123

Prehistoric Grinding Tools as Metaphorical Traces of the Past

Cecilia Lidström Holmberg

The predominant interpretation of reciprocating grinding tools is generally couched in terms of low archaeological value, anonymity, simplicity, functionality and daily life of women. It is argued that biased opinions and a low form-variability have conspired to deny grinding tools all but superficial attention.

Saddle-shaped grinding tools appear in the archaeological record in middle Sweden at the time of the Mesolithic — Neolithic transition. It is argued that Neolithic grinding tools are products of intentional design. Deliberate depositions in various ritual contexts reinforce the idea of grinding tools as prehistoric metaphors, with functional and symbolic meanings interlinked.

Cecilia Lidström Hobnbert&, Department of Arcbaeology and Ancient Histo~; S:tEriks torg 5, Uppsala Universirv, SE-753 lO Uppsala, Swedett.

THE OBSERVABLE, BUT INVISIBLE the past. Many grinding tools have probably GRINDING TOOLS not even been recognised as tools. The hand- Grinding tools of stone are common archaeo- ling of grinding and pounding tools found logical finds at nearly every prehistoric site. during excavations depends on the excavation The presence and recognition of these arte- policy, or rather on the excavators' sphere of facts have a long tradition within archaeology interest (see e.g. Kaliff 1997). (e.g. Bennet k Elton 1898;Hermelin 1912:67— As grinding tools of stone often are bulky 71; Miiller 1907:137,141; Rydbeck 1912:86- and heavy objects, they are rarely retained in 87). It is appropriate to acknowledge that large numbers (Hersch 1981:608).By tradi- previous generations of archaeologists to some tion, reciprocating grinding tools are archaeo- extent have raised questions related to the logically understood and treated as an anony- meaning and role of grinding tools, including mous category of objects. They are therefore associated activities (e.g. Rydbeck 1912:86). often neglected in archaeological publications It is obvious, however, that these ideas have (Lidström Holmberg 1993).The predominant not been further developed withi n the archaeo- interpretation of these tools is usually couched logical discipline. Prehistoric remains of in terms of functionality, simplicity, and daily domestic daily life have been acknowledged life of women (Last 1996).A traditional bias since the beginning of archaeology, but have and low form-variability have probably con- had low priority and status compared with spired to deny reciprocating grinding tools all other subjects of archaeological research. Al- but superficial consideration. though grinding tools are found in abundance, The percei ved anonymity has implications they are seldom actively used in interpreting for description, typology and terminology, as

CarremSrvedixb Arcttoeology, Vol. 6, t99g 124 Cecilia Lidstriior Holmberg well as for deeper interpretation and the pro- multiple ways. In this discussion it refers to duction of knowledge. One reason for the lack how an object, phenomenon or a chain of of close attention is the fact that grinding tools statements receives meaning within a fixed are rarely considered to have important framework of acceptance (Liibcke 1988:117). archaeological value. Their low status is most Our observations of prehistoric remains are probably linked to the overall interpretation of created within the conceptual framework that grinding tools as purely functional domestic is active in the present. The observation is in objects. It is consequently assumed that they itself therefore value-laden, as both observa- have no social intentional meanings beyond tions and interpretations are made through our the functional, and are not socially value- previous knowledge, current values, prejudices laden. The most important reason for the lack and expectations (Damm 1991:23—25). of attention is very likely the fact that interest- The conceptual framework is partly ing archaeological questions have not been formed through ideas of what is accepted or integrated with these "ordinary" domestic traditionally held knowledge. This may be artefacts. interpreted as what is archaeologically "see- As reciprocating grinding tools are thought able and knowable" within current discourse. of as both anonymous and non-valuable, they It is argued that this relationship also affects simultaneously seem to fall out of the sphere grinding tool interpretations. of what is archaeologically worth knowing. In The fact that the remains of the past are this article I would therefore like to draw found, observed and interpreted within a attention to the archaeological qualitites of present conceptual framework is determinant grinding tools in general, and Neolithic grind- for the production of archaeological know- ing tools in particular. My intention is to show ledge. It is, however, of ultimate importance to that Neolithic grinding tools were objects recognise that theory and data depend on each beyond the practical, with the functional and other, as "in practice the levels of interaction symbolic meanings closely interlinked. I with both theory and data, and between the further argue that the grinding tool may be two, can not be separated" (Sltirensen 1988:14). interpreted as an active part of the Neolithic Both the revision and creation of archaeologi- social and ritual life. The wider social per- cal knowledge are therefore answerable to two spective of these "forgotten" archaeological sets of constraints: plausibility considerations artefacts is the vital key to my interest in and empirical constraints (Wylie 1982: 42). prehistoric grinding tools. Grinding tool typology Theoretical frarnework When stone artefacts are observed and docu- The remains of the past are observable as mented during fieldwork, a general classifica- traces. No one can question the fact that a tion system as well as questions of categoris- prehistory, or rather several prehistories, once ing and labelling often creates practical prob- existed. The archaeological knowledge is, lems (Ballin 1996:3).A general method of however, created through observation and archaeological classification is to make interpretation of visible traces within a present. detailed descriptions of morphology, material When trying to interpret these traces, you and dimensions. During my studies of invariably become involved in a dialogue Neolithic stone tools used for pounding and between the remai ns of the past and the under- grinding (Lidström Holmberg 1993), I entered stood present. This dialogue may be called a into a haphazard classification and a random di scourse. The word "discourse" deri ves from terminology. Artefacts showing use-wear the Latin discurrere, meaning "to run back from pounding, grinding and polishing are and forth" (Lubcke 1988:117).The discourse usually given cursory attention, and are often concept has been used and understood in classified as "other artefacts" (e.g. Ballin

Carrent Swedish Archaeotogs; Vot. 6, 1998 Prehistoric Grinding Tools as Metaphoricat Traces of the Post 125

1996:62).Within this "other artefact" catego- To produce complex knowledge about the ry, grinding tools are given a multitude of prehistoric past, archaeological research must labels (Petré 1984). Grinding tool labels are, define and redefine its data. One important however, seldom related to actual morpholo- aim included in this process of redefinition gy, tool design or use-wear modification. The must be to question the conventional labels of terminology consequently becomes extremely artefacts. The label in itself may carry impor- confusing. The distinction between hand- tant meaning, with implications for archaeo- stones and grinding slabs is, for example, logical interpretation and understanding. One frequently neglected, as are general descrip- expression of this is the way grinding tools tions of morphology (Lidström Holmberg usually are described as grinding "stones" 1993:12—13; Kraybill 1977:485—486). This instead of grinding "tools". The designation neglegence of prehi storic grinding-tool typo- of the word "grinding stone" presupposes an logy is in sharp contrast to my archaeological artefact form created through use alone. The experiences of grinding tools as deliberately word does not suggest any technological designed as well as symbolicallyusedobjects. choices, technological decision-making, or Especially the distinction between the hand- social intentions other than using any two stone and the grinding slab should be consid- stones together. The designation of the word ered important, as ethnograhical information "tool" is rather different. It implies an initial suggests an active symbolic relationship be- artefact form that is "actively" manufactured tween the two parts (Corbeil 1985; Parsons to be effective for a specific task (Nelson & 1970). In this article I have chosen the term Lippmeier 1993:286).A "tool" is a product of "grinding slab" when describing the lower careful, initial and intentional design, a part of a grinding-tool set, and "handstone" "stone" is normally not. The basic problem when discussing the upper part (see Kraybill connected with revaluing grinding tools is that 1977:487). the grinding-tool shape is thought of as "di- The terminology connected with grinding rectly related to its use" (Kraybill 1977:487). tool types is obviously problematic. The lower, This has implications for the archaeological or stationary, part of the grinding-tool set may value, as a valued object normally is related to be labelled as grain-rubber, quern, grindstone, the degree of intentionality associated with grinding stone, mealing stone, grinding dish, the object. saddle-quern, milling stone, metate or flat A first step towards a methodology of mill. The upper, mobile part ofthe tool set may grinding tools is to develop a critical termino- be label led as rubber, muller, handstone, grind- logy according to technical morphological traits er, mealing stone, rider, hand millstone, mano and use-wear modification. Careful analysis or mill ing stone (Carter 1977;Kraybill 1977). of grinding-tool form often explores initial In The Domestication of Europe (Hodder grinding-tool design, although the tool form 1990),gri nding-tool l abel s are as confusi ng as obviously develops during its life-time as use ever. Millstones, mills, grinders, stone querns, modification alters its nature (Lidström Holm- grindstones, saddlequerns and grinding stones berg 1993:12;Nelson & Lippmeier 1993).In are discussed without further discussion of spite of the superficial and homogeneous tool morphology (Hodder 1990: e.g. 33, 51, appearance, grinding tools can be valued as 57, 66, 123).The suggestion made by George products of social and technological decision- Carter (1977) to adopt a general terminology making. for the distinction between metate (lower part American archaeologists have a tradition of the grinding-tool set) and mano (upper of analysing and interpreting grinding-tool part), seems to have been actively accepted design, especially in questions related to tool and found useful within current American function (Adams 1988), but also in relation to archaeology. site variabil ity, sedentism, population density,

