The Cultural Context of Food Grinding
Equipment in Northern Ethiopia:
An Ethnoarchaeological Approach
by
Laurie Ann Nixon-Darcus
B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2011
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
in the
Department of Archaeology
Faculty of Environment
Laurie Ann Nixon-Darcus 2014
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Fall 2014
Approval
Name:
Laurie Ann Nixon-Darcus
Degree:
Master of Arts
Title:
The Cultural Context of Food Grinding Equipment in
Northern Ethiopia: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach
Examining Committee:
Chair: George Nicholas
Professor
Catherine D’Andrea
Senior Supervisor
Professor
Sarah Walshaw
Supervisor
Limited Term Lecturer, History
Jenny Adams
External Examiner
Research Archaeologist
Desert Archaeology Inc.
Tucson, Arizona
Date Defended/Approved: October 31, 2014
ii
Partial Copyright Licence
iii
Ethics Statement
iv
Abstract
Grinding stones have been in use by humans since the African Middle Stone Age and
for food processing for at least the past 28,000 years. This study uses data collected
and insights gained through ethnoarchaeological interviews and participant observations
to document the technological and social interrelationships in the life history of grinding
stones in northern Ethiopia. The study took place in northeastern Tigrai, Ethiopia, in a
traditional (non-mechanized) rural setting using design theory and the chaîne opératoire
approach.
Research involved the comparison of gross morphology and contexts of
modern and pre-Aksumite (1600 BCE – 1 BCE/CE) archaeological grinding stones
which resulted in interpretations of efficiency changes through time. The knowledge
gained through ethnoarchaeological interviews and observations when applied to the
archaeological record revealed that during pre-Aksumite times, people in this locale
were processing both indigenous grains (t’ef and finger millet) as well as imported Near
Eastern domesticates.
Keywords:
grinding stones; ethnoarchaeology; pre-Aksumite period; northern
Ethiopia; design theory; chaîne opératoire
v
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to the wonderful people
of Tigrai who opened their homes and their
hearts to share their knowledge and expertise
with me. This research would not exist without
their willingness to share. I hope that I have
done their traditions justice.
I would also like to dedicate this thesis to my
husband Patrick and my mother Dianne for
their enormous support, patience,
encouragement and inspiration.
vi
Acknowledgements
My greatest thanks are to the people of Tigrai who welcomed me into their communities
and shared their knowledge, expertise and memories with me. I would especially like to
acknowledge the elders who participated in our workshop, identifying and commenting
on artifacts.
They are: Waizoro Zaid Mahray, Haleka Tehwoelde Brahn Beyene,
Waizoro Nigisti Hagos, Haleka Gebreselassie Gebreyesus, Waizoro Medin Abade, Ato
Hailu Hago, and Ato Mebratu Areyhu. In addition, two special ladies who made me feel
like family, Waizoro Lemlem Gebreziabhear and Waizoro Azieb Tesfay. One young
lady, Sinaid, became my friend and helped us locate households around Mezber.
Yemane Maresa and Habtamu Mekonnen Taddesse who accompanied me on
interviews and were the translators deserve special recognition for their contribution to
this research. Without their understanding of the language, and customs, I would not
have succeeded in obtaining the information and data I needed.
I would like to pay special thanks to my supervisor/advisor Dr. A. Catherine D’Andrea
who has been the greatest mentor, providing me with guidance and patient support
through this thesis research and development. I appreciate her time and commitment,
and her insistence on high standards. Additional academic guidance and support came
from Dr. Sarah Walshaw who generously gave of her time and expertise. Her positive
attitude fed my drive when things got tough. My external examiner, Dr. Jenny L. Adams,
inspired me through her work and helped me get excited about the possibilities of
grinding stone research. I appreciate her dedication to the topic and her kindness in
agreeing to be a part of my thesis committee. Transliterations for many Tigrinyan terms
were provided by Professor Yaqob Beyene, Professor Emeritus, Department of Asia,
Africa, and the Mediterranean, University of Naples, and additional Tigrinyan terms were
translated by Yamane Maresa or are from D’Andrea and Mitiku (2002:182-183).
During my time in the master’s program, the staff in the office – Merrill Farmer, Laura
Walker and Chris Papaianni, provided extraordinary assistance and smiles. Shannon
Wood and Peter Locher were there when I needed them (especially map making, thank
you Shannon). Dr. Lynn Welton provided me with some amazing site mapping, thank
vii
you so much. I am grateful for the professors in the department who through these last
two years, and in the past, have had the faith in me that pushed me to be a better
student and take on the challenge of graduate school (especially Professors George
Nicholas and Barb Winter).
I acknowledge my graduate cohort and other graduate students who provided feedback,
encouragement and friendship.
My family has helped in so many ways, especially my husband Patrick, my mother
Dianne, and my sisters Terri and Brandi.
supportive, thank you.
My brothers Dan and Darryl were also
And from somewhere beyond I know Dad you were saying
“Come on honey, I know you can do it.”
My gratitude goes to the multiple funding sources, which provided me with the ability to
focus on this work.
Funding was generously supplied by Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Grant, Provost Prize of Distinction, Graduate
Fellowship Awards, and Graduate (International) Research Travel Award. I would also
like to acknowledge the funding that allowed me to present my research at the Society
for American Archaeology Annual Meetings, which included the Graduate Student
Society and the Archaeology Graduate Student Caucus.
I have attempted to present the data and interpretations in an accurate and honest way,
and any errors or omissions in this thesis are my own.
viii
Table of Contents
Approval .......................................................................................................................... ii
Partial Copyright Licence ............................................................................................... iii
Ethics Statement ............................................................................................................ iv
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... v
Dedication ...................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... vii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables .................................................................................................................xiii
List of Figures................................................................................................................ xv
List of Acronyms.......................................................................................................... xviii
Glossary – Tigrinyan Terms ..........................................................................................xix
Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
1.1. The Cultural Context of Food Grinding Equipment in Northern Ethiopia ................. 1
1.2. Research Aims ....................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Overview of Thesis ................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2. Background ............................................................................................... 7
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 7
2.2. Grinding Stones: The Technology - Antiquity and Importance ................................ 8
2.3. Background to Grinding Stone Studies ................................................................. 10
2.3.1. Ethnoarchaeological and Ethnographic Studies of Grinding Stones .......... 10
2.3.2. Archaeological Studies of Grinding Stones ............................................... 18
Quarrries and Manufacturing ...................................................................................18
Presence in Archaeological Sites, Morphology and Functionality ...........................20
Resharpening and Repurposing ..............................................................................27
The Cultural Context of Grinding Stones .................................................................28
2.3.3. Summary of Potential Opportunities for Contribution ................................. 29
2.4. Ethiopia – An Overview ........................................................................................ 32
2.4.1. Environmental Background ....................................................................... 33
2.4.2. Culture History .......................................................................................... 35
2.4.3. Origins of Agriculture in the Horn of Africa ................................................ 39
2.4.4. The Study Locale – Mezber and Ona Adi .................................................. 42
2.5. Chapter Summary ................................................................................................ 47
Chapter 3. Theory and Methods ............................................................................... 49
3.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 49
3.2. Theory .................................................................................................................. 50
3.2.1. Design Theory........................................................................................... 50
3.2.2. The Chaîne Opératoire ............................................................................. 54
3.3. Methods ............................................................................................................... 57
3.3.1. Field Methods ........................................................................................... 57
Ethnoarchaeology ....................................................................................................57
ix
Location Selection ...................................................................................................62
Interviews ................................................................................................................. 62
Observation of Manufacturing Process & Quarry Site Visit .....................................64
Participant/Observation of Grinding Sessions .........................................................65
Artifact Workshop with Elders ..................................................................................65
Ethnographic Data Recording and Analysis ............................................................65
3.3.2. Lab Methods ............................................................................................. 66
Morphology .............................................................................................................. 66
Use-Wear and Previous Supporting Residue and Stable Isotope Analysis ............69
3.4. Chapter Summary ................................................................................................ 70
Chapter 4. Results: Ethnoarchaeology .................................................................... 71
4.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 71
4.2. Ethnoarchaeological Study of Grinding Stones ..................................................... 72
4.2.1. The Interviews........................................................................................... 72
4.2.2. The Participant/Observation Events .......................................................... 72
4.2.3. Grinding Stones in Gulo Makeda, Eastern Tigrai – The
Ethnoarchaeological Results ..................................................................... 73
A Gulo Makeda Grinding Stone Typology ...............................................................73
Grinding Stone Manufacturing .................................................................................77
Training and Becoming an Expert .....................................................................77
Procuring the Raw Materials .............................................................................79
Quarry Sites ............................................................................................... 79
Raw Material Selection .............................................................................. 81
First Stage of Manufacturing – Excavation & ‘Breaking’ the Stone .........................84
Second Stage of Manufacturing – Shaping the Maṭhan (Block Preparation) ..........89
Manufacturing the Madit ..........................................................................................93
Third Stage of Manufacturing – Finishing the Maṭhan and Madit ............................95
Debitage ................................................................................................................ 100
Transporting the Maṭhan .......................................................................................101
Economics: Cost of a Grinding Stone....................................................................102
Post Manufacturing ................................................................................................102
Re-touch (Re-pecking) and Rehabilitation (Resharpening) ............................102
Grinding Stone Use ...............................................................................................104
Discard ................................................................................................................... 113
4.2.4. Social Relations & Values ....................................................................... 116
4.3. Chapter Summary .............................................................................................. 119
Chapter 5. Results: The Analysis of the Archaeological and Modern
Grinding Stones .................................................................................... 120
5.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 120
5.1.1. Dating ..................................................................................................... 121
5.2. Summary of Patterns & Major Conclusions for Mezber and Modern
Grinding Stone Artifacts ...................................................................................... 123
5.2.1. Sizes and Measurements ........................................................................ 123
Mațhan ................................................................................................................... 124
Madqos .................................................................................................................. 129
Madit ...................................................................................................................... 130
Wedimadqos .......................................................................................................... 137
x
5.2.2. Shapes.................................................................................................... 141
5.2.3. Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity................................................ 145
5.2.4. Mațhan .................................................................................................... 147
5.2.5. Madqos ................................................................................................... 157
5.2.6. Madit ....................................................................................................... 159
5.2.7. Wedimadqos ........................................................................................... 170
5.2.8. Mokarai – Hammerstone Attributes ......................................................... 171
5.3. The Archaeological Context ................................................................................ 174
5.4. Chapter Summary .............................................................................................. 179
Chapter 6. Discussion ............................................................................................. 181
6.1. Ethnoarchaeology .............................................................................................. 182
6.1.1. Economic Contributions & Gender Roles: Mutually Supportive ............... 182
6.1.2. Manufacturing ......................................................................................... 182
6.1.3. Design Decisions, Expert Knowledge and Status .................................... 183
6.1.4. Grinding Stone Use ................................................................................. 189
6.1.5. Location and Use of Grinding Stones ...................................................... 196
Protection from the Elements ................................................................................196
Tables, Standing and Rhythmic Motions ...............................................................196
Angles of Grinding Stones .....................................................................................199
Rehabilitation/Resharpening .................................................................................201
6.1.6. Grinding Stone Re-Purposing and Discard & Recognition in the
Archaeological Record ............................................................................ 205
6.1.7. Social Implications of Grinding ................................................................ 207
6.1.8. Changes Since Introduction of Mechanical Mills ..................................... 209
6.2. The Artifacts ....................................................................................................... 213
6.2.1. Antiquity of Traditions.............................................................................. 213
6.2.2. A Multi-Purpose Tool............................................................................... 214
6.2.3. Phytolith Analysis .................................................................................... 219
6.2.4. What Else Did Grinding Stones Grind? ................................................... 222
6.3. Changes Through Time – Designing Efficiencies from the Archaic through
the Late pre-Aksumite and compared to the Modern .......................................... 223
6.4. Chapter Summary .............................................................................................. 225
Chapter 7. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 227
7.1. Meeting the Research Objectives ....................................................................... 228
7.2. Potential for Future Research ............................................................................. 233
References ............................................................................................................... 236
Appendix A.
Interview Questionnaire and Observation Guideline ........................ 254
Appendix B.
Ethnoarchaeology Data Analysis ..................................................... 261
Appendix C.
Workshop with Elders: Classification of Mezber Artifacts................. 297
Appendix D.
Measurements for Mezber Mațhan and Madqos Artifacts ................ 301
Appendix E.
Measurements for Mezber Madit and Wedimadqos Artifacts ........... 304
Appendix F.
Measurements of Modern Grinding Stones ..................................... 310
xi
Appendix G.
Shapes: Mațhan and Madqos .......................................................... 314
Appendix H.
Shapes: Madit and Wedimadqos ..................................................... 317
Appendix I.
Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity: Mațhan and Madqos ..... 327
Appendix J:
Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity: Madit and
Wedimadqos ...................................................................................................... 330
Appendix K:
Modern Mațhan Shapes and Angles ................................................ 341
xii
List of Tables
Table 2.1.
Tentative archaeological Phases at Mezber. ............................................ 7
Table 3.1.
Diagrammatic Conception of the General Design Process ..................... 51
Table 4.1.
Interview Summary ................................................................................ 72
Table 4.2.
Gulo Makeda Modern Grinding Stone Typology Attributes ..................... 75
Table 4.3.
List of Tools............................................................................................ 85
Table 4.4.
Attributes of Newly Manufactured Grinding Stones (cm) ........................ 91
Table 4.5.
Time to Complete Manufacturing of a Maṭhan by Expert Team .............. 98
Table 4.6
Examples of Manufacturing Debitage Measurements (in cm) ............... 100
Table 5.1.
Mezber Artifacts Analyzed .................................................................... 121
Table 5.2.
Tentative Mezber Archaeological Site Phasing (D’Andrea and
Welton in prep.) .................................................................................... 122
Table 5.3.
Mezber Grinding Stones by Site Phasing ............................................. 122
Table 5.4.
Summary of measurements (cm) data of all Mezber Maṭhan &
Madqos Artifacts .................................................................................. 125
Table 5.5.
Measurements (cm) of Individual Intact (Unbroken) Mezber
Mațhan and Madqos Artifacts ............................................................... 126
Table 5.6.
Summary of Measurements (cm) of Modern Udo, Mațhan,
Madqos ................................................................................................ 128
Table 5.7.
Madqos Intact Width Measurements (cm) ........................................... 129
Table 5.8.
Summary of Size Measurements (cm) of Mezber Madit and
Wedimadqos Artifacts .......................................................................... 130
Table 5.9.
Summary of Size Measurements (cm) for Modern Madit and
Wedimadqos ........................................................................................ 131
Table 5.10.
Mezber Intact Madit Artifact Measurements (cm) ................................. 133
Table 5.11.
Mezber Broken Madit Stone Width Measurements (cm) by Phase ....... 135
Table 5.12.
Mezber Madit (all intact lengths and widths) Measurements (cm) –
Archaic to Late Phase .......................................................................... 136
xiii
Table 5.13.
Mezber Intact Wedimadqos Measurements (cm); Chronological .......... 139
Table 5.14
Mezber Broken Wedimadqos Measurements (cm); Chronological ....... 140
Table 5.15.
Shape Classification Categories and Definitions (based on Wright
1992).................................................................................................... 142
Table 5.16.
Use Surface Wear and Intensity Classifications and Definitions
(based on Adams 2014a). .................................................................... 146
Table 5.17.
Modern Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Transverse .............................. 150
Table 5.18.
Mezber and Modern Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Long Section ....... 150
Table 5.19.
Modern Maṭhan Angles (installed in a table)......................................... 152
Table 5.20.
Mezber Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Long Section –
Chronological ....................................................................................... 154
Table 5.21.
Mezber Mațhan Use Surface Wear ...................................................... 154
Table 5.22.
Mezber Mațhan Use Surface Texture ................................................... 155
Table 5.23.
Mezber Bifacial Madqos Shapes Use Surface...................................... 158
Table 5.24.
Mezber Bifacial Madit – Chronological ................................................. 159
Table 5.25.
Mezber Madit Grips and Grooves – Chronological ............................... 161
Table 5.26.
Mezber Madit Shape of Use Surface in Plan: Chronological ................ 164
Table 5.27.
Mezber Madit Surface Textures by Phase: Bifacial Stones .................. 168
Table 5.28.
All (dated) Mezber Madit Use Surfaces Textures by Phase .................. 168
Table 5.29.
Mezber Wedimadqos Key Patterns ...................................................... 170
Table 5.30.
Mokarai (Hammerstone) sizes (cm)...................................................... 173
Table 6.1.
Cross Cultural Comparison of Manufacturing Times ............................ 186
Table 6.2.
Cross Cultural Comparison of Time Spent Grinding ............................. 190
Table 6.3.
Cross Cultural Comparison of Grinding Surface Sizes (cm) ................. 192
Table 6.4.
Grinding Times for 1 kg of Flour ........................................................... 194
Table 6.5.
Phytolith Analysis and Surface Textures .............................................. 220
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1.1.
Location of study ...................................................................................... 4
Figure 2.1.
Set of Grinding Stones from Gulo Makeda, eastern Tigrai, Ethiopia ......... 8
Figure 2.2.
Map of northern Ethiopian locations noted in this chapter ...................... 13
Figure 2.3.
Mezber Valley, Gulo Makeda, Tigrai, Ethiopia (2012) ............................. 34
Figure 2.4.
Excavated Fields at Mezber, 2012 ......................................................... 43
Figure 2.5.
Mezber Upper Architecture .................................................................... 44
Figure 2.6.
Mezber Lower Architecture .................................................................... 45
Figure 3.1.
Orientation, Terminology and Measuring of Grinding Quern ................... 68
Figure 4.1
Modern Grinding Stones Length Variation .............................................. 75
Figure 4.2.
Maṭhan Built into Udo Table with Madit on top ....................................... 76
Figure 4.3.
Madqos with Wedimadqos on top .......................................................... 76
Figure 4.4.
Preferred sandstone raw material for grinding stone production ............. 82
Figure 4.5.
Experts’ Helpers Apply Leverage with a Pry Bar During
Excavation while Experts Supervise ....................................................... 86
Figure 4.6.
Experts’ Helpers Using Wedges and a Sledge Hammer to ‘Break’
the Boulder in Two. ................................................................................ 88
Figure 4.7.
Experts’ Helpers Trimming Large Flakes ................................................ 90
Figure 4.8.
Experts’ Helper Removing Flake Scars from Ventral (Grinding)
Surface .................................................................................................. 90
Figure 4.9.
Final Finishing of the Madit by the Experts: Haleka Tewoelde
Brahn and Haleka Gebresalassie ........................................................... 95
Figure 4.10.
Grinding Stone Manufacturing Session 2013 (non-experts) ................... 99
Figure 4.11.
Transporting the maṭhan and madit ...................................................... 101
Figure 4.12.
Mogogo ................................................................................................ 106
Figure 4.13.
Consultant Waizoro Letasalasie Kashay Demonstrating Use of
Wedimadqos against a Madqos ........................................................... 109
xv
Figure 4.14.
Waizoro Zewdu Berhe Grinding ........................................................... 111
Figure 4.15.
Maheuster (left) and Mahado (right) ..................................................... 113
Figure 4.16.
Sanda-karai (Aloe Vera Root, used for cleaning grinding
surfaces). ............................................................................................. 113
Figure 4.17.
Grinding Stone Re-Purposed in Wall Construction. .............................. 115
Figure 4.18.
Men Taking Time to Socialize During Manufacturing Session 2012 ..... 118
Figure 5.1.
Mațhan Stone Length Measurements (cm) Over Time (Middle to
Late pre-Aksumite) ............................................................................... 127
Figure 5.2.
Pre-Aksumite to Modern Maṭhan Grinding Surface Sizes (sq cm) ........ 127
Figure 5.3.
Mezber Intact Madit Average Surface Length / Width (cm) by
Phase................................................................................................... 134
Figure 5.4.
Mezber Intact Madit Average Surface Area (cm) by Phase .................. 134
Figure 5.5.
Mezber Madit Artifact Measurements (cm) Chart – Archaic to Late
Phase (Averages) ................................................................................ 137
Figure 5.6.
Examples of Shapes ............................................................................ 143
Figure 5.7.
Mezber Maṭhan Shape in Plan View..................................................... 148
Figure 5.8.
Mezber Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Transverse .............................. 149
Figure 5.9.
Modern Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Transverse .............................. 149
Figure 5.10.
Mezber Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Long Section ........................... 151
Figure 5.11.
Modern Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Long Section ........................... 151
Figure 5.12.
Modern Maṭhan with a Concave Use Surface Long Section ................. 153
Figure 5.13.
Modern Mațhan with a Flat Surface Long Section: Installed Flat .......... 153
Figure 5.14.
Examples of Evidence of Resharpening (SN 410 Square C1,
Locus 8, Pail 14) .................................................................................. 156
Figure 5.15.
Mezber Shapes of Use Surface: Madqos comparison to Mațhan ......... 157
Figure 5.16.
Mezber Madit Artifact Class (Overall Shape) ........................................ 160
Figure 5.17.
Mezber Madit Shape in Plan ................................................................ 161
Figure 5.18.
Grip on Madit (SN 3220B Square E1, Locus 28, Pail 43) ..................... 162
xvi
Figure 5.19.
Groove on Madit (SN 1440 Square A1, Locus 3, Pail 4) ....................... 162
Figure 5.20.
Mezber Maṭhan and Madit Use Surface Plan View Increases in
Rectangular Shapes, from Archaic to Late Phases .............................. 164
Figure 5.21.
Mezber Madit Shape of Use Surface Transverse ................................. 165
Figure 5.22.
Mezber Madit Shape of Use Surface Long Section .............................. 166
Figure 5.23.
Mezber Madit Use Surface Smooth Textures by Phases...................... 169
Figure 5.24.
Waizoro Letay Alemayo Resharpening (“Rejuvenating”) a Broken
Madit with a Mokarai (Hammerstone) ................................................... 171
Figure 5.25.
Mokarai (Hammerstones) a. Basalt (SN 3629, Square C1, Locus
36, Pail 71); b. Quartz (SN 3950, Square C1, Locus 46, Pail 90);
c. Sandstone (SN 3910, Square C1, Locus 45, Pail 88) ....................... 172
Figure 5.26.
Collapsed udo in Field E1, Locus 39. ................................................... 175
Figure 5.27.
Mezber Field E1 Loci (referred to in this section).................................. 176
Figure 5.28.
Mezber Field C1 Loci (referred to in this section) ................................. 178
Figure 5.29.
Mațhan found in wall Field B2 Locus. ................................................... 179
Figure 6.1.
Senenu Grinding Grain – Thebes Egypt ............................................... 197
Figure 6.2.
Example of Cloth Strip Used To Keep Hands on Madit ........................ 199
Figure 6.3.
Peck Mark Causing Stone to Crack ...................................................... 204
Figure 6.4.
Close-up View of Peck Mark and Crack ............................................... 204
Figure 6.5.
Bifacial Madit, Artifact 4200, Smooth Surface....................................... 217
Figure 6.6.
Bifacial Madit, Artifact 4200, Coarse Surface ....................................... 217
Figure 6.7.
Bifacial Madit, Artifact 1832, Smooth Surface....................................... 218
Figure 6.8.
Bifacial Madit, Artifact 1832, Coarse Surface ....................................... 218
xvii
List of Acronyms
A.M.
ante meridiem (Latin) meaning "before midday"
AV
Average, in relation to a statistical formula.
BCE
Before the Common Era, also Before the Current Era (a notation referring to a
year)
c.
circa
CE
Common Era, Also Current Era (a notation referring to a year)
cm
centimeter – a unit of linear measure
D
Depth – used in measurements, referred to herein as thickness
DMT
Also known as D’MAT. A reference to a proposed regional polity developing
in northern Ethiopia during the pre-Aksumite phase
e.g.
exempi gratia (Latin) meaning “for the sake of example”
ETAP
Eastern Tigrai Archaeological Project
et al.
and others
etc.
etcetera, meaning that further similar items are included in the preceding list
i.e.
id est (Latin) meaning “that is”
kg
kilogram, a unit of weight measure
L
length – used in measurements
n
number, in “number of samples represented”
NE
North Eastern
P.M.
post meridiem, (Latin) meaning "after midday”
sq cm
square centimeters – a unit of measure
SN
Serial Number (also known as Collection Item Number for the artifact)
yr
year
xviii
Glossary – Tigrinyan Terms
atsa
wheat/barley grain mix
birr
the unit of currency in Ethiopia. The Canadian dollar equivalent
as of June 28, 2014 is $0.054 (www.xe.com).
chukarra
small hoe
emin-ee hy-lee
large basalt stone used for manufacturing in the past
embasha
a wheatened flatbread
Haleka
one of the authorities of the Ethiopian Christian Orthodox church,
a ‘deacon’
injera
an Amharic term commonly used, also known as “taita” in
Tigrinya, and refers to fermented flat pancake like bread that
when served is sour and spongy in consistency
kitcha
a wheaten flatbread
madit
hand held grinding stone, used with a maṭhan for grinding grains
madqos
large stationery quern grinding stone for grinding salt, peppers,
beans, wet pre-ground grains and other vegetal matter
magafia
shovel
mahado
a straw brush, tied mid-way, used to clean the surface of the
grinding stones, also used to stir grains and coffee beans while
roasting
maheuster
a straw brush, longer than mahado, tied at the top, used to clean
the surface of the grinding stones, also used to stir grains and
coffee beans while roasting
mawqari
hammer stone used in earlier times, now replaced with metal
tools
martello
small hammer
maṭhan
a large stationery quern grinding stone for grinding grains
mebarro
large hoe
mehu-ati
axe (for excavation & trimming)
melaquino
pry bar
melde
a unit comprised of two large sticks and binding for transporting
large grinding stones
modesha
sledge/large hammer
mogogo
ovens and cooking surfaces
monfit
sieves for separating flour from chaff
xix
san’da ka’ray
pounded aloe vera root used for cleaning grinding stone surfaces
scarpello/punta
wedge/chisel (used for splitting rock)
shiro
a chick pea based spicy sauce served with injera
sua
a fermented beverage, similar to beer
teheni
roasted and ground barley that is scooped up with the hand and
squeezed into a compressed form of coarse dough for eating as
a snack
ṭėḣlo
water is added to teheni, the soft dough is made into balls and
either eaten as a snack plain or dipped into a sauce
t’ef
Eragrostis tef, an Ethiopian domesticated small grain
udo
stone table built to support the quern (maṭhan and sometimes
madqos), once quern is installed, the table is covered in mud and
dung and painted
wagi
black wheat
wedimadqos
“wedi” translates as “child of”, so wedimadqos is a “child of
madqos”, a handstone
xx
Chapter 1.
Introduction
1.1. The Cultural Context of Food Grinding 1 Equipment in
Northern Ethiopia
Grinding stones “are necessary for life” and “without them we would die”. These
comments came from consultants interviewed in northern Ethiopia in 2012 and 2013.
What is so important about these tools? For agricultural communities relying on cereal
grains for subsistence, and until mechanical mills are introduced, grinding stones are
used to reduce grain to a consistency that is suitable for human consumption. When a
diet is highly reliant on these cereals, the importance of the grinding is increased. The
Pueblo populations of the American Southwest depended on their crops for survival and
it was the grinding stones that made consumption of corn possible (Adams 1993, 1999;
Hard et al. 1996, Parry and Christenson 1987). In Ethiopia grinding stones have been
used for millennia to process grains important to the diet. It is for this reason, survival,
1
The typology for grinding stone tools varies considerably and though several typologies have
been proposed (for example see Adams 2014a; David 1998; Wright 1992), none have been
generally accepted by archaeologists. As a result there seems to be no standardization in
how researchers describe and classify grinding stones at present. Terms include but are not
limited to: querns, netherstones, millstones, basal stones, metate (for the stationary bottom
stone) and handstones, manos (common for the movable top stone). Holmberg (1998:125)
argues that using the term grinding ‘stones’ denotes an artifact created through use and lacks
the identification of the technological and design choices made in creating these cultural
materials. In this thesis the term ‘grinding stones’ is used to refer to the pair of stones that
grind the matter as it is a well understood term. Holmberg’s (1998:125) suggestion is to
instead refer to these tools as ‘grinding tools’, however having spent time observing the
grinding processes, the grinding took kit involves not only the upper and lower stones used to
grind the vegetal matter, there are also straw brushes, sheep wool and other cleaners,
hammer stones for resharpening surfaces, and fabric hand braces. The term grinding ‘tools’
encompasses all these pieces of equipment. I use the phrase ‘grinding equipment’ to refer to
the full repertoire of tools and accessories used in the grinding process.
1
that grinding stones are considered to be the most important tool in the house (Bartlett
1933:3).
In Guatemala men consider grinding stones vital to life (Wilson 1995:41).
Balme (1991:6) found evidence that heavy grinding stones had been transported at least
100 km during the Holocene period in New South Wales, an indication of the effort
expended to obtain these important tools. Intricately designed grinding stones have
been uncovered in Costa Rica, the decorative work an indication of the high regard for
these tools (Stone and Balser 1957). What seems like a simple tool – two rocks, one
stationary, one moving back and forth across the surface, with grains (and other vegetal
matter) placed between -- is a tool that has been used daily or almost daily world-wide
for millennia. Despite their ubiquity and integral role in subsistence economies of the
past, studies of this technology have been relatively few.
Holmberg (1998:123) points out that grinding stones are rarely used to interpret
the past despite the numbers of artifacts recovered. In some cases they were likely left
at the excavation site because of their unwieldy weight. In other cases they may have
been seen as women’s tools, not worthy of intensive investigation.
As stated by
Homberg (1998:124):
“Their low status is most probably linked to the overall interpretation of
grinding tools as purely functional domestic objects. It is consequently
assumed that they have no social intentional meanings beyond the
functional, and are not value laden”.
Other lithic tools, typically flaked stone, used for hunting, de-fleshing and cutting
meat have been highly studied but grinding stones may have actually contributed more
to the diet. Whatever the reasons for overlooking the potential for this technology to
inform us about the archaeological record, the time has come to devote more attention to
grinding stone research. Through studying the daily tools used we may come to know
the daily picture of past cultures (Stone and Balser 1957:165).
2
1.2. Research Aims
This study attempts to answer the question how can the ethnoarchaeological study of
grinding contribute to our understanding of the technological, social and economic
context of grinding in ancient and present northern Ethiopian communities?
Specific objectives of this research include:
1. through interviews and observations, document the technological and
social interrelationships in the life history of grinding stones in a
traditional (non-mechanized) rural setting in northern Ethiopia using
design theory and the chaîne opératoire approach; and
2. compare gross morphology and contexts of modern and pre-Aksumite
(1600 BCE to 1 BCE/CE) archaeological grinding stones excavated
from the site of Mezber.
Ethnoarchaeological fieldwork was carried out in villages in the Gulo Makeda
region of northeastern Tigrai, northern Ethiopia (Figure 1.1) where access to mechanical
mills has only been available in the last few decades. Individuals in this area still have
the knowledge and memory of manufacturing, using and discarding grinding stones.
Schmidt and Walz (2007:53) identify the necessity of accessing local histories often held
in oral form in Africa to contribute to understanding the African past, avoiding framing
interpretations solely in terms of Western epistemologies. Interviews were held with both
male and female advisors who shared their knowledge and expertise about the full life
cycle of grinding stones. Using the theory and methods associated with the chaîne
opératoire and design theory, there was an ability to move beyond just understanding
the technical aspects of grinding stones and discover the intricate socio/economic
interrelationships that exist through grinding manufacture and use in this culture.
Grinding as well as manufacturing offer opportunities for socialization, cooperation and
community engagement. Gender roles are established – males manufacture, females
grind – but both are contributing to a mutually supportive relationship of this subsistence
economy.
3
Figure 1.1.
Location of study
(Map modified from D’Andrea et al. 2008)
1.3. Overview of Thesis
Ethnoarchaeological research completed in this thesis aims to contribute to
understanding Ethiopia’s past by first determining how grinding stones contribute to the
modern economy and social milieu in eastern Tigrai.
The attempt is then made to
interpret the cultural context of these tools in the past through analogy that can be
supported by evidence, in some cases multiple lines of evidence. In the area of this
study there is a possibility of direct historical connections.
Some behaviors and
practises may have carried on from the ancient inhabitants of Mezber to the descendant
populations in the villages that surround this site today. This research will provide a
4
glimpse into possible everyday living experiences of the people of Mezber, which have
been buried for millennia. There is an opportunity to better understand the individuals
who lived in the past and their potential daily behaviors and experiences.
Because there is living knowledge of manufacturing of grinding equipment in
northern Ethiopia there is an opportunity to observe actual production and use
processes in a modern context that could provide clues as to past practises. Grinding
stones are a candidate for specialized production, according to Adams (2014a:18),
because manufacturing requires certain skills, and she states that this is an area of
research that must receive more attention. There had been little prior research in the
Old World, and no research in Ethiopia on production until this decade. Grinding stone
use and discard are further areas that need investigation. Arthur’s (2014) work with the
Gamo of southern Ethiopia provides a glimpse into grinding in that culture. Teklu (2012),
working in western Tigrai has included some detailed descriptions of grinding stone use
and manufacture. The manufacturing, use and discard processes to be observed in
Gulo Makeda will be recorded here in more detail to fill some of the gaps in our
understanding of Old World practises, and allow for comparisons to New World
practises.
Northeastern Tigrai presents a unique opportunity to document what are likely to
be the last days of one of the most long-lived and continuously used human
technological innovations. One woman interviewed said she knows the history of her
ancestors, even back to when they were foragers, an indication that the oral history is
strong. Many claim the traditions today are the same as the past and they have seen
long term consistency (at least in living memory). The introduction of electric/diesel flour
mills in Ethiopia and other developing countries means that this is a fast disappearing
technology and soon living practitioners will no longer be available. The oral history may
be lost as the young rely on mechanical mills to obtain flour. In the spring of 2011, a
programme of ethnoarchaeological research focussing on grinding stone production and
use was initiated by ETAP (Eastern Tigrai Archaeological Project).
This current
ethnoarchaeological research will expand our understanding of the life history of grinding
stones and their role within a broader cultural context with an ultimate goal of gaining
knowledge that will inform interpretations of the archaeological record.
5
Following this introduction, Chapter 2 is devoted to presenting a background to
the study. This includes a review of the grinding stone literature that identifies some
gaps and how this research can make contributions to the knowledge base of grinding
stones. Chapter 2 also includes a general overview of northern Ethiopia’s environment
and culture history, and details about the study area of Gulo Makeda. Chapter 3 is an
outline of the theory and methods used in this research. In addition to design theory,
chaîne opératoire and ethnoarchaeology are described with respect to the general
premises and how these theoretical and methodological approaches are applied to this
thesis. Data analysis and results of the ethnoarchaeological study are presented in
Chapter 4 and the results of analysis of archaeological and modern grinding stones are
found in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents a discussion and analysis of the patterns and
observations developed from the data and focuses on cross-cultural comparisons.
Finally, in Chapter 7, the conclusion, there is a summary of the findings, the contributions
this research has made to understanding grinding and grinding stones, and suggestions
for future research.
6
Chapter 2.
Background
2.1. Introduction
This chapter begins with a synopsis of grinding stone technology and its
antiquity, followed by a critical review of published literature on grinding stones. The
review will focus on an evaluation of ethnoarchaeological and archaeological studies of
grinding stones that are of greatest relevance to my research. Following the review the
chapter turns to introducing the environmental and cultural history (and prehistory) of
Ethiopia. In particular the focus is on the past of the northeastern region of Tigrai (Figure
1.1) and the pre-Aksumite period (Table 2.1). The discussion will include a culture
history summary with a focus on agriculture and its development, followed by a
description of the study locale. To conclude, the discussion turns to how this research
can contribute to a better understanding of the intimate daily lives of the people who
lived in this past.
Table 2.1.
Tentative archaeological Phases at Mezber.
Phasing periods by Dr. Andrea Manzo based on ceramic analysis and
confirmed through AMS dating and stratigraphic analysis (D’Andrea and
Welton in prep).
Mezber Site Phasing
Dates
Archaic pre-Aksumite
1600 – 900 BCE
Early pre-Aksumite
850 – 750 BCE
Middle pre-Aksumite
600 – 400 BCE
Late pre-Aksumite
400 BCE – 1 BCE/CE
7
2.2. Grinding Stones: The Technology - Antiquity and
Importance
Grinding stones, also known as querns and handstones, or metates and manos,
have been in use by humans since the African Middle Stone Age (MSA) for the grinding
of pigments (McBrearty and Brooks 2000) and eventually came to be used in food
processing tasks. What appears to be a simple instrument is actually a world-wide
technology which has played a central role in the lives of women and men for millennia.
Searcy (2011:1) describes grinding stones as one of the most important and yet
understudied implements.
The technology is comprised of a basin-shaped or flat
rectangular stone slab and smaller hand-held stone (Figure 2.1) used mostly to grind
cereals into flour, but this type of equipment has also been used to reduce other food
stuffs, including wild plants such as acorns (Lui et al. 2010). Grinding separates the
desirable elements from the non-desirable fibrous elements of plant foods, releasing
nutrients and reducing particle size making these nutrients more accessible and
digestible for humans (Stahl 1989; Wollstonecroft 2011). Some plant foods such as nuts
and manioc are either toxic or cannot be digested unless ground or processed in some
other way (Barnett 1999:101-102; Cosgrove et al. 2007; Stahl 1989:174; Wright
1994:242). It has been argued that the development of food grinding was an important
stage in hominin evolution (Wollstonecroft 2011; Piperno et al. 2004).
Figure 2.1.
Set of Grinding Stones from Gulo Makeda, eastern Tigrai, Ethiopia
8
Grinding stone tools have been recovered from archaeological sites on six
continents. Vegetal food processing evidence (starch grains) has been identified on
grinding stones which are at least 28,000 years old from the Kostenki 16 (Uglyanka) site
in Russia (Revedin et al. 2010). Aranguren et al. (2007) have recovered starch residue
(predominantly rushes and grasses) from a 23,000 year old grinding stone in Italy dating
to the Gravettian period. They contend that the flour made from wild resources was
transportable and offered mobile hunter-gatherers a nutritious form of sustenance.
Ungar and Sponheimer (2011) project reliance on grains even further back in time by
testing a hypothesis of early hominin (Pleistocene P. boisei) consumption of sedges and
grasses through dental microwear and carbon isotope analysis. However they do not
address the question of why or how hominins processed these plants or the direct
evidence for grinding implements associated with these species.
In Australia seed
grinding stones have been proposed to have existed in the Pleistocene (Smith 1986)
and although this antiquity has been challenged by Balme (1991), she concedes the
implements are datable to at least the early Holocene. According to Wright (1991:19)
small numbers of “true ground stone tools” (based on abrasion evidence) begin to
appear in the Upper Paleolithic (43,000-20,000 BCE) in the Levant and become
especially numerous in Natufian sites between 10,000 and 8,500 BCE, approximating
the time period of developing agriculture. The increasing presence of grinding stones in
archaeological deposits implies there was a shift in subsistence strategies where people
were accessing a wider spectrum of available resources, and would have been a
precursor to a sedentary agricultural life (Barnett 1999:121-122).
There are rare
instances of grinding stones in MSA contexts in Ethiopia and these implements appear
to have been used to grind pigment. By the 7th millennium BP their presence increases
and pigment traces are no longer present. These later stones had a smooth pitted
surface with traces of silica patina, suggesting the grinding of silicated grasses as a food
resource (Barnett 1999:100).
As a major tool kit used in subsistence activities by many cultures, grinding
equipment has the potential to provide insights into social constructions such as gender
relations, craft specialization, labour practises, community engagement and cooperation.
Despite their ubiquity in archaeological sites, and their potential to inform us about past
lifeways, grinding stones, especially those of the Old World, have not yet been the
9
subject of intensive and systematic study (Abadi-Reiss and Rosen 2008; David 1998;
Ebeling and Rowan 2004; Horsfall 1987; Rowan and Ebeling 2008; Searcy 2011:1).
Also, very few studies (for examples see Searcy 2011, Teklu 2012 to some extent) have
entered into the realm of cross-cultural comparisons to seek patterns of generalization.
2.3. Background to Grinding Stone Studies
This section will review the relevant literature on grinding stones, including a
focus on ethnoarchaeological and ethnographic studies. First examples of Old World
studies will be examined: one from the Near East, one from West Africa, and two
Ethiopian studies. This is followed by a review of New World ethnoarchaeological and
ethnographic grinding stone studies. The last section will consider purely archaeological
studies related to quarries and manufacturing, presence in archaeological sites, resharpening and re-purposing, and the cultural context of grinding stones.
2.3.1.
Ethnoarchaeological and Ethnographic Studies of Grinding
Stones
Few ethnoarchaeological grinding stone studies provide direct links to
archaeological contexts located near the modern population targeted for interviews and
observations. Exceptions include work by Ertug-Yaras (2002); David (1998); Hayden
(1987a, 1987b); Horsfall (1987); Nelson (1987a, 1987b); and Searcy (2011).
Two
Ethiopian studies, Arthur (2014) and Teklu (2012) conducted studies which included
grinding stone manufacture, use and discard. Hamon and Le Gall (2013) completed
research in Mali looking at the cultural context of grinding stones throughout the tool’s
life cycle and how their findings might be used to interpret archaeological sites. They
indicate how their findings might be used to interpret the archaeological record; however
no direct interpretations were made to actual archaeological sites. Other ethnographic
works provide some insight into traditional grinding stone practices and associated social
implications (Cook 1982, Ashmann 1949 and Clark 1988). These studies are of most
relevance to my research and will be considered in detail below.
10
A study conducted by Ertug-Yaras (2002) involved ethnoarchaeological research
on the Melendiz Plain, Anatolia, which was designed to build comparisons in interpreting
the nearby archaeological site of Ashikli. Ground stone tools, including pounders and
grinders, were found to be used by local inhabitants for various products, such as meat
and minerals, in addition to domesticated and wild cereals. It was recommended that
assuming grinders were only used for cereal reduction in the past may be unwise. The
power of this study serves as a warning that research on grinding stones should include
analysis to determine what other potential materials might have been processed using
this equipment.
David (1998) has had success with linking ethnoarchaeological data to the
archaeological record in his research on grinding technology in Sukur, Nigeria.
