madera County, California. Volume I, prepared by Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc., pp. 303e356 McGrew, W.C., Ham, R.M., White, L.J.T., Tutin, C.E.G., Fernandez, M., 1997. Why don't chimpanzees in Gabon crack nuts? Int. J. Primatol. 18 (3), 353e374. Miller, V., Filin, S., Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2014. 3D characterization of bedrock features: a Natufian case study. Near East. Archaeol. 77 (3), 214e218. Nadel, D., Lengyel, G., 2009. Human-made bedrock holes (mortars and cup-marks) as a Late Natufian social phenomenon. Archaeol. Anthropol. Ethnol. Eurasia 37 (2), 37e48. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., 2010. New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features (mortars and cup-marks). Eurasian Prehistory 7 (1), 65e87. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., 2015. (Early) bedrock features. In: Bescherer Metheny, K., Beaudry, M.C. (Eds.), Archaeology of Food e an Encyclopedia. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland, pp. 45e46. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., 2016. A grid-like incised pattern inside a Natufian bedrock mortar, Raqefet Cave, Israel. J. Lithic Stud. 3 (3), 337e357. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2218/jls.v3i3.1467. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun, R., 2009. The deep and the shallow: the role of Natufian bedrock features at Rosh Zin, Central Negev, Israel. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res. 355, 1e29. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., Shtober, N., Filin, S., 2011. The Nahal Galim/Nahal Ornit prehistoric flint quarries in Mt. Carmel, Israel. J. Eurasian Prehistory 8 (1e2), 51e66. Nadel, D., Danin, A., Power, R.C., Rosen, A.M., Bocquentin, F., Tsatskin, A., Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun, R., Weissbrod, L., Rebollo, N., Barzilai, O., Boaretto, E., 2013. Earliest floral grave-lining from 13,700e11,700-year-old Natufian burials at Raqefet Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel. Proc. Natl. Acadl Scil. U. S. A. 110 (29), 11774e11778. Nadel, D., Filin, S., Rosenberg, D., Miller, V., 2015. Prehistoric bedrock features: recent advances in 3D characterization and geometrical analyses. J. Archaeol. Sci. 53, 331e334. Noy, T., 1979. Stone cup-holes and querns from Gilgal-I, a pre-pottery neolithic-a site in Israel. Palorient 5, 233e238. Ortiz, B.R., 1991. It Will Live Forever. Traditional Yosemite Indian Acorn Preparation,
4
D. Rosenberg, D. Nadel / Quaternary International 439 (2017) 1e4
as Told by Julia F. Parker. Heydar, Berkeley, California. Parkman, E.B., 1986. Cupule petroglyphs in the diablo range, California. J. Calif. Gt. Basin Anthropol. 8 (2), 246e259. Parkman, E.B., 1993. Creating thunder: the western rain-making process. J. Calif. Gt. Basin Anthropol. 15 (1), 90e110. Piperno, D.R., Weiss, E., Holst, I., Nadel, D., 2004. Processing of wild cereal grains in the Upper Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Nature 430, 670e673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02734. Revedin, A., Aranguren, B., Becattini, R., Longo, L., Marconi, E., Lippi, M.M., Skakun, N., Sinitsyn, A., Spiridonova, E., Svoboda, J., 2010. Thirty thousandyear-old evidence of plant food processing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (44), 18815e18819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006993107. Revedin, A., Longo, L., Mariotti Lippi, M., Marconi, E., Ronchitelli, A., Svoboda, J., Anichini, E., Gennai, M., Aranguren, B., 2015. New technologies for plant food processing in the Gravettian. Quat. Int. 359, 77e88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2014.09.066. Robinson, K.R., 1958. Venerated rock gongs and the presence of rock slides in Southern Rhodesia: historical monuments commission of southern Rhodesia. South Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 13 (50), 75e77. Rosenberg, D., 2008. The possible use of acorns in past economies of the Southern Levant: a staple food or a negligible food source? Levant 40 (2), 167e175. Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2009. Prehistoric flint quarries and workshops in mount carmel e the nahal galim/nahal ornit complex. Quarry 4 (2), 5e12. Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2011a. Characterization and distribution of bedrock features at Ornit Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel. J. Israel Prehist. Soc. 41, 37e69. Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2011b. On floor level: PPNA indoor cup-marks and their Natufian forerunners. In: Healy, E., Maeda, O., Campbell, S. (Eds.), The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. Proceedings of the 6th PPN Conference. University of Manchester, Manchester, pp. 99e108. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 13. Ex Oriente, Berlin. Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2017. The significance of the morphometric and contextual variation in stone hewn mortars during the Natufian-PPNA transition in the southern Levant. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 83e93. Rucks, M., 1995. The Social Context and Cultural Meaning of Ground Stone Milling Among Washoe Women. M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Nevada. Samzun, A., 1994. Le mobilier en pierre. In: Lechevallier, M., Ronen, A. (Eds.), Le Site e Occidentale, Israe €l. Me moires et Travaux du Centre de de Hatoula en Jude rusalem 8. Association Pale orient, Paris, pp. 193e226. Recherche Français de Je Scott, D.A., Scheerer, S., Reeves, D.J., 2004. Technical examination of some rock art pigments and encrustations from the Chumash Indian site of San Emigdio, California. Stud. Conserv. 47 (3), 184e194. ~ o indians. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Sparkman, P.S., 1908. The culture of the luisen Archaeol. Ethnol. 8 (4), 187e234.