Carreiu Sseedish Archaeotogs; 1ot. 6, 199é' l 26 Cecilia Lidstrri n Holmberg tool manufacturing, social organisation, and Although American archaeologists have change in subsistence (Hard, Mauldin & Ray- indeed raised questions about grinding-tool mond 1996;Nelson & Lippmeier 1993;Stone use, and tool typology, they generally do it in 1994; Wright 1991). Nelson & Lippmeier a traditional American way. The explanations (1993)shows a correlation between the regu- and interpretations are consequently often larity of site occupation and handstone mor- based upon questions related to function and phology. Stone (1994) suggests that access to subsistence. However useful these explanations raw materials for grinding-tool manufacture may be, they do not give an understanding of probably affects handstone size. Hard, Mauldin grinding tools as socially active objects. & Raymond (1996) uses Bolivian ethno- archaeological data in demonstrating that Negative conceptual fi.etmevvork measurements of handstone size are related to The traditional bias against a wider interpreta- grinding capacity, and may provide a measure tion of reciprocating grinding tools may in of different levels of agricultural dependence. part be related to their apparent low level of Ethnographic information also indicates that form-variability and minimal stylistic infor- handstone shape is related to subsistence mation in grinding-tool form (Hard, Mauldin (Thompson 1964:407). & Raymond 1996:254;Hersch 1981:2).I also Frank Hole (1977)has paid extensi ve con- propose that the low archaeological value sideration to grinding-tool types in relation to associated with grinding tools is partly due to chronology. An abundance of grinding and the fact that they are interlinked with a set of pounding tools were found within various historical values (fig. 1). These reproduced early agricultural settlements excavated in the and often rather negative associations are sub- Deh Luran plain in south-west Asia. The sequently brought into the archaeological results showed that grinding tools are as understanding of today. characteristic of chronological phases as During the Late Iron Age the hand-driven ceramics and other artefacts (Hole et al. grinding tools were often replaced by mecha- 1977:200—208). nised water-mills (Schön 1995:113).During

". Fig. l. An evoluti onary perspective of "The art ojbread &naking in the Stone Age Illustrati o&t by Fi gui er in Primitive Man (/876). After Barker t985:fig. 3.

Current Ssvedish Archaeology, Vot. 6, t998 Prehistoric Gri»tiing Tools as Metapltorical Traces of tlte Post 1 27 the Middle Ages the activity of grinding was gendered activities and material culture in a rapidly transformed into a water- and wind- wider perspective than "who did what" in milling industry owned by men with power. prehistory. The most important point made by Feudal norms and laws regulating the milling Dobres is her understanding of gender systems were brought in from the Continent. Peasants as institutionalised systems of underlying val- and other subordinate groups were forced by ues within societies. "...To engender the past is law to only grind at mills owned by the land- also to ask about prehistoric value systems as owners. They were not allowed to use other expressed in and negotiated through quotidian water-mills or pri vately owned hand grinding activities that leave behind material traces" tools (Bennet &. Elton 1898:210; Ek 1981: (Dobres 1995a:53). 544). Grinding by hand was considered a hard Questions such as, "what about the past is and monotonous duty performed by unedu- knowable, and what is worth knowing" (Do- cated poor people, women and slaves. Special bres 1995a:53), are important factors when treadmills were even used as a humiliating discussing an engendered archaeology. They penalty for unruly male prisoners in some are of equal importance when discussing English 19th-century prisons (Bennet & Elton grinding tools as valuable data. I propose a 1898:228; Fendin 1994:11—12). The repro- critical analysis of what is "knowable and duced picture of grinding as representing hard worth knowing". Not only must we open our labour, as well as a monotonous and unquali- eyes to this "new" category of artefacts, but fied female task, is part of our present concep- we also have to rethink the categories through tual framework. which this archaeological record is interpreted A negative historical reproduction should (Roberts 1993:17).It is interesting to note that not prevent new and unexpected experiences, critique ofunderlying disciplinary assumptions or new "positive" reinterpretations of grind- does not always accompany observations of ing tools as objects with multiple meanings. new archaeological data (Roberts 1993:18). To be able to use grinding tools as value-laden The ordinary interpretation of prehistoric objects, the conventional assumptions must grinding tools is still in terms of function and be challenged. Included in this challenge is an subsistence, but is often dismissed within engendering of archaeological interpretations current archaeological discourse. A rethink- of the past (Dobres 1995; Gero k Conkey ing as well as a revaluing of these "ordinary, 1991). natural and bulky" tools must therefore involve critical theory, changes in attitudes, as HUMAN AGENCY —GRINDING TOOLS well as asking basic critical questions about AS GENDERED METAPHORS both old and new data. An engendered archaeology aims at studying Grinding tools are, according to ethno- social dynamics with a critical use of gender graphic descriptions, the only stone tools that theory (Conkey 1993).Anna-Marcia Dobres are directly linked to female activities, from (1995a) means that this requires a develop- tool manufacturing, maintenance, to food ment of gender theory within archaeology preparation (Haaland 1997:379). Grinding itself, and above all conceptual changes in tools were sometimes used by men (Bird method. An engendered archaeology is there- 1993), but only for specific activities such as fore not synonymous with an archaeology of the grinding of tobacco or ochre (Haaland gender. To engender the past also demands 1997:379).Women are also regularly associ- critical rethinking of how knowledge is pro- ated with hearths, cooking pots, and the duced within the archaeological discourse. processing of food. In addition they have been Dobres' conclusions about gender in ar- associated with deposited refuse from cook- chaeology and an engendered archaeology ing, hearth ash, and food rubbish (Bird 1993; bring us to the point where we can discuss Hastorf 1991;Moore 1986).

