Ground stone tools and spatial organization at the Mesolithic site of font del Ros (southeastern Pre-Pyrenees, Spain)

Gilabert, Xavier Roda; Martínez-Moreno, Jorge; Torcal, Rafael Mora

doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.11.023

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the MDB, grinding, pounding and chopping implements dominate collections in the form of soft seed grinding dishes and top stones, mortars and pestles, hammers and axes—all items that are usually included under the broad category ‘ground stone implements’ [10,15,40]. Material in the collections ranges from soft sandstone through to the hardest quartzite and igneous rock.…”

Section: A Study Of Ground Stone In the Murray Darling Basinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar questions were addressed at the Mesolithic site of Font del Ros in the Pre-Pyrenees, where pits were seen on a number of cobbles. Experimental cracking, crushing and grinding of roasted hazelnuts did not reproduce a distinctive pattern that would support hazelnut cracking [15]. They attributed the lack of distinct percussion marks to the ‘scanty hardness’ of the hazelnuts and observed that hard-shelled nuts requiring a powerful force to obtain the kernel would produce different results.…”

Section: Quandong Stones: a Provisional New Categorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Experimental studies of stones used for cracking hazelnuts and hard seeds indicate that use-wear from stone knapping, nut cracking and kernel grinding can be distinct [1,12–15]. Our paper contributes further to this debate by distinguishing between a pitted stone implement designed specifically for large-scale processing of quandong nuts and pits recorded on a range of multi-purpose stones.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quandong stones: A specialised Australian nut-cracking tool

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The quandong or native peach (Santalum acuminatum R.Br.) has been recognised as an important and tasty food resource among Aboriginal Australians in arid and semi-arid areas of southern Australia. It is valued for its fruit that is consumed raw or dried, and for its kernel, which is eaten raw or ground into paste for medicinal and skin care purposes. This paper reports on a study of ground stone implements within the Murray Darling Basin that has identified quandong stones as a distinct type of implement made specifically for the efficient cracking of quandong nuts. Data are presented on 1,327 ground stone implements from collections in 12 different locations in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), an area almost completely devoid of stone sources. Given the paucity of stone, multi-purpose use of implements is widely documented. Although it was common to find pits present in mortars and other ground stone tools demonstrating multiple functions, including use as anvils, a class of single purpose stones with multiple pits and distinctive form was identified. Most of these were found in areas known for groves of quandong and four were analysed for use-wear and residues along with two other ground stone items from the MDB. The results support their identification as specialised anvil stones for cracking quandong nuts.

show abstract

Section: A Study Of Ground Stone In the Murray Darling Basinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quandong Stones: a Provisional New Categorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quandong stones: A specialised Australian nut-cracking tool

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The event is the focus of behavioural investigation and is the only parameter appropriate to approaching behavioural issues . The information extracted from the entire lithic assemblage of an archaeological layer or of a site will distort the interpretation by making it biased by the more visible (but not necessary more common) events and will mislead researchers' understanding of past behaviours because they will analyse activities and phenomena together that did not actually occur in the same moment at the same place (Bailey, 2007;Machado et al, 2015;Gabucio et al, 2016;Roda Gilabert et al, 2016;Romagnoli and Vaquero, 2016;Vaquero et al, 2015). Furthermore, it is of primary importance to be able to relate each ramification event to a specific constraint, economic strategy and mobility and to discern between possible different, independent events.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Here and now or a previously planned strategy? Rethinking the concept of ramification for micro-production in expedient contexts: Implications for Neanderthal socio-economic behaviour

Romagnoli

Soler

Bargalló³

et al. 2018

Quaternary International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ramification is the term used to classify branched productive sequences in which a functional item (the flake) was exploited as a productive item (the core). This technological behaviour was present in Europe and the Levant beginning in the Lower and Early Middle Palaeolithic, but ramified productions were intensely developed in the Late Middle Palaeolithic. Traditionally, ramification has been interpreted as a well-structured behaviour, implying its integration into the provisioning strategies of past humans. This viewpoint has significant implications for the understanding of technological evolution in Neanderthals, suggesting specific cognitive and socioeconomic capacities. Ramified procedures were characterised by high flexibility due to the versatile patterns of the core-on-flake and are described in the literature as corresponding to several different knapping concepts and technical procedures. This research aimed to describe the role of ramification in the Late Middle Palaeolithic. We analysed two assemblages from the Abric Romaní site (located in the northeast part of the Iberian Peninsula) characterised by informal, expedient technologies. The focus was on the spatial and temporal fragmentation of the ramified sequences based on the identification of single technical events. The reduction of the scale of analysis and the resulting implementation of temporal resolution of the stone tool assemblages in such expedient contexts allowed us to understand ramification from an innovative perspective, setting aside our bias toward well-defined productive methods associated with preconceived economic and mobility patterns. The results showed that ramification reflected a range of behaviours, implying a variety of planning proficiency, economic strategies and social interactions. This means that 'ramified production' is not meaningful unless is linked with a detailed description of human choices and an understanding of temporal and spatial relationships between knapping events. Furthermore, the results showed that, to approach behavioural issues, we as researchers must change our unitary vision of assemblages and enlarge the scope of categories to which we apply that vision.

show abstract

“…If this is the case, the site represents an example of the widespread problem of palimpsest identification and intra-level diachronicity (e.g. Gaudzinski-Windheuser et al 2011; Bargalló et al 2016;Roda Gilabert et al 2016). Here, however, the question concerns whether not only multiple stages of activity, but two separate cultural traditions, are represented within a single archaeological layer.…”

Section: Understanding the Differences Between The Southern And Northmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Late Gravettian Site of Kostënki 21 Layer III, Russia: a Chronocultural Reassessment Based on a New Interpretation of the Significance of Intra-site Spatial Patterning

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The site of Kostënki 21 (also known as Gmelin or Gmelinskaia) is located on the very edge of the Don River at Kostënki (Voronezh Oblast, Russia). The main archaeological horizon, layer III, is dated to c. 23,000-21,000 14 C BP (c. 27,500-24,500 cal BP) and contained six concentrations of archaeological material, mostly interpreted as the remains of dwelling structures. A substantial Gravettian lithic assemblage was found. The site has traditionally been seen as without parallels within the Gravettian chronocultural framework of Eastern Europe. It has long been noted that clear differences in the lithic typology and faunal assemblages of the six concentrations can be used to separate them into two groups, but this has previously been attributed to differences in the activities carried out in the two areas. In this paper, we argue that the two parts of the site were created at different times and that one part of the site can potentially be grouped with several other sites in Russia and Ukraine on lithic technotypological grounds. The degree of patination of the flint artefacts found at the site provides support for our interpretation.

show abstract

Ground stone tools and spatial organization at the Mesolithic site of font del Ros (southeastern Pre-Pyrenees, Spain)

Cited by 12 publications

References 54 publications

Quandong stones: A specialised Australian nut-cracking tool

Quandong stones: A specialised Australian nut-cracking tool

Here and now or a previously planned strategy? Rethinking the concept of ramification for micro-production in expedient contexts: Implications for Neanderthal socio-economic behaviour

The Late Gravettian Site of Kostënki 21 Layer III, Russia: a Chronocultural Reassessment Based on a New Interpretation of the Significance of Intra-site Spatial Patterning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About