~ ez, J.J., Braemer, F., Hardy, K., Iriarte, E., Madella, M., Ortega, D., Terradas, X., Ib an Radini, A., Teira, L.C., 2013. Natufian bedrock mortars at Qarassa 3: preliminary n ~ ez, J.J., results from an interdisciplinary methodology. In: Borrell, F., Iba Molist, M. (Eds.), Stone Tools in Transition: from Hunter-Gatherers to Farming s a Espanya, Spain, pp. 449e464. Societies in the Near East. Impre Tixier, J., 1963. Typologie de l'Epipaleolithique du Magrhreb. Memoires du Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques, Prehistoriques et Ethnographiques d'Alger 2. Arts et Metiers Graphiques, Paris. Topping, P., Lynott, M., 2005. The Cultural Landscape of Prehistoric Mines. Oxbow Books, Oxford. van den Brink, E.C.M., 2008. A new fossil directeur of the Chalcolithic landscape in the Shephelah and the Samarian and Judean Hill countries: stationary grinding facilities in bedrock. Israel Explor. J. 58 (1), 1e23. Van Peer, P., Rots, V., Vroomans, J.-M., 2004. A story of colourful diggers and grinders: the Sangoan and Lupemban at site 8-B-11, Sai Island, Northern Sudan. Before Farm. 3, 1e28. Vermeersch, P.M., 2002. Palaeolithic Quarrying Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt. Leuven University Press, Leuven. Voegelin, E.W., 1938. Tübatulabal ethnography. Univ. Calif. Anthropol. Rec. 2 (1), 1e90. Whitely, D.S., 1987. Socioreligious context and rock art in East-central California. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 6, 159e188. Wright, K., 1991. The origins and the development of ground stone assemblages in orient 17 (1), 19e45. Late Pleistocene Southwest Asia. Pale Wright, K., 1991. Ground stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in Southwest Asia: implication for the transition to farming. Am. Antiqu. 59 (2), 238e263. Younker, R.W., 1995. Balanophagy and the bedrock industry of ancient Jordan. In: Hadidi, A. (Ed.), Studies in the Ancient History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 5. Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 685e691.