Cttt ieat S» etlish Arcltaeology; Vril. 6, 799g 128 Cecilia Lidströni Holmberg

Neolithic grinding tools grinding tools, pottery ornaments, and light Some archaeologists have presumed that a stone tools. In Aiterhofen in Bavaria female change in gender relations took place during graves contain grinding tools, awls, and orna- the Neolithic period (Hastorf 1991).This is a ments (Hodder 1990:110). question worth discussing, as I am going to As grinding tools overall are possible to argue that there seems to be a change in interpret as gendered metaphors, they are also grinding-tool design as well as grinding-tool relevant in discussing gender relations within use from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. If an early farming communities. Interpreting economic and social organisation of gender grinding tools as metaphorical traces must, relations structured the Neolithic life, it may however, involve critical gender theory to aim also be observable in the daily material culture for an engendered archaeology. The relation- associated with grinding tools and food ship between the archaeologically observable processing techniques. Studies of intrasite technical attributes and the wider social tech- spatial distribution of artefacts show that nological framework is crucial to this aim (see grinding tools may be used in interpretations Dobres 1995b). By studying the technical of social structuring. Separate areas for axe attributes involved in the design of grinding production and areas with grinding equipment tools e.g. morphology, function, use-modifi- and other food processing remains have been cation and associated activities it is possible to observed within Early Neolithic settlement reach into the wider and less tangible social sites (see e.g. Apel (Ed). in press; Hallgren et values which may have structured or influenced al. in press 1997).The archaeological pattern- tool design and tool use. Central analytical ing may be recognised as having been formed categories related to a social technology of through a general structure of values and ideas grinding tools are gender structures, ideology in which gender is a structuring principle (see and human intentionality. Moore 1991:407). An analysis of two Linear Bandkeramik INTENTIONAL INVESTMENT IN (LBK) cemeteries in northern Europe, Elsloo NEOLITHI C GRINDING- TOOL DESIGN in the Netherl ands and Niedermerz just across Grinding tools of various sizes and models the border to Germany, has shown that Neo- existed already during the Mesolithic period lithic grinding tools may be seen as gender in middle Sweden (Risberg et al. ms; Welinder specific (Van de Velde 1992). Van de Velde 1977:28).The Mesolithic grinding tools are defines gender as a sexual division of labour, usually smaller and less standardised in form in pure economic terms. This gender division than the Neolithic grinding tools. The Meso- is proposed to be expressed in the burials lithic grinding-tool set is usually made up of a within the LBK culture, visible as two separate one-handed handstone, used in circular and tool kits (Van de Velde 1992:176).Grinding pounding motions on a variety of grinding tools, red ochre and flat adzes are by Van de slabs or other surfaces. These tools were most Velde interpreted as a female expression, probably multi-task-functional tools, used for whereas thick adzes, blades and arrowheads grinding and pounding nuts, wild plants and represent a male expression (Van de Velde tubers for food and medicinal purposes, or 1992:176).These gendered graves also show grinding ochre for paint(Kraybi111977). Some a geographic al patterning, as graves ofopposi- one-handed handstones with shiny use-wear te gender seem to have been placed closer to traces on the working surfaces may also have each other than graves of the same gender. been used for one or more hide-processing This structure of pair bonding is suggested to tasks as suggested by use-wear analyses con- reflect the Bandkeramik division of labour. In ducted by Jenny Adams (1988).Hunter/gath- addition, in post-LBK graves in Hinkelstein in erer grinding-tool design remained static on the Rheinland, female graves are linked with several continents for millennia. Hard, Maul-

Cnrrent S» edieli Archaeologi; Vril. 6, /998 Prehisioric Grinding Tonis as Metaphorical Traces of the Past 129 din &Raymond (1996:257)suggests the func- Sten Florin (1958:129),who maintained that tional explanation that the added energetic this artefact was in fact a grinding slab (fig. 2). costs related to manipulating a larger stone Small, rounded, one-handed tools made of might have been thought of as impractical for granite, porfyrite or sand stone belonged to the the crushing of wild seeds. tool kit, and were said to have been used as It is not until the Mesolithic —Neolithic handstones (Florin 1958:191).This is the transition that large, actively designed grind- present, traditional way of reconstructing this ing tools appear in the archaeological record typical grinding-tool set. in middle Sweden (Florin 1958; Hallgren Experimental grinding on replicated 1996:9;Kihlstedt 1996:75).A saddle-shaped grinding-tool copies shows that small rounded grinding slab and a two-handed, loaf-shaped handstones could not have created the use- handstone make up the characteristic Early wear pattern of the saddle-shaped grinding Neolithic grinding-tool set. Tools of this par- slabs. Analyses of the interaction of grinding ticular type are known from several Early and sur faces, with special attention paid to fri ction Middle Neolithic sites in middle Sweden and lubrication, show that Florin's grinding (Kihlstedt 1996:74—75; Hallgren et al. 1995b; slab has been used as a two-handed handstone. Olsson 1996:46;Lidström Holmberg 1993). Analyses of use-wear traces on the same types Earlier archaeologists did not agree upon of Neolithic grinding tools clearly reinforce the distinction between grinding tools and the results from the experimental studies. The polishing tools used for, among other things, use-wear studies clearly indicate that a loaf- stone and flint artefacts. Axel Bagge classified shaped handstone belongs to a saddle-shaped the distinct and loaf-shaped artefacts as pol- grinding slab. In addition, a handstone of the ishing stones (Florin 1958:28).The concept loaf-shaped type seems to have been manu- "loaf-shaped grinding stone" was first used by factured for use on one particular slab only (Lidström Holmberg 1993). A complete grinding tool of the saddle- shaped type was found in situ during an exca- vation of the Kyrktorp site, Grödinge parish, in eastern Södermanland (Olsson 1992, 1996:46; Lidström Holmberg 1993:22—24). The site yielded finds from the Mesolithic, Middle Neolithic and Early Iron Age. The finds from the Middle Neolithic covered a large area and are classified as belonging to the Pitted Ware Culture. During the Middle Neolithic the excavated part, a steep slope at 25—35 m. a.s.l, was situated close to the ancient Litorina seashore (Risberg et al. ms). The grinding-tool set had been carefully placed in the steepest part of the slope. The intact and fully functional saddle-shaped grinding slab was found with the loaf-shaped handstone lying on top of it (fig. 3). Both parts are Fig. 2. An i»tnct, lonf slznped Izc»ldsto»e fioni the carefully designed by knapping, pecking and Early Neoli thic.site ofBrokvnriz, Tiiringe pari sh in grinding. It is interesting to note that the tool Siiderlzza»lalzd. The lznizdstolze, nlclde of alcoslc set seems to have been deliberately deposited sclndstÜ»e, is ehiblrrntels: prodnced by knapping at this particular niicl pecli iig. Hniiclstoiie lengtli 3I cin. A fter Flori iz place. I 95(YI Pl. XXVII. Since reciprocating grinding tools often

C»i reiit Sscedi sli Archaeologs; Vol. 6, I998 130 Cecilia Lidström Holmberg

Fig. 3. A saddle-shaped grinding slab with its elongated, loaf shaped handstone lying on top. A unique in si tu fi nd duri ng the excavati on of the K3&rktorp si te, Grö dinge paris)t i n Söderznazzland. Both tool parts are made of arcosic sandstone. Photo: M. Fristedt.

Fig. 4. Thecompletegrinding-toolsetfrom theKsrktorpsite(left), atzditsreplicatedcopy(right). Original handstozte leng th 35 cm, and g ri ndi ng slab length 56 cm. Note the elaboratel3 pecked handstone back and the characteristic use-wear modifzcation, e.g. beak-slzaped handstone ends and a slighlv cvzzvet cross- section of the grinding slab. Plzoto: Ulf Bruxe.