He
begins by developing a regional typology/classification system for grinding tools,
including ancient grinding hollows found on stone outcrops. He determined that these
features were used for both processing of foods and other products such as cattle
bones, and for breaking up iron blooms. In addition to establishing a typology and
determining functionality of grinding stones, he hypothesizes that past population
densities can be estimated based on calculations of number of grinding stones per
family. David explores the possibility of calculating past populations based on number of
grinding stones present in the archaeological record and how those quantities and their
estimated use life reflect the number of women present at that time who would have
used/owned the grinding stones. The number of estimated women was extrapolated to
produce a population estimate based on the expected average size of a woman’s family.
David’s typology provides a useful regional classification system. One of the
problems with grinding stone research is that there is no widely accepted standard
typology similar to that developed for flaked stone tools. This remains a particularly
troublesome issue. Wright (1992) and Adams (2014a) have published comprehensive
classifications and typology protocols for this type of tool set, however if more types of
grinding tools continue to be found, such as the grinding hollows identified by David
through his ethnoarchaeological work, updates should be published.
David (1998:14, 61) identifies the lack of ethnoarchaeological research
completed on grinding stones and the need for additional comparative research that can
11
strengthen ethnoarchaeological inferences. His comprehensive West Africa research
provides an opportunity for comparison to this current study in relation to manufacture
and use, locations of grinding stones, sizes, general configurations, gender roles and
social interactions related to grinding. David also examines not only what tools were
used for, but also how they might be used to answer broader cultural questions such as
population densities. He challenges researchers to complete comparative research and
recommends that they consider broader cultural questions that could be answered
through the study of grinding stones.
An unpublished thesis by Teklu (2012) offers an ethnoarchaeological study that
potentially may be of comparative value to my thesis research. He examines grinding
stone manufacture, use and discard in Lakia’a near Adwa (Figure 2.2), in western Tigrai
which is 61 km west of my research area of Gulo Makeda. With Teklu’s research and
the research for this thesis both originating from Tigrai, there are opportunities to
compare the two studies to determine if there are consistencies or differences between
the two areas. Unfortunately his thesis does not include the raw data from which he
draws his conclusions.
This information would have had value in indicating the
uniformity of responses to his queries. It is unclear whether he is basing his comments
on one interview response or many.
Teklu (2012) does not build strong analogies
between modern and ancient grinding stones in his research area, so there is a missed
opportunity to compare ethnographic information to archaeological data to better
understand past use and human behaviors in northern Tigrai as a whole. Although the
research is limited to one study site, it still has value as a case study.
12
Figure 2.2.
Map of northern Ethiopian locations noted in this chapter
Map by Shannon Wood
The Gamo of southern Ethiopia are the focus of foodways research completed by
Arthur (2014) who collected ethnoarchaeological data relating to the social and
economic context of grinding stones, similar to what has been done for this research.
His case study, as well as this current study, builds our knowledge of this technology
through an analysis of manufacturers and users of grinding stones.
Arthur (2014)
researches the different uses of grinding stones and the numbers of grinding stones per
household. He states (2014:153) that lower caste families have fewer grinding stones
per household and grind fewer types of grains.
13
Considering both archaeobotanial
remains and numbers of grinding stone artifacts recovered, he suggests there is a
possibility of determining social class of excavated household structures.
Manufacturing processes are witnessed and Arthur (2014:135-138) provides
some detail.
The Gamo people are organized into castes, and grinding stone
manufacturers occupy a lower class grouping within this society. Arthur’s research is
focused on this particular region and the social ranking among the Gamo.
An
opportunity presents to consider whether or not this caste system applies to other areas
in Ethiopia and further comparative research to determine if grinding stone
manufacturers have a lower, or higher social ranking in other regions. This confirms the
need for additional comparative research, even within the same country, to fully
understand the range of social and economic implications of grinding stones. In Mexico
and Guatemala, Cook (1982) and Nelson (1987b) also explore the lower social ranking
of grinding stone manufacturers, allowing for cross cultural comparisons to determine if
lower social status for grinding stone manufacturers is a consistent generality.
The Minyanka of Mali were the subjects of grinding stone research by Hamon
and Le Gall (2013). Using the principles of chaîne opératoire they explored grinding
stone manufacture, use and discard in a modern setting. A key finding was that cultural
aspects related to grinding stones can help inform the archaeological context.
For
example, spatial analysis of grinding stones can be indicative of community social
structures, with locations of grinding stones representing internal building personal use
and external communal use of grinding stones. In addition, ranges in variation of these
tools are culturally influenced and design differences can represent use for different
grains or desired products (Hamon and Le Gall 2013:112). The authors stress that the
study of the use of grinding stones cannot be dissassociated from the socio-economic
context in which it is embedded. Many of the details in this study can be used for crosscultural comparison.
Ethnoarchaeological accounts of grinding equipment from the New World have
been a little more common than from the Old World. One key area targeted by several
researchers is Guatemala, among the contemporary Highland Maya (Hayden 1987a,
1987b; Horsfall 1987). Hayden and Horsfall provide excellent and accessible data to
allow cross cultural comparison of grinding stone manufacturing processes.
14
Both
researchers break down the processes in great detail and Hayden (1987a) provides
nomeclature for defining the sequences – quarrying, shaping (reduction phases include
roughing out and thinning) and finishing (or smoothing). Through each of the
manufacturing stages, time and motion studies are recorded providing the potential for
comparisons to the manufacturing processes in Tigrai. The limitation in both the Hayden
and Horsfall studies, which is acknowledged by both authors, is the reliance on a single
informant. The value lies in the detailed accounts that allow for opportunities to build on
these studies by addressing the similarities and differences through comparisons to
other regions. Hayden (1987a:111) does refer to his work as exploratory, but suggests
that archaeologists can begin to understand why certain materials are selected for
specific tasks and why specific strategies are used, so that stronger inferences can be
made about prehistoric behaviors.
For example, research related to understanding
reasons for raw material selection, design decisions about manufacturing choices,
grinding stone placement, and decisions to discard or repurpose grinding stones need
further elaboration. The goal should be to understand these decisions and behaviors
from not just a technological perspective, as was the greater focus of Hayden’s work, but
also from a social, economic and ideological perspective.
Horsfall (1987), also working in Guatemala, has completed a study of grinding
stones from a design theory perspective. She examines design decisions made by
informants, taking into account the constraints and opportunities facing not just a
manufacturer, but also users of grinding stones who can influence design decisions. As
mentioned above, a limitation to this study is the reliance on a single manufacturer. I
believe that there is a need to create reliability through continued studies of multiple
manufacturers to determine if the design decisions are consistent between the producers
of grinding stones, especially comparing New World to Old World. Her research also
includes analysis of grinding stone use and motion studies which can be useful in cross
cultural comparisons in relation to the physical aspects of grinding.
Searcy (2011) recently has pursued ethnoarchaeological work among the
Highland Maya of Guatemala. He begins his introduction with a quote from Maria Pop,
Q-eqchi Maya, “The metate is the reason we are alive.” Searcy examines the full life
cycle of grinding stones including some socio-economic aspects. He provides details on
multiple aspects of grinding stone ownership such as means of acquisition (including
15
gifting), daily use (including length of time grinding), products ground, resurfacing
strategies and explains the many taboos associated with manos and metates. The
detail provided by Searcy (2011) in the manufacturing and use of grinding stones,
although not as thorough as Hayden (1987) or Cook (1982), does allow for incorporation
into cross cultural comparisons.
Searcy (2011) also includes an analysis of the
archaeological implications of his ethnoarchaeological work through an examination of
design. He found that design can indicate the origin of manufacturing and illuminate the
existence of long distance trade in the past. Searcy (2011) proposed that past household
economic class can be predicted based on numbers of grinding stones per household
and sizes of grinding stones as indications of past function. He was able to determine
the means of locating artifacts based on modern discard patterns.
Clearly he has
provided ample opportunity for others to build on this knowledge base to assist future
archaeologists in interpreting the archaeological context of grinding stones.
Cook’s (1982) ethnographic work in Mexico details the Zapotec grinding stone
manufacturing process and socio-economic implications of this stoneworking craft
specialization
(he
refers
to
the men
who
manufacture grinding
stones
as
“stoneworkers”). The detail in the manufacturing processes provide the possibility of a
comparison to Hayden (1987a), Searcy (2011) and Teklu (2012), although the Zapotec
employ modern techniques such as blasting for quarrying. According to Cook (1982) the
socio-economic drivers for men to manufacture and market grinding stones, which is the
prefered means of income generation, are a result of agricultural land scarcity. His study
offers further opportunity for cross-cultural comparisons of the craftsman’s place in
society. Cook’s research is based on a modern perspective so the limits to his study for
archaeology are understanding how any modern observations might reflect similar
behaviors in the past.
An ethnographic account of grinding stones in Baja California is presented by
Aschmann (1949). He provides only a few details about the manufacturing process,
including type of raw material, tools used, time to manufacture, size and weight of
finished products, but most of the description is devoted to the economics of the craft.
Data collected on the amount of time taken by craftsmen to create grinding stones and
the morphological data are useful for cross cultural comparison.
16
Clark (1988) produced an extensive paper on the lithic artifacts of La Libertad,
Chiapas, Mexico.
Grinding stones form a small part of this study and he provides
details on morphological variables such as grinding stone size, shape and weight. He
makes some attempt at inferring how manos and metates were used in the past using
both historic and modern ethnographic information and grinding stone artifact studies of
Middle or early Late Preclassic period at La Libertad.
However, he states that
sociocultural inferences are somewhat limited because of the paucity of archaeological
specimens (84 at La Libertad)(Aschmann 1949:128). The analysis of the artifacts was
limited to only the few variables identified above, and this may have impeded his ability
to find patterns and morphological changes in grinding stones over time that could
provide the evidence to make some sociocultural inferences.
In addition, no
observations of artifact context were methodically addressed that might lead to
hypotheses about sociocultural implications in the past.
Other New World ethnographic studies and direct historical ethnoarchaeological
research have made major contributions to our understanding of grinding stone use.
These studies have focused on understanding grinding stone tool morphology, functions
and accompanying human behaviors (especially motions) (Adams 1988, 1993; Bartlett
1933; Bauer 1990; Clark 1988; Horsfall 1987; Mauldin 1993; Schneider 2002).
For the
most part, each of these studies focuses on one particular aspect of grinding stone use,
either the morphology, function, or use motions (for an exception see Bartlett 1933).
Although it is important to thoroughly understand these particular aspects, there is also a
need to consider full life cycles of grinding stones and to begin to interpret wider cultural
implications of these important tools.
By combining design theory and the chaîne operatoire, a fuller understanding of
grinding stones and their cultural implications could be realized.
Although Horsfall
(1987) has applied design theory, and Arthur (2014) incorporated the chaîne operatoire
approach, I am not aware of a study that has combined the two approaches. Design
theory can be applied to obtain a fuller understanding of the design decisions made by
craftsmen, including those related to social constructions and constraints. The chaîne
operatoire approach completes a full life cycle analysis of the tool and the
interrelationships between grinding stones and the wider cultural context.
17
What
is
also
missing
from
many
grinding
stone
studies,
including
ethnoarchaeological studies, are cross-cultural comparisons. The goal of many of the
studies is to be regionally specific, with the resulting data adding to our knowledge about
grinding stones and how they can inform us about the past. Given their early and long
presence in both the Old and New World, grinding stones are artifacts that are
particularly well-suited to cross-cultural comparisons. However, some of the published
data are in a state insufficient to enable others to make effective cross-cultural
comparisons. For example, the study by Teklu (2012) is an excellent opportunity for
regional comparisons for this study though the raw data is missing as discussed above.
To a lesser extent Arthur (2014) has written about grinding stone use in southern
Ethiopa but limited details are included for comparison, while his grinding stone
manufacturing data provides more comprehesive data for comparison. Dalman (1902)
and David (1998) provide studies with details that could be used in cross-cultural
comparisons within the Africa continent. Cross-cultural comparisons can be applied to
ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological grinding stone studies from the New World as
well, in an attempt to discover any differences, or even possible consistencies that could
lead to interpretations about generalizations regarding grinding stone manufacturing,
use, discard and general morphology.
2.3.2.
Archaeological Studies of Grinding Stones
There is substantial archaeological literature related to the interpretation of
ancient grinding stones. Particularly applicable to my research are investigations of:
grinding stone manufacturing; presence in archaeological sites; morphology and
functionality; resharpening and re-purposing; and studies specifically involving the
cultural context of grinding stones.
Quarrries and Manufacturing
Several investigators have focused on grinding stone manufacturing on the basis
of material remains found at archaeological quarry sites (Abadi-Reiss and Rosen 2008;
Conlee 2000; Field et al. 2003; Schneider 1996; Smith et al. 2010). Efforts have been
made to infer past methods of manufacturing by examination of the debitage left behind
at sites where the raw material to produce grinding stones is acquired. As in many
18
studies of archaeology, interpretations are often based on what meaning can be derived
solely from the material culture left behind and though providing useful information, there
may be opportunities to strengthen interpretations through the use of ethnoarchaeology.
Exploration through ethnoarchaeology of present day societies practising what could be
similar behaviors at quarry sites opens up additional possibilities for interpreting past
human behaviors.
Debitage was observed and analyzed to determine site formation processes in
the Maya Highlands by Nelson (1987a) who was able to define workshops and two types
of quarries: bedrock and streambed.
It is evidence of workshops, such as those
reported by Nelson (1987a) (and Hamon and Le Gall 2013:112 and Hayden 1987a), that
can lead to a priori assumptions, which can impact other research. For example, one
might assume, based on Nelson’s (1987a) and Hayden’s (1987a) observations, that all
grinding stone manufacturers have workshops.
An assumption such as this could
influence archaeological excavations if one is searching for evidence of these workshops
when in fact they might not exist. Cross-cultural comparisons could reveal that the entire
grinding stone manufacturing process can take place at the quarry site itself and any
search for workshops in the archaeological record might prove futile.
For Hayden (1997a) and Horsfall (1997a), quarries and raw material selection
were one component of a broader research project.
For others quarries and raw
materials have been the primary focus of their research (for example see Fratt and
Biancaniello 1993; Schneider 2002).
Fratt and Biancaniello (1993) document the
variation in the raw material stone matrix, specifically the type of cementing material, and
how it influenced selection of material for grinding stones depending on the intended
use. This is important because understanding the properties of raw materials would
have required manufacturers of grinding stones to have specific knowledge to
distinquish the desirable raw materials. Raw material selection is an important design
criterion as it will determine the efficiency and effectiveness of tool use, the life use
expectancy and quality of ground product.
Schnieder’s (2002) research uses thin
section petrography to establish the characteristics of raw materials selected to make
grinding stones, such as grain size and type of matrix. She found that characteristics of
the stone were selected for specific types of food processing. For example, vesicular
basalt was preferred for wet maize (zea mays) grinding and well-cemented sandstone
19
was selected for dry maize grinding, but mesquite pods and seeds also required wellcemented, coarse grained sandstone. This alerts archaeologists to consider the type of
raw materials used and what might have been processed by different stone types.
Research dealing with quarrying and manufacturing of grinding stones can
benefit from additional consideration of factors involved in the choice of raw materials.
According to Hayden (1987:13) the physical properties of raw materials used in grinding
stone tool manufacturing and the reasons for their selection are generally neglected in
analyses, though ancient people were selecting one stone type over another for specific
types of uses. Raw material selection is an integral part of the design decision process
which is made within a cultural context. It would be important to understand the cultural
context before trying to apprehend the design decisions made by ancient craftsmen. It is
also important to investigate the user expectations of the performance of the tool which
impacts the design criterion applied to the selection of raw materials. Constraints limiting
the design choices (Horsfall 1987) include distance of raw material, access to resources
(both raw materials 2 and labour forces), expertise of the person selecting the raw
material (Hayden 1987; Cook 1982) and performance expectations. In addition, solely
looking at raw material selection neglects the manufacturing process which can also
reflect design decisions and quality of the finished grinding stones.
Because raw
material selection can be affected by many factors, researchers should aim to
understand the full manufacturing process, from quarry selection, through raw material
choices and shaping of the tools. Each of these steps is part of the chaîne opératiore
and linked with relationships between the technology and broader social constructions.
Presence in Archaeological Sites, Morphology and Functionality
It is important when grinding stones are recovered during excavations that the
artifacts are not simply counted, measured and described. This provides some baseline
information, but additional data is required for more detailed interpretations of past
lifeways. For example, Schmidt et al. (2008:97, 120, 122, 125, 149, 150) provide basic
information related to the context of grinding stone artifacts from several Ancient Ona
2
In some cases manufacturers were required to pay rent to land owners for access to raw
materials (Nelson 1987b:150; Cook 1982:223)
20
sites in Eritrea and begin to interpret the contexts however their conclusions are limited
in scope. They propose that because grinding stones are scattered and not associated
with architectural features, the sites may represent camps where pastoral peoples
processed food while away from residences (Schmidt et al. 2008:149-150). Schmidt et
al. (2008 125) also suggest the high gloss on the grinding stones was produced from
grinding linseed, but that is the extent of the interpretation. In her report on excavations
at Lalibela and Natchabiet Caves (Figure 2.2) in the Begemeder province of Ethiopia,
Dombrowski (1972) provides not just the numbers of grinding stones recovered and
dates (multiple strata are reported, the oldest dating to 520 BC), but also presents a
typological classification based on the type of product processed on the grinding stones.
One type identified, the indoit metacosha, were grinding stones used for processing the
indoit root, while another type, metamecha, refers to grinding stones used to process
cotton.
What is missing in her study is a detailed analysis of the attributes of the
different types that would differentiate them such as surface texture, shape or other
characteristics which define a particular grinding stone type.
It is also important to point out that grinding technology has changed over time.
Moritz (1958) for example follows changes in the morphology of grinding stones and
other milling tools over time in Classical Greece and Rome.
He describes hand
manipulated grinding stones through to water wheel driven grinding, and provides details
on how these different tools were operated. Similar to Moritz (1958), Dalman (1902)
describes the adoption of new technologies, moving from the hand-mill through to
donkey mills in ancient and modern Palestine.
His study provides a review of the
mention of grinding, or grinding stones, in the Old and New Testament and the Talmud.
Many of the adopted new technologies provided a more efficient means of milling flour,
including grinding equipment that was claimed to be easier to use (rotary querns) and
equipment that could be powered by more than one person, an animal, or water.
In another Ethiopian study, grinding stone artifacts were analyzed from the preAksumite sites of Seglamen and Kidane Mehret western Tigrai (Figure 2.2) by L.
Phillipson (2012).
She concludes that changes observed in the morphology of the
grinding stones, specifically surface texture, are an indication of a change in types of
grains being processed.
According to L. Phillipson (2012:528-529) predominantly
husked grains (e.g., hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare) and emmer (Triticum dicoccum))
21
were processed, probably wet, on fine-textured, smooth grinding stones during the Early
Phase of the pre-Aksumite period at Seglamen. Free-threshing Near Eastern wheat
grains (Triticum spp.) were processed at the Late Aksumite site of Kidane Mehret on
coarser surfaces. She also determines that breakage in archaeological grinding stones
is due to the constant wetting and drying of these tools during cleaning (L. Phillipson
2012:528). One major limitation of this study is that during excavation the contexts of
grinding stones (querns) recovered from Kidane Mehret were not recorded, so that it was
not possible to distinguish between earlier and later phase grinding stones. As a result,
L. Phillipson assumes without clear justification that half were attributable to the preAksumite and half to the Late Aksumite (L. Phillipson 2012:523). This begs the question
as to which stones were actually from which period, and in fact, it may be that both
smooth and coarse stones were being used in each period. In contrast the Seglamen
grinding stones contexts were recorded and both coarse surfaced stones (granitic or
sandstone) and smooth surface stones (fine-textured basalt) were present in all phases.
It would seem, based on both types of grinding surfaces present at the pre-Aksumite site
of Seglamen, that both types of grains (hulled and free-threshing wheat) were being
processed at that time. Another limitation of this study is that although she mentions
“enquiry among local informants” (L. Phillipson 2012:524) related to grinding stone
breakage, alternative explanations for the other conclusion made in this study have not
been explored through via a thorough ethnoarchaeological study.
In an earlier publication Phillipson (2001) describes grinding stones (n=72) and
related artifacts recovered from Aksum, Ethiopia. She identified sandstone as the most
prominent raw material used for grinding stones. Phillipson (2001:15-16) claims that the
modern grinding stones observed in households in 1997 were seemingly identical to the
archaeological specimens in materials used, shapes and sizes. She describes the tools
as elongated in shape and worn concave through use and as a result of repeated
redressing (resharpening).
It is suggested that this resharpening can also cause
breakage of modern stones (Phillipson 2001:16), although in her later publication she
argues the breakage is due to repeated wetting of the stone (L. Phillipson 2012:524).
The proposition is made that the thicker ancient stones were purposely broken
transversally, although no modern examples could be cited.
She also states that
grinding stones are named according to use, and use in part is determined by the
22
roughness and hardness of the grinding stone (2001:16). Large lower grinding stones,
including those used to grind grains, are referred to as medkos, and their corresponding
handstones are wadi medkos (Phillipson 2001:17). Identical lower grinding stones when
mounted into a clay and dung stand are then referred to as methan, with a
corresponding handstone referred to as a wadi methan (Phillipson 2001:19). Phillipson
(2001:20) admits that her ethnographic account is superficial and was based on only
brief observations. The people consulted during this research in the Gulo Makeda area
indicated that the medkos (madqos) and methan (maṭhan) actually have two different
functions with the maṭhan used for grinding flour and the madqos used for spices and
other foods. Another contradiction from the data collected in this research is that a
madqos can also be fitted into a stand.
Several researchers have discussed possible uses of grinding stones, other than
grinding cereals to produce flour. Belgiorno (2002) concludes that grinding stones found
in a tomb dating to the Early-Middle Bronze Age in Cyprus were used for metal work as
the sizes are not comparable to grinding stones used for food processing.
Some
artifacts are large versions of stone sharpeners used for regenerating edges of cutting
tools used in metal work. Others have been identified as hammer heads for working
metal and one was likely used as a ‘work bench’. All these were found in the same tomb
context and were associated with other metal smith wares including copper, leading to
the interpretation that these grinding stones were used in metal working.
In relation to the Levant, Wright (1991) states that grinding stones begin to
appear in the Upper Palaeolithic (43,000 – 20,000 BCE) in small numbers, and were
likely used for grinding pigments and/or seeds at that time. Increase in the numbers of
grinding stones occurred between 10,000 and 8,500 BCE during a time when there is
also direct evidence for plant domestication. She suggests this increase may have been
related to the development of sedentism and the need to feed more people and store
food which could be the impetus for adopting an agricultural way of life (Wright 1991:8).
This study again is limited to a single geographic area, an area known for early
domestication
of
grains
and
cross-cultural
comparisons
could
increase
our
understanding of how grinding stones had become increasingly prevalent over larger
geographic areas.
23
Were grinding stones introduced to accommodate the need to grind cereal
grains, or were they in use long before the transition to agriculture? Despite a common
belief that the appearance of grinding equipment signifies a transition to agriculture,
some argue that grinding equipment was used much earlier to process a variety of
plants, including wild cereals and other plants that would have been gathered or
cultivated by non-agricultural societies (Balme 1991; Liu et al. 2010; Fullagar and Field
1997; Gorecki et al. 1997; Smith 1986; Wright 1991, 1994).
Use wear and starch
residue research by Liu et al. (2010) revealed that the processing of acorns on grinding
stones preceded farming among the Peiligang culture (c. 7000-5000 BCE) of the Middle
Yellow River Valley, China. Acorn processing was occurring at a time of transition from
hunting and gathering to food production. Grinding stones in Australia are important
markers of a seed-based economy according to Gorecki et al. (1997). These authors
suggest that further residue analysis will determine what other plant foods, or materials,
were being processed with these tools perhaps as early as the Pleistocene (Gorecki et
al. 1997; Smith 1986). Piperno et al. (2004) claim direct empirical evidence (starch
residue) indicating that grinding stones from the Upper Palaeolithic site of Ohalo II in
Israel were used for processing wild cereals including barley and possibly wheat and/or
goat grass. They believe that these cereals contributed significantly to the human diet
as far back as 18,000 BCE.
Debate in the literature has focused on understanding the role of grinding stones
during the transition to agricultural dependence worldwide. It has been argued that
increases in grinding stones size or changes in shape are correlated with increases in
the production of cultivated foods associated with rising populations or transition to a
higher reliance on agricultural products (Dalman 1902; David 1998; Gorecki et al. 1997;
Hard et al. 1996; Huffman 2006; Liu et al. 2010; Mauldin 1993; Morris 1990; Mortiz 1958;
Wright 1991, 1994). Others argue that morphological changes can also be related to
what material was being processed or how. This could include improvements in grinding
techniques due to changing social requirements for additional quantities requiring
efficiencies in processing (Adams 1993, 1999; Ebling and Rowan 2004; Parry and
Christenson 1987; Perry 2004; L. Phillipson 2012). Another explanation is that larger
and heavier stones offered the ability to increase the nutritional value of foods being
ground by reducing the ground particle size (Dubreuil 2004). Dubreuil (2004) argues
24
that the more reduced the particles become, the greater release of nutrients as the grain
breaks down.
More of these studies should include multiple lines of evidence; for
example morphological changes over time with use-wear analysis, combined with
ethnographic and experimental studies, supported by residue analysis, ubiquity of
archaeobotanical remains, and where possible stable carbon isotope analysis on human
remains. For an example see Hard et al. (1996) who use three lines of evidence to
support a hypothesis that there was variation in maize dependence in different regions of
the American Southwest. Their conclusions are based on changes in mano grinding
surface size, human stable carbon isotope analysis and macrobotanical remains. A
second example is Fullagar and Field (1997) who use morphology, use-wear and
residue analysis to determine diet in ancient Australia. Multiple lines of evidence, used
appropriately, can strengthen conclusions.
Adams (1993, 1999) effectively employs multiple lines of evidence through
experimentation and ethnographic sources to build an understanding of technological
developments in grinding stones as a means to solve problems of increasing food
demands in sedentary societies. She finds that increasing demand or need could be the
result of several driving factors including increasing populations or an increase in
quantities of flour in the diet (Adams 1993:334). Efficiency in tool design is an important
aspect to consider because it enables the production of more flour in less time. This
frees up time to be spent on other tasks or spending the same time processing to
produce more flour. Only a few studies have included morphological changes in efforts
to gain an understanding of efficiencies that can be identified in archaeological
specimens (see for example Adams 1993, 1999).
By adopting the comprehensive
attribute analysis recommended by Adams (2014a) and Wright (1992) one is able to
distinguish and clearly document changes in grinding stones over time. Some of those
changes could point to efforts to gain efficiencies in grinding.
Veth et al. (1997) state that there is a need to employ more use-wear and residue
analysis of grinding stones to develop a better understanding of functionality.
Researchers had already made such efforts, and others continue to apply such methods
to determine what products were processed through grinding. Some researchers have
conducted experimental research combined with use-wear analysis, while others used
residue analysis alone (Adams 1988, 1993, 1999, 2002; Fullagar and Field 1997; Gould
25
et al. 1971; Hamon 2008; Liu et al. 2010; Mauldin 1993; McLaren and Evans 2002; Perry
2004; Revedin et al. 2010; Sandweiss 2007; Wright 1993). Archaeobotanical analysis of
macrobotanical remains in soils surrounding grinding stones could also be used to
determine if the residues exist on the grinding stones as a result of grinding, or from
being buried and exposed to soils containing these residues.
Another method of analysis is employed by Adams (1988; 2002; 2014b) who
introduces four mechanisms of wear on grinding tools: adhesive wear, abrasive wear,
surface fatigue and tribochemical wear 3. The identification of wear type, combined with
experimental reconstruction to recreate the surface wears, can indicate what the tools
might have been used for, and associated behaviors. Use-wear analysis for flaked stone
tools has been a predominant area of study since the late seventies (see for example
Hayden 1979) but studies on a similar scale have not focussed on ground stone use
wear. There is need for additional experimentation to capture images of known use
wear patterns for different processed materials and varying raw materials. It is also
necessary to develop comprehensive reference collections to have comparable images
in order to interpret the archaeological record.
Several researchers have examined grinding stone sizes, differences in gross
morphology and spatial context as indications of site formation and function (Schlanger
1991) and site occupation types (Stone 1993). Schlanger (1991) concludes that sites
occupied for longer periods show a marked increase in discarded grinding stones, which
are commonly found in association with trash pits or in structural fill. Grinding stones in
shorter occupation sites had fewer discarded grinding stones and more “on floor” 4
grinding stones, likely left in a manner that suggests an expectation by the users of site
re-occupation (Schlanger 1991:465). The presence and type of grinding stone has been
used as a means to interpret site occupations as either seasonal or more permanent
(Stone 1993). Stone (1993) contends that different sizes, types of grinding stones, and
3
Tribochemical wear on grinding stones refers to the interactions of friction, lubrication and wear
and their combined effects on the grinding surfaces that form in layers. These layers of
reaction products occur as the friction created between the two surfaces from grinding
produces chemical interactions (Adams 1988:310).
4
Schlanger (1991:465) comments that “on floor” may not represent “in use” assemblages, but
could possibly also represent short term (expected) abandonment.
26
quantities relate to type of occupation. The presence of many large well-formed grinding
stones 5 signify a year-round occupied site such as a farmstead or hamlet where grinding
would have been a daily activity. According to Stone (1993) fewer, smaller, less well
made grinding stones signify a temporary occupation with morphology based on
expediency. These smaller tools were only used occasionally when people were semi
sedentary, participating in seasonal rounds.
This study was limited to a single
geographic area (the American Southwest), so the results could be particular to this
cultural area only. Grindingstone size differences could mean something completely
different in other geographic areas. For example L. Phillipson (2012:513) argues that
smaller grinding stones are used to prepare small amounts of foodstuffs, small amounts
of spices or medicines or pigments.
Resharpening and Repurposing
Several studies have been completed on grinding stone maintenance, for
example studies explore how grinding stones were resharpened and re-purposed (for
example see Conlee 2000:382; David 1998:23; Gorecki et al. 1997:146; 148; Holmberg
1998:132; Horsfall 1987:341; Searcy 2011:96; Pritchard-Parker and Reid 1993; Simms
1983; Smith 1986:33; Teklu 2012:71; Wright 2008). Resharpening is required to create
the necessary surface textures for what is being ground.
The process is to use a
hammer stone, or in more modern contexts metal hammers, and pound the grinding
stone surface to create depressions resulting in a coarse surface, or to remove
topographic highs to smoothen the surface.
Resharpening seems to be a common
modification made to grinding stone surfaces and is important because it informs us
about past behaviors related to the upkeep of grinding stones. Pecking the surface can
resharpen for more efficient use, but it also is responsible for wearing the stone and
Wright (1993) has experimented with this process to estimate use-life of tools.
Resharpening can also lead to breakage (Schlanger 1991:463; Searcy 2011:96-97).
There is a need to add to this literature to include all the modern reasons for
resharpening, including how it relates to the types of products being ground, not just the
need for a roughened surface.
5
Also in association would be many lithics, ceramics and evidence of production of same.
27
Societies have been known to re-use grinding stones as construction material,
especially in walls, and they also have been re-used for other grinding tasks (Hayden
1987b:221; Schlanger 1991:463; Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993:278; Wright
2008:133).
Overall, there has been little mention in the literature about re-use of
grinding stones (Clark 1988:94; Hayden 1987b:191; Searcy 2011:980). It is important to
expand on this research by exploring the modern re-purposing of grinding stones and
visually document how it might appear in the archaeological record and determine if in
fact grinding stone artifacts have been recovered in contexts similar to, or the same as,
modern situations.
The Cultural Context of Grinding Stones
A small number of studies have attempted to situate grinding stones in a wider
cultural context by investigating the interrelationships between technology and socioeconomic aspects of grinding equipment (see for example Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe
1993; Meyers 2002; Shelley 1983; Holmberg 1998). From a cultural context perspective
there has been some research on economies of agriculture as represented by grinding
stones through trade (Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe 1993). It has been demonstrated
how grinding relates to the spatial organization and women’s power in organizing the
household (Meyers 2002).
Shelley (1983) discusses past specialization of grinding
stone manufacturers interpreted through archaeological discovery of concentrated
debitage and evidence of specialized manufacturing workshops. He has also interpreted
rows of large (efficient) grinding stones affixed into structures and intended for intensive
grinding, as indications of specialization in the process of grinding where specific
individuals were responsible for mass production of flour. I believe that there is a need
to examine manufacturing and grinding specialization from a modern perspective to
understand the socio-economic implications of specialization. Questions of importance
include: what is the role of the expert grinding stone makers and expert grinders; how did
they come to become experts; how does their knowledge and design decisions differ
from non-experts and how do those decisions affect the experience of the user; how are
they compensated for their expertise; how are they viewed by their community socially;
and does socialization occur during grinding stone manufacturing and use?
Shelly
(1983) identifies specialization in the archaeological record, but there seems to be room
28
for further study of knowledge, skills and values associated with the specialization of
grinding stone manufacture and use.
Food grinding tools can be seen as intentional products that inform us about
more than just function. Holmberg (1998) argues that there are symbolic associations
with Neolithic grinding tools and death, transformation, transition and human
relationships. She explores how these tools hold ritual as well as economic value for the
people who owned and used them. Grinding is gender related when these tools are
embedded in the spaces of food preparation which are typically considered women’s
space in these Neolithic societies. First time grinding stone ownership is seen as a
symbol of womanhood – a rite of passage. She reviews the interpretations of grinding
stones as ritually deposited after intentional destruction.
2.3.3.
Summary of Potential Opportunities for Contribution
As identified above, there is a paucity of research directly related to grinding
stones, especially in the Old World. Very few ethnoarchaeological studies have been
completed, and of those only a few apply ethnographic data in interpreting the
archaeological record for a direct historical perspective in the region of study. All these
studies could have greater relevance for a wider understanding of this technology as
several researchers have called for more ethnoarchaeological research to allow for cross
cultural comparisons to strengthen interpretations and inferences (for example David
1998 and Hayden 1987a/b). There are fewer and fewer areas in the world where this
kind of research can be done because of the introduction of mechanical mills. Time is of
the essence.
Many grinding stone studies focus on a particular aspect of the technology, such
as size as a proxy for increased use of agricultural products or increased efficiency or
functionality including determining what was being ground. Often they rely solely on
artifacts to make interpretations about the past. Ethnoarchaeology can be applied to
broaden understandings.
A full range of attribute analysis on grinding stone artifacts (as recommended by
Wright 1992 and Adams 2014) is rare in the literature.
29
Where there is published
research on the details of grinding stone artifact characteristics, the number of attribute
variables has been limited and may have hindered the ability of the researcher to see
changes in the artifacts through time. In addition, some studies include only a few
artifact samples which has limited the broader applicability of results.
Employing a
comprehensive attribute analysis, on a good size sample of artifacts, could lead to
stronger interpretations about changes through time and what materials grinding stones
were used to process, for example. Identifying changes in morphology through time
could lead to other interpretations about ongoing design decisions (e.g. designing for
efficiency, longevity, increased processing needs) or possible processing changes (e.g.
larger grinding stones could indicate higher needs for increased food production,
changing shapes could relate to different grinding motions).
Many researchers have posed the question “What is being ground”. As ErtugYaras (2002) warns, one cannot assume that grinding stones were always used for
grains or even just in food processing.
What is missing from many studies is the
application of multiple lines of evidence. In addition to residue and use wear studies,
archaeobotanical remains and stable carbon isotope analysis on human remains could
increase the reliability of interpretations with additional support for determining what was
being ground and how reliant populations were on grains in their diet. Alternatively,
applying multiple lines of evidence can also expose errors or alternative hypotheses.
Few researchers have investigated the entire life cycle of grinding stones,
including repurposing. Grinding stone research is also missing studies on the cultural
context of these tools and interrelationships between the technology and sociocultural
aspects of society, the chaîne opératoire. Understanding raw material selection requires
knowing not only physical but cultural constraints and expectations. Some studies focus
on specific behaviors, including manufacturing techniques and motion studies, but little
has been done to compare these results cross culturally. In some studies the lack of
data published leaves questions as to the significance of the findings.
Despite some of the limitations in the current literature, there are many strengths.
Examples include raw material studies, some of which take into account design theory;
morphological and use wear studies that found evidence for what grinding stones were
used for; studies that determined grinding stones have been in use for a very long time,
30
in some cases with little change in morphology over time; and research that has led to
discoveries of human behaviors related to grinding stone maintenance.
Some
ethnoarchaeological studies offer excellent data for cross cultural comparisons. These
studies can be built on to produce a better understanding of grinding stones overall.
Because there is living knowledge of manufacturing of grinding equipment in
northern Ethiopia there is an opportunity to observe actual production and use
processes in a modern context that could provide clues as to past practises. Grinding
stones are a candidate for specialized production according to Adams (2002:15)
because manufacturing requires certain skills, and she points to this area of research as
requiring more attention.
With little research in the Old World, and no research in
Ethiopia on grinding stone production until the past two years, grinding stone use and
discard are further areas that need investigation. There is an opportunity to contribute to
understanding Ethiopia’s past by first understanding how grinding stones contribute to
the modern economy and social milieu in eastern Tigrai. Then through analogy that can
be supported by evidence, in some cases multiple lines of evidence, interpret the cultural
context of these tools in the past. In the locale of this study there is a possibility of direct
historical connections, and some behaviors and practises may have carried on from the
occupants of Mezber to the descendants in the villages that surround this site today.
There is an opportunity to better understand the individuals who lived in the past and
their potential daily behaviors and experiences.
31
2.4. Ethiopia – An Overview
Ethiopia is located in the Horn of Africa (Figure 1.1), which has been an important
corridor for trade resulting in cultural contacts over millennia (Barnett 1999:124-149;
D’Andrea et al. 2008:169; DiBlasi 2005:x). It was this extensive trade network that partly
contributed to the development of complex societies in the Horn possibly beginning as
far back as the 4th millennium BC (Fattovich 2010; 2012).
Within the vast country of Ethiopia there are multiple independent histories that
have shaped a diverse mix of Ethiopian identities as evidenced by the 87 languages
recognized in the country today (SIL International 2013). As is common in much of
Africa, Ethiopia’s borders have been defined and imposed through colonization of
adjacent nations but the republic was created when the Amhara people consolidated the
multiple ethnic groups within what is now this country (Levine 1965:3). The national
borders are generally irrelevant when it comes to understanding and studying the
region’s past because they fail to represent ancient socio-cultural, economic, ideological
and linguistic divisions between cultural groups (Finneran 2007:xv; D. Phillipson 2012:3).
When considering the history and prehistory of Ethiopia, it is important to recognize that
cultural entities encompassed areas beyond the current political borders into adjacent
modern countries such as Sudan, Djibouti, and in the case of this particular study,
Eritrea. Eritrea currently shares common language, religion and many social and other
cultural aspects with the region of Tigrai.
This study is situated in the region of Gulo Makeda, northern Ethiopia (Figure
2.2) Archaeological surveys and evidence from Gulo Makeda indicate that this region
has been inhabited at least since the Middle Stone Age (MSA), perhaps earlier.
Occupation appears to have been continuous since late prehistoric times. Both rural
villages/hamlets and urban towns have been documented for the pre-Aksumite 6 (1600
BCE – 1BCE/CE) and Aksumite (150 BCE – 700 CE 7) periods. Some artifacts resemble
the material culture of today yet have deep roots potentially reflecting Later Stone Age
6
The term pre-Aksumite has been challenged in the literature, which I discuss later in this
chapter, however I will use this term as an indicator of a period of time within the region of
study (following D’Andrea et al. 2011).
7
Chronology for the Aksumite period is based on Fattovich et al. 2000 (71-72).
32
(LSA) or early agro-pastoral cultures (D’Andrea et. al 2008:169; 170). Barnett (1999:18)
states:
“The traditional food producing systems of Ethiopia hold valuable
clues as to their origins. By examining what crops are grown today,
their cultural significance, what resources are used to supplement
them and what technology is employed, we can build a picture of
how modern food producing systems have emerged” (my
emphasis).
2.4.1.
Environmental Background
The northern Horn of Africa is located approximately between 13° and 18°N
latitude and between 36° and 40° E longitude. The study area, Gulo Makeda, is located
in the quadrangle 39°15’ - 39°30’E, 14°15’ - 14°30N (Fattovich 2010:148; Wilson &
Pavlish 2005:1).
Volcanic activity and erosion produced the rolling landscapes of
northern Ethiopia which is comprised of isolated plateaux and uplifted flat-topped hills
known as amba, dissected by deep river valleys (Bard et al. 2000:66; Barnett 1999:8)
(Figure 2.3). In Gulo Makeda, elevations range from 2100 to 2900m asl (Wilson and
Pavlish 2005:1). The topography provided suitable locations for defendable settlements
atop the steep sloped amba, but these land formations also made interregional
connections and communications difficult in the past, resulting in a fragmentation of the
population into isolated communities and distinct cultural traditions (Bard et. al 2000:66;
Fattovich 2012:6). The isolation has also resulted in survival of ancient traditions such
as emmer cultivation (D’Andrea and Mitiku 2002:184) and grinding stone use. The river
valleys did allow for interaction between the highlands and lowlands, and likely facilitated
the development of exchange networks between lowland pastoralists and highland
agriculturists (Fattovich 2012).
33
Figure 2.3.
Mezber Valley, Gulo Makeda, Tigrai, Ethiopia (2012)
Machado et al. (1998) describes the geology of Tigrai as consisting of a
Precambrian basement complex of low grade metamorphic rocks which are overlain
unconformably by detrital rocks dating to the Permo-Triassic. These are in turn overlain
by Tertiary basaltic flows. In addition to sandstone and basalt, other key rock types used
for tool making in this region include grey and brown cherts, silicified siltstone and
paleosols. There are also other lithic raw materials used such as white clay, sand and
red ochre, and these have been identified in rock outcrops throughout the area (Wilson
and Pavlish 2005:1).
The highlands experience a temperate climate (Fattovich 2010:148). There has
been a progressive shift toward drier conditions since 2nd millennium BCE (Bard et al.
2000:69; Fattovich 2010:149).
Terwilliger et al. (2011:139) found evidence, using a
multi-proxy approach including stable isotopic and elemental analysis of soil and
charcoal identification, that that the climate was generally wetter prior to 2500 cal yr BP.
For the past 1000 years there has been increasing aridity punctuated by wetter intervals
and overall the soil conditions have degraded, possibly the result of episodes of drought,
34
and/or increasing land use by agriculturalists (Bard et al. 2000; Berakhi et al. 1998;
Gebru et al. 2009; Machado et al. 1998:312, 319; Nyssen et al. 2004; Terwilliger et al.