Danny Rosenberg* Laboratory for Ground Stone Tools Research, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel Dani Nadel Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel E-mail address: [email protected]. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Rosenberg).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
“Down to bedrock” e General perspectives on bedrock features
1. Introduction The alteration of natural landscapes by hominids is well-known since the Paleolithic. Some of the most obvious examples with visible impact on the landscapes are flint and chert quarries that left scars and cavities on rock surfaces and adjacent piles of stone debris (e.g. Vermeersch, 2002; Topping and Lynott, 2005; Barkai and Gopher, 2009; Rosenberg and Nadel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2011). Bedrock features such as mortars, cupmarks, cupules, grooves, slicks, basins and grinding surfaces, are also a form of rock alteration; however, due to their size they usually had a lesser impact on the landscape. Bedrock features first appear in Paleolithic contexts (e.g. Bednarik, 2008; Beaumont and Bednarik, 2015), and in some parts of the world they were used until the 20th century (e.g. Rucks, 1995 and see Guth, 2016 for more examples). These features cross-cut geographic and chronological boundaries (e.g. Bednarik, 2008; Adams, 2014, pp. 134e135; Nadel and Rosenberg, 2015; and see this volume). However, in contrast to many other categories of archaeological remains, bedrock features received relatively little contributions to scholarly attention and until recently, led to only a few focused field projects, in part due to the limitations of dating them and identifying their cultural context (many bedrock features are found on exposed rock ledges and floors of rock shelters and caves and thus lack clear association with datable remains). This situation is rapidly changing, and we now see a rising interest in documenting such features and attempting to understand their use and the role they played in past human societies. This is in part due to our better understanding of their significance on the one hand, and advances in cost-effective documentation and analytical technologies such as 3D modeling based on photogrammetry and structure from motion, laser scanning, macro- and microscopic use-wear analyses and residue analyses on the other. These provide new levels of data recording and analysis and excellent platforms for intra- and inter-site studies and comparisons. The term bedrock features or any other general term could be misleading. It is in a way similar to encompassing all flint tools under one category, an approach commonly in use. However, in studies of flint assemblages, production technologies are stressed on the one hand and the variety of tools are noted on the other. The tools are then studied in detail, and there are no claims that all were used for the same function or even related functions (e.g. Bordes, 1961; Tixier, 1963). It should therefore be noted that lumping all types of bedrock features, from tiny holes and cupules to deep narrow shafts, wide basins and grinding surfaces, into one category is only due to the utilized medium (any kind of bedrock) and not to the functions the features fulfilled. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.05.033 1040-6182/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Accumulated data reflects the manipulation of modified and unmodified stone implements for grinding in a variety of Paleolithic contexts, the majority of the earliest examples retrieved from Upper Paleolithic sites (e.g. Wright, 1991; Fullagar and Field, 1997; de Beaune, 2002, 2004; Piperno et al., 2004; Aranguren et al., 2008; Revedin et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2013; Mariotti Lippi et al., 2015; Revedin et al., 2015) while earlier examples for the usage of stone pounding/grinding implements by Neanderthals and modern humans in the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age (e.g. de Beaune, 2004; Van Peer et al., 2004) are rare. Until the Levantine Epipaleolithic pounding tools are uncommon, and while some evidence for pre-Natufian (Natufian culture, ca. 15,000e11,500 calBP) pounding tools were noted, it is clear that the emergence of this culture in the Levant marks an unprecedented rise in stone pounding technology, specifically pestles and bedrock features mainly in the form of deep and shallow mortars (e.g. Wright, 1991, 1994). While bedrock features are found in many parts of both the Old and New Worlds, it seems that so far most studies focused on features found in north America, especially in the southwest and western United States (e.g. McCarthy et al., 1985; Jackson, 1991; ~ eda, 2015; Buonasera, 2016; Duwe, 2016; Burton et al., Castan ~ eda, 2017) where ample ethnographic data is also 2017; Castan available (e.g. Rucks, 1995; Guth, 2016; Hayden, 2017), and in the southern Levant (e.g. Noy, 1979; Wright, 1991; Samzun, 1994; Younker, 1995; Grosman and Goren-Inbar, 2007; van den Brink, 2008; Eitam, 2008, 2009; Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2009; Nadel and Rosenberg, 2010; Rosenberg and Nadel, 2011a, 2011b; Terradas et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2014; Nadel et al., 2015; Nadel and Rosenberg, 2016). The significance bedrock features had for past societies and their presence in a range of geographical and ecological settings led to a growing interest in these features in the last two decades. Indeed, bedrock feature studies play an increasingly integral role in any holistic archaeological research that deals with sites or periods where these are recorded, providing new avenues of research and interpretations. 