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