2011).
The mean annual rainfall in Adigrat (Figure 2.2), a close urban area to this study
locale, is 619 mm, with average annual temperatures ranging from 4.84°C to 42.7°C
(Terwilliger et al. 2011:131). Lighter rains arrive in February and March, while heavy
rains hit late June to early October and annual rainfall ranges from 700 to 1200mm with
69% of rainfall experienced from July to August (Bard et al. 2000:66; Butler and
D’Andrea 2000; Fattovich 2010:146; Michels 2005:1). Rainfall can also be unpredictable
and some areas in northern Ethiopia have not experienced two rainy seasons for more
than 50 years. It is possible that droughts have been plaguing this region for millennia.
We know from historical sources that Tigrai was facing famine and plagues in the 9th
century CE, likely due to environmental deterioration which had been occurring from the
7th century onward and accelerated in the last 300 years, perhaps due to vegetation
clearing (Bard et al. 2000:74, 81). Farmers in northern Ethiopia who could not rely on
heavy rainfall needed backup options and developed adaptations to deal with
unpredictable rainfall by growing several landraces in fields to maintain high genetic
diversity and by planting drought resistant crops (Butler and D’Andrea 2000). This may
have been a contributing factor to the adoption of Near Eastern crops in an effort to
broaden the spectrum of resources available, to guard against climatic uncertainty.
2.4.2.
Culture History
There is not much known about the Horn of Africa prior to the 1st millennium
BCE, however the region has been inhabited possibly since the Middle Stone Age. The
earliest recorded sites for the African Horn are dated to 6th to 4th millennium BCE and are
located near the Eritrean and Sudanese borderlands, where subsistence relied on
hunting, fishing and plant gathering (Fattovich 1993; Haaland 1995).
It has been
assumed that groups lived in small villages, that foraging played an important role, and
political organization was at a local level with linkages to other surrounding villages (D.
Phillipson 2012). The development of early complex societies in the Horn tentatively
began in the 3rd millennium BCE with incipient hierarchical societies (Fattovich 2010).
35
The pre-Aksumite period is believed to represent a crucial phase in Ethiopian
history, a period when complex societies led to early state level development (Fattovich
(1990:1). Fattovich (2012) argues that the rise of the state, rooted in chiefdoms and
early states, developed between the 3rd and 1st millennium BCE. The cultural features
that define this period include architectural monuments, graves, sculptures, small votive
altars, pottery, lithics, metal tools and administrative seals (Fattovich 1993, 2012).
Several authors have identified the general lack of coordinated and complete
archaeological research and excavation throughout Ethiopia (Bard et al. 2000; Fattovich
1990). Over the last few decades, more archaeological work has been completed. As
more archaeological work has been done, analysis completed, and new studies
published, there have been changing hypotheses including those related to early state
development and the pre-Aksumite period. For example, a key discussion has been
taking place on the interpretation of a pre-Aksumite Culture/state/polity versus a preAksumite period with multiple polities (Fattovich 2009, 2010:147-148,164, 2012;
Phillipson and Schmidt 2009:255).
Early researchers suggested that this period was marked by significant migration
and diffusion of cultural elements across the Red Sea from Yemen.
Specifically,
Sabaean influence was interpreted through epigraphic remains, with early workers
suggesting that Sabaeans had colonized northern Ethiopia (Anfray 1967, 1968:355;
Fattovich 1990:2; Phillipson 2009:258,265). As new excavations uncovered additional
evidence this assumption has been challenged. It has been suggested that Sabaean
influence arrived during a later phase of the pre-Aksumite period, particularly when local
Ethiopian elites may have adopted cultural elements, including Sabaean inscriptions,
monuments, political and religious symbols, to enhance their status and strengthen their
involvement in South Arabian trade in exotic goods (Butzer 1981:472; Curtis 2008: 342345, 2009:333; D’Andrea et. al 2008:169; DiBlasi 2005:xii; Fattovich 1977, 1990:19,25,
2009:287, 2010:157,164, 2012; Finneran 2007; Phillipson 2009:261, 269-270, 2012:38;
Schmidt and Curtis 2001). Archaeological evidence for Sabaean influence, however,
may be restricted to elite sites because there are many other localities, including the Dsites in Aksum (Figure 2.2 Axum) and sites of the Ancient Ona culture of Eritrea, where
direct evidence of South Arabian influence is lacking (D. Phillipson 2012:24; Curtis 2008,
2009; Schmidt and Curtis 2001). It has been argued that the exogenous styles were not
36
restricted to those borrowed from South Arabia but also from other areas of the Nile
valley including Nubia. It is proposed that these also were in use as status-markers by
the elite (Manzo 2009; Fattovich 1990:14, 2012; D. Phillipson 2012:43).
The ‘Pre-Aksumite culture’ has in the past been referred to as an Ethio-Sabean,
or Ethio-Semitic state of Damaat (‘DMT’ or D’MT) – a polity of some note as indicated in
inscriptions. Yeha (Figure 2.2) is assumed to have represented the seat of political and
religious power during the pre-Aksumite period.
Further archaeological work and
analysis suggests that this may not have been a single polity. Rather Yeha could have
been one of several polities in the region supported by rural agricultural systems and
ruled by various individual leaders (D’Andrea et al. 2008:170; DiBlasi 2005:xii; Fattovich
1990:17, 2010:157, 163-165, 2012; Fattovich et al. 2000:23; Harrower and D’Andrea
2014; Michels 2005:1; Phillipson 2009:266-270, 2012b:38).
There was a strong indigenous cultural movement when the pre-Aksumite
polity/ies, and potentially other regional polities with centralized leadership, began to
decline in power likely due to political fragmentation at approximately 300 BCE. A new
Proto-Aksumite polity, or polities emerged in the Aksum region (Bard et al. 2002;
Fattovich 1990:2, 18). The Proto-Aksumite period, which has only been identified in the
Aksum area, lasted from ca. 384-32 BCE and shows signs of a hierarchical society as
evidenced by large scale building works (Bard et al. 2002:31-32; Bard et al. 2000:70).
The rise of three regional ‘chiefdoms’ in the Aksum area at c.150 BCE gradually led to
the development of the Aksumite empire, one of the most powerful ancient polities in
sub-Saharan Africa.
According to D. Phillipson (2012:47) the Kingdom of Aksum flourished from the
st
1 to 7th seventh centuries CE, but its formative period began earlier and its cultural
influence lasted much later. There was steady population growth in the urban centre
and peripheral settlements during the first half of the 1st millennium BCE, and the
population peaked during the 5th – 6th centuries CE (D. Phillipson 2012:107).
The
location of Aksum was established to take advantage of international trade links while
the fertile surrounding soils provided agricultural opportunities to exploit domesticated
animals and plants that produced cash crops to feed a large urban population (Finneran
2007:151, 153; Kobishchanov 1979:126; D. Phillipson 2012:108).
37
International trade included the export of highly in demand ivory and war
elephants as well as other raw materials, possibly including gold (D. Phillipson 2012:48,
196). Imports from the eastern Mediterranean, the northern Red Sea, Egypt and Africa
included wine, pottery, beads and glassware (D. Phillipson 2012:49). Aksum developed
a coinage system during the third century that was used internationally (D. Phillipson
2012:50).
The three metal system – gold, silver and copper – was unique in sub-
Saharan Africa (Finneran 2007:205).
Despite the developed trading networks, D.
Phillipson (2012:50) argues that Aksum was self-sufficient in supplying itself with
necessary subsistence and manufactured goods.
In addition to the exploitation of
domesticated animals and plants, Aksum had developed local expertise in metallurgy,
ivory carving and the manufacturing of glass vessels while continuing local traditions of
potting and stone knapping (D. Phillipson 2012:50).
The prime authority of the Aksumite Kingdom was the king, who was a semimythical being holding both religious and secular significance (Finneran 2007:155; D.
Phillipson 2012:79).
Kobishchanov (1979:146) refers to an Aksumite feudal society
where the king and his immediate family held the highest privileges, followed in the
hierarchal society by his more distant relatives and then military colonies. The military,
commanded by the king, was strong in numbers and force. Their military exploits aided
in building the kingdom’s power by bringing outlying territories under control, by
conquering other countries, and subsequently collecting the tribute payments from those
regions for benefit of the king and the elite class (Kobishchanov 1979:123, 161; D.
Phillipson 2012:47, 114). Kobishchanov (1979:144) claims it is possible that women
also took part in military operations.
The king also controlled extremely large and well organized resources of labour
that produced monumental architecture (D. Phillipson 2012:48).
In addition to elite
residences, churches were built to honor the conversion of the region to Christianity in
the 4th century (Finneran 2007:156, 183; D. Phillipson 2012:48). These labour forces
also produced massive stelae, the largest weighing 520 tonnes, which were erected to
commemorate royal and elite graves (Finneran 2007:174; D. Phillipson 2012:48). Some
of these stelae still stand today as a testament to the power of the kings of Aksum.
38
The Aksumite kingdom lasted until the end of the 9th century CE when ecological,
economic and political factors contributed to Aksum’s decline and eventual demise as a
political centre (Butzer 1981:472; DiBlasi 2005:ix, xv; Fattovich 2010:157-158; Michels
2005:1).
Although Aksum’s political importance waned it remained a holy city, the
alleged resting place of the Ark of the Covenant. Aksum’s importance as a religious
centre was supported by a network of surrounding rock-hewn churches which are mostly
concentrated in central Tigrai (Finneran 2007:214).
The magnificent churches were
either carved in caves, semi-monolithic (half-built and half-excavated) or wholly
monolithic, and are the best known post-Aksumite architectural features (Finneran
2007:214-215). These churches, the earliest estimated to have been built between the
10th and 11th centuries (Buxton 1971), are a testament to the continued influence of
Christianity in Tigray. In 615 CE, King Negus of Aksum welcomed a group of Muslims
who were being persecuted, and left Arabia on the advice of the Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH). Since then Islam has grown to approximately 34% of the population of Ethiopia
and though there have been conflicts through the centuries between Christians and
Muslims, both religions are strongly represented in Ethiopia today, with Christianity
dominating in the north and Islam in the south (Pankhurst 1998:39, 71-87).
2.4.3.
Origins of Agriculture in the Horn of Africa
The chronology and origin of domesticated plants and animals introduced into the
Horn has not yet been established and it remains unknown whether indigenous or Near
Eastern imported crops were first cultivated in the region (see Barnett 1999; D’Andrea et
al. 2011:369; D’Andrea 2008; D’Andrea et al. 2008).
However it has been
acknowledged that highland Ethiopia was an important area for plant domestication and
agricultural innovation (Bard et al. 2000:70; D’Andrea 2008; D’Andrea et al. 2008). T’ef
(Eragrostis tef), noog (Guizotia abyssinica) and finger millet (Eleusine coracana) have
wild progenitors in the region, indicating local domestication, however wild progenitors of
other ancient crops grown in Ethiopia, including wheat, barley, lentil (Lens culinaris),
chick pea (Cicer aurietinum) and linseed (Linum usitatissimum) are Near Eastern in
origin (Bard et al. 2000:70; Barnett 1999:61; D’Andrea et al. 2008; Kobishchanov
1979:127; McCann 1995:50).
Based on linguistic evidence, Ehret (2011:192, 194)
suggests utilization of wild grains such as t’ef date back to approximately 5000 BCE or
39
earlier, however there is no supporting archaeobotanical evidence that dates to this early
period.
Evidence has been recovered suggesting food producing societies with
domesticated livestock existed since the late fourth/third millennia BCE in the Horn 8 and
that agricultural intensity increased beginning in the mid-first millennium BCE (Bard et al.
2000:70, 80). Archaeobotanical remains from Bieta Giyorigis, 1 km northwest of Aksum
in northern Ethiopia, produced samples of barley and wheat, which were likely cultivated
during Early Aksumite and Proto-Aksumite periods.
T’ef, lentils and grapes (Vitis
vinifera) were likely added in Middle Aksumite times in this region (Bard et al. 1997;
D’Andrea 2008).
Evidence for the cultivation of t’ef has been confirmed for the Proto-Aksumite and
Aksumite Periods and it was probably present in the pre-Aksumite period. Near Eastern
crops are confirmed for all periods. Bard et al. (1997: 394, 395, 401) provide evidence
for Near Eastern crops during Proto-Aksumite (400 – 50 BCE) and Aksumite (ca. 1st to
10th centuries) periods. Boardman (2000:363-368; 412-414) reports archaeobotanical
remains of Near Eastern grains from the pre-Aksumite period. D’Andrea et al. (2008)
have identified these similar species from Ancient Ona sites in Eritrea. From the preAksumite through to the Late Aksumite contexts there appears to be an increase in
archaeologically recovered African crop remains, and the recovered introduced crop
remains do not decline during these times (Boardman 2000:368). Boardman (2000:368)
suggests this diversification and broadening of the range of crops may indicate both
intensification of agriculture and increasing specialization.
The intensification and
specialization could indicate a general trend toward building a market economy where
trading/selling of crops was occurring (Boardman 2000:368).
Ethnoarchaeological evidence can be used to build theories of cultivation in
Ethiopia. Lyons and D’Andrea (2003:522) observed modern use of griddles to make
injera 9 and argue that griddles recovered from Lalibela and Natchabiet caves
(Dombrowski 1972:123, 130) are indirect indicators of the practise of making pancake
breads (possibly injera), using indigenous grains. These griddles date to first millennium
8
9
Specifically Eritrean-Sudanese borderland and Eritrean plateau.
Injera is fermented pancake bread that is a staple in the northern Ethiopian diet that is made
from t’ef, but can also be made from other grains such as wheat.
40
BCE, are as old as the evidence for t’ef, barley and emmer (Triticum dicoccum) in
Highland Ethiopia (Dombrowsi 1972:123, 130) and are contemporary with the late preAksumite and Proto-Aksumite periods.
T’ef has long been an important indigenous grain in Tigrai and even today is
regarded as exceptionally nutritious according to the interviews conducted for this
research (see also D’Andrea 2008:548). It has a high prestige value in the cuisine of the
Ethiopian highlands (McCann 1995:102).
Guests and important individuals are fed
injera made from t’ef as a sign of respect and honour.
Excavations at Ona Nagast, an Aksumite (50 BCE – CE 150) archaeological site
near Aksum in northern Ethiopia, produced evidence of finger millet (D’Andrea
2008:558).
The discovery could represent an early record for this crop in Africa,
however this conclusion is tentative because only one grain was recovered and not
dated directly (D’Andrea 2008:558).
According to D’Andrea (2008:558) other plants
identified in Proto-Aksumite contexts of Bieta Giyorgis include free-threshing wheat,
barley, lentil, and linseed.
Despite the continuing discussion on early domestication in the Horn – when and
where – the region was an area of very long term exploitation of plants and early
adoption of cereals into the diet.
These developments included local domestication
(likely a progression from harvesting and managing wild resources) and incorporation of
imported varieties of crops. As far back as the 2nd millennia BCE the people of the Horn
supported themselves through herding, and possibly crop husbandry. The valley floors
were reserved for grazing animals, crops and associated crop processing. People built
tightly clustered stone rectangular houses, often attached to one another, on rocky
outcrops not suitable for agricultural pursuits (Curtis 2008:330; Curtis and Schmidt
2008:105; Schmidt et al. 2008:160). Occasionally settlements of stone houses were
constructed on the flat topped amba (Curtis 2008:330). Within these settlements, in
addition to flaked tools, grinding stone tools were being made and used to support the
processing of the agricultural crops (Fattovich 1990: 17; D. Phillipson 2012:10, 11, 15).
41
2.4.4.
The Study Locale – Mezber and Ona Adi
Ethnoarchaeological interviews took place in villages around the archaeological
sites of Mezber, a rural pre-Aksumite site, and Ona Adi, a town site currently being
investigated by ETAP.
Occupation of Ona Adi extends from the Mid to Late pre-
Aksumite to the Late Aksumite, ca. 600/400 BCE to CE 700, and in fact probably has
been in use until the present day with possibly a gap in occupation after CE 700.
The artifacts for this study were recovered from Mezber. Mezber is significant
because the site dates back further than first anticipated to 1600 BCE and the period of
occupation lasts until 1 BCE/CE.
This significantly lengthens what previously was
thought to be the pre-Aksumite period (D’Andrea and Welton in prep.). The Mezber
archaeological site is situated in northern Ethiopia in Gulo Makeda Woreda, Eastern
Tigrai state (Figure 1.1). It is located in Addis Alem Tabia (administrative unit) in the
villages of Aby Adi and Tsahwa at N 1595892, E 543956 at approximately 2242 m asl
(Figure 2.4) (D’Andrea et al. 2008).
Excavations conducted by the Eastern Tigrai
Archaeological Project (ETAP) from 2007-12 have yielded architectural features as well
as a multitude of artifacts spanning the entire pre-Aksumite period, from 1600 BCE – 1
BCE/CE (D’Andrea and Welton in prep). Mezber is one of the few pre-Aksumite sites in
Ethiopia that has remained relatively undisturbed by later occupation.
Four pre-
Aksumite ceramic phases (Table 2.1.) and at least two architectural phases are evident
(Figures 2.5 and 2.6). The site has produced evidence for possible large-scale domestic
architecture in the Early Phase and evidence for craft specialization in the Middle preAksumite Phase (D’Andrea and Welton in prep).
Mezber was excavated in five Fields (or excavation units) A-E (Figure 2.4) which
included deep soundings excavated to bedrock in all fields. The associated ceramics
suggest most buildings had a domestic function.
Along with cooking and storage
vessels, there are bowls, jars, and open trays or dishes (Manzo in prep). Concentrations
of ash and charcoal found with fragments of cooking vessels suggest areas of food
preparation in Fields A1 and C2 (D’Andrea 2011).
Excavations uncovered
approximately 120 grinding stones, which are documented for all pre-Aksumite phases
at the site. The samples include complete and broken grinding stones which can be
classified into four categories: querns are either 1.mațhan or 2.madqos; and hand stones
42
are either 3.madit (companion handstone to the mațhan) or 4.wedimadqos (companion
handstone to the madqos).
Figure 2.4.
Excavated Fields at Mezber, 2012
Map by Shannon Wood.
43
Figure 2.5.
Mezber Upper Architecture
44
Figure 2.6.
Mezber Lower Architecture
45
The villages surrounding Mezber have no running water or access to electricity.
Transportation is normally by foot and donkeys and horses are used as pack animals.
The people of Aby Adi, Tsahwa and surrounding villages rely heavily on subsistence
agriculture regularly supplemented by food aid through Food-For-Work and other aid
programs. The ETAP project hired 15-25 residents as fieldworkers and the project was
considered part of the social safety net in the region.
Agriculture is completely non-mechanised and relies on human and animal power
for ploughing and other agricultural tasks. The modern diet is primarily vegetarian, with
crops produced at the household level and supplemented by local market purchases 10.
The major crops cultivated in the area include barley, wheat, maize and occasionally t’ef.
T’ef, the highly prized, highly nutritious grain is most commonly used for making the
preferred bread, injera. Barley is considered by farmers to be the most important and
ancient cereal which is consumed in the form of roasted grain. Barley is also used to
make ṭėḣlo, a traditional nutritious dish made by roasting and grinding barley grains and
making the flour into dough balls which are dipped in stew (Lyons 2007). Barley can
also be used instead of t’ef to make injera (Lyons and D’Andrea 2003). Wheat is used
for other breads such as kitcha or embasha, both flatbreads. Maize is the preferred
grain for making sua in the area. Farmers also raise livestock on a small scale, including
sheep and goats which are raised for meat and cattle which are used primarily as a
draught animal and to provide dairy and meat products for funeral feasts and other
special occasions. Chickens provide both eggs and a meat source.
Farmers continue to thresh crops using oxen and process cereal grains through
laborious methods of winnowing and milling grains into flour using grinding stones,
although grinding stones have been used less and less with the introduction in the last
decades of electric/diesel grinding mills (see D’Andrea et al. 1997; D’Andrea & Mitiku
2002; D’Andrea 2008; D’Andrea & Wadge 2011). Even so, every home visited in this
ethnoarchaeological project had at least one maṭhan and one madit (quern and
10
Local farmers were observed selling excess crops at these markets, especially vegetables.
They advised in interviews that they did not sell their grains at the markets, so the grains
produced by the household were intended for household use. Today the families must often
purchase additional grains, or work through government programs to obtain extra grains to
meet their dietary needs.
46
handstone). Site visits revealed that grinding equipment was referred to by the local
people as tools “necessary for life”; without grinding stones “people would starve” (before
mechanical mills).
Women spend much of their day grinding which the same in other parts of Tigrai
(Egziabher 1993:222 – 228; Teklu 2012:35). Indications are that this was true of the
past as well based on the large sizes and great numbers of grinding stones recovered
from the Mezber archaeological site. Archaeological grinding stones provide indirect
evidence of a society reliant on agricultural products and with the significant number of
grinding stones found at Mezber, the indication is that this past society was highly reliant
on agriculture. Considering this high reliance on agriculture, it can be suggested that a
great deal of daily effort for the ancient people of Mezber would be focused on activities
related to agricultural cultivation and processing.
2.5. Chapter Summary
Of the research on grinding stones that has been conducted, there have been
some extensive ethnoarchaeological projects although little has been done in terms of
cross-cultural comparisons. The technology of grinding stone manufacturing has been a
key topic and there is room to build on this literature with additional studies using more
than a single expert informant to build reliability into the findings. The majority of the
literature has focused on specific aspects of this technology, such as morphology,
functionality and general use as a proxy to elucidate agricultural economies. Only a few
of these studies have used multiple lines of evidence to strengthen their arguments.
One of the limits in the research on grinding stone technology is the lack of analysis of
the full life cycle, from raw material selection through to final discard.
Further, the
cultural context has not often been the focus of research; however applying LeroiGourhan’s (1993 [1964/65]) chaîne opératoire can illuminate not only the full life cycle of
grinding stones, but also their interrelationships with the social, economic and ideological
components of society.
Northern Ethiopia presents a unique opportunity for
ethnoarchaeological research because people still living there have had intimate
experience with these life supporting tools.
47
Grinding stones have been important tools in food processing, and despite their
ubiquity on prehistoric archaeological sites there is a lack of substantial research
especially in the Old World. Ethiopia, and the Horn of Africa, is considered an important
region of the world for early agriculture and grinding stones are key to the development
of agriculture. Such a study in Mezber can elucidate the importance of the agricultural
economy during the pre-Aksumite Phases and can perhaps contribute to the growing
literature related to early state development.
48
Chapter 3.
Theory and Methods
3.1. Introduction
Grinding equipment in northern Ethiopia is made, used and discarded with intent.
Decisions are made during the life cycle of grinding equipment that contributes to the
functionality and life span of the tool. It is for this reason that design theory was selected
to guide the ethnoarchaeological research on grinding equipment and the chaîne
opératoire method of technical processes was employed in the collection and analysis of
data.
This chapter will review the theoretical constructs of design theory and chaîne
opératoire followed by a discussion of the field and laboratory methods used in this
research. From a methodological perspective, ethnographic analogy forms the basis for
understanding the archaeological record, including the study of past technologies and
interrelationships between technology and socio-economy, ecology, and ideology.
Ethnoarchaeological field research was conducted through 50 interviews, two
manufacturing processes (involving experts and non-experts), two grinding sessions, a
quarry site visit and an elders’ workshop.
The advantages and limitations of an
ethnoarchaeological approach are considered as well as the selection of the study
location, general interview procedures and sampling techniques used for selecting
interview participants. Laboratory methods are presented and comprise morphological
studies of artifacts and modern grinding stones, and basic use-wear analysis.
49
3.2. Theory
3.2.1.
Design Theory
Design can be important when attempting interpretation of material culture, as it
reflects behaviors that are formulated and maintained (and in some cases changed)
within a cultural context. When attempting interpretation of material culture, Kleindienst
(1975:383) recommends that a functional and/or stylistic analysis should seek to
understand the purpose or intent of the technological-morphological attributes that have
either been selected for or manufactured into a given object, in order to appreciate the
design process. Following Kleindienst, a design theory framework can be applied to
study the manufacture, use, and discard of grinding stones to begin to understand the
design process and how it reflects past human culture and behaviors. As stated by
Margolin (1989:28), “By learning to look insightfully at the array of designed objects,
services and techniques in society we can begin to recognize manifestations of social
values and policies.”
Archaeology has borrowed concepts of design theory from the engineering,
industrial and architectural sciences where it was developed to explain processes that
lead to the manufacture of a final product or the development of a specific technique
(Horsfall 1987:333; Jones 1970:3).
Design can be considered the result of choices
made based on knowledge and prior experience (Margolin 1989:28, emphasis added;
Pye 1978). Jones (1970:3-4) provides a list of definitions for design processes, which
shows quite a variety of opinions, but the common theme is that it is not the outcome of
‘designing’ but rather the elements, including social considerations, that go into
designing that is of central concern. Pye (1978:15) contends that the only basis for a
theory of design is “that every device when used produces concrete, measurable,
objective results”. Further, if function or purpose was instead the sole consideration (the
‘doing’), then consideration of the results of that function would be left out -- when in fact
the role of design is to obtain desired results (Pye 1978:15). The designer needs to
know the properties of the components to be used and the expected performance to be
achieved, and all of this knowledge would be acquired from past experience or
transferred from another expert (Pye 1978:19).
50
The basic premise is that a design process goes through a sequence of events
that present the designer with constraints and perhaps choices between options that
result in an acceptable outcome to the consumer who is expecting something truly useful
for the purpose intended, or to solve an activity related or adaptive problem (Horsfall
1987:333-334; Pye 1978:11). These activity or adaptive problems could be related to
economic, technological, social or ideological behaviors or a combination thereof. In The
Science of Engineering Design (1970:37), Hill describes a number of objectives imposed
upon the design of a device, system, or process including cost, time, determining
important
design
criteria,
feasibility,
performance,
production,
aesthetics
and
acceptance. The solutions arrived at are context specific because design is an activity
which is defined by the social milieu within which the activity takes place (Margolin
1989:7). In archaeology, many of these same design processes can be considered
when attempts are made to interpret the material culture in a meaningful way that
incorporates more than simply describing the attributes of an object and defining its
function.
Lithic specialists have adopted a conception of a general design process (see
Table 3.1). Archaeologists, begin with the evidence of a process, structure or product
and must first determine the function(s) of that archaeological object and then work back
through the processes of discard, use and manufacturing to begin to interpret the
decisions made, the constraints faced, and the objectives of problem solving (Horsfall
1987:335; Sandgathe 2005:33, 37).
Table 3.1.
Diagrammatic Conception of the General Design Process
Task requiring tool
or technique
(function)
>>>
Constraints and
possible components
(design parameters)
>>>
Range of potentially
effective solutions
(form of tool or technique)
(Sandgathe 2005:33)
From an archaeological perspective, limiting options and constraints may include,
but are not limited to: availability and properties of raw materials; the intended use and
required mobility of an item; the desired ease of use and preferred longevity of an object
(Sandgathe 2005:36-37; Odell 2004); cultural preferences; taboos; and acquired
knowledge (or lack thereof) of the craftsperson or the technology user.
51
In attempting to solve a problem, it has been mentioned that the craftsperson will
be faced with addressing constraints and making choices about options. Any adaptation
to interacting criteria, such as problem to be solved, options available or imposed
constraints, can change the design decisions (Horsfall 1979:4; Rahemtulla 2006:40).
Such interactive design criteria (limiting options and constraints) must be considered
simultaneously due to their integrated nature, and prioritized (Rahemtulla 2006:110;
Horsfall 1987:334). Due to the interactive and changeable nature of constraints and
options faced in design processes, rather than a single ‘best’ solution, there will a
number of possible ‘satisfactory’ solutions that fulfill the required results at the ‘present 11’
time (Horsfall 1987:334; Pye 1978:14). There are examples where the ‘best’ solution is
not the design choice. If wood was the best option to make mortars and pestles to
pound certain types of cereals, but wood was in limited supply and also required for
house posts and beams, the choices for design of mortars and pestles may favour stone.
Not the best solution, but a suitable option at a specific time considering the competitive
needs.
Sandgathe (2005:34) claims that there has been limited formal and explicit
application of design theory in archaeology. He cites exceptions of Hayden, et al. 1996
and Horsfall 1987, however archaeologists use casual, intuitive, implicit or unstructured
analysis when interpreting the past behaviors and constraints applicable to the
manufacture and use of artifacts, structures, and features of unknown function. When
done in this way, all options for solutions, and the extent of all constraints, may not be
known so Alexander (1964:103) proposes that the best we can do is to include all those
we can imagine. The designer too would have been unaware of every possibility, so the
premise is that as humans we may perceive and imagine the same or similar options
and constraints as those humans of the past if we are familiar with the context in which
the design process took place.
Context though should consider environmental
conditions, access to resources and technological limitations. If one also takes into
consideration other facets of society, the cultural context of ideology, social structure,
11
Present time is an integral concept to understanding satisfactory solutions. At another time the
design solutions may change due to varying options available, dissimilar constraints imposed,
or different expectations (at that time). For example: A wagon for transporting people may
have been satisfactory at one time, until knowledge of combustible engines became an option
available and time became a higher priority constraint.
52
tool user expectations and needs, then the design decisions become less predictable if
cultures have changed over time in a way that impacts these decisions.
Horsfall (1979:4) further contends that archaeological insight can be gained
about adaptive problem solving by understanding the relative importance of various
constraints that were at work in producing the artifact and their effect. Where options
and constraints represent strong cultural traditions or pressures to conform, much of
what is learned about the design process through cultural transfer of information become
expected, routine and automatic behaviors. There will be resistance to change unless a
new constraint is introduced, or a new problem arises that forces new design decisions
or adaptation at a conscious level of decision making (Alexander 1964; Hosfield 2009;
Leroi-Gourhan 1993 [1964/65]).
Where design constraints are minimal and the
maker/designer has full opportunity to deviate from tradition there is potential for creative
or inventive new ways for the organization of physical form (Alexander 1964:55-70).
Because options are available, and an act of agency is at work through the craftsperson,
decisions could have been made about design within a cultural context that could result
in change over time, or where significant deviation from tradition occurs, obvious change
in material culture could occur very quickly.
Limitations and constraints in the application of design theory for archaeology
have been identified by Sandgathe (2005:35).
Where design decisions have been
based on style preferences, or ideology, the options available and constraints of that
time period related to these parameters for the craftsperson, or performer, can be
extensive or unreadable from an archaeological perspective that is temporally located so
distant from the origin of those decisions. In considering grinding equipment there is
little or no decorative or symbolic style added to the functional design, so any ideological
associations or socially relevant choices (e.g. family or class related styles) in the design
processes of the past cannot be fully explained though direct empirical evidence of these
archaeological implements.
As will be discussed later, one important source of
information that can shed light on the social and ideological aspects of archaeological
materials is that obtained through ethnoarchaeology, discussed later in this chapter.
53
3.2.2.
The Chaîne Opératoire
Leroi-Gourhan (1993 [1964/65]) developed a concept of operational sequences
(later further developed and coined chaîne opératoire) which established a means to
break down each technological process into its elements (links in the chain) to enable an
analysis of interrelationships between the technology itself, the sociocultural, the political
and the ideological expressed through human courses of action and speech.
approach was an outcome of Leroi-Gourhan’s
This
work in technology, searching for
interrelationships between material culture and the social, political and ideological
aspects of culture that were incorporated in the technical process through human
‘gestures 12’ (White 1993:xvii [1964]).
He concluded that technical activities were
instrumental, communicative, symbolic and culturally constructed (Leroi-Gourhan
1993:xvii).
The chaîne opératoire is similar to design theory in that it takes a systems theory
approach by attempting to define cultural interrelationships.
Systems theory (Clark
1960; Flannery 1968) proposes that material culture, such as grinding stones, are
physical manifestations of how people functioned in the past as part of an integrated
cultural “system” composed of the technological, socio-political, economic and
ideological aspects of society. The material culture can help us interpret past lifeways
through its socio-economic, technological and ideological links within the overall system
and how they functioned within that system.
From the late 1930s through to the 1950s Leroi-Gourhan completed systematic
reviews of known human technologies and evolution of techniques through cross-cultural
studies.
According to Audouze (2002:283), Leroi-Gourhan’s concentration on the
technical modes of action on matter “led him to enlightening concepts and theories about
technical processes, imitation and innovation”.
The basic idea was that a person
performing a technical act is at the same time performing a social act (Gamble
2008:114) and that each technical step in a process can reflect social ideologies. In
reconstructing dynamic behaviors of the past through the application of chaîne
12
Gestures refer to the manual creation of material culture (actions). “This notion of gesture is
closely linked to a key theoretical and methodological concept, that of the chaîne opératoire,
or operational sequence.” (White 1993:xvii [1964])
54
opératoire in present social constructs, there are possibilities of generating knowledge
about how past people applied their learned and acquired knowledge, skills, cultural
values and ideals to the creation of artifacts recovered by archaeologists.
Leroi-Gourhan’s theoretical perspectives on the evolution of technology
presented two key phenomena, technical facts and technical tendencies (Audouze
2002:283). Technical facts are particular in nature, localized in space and time to a
particular culture or ethnic group.
A technical tendency relates to the diachronic
evolutionary process that continues to improve tools and techniques to increase
efficiency, better solve tasks, and better respond to physical constraints, in a way that is
comparable to the pressures of natural selection. Technical tendencies explain “the
unity of techniques present all over the world and evolving everywhere in a comparable
way” (Audouze 2002:283). This concept is important to archaeology in that it suggests
studies of technology can answer research questions in a general and particular way.
For this research project, technical facts were studied at a local level and technical
tendencies were determined through changes over time in this locale and through cross
cultural studies.
Both design theory 13 and chaîne opératoire act as middle range theories (Binford
1977) when applied to archaeology as both rely on ethnographic inquiry to draw
analogies about the past.
Middle range theory suggests that studying current
ethnographic data, where the ethnographic situation may resemble environments and
adaptations similar to the past, can be used to understand past human behaviors.
Studies of the static material culture may reveal dynamic behaviors of the past (Binford
and Sabloff 1982).
For this reason ethnoarchaeology of grinding equipment
manufacture, use and discard has been used in this research to understand the
archaeological record.
Other theoretical concepts beyond design theory and chaîne opératoire that have
informed this research, although they have not been explicitly discussed, include gender
theory (Conkey and Spector 1984; Gero 1983). Gender theory evolved out of a concern
about the lack of representation of females in the archaeological record, and the lack of
13
Design theory was defined as Middle Range Theory by Sandgathe (2005:35).
55
representation of women in the overall discipline.
For this study gender theory is
reflected in the discussion on women’s and men’s roles respectively as technological
practitioners
(users)
and
manufacturers
(craftspeople)
of
grinding
equipment.
Archaeological inquiry and interpretation is theory laden, and how could it not be when
the subject matter is as complex as human behavior and human cultures.
56
3.3. Methods
The Eastern Tigrai Archaeological Project (ETAP) is conducting archaeological
research on early state development in the Horn of Africa. Along with excavations, in
2011 Dr. Catherine D’Andrea initiated ethnoarchaeological interviews with grinding
equipment users with the goal of acquiring knowledge that would assist in interpretation
of the archaeological samples of grinding equipment recovered from the site of Mezber
D’Andrea (2011:14) states, “It is critical to document this knowledge because it is fast
disappearing due to the construction of electric mills in Tsawha and Fatsi”.
This
ethnoarchaeology work was expanded upon in 2012 and 2013 and forms a part of this
thesis. Ethnoarchaeological data were used as a basis to develop analogies between
the modern and the distant past. In addition to ethnoarchaeology, time was spent in the
laboratory analyzing attributes of archaeological grinding stones.
3.3.1.
Field Methods
Ethnoarchaeology
Ethnoarchaeology is the study of modern (contemporary) and non-mechanized
processes which result in specific phenomena which might also be observable
archaeologically (Khan 1994:83).
It is the practise of ethnography carried out with
archaeological questions in mind, and it is dependent on the use of analogy – using the
present to understand the past (David and Kramer 2001:12). According to Weedman
(2006:190) ethnoarchaeology has the potential to expand our understanding and
interpretation of archaeological material culture, and potentially may lead to development
of new theories and methods.
A key part of the research for this study involved
ethnoarchaeological fieldwork carried out with the express purpose of enhancing
archaeological interpretations by documenting aspects of sociocultural behavior related
to grinding equipment that are likely to leave identifiable remains in the archaeological
record under study at Mezber.
Jesse Fewkes first coined this phrase, “ethnoarchaeology” over 100 years ago,
and he explained that when designing research an archaeologist can incorporate such a
method to gain intensive knowledge about present life of living descendants of the
57
culture being studied (David and Kramer 2001:6). Of course his assumption is that the
contemporary culture incorporated into ethnoarchaeological research is in fact
descendant of the archaeological culture and that there are shared similarities between
subject and source, which may in fact not exist. This could be the case if there has been
evidence of cultural continuity within the same geographic area.
This line of research formally emerged with the 1956 publication of Action
Archaeology: the archaeological inventory of a living community by Maxine Kleindienst
and Patti Jo Watson (David and Kramer 2001:6). Practitioners of ethnoarchaeology
recognize and acknowledge the complexity of the interrelationships between material
culture and people’s economies, social lives and systems of thought (David and Kramer
2001).
These interrelationships cannot be directly witnessed in the archaeological
record. The option is to draw analogies from living communities that are likely to have
the direct descendent link to the ancestors who created the archaeological record.
Analogies could also be drawn from cultures displaying a comparative subsistence
strategy, facing similar ecological, and perhaps social and political circumstances, or are
at a similar technological stage of development (termed ‘boundary conditions’, or “new
analogy” by Ascher 1961:319) that would result in and reflect similar adaptations (Ascher
1961:319). Researchers must be careful to consider historical context when making
comparisons between cultures and they should not assume persistence and continuity
when applying a direct historical analogy (Stahl 1993:246).
David and Kramer (2001) and Wylie (1985) have identified many critics who have
called into question the value or validity of ethnoarchaeology and the use of analogy for
interpreting the archaeological record. Below is a review of the problems and pitfalls of
ethnoarchaeology and how they have been addressed in this study.
In early use of ethnoarchaeology, Orme (1981) found that antiquarians, by the
eighteenth century, were unquestioningly equating what they referred to as “primitive” or
“savage” living cultures with prehistoric cultures.
This drew beliefs that these living
societies were primitives representing “cast out” survivals. Wylie (1985:68) points out
arguments against ethnoarchaeology including that this method is liable to error because
of ethnocentric understandings and it lacks a focus on theoretical generalizations, or
theoretical extrapolation beyond facts. It is impossible to inspect the past for proof,
58
which results in a mistrust of conclusiveness as this method is judged to be too simple
and direct a reading of past. Further, some (see for example Wobst 1978, Freeman
1968) claim that analogy distorts and limits what archaeologists can understand about
the past because the focus is so narrow on the current culture and presents a general
assumption about the uniformity of human responses rather than the potential
uniqueness and diversity of past cultures.
There are definite risks associated with assuming behaviors are static through
time and space, and linking what is apparent today into the distant past, however
ethnoarchaeological investigations can be relevant to developing interpretations about
the past (D’Andrea and Mitiku 2002:181, 210).
Without the use of analogy,
archaeologists would be using intuition or assumptions based on ethnocentric
understandings to draw conclusions about past human behaviors. Archaeologists are
fundamentally reliant on analogies to meet the primary archaeological goal of
reconstructing life ways of the past that explain human behaviors and beliefs (Stahl
1993:235). David and Kramer (2001) and Wylie (1985) have suggestions to strengthen
the analogical argument, and below it is defined how these suggestions have been
addressed for this research project.
Reconstruction of technology is one of the strongest forms of analogy according
to David and Kramer (2001) and Wylie (1985) because it is during this reconstruction
that one can observe and draw inferences related to the working aspects of design
theory and chaîne opératoire through the human behaviors witnessed. If the behaviors
result in material culture that mirrors, or is very similar, to the artifacts of the past, then
there is a possibility that these same behaviors were practised in the past. Two such
reconstructions of grinding technology were completed during field seasons 2012 and
2013 and do not rely on direct historical analogy.
David and Kramer (2001) and Wylie (1985) suggest defining correlations
between morphological and functional attributes.
In comparing the outcome of the
reconstruction to the archaeological materials, it is important to enumerate both
similarities and differences in attributes. Where differences exist, it is necessary to
examine relational (causal) conditions that may explain those differences. There is a
need to not only establish the principles of connection but also consider relevance, how
59
important is one attribute over another, or is one causal factor more relevant than
another for final form analysis.
applicable to interpretation.
It is within this realm that the interrelationships are
Taking a relational approach – if one can explain the
relationships between attributes, one may be able to explain any absence of evidence,
such as particular techniques of manufacture and decay.
If similarities outweigh
differences, the source (archaeological materials) and subject (ethnographic materials)
may have possessed other similar attributes.
Alternatively, differences may reveal
errors, or even how the past did actually differ from the present or how change has
occurred (Wylie 1985:94; Stahl 1993:251).
Stahl (1993:236) describes this as the
comparative model.
Despite some limitations, ethnoarchaeological analogs can be used to develop
models that can be tested against the archaeological record.
Testing hypotheses
developed through analogy against the archeological record is an inductive process of
continual adjustment between theoretical frameworks used to describe and interpret
archaeological data and the facts/evidence about the past that are brought to light
through discovery. To support analogical arguments, additional recommendations from
David and Kramer (2001) and Wylie (1985) include being explicit about assumptions
applied to research and conclusions, considering which alternative interpretations may
be applicable and acquiring additional evidence.
Recommendations also include
additional field work to be completed if required to confirm data or to fill gaps. They also
recommend more systematic use of existing ethnographic literature especially
ethnographic studies that identify continuous change. In reviewing the literature, Stahl
(1993) recommends applying source-side criticism, assessing documents as to their
authenticity and credibility. She also advocates the development of temporally specific
analogues, sequenced in reverse to identify changes through time (that may have an
opportunity to be tested against the archaeological evidence), and a consideration of
potential impacts from global processes (Stahl 1993:249,252).
The following describes how the recommendations by David and Kramer (2001)
and Wylie (1985) have been addressed in my thesis research. In this study technology
was reconstructed by studying creation through manufacture, use through grinding of
grains into flour, and recycling and discard of the worn out tools. To address the need to
apply the comparative model, the study of morphology, some use-wear and previously
60
completed residue (phytolith) analysis of artifacts was incorporated and compared to the
morphology and use-wear analysis of ethnographic samples.