2. Bedrock features: location, production, characteristics and use Bedrock features are present in a wide range of geographical settings and they appear within and near settlements, especially hamlets and villages. Noteworthy, they are mostly found on easily-accessed more-or-less flat surfaces, but there are cases where they are present on vertical faces of cliffs and huge boulders, as well as on the ceilings and walls of caves (Bednarik, 2008 and see ref. therein). Bedrock features sometimes occur in association with
2
D. Rosenberg, D. Nadel / Quaternary International 439 (2017) 1e4
petroglyphs and rock art (e.g. Lee, 1981; Whitely, 1987; Scott et al., 2004), possibly suggesting ritual use (see also Duwe, 2016). The features may appear as isolated phenomena (a single specimen or very few), but in many instances they occur in groups of dozens and even hundreds (e.g. Barrett and Gifford, 1933, pp. 143, 208; Samzun, 1994; Rucks, 1995; Goring-Morris et al., 1999; Rosenberg and Nadel, 2011a; Guth, 2016). Occasionally arrangements of pairs or clusters were noted (e.g. Samzun, 1994; Rosenberg and Nadel, 2011a); however, the chronology, function and meaning of these settings are mostly unclear. Production methods of bedrock features are in most cases vague. However, it seems quite clear that in many examples, both deliberate production and accumulated (use) wear are responsible for the creation of these features. While in regards to pounding implements it seems that pre-use alteration of the bedrock typically occurred, in the case of grinding surfaces (e.g. van den Brink, 2008) it seems that the prolonged use had an important role in the creation and modification of the natural bedrock surface. Bednarik (2008, pp. 85) suggested that “the production of cupules on extremely hard rock types was therefore a lengthy process demanding great physical power, accuracy and dedication.” Making a small cavity in a rock does not usually entail a lengthy, demanding and difficult process. It could even be the result of repetitious work as is the case of the small cavities produced by chimpanzees crashing nuts (e.g. Joulian, 1996; McGrew et al., 1997) and likely the pitted stones from the Lower Paleolithic site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov, Israel (Goren-Inbar et al., 2002). However, in many of the archaeological cases it seems that notable effort and thought were invested into the creation of the deeper and larger specimens. Various methods and techniques were used for bedrock feature production, and these may vary between types, pending mainly on their characteristics and dimensions. In many examples postutilization weathering of the surface hampers a coherent determination regarding the technology of production; however, in several studied examples, battering, pecking, chiseling, scraping, incising, grinding and abrading were used. We should also consider the use of water with an abrasive material such as sand as well as the impact of natural acids in bedrock feature production (e.g. Cline, 1984, pp. 40). Reports from the American southwest suggest that some groups chipped the rock in the initial production process (e.g. Sparkman, 1908, pp. 207; Cline, 1984, pp. 40). The range of dimensions and types reflects a plethora of functions and modes of operation. This is further reinforced by ethnographic accounts (see Rucks, 1995 and Guth, 2016 for ample examples from the American southwest). Furthermore, the features are not always symmetrical, and this may allude to the versatile manner in which they were utilized. Some bedrock features had a long life-history and this, combined with the resulting bedrock alteration from their original pre-use forms and sizes as work progressed necessitates caution when analyzing these complex and multifaceted features. Bearing this in mind, we can state that there is a clear association of bedrock features with women's work, especially from ethnographic studies in the U.S., and women are frequently mentioned grinding or pounding food in groups of two or more individuals, usually relatives (e.g. Ortiz, 1991; Rucks, 1995; DickBissonnette, 1998; Guth, 2016, table 18). It is also clear from both archaeological and ethnographic accounts that bedrock features were used in various spatial and social contexts (domestic, public and ceremonial). We also know that various foodstuffs (e.g. grains, seeds, fruits, pods, roots, herbs, tubers, meat and fish) were processed and prepared with the aid of bedrock features (e.g. Ortiz, 1991; Rucks, 1995; Rosenberg, 2008; Guth, 2016, table 14) in addition to medicine, tobacco and spices. A few accounts also mentioned these as musical instruments (e.g. Robinson, 1958;
