Implement Petrology Group Website

The newly updated and revamped Implement Petrology Group website has been successfully modernised largely through the hard work of Dr Steve Burrow. You can check it out here:-

Implement Petrology Group website

Hopefully the website will grow into a useful meeting place for researchers interested in Neolithic axes and other ground stone tools. Well done Steve!

Neolithic ritual centres?

An interesting dental analysis has recently discovered that the people living in the 'houses' at Çatalhöyük in Turkey were not  closley related - whatever the buildings there represent, they do not seem to comprise a settlement as we would (normally) understand it. We would have expected to find people living together in extended kinship groups, but it seems Çatalhöyük was a little different.

Marin Pilloud of the Central Identification Laboratory in Hickam, Hawaii and Clark Larsen of Ohio State University in Columbus did a detailed analysis of the teeth from the skeletons at Çatalhöyük and made the remarkable discovery. Follow the story here.

How can we explain this? Well, people were grinding grains, making bread and cooking on hearths in these structures, but the news that they were not living in family groups might suggest the site represents a religious site rather than a conventional settlement. If the site represents a religious complex we might anticipate the people there were responsible for organising the activities associated with the religion/cult, and they would need a support network to maintain them as they presided over their religious duties.

We see this kind of nucleated religious site almost everywhere - consider the Maltese Temple complexes, or the later Egyptian or Greek equivalents such as those at Luxor and Delphi. These places became the focus of pilgrimage for ordinary people. Perhaps this is what we are seeing at Çatalhöyük in Turkey? 

stone chisels and other miscellanea

Whilst archaeologists generally strive to be precise when it comes to describing artefacts there is a lack of clarity concerning those woodworking tools (or implements) which were probably not tree-felling axes. We have successfully dropped the antiquated term 'celt' in favour of more precise terminology, but why we persist in describing objects as axes which are clearly not equivalent (either morphologically or in terms of their utilitarian performance characteristics) is quite beyond me.

One could argue that the exisiting term 'axe' refers to all stone cutting implements, but realistically the  scope is so broad the term becomes meaningless, at least if we are to continue to debate the role(s) that these tools played in society. The difference between a utilitarian tool and a ceremonial object (one not designed to be used in the same way as a utilitarian counterpart) is sufficiently great that we really ought to be sure we are all on the same page whe it comes to nomenclature.

It is abundantly clear that the things we describe as Neolithic ground stone tools reflect a wide range of woodworking tools as well as tree-felling axes and other implements. As a typology can be used as a shorthand for researchers, we should strive to be more precise because otherwise we run the risk of conflating data sets into an arbitrary set of figures which are not very helpful to others.  Determining the design performance characteristics of the specimens we study is difficult enough without adding to the confusion (Chapple struggled with precisely this issue, 1987).

A chisel is morphologically entirely different to an axe. Both have blades, and both might be made of stone. But in use as tools the comparison ends. We might as well lump razor blades with a butchers cleaver - they are after all the same material and both are used for cutting.

There is some reluctance to pursue taxonomic issues within stone tools any further because of the extreme complexity we engage with (see Pitts 1996). However, complex artefact morphologies should not deter us from adopting an appropriate nomenclature when it can be demonstrated that we are indeed discussing different types of things. Chisels, are chisels. Axes, are axes. W.J. Knowles knew this in 1893. There is a beautiful specimen of a flint chisel at the Hunt Museum, Limerick, Ireland. The Hunt Museum, Limerick, Ireland (scroll down).

Conquering farmers or adaptive hunter-gatherers?

There have been a number of recent studies into the peopling of Europe. The debates which are revolving around the R-M269 genes first suggested that north-west temperate Europe was peopled by conquering farmers out of the east who displaced the indigenous hunter-gatherers. 

Now a team of researchers from Oxford and Edinburgh who have used a much larger data-set have determined that this earlier conclusion was flawed - and that in fact the modern population of Britain (and northern Europe) is comprised largely (over 75%) of people descended from the post-Holocene hunter-gatherers - we were not displaced, conquered or otherwise ousted by farmers at all - we simply adapted to new ideas and technologies which spread more or less quickly depending upon existing subsistence regimes, geographies and social networks.