Residue analysis was
compared to information gleaned from ethnoarchaeological interviews. In order to test
interpretations, as discoveries were made through the interviews, data were compared to
the archaeological record by reviewing excavation and field notes as well as artifact
samples to determine if similar patterns were being recorded.
In this study efforts have been made to make assumptions explicit, consider
alterative interpretations, and expand research into cross cultural studies where
available. As well multiple lines of evidence were used to strengthen the analogical
arguments such as ethnographic data, morphological attributes, residue and use-wear
analysis. To fill in any gaps in the research a second field season was completed in
Gulo Makeda. Important to this study was a review of applicable literature with sourceside criticism included in this research. Although the ethnographic literature is limited for
the region of eastern Tigrai, cross cultural ethnographies and studies are included to
provide background to interpretations.
Further, London (2000:7) states, “Ethnoarchaeological research is one of the
most powerful tools to aid in recognizing the relationship between human behaviour and
cultural material”. Understanding the constraints, limitations and risks associated with
retrojecting the current into the past, she also provides some warnings and guidance.
First ethnoarchaeological work requires a carefully constructed research design that
includes selection of an appropriate community that would likely represent a descendent
relationship from the archaeological culture being studied.
For this study research
design was carefully constructed to address the archaeological research questions
proposed, and the community selected for interviews was in the same physical location
as the archaeological site that yielded samples of querns and handstones. London also
suggests that researchers spend extended time in the field and acquire knowledge of the
local language. The time in the field for this project was two consecutive field seasons,
six weeks in 2012 and eight weeks in 2013 which amounted to a total of four weeks
completing interviews and the balance used for lab time. On average four days per
week during daylight hours was spent completing interviews. Language was a limitation,
so an interpreter was necessary for translating the responses that were recorded.
61
Finally London identifies the need to employ keen skills of observation and have
experience with ancient material culture, which was achieved in this research.
The ethnoarchaeological work for this study was carried out with design theory
and the chaîne opératoire method in mind with the goal of better understanding the
place of grinding in the culture as a whole. Questions for interviews and observations
were developed with the objective of understanding the processes and sequences of
grinding equipment manufacture, use and discard and the interrelationships between
technology and the environment, socioeconomic and ideological aspects of the culture.
Interviews were recorded by hand in the field and extended notes were compiled at the
end of the day or next day, photographs were taken of grinding equipment and in some
cases the rooms in which it was located, measurements of grinding equipment were
recorded, sketches of grinding equipment locations were made, and in one case
microscopic digital images were taken of a modern quern.
Location Selection
This research was conducted as site specific (within the region of Gulo Makeda
at multiple villages throughout the valley) where the population has not had extensive
exposure to the world economy and are still practising non-mechanized farming. Until
fairly recently people were producing flour through non-mechanized means, in particular
the women employed stone grinding equipment which was manufactured by local men.
Interviews
The sampling for ethnoarchaeological interviews followed a snowball or chain
sampling strategy (Marshall and Rossman 2006:71). Inquiries began with excavation
workers about potential consultants who had grinding equipment in their home (women),
or were manufacturers of grinding equipment (men). Contacts were made to set up
initial appointments based on these referrals.
To increase sample size additional
interviews were generated by asking interviewees, or consultants, if they knew of anyone
else that might consider an interview. In other instances, we approached people we met
while walking, or approached houses on our routes, to ask if we could set up an
interview. It became apparent that it would be easier to interview females as they were
often in their home sometime during our interview days. Male authorities on grinding
62
stone manufacture were usually working in the fields or otherwise employed and were
less available for interviews.
Through this probability sample strategy 14, men and women of various ages and
socio economic classes were interviewed. This resulted in a representative sample of
this region that would allow for data to be analyzed to produce basic generalizations
about the manufacturing, use and discard of grinding equipment in Gulo Makeda
(Bryman and Teevan 2005:217-218).
For six weeks between the end of April and beginning of June 2012, over 35
interviews were conducted in the villages of Kertsodo, Membro, Aby Adi, Tsa-eda
Hamed, Hamado, Adis Alem, and Adi Mhigay. During a similar period in 2013 interviews
were completed in the villages of Aby Adi, Menebeity and Dahane. The goal of the
second year was to complete enough interviews to determine if there were major
differences between the two areas, and to confirm any commonalities. Fifteen interviews
were conducted in 2013 and it was determined that responses were similar enough to
those from Mezber in 2012 to reach a point of redundancy 15. The few differences noted
were due to the longer period of time that villages around Ona Adi have had access to
more conveniently located mechanical mills.
Most interviews took place within the home or courtyard of the advisors, and two
interviews were held in an open area of the school property with two men. Interviews
normally lasted between one and two hours. Three to five days per week were spent in
the field conducting interviews and the number of interviews per day ranged from two to
four.
Interviews were semi structured with questions prepared prior to entering the field
but also permitting the discussions to depart from the questionnaire if unanticipated
information came to light. The interviews included both open and closed questions, and
were different for men and women. Consultants were provided the option of answering
14
A probability sample strategy involves the random or chance selection of a sample from a
population where all members of the population have a chance of being selected, and
therefore it is probable that the sample is well respresentative of the population.
15
Redundancy in this context refers to the experience of receiving the same answers to
questions, where no significant new information was being brought forward.
63
some, all, or none of the interview questions posed, however most answered all
questions unless they did not have an opinion or did not have an answer for a particular
question. Consultants were also provided the opportunity to cease the interview at any
time, although none ended interviews early. Permission was received to use consultant
names and any photographs taken.
Not all questions were asked during every
interview, in some cases due to time constraints and in other instances due to the flow of
the interview.
For example when a consultant provided detailed accounts without
prompts and was providing relevant information, even perhaps additional information
that was not being requested, the individual was encouraged to continue in that line of
discussion and pre-determined questions might be dropped.
Questions posed also
varied according to the knowledge base of the informant.
Additional information
provided by the men and women during interviews was recorded if it was provided and
translated.
As knowledge was acquired about the processes under review, the
questionnaires were adjusted twice during the first field season to eliminate those
questions that were not applicable and to accommodate more appropriate questions
(final Questionnaire is included in Appendix A and a summary of responses is included
in Appendix B).
Observation of Manufacturing Process & Quarry Site Visit
Ethnographic accounts of grinding equipment manufacture are rare (for some
exceptions see Cook 1982; Hayden 1987a; Horsfall 1987; Searcy 2012), basically
because as new technologies are introduced, old technologies and the knowledge about
manufacturing is lost (Odell 2004:75). As mechanized mills have been introduced to
rural Ethiopia, the manufacturing of grinding equipment is becoming obsolete, along with
the associated knowledge. Through the ethnographic interviews in May of 2012, it was
learned that there were two highly respected craftsmen that made grinding equipment.
These two men were approached and asked if they would consider manufacturing a
quern and handstone to be purchased by the researcher. They agreed, hired two other
men, and the process was observed over one and one-half days where field notes were
recorded about the processes and ongoing interviews were completed with the men
involved.
In the second field season two men identified themselves as being
knowledgeable about grinding stone manufacture, and they were hired, as well as a
colleague they recruited, to make a set of grinding stones. These men will be referred to
64
as non-experts. Photographs and film captured much of the activity. In addition to the
manufacturing process, two other men provided a tour and interviews during a quarry
site visit on a separate occasion during the first field season.
Participant/Observation of Grinding Sessions
In 2013, two women were observed grinding grains.
Although grinding is
becoming rare in these homes due to the availability of mechanical mills, these women
were very experienced and had been grinding for years before the mechanical mills were
introduced.
Motion studies were also completed through this ethnoarchaeological
research to record examples of the ways in which grinding equipment was used. Two
female specialists were hired to grind several kilograms of flour and body motions, timing
and other observations were recorded. Where opportunity presented, questions were
asked about the process, asking the grinder to explain what she was doing, and telling
us how she was feeling. I also attempted to perform the grinding tasks to experience the
physical (and psychological) impacts of such an activity.
Artifact Workshop with Elders
A workshop was held in 2012 with seven elders from the Mezber valley during
which they were asked to identify and comment on archaeologically recovered grinding
equipment (artifacts).
Using the typology that was established (maṭhans, madqos,
madits and wedimadqos) many of the artifacts were classified and information was
obtained about the potential past use of some grinding equipment, for example opinions
were provided about whether the stones were used for t’ef, other grains or salt. Tables
of the workshop data are included as Appendix C.
Ethnographic Data Recording and Analysis
The responses to each question asked during each interview were transferred to
a spreadsheet. The responses were then coded, using language that would reflect the
essence of the response. The codes were then grouped and counted and entered into a
table logging the frequency and where relevant the percentage of each coded response.
In some cases specific responses brought forward special or more detailed information
and these were highlighted for future reference and incorporation into the discussion
below.
By using a spreadsheet and then analyzing the frequency of each coded
65
response in a table format I was able to distance myself from the memories of the
particular consultants and look at the data more objectively.
3.3.2.
Lab Methods 16
Morphology
There has been ongoing discussion about the significance of morphological
changes and differences in style of querns and handstones as they relate to efficiency in
production and/or changes in processing methods and products (Adams 1993, 1999;
David 1998; Hard, et. al. 1996; Horsfall 1987; Mauldin 1993; Morris 1990; Nelson and
Lippmeier 1993; Stone and Balser 1957: Wright 1994). In an effort to contribute to this
discussion, another method of inquiry employed in this study was to record morphology
of grinding equipment to enable comparison of the differences/changes between
artifacts and contemporary ethnographic querns and handstones within the study area.
The morphological data were also used to establish cross cultural comparisons of
grinding equipment.
Raw material types are an important part of the design process so attention was
paid to choices of raw materials for grinding stones. The selection of available raw
materials is considered to have important implications for the subsequent manufacturing
process. Particular raw materials will have inherent properties that the manufacturer will
select for depending on the anticipated use and even the final disposition (Horsfall
1979:2). People discriminately select specific rock types exhibiting certain properties for
specific tools, and according to Hayden (1987a:13) raw material selection was one of the
most important aspects of prehistoric cultural knowledge and it is important to
understand how the choice of materials and their properties fit into the overall design
strategy. Final utility and life span of a tool, for instance, will have a strong correlation
with the type of raw material selected for.
Raw materials were identified and their
properties noted.
16
It should be noted that artifacts were analyzed in the lab in Adigrat, northern Ethiopia, however
the ethnographic samples were analyzed in the field.
66
Odell (2004:84) proposes that ground stone tool analysis include a description of
the tool’s dimensions, curvature, raw material, manufacture marks and special features.
Morphological changes through time in a technology such as querns and handstones
may reflect differences in the application of grinding to accommodate changing socioeconomic or environmental conditions (Adams 1993:342). Basic measurements were
taken of the ethnographic samples of grinding equipment, as well as the archaeological
samples to allow for temporal comparisons (Appendices D-F), as well as to
accommodate cross cultural comparisons. Length was measured along the direction of
utilization which is the long axis between the proximal and distal points (the proximal end
is where the user would stand), and width was measured at right angles (90 degrees) to
the length (Figure 3.1). Thickness means the thickness, or the depth, of the stone itself,
measured from the working surface of the ventral side to the dorsal side as shown in
Figure 3.1, and when stones were bifacial this measurement was taken from working
surface one to working surface two. Where grinding stones had varying thicknesses the
highest and lowest measurements were recorded. Surface depth or concavity refers to
the curvature of the working surface, which is illustrated in Fig. 3.1.
Thickness
measurements were usually only recorded on the archaeological samples because
ethnographic maṭhan (quern) samples are built into a table that has been finished with
mud and dung, and the bottom section of the maṭhan is obscured within the table
making it impossible to determine the true full grinding stone thickness (Figure 4.2).
Surface concavity 17 is the maximum distance measured down from a straight edge
placed across the hollowed area perpendicular to the length, or long axis. Any particular
marks that might have been left as a result of manufacturing sequences, or re-touch,
have been noted and where possible images have been recorded.
17
If a stone was broken, the straight edge was held from the one top end parallel to the surface.
67
Figure 3.1.
Orientation, Terminology and Measuring of Grinding Quern
In addition, a fuller recording of additional attributes has been completed based
on suggestions of observable attributes by Adams (2014a) and Wright (1992). Added to
basic overall dimensions, surface texture, shape, wear patterns and microscopic
observations were recorded using coding recommended by the above authors.
An
explanation of attributes recorded, coding methods and resultant morphological data can
be found in Appendices G through J. Patterns were analyzed for overall artifact classes
and for changes over time.
68
Use-Wear and Previous Supporting Residue and Stable Isotope Analysis
Use-wear and residue analysis techniques hold great promise for determining
stone tool function (Sandgathe 2005:37). Use-wear and residue analysis also provide
additional lines of evidence for what is being processed on grinding equipment and how
it being processed.
Adams (1988, 1993) and Morris (1990) have completed
macroscopic and microscopic use-wear studies on grinding equipment in the U.S.
Southwest to determine what products stones were being milled.
For this research
archaeological and ethnographic grinding equipment was subject to macroscopic and
microscopic 18 analysis for some use wear pattern analysis. Grinding stones were not
washed following excavation and at the site, the artifacts were buried in undisturbed soil
deposits.
Small areas were cleaned with brushes and water to macro- and
microscopically observe the grinding stone surfaces in the laboratory.
To ensure
potential for future research on residues, only small sections of grinding stone surfaces
were cleaned.
As mentioned above, motion studies were also completed to record
examples of the ways in which grinding equipment was used.
Prior residue analysis results recovered from artifact grinding equipment are also
incorporated into this research as evidence for types of plants being processed and
consumed.
Stable isotope analysis on skeletal remains has presented additional
evidence for types of food in the ancient diets in Gulo Makeda (D’Andrea et al. 2011).
Types of plant remains from specific grinding equipment pieces were compared to the
expected type of surface preferred for grinding that species of plant (information about
preferences had been acquired through interviews).
Although this may not include
examples of all plants used in the past, the results provide for evidence of cultural
continuity in food processing through the grinding equipment and methods observed.
18
Microscopic images were achieved using DinoCapture 2.0.
69
3.4. Chapter Summary
Design theory and chaîne opératoire are powerful tools to implement in
understanding technology as evident in the archaeological record.
Grinding stones
represent more than just measurements and descriptions, they intersect with society as
whole and impact the way an individual experiences daily life through socio-cultural
phenomena, and these experiences can be better illuminated through the use of
analogy.
Ethnoarchaeological field research was conducted through interviews, two
manufacturing processes (involving experts and non-experts), two scheduled grinding
sessions (and a few spontaneous demonstrations), a quarry site visit and an elder
workshop. Understanding the risks and limitations of using analogy has guided the
analysis of the data collected through ethnoarchaeology.
The laboratory methods comprise morphological analysis of artifacts using
multiple variables that draw out patterns that were analyzed, including changes through
time.
This physical analysis of the technology included the ethnographic grinding
stones, archaeological grinding stones from Mezber and some use-wear analysis
identifying varying wear patterns. Reference to previous residue analysis is used to
evaluate some of the analysis completed on the artifacts and draw some inferences
about agricultural practises during the pre-Aksumite times.
70
Chapter 4.
Results: Ethnoarchaeology
4.1. Introduction
This
chapter
will
present
the
results
of
analyses
completed
on
ethnoarchaeological data collected in the Gulo Makeda study area. Beginning with an
explanation about the interviews and participant observation events, the chapter
progresses through the full life cycle of grinding stones from manufacturing (including
raw material selection, production, debitage, transporting and economics), postmanufacturing re-touch, grinding stone use, repurposing and finally discard.
The
chapter concludes with the analyses of ethnographic data related to the social relations
and cultural values associated with grinding stone manufacture and use.
71
4.2. Ethnoarchaeological Study of Grinding Stones
4.2.1.
The Interviews
A total of 52 19 interviews were completed during field seasons 2012 and 2013.
Of those, 32 involved adult female advisors, and 20 were adult males. The aim was to
ensure a cross section of adult ages and economic classes across a number of villages
to allow for comparative analysis (see Interview Summary Table 4.1).
Table 4.1.
Interview Summary
Category
Female
Male
Number of Individuals (n=52)
32
20
Ages:
Average
49
62
Median
48
62
Mode
48
52
High
90
81
Low
20
45
6
19
7
2
14
4
Estimated Economic Class 20
Low
Middle
High
4.2.2.
The Participant/Observation Events
In addition to interviews, four participant observation sessions were arranged.
Fortunately, several surviving grinding stone manufacturing experts (master craftsmen,
often referred to as specialists by villagers) live near the Mezber site and kindly agreed
19
20
This number includes two male interviews completed at the quarry site.
Economic class is based on my observations and is subjective. The purpose of this category to
to show that in sampling attemps were made to ensure all ecomonic classes were included.
The classification emcompasses the type of housing and number of rooms combined with
number and variety of animals and general display of material goods. This area has
undergone, and is going through transitions based on Ethiopia’s changing political systems
(from a feudal system to socialist and now democratic). Low, middle and high classifications
in this table are based on local standards, not national standards. Only a handful of homes
stood out as being better off or worse off. The discrepancies were more apparent near
Mezber than Ona Adi.
72
to collaborate and share their knowledge about grinding stone production while we
observed the making of a maṭhan and madit. This first manufacturing session with the
two experts plus two helpers lasted two days.
The second manufacturing session
organized during the subsequent field season was with three men from around the Ona
Adi site who claimed to have good knowledge of making grinding stones. There were no
experts still alive in their villages.
The two manufacturing sessions allowed for
comparisons between experts (master craftsmen) and non-experts.
In addition,
interviews were conducted with the experts and other men who had knowledge of the
manufacturing process. Two of these men offered to take us to a quarry site called
Gerahu (Grat) Saharti where interviews and observations were conducted. It was during
the quarry visit that we received our first lesson in raw material selection.
Pre-arranged observations of grinding processes, and interviewer participation in
grinding, took place twice during the second field season, one at a village near Mezber,
one at a village near Ona Adi. Both Tigrayan women who demonstrated grinding were
very experienced. There were also several instances during interviews when women
provided quick demonstrations of grinding.
4.2.3.
Grinding Stones in Gulo Makeda, Eastern Tigrai –
The Ethnoarchaeological Results
A Gulo Makeda Grinding Stone Typology
In northern Tigrai there are two main sets of grinding stones, which include four
implements.
Saddle querns include maṭhan (Figure 4.2) and madqos (Figure 4.3).
Handstones include the madit (large two handed stone used with maṭhan and shown
resting on the maṭhan in Figure 4.2) and the wedimadqos (palm sized stone used with
madqos and shown resting on the madqos in Figure 4.3). Most people interviewed (90%
(28 21) of women, and 87% (14) of men) described two types of maṭhan, one coarse large
grained stone, rough surfaced for large cereal grains such as sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor), barley, wheat, and maize, and a smaller grained stone with a smoother
21
Numbers in brackets after a % is the actual number of respondents represented by that
percentage. Questions had different numbers of respondents as not all questions were
asked in every interview (see discussion on interviews Section 3.3.1).
73
surface 22 for grinding smaller cereals including t’ef and finger millet. The madqos is
used for grinding salt, peppers, spices, beans, and for a second wet-grinding of maize
and sorghum. These different types of grinding stones will be discussed in detail below.
In observing grinding stones in the homes of people interviewed, and having
elders identify the types of archaeological grinding stones in a workshop, particular
attributes that can differentiate the grinding stones were identified. Size is one of the key
differences.
Querns (maṭhan and madqos) are large in size.
The modern maṭhan
querns’ average measurements are 54.5 X 33.0 cm (length X width) while the madqos
average is 48.5 X 30.1 cm (Tables 4.2., 5.5., Figure 4.1 and Appendix F). Both quern
types are very similar in length and width and cannot be distinguished by these attributes
because a madqos is often a repurposed maṭhan, but thickness and surface shape can
be indicators. Madqos can usually be differentiated from a maṭhan because they are
well worn and thinner: once a maṭhan becomes too thin, people will use it as a madqos.
The surface shape of the maṭhan is usually flat edge to edge and either flat or slightly
concave end to end, whereas the madqos can be more concave in both directions and
even become bowl shaped in the centre where concentrated grinding takes place with
the small wedimadqos. The wedimadqos can be used in varying directions, creating
striations on the madqos different than the maṭhan which are oriented longitudinally
along the quern. It may not always be possible to distinguish a maṭhan from a madqos if
these attributes of bowl-like concavity and multidirectional striations are not apparent.
Madit handstones are easily distinguishable from the querns as they have
smaller average measurements of 34.4 X 19.2 cm (length X width). The wedimadqos
are even smaller with an average size of 15.8 X 9.9 cm (Tables 4.2., Figure 4.1, 5.7. and
Appendix F). Madit are rectangular in shape, while the wedimadqos can be rectangular
or square.
22
Smooth surfaces could also be described as fine grained surfaces. The highs and lows of the
topography are minimal.
74
Table 4.2.
Gulo Makeda Modern Grinding Stone Typology Attributes
Grinding Stone
Type
Average Measurement
(length X width)
Basic Shape
Typical Surface
Concavity
maṭhan
54.5 X 33.0
squared (rectangular)
some with rounded ends
flat-edge-to-edge and
flat or concave-end-toend
madqos
48.5 X 30.1
squared (rectangular)
some with rounded ends
(can also be re-purposed
broken maṭhan)
concave-edge-to-edge
and concave-end-to-end
(if well worn)
madit
34.4 X 19.2
squared (rectangular) with
rounded ends or loaf
shaped
flat or slightly concaveend-to-end, flat-edge-toedge
wedimadqos
15.8 X 9.9
various shapes
various
Figure 4.1
Modern Grinding Stones Length Variation
75
Figure 4.2.
Maṭhan Built into Udo Table with Madit on top
Figure 4.3.
Madqos with Wedimadqos on top
76
Grinding Stone Manufacturing
Training and Becoming an Expert
In Gulo Makeda, grinding stone production has likely been part of the
technological repertoire of skilled craftsmen since at least pre-Aksumite times (beginning
1600 BCE). An ethnoarchaeological study conducted by Hayden and Horsfall (1987) in
the Maya Highlands determined that metates (=mațhan in this study) require special
skills to manufacture and likely reflect specialized production. It was communicated that
to be an expert or specialist in manufacturing grinding stones in Gulo Makeda was a skill
and tradition passed on through family generations from father to son through an
apprenticeship. According to 93% (13) of male consultants the techniques used today
are the same as those used by their immediate ancestors 23.
Although there is no
absolute obligation to carry on the family tradition, experts who had been taught by their
fathers explained that there was an expectation based on that descent, and there were
two such experts identified in the Mezber area. Interviews revealed that grinding stone
manufacture was not a full time profession today, unless they were selling these at
markets. Some experts having the knowledge of stone working also become masons,
and most men also practised farming.
The experts declared that it took one to two months to learn the basics of
choosing the right raw material, breaking the boulders and trimming and finishing the
grinding stones. In total it takes practitioners three years to become an expert, through
watching and working with their fathers and perfecting their skills through many
manufacturing experiences.
Non-experts claimed they could learn to make grinding
stones by watching the experts, and their estimates for learning ranged from one day to
a week, or after actively participating in two to five manufacturing processes. After such
a short period of acquiring knowledge, I would not expect the non-experts to have the
same skills as the experts, and this was observed through the arranged manufacturing
sessions during field work.
23
The only change noted by 7% of respondents was that metal tools had been introduced. One
son of an expert said that prior to metal tools, “In earlier times they used a big stone hammer,
also they used that stone to sharpen tools, like ploughs.”
77
Respect and status could be acquired by expert grinding stone manufacturers,
although if the vocation was manufacturing for sale the respect and status lowered for
that individual.
Both experts interviewed self-identified as grinding stone production
specialists, who worked to supply the local community through reciprocal exchange.
They were acknowledged, known and respected as experts by others living in the
region. One of these experts stated, “There is no obligation [to become an expert], but
life is dependent upon the grinding stone. We acquire the knowledge from our ancestors
and know it is important.” Through interviews it was learned that, until recently, grinding
stone makers were highly respected because they had knowledge to manufacture what
was referred to by villagers as tools “necessary for life”; without grinding stones “people
would starve”.
With the introduction of electric/diesel four mills in the last decades and the
declining need for grinding stones in the villages, the two experts (master craftsmen)
described the lack of interest by their sons to learn to be expert grinding stone makers.
Instead they were teaching any men who wanted to learn, but the lessons were basic,
lacking the more intense apprenticeship they had completed with their fathers, or would
have provided to their sons. Although the knowledge of grinding stone making was
being dispersed widely to men in the area, these two men remain the experts.
There were differences between expert and non-expert manufacturing sessions
and the resultant tools they produced. From the manufacturing perspective I believe the
differences observed between the two areas of study are due to the lack of existing
expertise and the longer period of access to convenient mechanical mills around Ona
Adi which has reduced the need to manufacture grinding stones.
In this area,
specifically the villages of Menebeity and Dahane, as expert grinding stone makers
passed away and the need for grinding stones declined, the special knowledge has not
been retained as well as it has in villages around Mezber where experts are still alive
and have continued to manufacture grinding stones as needs arise. In interviews, 66%
(8) of male respondents said that the best grinding stones are produced by either
experts (33%)(4) or those who have the knowledge to choose the best stones and “know
how to break them” (33%)(4). In fact, when I asked how one would arrange to have a
maṭhan made, 77% (10) of males suggested a woman (or her husband if she had one)
contact the expert with which they had the closest relationship. With few experts left
78
around Ona Adi, the task of manufacturing grinding stones fell to the men who had
experience, but were not expertly trained.
Men typically worked together to manufacture grinding stones.
I asked
interviewees what would trigger them to make a grinding stone and responses included:
someone needs one; if asked to help the expert; when a couple starts to live alone; and
“when my wife needs one.” If the session was being supervised by an expert, he would
ask others to help, including the husband of the woman who needed the grinding stone.
Others might be men he had trained previously, his own sons, or neighbors and relatives
nearby. Non-experts would rely on neighbors, relatives and friends to help according to
76% (13) of male respondents.
When asked how many men would attend a
manufacturing session, the responses varied from one to four individuals, with the most
common response being four. Only two men explained that they could manufacture
alone and would only get help if needed (e.g., the boulder had to be excavated or it was
too hard to break alone) or he may need assistance carrying the grinding stones back to
his home. The grinding stone manufacturing I observed was a very labour intensive
process, with the breaking in half of large boulders and the extensive reduction process
for the shaping of the maṭhan and madit.
Procuring the Raw Materials
“Understanding technological processes begins with considering how an
item was designed and manufactured, why the material was selected, and
what features were made to fit the chosen the material with the planned
function of the object.”
Adams 2014a:21
Quarry Sites
Raw materials used in grinding stone production are always obtained from quarry
sites according to all male consultants. Only in cases where a man did not have enough
labour resources available to carry the grinding stones home would he procure lesser
quality raw material from the hills directly near his home. There are three main quarry
sites identified near the village of Mezber. Claims are that Gerahu (Grat) Saharti has the
highest quality and quantity of the material suitable for grinding stones and it is a 20-30
minute walk uphill from most residences in the immediate valley. Libeda Gebrezgi is
located next to the eldest expert’s house, and is a 10-15 minute walk uphill from most
79
residents in the immediate valley. The last site mentioned is Nizibat Lidet which is a two
hour walk away and is located near Segelat.
For residents near the Ona Adi site, Grat Tselimo served as the quarry. Some
consultants from Menebeity referred to the quarry as ‘Dahane’, likely because it is near
the village of Dahane, however residents of Dahane corrected this error. Grat Tselimo is
a 10 minute walk from Dahane and approximately a 30 minute walk from Menebeity.
Most of the quarry sites are within a 30 minute or less walk from the adjacent villages.
Distance to raw material does constitute a design constraint as consideration is given to
the distance for transporting the heavy grinding stones and the amount of labour
resources available to complete the transport. In the absence of motorized vehicles, the
heavy weight of the finished product (typically 130 – 150 kg) was clearly a constraint to
be considered in the design process.
In addition to quarry distance, access to land and quality of available material can
be factors in selecting a quarry site. Haleka Tewoelde Brahn (one of the experts) owns
Lebida Gebrezgi, the land adjacent to his home, where high quality sandstone raw
material can be found and from which he selected the stone to manufacture our grinding
equipment. He explained that Lebida Gebrezgi is one of the key quarry sites with a
good inventory of stone and we observed evidence of prior manufacturing in this location
based on debitage scatter. Manufacturing debitage was also observed during our quarry
site visit to Grat Saharti. It should be noted that the selection of a procurement site for
the manufacture of our grinding stones was based not only on the owner’s access, but
also on the amount of energy that would need to be expended for travelling and
transporting the finished product. So although we heard in interviews that the site near
Mezber, Gerahu (Grat) Saharti, had the best quality rock, the site used for our raw
material was Libeda Gebrezgi which offered much closer proximity. In addition, because
the manufacturer was also owner of the land containing useable raw material, no special
permissions were required. The quarry site for the second manufacturing session, Grat
Tselimo near Ona Adi, was 30 minutes by foot from Menebeity but a road for
transporting the finished product was only a 5 minute walk from the quarry, and it was
recognized that the newly manufactured maṭhan and madit could be transferred to our
vehicle with just a short distance of human transport required. Additionally we were told
that there was plenty of good material for grinding stones in this location. Quality of raw
80
material was the number one reason for selecting a particular quarry (56%)(10), with the
second most common answer being proximity to the home due to the labour required to
transport the finished grinding stones (22%)(4) and others (17%)(3) said there were no
alternative options for quarry sites.
The quarry sites, Libeda Gebrezgi and Grat Tselimo, were the locales for the full
manufacturing
process.
Schneider
(1996)
quarry/production site at Antelope Hill in Arizona.
suggests
a
similar
combined
In contrast, Hayden (1987a) and
Abadi-Riess and Rosen (2008) report separate primary and secondary manufacturing
locations.
These cross-cultural comparisons show there are both similarities and
differences in how much production takes place at the quarry site.
Raw Material Selection
In applying design theory, one of the constraints faced in mațhan manufacturing
relates to the selection of raw materials. The consideration “of the genesis of the rock
itself” (Odell 2004:12) is discussed in relation to the knowledge of raw material properties
held by the manufacturer. Both when men were interviewed and when we observed the
process of selecting raw materials, we were told that they were basing their decisions on
the best raw material from what is available. The main sources of boulders large enough
for maṭhan manufacturing in the Mezber valley are basalt and sandstone, but basalt did
not offer an effective grinding surface as it was too smooth. Consultants were asked,
“What kind of stone is best suited for the maṭhan?”
It was difficult for the men to
verbalize the qualities they looked for, however in pointing out to us preferred stone it
became clear that the highly favoured stone of choice for grinding stones is quartzitic
sandstone that through the metamorphic process is approaching quartzite, displaying
pebble size grains of quartz strongly welded together (Figure 4.4).
According to
Schneider (2002:40, 50) stone texture is a major component considered in grinding tool
design. The quartz inclusions provide a coarse but strong surface for grinding flours.
Fratt and Biancaniello (1993:387) analyzed raw material selection from Anasazi ground
stones and determined that these manufacturers were selecting for hardness induration,
the degree to which surfaces could be roughened to improve grinding as well as
aesthetics of the stone.
All of these were considerations of the Gulo Makeda
81
manufacturers, including the aesthetics as they were looking for the large quartz “shiny”
inclusions.
It is the quartz inclusions that give the sandstone its strength for the rigors of
grinding, and at the same time these pebbles provide a rough surface to aid in the
grinding process by creating differences in the relief of the surfaces so that when the two
stones (maṭhan and madit) are rubbed against each other the result is an effective
abrasive medium (Odell 2004:80).
The slightly uneven surface provides a medium
where the grains will come up against the hard quartz to be crushed by the force from
the pressure applied to the madit from above. The madit, being of same type of stone as
the maṭhan, will have a similar irregular surface of exposed quartz pebbles. If the madit
was of a harder or less hard rock type the harder stone of the pair would wear down the
other more quickly.
Figure 4.4.
Preferred sandstone raw material for grinding stone production
Showing large quartz grain inclusions and strongly welded matrix
82
At the Gerahu (Grat) Saharti quarry site visit examples of poor quality, good
quality and best quality stone were identified. The poor quality stone was very brittle and
could be broken by hand.
It would appear that experts consider the best quality
sandstone as having many large quartz grains strongly welded together. This is based
on the high values of hardness, toughness (contributions to functionality), and brittleness
(allowing for suitable fracturing) (Sandgathe 2013, personal communication). The most
important criteria identified for good grinding stone material were that the rock
composition was coarse enough to effectively grind 24 and hard enough that sand would
not be dislodged during grinding, adding impurities to the flour. Non-shedding sand was
indicated as a key characteristic of a good grinding stone by all. Men and women often
mentioned that good grinding stones do not release sand during grinding. The decision
of raw material considers both durability and function based on the properties of the
rock.
According to Haleka Tewoelde Brahn, “the best rock is deeper in, not weathered
by sun, rain and wind”. These are elements that would have contributed to erosion and
wear. He said that he could identify a boulder with “good internal structure” just by
looking at it and through touch of the rock surface as could 30% (6) of advisors
interviewed. On the contrary, if someone did not have his expertise, they could hammer
off a small flake in one corner to look at the internal structure. The non-experts from
Menebeity and Dahane who claimed to have the knowledge for manufacturing needed to
break off the corner of boulders to inspect the interior surface, as did 65% (13) of the
non-expert men interviewed. On the first morning of manufacturing at Grat Tselimo, we
were witness to the abandonment of initial selections once the boulder was split, or part
way through trimming the edges, as the non-expert manufacturers discovered the stone
was breaking too easily and thus not suitable for grinding. Where their method involved
a little trial and error, the expert was able to successfully identify suitable raw material
from the outset.
24
This type of grinding is also referred to as ‘ripping’ or ‘tearing’, where the forces between the
grinding stones rip or tear the outer casings of the grain to allow for separation from the flour
during a later sieving process.
83
Transferred knowledge, as well as acquired knowledge gained through user
influence on design, is expressed behaviorally through the selection of raw materials in
the design of the object (Adams 2014a:11).
The design decision made by these
manufacturers was based on that learned knowledge passed on from previous
generations. They described how they learned from their ancestors about the best rock
to use, reflecting a culturally established standard. If they made poor decisions on raw
materials or the grinding stone was not well made, it was conveyed by all male
consultants that women would definitely challenge them and demand a new grinding
stone.
The design choice of raw material is confirmed to be appropriate based on a
technological constraint – the women who grind want grinding stones that do not shed
sand during the grinding process. In 34% (14) of responses about why women discard
their grinding stone, the key reason was the attrition of sand during use. When asked
why women would require their husband make a new stone, most said it would be
because the sand would come loose when they would grind.
Adams (2014a:17)
suggests that if the person who is making a tool is not the user, then the user would at
least have some influence on design decisions, which was confirmed in this study.
First Stage of Manufacturing – Excavation & ‘Breaking’ the Stone
During the first manufacturing session excavation was required, and we
witnessed ongoing discussions relating to strategizing the best means to excavate, for
instance where to lay blows with the sledge hammer (modesha 25) (Table 4.3 List of
Tools), and where to place leverage with the pry bar (melaquino) and shovel (magafia) to
move and release the boulders from the embankment (Figure 4.5). During the second
manufacturing session the stones selected did not need extensive excavation, but rather
were pried loose from other surrounding rocks using pry bars and shovels. Available
tools are other constraints faced by the manufacturers. Planning how to employ tools
appeared to be key decisions as discussion around tool use continued throughout the
process in both cases.
25
The metal tools have taken on Italian terms for the Tigryna speaking people of this region. It is
likely that these tools were introduced by Italians who have had contact with Ethiopia since
medieval times (Pankhurst 1998:10).
84
Table 4.3.
List of Tools 26
Tools Used in Manufacturing:
According to Interviews (n=15)
Responses
%
Observed Used
by Experts
Observed Used
by non-Experts
modesha (sledge/large hammer)
14
93
√
√
martello (small hammer)
12
80
√
√
melaquino (pry bar)
12
80
√
√
magafia (shovel)
9
60
√
scarpello/punta (wedge/chisel) for
splitting rock
7
47
√
mehu-ati (axe) (for excavation &
trimming)
5
33
mebarro (large hoe)
2
13
chukarra (small hoe)
1
7
mawqari hammer stone used in
earlier times, now replaced with metal
tools 27
1
7
√
√
√
small pick axe (for finishing)
√
long wooden stick
27
√
with handle
In the second manufacturing process with the non-experts, we did observe stones being used
for some processing and smoothing of the surfaces. It could be that they did not have the
necessary metal tools because they were not experts.
85
Figure 4.5.
Experts’ Helpers Apply Leverage with a Pry Bar During Excavation
while Experts Supervise
Collaboration among the individuals was continuous throughout manufacturing,
and it should be noted that often during the first manufacturing process where expert
craftsmen were available, the advice of the two experts was being sought for guidance
on best practises, especially the advice of the elder Haleka Tewoelde Brahn.
For
example, with a sledge hammer heavy blows were strategically placed where the master
craftsmen had identified the preferred lines for fracturing the stone. Quartzitic sandstone
does not have defined bedding planes that will cause a specific type of fracture, but
rather the stone can be split along the direction determined by a knowledgeable
manufacturer according to the physics of conchoidal fracture (Rich 1947:269; Schnieder
1993:70; personal communication, Sandgathe 2013). It was explained that the experts
were planning how they wanted to start the cracking of the stone because they could
then control how the stone would fracture in a manner best suited for crafting a maṭhan.
The two younger helpers then took on most of the heavier and more strenuous work
leaving the experts to supervise and provide guidance, although often both experts also
86
took the tools themselves to contribute to the making of the maṭhan and madit. In the
second instance, at Grat Tselimo, even the non-experts were discussing among
themselves the best ways and means of using the tools available and how to get the
best results.
The next step, after excavation or isolation of the selected manufacturing stone,
the selected boulder is positioned with its length perpendicular to the ground for the
‘breaking’ of the stone resulting in one half being the basic size for the mațhan. At the
expert session the other half was put aside, for the future manufacturing of another
maṭhan. The second half was discarded in place by the non-experts. Before breaking of
the stone in two in the first manufacturing session, we witnessed the expert cleaning off
the top end of the stone with a branch of leaves from a nearby bush and tapping the
stone with a small hammer (martello) in various places, observing the structure and
composition of the stone, to determine how it would break. He said he was listening and
looking for the “weak spots” in the sandstone. By tapping a rock, audible sounds can
alert one to existing internal fractures that might impede fracture plans. A dull sound
denotes a ‘dead’ stone, where an ‘alive’ stone will produce a clear ringing sound (Rich
1947:269; personal communication, Sandgathe 2013). A few hammer blows in various
areas tested the reaction of the stone, and plans were made for the next set of hammer
blows to achieve the break intended. The expert, Haleka Tewoelde Brahn, had acquired
this knowledge about how rocks react to force from his father. The rock selected in the
first manufacturing session was difficult to fracture, and it was explained that the difficulty
in fracturing was indicative of good material for grinding stones – “strong rock for
grinding”. Interviews with non-expert grinding stone makers revealed that if they found
the rock too difficult to break, they could fire the rock to help with the fracturing. Firing
rocks was also communicated to Searcy (2011:39) by his experts who would use tires
set on fire to heat up large boulders, then pour water over the boulder to create fissures
and cracks.
87
Figure 4.6.
Experts’ Helpers Using Wedges and a Sledge Hammer
to ‘Break’ the Boulder in Two.
The men proceeded to break the boulder in two and begin to manufacture a
preform. With the experts, once the initial fracture line became wide enough, metal vshaped wedges (scarpello or punta) were inserted into the crack and blows with the
sledge hammer against the wedges further expanded the fracture (Figure 4.6) until the
boulder finally cracked into two halves. The resulting ventral sides had relatively flat
surfaces along the fracture line and would be used for the grinding surface.
The non-experts began breaking the boulder by trimming large chunks around its
perimeter, explaining to me that they were testing how the boulder would break once
they started to manufacture. A sledge hammer was used to create a crevice in the rock,
and a pry bar was inserted to further drive the two halves apart. The composition of the
stone was quite loose, and the boulder easily came apart, at which point it would seem
suspect as a suitable stone for maṭhan production, and in fact after some additional
88
trimming it began to fall apart too easily and it was discarded. Another two boulders
were tested in a similar way until a suitable raw material was accepted and finishing of
the maṭhan proceeded once the boulder was split.
During interviews, 92% (11) of males explained that if a stone broke in an
unacceptable manner during manufacturing they would replace it, while 50% (6) stated
that they would consider using the broken stone for manufacturing a madit if the material
was suitable (e.g., filled with quartz inclusions, strongly welded together, and not
shedding sand). The secondary or alternative use of stones broken during the expert
manufacturing process contrasts with Schneider’s (1996) findings that broken grinding
stones were left at the quarry site, though the non-expert session produced the same
results with broken pieces left where they broke.
Second Stage of Manufacturing – Shaping the Maṭhan (Block Preparation)
After the boulder was cracked in half, forming the desired shape of the maṭhan
began (Figure 4.7). The portion of the boulder selected for manufacturing was thinned
and shaped through chipping or flaking.
Using percussion reduction, blows were
carefully placed with the knowledge of how the chunks, chips and flakes would fracture
away from the main stone. The experts and the men working with them were well
trained to know hammer techniques to remove large flakes around the perimeter of the
stone without cracking it or causing damage. This was not as obvious with the nonexperts, the first few attempts at manufacturing resulted in cracked or non-acceptable
maṭhan blanks. Less forceful blows of the sledge hammer were used by the experts and
their helpers to shape the ends.
On several occasions during the trimming and shaping the men adjusted the
position of the stone. They achieved this by supporting it with other stones to raise it or
lean it to one side or the other, or by placing it in a particular position in the loose dirt
around it to achieve a desired position for removing the large pieces (see example of a
support stone under the maṭhan in Figure 4.8). It was explained that this was done to
ensure that while trimming they do not break the stone accidently and ruin the potential
for manufacturing a mațhan with that boulder. Schneider (1996:305) also describes
finding evidence in her quarry study of supports used in manufacturing “to properly
position and stabilize the piece for reduction”.
89
Figure 4.7.
Experts’ Helpers Trimming Large Flakes
Figure 4.8.