Cooke, 1964; Bednarik, 2008). While their role in food preparation was clearly of special significance, certain bedrock features may have been part of some ritual activity, used as accessories imperative for the success of the ritual itself. As has been stated in the past (Heizer, 1953; Parkman, 1986, 1993; Bednarik, 2008), it is plausible that smaller bedrock features (cupules) served a more ritualistic purpose than the larger features. However, it is not always easy to support this while analysing the archaeological record. Without the aid of written sources or data collected from ethnographic informants, it seems merely wishful thinking, although archaeological contextual data may hint for such use, especially in the case of burial sites (e.g. Nadel and Lengyel, 2009; Nadel et al., 2013). One should also mention various tools and accessories that were operated within the context of bedrock feature use. These range from temporary milling huts that were used for shade and against the rain, pestles, usually from stone or wood, upper grinding stones (in the case of grinding surfaces), milling brushes used for sweeping and cleaning, baskets used for sifting and as containers for the processed substances and hopper baskets used as an extension to the features’ natural walls (e.g. Dixon, 1905, pp. 177; Gifford, 1932; Barrett and Gifford, 1933, pp. 143, 207; Voegelin, 1938, pp. 30e31; Alvarez and Peri, 1987, pp. 12). Many of these implements are usually absent from the archaeological record but are well documented in ethnographic accounts. 3. Discussion Bedrock features reflect a complex and versatile archaeological phenomenon, manufactured in a variety of rock types and in a wide range of dimensions and shapes in almost all geological and ecological settings where archaeological sites are found. They are entangled with embedded social data and reflect a plethora of past human behaviors and adaptation strategies. Their significance as a proxy for understanding past societies and recent technological advances providing better documentation methods seem to have promoted a new wave of interest focused on bedrock feature studies. In this spirit the current Quaternary International volume is an outcome of a thematic session held in the 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) in San Francisco (April 15e19, 2015) titled “Bedrock features (mortars, slicks, cupules, grooves, etc.): Documentation, analysis and interpretation.” The session included nine papers and was strengthened by two discussion papers presented by Prof. Brian Hayden and Prof. Mary Lou Larson. The papers presented in that session covered topics such as residues of ancient food preparation in sheltered milling features; bedrock features in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands; shiny grooved surfaces: the case study of the Skiles rockshelter, Lower Pecos, Texas; Ground stone shrines in the Pueblo Southwest; Intra- and inter-site geometrical high-resolution analyses of deep Natufian bedrock mortars; Ground stone landscapes of the ancestral Pueblo World; Socialized landscapes of the southern Plains: bedrock ground stone surfaces on the Chaquaqua Plateau, Colorado; Boulders, outcrops, caves: cultural use of landscape features in southern California, and an overview of the south Levantine Natufian and PPNA bedrock phenomenon. The success of this session led us to pursue the publication of the current thematic issue and high impact of Quaternary International. After this introductory paper, a paper by Burton et al. (2017) brings new data concerning the documentation of boulders, outcrops and caves in the San Diego region of California, followed by a paper by ~ eda (2017) that characterized ground stone bedrock feature Castan variation in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. A contribution by
D. Rosenberg, D. Nadel / Quaternary International 439 (2017) 1e4
Lynch et al. (2017) focuses on the socialized landscapes of the southern Plains through a study of the bedrock surfaces on the Chaquaqua Plateau, Colorado. It is followed by a paper by Crater Gershtein et al. (2017) that targeted a high-resolution mapping and analysis of shiny grooved rock surface at the Skiles Shelter, Lower Pecos, Texas. The two papers that finalize this thematic volume focus on the southern Levant, including a paper by Rosenberg and Nadel (2017) that addresses the significance of the morphometric and contextual variation in stone hewn mortars during the Natufian-PPNA transition in the southern Levant and a paper by Filin et al. (2017) that presents high resolution intra- and intersite geometrical analyses of Natufian bedrock features. The last paper is by Hayden (2017), addressing additional aspects and important issues pertaining to bedrock features. We are confident that the current volume and recent papers published elsewhere provide valuable new data, methods and interpretations regarding bedrock