Current Szvedish Archaeolog&', Vot. 6, t998 Prehistoric Grinding Tools as Meurphorical Traces of tlre Past 131 are perceived as morphologically similar, it is motion also gives the surface of the grinding important to establish some "morphological slab a more or less convex cross-section rules" regarding the relationship of artefact- (Adams 1988:310—312; Lidström Holmberg design to the observer (Lidström Holmberg 1993:41). 1993:40—44). Knapping and pecking usually Shaping and standardisation in form elaborately produce both the saddle-shaped suggest an intentional investment in grinding- slab and the loaf-shaped handstone. The proc- tool design. Conceptions of how a modern ess is sometimes complemented by grinding. Neolithic grinding-tool set should look like, The term saddle-shaped grinding slab must have have been acknowledged by Neo- refers to the upper surface of the implement, lithic grinding-tool producers. The similarity which resembles a saddle (fig. 4). The long in design may for example, be a result of a axis is concave, but the cross-section is more wish for tool effectivity, as there is a strong or less convex. The sides of the saddle-shaped relationship between grinding capacity and slab are usually carefully pecked into shape. the length of the grinding slab. For a given The back of the slab, that is the side resting on particle density and grinding time, capacity is the ground, is sometimes pecked into a round- said to increase as a cubic function of grinding ed form, but is usually left without further surface length (Hard, Mauldin & Raymond manufacturing. The slab is often twice as long 1996:256). Grinding capacity is, however, as it is wide. Its grinding surface is not sur- also related to other variables such as the rounded by ridges along the long axis. This soaking or roasting of cereal s before grinding, morphological trait is determi ned by u se-wear, ground particle size, grinding skills, grinding as the elongated handstone has been ground motions, and the need for re-pecking of the over the long sides of the slab. The lack of grinding surface (Lidström Holmberg 1993; ridges distinguishes saddle-shaped slabs from Wright 1990). so-called trough-formed grinding slabs. The The "stone-sliding-against-stone" contact latter were used with smaller, discoidal or between the handstone and the slab promote rounded handstones (fig. 5). Use-wear fric- over time a typical flat and smooth grinding tion caused by a smaller handstone creates a different use-modification with ridges all around the slab, as the handstone's length is shorter than the grinding slab is wide. As the name implies, the loaf-shaped hand- stone has a piano-convex form clearly resem- bling a loaf of bread. Normal ly, a loaf-shaped handstone is worn on one side only. This is a clear indication that the grinding motion was back and forth without a shift in the handstone position. The convex, carefully pecked back of the handstone is left unused, and the initial design is therefore not altered by friction. It often displays micromorphological phenom- ena such as gloss, emanating from the hands of the prehistoric user (Bauche 1986:55).The handstone is normally longer than the saddle- shaped slab is wide, resulting in more pressure and wear at the two ends of the handstone's Fig. 5. A trough fonned grinding tool. A small, long axis. Over time the friction promotes rounded handstone has created high ridges all beak-shaped handstone ends. The same around the slab. Photo: C. de Lange.

Currerrt Sreedish Archaeology, Vol. 6, 1998 t32 Cecilia Lirirarrrm Holmberg surface. A smooth surface is not suitable for grinding tool technology in general. As grind- effective grinding. To increase grinding ing tools are part of prehistoric technology, capacity the surface must be re-roughened. they must be valued as intentionally manufac- Re-pecking the surface with a hard hammer- tured tools within a cultural framework. This stone accomplishes this. Different stages of has implications for using grinding tools as worn-flat and re-pecked grinding slab surfaces meaningful information, as "artefacts are pro- have been observed both in the archaeological duced and used in a context of interacting record and the ethnographical record. Re- people, and thus have meaning in a social pecking was obviously an important practice context of symbols and ideas" (Haaland used within prehistoric grinding-tool technol- 1995:164). ogy. Some of the one-handed pounding stones with pronounced facets, frequently found SHARED IDENTITY, SHARED within prehistoric sites, may be associated METAPHORS with this practice (see Jgrgensen Bloch 1991). Whittle (1996:70)has defined the concept of Nancy Kraybill (1977:490)describes how community as being created "through shared hammerstones of good quality were consid- outlook and shared concepts of classifying ered important items of trade among African and valuing, as well as shared activities in- women. The hammerstones were selected with cluding shared expectations and obligations". care, and were valuable objects owned by The morphological changes in grinding-tool women. All grinding tools were re-pecked by design that appear in the archaeological record the women themselves. Grinding tools used in the Mesolithic —Neolithic transition, are among nomads living in eastern parts of the suggested to be linked to dynamic changes Sahara were made of hard sandstone. Smooth, within these communities. Ethnographical worn-out, grinding surfaces were repeatedly information, as well as the social production pecked by the women every week, to render related to grinding-tool design and grinding- the tools effective again (Schön & Holter tool use, strongly suggests that these tools are 1988:157, 159). The grinding slab lasted for not simply functional in the strict sense. about five or six years. The handstones were Shared ideas of grinding tools as social and rather small and lasted for about one or two ritual metaphors are proposed to be included years. within the conceptual domestication of Neo- It is important to consider that the produc- lithic communities. The grinding tool may, in tion of Neolithic grinding tools most probably the words of Julian Thomas, be seen "as a required considerable technological knowl- thing to think with" (Thomas 1991:184). edge, and was part of a social production. In What object is to be considered symbolic her doctoral dissertation, Hersch concludes depends on the amount of intentionality asso- that the manufacture of grinding tools in Ne- ciated with the object. The causal connection olithic Turkey was a multi-stage process. It between intentions and symbolism seems to required full understanding of the material offer resistance to the interpretation of grind- being used, as well as knowledge of manufac- ing tools as prehistoric metaphors. The distinc- turing techniques and tools available for the tion often made between functional —domestic procurement of raw material (Hersch 1981: and non-functional —ritual is unfortunate, as 602). Some ethnographic information indi- "ritual is a form of human action which may cates that the most effective and high-quality involve a range of forms of material culture, grinding tools were considered valuable from the most mundane to the most explicitly objects, and were passed down as heirlooms to symbolic" (Thomas 1996:8). the next generations (Sharovskaja 1992:51). The definition of symbolism as active in Little is, however, known about the all parts of a society, including daily life, is of manufacture of prehistoric grinding tools, or the utmost importance (Engelstad 1991;

Carreat Sireriish A rchaeologi; Voh 6, l998 Prehistoric Grinding Tools as Metaphorical Tiaces of the Past 133

Hugh-Jones 1996:193).Archaeological re- as well as different social frameworks, values search on symbolism has mainly been con- and ideas associated with this group ofobjects. nected with specific parts defined by the Grinding tools of a variety of models have archaeological discourse as symbolic spheres been manufactured and used by hunters and of a society. Objects that can be separated gatherers, horticulturalists and agricultural- from the sphere of daily life are subsequently ists. Critical studies related to particular and distinguished as symbolic objects. The fact contextual differences in tool design and tool that symbolism is interpreted as an epiphe- use among cultural groups, is naturally of nomenon excluded from every day life is crucial importance. Unfortunately, aspects of problematic (Engelstad 1991:24)and affects women's everyday activities have received the interpretation of domestic objects. The less attention than men's lives. As grinding symbolic significance of an object, such as the tools and food-procuring activities are linked grinding tool, is a question of cultural associ- to the female sphere, they are consequently ations. The object may represent internal ex- not as extensively documented by ethnogra- periences of culturally defined values and phers (Bird 1993:23). concepts recognised by members of a group or Contrary to the predominant interpreta- a society. To understand the symbol actively in tion of stone tool production as a strictly male terms of original ideas, it must be "read" by activity, it is evident that grinding tools were people with a similar world of experiences, used, produced and owned by women (Haa- sharing a similar set of cultural values (Lid- land 1978:57,1995:164—166, 1997:378—379). ström Holmberg 1993). When it comes to Randi Haaland (1995:165) describes how discussing prehistoric symbolic messages, we every woman in the village of Dor in north- must therefore try to define the context of the west Sudan has a private sandstone quarry of communal experiences in which the symbol her own. There she collects the best raw mate- was active. The concepts must give meaning rial suited for grinding-tool production. She to the experiences of the object towards which pecks the grinding-tool preform at the quarry the experience is directed. As the past is for- and carries the roughly shaped preform back ever lost, we are forced to create alternative to the village. The final shaping of the grind- experiences in bringing prehistoric metaphors ing tool is done here. The manufactured and to active life. carefully kept grinding tools made by the women of Dor lasted for about three years ALTERNATIVE EXPERIENCE- (Haaland 1995:169).Ethnographic sources THE ETHNOGRAPHIC RECORD from the American south-west also describe To create a wider platform for interpretation, grinding-tool manufacture as a female activity it is important to create alternati ve experiences (Schlanger 1991:481). for the relationship among people, things, and social value-systems. I started to search for Grinding tools ag expressing human literature on the utilisation of grinding tools in relati onshi p general, for historical accounts as well as Among the Bemba tribe in Zambia the acti vity observations and descriptions by anthropolo- of grinding was a directly associated meta- gists. The information is not thought of as phor for ideas of marriage, as well as economic evidence or proof of the relationship between and social independence (Richards 1969).The prehistoric contexts and objects, but rather "as mother of the bride decided when the bride sources to reflect what these contexts might was entitled to run a separate and self-support- have been" (Haaland 1995:164). ing household unit. It was not unusual that the The ethnographic record has so far proven young family had to wait several years before to be useful in bringing alternative experienc- it was fully accepted as a household by the es to the production and use of grinding tools, community. During this time of transition the