Experts’ Helper Removing Flake Scars from Ventral (Grinding)
Surface
(Note supporting stone (circled) under maṭhan)
90
As trimming progressed with chipping or knapping, measuring for proper size
was required. When we asked men how they decide what size to make the maṭhan,
33% (5) demonstrated the arm/hand measuring system. This measuring system took
several forms including elbow to tip of middle finger, plus outstretched thumb and index
finger (3 interviews + 2 observations) OR plus width of 4 fingers (1 interview) OR plus
width of the full hand (1 interview) OR plus width of two fingers (1 interview). The total
length measurement using any of these methods is approximately 0.5 m, although the
exact measurement would depend on the man doing the measuring and his particular
bone length. It was also explained that the width of the maṭhan should be approximately
the distance from the elbow to the wrist.
Male consultants clarified that decisions about size consider the expected length
of service and the size of the maṭhan (or madqos) a new one would be replacing. The
new maṭhan would need to fit into the same table that had been previously built by the
woman of the house. It was explained that the measurements of the old mațhan could
be applied by using sticks and cutting them to the length and width of the current mațhan
to bring to the quarry site. It appeared that a consistent width along the length of the
maṭhan was also important for the experts, but not for the non-experts. The experts
broke a twig to the size of the width in one section of the mațhan and moved along the
length of the surface to ensure the width was consistent throughout the length. A branch
of leaves pressed hard to the stone surface, left a mark where the preferred edges would
be based on these measurements. A similar process of using leaves to mark trim points
by Zapotec stone workers was noted by Cook (1982:194).
Measurements for new
grinding stones produced by experts and non-experts are shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4.
Attributes of Newly Manufactured Grinding Stones (cm)
Grinding Stones
Length
Width
Thickness
expert maṭhan
65
30
20.5
non-expert maṭhan
59
28
22-31**
expert madit
35
20
11
non-expert madit
39
22
14
**the thickness was not consistent through the length
91
Women and men interviewed also indicated that larger maṭhans were better as
they could grind more flour per unit of time, creating efficiency. The grinding stones
observed for this study are large grinding stones, with handstones large enough to
require two hands for manoeuvring when grinding. Understanding the heavy reliance on
grains as a major food in this culture, these large grinding stones reflect findings that a
larger grinding surface promotes grinding efficiency and a more comfortable setting for
longer grinding sessions (Adams 1993; 1999; Fratt and Biancaniello 1993:388; Hamon
and Le Gall 2013:115; Hard et al. 1996; Horsfall 1987:350; Shelley 1983:102). Hard et
al. (1996:255-256) discuss the law established by comminution engineers that grinding
capacity increases with grinding surface length. The use of larger grinding stones could
therefore meet the need for an increase in production due to higher demand for flour.
Increased demand could be driven by multiple factors such as greater reliance on
agriculture or flour based diets, more people to feed, or a need for the creation of surplus
(Adams 1993; 1999).
Two individuals claimed that a maṭhan for t’ef could be smaller than that used for
larger cereal grains, and many described a madqos as smaller and thinner than a
maṭhan because it was a worn out maṭhan.
One male specialist commented that,
“Mostly the size [of grinding stones manufactured] depends on the size of the woman
and how comfortable it will be for her.” Here we find design decisions based on the
needs of the user as far as what product might be ground and physical ability.
Trimming to remove precise smaller flakes was the next step in the
manufacturing process.
The experts used both the sledge hammer and a smaller
hammer while the non-experts continued to use the sledge hammer, and at times an axe
and stones. It was obvious that it was known by the experts exactly where to place the
blows to achieve the desired shape. After one hour of trimming, the major shaping of the
maṭhan was basically completed. What was left to do was removing flake scars – to
straighten and smooth the edges and complete the flattening of the ventral side (grinding
surface).
The experts completed this task themselves in the first instance of
manufacturing, taking great care. Less finishing was completed by the non-experts.
In this segment of the manufacturing process, design theory was reflected in
considering the needs of the intended user and through consideration of ‘cost of
92
manufacturing’ as it relates to the required labour involved. This type of knowledge was
again transferred from predecessors 28, but also learned and perfected through direct
experience when it came to the experts, who shared their knowledge with others.
Consideration was given to the size of the intended user, which influenced decisions on
final measurements of the grinding stones, and the expectation of receiving a good set
of grinding stones, which affected raw material selection. Discussions took place during
both sessions as to which tool was most effective to minimize effort at various stages of
production, and choices made as to where to strike the hammer blows to achieve the
best fracture results.
Manufacturing the Madit
A similar series of steps were followed during the manufacture of the madit,
although excavation was not required as a smaller loose stone was selected in both
sessions. Selection decisions were again used to determine the best available raw
materials for the intended end use. The experts tapped the stone with the hammer,
listening, and turned the rocks in their hands as they sought the right shape and size.
The non-experts again broke off corners while selecting a rock to view and feel the
internal rock structure.
One difference between the manufacturing of the maṭhan and the madit was that
the initial rock selected for the madit suddenly cracked in half during the trimming
process in both sessions. Although the broken halves were examined to see if one
could still be used for the madit, it was determined that it was too small in one case, and
poor quality in the second case. The non-experts discarded these pieces at the quarry
site; however the experts told us that these halves would be used in the future to build a
house and they were cognizant of the value of this good quality stone.
For
archaeologists this is relevant as it could explain any lack of large pieces of debitage or
broken grinding stone blanks at quarry sites if they were used in construction.
The length of the madit should be the same as the width of the maṭhan, and that
was a criterion for choosing a suitably sized madit stone. The experts also said that they
28
In the case of the non-experts, they explained that they had learned from the experts from their
villages who had since passed away.
93
took into consideration how much trimming would be required to achieve the desired size
and shape. The closer in shape and size the stone was to the desired finished madit,
the less labour it would take to complete the carving, reflecting design decisions that
would optimize time and energy.
One consultant explained that a large madit helps conserve energy because the
weight of the stone reduces the need for extensive pressure from the woman, however
what must also be considered when determining size, according to the masters and
other men involved in the manufacturing processes, is that the size of the madit had to
be comfortable for the woman who would be using it, not too large that her arms would
be uncomfortably extended, or the weight too great to manoeuver.
Adams (1999)
discusses the limitations of increasing size based on the need to accommodate human
strength and endurance. A very heavy madit was made by the non-experts and would
not fit this requirement unless the woman was extremely strong and large in stature.
When the shape and size was roughly what was needed for the madit, it was
matched to the maṭhan to determine fit. Hamon and Le Gall (2013:112) noted specific
matching of querns to handstones among the Minyanka of Mali). Comments were made
to us that the fitting of the madit to maṭhan was very important because if they did not fit
well, grinding would be difficult, or would not be effective in producing finely ground flour.
The madit produced by the experts fit well (length of madit (35.0 cm) closely matched
width of maṭhan (30.0 cm) (see Table 4.4), and glided well in mock grinding tests.
However the madit produced by the non-experts was not ideal.
At the non-expert
grinding stone manufacturing session at Grat Tselimo, the final length of the madit was
much longer than the width of the maṭhan. As seen in Table 4.4, the length of the madit
is 39.0 cm, while the width of the maṭhan is 28.0 cm, which would cause the madit to
overhang the maṭhan by 5.5 cm on each side when grinding. This would certainly create
a concave madit grinding surface with relatively steep sloped ends where the madit did
not wear against the maṭhan and eventually would add resistance and difficulty for the
woman grinding. With the basic grinding stone shapes complete, the finer finishing work
was the next step.
94
Third Stage of Manufacturing – Finishing the Maṭhan and Madit
Final finishing work (Figure 4.9) was done at the quarry, but on a subsequent day
in both manufacturing sessions. For the expert session, only the two experts remained
to complete the finishing. The session with the non-experts had all three men doing
finishing work on the second day, alternating between the maṭhan and madit. They used
a long handled chisel with a hammer and a pick axe, and occasionally they used a stone
to plane down the surface. It was noticed that in addition to the small hammers with
rounded heads a new tool was added by the experts, a small pick axe. Pecking to
smooth out flake scars was performed during both manufacturing sessions, but the
experts followed this by adding additional intricate work, completed with softer hammer
blows, and careful use of the pick axe.
Figure 4.9.
Final Finishing of the Madit by the Experts: Haleka Tewoelde Brahn
and Haleka Gebresalassie
95
Very fine finishing work on the madit by the experts entailed further fine shaping
and smoothing through hammering, or chipping of smaller and smaller flakes.
The
efforts in this phase were detailed and meticulous by the experts, whereas the nonexperts did not take as much care and used larger more awkward tools. The technique
used by the experts was to land many small, light hammer blows, creating the
rounded/oval (also referred to as ‘loaf’) shape needed for the madit. The rounded ends
of the madit allow a woman to comfortably cup her hands around them. Blows were
made with both heads of the hammer, as well as with the side of the hammer head to
shape. In some instances the hammer appeared to ‘bounce’ off the madit, likely due to
the motion of the master craftsman’s swing (his motions were too slight for me to
effectively describe any particular movement). Some blows were made at an angle of
approximately 45 degrees to the surface of the stone.
This precise work was less
strenuous than the previous trimming and flaking, but appeared very intense. Several
times over the course of the final finishing, the madit was slid over the grinding surface of
the maṭhan to compare fit. Using a typical grinding motion for the test, observations
were made to determine where there was unwanted resistance between the surfaces
and more adjustments were made by continued hammering on the surface.
It was explained to us that the goal was to produce a “good maṭhan and madit”
that would be effective and efficient for grinding flour, and the decisions of design were
based on that goal. For the experts, the design goal appeared to be to produce grinding
surfaces that while relatively flat (versus concave) also had enough of a rough surface to
enable some abrasion for effective grinding. This decision was made to ensure efficient
use, and less strenuous grinding requirements by the user, as flat edge-to-edge surfaces
grind more grain with less effort than do surfaces designed differently. A flat edge-toedge grinding surface allows freer movement of the madit over the maṭhan, whereas a
troughed surface can create resistance when the handstone rubs against the trough
edges of the basal stone. A concave surface will create gaps between the grinding
surfaces of the upper and lower grinding stones making them ineffective.
The
unencumbered movement of the flat grinding surfaces of the madit over the maṭhan
relieves some of the strain on women using repetitive grinding strokes (Adams
1993:332, 342). The madit made by the non-experts was very large (Table 4.4.) and
heavy, and would likely be difficult for a woman to push and pull over a maṭhan. I could
96
not lift this madit myself; however I could lift and manipulate the madit designed and
made for me by the experts. One specialist described the importance of size when he
told us, “If it [grinding stone] is too large, it becomes very difficult for women to work with,
and takes them longer to grind flour.” The design of my madit by the experts was based
on my needs and abilities.
In addition, work was completed by the experts to round the proximal and distal
ends of the maṭhan, and the left and right lateral sides were made even straighter, and
somewhat smoother. Although small flakes were falling from this finishing work, much of
the debris that was coming off was dust particles. This type of finishing around the
outside edges of the maṭhan would likely not contribute to the functionality of the quern
but it was aesthetically pleasing. A lot less finishing work was done during the second
grinding session with the non-experts, who left rough edges and produced a much less
finely finished set of grinding stones than those made by the experts.
It can take anywhere from one to four days to make a maṭhan, however this
varied by expertise and the tools used according to interviews and observations. For
example, the time spent manufacturing was greater for the expert team, however they
delivered a much better size (smaller) set of grinding stones (more reduction required),
of better quality raw material (harder to work, more time to excavate) and much more
finely finished. The experts, using metal tools, made the maṭhan in two days (Table 4.5).
The excavation and rough shaping took three hours using most of the tools listed in
Table 4.3 tools, except for the martello and mawqari, followed by finer shaping over four
hours using the small hammers and picks. The final finishing work required more time
than the excavation and basic shaping of the grinding stones. Working with a team sped
up the work; working alone, it was reported, it might take four days. Difficult excavation
or very good (hard) raw material could increase the time, said two consultants. The
experts explained that it takes the same amount of time to manufacture a maṭhan,
madqos or madit. Wedimadqos are much smaller and take less time. The significance of
labour required to make a maṭhan reflects the economic importance of this task,
however in considering the extensive lifetime of tool use (often 30 years or more), the
effort expended is worth the return. Discussions with the craftsmen revealed that a few
generations ago, maṭhan-makers used solely stone tools, and manufacture took
upwards of five to six days.
97
Table 4.5.
Time to Complete Manufacturing of a Maṭhan by Expert Team
Process
Time to Complete
Excavate stone resting on top
1 hour
Remove mațhan stone from bank
20 minutes
Break the maṭhan stone in half
35 minutes
Basic trimming and shaping
1 hour
Finishing work
4 hours
Total Manufacturing Time
6 hours and 55
minutes
Using stone tools 29 in the past would have had greater constraint implications, so
understanding the capabilities of the available stone tools and how they perform would
have been acquired through the generational transfer of knowledge and ongoing
experiences.
In this manner, the experts had advantages over other men who
manufactured grinding stones because several generations of transferred knowledge
was passed on to them from their expert master craftsman fathers. In addition, they
were involved in many more instances of manufacturing so had more opportunities to
improve tool use.
The newly made expert finished maṭhan was a good grinding stone. It was
plano-convex in shape (with only a slightly convex bottom), rectangular in shape from a
plan view and we were told this was an excellent maṭhan by both the men who made it
and the women who examined it. The non-expert finished maṭhan (Figure 4.10) was flat
on the bottom and grinding surface, and rectangular in shape from a plan view.
29
Tigrinya term for these tools was pronounced: ‘em-in-ee hy-lee’, and referred to large basalt
stones.
98
Figure 4.10. Grinding Stone Manufacturing Session 2013 (non-experts)
99
Debitage
Flakes littered the ground from these manufacturing sessions as well as past
work that had occurred in these quarry sites. Observations of the quantity and wide
ranging distribution throughout the quarry outcrops suggest their repeated use over time.
Some debitage was fairly new, while others were well weathered. We were told that
these quarry sites (the two visited for manufacturing and the third as part of an interview)
had been used for a very long time, by the men still living and many generations of
ancestors. At Grat Tselimo the manufacturing debitage measurement ranges are shown
in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6
Examples of Manufacturing Debitage Measurements (in cm)
Length
Width
Thickness
Examples of Larger Pieces
76.5
27.5
20
44.5
26
7
41
22.5
9
36.5
31
10
Examples of medium size pieces
14
8
3
9
5.5
1
Down to dust like rock and slivers of rock fragments 30
We asked about use of the debitage. The response was that the larger flakes
would be used in terracing efforts and some pieces could be used in masonry work,
while smaller flakes would be left where they were to mix with the soil. No partially
manufactured or broken grinding stones were observed at either quarry sites visited,
suggesting that in fact large chunks and flakes of this good quality stone could be used
for other secondary purposes and had been hauled away.
30
Pritchard-Parker and Reid (1993:53) suggest that manufacturing sites would reveal distinct
debitage of pre-form percussion flakes and hammerstone debitage while flakes and shatter
from hammerstones would occur in re-roughing (resharpening) locations. Due to the fine
finishing of the expert made grinding stones, smaller flakes and debris were present in the
manufacturing location.
100
Transporting the Maṭhan
In both sessions four men were required to transport the newly manufactured
maṭhan with a melde 31 – a device constructed for carrying of heavy weights (Figure
4.11). All males interviewed also described the melde as the means of transporting the
maṭhan. To construct the melde, two large and very strong wood sticks were procured,
approximately 210 cm long and 7 cm in diameter. These were placed parallel on the
ground, and the maṭhan was placed lengthwise across the sticks of the melde, in the
centre of the melde length. A canvass strap (width approximately 8 cm) was brought out
to strap the maṭhan tightly to the melde. The men transported the melde, two by two
carrying one end of the sticks on each shoulder. If the maṭhan was very large, it could
take eight men, four at a time with one person at the end of each stick, to transport the
grinding stone. The madit was carried by one individual.
Figure 4.11. Transporting the maṭhan and madit
31
Pronounced mel-dee.
101
Economics: Cost of a Grinding Stone
There is value to the labour involved in manufacturing grinding stones. When I
inquired about the cost of purchasing a grinding stone in the past, the amount of birr
varied depending on how long ago, but the comparison was consistent – a grinding
stone by today’s currency standards costs the same as 50 kg of t’ef, and currently that is
1000 birr ($56.42 CAN as at November 9, 2014). An average annual farmer’s wages is
approximately 9800 birr ($550 Canadian equivalent)(Habtamu Mekonnen Taddesse,
personal communication). Four men stated that grinding stones had sometimes been
sold at markets in the past (before the 1960s). More often the exchange was not cash,
but rather required a reciprocal exchange. All of the male consultants who discussed
this exchange (10 respondents) said the female client would make sua 32, injera, shiro 33
and other food for the workers. If she were wealthy, she might add coffee and tea and
her husband would be required to help with the manufacturing and transportation. If the
woman did not have a husband she would be expected to provide a meal for the
workers, and 50% (5) of respondents stated that she may also be expected to provide
labour at a later date for the expert or supervisor of the manufacturing process helping
with chores such as harvesting, planting, and gardening, or she may be asked to lend
plough oxen to the men. This would be considered ‘payment’ for the manufacturer’s
time.
Post Manufacturing
Re-touch (Re-pecking) and Rehabilitation (Resharpening)
Retouching of the finished grinding stones happened upon delivery to the client’s
home, and also during the use history of the item as needed. It was explained to us that,
once delivered to the home of the woman who ordered the maṭhan, the final touches to
make the surface suitable were needed. Translated, this re-touch, or re-pecking, was
called “rehabilitation” (rejuvenation). Work would be determined by how much finer
finishing had already been completed by the manufacturers, and the type of grinding she
would be doing initially.
32
33
The ethnoarchaeological data collected from interviews
Sua is a fermented beverage made locally.
Shiro is a chick bean based spicy sauce served with injera.
102
confirmed this practise among women grinders; however a few interviews revealed that
men could also be responsible for the re-pecking.
I learned from all respondents that large cereal grains (e.g., barley, wheat,
sorghum, maize) require a coarser surface than smaller grains such as t’ef and finger
millet, which require a smoother, or finer textured surface. More effort would be required
to initially smooth out a brand new grinding surface, but through the life and use of the
grinding stones, the grinding process itself levels out the irregularities, thus creating a
better surface for t’ef or finger millet grinding through use and wear.
Then, when
needing to grind barley, wheat, sorghum or maize, there is a need to expend energy
“rehabilitating” the maṭhan and madit, pecking to create a coarser surface with a varied
topographic relief.
One female consultant described the resharpening process as
follows: “For t’ef, softer, closer hammering blows; for other grains, harder hammer blows,
creating larger gaps and a rougher surface”. Another said, “For rehabilitation – use a
martello or a black hammer stone [basalt cobble, referred to as a mokarai] to peck
surface to roughen. For t’ef peck close together, softer blows. For other grains use
more gaps between blows and use more force.” Witnessing a demonstration by one of
the experts, his hammer technique to prepare a grinding stone to process t’ef and finger
millet consisted of light quick blows close together, with the hammer head close to the
grinding surface. To prepare surfaces to grind other larger grains, he lifted the hammer
higher and brought it down with more force and the blows were dispersed widely. When
talking about the different types of grinding stones, 82% (13) of advisors brought up this
means of preparing the stone for the different grains.
Throughout the life of the maṭhan and madit the women (sometimes men)
rehabilitate or resharpen their grinding stones when the surfaces become too smooth
and therefore less effective. As the motions and pressures of grinding wear down the
surfaces, the interstices between the topographic highs become filled with some of the
material being milled, as well as some of the surface material itself breaking away. This
creates a need for rejuvenation of the surface through cleaning out of the interstices and
re-establishment of the surface relief through pecking (Odell 2004:81).
After
rehabilitation, “We clean to remove sand, add a small amount of grain and grind, clean
that off and feed to the dog.”
103
Interviews with women revealed that resharpening could be required every few
days if the grinding stones were being used for long periods and the rehabilitation
process could take 15 to 20 minutes according to one woman while another stated that
each rehabilitation session could take a few hours. I suspect the difference is due to the
quality of the raw material or how worn the grinding stone has become. It was stated
several times that as a maṭhan wears out, it becomes harder to rehabilitate.
Grinding Stone Use
In her work, Meyers (2002) argues that generally grinding work is universally
under the domain of women. Meyers (2002:23-24) refers to the Human Resource Area
Files (HRAF) which reports that in 145 societies preparation of vegetal food was
exclusively under the domain of women, compared to 3 societies where it was
exclusively a male activity and 27 societies where it was shared between the sexes.
Women are the grinders in Ethiopia. In Gulo Makeda females advised that they
learned to grind from their mothers, who had learned from their mothers. Mothers would
stand next to their daughters and instruct them on the proper motions and techniques of
pulling and pushing the madit, and which grinding stone to use for different crops.
Alternatively mothers would grind next to daughters on a second grinding stone while
teaching.
Women remember watching their mothers to start learning grinding
techniques between the ages of 12 and 15 years old, and one woman described having
small grinding stones to practise on at eight or nine years old. Another talked about her
10 year old daughter first using a madqos to grind salt. According to 8 out of 9 women
asked, they had, or would be, teaching their daughters how to grind, carrying on the
tradition.
When asked how they obtained their maṭhan, 48% (14) of responses were that
they came from their husband, with two women noting that experts helped their
husbands to manufacture a grinding stone. In 10 cases, the maṭhans were inherited
from fathers, in-laws, parents or grandmother. Many women described receiving their
first grinding stones when they married, which for some was in their early teens. Others
acquired grinding stones from experts (three individuals), one individual purchased hers
and another received a grinding stone as a gift from her children. These grinding stones
have a long life span.
More than half of the maṭhans observed were identified by
104
consultants as being 20 – 30 years old, and they were in good shape with many useful
years left. Three others were approximately 60 years old, and I was told that some could
last up to 100 years. The best, long lasting maṭhans would likely be those that were
passed on to the next generation(s). Madits would wear out more quickly, typically
lasting between 6 and 12 years but possibly up to 30 years according to the
respondents. This may explain the reason we recover more madits in the archaeological
record than maṭhans.
To identify a room type in the archaeological record where grinding takes place,
understanding what else is contained in the room with the grinding stone can be helpful.
Grinding stones were physically located adjacent to walls, and not always in a kitchen
area. It was observed that maṭhans and sometimes madqos were built into the tables
described below, and the madit and wedimadqos were placed on top or beside the base
grinding stone. When the madqos was not built into a table, it was on the floor near the
maṭhan or in four instances it was out in the residential compound, and in two instances
tipped upside down.
It was observed that 42% (10) of noted locations for grinding
stones were kitchen areas. Some of these are semi open aired areas attached to the
main house, roofed with two to three stone walls, one or two walls usually only half to
three-quarters high, creating a sense of ‘being outside’. Within this same kitchen area
the following were noted: wooden beams and trusses, stone benches covered with dung
and mud, and painted, raised stone platforms, mogogo (ovens and cooking surfaces)
(Figure 4.12), cooking containers, straw baskets, several types of monfit (flour sieves),
injera plates and miscellaneous housewares. In 46% (11) of the cases, grinding stones
were located in dark storage rooms. The storage rooms typically have built in stone
benches around the perimeter, ceramic and plastic storage containers of various sizes
with some of the larger containers holding grains, other wooden storage boxes,
gardening tools as well as wooden posts and beams used to construct the room, straw
baskets, injera plates and various monfit. When asked why they preferred to grind in
these dark rooms, they replied that they would use kerosene lamps to light the room.
Other locations of maṭhan placement included the main room of the house (or
only room of the house), and a semi open area behind the main house (with nothing else
located in this area). A fully walled room with doors opening into another room would
105
eliminate the potential for wind to blow the flour off the grinding stone. Even the semi
open areas used for grinding were sheltered from the winds.
Figure 4.12. Mogogo
The maṭhan and sometimes madqos are built into stone tables (udo) (see Figure
4.2) to raise the stones to a height where a woman could stand while grinding. It was
also observed that the maṭhan or madqos was most often placed with the proximal end
higher than the distal end. Angles of grinding stones and purpose for the inclines are
discussed in the next chapter.
During interviews with both women and men, it was learned that typically the
woman or sometimes the husband will build the table by arranging large rocks in a
rectangular shape larger than the grinding stone, use mud to bind them together, then fill
the inside section with smaller stones and sand, on top of which would be placed the
maṭhan or madqos. They are fit into the udo with only an upper section of the maṭhan or
madqos protruding a little higher than the table sides. More small stones and sand
would be added to fill the gaps between the grinding stone and the table walls. The
entire table excluding the exposed top section of the maṭhan or madqos would then be
106
sealed with mud and dung and painted. As the grinding stone wore down, it would be
removed, additional small rocks and sand would be added into the table centre to raise
the grinding stone again, and the stand would be re-mudded and painted. The maṭhan
or madqos would become thinner and thinner through time.
In addition to holding the grinding stone, the table has troughs built along the
lateral sides of the maṭhan or madqos to catch grains or flour that spill over the sides of
the grinding surface, a holding bin for grains at the proximal end and a larger holding bin
for flour at the distal end of the grinding stone (Figure 4.2). Similar bins for grinding
stones are also described by Adams (1993:339). The holding bin at the distal end is
also used to store other items used for grinding, cleaning or covering the grinding stone.
It was explained that maṭhans and madits are used to grind grains into flour for
making breads (including injera), teheni 34, sua, and for grinding chick peas for shiro.
Also 90% (28) of women and 87% (14) of men described two types of maṭhan surfaces.
One type has the coarse surface for cereal grains such as sorghum, barley, wheat and
maize, and a second type has the smoother surface for grinding smaller cereal grains
including t’ef 35 and finger millet. In some cases women owned separate grinding stones
with differing surface textures while others used one and re-worked the surface. Several
women described how their mothers had more than one maṭhan (two women specifically
mentioned two, and two women mentioned that their mother had three). Another ten
women talked about grinding side by side suggesting more than one maṭhan.
The
requirement for hand grinding is diminished now due to the introduction of mechanical
mills, so one maṭhan could suffice. Many houses I visited only had one maṭhan, and it
was explained that to accommodate the different type of grains, the women would
‘rehabilitate’ or resharpen the surfaces of both hand and base stones to create the
coarseness or smoothness needed for the different types of grains. T’ef and finger millet
could also be ground after the larger cereal grains, as the initial grinding of those grains
34
teheni is roasted and ground barley that is scooped up with the hand and squeezed into a
compressed form of coarse dough for eating as a snack.
35
A female consultant explained that “T’ef is for special occasions, if you do not have it for
ceremonies people think you are poor. To show guests respect, put four to five injera out that
are made from wheat or sorghum, and on top of these lay two to three t’ef injera, the top ones
are offered to guests first.” The high prestige of t’ef is also discussed by McCann (1995:55).
107
would smooth the grinding surface needed for the smaller grains. In one case a woman
showed me that she had different madits for different grains – a heavy coarse grained
madit for large grains, and a smaller madit with a smoother/finer texture surface (with
smaller quartz grains) used for the smaller t’ef and finger millet grains. This information
becomes important when analyzing archaeological samples of grinding stones because
the type of grinding surfaces can suggest the types of grains that were processed in the
past.
It also becomes important when finding multiple grinding stones in the same
archaeological context as they might have been used for different products.
There is a second set of grinding stones used in Tigrai, the madqos and
wedimadqos, which were reported by 90% (28) of female respondents when asked if
there were different grinding stones for different purposes 36.
wedimadqos
37
The madqos and
(Figure 4.3) are used for grinding salt, spices, beans (including chick
peas), peppers, and for the second grinding 38 of maize and sometimes sorghum, at
which point water is added to make finer flour. I was able to observe salt grinding, and
the motions used with the smaller wedimadqos handstone were different than those
used with the larger madit.
The wedimadqos is often used near the centre of the
madqos surface, with one or two handed short, almost flicking strokes, the strokes
delivered in an arc (Figure 4.13). The woman demonstrating this acknowledged that this
is the typical motion for using the wedimadqos. This type of motion, focused on the
centre of the stone, would result in a concave wearing of the madqos creating a bowl like
depression, which was observed in ethnographic samples in the homes we visited during
interviews.
36
Other responses included comments about different maṭhans for different grains (one for t’ef
and finger millet, and one for all other grains).
37
“wedi” translates as “child of”, so wedimadqos is a “child of madqos”
38
The maize or sorghum is initially ground on the maṭhan, then water is added and it is ground on
the madqos. A second wet grinding of this maize was mentioned by 80% of consultants who
responded to the question about ‘wet grinding’ and 28% mentioned sorghum.
108
Figure 4.13. Consultant Waizoro Letasalasie Kashay Demonstrating Use of
Wedimadqos against a Madqos
The madqos can be manufactured new, but is more often a re-purposed maṭhan.
This was attested by 18 of 22 people who described what was done with a maṭhan once
it became too thin for grinding grains, subject to the condition that sand is not being
produced from the grinding stone. Considering the re-purposing, the madqos would be
thinner in depth than a maṭhan, and well worn. This is one way of differentiating the two
types of base stones recovered from the archaeological record.
Grinding comprised many hours of work for women. According to all women
interviewed, prior to the introduction of mechanical mills, grinding would begin shortly
after midnight and continue into the early morning. Often women were carrying a baby
on their back. An average time spent grinding was reported to have been as many as 8
hours and as few as 3 hours, with an average of 5.44 hours, every day except holy
109
days 39. Time spent grinding would depend on the size of the family and the time of year.
Harvest times and special celebration times were more demanding periods.
During
celebrations such as a Saint Day, wedding or funeral feast the women would help each
other grind the extra flour and injera needed for the celebrations.
This extra work
represents a significant amount of time. A female stated, “We had to grind that much,
there was no alternative, life depends on it. We slept three to four hours.” When I asked
one woman why she ground during the night, I was advised that there were other tasks
that needed to be completed during the day, such as baking, child care, taking care of
animals, harvesting, etc.
During grinding time women could grind on average 22.44 kg of flour (most
common response was 25 kg), and on average we observed that women can grind 1 kg
of flour in 12-15 minutes. Of the nine responses given as to how long the flour would
last given the size of their family, the consumption of flour equates to an average of 0.8
kg per day per person (range 0.4 to 1.3 kg per day). Meyer`s (2002) calculations of
consumption are similar at 0.5 kg per person per day. Grinding times combined with
consumption estimates will be further explored in the next chapter.
The participant/observation of grinding revealed that this is a physically
demanding process requiring skill and strength. Women are using the whole body in
rhythmic forward thrusts and backward pulling of the madit over the grains on the
surface of the maṭhan. In addition to using hands, arms and shoulders, the standing
position allows for the back, hips and legs to engage so that additional strength can be
applied. By standing the woman is also able to lean over the maṭhan from her waist to
push the madit to distal end which is within reach in this grinding stance. During a quick
demonstration of grinding at one interview, Waizoro Zewdu Berhe explained that she is
pushing the madit down the sloping maṭhan with her palms, situated and cupped around
each end of the madit (Figure 4.14). On the way ‘back up’ (return motion), her shoulders
39
Holy Days vary depending on the local church and which saints they celebrate, however as an
overall rule, holy days are weekends and two to five other days during the month, totalling 13
of 28 days per month on average (personal communication, Habtamu Mekonnen Taddesse
2014). Egziabher (1993:225) refers to a two day routine for women, the second day being a
non-working or religious day. More on holy days is found in Chapter 6 with reference to
grinding times.
110
rounded and she described pulling the madit with her fingers. When asked if there were
different techniques or methods for grinding different types of crops, 63% (17) explained
that they use the same motions; however different pressures are used for different
grains. Every few moments the woman would pause the rocking grinding motion to
gather more grains from the holding troughs built into the table around the maṭhan,
placing them onto the grinding surface. The resultant flour was pushed into the built in
bin at the distal end of the maṭhan table as it worked its way from the proximal end
during grinding strokes.
Very little grain or flour was spilled that might enter the
archaeological record, and any that did land on the floor was consumed by chickens.
Figure 4.14. Waizoro Zewdu Berhe Grinding
111
There are additional steps needed to complete the processing of flour. After the
grinding session the women used a monfit to sieve the flour and remove small straw and
chaff particles. Crouching, with the monfit held over a shallow straw basket, the women
moved the monfit in motions best described as perhaps a side-to-side-slightly-clockwise
movement (with monfit at a slight angle) to agitate the ground mixture. Light taps on the
side or bottom of the monfit would aid in the process of separating flour from the
unwanted straw and chaff. In addition to tossing motions, the women would use light
wisps of outward breaths to encourage the lighter straw and chaff to spill out onto the
canvas that had been laid out in front of her work area. D’Andrea and Mitiku (2002)
provide a detailed description on Tigrinyan processing of emmer wheat (and some other
grains) including specific household processing techniques used that corroborate some
of the observations made during this study.
Cleaning of the grinding stone is an important task. Women clean their grinding
stones to remove dirt and excess flour either after or both before and after use (67%)
(12), before use (22%)(4), after each type of grain or after re-pecking. Tools used to
clean the grinding stones were described and/or shown to us by 28 consultants, and
included straw mahado or maheuster (64%)(18) (Figure 4.15), strips of sheep wool 40
(54%)(15), pounded, washed and dried aloe-vera root (25%)(7) (Figure 4.16), and plastic
canvas pieces (18%)(5) 41. Women use these tools in a sweeping motion across the
surface of the grinding stone and both the base stone and the hand stone would be
cleaned. Only two individuals mentioned using water to clean their grinding stones,
others insisted they would never use water because there would be a need to leave the
stone to dry before they could use it again, and it could take some time to dry.
40
Three individuals said sheep wool was only used in the past and had been replaced by plastic
canvas pieces.
41
David (1998:23) mentions “a stiff grass broom (sebuk ban) for sweeping up flour and cleaning
the surface of the table”. This description resembles the mahado used in Tigrai for the same
purposes.
112
Figure 4.16. Sanda-karai (Aloe Vera
Root, used for cleaning
grinding surfaces).
Figure 4.15. Maheuster (left) and
Mahado (right)
For cleaning grinding surfaces. Maheuster
is approximately 30.0 cm and Mahado is
approximately 16.0 cm in length.
Photograph by A. C. D’Andrea 2012
Discard
Tool discard practises are important for understanding the complete life cycle of
grinding stones. During the life of grinding stones, depth (thickness) is reduced through
stone on stone wear and through the ‘rehabilitation’ or resharpening. It was explained
that when the maṭhan is too thin, or is shedding sand during the grinding process,
grinding becomes more difficult, less efficient and the sand contaminates the flour.
Other reasons given for determining maṭhan end of life include surfaces becoming too
smooth and cannot be resharpened coarsely enough for effective grinding or when gaps
develop between the maṭhan and madit that cannot be resolved with additional
resharpening. If the stone cuts the woman’s hand while grinding this means the stone
has reached the end of its use-life. This can occur when the dorsal (or topside) surface
of the madit has become too coarse from the attrition of sand and is rough on the hands,
or the madit has become so thin fingers can get caught between the grinding stones
113
during the strokes. Finally if the maṭhan has become too concave to be useful it can be
converted into a madqos or discarded. One woman said, “I know my maṭhan, I know
when it is no longer good.” Another said she knows when the maṭhan is no longer useful
when it is thin and when hammering she hears dull tones from the stone, rather than a
sharp ringing. It is at this point that maṭhan are determined to be no longer useful for
flour grinding purposes. Breakage is another reason for discard and resharpening can
cause the stone to break (often in half).
This could explain why so many of the
archaeological samples recovered are halves of full length grinding stones.
In two instances we were told that a good madit could make up for a bad maṭhan.
One of the non-expert manufacturers assured us that although the maṭhan they made
may not seem to be of the best quality, the madit they made would make up for it and
produce good flour. Another older man who knew manufacturing well but was not an
expert insisted that if a pair of grinding stones was wearing out, and there was not
enough time to make a new maṭhan, a new madit could be manufactured to extend the
life of the pair.
Grinding stones may also be re-used. One recycling option for the maṭhan is to
repurpose it as a madqos 42 (if it is not releasing sand, and it may require some additional
manufacturing) (18 of 22 responses). Another option is that it could be broken in two or
more pieces and used as a wedimadqos. A third way to re-use a grinding stone is to
give it to someone who needs it if it is not completely worn out. If the grinding stone has
become too smooth, and somewhat smaller, it can be used for grinding t’ef and finger
millet.
Both women and men responded to questions about final disposal of grinding
stones. The final disposal option for both the maṭhan and madqos mentioned in 17 out
of 41 interviews was to use these for house/wall construction.
Five individuals
mentioned that they would break the stones in half first—another possible reason we
find so many broken archaeological specimens. Use in construction was indicated by
one individual who pointed out a broken maṭhan in a stone wall (Figure 4.17). Wright
(2008:133) also reports re-use of grinding slabs in house walls from the Neolithic site of
42
Hayden (1987b:188) refers to a broken metate used for grinding salt.
114
Beidha, and Hayden (1987b:221) mentions discarded metates used as construction
material in Guatemala. Re-use in construction will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Some 19 of 41 individuals stated that they would simply toss the old grinding stones into
the walled household compound, and we saw several of these in various locations
around the residence. There were 10 other individuals who suggested old grinding
stones could be used as a seat.
Two individuals described using these discarded
grinding stones as water troughs for chickens, and one individual said they could use the
discarded stone to sharpen knives.
Figure 4.17. Grinding Stone Re-Purposed in Wall Construction.
Circled stone plus stone to the right are halves of maṭhan
115
4.2.4.
Social Relations & Values
Using the chaîne opératoire approach, not only were the steps in the processes
of grinding stone manufacture and use recorded through interviews and observations,
but the interrelationships between the technology and the wider cultural milieu were also
considered. Social relations and values were expressed in several ways.
Religious values manifested during the manufacturing and grinding processes
through various observed behaviors. The repeated chant during the breaking of the
stone was “Help me Hail Mary”, reflecting a belief in supernatural aid informed by
participation in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. In addition we were informed that men
and women could not work on ‘holy days’, revealing the adherence to religious traditions.
Religious values were discussed during interviews with female consultants and observed
during grinding sessions. We were told that they would begin their sessions with a
prayer, “Besme ab woweld womenfes Kidus”, invoking the holy trinity to bless them with
a successful grinding session that would produce good quality and large quantities of
flour. We watched as one woman made the sign of the cross into recently ground flour.
Activities at quarry sites have social implications. In addition to his use of the raw
materials from Lebida Gebrezgi to manufacture grinding stones for others, Haleka
Tewoelde Brahn explained that he will grant people permission to access the high
quality stone for themselves and in return for the access he receives what he referred to
as “good relations”. He emphasised that there is no exchange of money. This type of
access to raw materials, in exchange for favorable social relations was also confirmed
through interviews with other men. An owner granting access to his property can expect
the favour to be returned, for instance a man granted access to another man’s property
for raw materials may in return offer labour to the owner for house repairs, field work,
harvesting, and other work. If someone from another territory were to ask for access,
the owner may request a cash payment as the reciprocal exchange of labour at a later
date is unlikely due to the receiver being inaccessible and he may never be heard from
again. Where quarries are government owned land, such as Grat Saharti and Grat
Tselimo, we were assured anyone can have access.
One of the values observed, and discussed during interviews, was the social
status of grinding stone master craftsmen.
116
Haleka Tewoelde Brahn and Haleka
Gebreselassie were well respected men in this society, because they held a special
knowledge that was important to the subsistence of the people. From several advisors
we heard that grinding stones were necessary for life in that they were the instrument
used to generate the main food staple. It was reported and observed that for the most
part, there was no competition among grinding stone makers, rather they cooperated
and worked together. As the need for grinding stones decreased over the last decade
because of the introduction of mechanical mills, the highly held social status of the
master craftsman also diminished. Though they were both still well respected, they did
not
continue
to
hold
an
elevated
status
in
the
community,
but
at
the
quarry/manufacturing site they were definitely in charge.
A social framework embedded in the manufacturing process manifested in the
hierarchy of status of the men based on their expertise and knowledge, and the respect
that they garnered from others in the group, as discussed above. Much respect was
shown to the experts during their session as the others deferred to their advice and
directions, indicative of the expertise they held. Even among the non-experts, there was
an obvious rank of knowledge, although no one man claimed to have the ultimate
knowledge.
It was not all work, no play, on the day of manufacturing. We observed that the
men took time to eat, drink, talk, laugh, sing, and have general discussions. We heard
from all of the male consultants during our ethnoarchaeological interviews that laughing,
joking and discussions carried on during manufacturing. Almost half the men said there
would be no singing as they would be working too hard, while another 44% (4) said they
would sometimes sing, and we heard such songs during both organized sessions.
Drinking sua and eating the food prepared by the woman who received the grinding
stone were key components of the socialization that happens during grinding stone
manufacturing sessions (Figure 4.18). This solely male based activity provided a time
for building, or perhaps maintaining, social relationships. With fewer and fewer grinding
stones being manufactured these particular opportunities for male interaction and
socialization were declining, and through the interviews we learned that some men were
going to miss these opportunities for interaction, though they commented that they would
not miss the hard work! The experts plus one other assured us that they could maintain
117
that social interaction during cooperative harvesting, ploughing, weeding and when
preparing and participating in weddings and other ceremonies.
Figure 4.18. Men Taking Time to Socialize During Manufacturing Session 2012
There is co-operation and communication between females with respect to
grinding grain and sharing resources. Female consultants said they would talk, sing
grinding and other songs, and laugh together during grinding sessions. Some of the
older women reflected that they miss the times when women would grind together.
Sisters, mothers and daughters, and some friends and neighbors would “grind side by
side all through the night” according to ten of the interviewed women. Meyers (2002:22)
describes women processing grains together as a means of organizing labour, and Wilk
and Rathje (1982:622, 626) discuss the organization of labour and pooling of resources
around production. When asked what they would do if a community member did not
have flour, all women declared that they would lend grains, flour or injera, whatever was
needed.
It would be returned like for like (t’ef for t`ef; sorghum for sorghum).
Cooperation in grinding and preparing injera was confirmed by 73% (16) of women, and
as stated, “Grinding is done together (but at our own houses) with relatives and friends
for ceremonies – weddings and tascar. If someone does not have a maṭhan or madqos,
118
they can use mine at my house.” Many claimed to be using the mills now when large
quantities of flour are needed for the celebration preparations, however in the past there
was a strong sense of obligation to help each other with such preparations, as stated by
an authority, “We must help each other otherwise our relationships will suffer – be
severed. Even old people help, everyone can help”. Another female consultant said,
“Helping with grinding is an ancient tradition”.
As one woman articulated, “Grinding together makes good relationships with
family and neighbors.”
Other women interviewed did agree that they missed the
opportunities to share these social times, but they did not miss the exhausting work of
grinding.