All of this is very important for prehistorians and the study of the Neolithic. We have seen the same argument wax-and-wane previously in Neolithic studies. At one time the distinctive Beaker pottery supposedly marked the presence of invading farmers who brought bronze technology with them. Now we understand that indigenous populations were adapting new ceramic styles in local materials and developing their own distinctive patterns. Metallurgy seems to have developed along its own insular styles once people became aware of the relevant technology. The genetic data seems to suggest that Mesolithic aboriginals were capable of adaptive strategies too. Bacon, sausage and egg butty on wholemeal bread anyone?

G. B. J. Busby et al The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2011

carved stone balls

Whatever they were used for, carved stone balls represent some of the most fascinating objects you can see in a museum. They are predominantly a Scottish phenomenon, with a mere handful of specimens from northern Britain (Cumbria and Northumbria). There are distinct epi-centres in Orkney, Aberdeenshire and Scotland north of the Firth of Forth. The best place to see them is the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh which has a brilliant collection on display at Chambers Street.

However it  is not the distribution of these enigmatic objects which I spend a lot of my time thinking about, but the means of their manufacture and procurement (selection) of the raw materials from which they were made. Very clearly the raw materials were selected from a wide range of rock types which most closely approximates to that we might encounter on a pebble beach. That hypothesis ties-in very neatly with what we know about the production of the mace-heads with which they are contemporary.

The problem with any water-worn cobble is that they have been battered by the elements and may have internal flaws which are not visible to the naked eye but which never-the-less would signal catastrophic failure at some point if one attempted to convert them to a sphere. Using quarried material obviates this problem, but introduces another stage (quarrying) into their technical scheme. 

With a good rock specimen free from flaws and inclusions, the work to produce the sphere upon which the finished object is relatively straight-forward in terms of technique (pecking), but rather more complex in terms of finishing. I devised a method of making carved stone balls when I first began making them for my undergraduate dissertation, and that method is so successful I have not discovered a more economical alternative. But making a stone sphere without metal tools is not a simple process, requires a degree of skill and a modicum of intelligence. The decorations on the surface of the original specimens are an altogether different kettle-of-fish. Those sometimes extremely complicated designs far exceed the level of craft skill we generally observe across the range of Neolithic stone tools and can properly be described as elaborate.

The elaborate ground stone implements of Neolithic Britain and Ireland are amazing objects. It occurs to me today, as I sit with one such specimen on my desk, that only the most skillful artisans were capable of making the most elaborate specimens, and the important observation we might derive is that clearly - whatever the bulk of them were for, certain specimens were probably commissioned as particularly elaborate specimens for a reason, as opposed to being made on a whim.

Neolithic French didn't like cheese

An interesting study has established that the Neolithic French didn't like cheese! That's not a joke, but the findings of a scientific report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Lacan et al 2011 published their DNA analyses which shows the Neolithic French couldn't stomache cheese. Interestingly, many of the rest of us in northern temperate Europe could, and did. The DNA analysis is very detailed. Whilst the rest of us appreciated a good cheese, the French were turning their noses up at it.

I have long wondered why there were so many excellent varieties of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh cheese whilst the French depend upon their (bland by comparison) bree, and a bleu cheese that doesn't come anywhere near a good Stilton, Irish Cashel or Danish Blue. Perhaps this explains it - we were making it longer (the climate helps, let's be fair!).

Nouveau Neolithic

Food is sublimely unifying. People sit with their family, friends and neighbours to eat, drink and chat, informally and formally depending upon the occasion. What interests me about food is how it might have looked and tasted in Later Prehistory. 

Having worked my way through many so-called 'prehistoric recipes' I decided that the people who constructed elaborate places such as Maes Howe or Newgrange would simply not put up with it. Bad, unimaginative food that is. Everything does not need to be a stew, hog-roast (feasting! arg!) or cooked in a hole in the ground (great in Rarotonga, not-so-great in Britain!). Once we accept that Neolithic life was far more sophisticated than depicted in the antiquated corners of the public conscious (as opposed to at the forefront of archaeological research), the obvious conclusion is that people will have cooked and eaten good food.

In Wales we have some very traditional breads and cakes which were originally cooked on heated stones. Some old Welsh houses still have their cooking stones and these dainty cakes might be a Neolithic invention: flour, salt, dried fruits, butter, butter-milk - yum! Welsh cakes rock!