Cttrrent Swedish Archaeologs; Vol. 6, 1998 134 Cecilia Lidstrilm Holmberg young woman was prohibited from storing Another domestic symbol used during the grain and owning grinding equipment. The initiation rite was Kabende, a ceramic sculp- mother of the bride administered cereals and ture of a mortar and pestle (Corbeil 1985:88). grinding tools (Richards 1969:125).The final The mortar was the material symbol of a cultural and economic transition to woman- woman, while the pestle represented a man. hood was therefore not only expressed by the Together they became a metaphor of the ideal act of marriage, or by having or raising marriage and manifested the relationship of children. The material symbolic expression of man and woman. The mortar symbol was used the identity of adult women was when married as a vital metaphor expressing similar values women were permitted to run a self-support- as the "grinding woman". ing household, when they could grind and Ideas of grinding tools as expressing store their own grain, and own a personal human relationships are also found among grinding tool. Zapotec Indian communities in Mexico. A set Ceramic sculptures of domestic tools and of grinding tools of high quality was used as a activities, together with wall- and floor paint- traditional wedding gift. The elaborately ings, were explicitly used among the Bemba manufactured, loaf-shaped handstone was as social signifiers in the female initiation rites referred to as being the child. The relationship (Corbeil 1985:7).The ceremonies or riies de between the handstone and the grinding slab passage served as a guide to the social obliga- was a metaphorical expression of the close tions and expectations of adult women. A unit of mother and child (Parsons 1970). senior woman performed the ceremonial rites. Among hunter/gatherers, different activi- She presented the initiates with objects sym- ties associated with grinding tools are often bolising subsistence production. During the bound up with female identity and female rite, the initiates were instructed in the use of activities (Cane 1989:112).The grinding tool the objects as well as in social and moral life is the largest stone implement in the stone tool and the role of adult womanhood. The sym- kit used by Australian Aboriginals. It was bols and paintings were accompanied by di- owned by women. The most elaborately pro- dactic singing and dancing based upon the duced grinding tool had a convex bottom, aphorism, "Ihear, I forget; I see, I remember. which was smoothed and finished by pecking The eyes are better pupils than the ears" (Cor- (Mc Carthy 1941:332).The Aboriginal tribes beil 1985:11).The song lyrics usually had usually did not carry their grinding tools with ambiguous meanings. them when moving from site to site. Instead, One of the ceramic sculptures used in the they left the heavy grinding tools behind. To ritual was named Napela, "the grinding protect the grinding tools from wind and rain woman" (Corbeil 1985:89).This functional erosion they were placed upside down at a symbol was used to express and explain how memorable spot at the old site, usually at the a married woman had to use her grinding tool. women's homebase camp (McCarthy 1941; She must grind cereals into fine flour without Cane 1987:112; Thompson 1964:407). It damaging the tool, that is without creating too seems clear that the grinding tools were much friction between the handstone and the deposited with the distinct intention of return- grinding slab. Gender complementarity and ing. This ethnographic information is there- conceptions about the ideal relationship fore interesting when discussing human inten- between man and woman, in conformity with tionality in relation to prehistoric mobility accepted norms, were expressed metaphori- pattern. cally in the activity of grinding and symboli- cally by the grinding tool. In this way the CONCEPTUAL CHANGES, GRINDING young girl learned that she was responsible for TOOLS AS RITUAL METAPHORS creating a marriage without too much frictions. Conceptual changes connected with the wider

CurreruSwedish Archaeology, VoL 6, /998 Prehistoric Grinding Tools as Metaphorical Traces of the Past 135 economical, social, and ideological roles of Grinding tools are interpreted as things with grinding and pounding tools within prehistoric symbolic transformatory qualities (Hodder societies are, in fact, slowly developing in 1990:68). Although grinding tools are dis- Sweden (e.g. Stjernquist 1987:149—157; cussed as social objects, it is also clear that the Fendin 1994; Hagberg 1990:11—12; Hallgren model includes many conventional and sim- 1996; Hallgren et al. In press 1997;Lidström plistic assumptions about, for example gender Holmberg 1993; Kaliff 1997:88—90; Karsten relationships (see e.g. Whittle 1996:8). 1994:98—100;Kihlstedt 1996:74—75 ; Olausson Jonathan Last (1996:38) discusses how 1988:23—24, 28). The increasing interest in the symbolic character of the Neolithic do- grinding-tool roles is mainly due to new and mestic structure is made manifest by the var- extraordinary finds. ious ways that grinding tools were deposited, Alasdair Whittle (1996) implies that the for example in dug pits. He suggests that the idea of transformation and regeneration was a deposition of grinding tools may be interpret- ritualised structure in Early and Middle Neo- ed as a metaphor related to fertility and lithic Europe. This structure was reproduced reproduction. Like Hodder (1990),he stresses in the material culture by people's actions. the role of the house in the process of social Elaborately manufactured grinding tools are reproduction. in the same way linked to changes in Neolithic An increasing number of Neolithic fenced life styles among early European farmers and ditched enclosures have been found in (Henning 1966;Hodder 1990).Similarities in Europe and southern Scandinavia (Andersen artefactual remains between communities 1997).The enclosures may be interpreted as belonging to Linear Bandkeramik Cultures having an integrating role as local arenas for and communities in southern Scandinavia the embodiment of wider ideas, defining a have long suggested ties in the Mesolithic- sense of identity and celebrating domesticity Neolithic period (Fischer 1982; Jennbert (Whittle 1996:274). Artefact assemblages 1984;Whittle 1996).It is therefore interesting found in pits within the enclosed areas, as well to note the similarities in tool design between as from the system-ditches of the Sarup enclo- LBK grinding tools and the saddle-shaped sures, not only include pottery, flint and stone grinding tools found in various Early Neolithic artefacts, animal and human bones, and contexts in middle Sweden. carbonized grain, but also grinding tools Hodder (1990) has proposed a structural- (Andersen 1997:54:fig.60, 62, 85, 111, 122). istic model based upon binary oppositions, Deliberately placed grinding tools are also where domestication of society is achieved frequently found at other Neolithic enclosed through an ideology of the domestication structures in Europe (Andersen 1997:e.g. 200, (female domus) of the wild (male agrios). The 226, 229). It appears that some of these mate- term "domus" represents a concept involving rial finds are result of deliberate deposition, a domestic symbolism focused on fertil ity and sometimes associated with the intentional social reproduction. The domus includes destruction or breakage of objects (Andersen women, children, domestic production, 1997; Whittle 1996:272—273). storage, and rituali sed activities centred round Grinding tools found in a variety of Neo- the hearth as the focal point of the house. lithic contexts in Sweden strengthen ritual Grinding tools, storage vessels, and clay figu- interpretations of grinding tools, for example rines are all associated with the female domus. as burial or sacrificial offerings (t ex Kihlstedt The concept of agrios is associated with the 1996; Malmer 1962:572), or as votive wild, men, warring, prestige, exchange, hunt- offerings in wetlands (Hagberg 1990:11—12; ing, domestic animals, and death. Weapons, Hallgren et ctl. 1995b: In press; Stjernquist axes, and stone tool production are part of the 1987). The archaeological finds of grinding male agrios (Hodder 1990:69:fig. 3.5, 83—84). and pounding tools complicate a single func-