It is not only in preparing for celebrations that people engaged and
cooperated, they also would help fellow community members with tasks such as crop
preparation, weeding, harvesting, house building, and other work.
The value of
“cooperation” in the community has been suffering in recent times. Haleka Tewoelde
Brahn said that in the past, if they started to hammer a stone the sound would carry
through the valley and as men heard the hammer sounds they would make their way to
help with the manufacturing of the maṭhan, but this was no longer the case. No one
came to help, but rather he had had to arrange for extra help in advance. Values are
changing as the people of this valley come to rely more and more on the cash economy
and the men are too busy earning to help.
4.3. Chapter Summary
The ethnoarchaeological data provides an important window into the technical,
social and ecological contexts of grinding stones in rural northeastern Tigrai, and the
relationships between those facets of culture. Both men and women have roles to play
in the life of the grinding stone. They are a key tool used daily by women who spend
many laborious hours grinding. With manufacturing and use of grinding stones there are
opportunities for social interaction and inter-village communication.
Some of these
socio-cultural aspects may help in interpreting the past by comparing modern to
archaeological contexts as will be discussed in the next chapter.
Ethnographic re-
purposing and discard data can help us to recognize and interpret the artifacts recovered
from the archaeological record.
119
Chapter 5.
Results: The Analysis of the Archaeological and
Modern Grinding Stones
The archaeologist must classify, analyze and compare, but should not
remain in that realm forever. Interpretation requires entering the domain
of the tool user for a fleeting instant, and sourcing requires considering
the genesis of the rock itself. A comprehensive lithic analysis will employ
all of these perspectives at one time or another.
Odell 2004:12
5.1. Introduction
This chapter presents a discussion of the analysis completed on the modern and
archaeological grinding stone attributes and contexts. Only key patterns and findings
are reported in this chapter and the detailed raw data can be found in Appendices D
through K. Data from ethnoarchaeological interviews and observations encompassed
the full life history of grinding stones and their cultural context and are compared to the
artifacts where those comparisons are possible and meaningful. Following the analysis
of artifacts, a review of the archaeological context for a selected group of artifacts is
presented.
This, along with results of use wear analysis and ethnoarchaeological
interview data, will provide background for further discussion in the following chapter
about the importance of agriculture to the economy and types of grains possibly used
during the pre-Aksumite period.
Grinding stone artifacts from Mezber excavations (see breakdown in Table 5.1)
were examined for attributes such as: size, shape (overall shape and shape of use
surface(s)), general wear patterns and intensity of use. Many artifacts were classified by
type during the elders’ workshop and confirmed by applying the typology identified in
Chapter 4. All elders’ identifications matched the typology characteristics, except where
artifacts were broken and sizes could not be definitely determined, and for these
120
specimens intact widths were used where available and the other attributes were
considered. Other artifacts were classified based strictly on the typology. Consideration
was given to changes over time and a preliminary phasing of Mezber site deposits is
presented in Table 5.2 (D’Andrea and Welton in prep.). Photographs were taken of the
artifacts and in some cases their surfaces. A decision on which attributes were selected
for measurement and analysis was based on a combination of ground stone analysis
recommendations from Adams (2014a) and Wright (1992), with the addition of generally
accepted measurements (e.g., length, width, thickness). Attributes and variables are
presented for the record, and some initial interpretations are proposed “entering the
domain of the tool user for a fleeting instant” (Odell 2004:12). The attributes of the
hammer stones (mokarai) are briefly discussed separately and last.
Table 5.1.
Mezber Artifacts Analyzed
Artifact Class
Total Artifacts
(n=116)
Artifacts Seemingly
Intact (Not Broken)
Bifacial Use
Artifacts
Mațhan (quern)
13
4
2
Madqos (quern)
6
2
1
Madit (handstone)
57
15
24
Wedimadqos (handstone)
32
15
11
Mokarai (hammer stone)
8
7
multi-facial use
5.1.1.
Dating
Maṭhan artifacts considered in this thesis date to the Middle and Late pre-
Aksumite Phases at Mezber with a few recovered from mixed contexts 43 (Table 5.2 and
5.3). Mezber phasing is provided by Dr. Andrea Manzo (based on ceramic analysis) and
confirmed through AMS dating and stratigraphic analysis (D’Andrea and Welton in
preparation). The madqos grinding stones date to the Early and Middle Phases (three
madqos), with another being found in a mixed context plus one unknown (Table 5.3). All
phases (Archaic, Early, Middle and Late) are represented by madit and wedimadqos
artifacts, and several of these were recovered from mixed contexts. Tables throughout
this chapter show figures for information discussed within this chapter, and details of
43
Mixed contexts had artifacts from varying phases.
121
measurements and dating for artifacts can be found in Appendices D, E and G through
J. Detailed modern grinding stone measurements and attributes can be found in
Appendix F and K.
Table 5.2.
Table 5.3.
Tentative Mezber Archaeological Site Phasing (D’Andrea and Welton
in prep.)
Mezber Site Phasing
Dates
Archaic
1600 – 900 BCE
Early pre-Aksumite
850 – 750 BCE
Middle pre-Aksumite
600 – 400 BCE
Late pre-Aksumite
400 BCE – 1 BCE/CE
Mezber Grinding Stones by Site Phasing
Archaic
Artifact Class
Early
pre-Aksumite
Mațhan (n=13)
Madqos (n=6)
Middle
pre-Aksumite
Late preAksumite
Mixed
contexts
5
7
1
1
3
2
Madit (n=57)
7
15
22
5
8
Wedimadqos (n=32)
2
6
8
1
15
122
5.2. Summary of Patterns & Major Conclusions for Mezber
and Modern Grinding Stone Artifacts
5.2.1.
Sizes and Measurements
All grinding stones were measured to the closest half centimeter (artifacts) or
closest centimeter (ethnographic).
Length is measured as the long axis which
represents the farthest distance between the proximal and distal ends.
Width was
measured using the maximum distance from edge to edge, with a measurement taken at
90° to the long axis (Figure 3.1). Stone thickness includes both the thickest (highest)
and thinnest (lowest) sections where differences were significant enough to suggest
uneven wear. Additional measurements were taken of the length and width of the use
surface 44; surface borders 45; and use surface concavity.
Measurements taken in the statistical analysis include all archaeological grinding
stones, however it should be noted that reference to median, high, low, mean (average)
and standard deviations are shown separately for what appeared to be complete
artifacts from those that are broken. Widths of all maṭhan and madqos artifacts that
appeared to be intact on the short axis and broken only on the long axis have been
taken into account to increase sample size for widths only. Adding these widths to the
sample in addition to widths from complete maṭhan resulted in a slight change in mean
measurement (0.2 cm). However for the madqos the mean increased by 3.9 cm.
44
45
Use surface is the area noted as worn from grinding.
Surface borders are the areas around the perimeter of the use surface on the same plane.
123
Mațhan
Of the 13 archaeological maṭhan grinding stones recovered, only four are intact
(Table 5.4 and 5.5 are summaries of measurements, and the full data set can be found
in Appendix D). The average length of the intact maṭhan querns (n=4) is 57.4 cm with a
range of 47.5 – 68.0 cm and average intact widths (n=9) is 28.5 cm with a range of 24.0
– 32.5 cm (Tables 5.4). Although sample size is small, average stone length appears to
increase from the Middle to Late Phase (Figure 5.1). In terms of maṭhan surface use
area, the average for intact specimens is 1455.9 sq cm with a range of 1032.0 – 1953.0
sq cm (Table 5.4). The largest intact maṭhan (SN 1182) measures 68.0 x 32.5 cm (l x w)
and it has the largest use surface area of 1953.0 sq cm (63.0 x 31.0 cm) (Table 5.5).
This specimen was found in a context dating to the Late Phase which is dated by AMS
to 390-350 & 300-210 BCE. The second longest maṭhan (SN 411) measuring 66.0 x
30.5 cm with a 1691.3 sq cm use surface (61.5 x 27.5 cm) is also from the Late Phase
(Table 5.5). The remaining two unbroken maṭhan artifacts (SN 490 and 608) date to the
Middle Phase and are shorter in length by approximately 20.0 cm, and width by 4.5 – 6.0
cm compared to the larger two maṭhan mentioned above. One maṭhan (SN 608) is 48.0
x 24.0 cm with a 1032.0 sq cm use surface (43.0 x 24.0 cm) and the other (SN 490) is
47.5 X 26.0 cm with a use surface of 1147.5 sq cm (45 x 25.5 cm) (Table 5.5). If this
small sample is indicative of maṭhan sizes for these phases, quern grinding stones are
increasing in size over time from Middle to Late Phases (Figure 5.2).
124
Table 5.4.
Summary of measurements (cm) data of all Mezber Maṭhan &
Madqos Artifacts
Note: where stones appeared to be bifacial (used on both sides), length
and width measurements were taken for each side.
Use Surface
Stone
Surface
Stone Width surface area
Area 46
Surface
Length
Surface Stone (add intact
Width
sq cm
sq cm
47
(SL)
Maṭhan
(unbroken) Border Length widths )
(unbroken)
(SW)
summary (n=4)
(n=9)
(n=4) (n=4)
(n=4)
(n=4)
(n=4)
48
High
63.0
31.0
1953.0
6.5
68.0
32.5
2210.0
Low
43.0
24.0
1032.0
1.0
47.5
24.0
1152.0
53.1
27.0
1455.9
3.9
57.4
28.5
1652.5
49
Mean
(Average)
Use Surface
Surface Surface
Area
Length Width
sq cm
(n=3:
(n=3:
(unbroken)
one 2 (n=3: one 2
one 2
Madqos
summary sided) sided)
sided)
High
48.0
22.5
1080.0
Surface
Concavity
(n=4:
one 2
sided)
7.0
Stone
Stone Stone Width surface area
Length (add intact
sq cm
widths)
(n=3:
(unbroken)
one 2 (n=6: one 2 (n=3: one 2
sided)
sided)
sided)
52.0
22.5
1170.0
Low
27.0
16.0
432.0
1.0
41.0
17.0
697.0
Mean
(Average)
38.0
18.5
725.0
3.4
44.7
23.1
868.3
46
Use surface measurements are approximate – they are calculated as use surface length x use
surface width – they do not account for any curvatures or oval ends.
47
Where artifacts appeared to be broken along the long axis, and the width was intact, the width
measurements were used in analysis.
48
The High measurement represents the longest, widest, etc. measurement recorded. The
highest length was not necessarily matched to the stone with the highest width. Low is the
same principle.
49
The Mean (or Average) represents the mean for all grinding stone measurements, and
therefore the mean length cannot be multiplied by the mean width to arrive at the mean use
suface area (or stone surface area).
125
Table 5.5.
Measurements (cm) of Individual Intact (Unbroken) Mezber Mațhan
and Madqos Artifacts
SN 50
(Serial Number) Context
Surface
Length
Surface
Width
Use
Surface
Area – Surface Stone
sq cm Concavity Length
Stone
Width
Stone
surface
area sq
cm
490 - maṭhan
Middle
45.0
25.5
1147.5
1.0
47.5
26.0
1235.0
608 - maṭhan
Middle
43.0
24.0
1032.0
2.6
48.0
24.0
1152.0
1182 - maṭhan 51
390-350 &
300-210 BCE
Late
63.0
31.0
1953.0
2.2
68.0
32.5
2210.0
411 - maṭhan
390-350 &
300-210 BCE
Late
61.5
27.5
1691.3
flat
66.0
30.5
2013.0
649 madqos
Mixed
48.0
22.5
1080.0
3.3
52.0
22.5
1170.0
3560- madqos
surface 1
Middle
27.0
16.0
432.0
1.0
41.0
17.0
697.0
3560 - madqos
surface 2
Middle
39.0
17.0
663.0
2.4
41.0
18.0
738.0
50
51
SN = Serial Number, also referred to as Collection Number in the Mezber site database.
Bolded box is the largest specimen.
126
Figure 5.1.
Mațhan Stone Length Measurements (cm) Over Time (Middle to Late
pre-Aksumite)
Figure 5.2.
Pre-Aksumite to Modern Maṭhan Grinding Surface Sizes (sq cm)
127
The measured modern ethnoarchaeological maṭhan are also quite large, with an
average surface area 52 of 1818.3 sq cm with a range of 536.0 53 – 2436.0 sq cm (Table
5.6). Average length is 54.5 cm, with a range of 33.5 – 64.0 cm and average width is
33.0 cm with a range of 16.0 – 42.0 cm (Table 5.6). Two smaller maṭhan (Sample 35
and 38 Appendix F) were used for grinding t’ef according to our consultants. The new
maṭhan stones manufactured in 2012 and 2013 have overall surface areas of 1950.0 sq
cm (65.0 X 30.0 cm) (expert made) and 1652.0 sq cm (59.0 X 28.0 cm) (non-expert
made) (Table 5.6). Modern mațhan stones are more similar in size to the Late Phase
artifacts. As discussed above, larger stones do grind more flour. Perhaps this is a
design element for promoting efficiency.
Table 5.6.
Summary of Measurements (cm) of Modern Udo, Mațhan, Madqos
(rounded to nearest half cm)
Ethnographic
Sample
udo
table
(n=26) table table
length width height
High
122.0 122.0 87.0
64.0
42.0 2436.0
21.0
63.0
44.0
2684.0
18.0
Low
64.0
43.0
21.0
33.5
16.0
536.0
2.0
15.0
11.0
165.0
5.0
Mean
(Average)
101.9 68.6
66.0
54.5
33.0 1818.3
10.6
48.5
30.1
1703.4
10.6
newmathan1 54
65.0
30.0 1950.0
20.5
newmathan2
59.0
28.0 1652.0
22.031.0
newmadit1
35.0
20.0
700.0
11.0
newmadit2
39.0
22.0
858.0
14.0
maṭhan
surface maṭhan madqos
surface madqos
(n=33) maṭhan area – thick- (n=11) madqos area – thickwidth sq cm ness
sq cm ness
length
length width
52
Use-surface sizes are not differentiated from surface area in modern samples because it
appeared there were no borders on modern querns. Rather the whole surface was used on
the maṭhan and various areas of the surface were used on the madqos.
53
This small outlier was used to process t’ef.
54
The newmathan1 was produced by the expert manufacturers and newmathan2 was produced
by the non-experts.
128
Madqos
The sample of madqos grinding stones is quite small – only six artifacts and of
these two are unbroken.
As was discovered from ethnoarchaeological accounts, a
madqos is often a recycled maṭhan so it may have been broken prior to repurposing; in
fact breakage may have been the reason for repurposing. The largest madqos (SN 649)
is from a Mixed context and is 52.0 x 22.5 cm, with a use surface area of 1080.0 sq cm
(48.0 x 22.5 cm). The other intact madqos (SN 3560), from a Middle Phase context,
appears to be bifacial, the larger face being 41.0 x 18.0 cm and the use surface is 663.0
sq cm (39.0 x 17.0 cm) (Table 5.5).
The intact widths of all madqos artifacts range from 17.0 – 30.0 cm, with an
average of 23.0 cm (Table 5.7). These all reflect large quern stones, assuming the
broken madqos were rectangular in shape.
Table 5.7.
Madqos Intact Width Measurements (cm)
SN (Serial
Number)
1910
609
3539
3560
649
4335
Madqos
summary
High
Low
Mean
(Average)
Dating
Early
Middle
Middle
Middle
Mixed
unknown
Stone Width
(n=6)
30.0
24.0
29.0
17.0
22.5
21.5
30.0
17.0
23.0
There are 11 ethnoarchaeological madqos, the largest (Sample 14 Appendix F)
having a surface area of 2684.0 sq cm (63.0 x 44.0 cm) and the smallest (Sample 6,
Appendix F) bearing a surface area of 165.0 sq cm (15.0 x 11.0 cm) – although this latter
specimen may be an anomaly (Table 5.6). The average, even including the very small
madqos, is 1703.4 sq cm (Table 5.6), larger than any found in the archaeological record
(Table 5.5).
129
Madit
The summary statistics for the madit and wedimadqos artifacts are found in Table
5.8. Madit are the most commonly recovered grinding stone in the Mezber assemblage,
with a total of 57 (15 are intact, and 24 appear to be bifacially used). Thickness varies
between 13.6 cm and 0.8 cm, differences which reflect wear and use life.
Where
artifacts were not intact (broken), they were typically broken lengthwise, so widths were
used to obtain averages.
Table 5.8.
Madit
Summary
Summary of Size Measurements (cm) of Mezber Madit and
Wedimadqos Artifacts
Stone
Broken
Broken
and Stone and Stone and Stone
Broken
Stone
Broken
Stone
Stone
Surface Surface Surface Thickness Thickness Surface Surface
Thickness
Thickness
(high)
Length 55 Width
Area
(low)
(low)
Length 56
Width
(high)
n=23,
n=23,
n=23,
n=58,
n=58,
n=23,
n=23,
n=58,
n=58,
8 bifacial 8 bifacial 8 bifacial 8 bifacial 8 bifacial 16 bifacial 16 bifacial 16 bifacial 16 bifacial
High
38.0
18.5
605.0
13.6 57
13.6
26.0
19.2
9.5
7.0
Low
18.0
11.0
223.3
4.0
0.8
6.7
8.8
3.7
1.0
Mean
(Average)
27.4
14.1
389.4
5.7
4.1
15.8
13.3
5.8
3.8
Wedimadqos
Summary
Stone
Broken
Stone
Stone
and Stone and Stone
Stone
Surface Surface Surface Thickness Thickness
Length
Area
(low)
Width
(high)
Length
n=23,
n=23,
n=20,
n=23,
n=23, 8 n=23,
bifacial 8 bifacial 8 bifacial 8 bifacial 8 bifacial 3 bifacial
Broken
Stone
Stone
Stone Thickness Thickness
(low)
Width
(high)
n=20,
n=20,
n=20,
3 bifacial 3 bifacial 3 bifacial
High
16.5
13.0
195.0
6.5
5.0
17.4
11.5
7.6
7.6
Low
9.5
6.5
62.4
2.4
1.5
6.7
6.3
2.9
1.2
Mean
(Average)
12.7
9.2
119.3
4.1
3.4
10.9
8.8
4.8
4.2
55
Specimen count = 15 unbroken madit, plus 8 bifacial surfaces (total = 23 measurements).
Specimen count = 42 broken madit, plus 16 bifacial surfaces (total = 58 measurements).
57
Artifacts were measured for thickness at the thickest section (High) and thinnest section
(Lows). High (column) High (row) represents the thickest overall measurement, where High
(column) Low (row) is the lowest measurement of the high thickness measurements.
56
130
The average surface area for all intact archaeological madit samples (including
both surfaces of bifacial artifacts) is 389.4 sq cm (Table 5.8). In comparing these to the
modern madits, modern ones have larger average surface areas of 672.0 sq cm with the
largest having 943.0 sq cm and the smallest 120.0 sq cm (Table 5.9).
Table 5.9.
Summary of Size Measurements (cm) for Modern Madit and
Wedimadqos
Ethnographic
Madit Sample
(n=30)
Stone
Length
Stone
Width
Surface Area
Stone Thickness
High
43.0
23.0
943.0
14.5
Low
15.0
8.0
120.0
2.5
Mean (Average)
34.4
19.2
672.0
9.1
Ethnographic
Wedimadqos
Sample (n=12)
Stone
Length
Stone
Width
Surface Area
Stone Thickness
High
20.0
12.0
228.0
14.0
Low
12.0
8.0
120.0
4.0
Mean (Average)
15.8
9.9
157.0
6.3
There is only one unbroken madit stone (SN 4200 Appendix E) from an Archaic
Phase context (1600 – 900 BCE), and both sides have relatively small surface areas of
391.5 sq cm (29.0 x 13.5 cm) and 286 sq cm (26.0 x 11.0 cm) (Table 5.10).
In
comparison 9 of the 14 Early and Middle Phase madit artifacts are larger. The average
width of the broken artifacts that had intact widths and dated to the Archaic Phase is
14.4 cm (n=3) (Table 5.11) which could reflect surface areas of around 400 sq cm if the
corresponding lengths were similar to the first sample mentioned above. Moving into the
Early Phase (n=11, 1 is bifacial) there are only three intact specimens. Three surface
areas (SN 1103, SN 1104 Surface 1 and 2) are larger than those of the Archaic and
measure 522.0 sq cm (36.0 x 14.5 cm)(SN 1104 surface 1), 513.0 sq cm (38.0 x 13.5
cm)(SN 1104 surface 2) and 481.0 sq cm (37.0 x 13.0 cm) (SN 1103). One (SN 4184)
Early Phase has a smaller surface area and measures 223.3 sq cm (20.3 x 11.0 cm)
(Table 5.10). The remaining Early Phase broken artifacts with intact widths average
131
13.8 cm (n=8), are slightly smaller than the Archaic Phase broken artifacts with intact
widths average of 14.4 (n=3)(Table 5.11).
By the Middle Phase there are a total of 7 intact madit stones out of the 17
recovered from this phase. Middle Phase intact samples (n=7, 4 of which are bifacial)
have surface areas measuring an average of 398.0 sq cm and ranging between 257.4
sq cm (22.0 x 11.7 cm) and 605.2 sq cm (35.6 x 17.0 cm) (Table 5.10). The remaining
Middle Phase broken artifacts with intact widths have an average width of 14.9 cm
(n=10) (Table 5.11). Comparing the surface areas of intact madit the Middle Phase
specimens appear similar in size to the Early Phase specimens. Both have some larger
specimens with 500+ sq. cm surface areas and also smaller specimens with surface
areas approximately 220 – 260 sq cm (Table 5.10). There is a small increase in average
widths moving from the Early Phase of intact 13.0 cm and broken 13.8 cm to the Middle
Phase of intact 15.0 cm and broken 14.9 cm (Table 5.10, 5.11 and Figure 5.3), and
potentially of surface area, but only one full madit is larger than previously dated
recovered madit artifacts.
In the Late Phase there are only 5 madit artifacts dating from the Late Phase,
fortunately 4 of these are intact (Table 5.10 and 5.11). The average surface area of the
intact specimens is 360.2 cm and sizes range from 276.0 sq cm (24.0 x 11.5 cm) to
442.5 sq cm (29.5 x 15.0 cm)(Table 5.10). These madit are smaller than those from the
Middle Phase, and a little larger in size compared to those from the Archaic Phase
(Table 5.10 and Figure 5.4). Not included in this phase discussion are eight madit
stones from mixed contexts and ten fragmentary madit artifacts. If looking strictly at the
intact stones the results indicate that surface areas increase from the Archaic (338.8 sq
cm) to the Early (434.8 sq cm), followed by a decline to the Middle (398.0 cm) and Late
Phases (360.2 sq cm) (Table 5.10 and 5.4). Modern madit grinding stones are much
larger, with an average surface area of 672.0 sq cm (Table 5.9).
132
Mezber Intact Madit Artifact Measurements (cm)
Table 5.10.
(n=23, 8 bifacial, shaded rows = side 2 of bifacial stones)
Serial Number
Dating Stone/Surface Length Stone/Surface Width Stone/Surface Area
4200
Archaic
29.0
13.5
391.5
4200
Archaic
26.0
11.0
286.0
27.5
12.3
338.8
Average
1103
Early
37.0
13.0
481.0
1104
Early
36.0
14.5
522.0
1104
Early
38.0
13.5
513.0
4184
Early
20.3
11.0
223.3
32.8
13.0
434.8
Average
230
Middle
35.6
17.0
605.2
622
Middle
22.0
11.7
257.4
1832
Middle
29.0
16.0
464.0
1832
Middle
32.0
16.3
521.6
2541
Middle
18.0
14.5
261.0
2541
Middle
18.0
14.5
261.0
3471
Middle
32.0
14.8
473.6
3471
Middle
32.7
15.2
497.0
3711
Middle
23.5
12.0
282.0
3711
Middle
24.0
14.5
348.0
3776
Middle
22.0
18.5
407.0
26.3
15.0
398.0
Average
379
Late
24.0
11.5
276.0
418
Late
24.0
15.0
360.0
418
Late
24.0
15.0
360.0
657
Late
29.5
15.0
442.5
657
Late
30.0
14.5
435.0
717
Late
23.0
12.5
287.5
25.8
13.9
360.2
Overall High
38.0
18.5
605.0
Overall Low
18.0
11.0
223.3
Overall Mean (Average) 58
27.4
14.1
389.4
Average
58
For averages plotted by phase see Figures 5.3 and 5.4.
133
Figure 5.3.
Mezber Intact Madit Average Surface Length / Width (cm) by Phase
Figure 5.4.
Mezber Intact Madit Average Surface Area (cm) by Phase
134
Table 5.11.
Mezber Broken Madit Stone Width Measurements (cm) by Phase
Broken (but Intact Widths n=22)
Serial
Number
Phase
Intact
Width
3222
Archaic
15.0
3239 (A)
Archaic
13.5
3239 (B)
Archaic
14.8
Archaic Phase Average
14.4
1119
Early
12.5
1339
Early
15.7
3220 A
Early
13.5
3220 B
Early
14.0
3495
Early
12.5
3978
Early
12.4
4016
Early
14.3
4210
Early
15.6
Early Phase Average
13.8
224
Middle
13.8
233
Middle
19.0
236
Middle
17.1
615
Middle
15.0
2034
Middle
14.4
4100
Middle
13.0
504
Middle
12.5
959
Middle
17.0
1941
Middle
14.3
3353
Middle
13.3
Middle Phase Average
14.9
660
16.1
Late
135
Table 5.12 and Figure 5.5 compare overall madit lengths and widths (including
intact widths from broken artifacts) through time. There is an increase in length from the
Archaic (27.5 cm) to Early Phase (32.8 cm), followed by a steady decline, from Middle
(26.3 cm) to Late Phase (25.8 cm) (Table 5.12, Figure 5.5). Madit widths appear to not
significantly change over the same period, ranging from 13.5 cm in the Archaic and Early
phases to 15.0 cm in the Middle Phase and 14.2 cm in the Late Phase (Table 12 and
Figure 5.5). Important to note is although the average madit stones decrease in size
both in length and width from Middle to Late Phases, the maṭhan stones are getting
longer (Figure 5.1) and may represent new grinding techniques – smaller and lighter
handstones running against a longer quern surface.
Table 5.12.
Mezber Madit (all intact lengths and widths) Measurements (cm) –
Archaic to Late Phase
Phase
n=
Range of
Lengths
Length
Average
n= 59
Range of
Widths
Width
Average
Archaic
1
26.0 - 29.0 60
27.5
5
11.0 - 15.0
13.5
Early
3
20.3 – 38.0 61
32.8
12
11.0 - 15.7
13.5
Middle
7
18.9 - 35.6 62
26.3
21
11.5 - 19.0
15.0
Late
4
23.0 – 30.0
25.8
7
11.5 - 16.1
14.2
59
Includes all intact widths from Tables 5.10 and 5.11.
Although there is only one sample, it is bifacial so has two different surface lengths.
61
There is one outlier of 20.3 cm.
62
There is one outlier of 18.9 cm.
60
136
Figure 5.5.
Mezber Madit Artifact Measurements (cm) Chart
– Archaic to Late Phase (Averages)
Wedimadqos
As previously mentioned, the wedimadqos is a grinding stone tool used typically
for different purposes than the madit. Where the madit is used to grind grains into flour,
the wedimadqos is used for second wet grinding of sorghum and maize, and grinding of
beans, salt and spices.
There are a total of 32 wedimadqos artifacts of which 15 are intact and 17 are
broken. Eleven of 32 are bifacial, and of these eight are intact and three are broken
(Table 5.1). The average surface area for all intact wedimadqos samples (including the
second surface of bifacial artifacts) is 119.3 sq cm, with a range of 195.0 to 62.4 sq cm
(Table 5.13). Wedimadqos thickness for all specimens varies between 7.6 and 1.2 cm
(both measurements are from broken artifacts Table 5.14). Thickness differences reflect
wear and use life. The ethnoarchaeological samples show average surface areas of
157.0 sq cm, with a range of 228.0 sq cm to 120.0 sq cm (Table 5.9).
There are only two Archaic wedimadqos artifacts and both are broken (Table
5.14). There are six Early Phase wedimadqos three of which are intact samples, and
two are bifacial (Table 5.13, 5.14). The average surface area from the Early Phase
137
intact artifacts is 104.5 sq cm, and they range from 77.3 sq cm (10.3 x 7.5 cm) to 165.0
sq cm (15.0 x 11.0 cm) (Table 5.13).
Middle Phase wedimadqos number eight in total, five are intact, three are bifacial
with an average surface area of 131.7 sq cm (Table 5.13, 5.14).
For the intact
specimens, surface areas range from 103.5 sq cm (11.5 x 9.0 cm) to 178.2 sq cm (16.5
x 10.8 cm) (Table 5.13). The Middle Phase wedimadqos are on average (131.7 sq cm)
larger than the Early specimens (104.5 sq cm). The largest dated wedimadqos is from a
mixed context and is 15.0 cm x 13.0 cm with a surface area of 195.0 sq cm (SN
985)(Table 5.13), which is approaching the size of the smallest intact madit artifact (SN
4184 which is 223.3 sq cm in surface area and measures 20.3 x 11) (Table 5.10).
There is only one wedimadqos from the Late Phase (SN 2548), and it is broken,
with a width measurement 8.6 cm (Table 5.14).
contexts, and seven are intact (Table 5.13).
There are 15 artifacts from Mixed
Having no precise dating for these
wedimadqos stones, they are unusable for temporal analysis. There are no apparent
patterns between phases for the wedimadqos grinding stones except for an increase in
average use surface area from the Early to Middle Phases (Table 5.13). They vary in
length and width throughout the entire sample.
138
Table 5.13.
Mezber Intact Wedimadqos Measurements (cm); Chronological
Shaded rows indicate surface 2 of Bifacial Wedimadqos
SN
Surface Length Surface Width
Surface
(n=23)
(n=23)
Area (n=23)
8 biface
8 biface
Dating
8 biface
Thickness
high (n=23)
8 biface
Thickness
low (n=23)
8 biface
3988
Early
11.0
8.8
96.8
4.0
4.0
3988
Early
11.0
8.8
96.8
4.0
4.0
4185
Early
15.0
11.0
165.0
5.0
5.0
4188
Early
10.3
7.5
77.3
3.3
3.3
4188
Early
10.7
8.1
86.7
3.3
3.3
Average Surface Area, Early Phase
104.5
1842
Middle
13.5
11.0
148.5
5.0
5.0
3141
Middle
16.5
10.8
178.2
3.5
2.0
3141
Middle
16.5
10.2
168.3
3.5
2.0
3148
Middle
11.5
9.0
103.5
4.5
4.5
3148
Middle
11.5
9.0
103.5
4.5
4.5
3193
Middle
14.7
8.0
117.6
5.5
4.0
3193
Middle
15.0
8.0
120.0
5.5
4.0
4101
Middle
12.0
9.5
114.0
3.8
3.8
Average Surface Area, Middle Phase
131.7
341
Mixed
9.9
9.5
94.1
4.0
4.0
985
Mixed
14.0
13.0
182.0
6.5
2.5
985
Mixed
15.0
13.0
195.0
6.5
2.5
3031
Mixed
14.5
11.5
166.8
4.0
4.0
3875
Mixed
9.6
6.5
62.4
3.2
1.5
3932
Mixed
14.0
8.8
123.2
3.5
3.5
3932
Mixed
14.0
8.8
123.2
3.5
3.5
3971
Mixed
10.2
6.5
66.3
2.4
2.4
4180
Mixed
9.5
7.0
66.5
3.0
3.0
4180
Mixed
12.5
7.0
87.5
3.0
3.0
16.5
13.0
195.0
6.5
5.0
9.5
6.5
62.4
2.4
1.5
12.7
9.2
119.3
4.1
3.4
High
Low
Mean (Average)
139
Table 5.14
Mezber Broken Wedimadqos Measurements (cm); Chronological
Broken Stone
Thickness high
(n=20) 3 biface
Broken Stone
Thickness low
(n=20) 3 biface
SN
Dating
Broken Stone Width
(n=20) 3 biface
3807
Archaic
6.3
6.3
3.5
4345
Archaic
8.0
3.0
3.0
3203
Early
10.5
6.0
6.0
4201
Early
9.7
7.5
5.0
1287
Early
10.5
4.7
4.7
3144
Middle
9.5
7.6
7.6
2860
Middle
7
2.9
2.9
4064
Middle
8.2
5.0
5.0
2548
Late
8.6
5.2
3.3
3419
Mixed
11.5
6.5
6.5
3916
Mixed
8.3
4.0
1.2
3916
Mixed
8.6
4.0
1.2
3917
Mixed
6.4
3.4
3.4
3949
Mixed
8.4
4.2
4.2
3949
Mixed
7.8
4.2
4.2
3951
Mixed
9.7
5.0
5.0
4086
Mixed
10.5
3.5
3.5
4183
Mixed
8.3
3.4
3.4
4183
Mixed
8.3
3.4
3.4
4266
Mixed
10
6.0
6.0
High
11.5
7.6
7.6
Low
6.3
2.9
1.2
Mean (Average)
8.8
4.8
4.2
140
5.2.2.
Shapes
Shapes of grinding stones can be the result of natural factors (e.g., river cobbles
used as hand stones). However in this region of northern Ethiopia shapes are more
often the result of design decisions as illustrated in the ethnoarchaeology field studies
presented in Chapter 4. Manufacturers take into account the needs of the user and the
characteristics of the raw materials. Users may then further modify stones to fit their
table, hands, or to make a grinding stone more efficient or aesthetically pleasing (e.g.,
creating a nicely rounded dorsal surface).
The shapes of the grinding stones for this study have been recorded using some
ground stone classification recommendations and coding/definitions from Wright
(1992)
63
(Table 5.15). Examples of shapes classified in the study are presented in
Figure 5.6. All artifact details were assessed visually in person at the field lab in Adigrat.
Broken artifacts were analyzed and shapes recorded where enough of the stone
remained to make a confident assessment. Modern samples were observed during
ethnographic interviews.
For both the shapes and surface wear the qualitative
classifications were assessed and interpreted by me, and it is recognized that another
researcher may classify differently. However because this study was completed by one
individual the shape categories should be consistently applied.
Summaries of key
findings are noted below by grinding stone type, and full data sets can be found in
Appendices G and H for artifacts and Appendix K for modern maṭhan samples.
63
In a few cases Wright`s descriptions did not fit the artifacts in this study and needed to be
slightly modified, however the closest coding was used.
141
Table 5.15.
Shape Classification Categories and Definitions
(based on Wright 1992)
Classification Category
Definition
Artifact Class (overall shape)
This class is determined by looking at the three dimensional overall
shape of the grinding stone.
For querns, Wright (1992:63) defines the following two types:
Saddle-shaped Quern “…pecked or flaked on side opposite use surface.
Opposed lateral sides parallel: has convex/concave (“saddle”) shape.
Use surface oval in plan, ‘dished’ in long section [a concave dish shape
has a flat lip along the edge prior to sloping into dish shape]. Surface
extends to the sides and ends of blank and is thus ‘open’. No ridges.”
And the Saddle-shaped Grinding Slab is defined: “As [Saddle-shaped
Quern] but use surface rectangular; striae imply lateral grinding”. For
the modern maṭhan grinding stones, 30 of 31 would be classified as
Saddle-shaped Grinding Slab. Other Artifact Class shapes are shown in
Figure 5.6.
Shape in Transverse
This refers to the shape of the grinding stone when viewing from an end
(proximal or distal), might also be referred to as a ‘cross section’. Shape
examples can be found in Figure 5.6.
Shape in Plan View
This refers to the basic shape of the grinding stone when viewing from
above with the ventral (grinding surface) side up. Shape examples can
be found in Figure 5.6.
Shape of Use Surface in Plan
This classification is similar to the above, but is focused only on the area
appearing to be a use surface. Shape examples can be found in Figure
5.6.
Shape of Use Surface
Transverse
Viewing from the end of the artifact, in cross section, only the grinding
surface itself is considered when classifying this variable. Shape
examples can be found in Figure 5.6 under Shape of Use Surface.
Shape of Use Surface
Long Section
For this classification the grinding stone surfaces are viewed with the
surface at eye level and along the long section (proximal to distal end).
Shape examples can be found in Figure 5.6 under Shape of Use
Surface.
I will present the key results of the shape analysis along with the results of the
use surface wear patterns and intensity below according to grinding stone type –
maṭhan, madqos, madit and wedimadqos.
142
Figure 5.6.
Examples of Shapes
Shapes in Plan View 64/Shapes of Use Surface in Plan View
Square
Ovate/Oval
(can have more squared ends)
Loaf
(can be more rounded)
Shapes in Transverse
Plano/Convex
Flat
Tapered
Wedge
Note: The shape Oval is as above “Ovate/Oval” but more flattened, less round, and
typically ends are a little more squared.
64
For definitions, see Table 5.15.
143
Figure 5.6. (continued)
Shape of Use Surface
Concave
Slightly Concave
Concave dished
Concave “u”
Flat
Slightly Convex
Madit Class / Overall Shape
Bifacial Ovate/Oval
Bifacial Loaf/Flat
Bifacial Rectilinear/Flat
Plan
Transverse
Unifacial plan shapes (view from above) would be the same as the bifacial plan
shapes shown above. Transverse (cross section, when viewing from one end) would
appear flat on the bottom (ventral side) and usually has an uneven rounded, smooth
rounded or arched upper side (dorsal side). The dorsal side of a madit is the side the
hands would engage with when in use.
144
5.2.3.
Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity
Surfaces of grinding stones can be affected by human action or C-transforms
(cultural transforms through manufacturing and ongoing maintenance) or by natural
processes, N-transforms (natural wear through contact with other rocks or buried
material including sand; plow damage; wear from weathering) (Schiffer 1995).
Interpretations made are based on an assumption that little in the way of N-transforms
took place. If N-transforms were apparent (e.g., plow marks) surfaces away from those
effects were analyzed.
The surfaces of the grinding stones for this study have been recorded using
some of the ground stone classification recommendations and coding/definitions by
Adams (2014a)(Table 5.16).
Unbroken and broken artifacts were analyzed where
enough of the stone was intact to make a confident assessment.
All details were
assessed visually at a macro level and microscopic observations and digital photos were
facilitated through the use of a portable DinoCapture© 2.0 microscope and software.
Charts are included with summaries of patterns or particular observations are noted
below, and full data sets can be found in Appendices I for the maṭhan and madqos and J
for the madit and wedimadqos artifacts.
Modern maṭhan, madqos and madit grinding stones are manufactured from
boulders and all samples are sandstone. Based on the size of the Mezber artifacts of
these types, it is likely they too were manufactured from boulders, and all were
sandstone. No definite evidence of manufacturing techniques were noted, however the
stones were likely to have been shaped by flaking/pecking to remove large portions for
reducing the stone to appropriate size and shape. Ground stone techniques would have
taken a much longer time, but may have been used for finishing work to achieve
smoother, finer edges. This was not observed in the ethnoarchaeological manufacturing
sessions, but modern grinding stones are manufactured using metal tools.
145
Table 5.16.
Use Surface Wear and Intensity Classifications and Definitions
(based on Adams 2014a).
Classification and Code
Definition
Surface Coverage (SCOV)
This attribute variable refers to the extent and nature of
the grinding surface, and can be used to help determine
size and configuration of the accessory grinding stone (in
this case the madit for the maṭhan, and the wedimadqos
for the madqos) (Adams 2014a:257).
Surface Wear (SWEAR)
This is the degree of wear (often determined by the
remaining thickness of the stone).
Surface Configuration (SCON)
This variable refers to the shape of the surface overall.
Again this can help to determine the nature of the hand
stone used along the surface (Adams 2014a:257).
Surface Texture (STEXT)
Surface texture records the nature of the contact on the
use surface and can aid in assessing any wearmanagement techniques such as resharpening (also
referred to in this discussion as rehabilitation) (Adams
2014a:257).
Wear Level (WRLV)
This variable describes the topography of the surface and
can help evaluate the nature of the contact surface
(Adams 2014a:255).
Contact Type (COT)
All are assumed to be stone on stone.
Surface Manufacture (SMAN)
The interpretation is that all maṭhan grinding stone
artifacts were pecked and ground then worn to shape,
based on ethnoarchaeological observations and overall
surface shapes.
Stroke (STRK)
This variable describes the nature of the stroke used, or
what type of direction the hand stone passed over the
maṭhan, and is based on wear patterns (in this case
observable striations).
Adams (2014a:254) also suggests ‘Wear Type’ (the nature of damage caused by
tool use, observed both macroscopically and microscopically) and the coding
‘Compatible’ (artifacts that may have been used with other artifacts, such as a madit that
would match a maṭhan) as variables for analysis of handstones. These data are not
included in this thesis for analysis, however there is potential for Wear Type to be a
useful tool for analysis in the future. The results of use surface wear patterns and
intensity are discussed below along with the results of shape patterns analysis for each
of the grinding stone artifact types.
146
5.2.4.
Mațhan
There are a total of 13 specimens from Mezber identified as ‘maṭhan’, and two
are bifacial. Four of the specimens are too small to classify for the category Artifact
Class (Overall Shape) and nine of these artifacts large enough to classify closely fit the
Artifact Class of either Saddle-shaped Quern or Saddle-shaped Grinding Slab (Wright
1992) (Appendix G). There is an exception in that some surfaces are more flat than
concave or convex (Table 5.18) as described in Wright’s definitions.
The surface
coverage on all stones, past and modern, are ‘border flat’, grinding occurring over most
of the surface with no elevated border. The similarity between the ancient and the
modern suggest a long held tradition, unchanged through the time periods investigated.
Mezber maṭhan have opposed lateral sides parallel and most are squared or oval
in plan (Figure 5.7) with rounded ends. There is a design element to the rounded ends.
In comparing this feature to the modern samples, rounded distal ends allow flour to fall
into the catch bin at the distal end of the table from both the distal sides and the end
itself. It was noted during house visits that the distal end sometimes overhung the bin
allowing the flour to drop from the distal sides and end to accumulate in the bin without
the person grinding having to push or sweep it in. During the grinding observations it
was noted that the women would sweep with a straw brush or by hand any flour that
accumulated along the trough sides into the end bin. Having the rounded end allowing
more flour to drop into the bin could be a design efficiency.
147
Figure 5.7.