features. These offer substantial boost to bedrock feature research and will hopefully provide fertile ground for future analyses, interpretations and discussions. Acknowledgments We would like to thank all the participants in the thematic session titled “Bedrock features (mortars, slicks, cupules, grooves, etc.): Documentation, Analysis and Interpretation” held during the 80th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) in San Francisco (April 15e19, 2015) co-organized by Lynch, Rosenberg and Nadel and all contributors for this special issue of Quaternary International. We thank Elizabeth Lynch for her ideas, enthusiasm and contribution to the organization of the session. Our warmest thanks go to our discussants Prof. Brian Hayden and Prof. Mary-Lou Larsson for their insightful and inspiring contributions to the SAA session. We would like also to thank R. Chasan for her comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. References Adams, J.L., 2014. Ground Stone Analysis e a Technological Approach. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Alvarez, S.H., Peri, D.W., 1987. Acorns: the staff of life. News Native Calif. 1 (4), 10e14. Aranguren, B., Becattini, R., Lippi, M.M., Revedin, A., 2008. Grinding flour in upper Palaeolithic Europe (25000 years bp). Antiquity 81, 845e855. Barkai, R., Gopher, A., 2009. Changing the face of the earth: human behavior at sede ilan, an extensive loweremiddle Paleolithic quarry site in Israel. In: Adams, B., Blades, B. (Eds.), Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 174e185. Barrett, S.A., Gifford, W.E., 1933. Miwok material culture: indian life of the Yosemite region. Bull. Public Mus. City Milwaukee 2 (4), 117e377. Beaumont, P.B., Bednarik, R.G., 2015. Concerning a cupule sequence on the edge of the Kalahari Desert in South Africa. Rock Art Res. 32 (2), 163e177. Bednarik, R.J., 2008. Cupules. Rock Art Res. 25 (1), 61e100. Bordes, F., 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. Imprimeries Delmas, Bordeaux. Buonasera, T., 2016. Lipid residues preserved in sheltered bedrock features at gila cliff dwellings national monument, New Mexico. J. Lithic Stud. 3 (3), 78e101. Burton, M.M., Adams, J.L., Willis, M.D., Nadel, D., 2017. Boulders, outcrops, caves: documenting cultural use of landscape features in the San Diego region of California. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 5e24. ~ eda, A.M., 2015. The Hole Story: Understanding Ground Stone Bedrock Castan Feature Variation in the Lower Pecos Canyonlands. M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthropology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas. ~ eda, A.M., 2017. Characterizing ground stone bedrock feature variation in the Castan Lower Pecos Canyonlands. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 25e49. Cline, L.L., 1984. Just before Sunset. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego. Cooke, C.K., 1964. Rock gongs and grindstones: plumtree area, southern Rhodesia. South Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 19 (75), 70. ~ eda, A.M., Buonasera, T., Crater Gershtein, E., Willis, M., Black, S.L., Castan Koenig, C.W., Shipp, J., Nadel, D., 2017. High-resolution mapping and analysis of shiny grooved rock surfaces: the case study of the Skiles Shelter, Lower Pecos, Texas. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 69e82. olithique. In: de Beaune, S.A., 2002. Origine du materiel de broyage au Pale ologie et Histoire. Procopiou, H., Treuil, R. (Eds.), Modure et Broyer II e Arche
3
des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris, pp. 27e44. Le Comite de Beaune, S.A., 2004. The invention of technology: prehistory and cognition. Curr. Anthropol. 45, 139e162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/381045. Dick-Bissonnette, L.E., 1998. Gender and authority among the yokoch, mono, and miwok of central California. J. Anthropol. Res. 54 (1), 49e72. Dixon, R.B., 1905. The northern Maidu. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 17 (3), 119e346. Duwe, S., 2016. Cupules and the creation of the Tewa world. J. Lithic Stud. 3 (3), 147e168. http://dx.doi.org/10.2218/jls.v3i3.1500. Eitam, D., 2008. Plant food in the Late Natufian: the oblong conical mortars as a case study. J. Israel Prehist. Soc. 38, 133e153. Eitam, D., 2009. Late Epipalaeolithic rock-cut installations and groundstone tools in orient 35 (1), 75e104. the southern Levant. Pale Filin, S., Miller, V., Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2017. Intra- and inter-site high resolution geometrical analyses of Natufian bedrock features. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 94e107. Fullagar, R., Field, J., 1997. Pleistocene seed-grinding implements from the Australian arid zone. Antiquity 71, 300e307. Gifford, E.W., 1932. The northfork mono. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archaeol. Ethnol. 31 (2), 15e65. Goren-Inbar, N., Sharon, G., Melamed, Y., Kislev, M., 2002. Nuts, nut cracking, and pitted stones at Gesher Benot Ya’akov, Israel. