ASM Occasional Electronic Papers No. 1: Homol'ovi IV

Chapter Nine:
Groundstone, cont.

Previous Page | Next Page

Discussion

In recent years there has been a florescence of ground stone research--much of it originating in the U. S. Southwest. The rise of agricultural dependence in the Southwest, for example, has been investigated through the medium of ground stone technology (Adams 1993; Hard 1990; Mauldin 1993; Morris 1990). Central to this new research has been a desire to move beyond the typological descriptions of cultural historical analysis (e.g., Woodbury 1954; Wormington 1959) in order to measure and explain the underlying behaviors creating artifact variation and distribution in the archaeological record.

Guiding much of this work has been Bartlett's mechanical perspective in which the mano-metate tool kit was conceived as the "most important machine in the life of the pueblos" (Bartlett 1933:27). Given that the culture history paradigm dominated theoretical archaeology during the 1920's, 30's and 40's (see Trigger 1989), Bartlett's technological studies were remarkably innovative and exemplified a dynamic approach to archaeological analysis. By linking the formal attributes of manos and metates (e.g., shape, texture, and size) to the evolution of southwestern grinding technology, Bartlett (1936) defined a course of study that continues to guide contemporary research.

Archaeologists have begun to explore grinding activities and their contribution to prehistory through sourcing and physical composition studies (Bostwick and Burton 1993; Fratt and Biancaniello 1993; Hayden 1987a; Schaller 1989) as well as experiments designed to define the performance characteristics of grinding tools (sensu Schiffer and Skibo 1987). Adams and others have made significant progress linking traces of use-wear to grinding activities through experimentation (Adams 1986, 1988, 1989; Horsfall 1987; Logan and Fratt 1993; Mills 1993; Wright 1993).

This experimental research has been informed by ethnoarchaeological studies (e.g., Adams 1979; Hayden 1987a, 1987b) and has at least in one case utilized skilled ethnographic informants in the experimentation (Mauldin and Tomka 1988). This combination has stimulated theory building in ground stone research and other specialties experiencing a comparable synthesis of experimentation and ethnography (see Longacre 1992).

Up to this point in ground stone studies the majority of research has focused on the first half of the ground stone object's life-history (manufacture, distribution, and primary or initial use). As a result, the typological categories of manos, metates, axes, adzes, etc., have been the standard units of analysis. The second half of life-history--including secondary uses, recycling, discard and reclamation, with some notable exceptions (Adams 1994; Schlanger 1993)--have been ignored. These parts of the artifact's life-history may include its reuse in walls, hearth architecture, or even funerary offerings. To document these types of behaviors, use-wear analysis, experimentation, and ethnographic investigation will need refinement. Assemblages comparable to Homol'ovi IV are not well suited to questions framed in terms of primary tool use. They do, however, clearly document a range of activities.

The lack of whole objects in the assemblage as well as the burning and reuse associated with it clearly indicates that the secondary uses and by extension the users of these artifacts provide an interesting point of departure for behavioral studies (see Schiffer 1976, 1992; Reid et al. 1975). Material culture scholars (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986; McCracken 1986; Weiner and Schneider 1986), as well as archaeologists (Schiffer 1976, 1992), find the life-history approach appealing because it highlights human activities and groups that may be obscured or overlooked when only one stage in the history of an object is considered.

For example, the daily use of ground stone technology in the preparation of foodstuffs, as Bartlett recognized, was a significant aspect of pueblo daily life. Southwestern ethnographers, however, have not documented these activities in detail (see Barber 1878; Beaglehole 1937; Jeancon 1930; Mooney 1893; Mindeleff 1898; Ritzenthaler 1966). Instead they have focused upon specific moments in the life histories of peoples and objects such as ceremonial events. Moreover, they have not given material culture a prominent role in their analyses of social organization, religious beliefs, kinship and other convential anthropological concerns.

The result has been that accounts of roasting activities and other technologies that reuse ground stone objects, are usually found in ethnographies of nonpuebloan peoples (e.g., Gifford 1932, 1936; Opler 1965; Reagan 1930; Willis and Castetter 1937, 1941). Puebloan ethnographies, however, do indicate that roasting techniques associated with the processing of corn, agave, and mescal were important. Yucca baccata was native to the Hopi area and was baked in ovens by both Hopis and Zunis (Bell and Castetter 1941:12; Naquatewa 1943 1943:18; Whiting 1939:18). Yucca and agave were roasted by Apaches with heated stones to avoid charring (Opler 1965:355-358). The Northern and Southern Yavapai also utilized heating stones in their mescal pits, frequently reusing the same stones many times (Gifford 1932:205, 1936:259)

In southwestern archaeological sites it is not uncommon to find the fragmentary remains of ground stone in roasting pits (Fewkes 1801:107-108; 1904:128; Tagg et al. 1984; Windmiller 1972). Therefore, it would seem a reasonable hypothesis that the generalized burning of the Homol'ovi IV assemblage represents the reuse of ground stone objects in hearths and roasting pit features. If roasting pits and hearths were cleaned periodically or dismantled during construction or remodeling episodes, then sooted and burned ground stone materials would have been mixed into refuse deposits and eventually recovered from plaza and structure fill proviences. Homol'ovi IV actually contained a large roasting pit in the eastern end of the plaza that had been cleaned out prior to the site's abandonment. The low frequency of whole artifacts in general also indicates that prior to deposition, the artifacts had been reused as hoes, wall stones, or lap stones.

Although the majority of artifacts are small and fragmentary and were recovered from the oldest plaza fill contexts, this reuse behavior resulted in a pattern of deposition at the site that can be tracked by frequency and size through various strata. Larger and even whole objects, such as the four whole manos, came from the last plaza surface and the structures occupied at the end of the occupation.

To push deeper into the variability of ground stone assemblages archaeologists need only to expand on today's successful program of excavation, experimentation, and ethnographic observation to include the entire life history of ground stone artifacts.

Acknowledgements

This report has been inspired by Jenny Adams ground stone research. In her quest to elevate this class of material culture to a fruitful source of prehistoric information she has demonstrated to me that the archaeological record, in general, remains a vast and untapped region worthy of exploration. I also thank Lee Fratt for her helpful training and guidance in my classification and analysis of Homol'ovi ground stone materials.

(Footnotes)

1 An issue of Kiva 58(3), entitled New Trends in Ground Stone Research: It's Not the Same Old Grind, was dedicated in it entirety to ground stone research.

Chapter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Previous Page Next Page