Mezber Maṭhan Shape in Plan View
(n=15 represents 13 artifacts plus 2 bifacial surfaces)
For the variable ‘Shape of Use Surface Transverse’ (cross section), slightly over
half (53%) (n=15) of the maṭhan surfaces are flat (Figure 5.8). The rest are a form of
concave classification (for shape examples see Figure 5.6). Even more of the modern
maṭhan grinding surfaces are flat (84%)(n=31). Another 10% are classified as slightly
concave (almost flat). Only two modern specimens are convex (and one only slightly so)
(Figure 5.9, Table 5.17).
Flat may be a design element incorporated to enhance
efficiency in the grinding process. Any surface with a concave or convex transverse use
surface may be more difficult to push a handstone over as there could be some
resistance from the curvatures. The only way to confirm this would be to complete
experimental research.
148
Figure 5.8.
Mezber Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Transverse
Figure 5.9.
Modern Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Transverse
149
Table 5.17.
Modern Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Transverse
Specimens n=31
Percentage
Flat
26
84
Slightly Concave (almost flat)
3
10
Convex
2
6
Shape of Use Surface Transverse
Considering the variable ‘Shape of Use Surface Long Section’ the Mezber
maṭhan surfaces generally fall under a flat (46.7%)(n=15) or concave classification (total
of 53.3%)(Figure 5.10 and Table 5.18). Comparing artifacts to modern (Table 5.18,
Figure 5.11), only 29% of modern maṭhan are flat. The other 71% of modern maṭhan
grinding stones are some form of concave shape including 22.6% concave dish, 9.7%
concave and 38.7% slightly concave,.
Table 5.18.
Mezber and Modern Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Long Section
Mezber Mațhan
n=15
%
Modern
Mațhan n=31
%
flat
7
46.7
9
29.0
concave dished
4
26.7
7
22.6
generally concave
2
13.3
3
9.7
slightly concave
2
13.3
12
38.7
total concave
8
53.3
22
71.0
Shape: Uses Surface
Long Section
150
Figure 5.10. Mezber Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Long Section
Figure 5.11. Modern Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Long Section
A concave long section would be created by the most downward pressure on the
madit (hand stone) being applied in the centre of the long section of an angled maṭhan
during grinding (proximal higher than the distal end). As the woman pushes on the down
stroke, the weight of the handstone combined with her pressure would be greatest near
151
the centre because as her arms extend over the length of the maṭhan it would be more
difficult to apply heavy pressure downwards.
It was observed in modern samples that the more angled (or tilted) the maṭhan
was the more concave the use surface (Figure 5.12).
Flat surfaces receive even
downward pressure throughout the grinding thrust and return pull, creating a flat long
section surface (Figure 5.13). A tilted grinding surface may allow for increased efficiency
through the ability to apply greater pressure to the handstone on a downward motion
with the help of gravity. There is likely a balance needed between angle and the amount
of energy required to pull the handstone back up to the proximal end. Most (86%)(n=31)
of the modern samples have an angle of between approximately 10 and 30 degrees
(Table 5.19).
Table 5.19.
Modern Maṭhan Angles (installed in a table)
Angle
Quantity n=31
Percentage
flat/almost flat
3
10%
approx. 10%
6
19%
15%
6
19%
20%
9
29%
30%
6
19%
45%
1
3%
approx. 10% to 30% (bolded)
28
86%
152
Figure 5.12. Modern Maṭhan with a Concave Use Surface Long Section
Installed at an angle (tilted with proximal end higher than distal end)
Figure 5.13. Modern Mațhan with a Flat Surface Long Section: Installed Flat
153
While approximately half the Mezber maṭhan artifacts have a concave use
surface long section, the end to end surface (Table 5.20), 71% (n=31) of modern stones
exhibit this shape (Table 5.18). The shape is most likely created by tilting the stone in
the table. This practise appears to have become more prevalent over time. Both Middle
and Late Phase artifacts have a mix of concave and flat use surface long sections,
however where the Late Phase is almost balanced (five flat, four concave), the Middle
Phase has four flat and only one concave shape (Table 5.20). As mentioned above the
modern stones are mostly some form of concave shape.
Mezber Mațhan Shape of Use Surface Long Section – Chronological
Table 5.20.
n=14 (13 specimens, 2 bifacial, 1 maṭhan undated)
Shape of Use Surface
Long Section
Middle Phase
Late Phase
flat
4
5
concave
1
4
For the maṭhan data set, 67% (n=15) of specimens show moderate wear (Table
5.21). Moderate wear is indicated by a medium thickness and evidence of wear such as
slight concavity or the formation of very thin borders around the perimeter of the surface.
Moderately worn grinding stones would have had additional use life if they were not yet
shedding sand. This could point to these stones being abandoned in place of use, the
people expecting to return to use them or leaving them in place at the time of
abandoning the site. The other five (33%) show heavy wear denoted by thinness and in
some cases some concavity. These heavily worn grinding stones may have already had
a long use life and could have been near the point of discard or recycling.
Table 5.21.
Mezber Mațhan Use Surface Wear
n=15 (13 specimens, two bifacial, 1 maṭhan undated)
Use Surface Wear
Middle Phase
Late Phase
Undated
%
moderate
4
6
0
67
heavy
1
3
1
33
154
Surface Texture (STEXT) was determined through macroscopic analysis, and in
addition physical touch was utilized for classifying and coding this variable. For maṭhan
artifacts the texture varies. A coarse surface has many topographic highs and lows,
raised angular quartz grains, and feels rough to the touch. A fine textured surface has
low topographic changes, with rounded and flattened quartz grains and is smooth to the
touch. A medium 65 surface falls between these two extremes. Most Mezber maṭhan
have a medium texture 40.0% (n=15), while 26.7% have a fine texture or smooth
surface. Only 2 of the maṭhan artifacts have a coarse surface and the balance, 20.0%,
have mixed surfaces (Table 5.22). All except one maṭhan has evidence of peck marks 66
(Figure 5.14).
The two bifacial stones have one medium surface and one fine or
fine/mixed. This may be another indication of different grains being ground. A coarse
surface is used for wheat, barley and sorghum and fine is used for t’ef and finger millet.
Dated mațhan grinding stones represent only the Middle and Late Phases and all
surface textures were represented.
Table 5.22.
Mezber Mațhan Use Surface Texture
(n=15, 13 grinding stones, 2 bifacial)
Use Surface
Texture
Middle
Phase
Late Phase
Undated
Total
%
fine
2
2
0
4
26.7
medium
0
5
1
6
40.0
coarse
1
1
0
2
13.3
mixed
2
1
0
3
20.0
65
When a medium texture surface was noted in modern contexts, consultants advised that it had
worn some from grinding larger grains, but was not quite ready for rehabilitation (resharpening). It was also explained that these medium texture surfaces could wear a little
more through grinding and the surface would become smoother, ready for grinding smaller
grains.
66
Peck marks are identified where a small chunk of the surface is missing. The large quartz
grains in these rocks can also be referred to as an asperity, or a projection from the surface –
and when removed leave holes in the surface, suggesting resharpening.
155
Figure 5.14. Examples of Evidence of Resharpening
(SN 410 Square C1, Locus 8, Pail 14)
156
5.2.5.
Madqos
The same classifications for Artifact Class (overall shape) for maṭhan are used
for madqos as they are both ‘netherstones’ (the bottom stationery stone of the grinding
stone pair). There are very few madqos artifacts, but of the six present five are saddleshaped querns (generally oval use surface), and one is a saddle-shaped grinding slab
(generally rectangular use surface).
All madqos grinding stones exhibit a concave surface whereas almost half the
maṭhan querns are flat (Figure 5.15). The concave surface on the madqos is a reflection
of the use of smaller handstones with grinding concentrated in the centre of the madqos
surface. This greater concave surface was observed in modern madqos as well.
Figure 5.15. Mezber Shapes of Use Surface: Madqos comparison to Mațhan
Mațhan
Madqos
157
Reviewing the variable ‘Shape of Use Surface Long Section’ all of the madqos
grinding stones are concave along the long section of the use surface (Figure 5.15).
One interesting observation is the bifacial madqos (Table 5.23) has one concave
“dished” surface for the long section and one concave “u” surface. This would suggest
different uses requiring different grinding techniques.
Table 5.23.
Mezber Bifacial Madqos Shapes Use Surface
SN
Dating
Shape Use
Surface
Transverse
# of use
Surfaces
Shape of Use
Surface Long
Section
3560
Middle sl. concave u
2
concave dished
3560
Middle
2
concave u
flat
158
5.2.6.
Madit
The largest sample size of grinding stones is the madit with 57 samples, and 24
of those are bifacial (two sided use surfaces). There are examples of bifacial (two use
surfaces) from all Phases (Table 5.24, Appendix E). The artifacts dating to the Archaic
Phase included 57% (n-57) bifacial madits. In the Early Phase contexts 40% were
bifacial, so a slightly lower ratio. In the Middle Phase the number of bifacial madit
grinding stones is back up to 45.5%.
By the Late Phase we have only 5 artifacts
recovered, and only 2 of these are bifacial (40%). Bifacial madit grinding stones may
have been preferred for use with different types of grains (coarse side for large grains,
smooth or fine side for small grains). With a bifacial stone there would not be a need to
constantly resharpen as both surfaces could be readily available. There also would not
be a need for two separate madit stones to serve different types of grains readily, as was
witnessed during interviews.
Table 5.24.
Mezber Bifacial Madit – Chronological
Mezber Phase
Madit
Number of Bifacial
Madit
% of Bifacial to
Phase Total
Archaic
7
4
57.1
Early
15
6
40.0
Middle
22
10
45.5
Late
5
2
40.0
Mixed
7
2
Unknown
1
0
Total
57
24
159
The overall shapes of the madits are quite variable, likely as a result of user
preference and wearing through use, though the unifacial loaf shape in plan view is the
dominant being observed in 30% (n=57) of the samples (Figure 5.16).
Figure 5.16. Mezber Madit Artifact Class (Overall Shape)
Considering only the ‘Shape in Plan’ (plan view) variable almost half of the madit
samples, representing 28 artifacts (49%)(n=57) can be described as loaf shaped (Figure
5.17) and 10 of these are bifacial. Ovate shape in plan is applicable to 15 (26%) of the
specimens. The remaining 11 (19%) are squared (one of these has rounded ends and
one has tapering ends).
The variety of shape in plan view may be due to user
preferences for styles or a particular manufacturer’s style. Most have rounded ends
which would be more comfortable for hands to grasp than squared ends.
160
Figure 5.17. Mezber Madit Shape in Plan
Grips/Grooves (GR) is variable that does not apply to netherstones
(maṭhan/madqos). It is used to record the nature and location of attributes that relate to
how a handstone might be held, such as finger grips, grooves, notches and handles
(Adams 2014a:251). Of the 57 Mezber madit, all except one appear to have been
ground to fit the hand, with ends that are rounded. Of these, eight (14%) (Table 5.25)
also display grip edges (see Figure 5.18) and two display grooved ends (see Figure
5.19), both which might have aided in grasping the handstone
Women may have
created these grips to match their hands, likely through pecking and grinding with
another stone.
Table 5.25.
Mezber Madit Grips and Grooves – Chronological
Grip or
Groove
Archaic
Early Phase
Middle Phase
Late Phase
Mixed
context
Total
Grip
2
4
0
1
1
8
Groove
0
0
1
0
0
1
161
Figure 5.18. Grip on Madit (SN 3220B Square E1, Locus 28, Pail 43)
Figure 5.19. Groove on Madit (SN 1440 Square A1, Locus 3, Pail 4)
162
Although not particularly common throughout the site, the grips were slightly
more common in the Archaic (two specimens) and Early Phases (four specimens), with
only one broken madit having a grooved end from the Middle Phase and one having
grips from the Late Phase (Table 5.25). No grips or grooves were observed on modern
madit. Rounded ends seem to have replaced previous grips and grooves and were
probably a design efficiency to make grasping the madit more comfortable. As grinding
intensity increased, rounded ends provided women with more control in handling the
madit when in use. There was one sample in the artifacts that was rough around the
dorsal side and had strongly squared ends. Expert elders said that this belonged to a
“lazy woman who did not finish her madit”. It is likely that women were the final finishers
for the manufacturing of the madit. If they had communicated their desire for rounded
ends to their husbands or expert manufacturers they may have received a newly
manufactured madit in the basic shape desired and only required some final fine shaping
to achieve the rounded end preferred.
The ‘Shape of Use Surface in Plan’ has changed over time in madit. All Archaic
madit that can be classified are oval in shape for use surface in plan view (Table 5.26).
In the Early Phase 76.2% (n=21) are oval but by the Middle phase, oval shapes decline
to 59.5%. During this same period, madit with rectangular/squared use surface in plan
increase from 14.3% in the Early Phase to 40.6% (n=32) in the Middle Phase. This
trend of increasing rectangular shapes continues into the Late Phase when these madit
shapes comprise 57.1% (n=7) of the samples with only one madit with an oval shaped
use surface is present.
The increase in rectangular use surface shapes of madit
corresponds to the increase in rectangular maṭhan shapes during this phase (Figure
5.20).
Rectangular use surfaces provide a greater surface area for more efficient
grinding than oval use surface shapes which have a lesser surface area because of the
rounded edges.
163
Table 5.26.
Mezber Madit Shape of Use Surface in Plan: Chronological
(n=81, 57 madits, plus 24 bifacial surfaces)
Mezber
Phase
Total Madit
Surface
Specimens by
Phase
Oval
% of Oval
Archaic
11
9
81.8
0
0
2
Early
21
16
76.2
3
14.3
2
Middle
32
19
59.4
13
40.6
0
Late
7
1
14.3
4
57.1
2
Mixed
9
6
66.7
0
0
3
Unknown
1
1
100
0
0
0
Rectangular
% of
Indeterminate
or Square Rectangular
or Other
Figure 5.20. Mezber Maṭhan and Madit Use Surface Plan View Increases in
Rectangular Shapes, from Archaic to Late Phases
164
Both surfaces of the bifacial madit handstones have been analyzed for the
variable ‘Shape of Use Surface Transverse’ (Figure 5.21). There are 57 madit grinding
stones, and 24 (42%) of those are bifacial, increasing the sample size for this attribute to
81 specimens. Madit are flat in 61 (75%) cases, which should provide less resistance
when being passed over flat maṭhan surfaces.
Figure 5.21. Mezber Madit Shape of Use Surface Transverse
Analysis of the ‘Shape of Use Surface Long Section’ produced some interesting
results. There are three forms of concave shape of this criterion that represent 53% of
madit (n=40) (Figure 5.22). These concave shapes include concave shallow, concave
“u” shape (the deepest concavity of the three shapes) and concave “dished”. A slightly
concave surface can result from more pressure placed on the ends of the madit where
the hands are located. A concave end-to-end madit should be created by a convex
edge-to-edge maṭhan, but these have not been observed in Mezber assemblages. This
is an interesting and unexplained phenomenon at this time, and experimentation may
help clarify the development of concave end-to-end madit surfaces.
165
Figure 5.22. Mezber Madit Shape of Use Surface Long Section
166
A key discovery was made while analyzing madit surface textures.
As was
communicated to us by consultants, large grains require a rough or coarse texture while
small grains require smooth or finer surfaces. Observations of the bifacial madit stones
revealed that 50% (n=24) had one fine/smooth surface side and the other side was
medium to coarse. A further five artifacts had one medium texture surface and one
coarse surface. These were multifunctional tools that I believe were used for different
types of grains, suggesting that a variety of grains was being used and ground into flour
during all pre-Aksumite phases at Mezber. This will be further explored in the discussion
chapter.
Bifacial madit grinding stones were likely used for grinding two different kinds of
grains. When considering changes in surface texture through time, the following pattern
was observed for bifacial madit surfaces. During the Archaic, almost one-half (n=8) of
the surfaces are smooth or fine, suggesting an almost equal reliance on small grains
indigenous to eastern Africa (t’ef and finger millet) as on imported large grains (wheat,
barley) (Table 5.27). By the Early Phase only 16.7% (n=12) of madit have smooth
surfaces. Could this possibly reflect a stronger emphasis on larger grains such as wheat
and barley in the Early Phase? Coarse surfaces could apply to the African domesticate
sorghum as well, but to date sorghum remains have not been recovered prehistorically in
the Horn of Africa. During the Middle Phase there may be an indication of a resurgence
of small grain usage with more fine/smooth surfaces reaching 40% (n=20), but not as
high as was observed in the Archaic Phase of 50%. In the Late Phase smooth surfaces
decline again to 25% (n=4) being smooth/fine, but not back to the lows of 16.7% in the
Early Phase (Figure 5.23).
A similar pattern emerges when all (dated) madit use surface textures are
examined (bifacial and unifacial madit) (Table 5.28).
In the Archaic 45% (n=11) of
surfaces are smooth or fine and medium/coarse surfaces make up 45%, suggesting an
equal reliance on indigenous eastern African and imported grains. The fine/smooth
surfaces drop to 10% (n=21) during the Early Phase while medium/coarse surfaces rise
to 76%. Then in the Middle Phase and Late Phase fine/smooth surfaces increase again
to 26% (n=31) and 22% (n=9) respectively, but not back to the 45% observed in the
Archaic surfaces.
167
Mezber Madit Surface Textures by Phase: Bifacial Stones
Table 5.27.
Explanation of Table: The textures are denoted along the top row as ‘surface 1 texture
/surface 2 texture’, for example, Fine/Medium means surface 1 has a fine texture and
surface 2 has a medium texture.
To calculate total type of surfaces, here are some examples (greyed boxes): for the cell
Archaic - Fine/Medium, the specimen count is 3 and would represent 3 Fine surfaces,
plus 3 Medium surfaces; for the cell Middle - Medium/Coarse, the specimen count is 2
so there are 2 Medium surfaces and 2 Coarse surfaces; and a final example, for cell
Middle - Medium/Medium, there is 1 specimen with both surfaces medium and that
would count as 2 medium surfaces for the total.
Bifacial
Mezber Total Madit Fine/ Fine or Medium/ Fine/ Coarse/ Medium/ total
Phase Specimens Medium Smooth/ Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine or
Coarse
Smooth
by Phase
(n=24)
brackets
indicate
number of
surfaces
%
total
Medium
or Coarse
%
Archaic
4 (8)
3
1
0
0
0
0
4
50.0
4
50.0
Early
6 (12)
2
0
3
0
1
0
2
16.7
10
83.3
Middle
10 (20)
3
3
2
1
0
1
8
40.0
12
60.0
Late
2 (4)
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
25.0
3
75.0
Mixed
2 (4)
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
100.0
Table 5.28.
Mezber
Phase
All (dated) Mezber Madit Use Surfaces Textures by Phase
Total Madit Fine or Medium Coarse Mixed Fine or
Specimens Smooth
Smooth
by Phase
Total
(n=72)
%
Medium
or
Coarse
Total
%
%
Mixed
Surface
Texture
Archaic
11
5
3
2
1
5
45.0
5
45.0
10.0
Early
21
2
10
6
3
2
10.0
16
76.0
14.0
Middle
31
8
11
7
5
8
26.0
18
58.0
16.0
Late
9
2
4
3
0
2
22.0
7
78.0
0.0
168
Figure 5.23. Mezber Madit Use Surface Smooth Textures by Phases
169
5.2.7.
Wedimadqos
Among the 32 wedimadqos artifacts 11 are bifacial, so that a total of 43 surfaces
were analyzed (Table 5.29). Some of these may have been previous madit handstones,
recycled upon breakage. Madit are also recycled into wedimadqos when they become
too thin. A wedimadqos could also be manufactured from a cobble, small piece of
sandstone, or from a flake created during manufacturing of a maṭhan or madit. The
wedimadqos was observed in use with one hand as well as with two hands.
Wedimadqos overall shapes, use surface shapes and surface configurations are
varied. Shapes are likely based on a combination of the shape surface it was ground
against (the madqos) shaping the stone through wear and the grinding techniques used,
also contributing to thinning. For 77% (n=33) of the surfaces the wear is moderate
indicating a tool in its midlife cycle, and possibly abandoned in place (Table 5.29). The
others show heavy wear and are thinner so may have been discarded as waste.
Surface textures also vary considerably. The various textures may have been
required for different products ground. Only 11 of 32 wedimadqos are bifacial, and
similar to the madit data set, almost half of the 11 (five) have one smooth/fine surface
and one medium/coarse surface, indicating a multipurpose tool (Table 5.29).
The
different surface textures may reflect repecked surfaces for grinding different types of
materials, for example coarse for salt, fine for spices. This suggestion needs to be
verified through additional consultations and experimentation.
Table 5.29.
Mezber Wedimadqos Key Patterns
(n=32, 11 are Bifacial resulting in Surfaces n=43)
Attribute
Variable
Quantity
%
Variable
Quantity
%
Unifacial/Bifacial
(n=32)
Bifacial
11
34
Unifacial
21
66
Surface Wear
(n=43)
Moderate
33
77
Heavy
10
23
Surface Texture
on Bifacial
(n=11)
One surface
Smooth or
Fine/ other
Medium or
Coarse
5
45
Mixed
textures
6
55
170
5.2.8.
Mokarai – Hammerstone Attributes
Consultants described and demonstrated the use of mokarai (hammerstones) to
“rejuvenate” or resharpen (repeck) the surfaces of grinding stones (Figure 5.24). In
modern times this task is often accomplished with small metal hammers but some
consultants still use stone hammers. Eight mokarai were collected from the excavations,
five are basalt, two are sandstone and one is quartz (Figure 5.25 displays an example of
each material). Sizes are shown in Table 5.30. Five of the stones are cobbles, but for
three of the artifacts the blank type is unknown (including one basalt mokarai) and only
two appear to have been ground into shape (one basalt and one sandstone artifact).
The others have natural shapes. These artifacts are recognizable as hammerstones by
the impact fractures on the ends. They have moderate to heavy wear from pecking or
pounding against the grinding stones. Two show signs of scraping, especially along the
lateral sides. This may be due to running the mokarai along the surface of a grinding
stone to smooth any sharp peaks, or it may have been used as a multipurpose tool, with
other unknown uses. One artifact shows signs of crushing, so may have been employed
as a pestle as well.
Figure 5.24. Waizoro Letay Alemayo Resharpening (“Rejuvenating”) a Broken
Madit with a Mokarai (Hammerstone)
171
Figure 5.25. Mokarai (Hammerstones) a. Basalt (SN 3629, Square C1, Locus 36,
Pail 71); b. Quartz (SN 3950, Square C1, Locus 46, Pail 90); c.
Sandstone (SN 3910, Square C1, Locus 45, Pail 88)
a.
b. .
c.
172
Table 5.30.
Mokarai (Hammerstone) sizes 67 (cm)
Mokarai
SN
Stone
Length
Stone
Width
Stone
Thickness
3470
11
7
5
3146
9
7
2.5
2564
11.8
8
7
2708
9.6
8.9
3
3629
13
7.7
4.5
3176
10
6.3
5.2
3910
67
3950
9.5
7.8
5
Median
10
7.7
5
High
13
8.9
7
Low
9.5
6.3
2.5
Mean (Average)
10.6
7.5
4.6
Mode
#N/A
7
5
standard
deviation
1.34
0.78
1.38
Broken
Stone
Length
Broken
Stone
Width
Stone
Thickness
7.2
6.2
5.5
Mokarai measurement orientation: Length was measured as the longest distance between the
ends, ends were identified by battering marks where the stone showed heavy use. Width
was measured perpendicular to the length. Thickness was measured as the greatest
distance between the two long surfaces.
173
5.3. The Archaeological Context
The main goal of ethnoarchaeological research is to aid in the interpretation of
the archaeological record.
Some interpretations have thus far been made for the
artifacts. What follows below are interpretations of the archaeological contexts from
which these artifacts have been recovered, based on ethnoarchaeological interviews.
In reviewing the field notes from Mezber some of the details provided clues for
interpretation. In six instances at the site there appear to be possible collapsed maṭhan
tables (udo). Field workers and Ethiopian excavators identified two udo and based on
the description of piles of loose large cobbles, this identification seems to be appropriate.
As was explained by consultants during interviews, grinding tables were constructed by
arranging large stones in a rectangle, and then filling the centre with smaller stones and
sand.
In Field A2, Locus 10 there was rock tumble within which a maṭhan was
recovered. This tumble could represent the remains of an udo. In addition, a description
from Field D1 suggests that a grinding stone was recovered in stone debris of what may
have been a grinding table. Locus 39 is a collapsed udo built next to a wall (Figure
5.26). In Field C2, Locus 17 more tumble was found along a wall, within which a maṭhan
was found. In Field unit E1, Locus 39 (Figure 5.27) another pile of large cobbles was
found along with grinding stones. It seems possible that during pre-Aksumite times,
maṭhan grinding stones were built into udo tables, usually next to walls as is done today.
This may be an example of a very long held tradition of building tables, or platforms, for
grinding stones. The udo elevates the grinding stone, although it is not clear how high
these would have been in the past because the structures have tumbled. It would be
interesting to find a maṭhan in situ, on a pile of stones, to determine height. This would
allow us to understand whether women were kneeling or standing to grind, and standing
as mentioned earlier allows for the full body to engage in the grinding motions.
174
Figure 5.26. Collapsed udo in Field E1, Locus 39.
In Field E1, Locus 39 (Figure 5.27) one maṭhan was recovered (SN 1855) in a
Middle Phase context which is well worn and had a fine grained surface. In Locus 47
(Figure 5.27), also dated to the Middle Phase, there were two madit handstones
recovered, one biface SN 4102 (medium texture both sides) and one single sided SN
4100 with a fine surface texture. Finding these associated objects suggests that this
“household” was grinding different types of grains.
175
Figure 5.27. Mezber Field E1 Loci (referred to in this section)
Map by Dr. Lynn Welton
176
Considering multi surface textures, Field A2 Locus 45 from a different
perspective, it has produced three maṭhan grinding stones, two from the Middle phase
and one from a mixed context. Maṭhan SN 490 has a coarse texture surface, SN 2700
has a fine texture surface and SN 3791 displays mixed textures. Two of the maṭhan, SN
490 and SN 2700 are 17 cm thick at their thickest measurement, and one measures 6.0
cm the other at 9.0 cm at the thinnest measurement, but both would still have significant
use life left 68. There is also a madqos from the Middle Phase (SN 3560) which has a
fine and medium texture. If these artifacts had been found in situ, and more closely
dated, a possible interpretation is that multiple women used these grinding stones
together, providing the opportunity for the type of social interaction described by modern
women.
Field C1 69 (Figure 5.28) produced the most number of maṭhan grinding stones.
Four were from the Late Phase. Maṭhan SN 410 has a coarse texture surface while SN
411 has a medium texture. There are two partner specimens that are either half of a
maṭhan, SN 659/660, and they both have bifacial surfaces, one being a fine texture and
the other face having a medium texture. Maṭhan SN 1182 also has a medium texture.
These examples of multi surface textures again suggest multiple types of grains being
processed. All these maṭhan showed signs of resharpening through pecking so they
were still likely useable when discarded.
In Field C1 there is also evidence of cooking (ceramics, bone and charcoal) in
this Late Phase context. In modern situations 42% (10) of maṭhan grinding stones were
located in kitchens. SN 410, 411 and 1182 are from Locus 8 (Figure 5.28), so were
found together in the square, with SN 659/660 in Locus 4 (Figure 5.28), which is not that
far away. All but one of these (659/660) had thicknesses (ranging 12.5 cm to 23.0 cm)
that indicate a long use life remaining. Finding these grinding stones in association
suggests a situation where multiple grinding stones were used by multiple women. As
68
The new maṭhan made by the experts is 20 cm thick and has a projected 30 year use life.
Smith et al. (2010:97) estimate a sandstone millstone from Australia measuring 10 cm would
have a use life of between eight and nine years. The shorter use life is likely due to the
weakly silicified sandstone used in their study area.
69
The current interpretation is that a kitchen building is represented. An oven on the outside
corner of the building supports this proposition.
177
was noted in the ethnoarchaeology discussion and above, women grinding together can
result in social interaction such as singing, talking about community and family, getting
more work done, and generally enjoying each other’s company.
Figure 5.28. Mezber Field C1 Loci (referred to in this section)
Map by Dr. Lynn Welton
178
It was also learned from interviews that when grinding stones, especially the
maṭhan, wore out and were ready for discard, they were often used as stones for
building material. Such stones were recovered from excavated walls, for example a
wedimadqos (SN 4064) was found in a wall in E1 Locus 53 (Figure 5.27). A note from
Field C1 (Figure 5.28) states a grinding stone was “in the wall”.
A maṭhan is also
mentioned in notes from A2 Locus 6 (2008) as being in the wall. It may be that more
grinding stones were incorporated into the excavated walls, but if grinding surfaces were
not exposed, they may not have been recognized. For an example of how well these
blend in see Figure 5.29.
Figure 5.29. Mațhan found in wall Field B2 Locus.
5.4. Chapter Summary
The analysis of Mezber grinding implements have suggested several patterns of
changes over time, as well as demonstrated long held traditions that did not change. In
analyzing measurements there is evidence of increasing sizes of querns however there
is also the unchanging tradition of large sizes for grinding stones through all phases and
179
into modern times. These large sizes are likely required for large quantities of flour
processing. The appearance of concave long use surfaces is an indication that grinding
stones were being angled, and the archaeological evidence suggests tables (udos)
made this possible. This represents an efficiency design that allowed for women to take
advantage of gravity on the downward pressure thrust of the handstone. There are
other apparent efficiency designs that have been incorporated, such as increasing
grinding surface sizes, allowing more flour to be ground within the same time period, or
perhaps shortening the time required to produce the same amount of flour. Analyzing
shapes of the artifacts led to the discovery that rectangular versus oval surface shapes
for grinding stones increased over time, and rectangular shapes would provide more
contact surface for more efficient grinding. Smaller madit grinding stones paired with
longer maṭhan grinding stones could have made grinding easier because the smaller
madit would be easier to handle. Rounded ends of madit grinding stones seem to have
evolved likely for comfort and better control for the woman. A round end allows the
woman to cup her hands around the ends and keep the madit centered on the grinding
surface.
Bifacial stones allowed for two kinds of surface textures to be immediately ready
to accommodate the grinding of different kinds of grains. Unifacial madit grinding stones
also had different kinds of textures such as smooth, medium and coarse.
Varying
surface textures present in all phases of occupation at Mezber suggest the processing of
both large- and small-grained cereals.
The archaeological contexts and artifacts show some parallels to modern
situations and the ethnoarchaeological interviews and observations have helped to
understand some of the archaeological discoveries. It is known how the maṭhan are set
up in houses by being built to stone udo (tables) and there is evidence of tumbled stones
near maṭhan grinding stones in the archaeological record suggesting these tables were
built in the past as well. Some grinding stones show only moderate wear so may have
been abandoned in place.
The excavation notes tell us that there are numbers of
maṭhan grinding stones grouped together providing opportunity for women to grind
together and partake in social interaction. Finally, learning the ways in which grinding
stones were discarded in modern contexts proved to be the same in the past as there is
evidence of grinding stones reused in archaeological wall construction.
180
Chapter 6.
Discussion
In this chapter key discoveries from the ethnoarchaeological and archaeological
analyses will be reviewed and discussed. Design theory has been applied to understand
decisions made in grinding stone manufacturing and use. Throughout the research the
chaîne
opératoire
method
has
been
employed
to
draw
out
the
social/economic/ideological and technological associations with grinding stones
throughout their entire life cycle. Interpretations of the data are considered and multiple
lines of evidence are applied where applicable to support propositions.
Alternative
explanations are also considered in some cases. Included in this discussion are cross
cultural comparisons in an effort to apply the source-side criticism recommended by
Stahl (1993), and to search for any generalities that might emerge through these
comparisons.
The chapter begins with a discussion of the results of the ethnoarchaeology
followed by archaeological results, but where appropriate, the modern will be compared
to the archaeological. Economic contributions of grinding and gender roles, aspects of
manufacturing, use and discard are highlighted. For manufacturing, design decisions,
expert knowledge and status are featured. Grinding stone use discussion is broken
down into: evidence for reliance on agriculture, time spent grinding, grinding stone
surfaces sizes as they relate to efficiencies in grinding, and location of use of grinding
stones. What follows is an explanation of findings related to grinding stone repurposing
and discard and locating grinding stones in the archaeological record.
The social
implications of grinding and the socio-cultural changes that have taken place since the
introduction of the mechanical mills complete this section of the chapter.
Changes in the technology throughout the pre-Askumite period are considered
and comparisons are made to the modern grinding stones.
181
The artifacts reveal
information about what was probably ground in the past relating to both indigenous and
imported grains.
The discussion concludes with reference to the madqos and
wedimadqos grinding stones, tools that grind (and probably ground in the past) many
more products.
6.1. Ethnoarchaeology
6.1.1.
Economic Contributions & Gender Roles: Mutually
Supportive
Today the people of Gulo Makeda share in a mutually supportive relationship
when it comes to food production. Searcy (2011:138) refers to Mayan grinding stones
as “a material manifestation of gender complementarity”.
In Gulo Makeda men
manufacture and deliver the grinding stones to women who, until the introduction of
mechanical mills, would spend a great deal of time “behind the stone”, grinding the
grains to make the flour that would make the staple breads to feed the family. Males
generally plough the fields and both sexes plant, weed and harvest, with the males
delivering the grains to the home for the final stages of processing conducted by
females. Both sexes contribute to the economy supported by grinding stones, and it was
plausible that these same roles existed in the past. Assuming it was the females who
engaged in grinding in the past, it is apparent they made a significant contribution to the
subsistence economy through this activity and their work must have been valued by the
men and children they fed. Assuming it was men who manufactured grinding stones in
the past; women would have valued their contribution as they provided the tools
“necessary for life”.
6.1.2.
Manufacturing
In an effort to better understand the grinding stone artifacts excavated from
Mezber, research was conducted on similar grinding stones in use today, including the
witnessing of two manufacturing sessions.
It is fortunate that we have had the
opportunity to witness and document a manufacturing process that may have existed for
thousands of years in northern Ethiopia, with some changes such as the introduction of
182
modern tools. The men involved in the production of grinding stones learned the skills
and acquired the knowledge from their fathers, who learned from their fathers, who also
learned from their fathers, far back into the generations (see also Nelson 1987b:149;
Searcy 2011:64).
Manufacturing interviews and observations included a priori questions related to
grinding stone workshops as I had noted that these were mentioned by Hamon and Le
Gall (2013), Hayden (1987a) and Nelson (1987a) who worked with contemporary
highland Maya and Cook (1982:177, 181, 195, 252) who investigated Zapotec
stoneworkers in Mexico. Workshops have also been noted in ethnoarchaeological work
completed by Searcy (2011) among the Maya. In other literature, full or close to full
manufacturing processes are carried out at a quarry location as was the case in this
study (see for example Abramiuk and Meurer 2006:350). Ethnoarchaeology was useful
in learning that these expert craftsmen (and other grinding stone manufacturers) do not
necessarily have workshops; rather almost all manufacturing is done at the quarry site in
Gulo Makeda and resharpening is done in the home of the owner of the grinding stones.
Knowing that this could be true for the past any attempt at finding a grinding stone
workshop in the archaeological record could be futile. Quarry sites on the other hand
can be located based on scattered debitage.
6.1.3.
Design Decisions, Expert Knowledge and Status
In the ethnoarchaeological data analysis the difference between expert made and
non-expert made grinding stones was discussed in relation to their knowledge about raw
materials, their understanding of how the stone reacts to tools used to break/shape/trim
and finish the grinding stones, the finer finishing work of the experts and the attention to
user needs. An example of how the experts have the user in mind when making design
decisions was apparent when the set of grinding stones they made for me were
manageable for my body size and strength, while the madit made by the non-experts
was too heavy for me to lift or manipulate.
Most males who had manufactured
mentioned that they consult with their wives prior to making the grinding stones but it
was only the experts who mentioned they consider the size of the person who will be
using the tools when determining the size of maṭhan and madit to manufacture. David
183
(1998:47) also comments on the possibility of user body size influencing the size of
grinding hollows.
Knowledge of appropriate raw materials is very important and also forms part of
the design decision-making process.
Raw material for grinding stones needs to be
“sufficiently dense, hard, and durable to grind the foodstuff effectively without wearing
too quickly and without adding large amounts of grit to the food being processed” (Stone
1994:682).
Fratt and Biancaniello (1993) and Woodbury (1954:55) discuss the
importance of well cemented sand grains for raw material selection, and in observations
in northeastern Tigrai it was noted that the best stones had well cemented sand. If it
was not well cemented the maṭhan blank was prone to breakage during manufacturing.
In Guatemala the men look for quality, density and size of vesicles while in my interviews
it was the size of quartz grains that mattered (Searcy 2011: 55; Hayden 1987a:14-15).
The harder the stone was to work, the longer the grinding stone would last (Searcy
2011: 55; Hayden 1987a:14-15).
The best stone has a relatively smooth cortex but when cracked the quartz
inclusions are clearly visible and act as a hard interior good for grinding. Such stones
would also fracture along straight edges. The denser the quartz inclusions, the more
preferred the stone.
According to Odell (2004:18) sedimentary rocks must be well
cemented by quartz (silicon dioxide) if they are to be useful for tool manufacture. It is
important that the quartz (silicon dioxide) fill in intercellular voids completely so that when
compression forces are applied, the fracture proceeds equally through both the grains
and the surrounding cement producing a straighter edge. We observed this straight
edge fracturing in archaeological samples in the partial grinding stones recovered.
These samples appeared to have been deliberately split. A further discussion of this
phenomenon is in a section below related to ‘Discard’ of grinding stones.
In witnessing the expertise of the full time specialists of the Maya Highlands,
Hayden states, “Testing for flaws was achieved by tapping specimens lightly and
listening to the “ring” of the rock (Hayden 1987a:25). Searcy (2011:56) witnessed the
tapping in search of flawlessness, as was observed in Tigrai.
Men with lesser
knowledge need to break off a corner to see the internal structure and determine the
best materials. Cook (1982:237) also witnessed this process of knocking off pieces of
184
rock with hammers to see the stone quality, searching for hardness and examining it for
flaws 70. It was noted in Gulo Makeda that the non-experts knocked off pieces, where
experts could tell good raw material from the outside of the stone, displaying the greater
knowledge they had of determining the best raw material for use in production. From a
design theory perspective, constraints in raw material selection included the need for
dense, hard, durable and well-cemented sandstone that would not produce grit during
grinding. During interviews we were informed that men were looking for all these kinds
of stone traits. Such stones would produce grinding stones that lasted several decades
The ability to understand the right stone to use, by observing and touching the boulders,
and how to test it for structure by tapping lightly on the cortex and listening to the sounds
emitted, is a patrilineal legacy passed on from generation to generation, from expert
father to son.
The manufacturing process described herein is very similar to observations made
by Teklu (2012) who has also conducted ethnoarchaeological research in northern
Ethiopia, and closely mirrors processes observed in other regions of the world including
Guatemala (Hayden 1987a; Searcy 2011) and Mexico (Cook 1982). The tools used,
consisting of large hammers, small hammers, wedges and picks, are similar (for
example see Cook 1982:185; Hamon and Le Gall 2013:112) Hayden 1987a). Using
stone or metal wedges in making initial cracks to aid in breaking the boulder in two was
witnessed in northeastern Tigrai as well as Guatemala (Searcy 2011:42).
Shaping
through percussive reduction by trimming large flakes, followed by smoothing through
pecking was consistent in multiple descriptions (Cook 1982:194-195; Hayden 1987a;
Searcy 2011:35-37). Measuring the stone’s sizes with arms/hands/fingers was observed
in Tigrai during this research and is reported by Teklu (2012:31), and also in Guatemala
(Searcy 2011:57).
70
The Zapotec Stoneworkers that Cook was observing were working with granitic raw materials
(Cook 1982:187-188), so chipping might have been the only option for understanding the
internal structure.
185
I believe that with such consistency in widely separated regions, similar
manufacturing processes 71 would have been used in the past. Where metal tools have
replaced stone tools, experts interviewed stated that the steps in manufacturing and the
striking/pecking patterns remained the same, but using stone tools would make the job
longer in duration. Manufacturing times would vary depending on the raw materials
used, the amount of excavation required and the design of the grinding stone e.g., the
addition of support legs for Mayan querns would lengthen manufacturing time. Table 6.1
summarises a cross cultural comparison of grinding stone manufacturing times.
Table 6.1.
Cross Cultural Comparison of Manufacturing Times
Study
Manufacturing Time
Gender and Type of Tool
Personal Observations:
Near Mezber and Ona Adi,
eastern Tigrai, Ethiopia
6.5 – 7 hours over two days
for quern
(maṭhan and madit are same)
men manufacture
with metal tools
Cook (1982: 196-198):
Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico
17.25 hours average
for standard metate 72
(mano 2 – 2.5 hours)
men manufacture
with metal tools
Hayden (1987a: 113):
Highland Maya, Guatemala
14 hours average
for standard metate
men manufacture
with metal tools
David (1998: 35):
Sukur, Nigeria
1 or 2 days (estimate 12 – 16 hours)
for quern;
handstone 21 minutes for all but final
stages)
women manufacture
with stone tools
Schnieder (1993; 2002:34):
American Southwest
11 hours
(2 hours initial shaping, 9 hours final
finishing)
experimental: stone tools
Teklu (2012:64):
Lakia’a, Tigrai, Ethiopia
1 to 2 days
(for unknown type of grinding stone)
men manufacture
with metal tools
71
Manufacturing processes which include shaping the blank through percussion flaking, then
trimming and finishing through flaking and pecking, were similar in accounts across the world.
Where differences were noted involve excavation. Boulders were the initial raw material form
observed by Hayden, Searcy (buried boulders) and in this study. Cook witnessed blasting to
remove large rock chunks from an outcrop, where in Teklu’s study the rock was pried from
outcrops using metal picks and hammers and this was likely the case prior to blasting
availability in Oaxaca.
72
Note: metates have legs which must be carved into the bottom side of the stone, and trough
edges, so long labour time would be required for this additional finishing.
186
Being an expert in grinding stone manufacturing is a part time specialty in the
Gulo Makeda study area. It was noted by a few individuals that in the past there were
full-time grinding stone manufacturers who sold grinding implements at markets.
Hayden (1987a) and Nelson (1987b) observed a full-time metate and mano grinding
stone maker who was involved in the sale of these household necessities. Aschmann
(1949) also encountered a fulltime manufacturer who sold his wares in Baja, California.
Where the sale of grinding stones is an economic activity in and of itself, it seems it can
become a full time career.