Current Suedish Archaeology, Voh 6, 1998 136 Cecilia Lidström Holmberg tional and profane model of interpretation. some had been objects of deliberate destruc- Functional artefacts are obviously invol ved in tion. The fen has been interpreted as a votive value-laden contexts that may be interpreted offering fen (Hallgren et al. In press. 1997). as having ceremonial and ritual character Archaeological data also suggest a ritual (Karsten 1994:99). practice invol ving the deliberate deposition of Saddle-shaped grinding tools are, as earlier grinding tools inside rituals pits. This is fur- described, products of elaborate design. ther support for discussing grinding tools as Sometimes they are far more elaborate than metaphorical traces of the past. The ritual their practical function calls for. This is par- practice connected with grinding tools seems ticularly demonstrated by some exclusive to have been present both in Europe and in loaf-shaped handstones ofconsiderable length Sweden in the Early and Middle Neolithic found at the Early Neolithic Funnelbeaker (Hodder 1990; Last 1996; Karsten 1994; (TRB) inland site of Skogsmossen, Fellings- Whittle 1996). bro parish in Västmanland (Hallgren et al. A similar practice may have been present 1995b). The remarkable elongated hand- in the Mesolithic —Neolithic transition in stones, made of micaceous schist, may be middle Sweden. Pärlängsberget is a late Meso- interpreted as having symbolic properties. lithic settlement site (c. 4000 cal. BC) in They were deposited in a straight line across Överjärna parish, Södermanland (Hallgren et the southern part of a small fen, situated close al. 1995a). During the Mesolithic —Neolithic to a farmstead (fig. 6). The fen revealed large transition the site was shore-bound. The finds amounts of Early Neolithic finds, of which from the site consist mainly of knapped quartz

Fig. 6. The distribution ofgrinding tool partsat the Earl»Neolithic Skogsmossensite, Fellingsbroparish, in Västmanland. Four intact and fragmentar» saddle-shaped grinding slabs, and 18 loaf-shaped handstones were found in the southern part of the offering fen. Note the remarkable deposition of loaf- shaped handstones in a straight line across the fen. After Hallgren et al. 1995b.

Current Swedish Archaeolog», Vol. 6, l998 Preltistoric Grinditzg Tools as Metaphorical Traces of the Past 137

Fig. 7. Tlze saddle-shaped grinding slab frt&m the Late Mesolithic settlement site of Pärlängsberget, Ö verj urna parish, in Sii derlzztllzlatzd. The slal& was found deposi tedi n an up ri g hr position. The back ofthe grinding slab has been used ft&r polishing stone tools. Note the differencein use-wear between the rugged grinding surface (a), and the smooth, striated polishing surface (b). Drawing: Mikael Söderblonz. After Hallg ren et al. )995a.

Cttrrent S&vedislz Archaeology, Vol. 6, 1998 138 Cecilia Lidström Holmberg and small quantities of knapped greenstone, large number of intact or fragmented grinding the latter debris from axe production. In one of tools, about 80 all in all. The majority of tools the excavated huts a small saddle-shaped consist of carefully manufactured saddle- grinding slab (fig. 7) was found deposited in shaped grinding slabs, made of arcosic sand- an upright position at the edge of a hearth stone and granite. They show different stages (Hallgren et al. 1995a:19, 21). A similar of use-wear, but most seem to have been fully deposition with a grinding slab in an upright functional when deposited. It cannot be ex- position was also found at Skogsmossen (Hall- cluded that some of the grinding slabs may gren 1996:9). One explanation is that the have been produced for this particular deposi- grinding tool was discarded and that the pit is tion activity. A few grinding slabs can be a refuse pit. The deliberate nature of the finds considered as worn-out and discarded, at least may, however, suggest an intentional deposit- in the functional sense. Some grinding slabs ing of domestic objects such as described had been broken before deposition. This may from LBK-sites in Europe. The act of offering suggest that they have been involved in a often includes hiding or discarding (Renfrew practice that included intentional destruction, & Bahn 1991:360).The burial of discarded or the ritual killing of objects. The interpreta- sacred or ritual objects is a ritual institution or tion of the grinding tools as selected and a regular pattern of behaviour in every reli- intentionally deposited objects, points toward gious community (Garfinkel 1994). a ritual act with domestic tools as sacrificial The fact that grinding tools seem to be gifts. They might also be remains of a sacrifi- involved in intentional acts of deposition is of cial drama or act, perhaps performed for a importance for a re-valuing of grinding tools specific purpose (Karsten 1994:25—26). as objects of respect and multiple meaning. One of the many questions raised by the Berta Stjernquist (1987:155—156) proposes grinding tools found at Östra Vrå is why so that cultic activities involving functional many grinding tools were deposited, objects, such as grinding tools, are part of a especially since TRB-economy is considered long-lived cult tradition lasting from the intro- to have been based on pastoralism rather than duction of agricultural ideas until the Roman cereal cultivation (Lidén 1995).Ethnographic Iron Age. This cult is proposed to have been observations, for example among traditional intimately bound up with conceptions of daily agriculturists in Sudan, show thatevery house- life of people, their economic ambitions, and hold owned at least one grinding tool, but the desire for continued fertility. Stjernquist usually two (Haaland 1978:57).In light of this suggests that the use of the products of econ- information, the abundance of grinding tools omy in the cult should be interpreted as directly found at Östra Vrå is remarkable. It can be linked to the functional and economic value of suggested that the act of deposition at Östra the objects. Vrå involved participation by more than one The symbolic significance of grinding household. The deposited grinding tools may tools as metaphors is explicitly expressed by represent several different households, joined the two large and partly stone filled pits which together in the ritual act. The abundance of were excavated in 1994 at the Östra Vrå site, grinding tools can have served as a joining Stora Malms parish, in Södermanland (Kihl- metaphor, mani festing and creating a sense of stedt 1996:74—75).The pits were c. 2 x 4 me- identity among members of a community, or ters in diameter and contained charred bones perhaps with the aim of integrating separate and teeth from children. One of the pits also communities (see Whittle 1996:274). contained carbonised seeds of cereals (Triti- Analyses of microfossil remains have cum), of which one has been radiocarbon proven to be useful as a complement in ar- dated to 3500—3100cal. BC.The stonepacking chaeological interpretations related to tool covering each pit was made up of an astonishly function (Pearsell 1989; Risberg et ctl. ms).

Current S&vedish Archaeology, Voh 6, 1998 Piiehistoric Griiuling Tools as Metaphorical Traces of tlie Pust 139