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99 (4), 2455e2460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607872113. Goring-Morris, N., Goldberg, P., Goren, Y., Baruch, U., Bar-Yosef, D., 1999. Saflulim: a Late Natufian base camp in the central Negev highlands. Isr. Palest. Explor. Q. 131, 1e29. Grosman, L., Goren-Inbar, N., 2007. “Taming” rocks and changing landscapes. Curr. Anthropol. 48 (5), 732e740. Guth, R., 2016. The Context and Utilization of Bedrock Features in Light of the Ethnographic Record in California. M.A. Thesis. University of Haifa, Haifa. Hayden, B., 2017. Bedrock features: An overview. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 108e111. Heizer, R.F., 1953. Sacred rain-rocks of northern California. Rep. Univ. Calif. Archaeol. Surv. 20, 33e38. Jackson, T.L., 1991. Pounding acorn: women's production as social and economic focus. In: Gero, J.M., Conkey, M.W. (Eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 301e325. Joulian, F., 1996. In: Mellars, P., Gibson, K.R. (Eds.), Modelling the Early Human Mind. McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research, Cambridge, pp. 173e189. Lee, G., 1981. The rock art of Soxtonocmu, an inland Chumash Village. J. Calif. Gt. Basin Anthropol. 3 (1), 116e126. Liu, L., Bestel, S., Shi, J., Song, Y., Chen, X., 2013. Paleolithic human exploitation of plant foods during the last glacial maximum in North China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 (14), 5380e5385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217864110. Lynch, E.M., Matthews, N.A., Noble, T., 2017. Socialized landscapes of the southern Plains: bedrock ground stone surfaces on the Chaquaqua plateau, Colorado. Quat. Int. This volume. Mariotti Lippi, M.M., Foggi, B., Aranguren, B., Ronchitelli, A., Revedin, A., 2015. Multistep food plant processing at Grotta Multistep food plant processing at Grotta Paglicci (Southern Italy) around 32,600 cal. B.P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (39), 12075e12080. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505213112. McCarthy, H.R., Hicks, A., Blount, C.M., 1985. Appendix F, a functional analysis of bedrock mortars: western mono food processing in the southern Sierra Nevada. In: Cultural Resources of the Crane Valley Hydroelectric Project Area, Madera County, California. Volume I, prepared by Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc., pp. 303e356 McGrew, W.C., Ham, R.M., White, L.J.T., Tutin, C.E.G., Fernandez, M., 1997. Why don't chimpanzees in Gabon crack nuts? Int. J. Primatol. 18 (3), 353e374. Miller, V., Filin, S., Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2014. 3D characterization of bedrock features: a Natufian case study. Near East. Archaeol. 77 (3), 214e218. Nadel, D., Lengyel, G., 2009. Human-made bedrock holes (mortars and cup-marks) as a Late Natufian social phenomenon. Archaeol. Anthropol. Ethnol. Eurasia 37 (2), 37e48. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., 2010. New insights into Late Natufian bedrock features (mortars and cup-marks). Eurasian Prehistory 7 (1), 65e87. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., 2015. (Early) bedrock features. In: Bescherer Metheny, K., Beaudry, M.C. (Eds.), Archaeology of Food e an Encyclopedia. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, Maryland, pp. 45e46. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., 2016. A grid-like incised pattern inside a Natufian bedrock mortar, Raqefet Cave, Israel. J. Lithic Stud. 3 (3), 337e357. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2218/jls.v3i3.1467. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun, R., 2009. The deep and the shallow: the role of Natufian bedrock features at Rosh Zin, Central Negev, Israel. Bull. Am. Sch. Orient. Res. 355, 1e29. Nadel, D., Rosenberg, D., Shtober, N., Filin, S., 2011. The Nahal Galim/Nahal Ornit prehistoric flint quarries in Mt. Carmel, Israel. J. Eurasian Prehistory 8 (1e2), 51e66. Nadel, D., Danin, A., Power, R.C., Rosen, A.M., Bocquentin, F., Tsatskin, A., Rosenberg, D., Yeshurun, R., Weissbrod, L., Rebollo, N., Barzilai, O., Boaretto, E., 2013. Earliest floral grave-lining from 13,700e11,700-year-old Natufian burials at Raqefet Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel. Proc. Natl. Acadl Scil. U. S. A. 110 (29), 11774e11778. Nadel, D., Filin, S., Rosenberg, D., Miller, V., 2015. Prehistoric bedrock features: recent advances in 3D characterization and geometrical analyses. J. Archaeol. Sci. 53, 331e334. Noy, T., 1979. Stone cup-holes and querns from Gilgal-I, a pre-pottery neolithic-a site in Israel. Palorient 5, 233e238. Ortiz, B.R., 1991. It Will Live Forever. Traditional Yosemite Indian Acorn Preparation,
4
D. Rosenberg, D. Nadel / Quaternary International 439 (2017) 1e4
