Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology: Examining Technology through Production and Use

7: Understanding Grinding Technology through Experimentation

129 Replication studies are enlightening, not only for recognizing the best solution to a technological problem but also for understanding that sometimes the prehistoric agent made unexpected choices or choices that created satisfactory rather than optimal solutions. Experimentation with replicated tools has been a learning technique for over seventy years and is now commonly used for understanding how things worked, especially with tools manufactured through flaking techniques (Amick, Mauldin, and Binford 1989:5–6; Haury 1931; Mathieu 2002; Morris 1939; Semenov 1964; Vaughan 1985:3–6). Flaked lithic technologists started earlier and have been much more aggressive with experimental research on use-wear, wear rates, and kinetics than have ground stone technologists (e.g., Amick and Mauldin 1989; Hayden 1979; Hayden and Kamminga 1979; Keeley 1980; Mathieu 2002; Odell and Odell-Vereecken 1980; Tringham et al. 1974; Unger-Hamilton 1984; Vaughan 1985). In the 1970s and 1980s, the emphasis of flaked tool experiments was on controlling as many variables as possible, restricting the types of strokes, and counting the number of strokes before certain types of wear became visible on flaked edges or before retouch was needed. Some studies confronted the problem of identifying use-wear specific to different material types (see Vaughan 1985 for a summary of these studies). Tools [ c h a p t e r s e v e n ] Understanding Grinding Technology through Experimentation Jenny L. Adams m m m m m m m m m 130 Jenny L. Adams modified by grinding or impaction (commonly referred to as pecking) or involved in grinding or crushing activities have only recently received much scientific attention . Yet these tools were involved in such daily activities as food processing, pottery manufacture, resource procurement, and others. Early ground stone experiments in the U.S. Southwest included Emil Haury (1931) drilling tiny stone beads with cactus spines and Earl Morris (1939) cutting down trees with a stone axe. These were quick exploratory events. Systematic experiments were uncommon during the next fifty years, with Sergei Semenov’s studies (1964) the best-known exception. Then, beginning in the 1980s, experiments with ground stone tools focused primarily on food-processing activities but also on other processing and manufacturing activities (Adams 1988, 1989a, 1989b). Research goals at this time were to establish baseline patterns for use-wear comparisons with prehistoric tools and to explore manufacturing techniques, wear rates, efficiency, and kinetics. Examples of research on such topics can now be found for contexts in both the New World (see, for example, Adams 1993a, 1993b, 1999, 2002a, 2002b; Kamp 1995; Logan and Fratt 1993; Mauldin 1993; Mills 1993; Rowe 1995; Wright 1993) and the Old World (see, for example, Dubreuil 2001, 2004; Hamon 2008; Menasanch, Risch, and Soldevilla 2002; Procopiou and Treuil 2002; Risch 2002). Research on grinding food with sets of manos and metates and mortars and pestles in the U.S. West and Southwest is facilitated by fairly detailed ethnographic descriptions of various grinding processes (Bartlett 1933; Doelle 1976; Euler and Dobyns 1983; Hough 1915; Jackson 1991; Parsons 1939; Spier 1933:127; Stephen 1936; Underhill 1979). These descriptions serve as guides for designing experiments that compare and contrast various tools and techniques. Fewer ethnographic examples exist for other items, such as stone beads and axes, and for these we need either imaginative scenarios like those of Haury (1931) or cross-cultural comparisons like those of Peter Mills (1993). Basic Concepts Form and Function Lithic analysts have repeatedly asked certain questions. Is it reasonable to assume that every item of the same shape was used in the same way? How do we evaluate the range of possible uses for a prehistoric tool? When learning how to analyze artifacts, it is easy to assume that “form equals function.” This concept has been evaluated in the context of flaked stone analysis and found not always to be true (see, for example, Hayden 1979:61–62; Hayden and Kamminga 1979:5–6). Clearly, the same form functions in many activities, such as the screwdriver used to open paint cans, and the same function can be performed by tools of different forms—for example, all the configurations devised for bottle and can openers. The success of determining ground stone function based on form was called into question for me twice during a restoration and research project (1975–1980) 131 Understanding Grinding Technology through Experimentation conducted through the Museum of Northern Arizona (MNA) at the Hopi Village of...