Identified microfossil remains left on the Neolithic contexts. A change in attitude, grinding surfaces of two of the grinding slabs related to new extraordinary finds, can be said from Östra Vrå, one from each pit, resulted in to have rendered grinding tools new and posi- two different sets of microfossils (Risberg et tive archaeological value. al. ms). This may be an indication that the It has been argued that saddle-shaped grinding slabs emanated from different Neolithic grinding tools should be seen as sources, and were in fact brought to the ritual intentional products, belonging to the wider act by the participants. social and symbolical world of the Neolithic. A symbolic order associating grinding and CONCLUSIONS grinding tools with death, transformation and Critical analysis of theoretical concepts such transition, as well as human relationships, as mundane-ritual, functional-symbolical, identity, and social and economic reproduc- gender, and value-systems have opened up tion, may well have been present in the Neo- new possibilities of discussing grinding tools lithic. as something beyond the functional. Grinding tools have been found in a wide variety of English revised by Laura Wrang.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. 1988.Use-wear Analyses on Manos and Occasional Papers in Prehistory, No. 23. De- Hide-Processing Stones. Journal r&f Fi eld partmentof Prehistory. The Australian National Archaeology 15. Pp. 307—315. University, Canberra. Andersen, N. H. 1997.The Sarup Enclosures. The Cane, S. 1989.Australian aboriginal seed grinding Funnel Beaker Culture ofthe Sarup si tei nclud- and its archaeological record: a case study from ing tivo causeivayed camps compared to the the western desert. In: Harris, D. R. & Hillman, contemporary settleine»tsiii the area rind other G. C. (Eds). Foraging and Farniing, the Evolu- Eurr&peaii enclosures. Sarup vol. I. Jutland tion ofPlant Exploitation. One world archaeo- Archaeological Society Publications XXXI- logy 13.London. II:1.Jysk Arka:ologisk Selskab. Moesgaard. Carter, G. F. 1977. The metate: an early grain- Apel, J. E. (Ed). In press. Skumparberget I och 2. grinding implement in the New World. In; En mesolitisk aktivitetsyta och tidigneoliti ska Reed, C. A. (Ed). Origitts of Agriculture. Pp. trattbä garlokaler vid Skumparberget i Glans- 693—712. Mouton publishers. The Hague. hammar sn, Örebro lli n, Närke. Arkeologikon- Conkey, M.W. 1993. Making the connections: sult, Upplands Väsby. feminist theory and archaeologies of gender. Ballin, T.B. 1996. Klassifikationssystem for sten- In: du Cros, H. & Smith, L. (Eds). Women in artefakter. Varia 36. Universitetets Oldsaks- Archaeology. A Feminist Critique. Pp. 3—15. samling. Oslo. Occasional Papers in Prehistory, No. 23. De- Barker, G. 1985. Prehistoric farming in Europe. partmentof Prehistory. The Australian National New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge Uni- University, Canberra. Australia. versity Press. Cambridge. Corbeil, J. J. 1985.Sacred emblems of the Bemba. Bauche, R-D. 1986. Gebrauchsspuren an neoli- Ethnographic Arts & Culture Series 4. London. tischen mahlsteinen. Archäologische Infbnna- Damm, C. B. 1991. Continuity and Change. An ti oiie» II (2). Bonn. analysis ofsocial and material patterns in the Bennet, R. & Elton, J. 1898."Handstone, slave and Danish Neolithic. Ph. D. Thesis, Departmentof cattle 'mills'". History of corn milling, vol I. Archaeology, University of Cambridge. London. Dobres, A-M. 1995a. Beyond gender attribution: Bird, C. F. M. 1993. Woman the toolmaker: evi- Some methodological issues for engendering dence for women's use and manufacture of the past. In: Balme, J. & Beck, W. (Eds). flaked stone tools in Australia and New Guin- Gende red A rchaeology. The ser r&nd A ustralia» ea. In: du Cros, H. & Smith, L. (Eds). Womenin Women in Archaeology Coiiference. Research Archaeology. A Feminist Critique. Pp. 22—30. Papers in Archaeology and Natural History No

Curreni Sivedish Archaer&logy, Vol. 6, 1998 140 Cecilia Lidströ&n Holmberg

26. Australian National University. sult AB. Upplands Väsby. —1995b. Gender and prehistoric technology: on —In press. 1997.Skogsmossen, an Early Neolithic the social agency of technical strategies. World settlement site and offering fen, in the northern Archaeology, vol 27 (1).Pp. 25—49. borderland of the Funnel-beaker Culture. TOR, Ek, S.B. 1981."Kvarn & Kvarnrätt'*. Kulturhisto- vol. 29. Uppsala. risk leksikon for Nordisk Mi ddelalder. 2 oplag. Hard, R. J., Mauldin, R. P. & Raymond, G. R. 1996. Band 9. Pp. 536—550, 553—554. Mano Size, Stable lsotope Ratios, and Macro- Engelstad, E. 1991.The symbolism of everyday botanical Remains as Multible Lines of Evi- life in prehistory. In: Baudou, E. (Ed). Nordic dence of Maize Dependence in the American TAG. Report front the 2:nd Nordic TAG confer- Southwest. Journal ofArchaeological Method ence. Archaeology and Environment 11. Pp. ancl Theory 3, No 4. Pp. 253—318. New York. 23—32. Umeå. Hastorf, C. A. 1991.Gender, Space, and Food in Fendin, T. 1994. Att vara närvarande i bilden— Prehistory. In: Gero, J. M. & Conkey, M. W. malning och identitet. Seminar paper. Institute (Eds). Engenderi ng A rchaeology. Pp. 132—159. of Archaeology, University of Lund. Oxford/Cambridge. Fischer, A. 1982. Trade in Danubian shaft-hole Henning, E. 1966. Beobachtungen zum mahlvor- axes and the introduction of Neolithic economy gang an ur- und friihgeschichtlichen getreide- in Denmark. Journal ofDani sh Archaeology 1. muhlen. Etnographish-Archäologische For- Pp 7—12. schungen, 7. Berlin Deutscher. Florin, S. 1958. Vrå kulturen. Stenåldersboplatserna Hermelin, E. M. 1912.Knackstenar och deras an- vid Mogetorp, Östra Vrå och Brokvarn. Stock- vändning. Fornvännen. Pp. 67—71.Stockholm. holm. Hersch, L. T. 1981. Grinding Stones and Food Garfinkel, Y. 1994.Ritual Burial of Cultic Objects: Processing Techniques of the Neolithic The Earliest Evidence. Cambridge Archaeo- Societies of Turkey and Greece: Statistical, logical Journal 4:2. Pp. 159—188. Cambridge. Experimental and Ethnographic Approaches Gero, J. & Conkey, M. (Eds). 1991.Engendering to Archaeological Problem-solving. Ph. D. A rchaeologyt Women and Prehi story. Oxford. dissertation, Colombia University, New York. Haaland, R. 1978.Ethnographical Observations of Uni versity Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Pottery-Making in Darfur, Western Sudan, with Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. some ReflectionsonArchaeological Interpreta- Ox ford. tion. In: Kristiansen, K. &. Paludan-Miiller, C. Hole, F. et al. 1977.Studies in the Archaeological (Eds). New Di rections in Scandinavian History of the Deh Luran Plain. The Excava- Archaeology. Studiesin Scandinavian Prehis- tion of Chagha Sef&d. Memoirs of the museum tory and Early History, vol. L The National of anthropology, Uni versity of Michigan, No 9. Museum of Denmark. Ann Arbor. —1995.Sedentism, Cultivation, and Plant Domes- Hugh-Jones, 1996.Houses in the Neolithic imagi- tication in the Holocene Middle Nile Region. nation: an Amazonian example. In: Darvill, T. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:2. Pp, 157— &Thomas, J.(Eds). Neo/i thic Houses i n North- 174. Boston University. Boston. west Europe and Beyond. Oxford. —1997. Emergence of sedentism: new ways of Jennbert, K. 1984. Den produktiva gåvan. Tradi- living, new ways of symbol izi ng. Antiquity, vol tion och innovation i Sydskandinavien för om- 71. Pp. 374-385. kring 5300å r sedan. Acta Archaeologica Lun- Hagberg, U. 1990. Mitt i offermossen stod en densia, Series in 4', N' 16. Lund. skulpterad påle. Populär Arkeologi 1990, nr 2. Jergensen, B.A. 1991.Jernalderdrejkva:rne —form Pp. 11—12. Lund. og funktion. In: Eksperimentel Ark&eologi, Hallgren, F. 1996.Sociala territorier och exogami- studier i teknologi og kultur, nr I/1991. relationer i senmesolitisk tid. En diskussion Historisk-Arka:ologisk Fors&t&gscenter, Lejre. utifrån boplatsen Pärlängsberget, Söderman- Kaliff, A. 1997.Grav och Kultplats. Eskatologi ska land. TOR, vol. 28. Pp. 5-27. Uppsala. föreställ&tingar under yngre bronsållder och Hallgren, F. et al. 1995a. Plirllingsberget, en kust- äldrejizmålderiÖstergötland. Aun 24. Uppsala. boplats från övergången mellan senmesoliti- Karsten, P. 1994. Att kasta yxan i sjön: en studie kumochtidigneolitikum. Trycktarapporterfrån över rituell tradition och föriindring utifrån Arkeologikonsult AB 13. Upplands Väsby. skånska neolitiska offerfynd. Lund. —1995b. Ms. Skogsmossen, en tidigneolitisk bo- Kihlstedt, B. 1996.Neolitiseringen i Östra Mellan- och offerplats i norra Mellansverige. Slut- sverige —några reflektioner med utgångspunkt undersökningsrapport, RAÄ 633, Fellingsbro från nya 14C-dateringar. In: Bratt, P. (Ed). sn, Västmanland, Örebro län. Arkeologikon- Stenålder i Stockholms län. Pp. 72—76. Stock-