as Told by Julia F. Parker. Heydar, Berkeley, California. Parkman, E.B., 1986. Cupule petroglyphs in the diablo range, California. J. Calif. Gt. Basin Anthropol. 8 (2), 246e259. Parkman, E.B., 1993. Creating thunder: the western rain-making process. J. Calif. Gt. Basin Anthropol. 15 (1), 90e110. Piperno, D.R., Weiss, E., Holst, I., Nadel, D., 2004. Processing of wild cereal grains in the Upper Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis. Nature 430, 670e673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02734. Revedin, A., Aranguren, B., Becattini, R., Longo, L., Marconi, E., Lippi, M.M., Skakun, N., Sinitsyn, A., Spiridonova, E., Svoboda, J., 2010. Thirty thousandyear-old evidence of plant food processing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (44), 18815e18819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006993107. Revedin, A., Longo, L., Mariotti Lippi, M., Marconi, E., Ronchitelli, A., Svoboda, J., Anichini, E., Gennai, M., Aranguren, B., 2015. New technologies for plant food processing in the Gravettian. Quat. Int. 359, 77e88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.quaint.2014.09.066. Robinson, K.R., 1958. Venerated rock gongs and the presence of rock slides in Southern Rhodesia: historical monuments commission of southern Rhodesia. South Afr. Archaeol. Bull. 13 (50), 75e77. Rosenberg, D., 2008. The possible use of acorns in past economies of the Southern Levant: a staple food or a negligible food source? Levant 40 (2), 167e175. Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2009. Prehistoric flint quarries and workshops in mount carmel e the nahal galim/nahal ornit complex. Quarry 4 (2), 5e12. Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2011a. Characterization and distribution of bedrock features at Ornit Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel. J. Israel Prehist. Soc. 41, 37e69. Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2011b. On floor level: PPNA indoor cup-marks and their Natufian forerunners. In: Healy, E., Maeda, O., Campbell, S. (Eds.), The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. Proceedings of the 6th PPN Conference. University of Manchester, Manchester, pp. 99e108. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 13. Ex Oriente, Berlin. Rosenberg, D., Nadel, D., 2017. The significance of the morphometric and contextual variation in stone hewn mortars during the Natufian-PPNA transition in the southern Levant. Quat. Int. 439 (Part B), 83e93. Rucks, M., 1995. The Social Context and Cultural Meaning of Ground Stone Milling Among Washoe Women. M.A. Thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Nevada. Samzun, A., 1994. Le mobilier en pierre. In: Lechevallier, M., Ronen, A. (Eds.), Le Site e Occidentale, Israe €l. Me moires et Travaux du Centre de de Hatoula en Jude rusalem 8. Association Pale orient, Paris, pp. 193e226. Recherche Français de Je Scott, D.A., Scheerer, S., Reeves, D.J., 2004. Technical examination of some rock art pigments and encrustations from the Chumash Indian site of San Emigdio, California. Stud. Conserv. 47 (3), 184e194. ~ o indians. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Sparkman, P.S., 1908. The culture of the luisen Archaeol. Ethnol. 8 (4), 187e234.
~ ez, J.J., Braemer, F., Hardy, K., Iriarte, E., Madella, M., Ortega, D., Terradas, X., Ib an Radini, A., Teira, L.C., 2013. Natufian bedrock mortars at Qarassa 3: preliminary n ~ ez, J.J., results from an interdisciplinary methodology. In: Borrell, F., Iba Molist, M. (Eds.), Stone Tools in Transition: from Hunter-Gatherers to Farming s a Espanya, Spain, pp. 449e464. Societies in the Near East. Impre Tixier, J., 1963. Typologie de l'Epipaleolithique du Magrhreb. Memoires du Centre de Recherches Anthropologiques, Prehistoriques et Ethnographiques d'Alger 2. Arts et Metiers Graphiques, Paris. Topping, P., Lynott, M., 2005. The Cultural Landscape of Prehistoric Mines. Oxbow Books, Oxford. van den Brink, E.C.M., 2008. A new fossil directeur of the Chalcolithic landscape in the Shephelah and the Samarian and Judean Hill countries: stationary grinding facilities in bedrock. Israel Explor. J. 58 (1), 1e23. Van Peer, P., Rots, V., Vroomans, J.-M., 2004. A story of colourful diggers and grinders: the Sangoan and Lupemban at site 8-B-11, Sai Island, Northern Sudan. Before Farm. 3, 1e28. Vermeersch, P.M., 2002. Palaeolithic Quarrying Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt. Leuven University Press, Leuven. Voegelin, E.W., 1938. Tübatulabal ethnography. Univ. Calif. Anthropol. Rec. 2 (1), 1e90. Whitely, D.S., 1987. Socioreligious context and rock art in East-central California. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 6, 159e188. Wright, K., 1991. The origins and the development of ground stone assemblages in orient 17 (1), 19e45. Late Pleistocene Southwest Asia. Pale Wright, K., 1991. Ground stone tools and hunter-gatherer subsistence in Southwest Asia: implication for the transition to farming. Am. Antiqu. 59 (2), 238e263. Younker, R.W., 1995. Balanophagy and the bedrock industry of ancient Jordan. In: Hadidi, A. (Ed.), Studies in the Ancient History and Archaeology of Jordan, vol. 5. Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Amman, pp. 685e691.
Danny Rosenberg* Laboratory for Ground Stone Tools Research, Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel Dani Nadel Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 3498838, Israel E-mail address: [email protected]. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Rosenberg).