Current Swedisl& Archaeology, Vol. 6, /998 Prel&istoric Grin&ting Tools as Metaphorical Traces of tl&e Past 141

holms Länsmuseum. Pearsell, M. D. 1989. Paleoetnobotany. A hand- Kraybill, N. 1977. Pre-agricultural tools for the book ofprocedu res. Academic press. San Diego. preparation offoods in the Old World. In: Reed, Petré, B. 1984. Arkeologiska undersökningar på C. A. (Ed). Origi i&s of Agriculture. Pp. 485— Lovö. Del l. Neoli ti kum, bronsålder och äldsta 521. Mouton publishers. The Hague. jrir&&ålder. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Last, J. 1996.Neolithic houses —a central European Studies in North-European Archaeology 7. perspective. In: Darvill, T. & Thomas, J. (Eds). Stockholm. Neolithic Hoirses in Northwest Europe and Renfrew, C & Bahn, P. 1991.Archaeology: Theo- Beyond. Oxford. ries, Methods and Practice. London. Lidén, K. 1995. Prehistoric Diet Transitions: An Richards, A. I. 1969. Land, Labour and Diet in A rchneolr&gi cal perspecti ve. The ses and papers Northe&'n Rhodesia: Aii Econo&nic Study of the in scientific archaeology I. Stockholm Ar- Bemba Tribe. London. chaeological Research Laboratory. Stockholm. Risberg, J. et al. Ms. Siliceous inicrofossils, espe- Lidström Holmberg, C. 1993. Sadelfr&rn&arfe mal- ciallyphytoliths, asrecordedinfiveprehistoric stenar frrin yng&e .steiiålder. "Griml my denr sitesii& enstern midrlle S&veden. one, let her griiirl". Unpublished report. Flaten Roberts, C. 1991.A critical approach to gender as projektet, Rapport 2. Statens historiska muse- a category of analysis in archaeology. In: du um, Stockholm/Inst. för Arkeologi, Uppsala Cros, H. & Smith, L. (Eds). WomeninArchaeo- universitet. lr&gy: A Fe&nii&ist Critique. Occasional Papers Liibcke, P. (Ed). 1988. Diskurs. In: Filr&sofi- in Prehistory, No 23. Department of Prehistory. lerikonet. P. 117. Bokförlaget Forum. Stock- The Australian National University. Canberra. holm. Rydbeck, O. 1912. Undersökning av bronsålders- Malmer, M. P. 1962. Jungneolitl&iscl&e Studien. högar i Köpinge nära Ramlösa hälsobrunn i Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8'. Skåne. Fornviiiinen. Pp. 81—132. Stockholm. No 2. Lund. Schlanger, S. H. 1991.On manos, metates, and the Mc Carthy, F. D. 1941.Aboriginal Grindstones and historyof siteoccupations. AinericanAiitiquity Mortars. Australian Museuin Magnzine 7. Pp. 56 (3). Pp. 460—474. 329-333. Schön, V. 1995. Die Miihlsteine von Haithabu und Moore, L. H. 1986. Space, Test aml Geiidei: An Schleswig. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsge- Anthropologi cnl Stzrdy of(lie Ma rak&vet of Ke»y n. schichte des mittelalterlichen Miihlenwesens Cambridge University Press. Ca&nbridge. in Nordwesteuropa. Berichte iiber die Aus- — 1991,Epilogue. In: Gero, J. & Conkey, M, (Eds). g& «bungen i n Hai thnbu. Beri elit 3/. Wachholtz Engenderiiig Archaeology: Woinen aml Pre- Verlag. Neumiinster. hi story. Pp. 407—411. Oxford. Schön, W. & Holter, U. 1988. Zum gebrauch von Miiller, S. 1907. Nye fund og iakttagelser fra reib- und mahlsteinen in der Ostsahara. sten-, bronze- og jernalderen. Aarl&r»ger fi&i A rchiiologi sche Infi&rmati onen I/ (2). Bonn. norrlisk Oldkyndi g bet. Kobenhavn. Instit- Sharovskaja, T. A. 1992. Mala på kopior av tidiga Nelson, M. C. & Lippmeier, H. 1993. Grinding- kvarnstenar. For&&tidn tek&&i k 2/92. Sveg. tool design as conditioned by land-use pattern. Stjernquist, B. 1987. Spring-cults in Scandinavian Anzericaii Antiqui ty, 58 (2). Pp. 286—305. Prehistory. In: Linders, T. & Nordquist, G. Olausson, M. 1988. Ett gravffilt från n&n&eisk (Eds). Gifts tr& the Gods. Proceedings of the jä rnålder vid Å duleni Angarnsj i&r»nrridet. Raii Upp. sala Syn&posiunz /985. Boreas. Uppsala 68, Hackstn, Össebygnr&zssn. Upplaml. Arkeo- Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near logiska Rapporter och Meddelanden från Eastern Ci vilizations 15.Pp. 149—157.Uppsala. utionenn för Arkeologi vid Stockholms U ni ver- Stone, T. 1994.The impact of raw-material scarcity sitet, Nr 20. Stockholm. on ground-stone manufacture and use: An ex- Olsson, E. 1992.The Grödinge investigations —an ample from the Phoenix Basin Hohokam. example of interdisciplinary study and collab- Aineiican Antiquity 59. Pp. 680—694. oration. In: Laborntiv Arl eologi 6. Pp. 31—36. Sssrensen, M. L. S. 1988. Is there a feminist contri- The Archaeological Research Laboratory. bution to archaeology? A rchaeologi cal Re»i e»v Stockholm University. fiz&ni Ca»ibrirlge, vol. 7:1.Pp. 9—20. Cambridge. —1996.Neolitikum i Stockholms lön —kiillmaterial Thomas, J. 1991. Rethiiiking the Neolitlzic. New och forskningsläge. In: Bratt, P. (Ed). Stenr'lder Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University i Stockholms Rin. Pp. 40—65. Stockholms Läns- Press. museum. Van de Velde, P. 1992. Dust and ashes: the two Parsons, E. 1970.Mi tla, To&wi of the Sr&u/s. Chicago Neolithic cemeteries ofElsloo and Niedermerz University press. compared. In: Bakels. C. (Edl. The End of Our

Cu& ren& g&vedish A&ct&aeotogy, Vot. 6, /998 142 Cecilia Lidströzzz Hotznberg

Thi rd Decade. Papers vvritten ozz the occasiozz Wright, K. I. 1990. Sanclstozze and Cornmeal: ofthe 30thanni zzersary ofthe fnsti tute ofPrehi s- Eqrerimental Use of Early Pueblo Mai-e tory, vol. l. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia. Grizzding Tools fiozn Southvvestern Colorado. University of Leiden. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Welinder, S. 1977. The Mesolithic Stozte Age of Anthropology, Washington State University, Eastern Middle Stvedetz. Antikvariskt arkiv 65. Pul l man. Stockholm. Wylie, A. 1982. Epistemological Issues Raised by Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in tlze Neo(itlzic. The aStructuralistArchaeology. In: Hodder, I.(Ed). creation ofnerv rvorhls. Cambridge University Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Pp. 39— Press. 46. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Currezzt Szvedish Arclztzeotogy, VoL tz. 1998