If manufacturing is done for local consumption in exchange for reciprocal labour
obligations or the provision of food and beverages as is the case in this study area, the
speciality is practiced in a part time capacity. Manufacturing of grinding stones in Mali is
a part time role with teams managed by a master craftsman (Hamon and Le Gall
2013:112). In her research on San Miguel Island, Conlee (2000:388) concludes that
production of ground stone tools (including grinding stones) would have probably been a
part-time activity as subsistence pursuits would have been of primary importance. In the
Valley of Oaxaca, Zapotec grinding stone manufacturers do not engage in production full
time, and prefer to be agriculturists but lack the land required. The revenue made from
grinding stone manufacturing supplements the agricultural shortfall (Cook 1982:129,
131). Nelson (1987b:152) also refers to manufacturers as lacking in enough land to
support the family through agriculture. In eastern Tigrai much of men’s time is spent on
farming and grinding stones would be produced as needed. Considering how long a
maṭhan can last (50 plus years 73), and if the population was rural as is suspected at the
archaeological site of Mezber, the local need in the past would have been occasional,
reflecting the need for only part time specialists.
Despite being a part time career, it is clear that the manufacturing of grinding
stones in northern Ethiopia by men is a complex process that requires design decisions,
skills and knowledge, and social interaction that builds interpersonal relationships. In
addition, the individuals who are/were experts in the field of manufacturing grinding
73
In Sukur Nigeria, quern mean use life is quite different with an average of 17 years and ranging
from 10.7 to 23.4 years for grinding stones that are 10 – 20 cm thick and made from granitic
raw material (David 1998:55, 28).
187
stones are afforded a special respect, as they are/were the creators of the technology
“necessary for life” in a culture so dependent on cereal flours for sustenance. This
special respect afforded grinding stone makers is important because in other parts of
Ethiopia as well as cross culturally, craft production workers are often marginalized, of a
lower status or class.
The master craftsmen of grinding stone manufacturing near Mezber are highly
respected for their knowledge and skills.
Searcy (2011:50) refers to long
apprenticeships for the Maya matateros (grinding stone manufacturing experts). The
experts I interviewed who learned from their fathers beginning in their early teens said
that they could learn the basics after a few experiences, but that it would take a long
time to master the craft. For the Gamo of southern Ethiopia mastering the craft takes 15
years (Arthur 2014:6).
The added skills and knowledge acquired through long
apprenticeships became apparent when observing the expert and non-expert
manufacturing sessions.
Special knowledge acquired by expert grinding stone makers does not always
result in highly respected status as is the case in the modern Tigrai villages that I visited.
Near Ona Adi, where access to mills has been available for a longer period of time,
manufacturers were no longer specialists so the respect and status that may have
accompanied the expert knowledge and skills had already perished.
In southern
Ethiopia Arthur (2014:3, 32), reports that the full time grinding stone makers among the
Gamo are lower status citizens having differing social standing including limited access
to certain luxury foods. The Zapotec grinding stone manufacturers are often poor, and
farmers are more respected, however there is status among the manufacturers, with the
maestro directing work at the quarry (Cook 1982:129, 131, 175). Due to these varied
situations of respect across cultures, it would be dangerous to suggest that the respect
afforded the experts in my study could be projected into the past. Respect for a trade
and accompanying elevated status can exist when the trade is essential to life and there
are very few individuals trained, but that respect and status can soon wane when
another trade becomes more important, or the trade is seen as a low status occupation.
188
6.1.4.
Grinding Stone Use
Grinding stones are the “givers of life” in societies like those in Gulo Makeda
where subsistence is significantly dependent on grains. It is highly likely that grinding
stones were important in this region in the past as initial data analysis points to high
reliance on grain products. Stable isotopic analysis of a single individual associated with
Late pre-Aksumite/Proto-Aksumite ceramics at Etchmare East near Ona Adi
demonstrated that the individual’s diet was strongly vegetarian (D’Andrea et al. 2011). In
particular it was determined that 80% of the vegetarian diet is attributed to C3 plants
(Near Eastern domesticated plants including wheat barley and pulses) while only 20%
came from C4 plants (African domesticated plants such as t’ef, finger millet and sorghum
– sorghum will be discussed below), reflecting a greater reliance by this individual on
Near Eastern than indigenous crops.
The authors acknowledge this is a single
individual, so it is not possible to suggest the results are applicable to a wider population
base but it provides tentative and partial indication of the subsistence base.
The presence of many large grinding stones in the rural pre-Aksumite site of
Mezber supports the assumption that grains were important for the diet during this time
period. Such a reliance on agriculture would result in the need for processing grains for
human consumption which for many foods including bread, requires grinding. Mothers
teach their daughters to grind, just as their mothers taught them in their early teenage
years. Observations of grinding sessions and demonstrations produced evidence of the
extremely laborious operations involved in grinding. The interviews with female advisors
reveal the time required for grinding was on average 5.44 74 hours on non-holy days,
comparable to what has been found cross culturally (Table 6.2.). Compare this to a
modern North American typical work day of 7.5 to 8 hours, and with the physical effort
74
Grinding times can vary depending on the size of the family being fed with the foods made by
the flour, the experience of the grinder – the more experienced grinders work faster, until they
reach an age when weakness slows their grinding ability. In describing grinding times in
Lakia’a in Tigrai, Teklu (2012:75) refers to slaves grinding day and night and women of the
house grinding in the day during the Imperial Regime of Ethiopia (pre- 1967 Ethiopian
Calendar). He also refers to wage grinders hired to reduce the work required of the women
of the household (75-77). Egziabher (1993:224-225) provides an extensive chart outlining
the duties, including grinding, for women of Tigrai. He estimates grinding to take up three to
six hours of a woman’s working day routine (in the hourly calculations, some of the time
estimates are mixed cooking with grinding so I have deducted 1.5 hours from the total
combined grinding, cooking and grinding and wet grinding or dry grinding).
189
involved in grinding it is highly strenuous work over a considerable number of hours.
The women of Gulo Makeda explained that they began their work during the night,
getting up when “the cock crows” and grinding until early daylight hours, allowing for time
to complete their other work during the day. Egziabher (1993:222 – 228) reports the
same hours for grinding and describes the tremendous amount of work still facing these
women when not grinding. He states that “the…housewife does not get enough time to
sleep” (223). In my interviews it was explained many times, both by women and men,
that for the women there was very little time left for sleep, and in fact getting more rest
was one of the benefits of the mechanical mills. It could very well be that these are
similar daily routines to those in the past, even distant past, as they are basic
subsistence activities.
Table 6.2.
Cross Cultural Comparison of Time Spent Grinding
Reference
Geographic Location
Time Spent Grinding
Start/Finish Times
Current Research
Eastern Tigrai, northern
Ethiopia (near Mezber and
Ona Adi archaeological
sites)
5.44 hours on non -holy
days 75, or converted = 3
hours daily
midnight or shortly
after until early/midmorning
Teklu (2012: 35)
Lakia’a (Adwa),Tigrai
5 hours 76 on non-holy days,
or converted = 3 hours daily
3 AM until 8 AM
Hamon and Le Gall
(2013:116)
Mali among the Minyanka
1 hour, 40 minutes to 2.5
hours daily
Chiňas (1973:41)
Isthmus Zapotecs, Mexico
6 – 8 hours daily
Dalman (1902: 13)
Palestine
2 – 3 hours daily
midnight until 2 or
3AM
Bauer (1990:3)
Teotihuacan, Meso
America
6 hours daily
sunrise onward
Broshi (2001:125)
Palestine
3 hours daily
last hours of night
Horsfall (1987:348)
Guatemala
at least 3 hours daily
75
Calculations on conversion to what would be daily time spent is based on a 28 day month with
13 holy days (15 days * 5.5 hours / 28 days = 2.95 hours per day)
76
No mentioned was made by Teklu whether women grind on holy days or not but assumptions
are that they do not grind on holidays and conversions have been made to reflect this
assumption.
190
If consideration is given to consumption estimates of flour-based products in a
diet, it is noted that higher consumption combined with smaller grinding stones result in
longer time spent grinding. For the data presented in Chapter 5 it was calculated that in
the Gulo Makeda study area individual consumption of flour equates to an average of
0.8 kilograms per day (range 0.4 to 1.3 kilograms per day). Meyers (2002) and Broshi’s
(2001:125) calculations of consumption in Israel and Palestine (during the Roman
Period) respectively are similar at 0.5 kg per person per day, as are the consumption
rates from the Maya of Guatemala who are estimated to consume 0.6 kg of maize per
day (Wilson 1995:43). Referring to Table 6.2, time spend grinding is six to eight hours
per day in Mexico and the quern stones range in length from 33.0 to 45.0 cm and widths
range from 21.0 to 33.0 cm (Table 6.3 – Grinding Surface Sizes, see Horsfall and
Aschmann entry). From the findings in this study the average is three hours per day (if
grinding was done every day), and the querns from Gulo Makeda are longer, with an
average length of 54.5 cm, and ranging from 33.5 – 64.0 cm (Table 5.6). Based on this
one comparison it would appear that the additional 10 cm in quern length can reduce the
grinding time considerably, assuming people are consuming similar amounts of flour in
the diet as in this case.
This is one line of evidence for larger grinding surfaces
producing more flour, and being more efficient. Additional data from more cross cultural
studies would help to strengthen this preliminary finding.
191
Table 6.3.
Cross Cultural Comparison of Grinding Surface Sizes (cm)
Type of grinding
stone
Length
Width
Nixon-Darcus
(this thesis)
Maṭhan
Av. 57
range
48 - 68
Av. 29
range
24 – 33
Nixon-Darcus
(this thesis
Maṭhan
Av. 54.5
range
33 - 64
Av. 33
range
16 - 42
Av. 10.6
Modern samples from
Gulo Makeda
Gorecki, et al.
(1997:146)
Grinding patch
netherstone
surfaces
Av. 31
range
25-37
Av. 16
range
14-20
Av. 0.4
range
0.2-0.8
Australia grinding
patches (possibly
Pleistocene)
David (1998:28)
Querns
34-38
24-28
<2
Sukur, Nigeria
Basic Hollows
36-44
23-32
7-11
similar to Grinding
Patch (Gorecki et al.)
Hamon and Le Gall Querns
(2013:114)
30-50
20-35
3-18
Modern Minyanka of
Mali
Wisdom
(1940:144)
46-61
31
18-64
13-36
55
31
Author
Metate
Schliemann (1968 Saddle Quern
(first publ. 1875))
Surface
Thickness
Comments
Archaeological
samples from Mezber
Chorti Indians,
Guatemala
Trojan
Schneider (1996)
Preform Lower
Milling Stone
Field et. al (2003)
not defined
Bartlett (1933:5)
Metate
39
30 (trough 24)
6
Northern Arizona
Bartlett (1933:5)
Metate
51.2
30 (trough 26)
2.5
Northern Arizona
Bartlett (1933:14)
Metate – Modern
Av. 35
Av. 33
Aschmann
(1949:683)
Metate – Modern
46
31
Baja California
Searcy (2011:61)
Metate – Modern
52
36
Maya of Guatemala
33-45
21-33
Various – Southwest
to Guatemala &
Mexico
Horsfall (1987:356) Metate – Modern
Antelope Hill, Arizona
10-50
Yambacoona Hill,
Australia
Hopi
Note: It would have been more helpful to compare grinding surface area, and I would recommend that these
measurements be recorded in all future studies where sizes of grinding stones are being captured.
192
It was explained by advisors that larger grinding surfaces produce more flour per
work unit. The relevant literature also reveals that larger grinding surfaces produce more
flour per unit of work (Adams 1993; Mauldin 1993:318-320; Hard et al. 1996; Fratt and
Biancaniello 1993:388; Searcy 2011:59).
Larger grinding surfaces can increase the
amount of flour produced or decrease the amount of time spent grinding, compared to
using smaller querns and handstones.
Mauldin (1993:320) refers to experiments
conducted by Mauldin and Tomka (1988) where they found a direct correlation between
increasing grinding surface and reduced time to grind one kg of flour.
Through experimentation, Valamoti et al. (2013) found it took three hours to grind
one kg of einkorn wheat into meal using much smaller grinding stones made of gneiss
(quern) and mica-schist (handstone) with surface areas of 384.0 sq cm and 391.0 sq cm
respectively (Table 6.4). Experimental maize grinding by Wright (1993) on a sandstone
metate with a use surface measuring 735.0 sq cm and using a sandstone mano with a
surface size of 230.0 sq cm resulted in a 0.75 kg meal ground in one hour. The amount
of maize ground per hour may reflect less experience and less developed technique in
this experiment by someone who has not been grinding all her life (Wright 1993:353).
Maize may take longer to grind than other grains, but if we compare this to research
conducted in present day Gulo Makeda we see quite a difference using the larger
grinding surfaces. Mezber artifacts averaged 1455.0 sq cm, but up to 1953.0 sq cm
(querns) and 389.4 sq cm (handstone) while modern grinding stones average 1818.0 sq
cm (quern) and 672.0 (handstone) (Tables 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.9) and in modern situations it
takes an average of approximately 15 minutes to grind one kg of any type of flour used
in this area. Although these comparisons reflect different raw materials (Valamoti et al.
2013) and grains (Wright 1993), it appears on the face of this evidence that it would take
longer to grind grains into flour on smaller grinding stones. If this is true, it would have
taken longer to grind one kg of flour using the smaller Mezber querns and handstones of
the past. Critically evaluating this it could be argued that if the tools are made from the
same raw material, and the techniques used to grind grains into flour are the same on a
small versus large surface, then any increase in surface size would allow more grains to
be processed per stroke because there is a larger surface to spread them over.
193
Table 6.4.
Grinding Times for 1 kg of Flour
Study
Type of Grain
Quern Size
Handstone
Size
Time to
grind 1 kg
Valamoti et al. (2013)
experimental
einkorn wheat
384 sq cm
391 sq cm
3 hours
Wright (1993) experimental
maize
735 sq cm
230 sq cm
1 hour 20
minutes
Hamon and Le Gall (2013) –
observed grinding modern Mali
millet
estimate 77
based on
ranges
1100 sq cm
estimate
based on
ranges
562.5 sq cm
30 minutes
This study – observed grinding
sessions (averages) - modern
wheat, t’ef, barley
Average
1818 sq cm
672 sq cm
15 minutes
This study – artifacts
unknown
Average
1456 sq cm
389 sq cm
unknown
Some have argued that the size of grinding stones is an indication of how reliant
people are on grains – the larger the handstone, the more grain that was needed to be
ground, and if more grain needed to be grown there was a higher need (for example
Mauldin 1993 and Hard et al. 1996). Hard et al. (1996) argue that increasing mano sizes
– from a mean mano surface area of 112 cm2 during Basketmaker II period to 219.8 cm2
during Late Pueblo period – a change which would substantially increase grinding
capacity (measured as output of flour per unit of time invested), was due to an increase
in reliance on agricultural subsistence. They support this conclusion with other lines of
evidence such as the ubiquity of maize in archaeobotanical samples (Hard et al. 1996).
Adams (1999; 1993) argues that larger handstones are more likely to represent
moves toward efficiency driven by increased grinding intensity. She states that changing
grindingstone morphology could reflect technological improvements combined with
behavioral adaptations to effect more efficient grinding at a time when intensity of
grinding was increasing due to a number of possible reasons, not just population growth.
Another reason she provides is that there could be a need to become more efficient as
77
Estimate was based on mid point between ranges. Quern range 30 to 50 cm length and 20 to
35 cm width, mid points: 40 cm length x 27.5 = 1500. Handstone range 27 to 48 cm length
and 7 to 23 cm width, mid points: 37.5 x 15=562.5 sq cm.
194
grinding intensity increases due to additional flour added to the diet.
Additional
proposed needs for increasing use of plant foods and grinding may be related to stress
factors such as reduced subsistence territories, semi-sedentism and social changes that
concern food sharing, either restricted access to foraging foods or a need to supply food
to those in a ruling class (Wright 1994:254). In any case, suggestions are that large
grinding stones can represent substantial quantities of flour being processed. In this
study area the grinding stones are relatively large compared to many cross-cultural
samples (see Table 6.3). Even in pre-Aksumite times the grinding stones are large,
another indication of a high reliance on grain products at this time.
The large maṭhan and madit grinding stones recovered from Mezber suggest that
a significant amount of grinding was occurring in the past.
One of the trade-offs
indicated for larger grinding stones is that as handstone size increases, more energy is
needed to operate the tool to effectively create the increased productivity (Mauldin
1993:319). It was previously mentioned that the expert grinding stone manufacturers
were cognizant of the need to make a set of grinding stone tools that were suitable to the
user. For the set they produced during field observations they ensured that the size of
the handstone would be comfortable for me to use. There are design implications when
increasing sizes and the balance between large efficient grinding surfaces and physical
ability to use the tools in a manner that can be sustained over several hours of
operation.
A tentative interpretation proposed is that large maṭhan grinding surfaces in the
past and consistently increasing in size through time represent a design change toward
more efficient tools for grinding large amounts of flour. Based on available data from
Mezber it cannot be confirmed that an increasing population was driving increasing
grinding surfaces sizes.
The reason for increasing flour needs, including possible
population growth, potential increase in reliance on grains for the diet, an increase in
number of foods that called for flour, or a need to supply a ruling class, remains to be
determined.
In terms of other lines of evidence to support an interpretation of a high reliance
on grains in the diet we have limited carbon isotopic data from Gulo Makeda. Only one
set of human remains has been tested providing preliminary evidence of a high reliance
195
on grains, and the change over time data is not currently available. If there were stable
carbon isotope data available from human remains covering multiple pre-Aksumite
phases it might be possible to test the theory of increasing reliance on grains in the diet
by comparing these data with increasing grinding surface sizes. Another possible line of
supporting evidence for increasing use of grains could come from archaeobotanical
analysis. When the results of the archaeobotanical remains become available, it should
be compared to this study to find supporting propositions, or alternatively to challenge
those interpretations.
6.1.5.
Location and Use of Grinding Stones
Protection from the Elements
In modern situations observed around Mezber and Ona Adi sites, the maṭhan is
permanently affixed in a table that is protected from the elements in a fully enclosed
room, or a partially enclosed/roofed area, and always against a wall.
This type of
protection from the elements was also observed in the ethnoarchaeological work of
David in Nigeria (1998:43), Hamon and Le Gall in Mali (2013:119), Schlanger in
Colorado (1991:462) and Richards in Rhodesia (1961:92). Protection from the elements
would ensure that flour was not blown from the grinding stone surface by wind or ruined
through exposure to rain. Because locating grinding stones in areas protected from the
elements is noted cross culturally and at Mezber where possible remains of grinding
tables have been found near or against archaeological walls, it would be well advised for
archaeologists to look for grinding stone artifacts against walls during excavations.
Tables, Standing and Rhythmic Motions
In Egyptian renderings of grinding the grinders are depicted kneeling (Mortiz
1958:29), and also standing (see Figure 6.1). At a fresco in Tulum a Maya goddess is
pictured kneeling at a metate (Scholes and Roys 1968:319). In Rhodesia during the
1930s women were kneeling to grind (Richards 1961:92). Kneeling is also the position
used for grinding in Mali (Hamon and Le Gall 2013:115). Rotary querns were used in
ancient Palestine, according to Dalman (1902:10), and at that time he witnessed these
querns built into a clay base situated low to the ground as women sat to grind, with a
“basin” or bin at one end to catch the flour. In modern Tigrai women stand to grind, and
196
they explained that it was so they could use the “force” of their whole body. In her
experiments with grinding, Adams (2010a:145) used the rhythmic strokes as described
to her by Hopi women. They described to her how they used their entire back to make
the strokes. Cross culturally elevated grinding stones are also mentioned by Wisdom
(1940:88) as witnessed among the modern Chorti Indians of Guatemala where tables
were slightly below the waists of women and Schlanger (1991:462) describes some
metates as raised built in features.
Figure 6.1.
Senenu Grinding Grain – Thebes Egypt
ca. 1352-1336 B.C.E. or ca. 1322-1319 B.C.E. or ca. 1319-1292 B.C.E.
Limestone, 7 1/16 x 3 1/8 x 7 9/16 in. (18 x 8 x 19.2 cm). Brooklyn
Museum, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 37.120E. Creative Commons-BY
It could be that raising the grinding surfaces to enable standing positions is more
efficient because the entire body could be engaged in the motions of grinding as was
mentioned in interviews. Experimentation by Adams (1993) identified that when two
hands were used, with shoulders, back and legs engaged in the grinding strokes on a
197
flat surface, the free movement alleviated the fatigue caused by restrictions in flow with
trough and basin tools. Standing to grind would have provided even freer movement,
and it was observed that even the hips were contributing. Based on the archaeological
evidence of maṭhan stones recovered near or on rock “tumble” or piles at Mezber, it
would seem tables or udo were being used even in the pre-Aksumite phase, with flat
edge-to-edge surface grinding stones.
This may be an indication that these past
peoples had already adopted technological improvements over the kneeling positions
and the trough based tools that are found elsewhere.
Wisdom (1940:89) describes women working with “stiffened arms, doing most of
the work from the shoulders and back”. When learning techniques for grinding, Adams
(1999:485) was advised to use rhythmic stokes and to engage the whole body in the
motions.
This is the same type of motions observed during the grinding sessions
observed in modern Tigrai. One of these women also had a cloth strip, tied at the ends,
to wrap around her hands to make sure her “hands did not fall off the ends of the madit”.
This accessory was also mentioned by Teklu (2012:36) in his work on grinding stones
from Adwa. Such a cloth strip is seen in Figure 6.2 resting on top of the maṭhan.
With hands at either end of the madit, the pressure is applied from the base of
the hand against the edge facing the grinder, on the down-stroke, and when the
handstone is pulled back up towards the proximal end the fingers engage to provide
strength in the pull. The actions are reciprocal strokes from proximal to distal, followed
by distal to proximal, but the whole body moves in a rocking rhythmic motion with each
stroke. For wedimadqos use both one and two handed motions were witnessed. As
described in the previous chapter, one motion is two handed short reciprocal strokes
forming an arc.
In other observed instances there were single handed reciprocal
motions and double handed rocking motions, sometimes one hand covering the other,
with grinding concentrated in the centre of the surface. These rocking motions are
different from those described by Morris (1990) for maize grinding in the American
Southwest where the handstones are rocked. In Gulo Makeda the handstones were
only lifted slightly on the backstroke, it was the arms that provided a rocking motion.
Further motions studies are warranted as only four examples of madit and wedimadqos
use were observed.
198
Figure 6.2.
Example of Cloth Strip Used To Keep Hands on Madit
Also seen here: Udo table, Mațhan, Madit, Mahado and Cleaning Cloth
Angles of Grinding Stones
Schlanger (1991:462) describes some metates as built in features supported by
mortar and rock supports, at a “convenient slant”. A grinding installation at Tel Rehov in
northeastern Israel dated to the ninth century houses a large grinding stone set at an
angle (Ebeling and Rowan 2004:114).
The convenient slant was observed in Gulo
Makeda where gravity provides some help in grinding.
As was mentioned in the
previous chapter, it was observed that the maṭhan or madqos was most often placed
with the proximal end higher than the distal end. Some observed had very little angle (5
– 15 degrees) while others were quite steep (close to a 45 degree angle). Propping up
the proximal end of Pueblo metate grinding stones by 22 – 35 degrees and used while
kneeling was noted by Bartlett (1933:5, 15). Hamon and Le Gall (2013:15) report angled
grinding stones in modern Mali.
A 20 degree slope was noted for Baja California
metates (Aschmann 1949:683). Grinding stones were placed on the steepest part of a
slope at a Swedish site dated to the Middle Neolithic (Holmberg 1998:129). In Nigeria
David (1998:38) also noted tilting netherstones with proximal ends always higher than
distal ends, though the slope rarely exceeded 10 cm. He states, “These factors result in
199
changing curvatures along the length and across the width of basin hollows…”.
Concave long axis use surfaces were witnessed on some modern Tigrai maṭhan stones
and for some artifacts as well, as discussed in the previous chapter and is even apparent
in the Egyptian statue (Figure 6.1).
Moritz (1958:29) discusses angles of fixed grinding stones, one from Troy held in
place by earth at an angle of 25 degrees (Dӧrpfeld 1902:399-400) and terracotta images
of Egyptian grinding depictions where saddle-querns are at an angle of approximately 15
degrees, sloping away from the individual who is grinding. He states the purpose of the
angle is to help “control the speed at which the grist passes through the mill” (Mortiz
1958:37).
I would argue that it also allows gravity to aid in the grinding process.
Pushing and pulling a heavy handstone across a flat surface would require greater
energy than allowing gravity to help move the stone on the downward strokes, resulting
in the ability for the female grinder to add additional pressure on the madit to increase
effectiveness of the stroke. The upward stroke, while also grinding from the weight of
the upper stone being dragged back up the slope but with very little addition human
added pressure, repositions the madit for the next forceful downward stroke.
The mechanical advantages to sloping grinding stones is discussed by Horsfall
(1987:247-248) and she suggests that grinding actually involves cutting or shearing
grains, not crushing, so additional downward weight on the handstone would not
improve efficiency.
However, advisors in this study commented on amounts of
“pressure” needed for different grains, so in effect the additional downward weight on the
madit does appear to provide additional efficiency for these grinders. Horsfall (1987:
247-248) does discuss the fact that the slope reduces energy expended to move the
handstone reciprocally along the long axis of the quern using full upper body motions.
The women involved in her study claimed that a slope made grinding easier. With
grinding being easier on a sloped surface, the strain of grinding would be reduced and
effectively the grinder could engage in the physically demanding activity of grinding for a
longer period.
L. Phillipson (2012:526) proposes that the greater curvature on use surfaces
found on grinding stones at Kidane Mehret near Aksum in Western Tigrai (a pre-
200
Aksumite and Late Aksumite site 78) are the result of more force applied during the
grinding process because of the type of grain being ground, which was free-threshing
wheat. However, the grinding stones in this study with concave surfaces were used for
multiple types of grains as was observed and learned through interviews. Both C4 and
C3 type grains were identified in phytolith residue analysis on concave surfaces of
artifacts. The curvature had more to do with the physics of wear between opposing
surfaces or the positioning (angling) of the quern and gravitation pull than with types of
grains. In the previous chapter it was argued that concavity on querns increases with
angling of the stone in the table. This is due to the added downward pressure on the
handstone during the down stroke half way along the stone’s surface. The pressure
increases with the stroke until arms are outstretched more than half way along the
surface when the pressure diminishes due to the inability of the grinder to maintain the
significant pressure in that extended body position. This results in the greatest pressure
applied to the centre of the grinding surface creating more wear and greater curvature.
Some women were even observed concentrating their grinding thrusts in the centre of
the surface, rarely reaching the proximal and distal ends, which would also create
concave surfaces 79. Adams (1999:482) contends that the pressure of flat handstones
against flat querns can result in the wearing of concavities in the querns lengthwise.
Additional ethnoarchaeological or experimental work should be completed to confirm this
phenomenon.
Rehabilitation/Resharpening
Grinding stone users of Gulo Makeda discussed the rehabilitation procedure they
employ during the life cycle of grinding stones to accommodate a different type of grain
or to make the surfaces more effective by creating a suitably fine textured/smooth or
coarse topography.
This type of refurbishing which occurs throughout its use life
especially to create a coarse surface has also been described by Teklu (2012:71) at
Lakia’a, northern Ethiopia, Gorecki et al. (1997:146, 148) from Australian archaeological
78
L. Phillipson (2012:523) states that the Pre-Aksumite and Late Aksumite grinding stones were
not distinguished from each other at time of recording.
79
For handstones the curvature could be caused by having a handstone longer in length than the
quern is in width, or through pressure on the handstones concentrated at the ends.
201
samples found in (possible) Pleistocene age deposits 80, Smith (1986:33) from Australia
and David (1998:23) from Sukur, Nigeria from ethnoarchaeological research. Others
noting resharpening practises include Conlee (2000:382) from evidence of hammer
stones found at San Miguel Island in California, Horsfall (1987:341) and Searcy
(2011:96) amongst the contemporary Highland Maya, Holmberg (1998:132) from
Neolithic sites in Sweden, and Dodd (1979) as analyzed through use-wear analysis in
the American Southwest. In their experimental work, Adams (1993:487) and Wright
(1993:349) describe how the surface of grinding stones remained rough and efficient in
grinding until rock grains became worn and flat, at which point pecking the surface
restored effectiveness. The cross cultural consistency of resharpening grinding stone
surfaces suggests a generalization in maintenance activities of these common
household tools.
Our advisors explained during interviews that they use worn out grinding stones
in wall construction, sometimes after breaking them in half. They also commented that
accidental breakage could take place when “rehabilitating” grind stones through pecking
of the use surface.
Searcy (2011:96-97) comments that one of the reasons his
informants gave for not resharpening is due to a fear of breakage. This may be referred
to as “end shock”, a fracture perpendicular to the long axis usually near the midsection,
caused by a shock wave inflicted by a hammerstone blow (Schneider 1996:305). Parry
and Christenson (1987:51) mention that worn sandstone manos from Northern Black
Mesa, Arizona excavations had been subject to breakage, though they did not mention
what force caused the break.
Schlanger (1991:463) also suggests resharpening is
possibly responsible for some breakage. Such a sample of breakage from resharpening
may be observed in Mezber grinding stones illustrated in Figures 6.3 and 6.4 where
there is evidence of a crack beginning to form outward from the peck mark.
A large percentage of the grinding stones artifacts recovered from Mezber are
broken transversally, and often these breaks have a fairly straight edge. The same
phenomenon was observed by L Phillipson (2012) at Seglamen and Kidane Mehret
(Figure 2.2), which she attributed to a process of repeated wetting and drying of the
80
Balme (1991) challenges these dates due to mixed stratigraphic sites, but conceded at
minimum Holocene introduction of seed grinding in Western New South Wales, Australia.
202
stones during cleaning processes. In all interviews conducted around Mezber and Ona
Adi sites, only two individuals said they used water to clean grinding stones, others
claimed to never use water on the maṭhan or madit 81. Some consultants stated that
adding water will render the stone unusable until it dried out and that could take some
time. It may make more sense that these stones are breaking through direct application
of force in an attempt to crack the stone, or that the stones are breaking due to fractures
caused by resharpening through pecking. A similar conclusion was reached by Shelley
(1983:97) for a New Mexican artifact based on evidence of a freshly resharpened
surface.
Both reasons for breakage mentioned above were communicated by my
advisors.
81
Water was added to maize for second grindings, but these grindings were done on the
madqos.
203
Figure 6.3.
Peck Mark Causing Stone to Crack
SN 411, Square C1, Locus 8, Pail 14
Figure 6.4.
Close-up View of Peck Mark and Crack
204
6.1.6.
Grinding Stone Re-Purposing and Discard & Recognition in
the Archaeological Record
“I know my grinding stone” was the response from one woman when I asked her
how she determined when her grinding stone was worn out. It was learned through
interviews that use life for handstones is typically 6 – 12 years with some lasting 30
years while querns can last 50 – 60+ years 82. In Guatemala querns last between 30 and
100 years (Horsfall 1987:342). Variance in use life will depend on raw material and how
often and for what length of time the grinding stones are used regularly. Heavier use
would occur in homes where the need for flour was greater, due to large family sizes or
other obligations for supplying flour such as a tribute to government/landlords or
commitments to others in the village. If the quality of the stone is not high, it may need
re-surfacing more often and that activity reduces the thickness of the grinding stone,
possibly more so than the actual act of grinding (Bartlett 1933:4; Wright 1993:350). How
can we recognize these used up grinding tools in the archaeological record?
The data from this study inform us that grinding stones, when they could not be
repurposed (a maṭhan as a madqos, or a madit as a wedimadqos) were discarded when
they broke, became too thin or shed too much sand during grinding. In northeastern
Tigrai, worn concave stones are repurposed as a madqos for use with a smaller
handstone and used with different grinding techniques. In Mali grain grinding stones can
be repurposed for grinding other matter such as medicines (Hamon and Le Gall
2013:118). Gorecki et al. (1997:142) provide a quote from an Australian Martu elder
from Jigalong, Mac Gardener (Kirriwirri) describing a worn out grinding stone, “He all
finished up; he too deep [too concave] now.” He also commented that using such a
stone could cause damage to the hands of the grinder. Our consultants commented
similarly about worn out (thinning) stones, stating when their madit stones wore thin they
could catch their hands while grinding and it was time to discard. A similar occurrence
82
Teklu (2012:80; 83) reports use life of handstones as 6 – 9 (and 4 – 7) years and for querns 30
– 80 (and 20 – 80) years in Lakia’a. These results are similar to Gulo Makeda suggesting a
similar use life despite the different raw materials. Where grinding stones have shorter use
life it could be due to the smaller sizes. He reports weights as: large 70 to 85 kilograms,
medium 55-65 kilograms, small 35 to 45 kilograms. The interviews from this research
indicate that a maṭhan should be at least 100 – 150 kilograms which would mean thicker
stones that would take longer to wear down.
205
was also noted among Hopi grinders (Bartlett 1933:13). Finding deep concave surfaces
on large querns from the archaeological record can be interpreted as either a madqos (if
not too thin, and not shedding grit), or a discarded end of use-life stone. Finding a madit
handstone that is thin and not reshaped into a smaller wedimadqos is also likely to
signal a discarded stone.
At Mezber only 19 querns were recovered while handstones numbered 89 (Table
5.1.).
As mentioned, it was learned through interviews that worn out maṭhan and
madqos stones are often repurposed as construction material. Although at least one
maṭhan (or part of a maṭhan) has been recorded as being found in a wall during
excavations, it is highly possible that many included in unearthed construction walls have
gone undetected as they can be difficult to identify once incorporated into construction.
Schlanger (1991:463) comments that among the Anasazi in Colorado manos and
metates were also used by subsequent occupations as wall construction material.
Wright (2008:133) working in southern Jordan noted that there was little evidence of
grinding slab re-use except as part of architectural walls. Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe
(1993:278) also mention millstones used in house walls in Turkey, as do Hamon and Le
Gall in Mali (2013:118).
As we see this occurring cross culturally, the potential for
locating grinding slabs in ancient wall construction is strengthened and should be
considered during excavations as a means of locating grinding stones at the end of their
use life, either intact and worn out or broken accidentally or intentionally as described in
interviews.
Consultants also described “tossing” or “throwing” worn or broken grinding stones
into the yard.
Refuse piles or outer yards are other possible areas for recovering
grinding stones from archaeological sites. In addition in situ disposal may have occurred
when grinding stones were abandoned in the place they were used, such as on tables
beside walls at Mezber, sometimes in kitchens 83.
Several other reasons can be proposed to explain why we find more handstones
(madit, wedimadqos) than quern stones (maṭhan, madqos) at Mezber (Table 5.1.).
83
Teklu (2012:32) found that almost all grinding stones were placed in the kitchen in Lakia’a,
however this was not the case in the villages I observed in Gulo Makeda where 42% were
located in kitchen rooms/areas.
206
According to data collected from advisors, hand stones wear out faster and as a result
would have been manufactured more often (see also Searcy 2011:50, 68). In addition,
some women interviewed had more than one madit including a coarse one for larger
grains and fine textured/smooth one for small grains. Both fine and coarse surfaces are
found on madit artifacts so there may have been multiple madits for different grains in
the past as well, increasing the ratio of handstones to querns. If numbers of broken
handstones are found together, the area could be a disposal location outside the home,
or even outside the house compound wall.
6.1.7.
Social Implications of Grinding
Women interviewed said that they would often grind together, especially in the
past prior to the introduction of mechanical mills. Grinding together allowed for shared
experiences filled with not just hard work, but also socializing including discussions
about the community and the family, and taking time for laughter and singing. Singing
aids in keeping the rhythmic motions fluid (Adams 2010b). David (1998:23) writes that
the women of modern Sukur, Nigeria have tables that hold one to three querns, and the
number was dependent on the number of women present in the household who could
make use of these querns. He indicates that two more grinding stones together would
enable a daughter or co-wife to grind together with the wife (David 1998:43). Adams
(1999:480) states, “The positioning together of multiple grinding stations would have
made grinding a social task.” Parry and Christenson (1987:56) describe Hopi and other
Pueblo groups (modern and Late Ceramic, possibly Middle Ceramic) having multiple
metates installed in tables together where women could work together to efficiently
produce flour. Bartlett (1933:29) refers to several metate stones set up permanently
together for multiple grindings of corn, and adds that “…several women could grind at
the same time and enjoy each other’s company”. In ancient Israelite homes there were
several grinding stones within a single household (Meyers 2002:28).
Ethnographic
literature from Ghana describes women working together, singing and chatting to lighten
the laborious and time-consuming process of grinding and kneading (Goody 1982:69).
Locating querns positioned together in the archaeological record could reflect
cooperative grinding linked to socialization.
207
In a study of emmer processing, D’Andrea and Mitiku (2002:207) report that
although women did not miss the hard work associated with emmer processing and
grinding since the introduction of mechanical mills, they did lament the loss of socializing
time that they spent with other women during this work. The authors state, “…it is
possible that shared female labour in cereal processing was a wide spread phenomenon
of Tigrayan village life in the recent past, and in all probability, in ancient times as well”
(D’Andrea and Mitiku 2002:212). The consultants interviewed for this research reflected
on working together, mothers and daughters, but also with neighbors at times. It is
plausible that this type of socializing and communication was occurring in the past.
Based on the direct historical association of people around the Mezber and Ona Adi
archaeological sites to their ancestors, and the cross cultural evidence for such
socializing, this supposition is strengthened.
Due to the recovery of archaeological
maṭhan stones in close physical association 84 with each other there is material support
for such an argument. Women could have been using this socializing time in the past to
build strong community relationships that would lead to the sharing of vital village
information and the development of mutual support networks (also noted by D’Andrea
and Mitiku 2002:207) that are still apparent today in the sharing of flour and injera when
someone is in need.
Another aspect of socialization is rites of passage.
When I asked female
advisors when and where they received their maṭhan and madit some replied that they
received them when they first married. Some still had the set that had been given to
them by their parents or in-laws, or made for them by their husband at that important life
marker. Women of the Minyanka culture of Mali also receive their grinding stones when
they marry, and in the past these became the property of the wife and could be passed
on to their daughters as an inheritance.
Holmberg (1998:134) refers to this social
gesture as an acknowledgement that a girl has become a woman.
Ertug-Yaras
(2002:216) was told by some of the women interviewed in Anatolia that they inherited
their hand-mills from their father’s house.
The hand mills belonged to the women.
Inheriting such tools would signify how important they are, and Searcy (2011:74)
84
Referring to discussion in Chapter 5, artifacts from Square C1, Locus 8, artifact numbers 410,
411, 1182, plus 659/660 from Locus 4, same square.
208
discusses the high value of grinding stones that are passed on, or given as wedding
gifts. Accepting a gift of grinding stones from your own parents could also result in
taking with you from your family home a sense of identity. Receiving a set from your inlaws denotes an expectation that you will become the ‘woman of the household’,
responsible for the provision of food for your family.
6.1.8.
Changes Since Introduction of Mechanical Mills
“[This has been the greatest] turning point of our culture.”
Response from 69 year old male consultant when asked “What
have been the social changes since the introduction of
mechanized mills in Gulo Makeda?”
There are reported benefits from this change to mechanical mills. Grinding was
gruelling work.
Both men and women identified one of the key benefits to the
mechanical mills was the opportunity it gave women to sleep and rest more. Now they
were “not always standing night and day” and it “saves [their] energy”. Children also
benefited from women using the mills. It was explained that the time women gained
from using mills has been filled with taking over chores previously performed by children
such as gathering wood and water and shepherding animals. This has permitted more
children to attend school. One mother eloquently stated, “I have eyes, but I am blind
[she cannot read]. I have a hand, but it is broken [she cannot write]. Illiteracy is bad.”
The mill frees up time that had previously been devoted to grinding, but time has
also been allotted to new forms of wage labour. Women as well as men are required to
participate in government terracing programs designed to conserve soil and protect
against erosion. In exchange they would receive some grain (15 kg) or small cash
remuneration. Workdays consist of seven hours. Despite this additional work load,
some women have found time to weave, tend vegetable gardens and start small
businesses, such as wooden cupboard construction.
So the release from hours of
grinding seems to have resulted in benefits to individuals and the community as a whole.
209
A woman from around the Mezber area conceded that, “In earlier times, people
would go to sleep without food because we had no flour. Now that there is a mill, there
is food, we can eat, and not go to sleep without food.” I asked, “What if there was no birr
(cash) to mill flour?”
She responded, “We would borrow birr.”
The cooperation
discussed earlier shows the support that these women provide to each other, including
cash to use the mill. They understand the benefits that can accrue if the mill is used and
support each other in accessing those benefits. All women agreed it was easier to use
the mill, as long as money, time and transportation were available.
The mill could process grains faster; however there was still some work to be
completed once the flour reached home. The mill could grind one quintal (100 kg) of
flour per hour, it was said, where hand grinding would result in, at best, 5 kg of flour per
hour. When using the mill, 86% (21) of the women said they need to sift the flour at
home to remove chaff or impurities, especially barley and sorghum, though t’ef rarely
required sifting.
Another benefit according to 22% (6) of women is that, using the
mechanical mills allowed them to meet women from other areas and they could share
information between towns, as well as socialize.
When asked under what circumstances the women would still grind by hand
many women had several reasons. For example 45% (10) of respondents said they
would if they did not have the money required to pay for milling 85, 36% (8) said they
would grind by hand if the mill was too far 86 or they did not have a donkey to carry the
grains/flour, and 23% (5) said they would grind by hand if the mill was not available.
When there was a special celebration such as a wedding, funeral, or Saint’s Day,
additional flour might be required and hand grinding could fill the need. Two women
claimed to prefer hand ground flour because they claim it is better for injera as it has
fewer impurities, while others said they just prefer to do a little grinding each day or
85
The cost for the mills: local mill near Mezber 40 birr ($2.18 CAN)/100 kg, Fatsi mill 30 birr
($1.64 CAN)/100 kg. At the time of this field work an Ethiopian birr was equivalent to $0.0545
Canadian.
86
In the Mezber location, there is a local mill, however it was not consistently available – either it
was closed for some reason or needing repair. In some cases women also complained that
the local mill was more expensive and resulted in poorer quality than the more distant mill in
Fatsi or Zalambessa. With a donkey it is 3 to 4 hours travel time to the more distant mill plus
2.5 to 8 hours of waiting time, depending on how busy the mill is.
210
before chores. A further reason for hand grinding was to make flour to produce a local
beer known as sua. In addition, 23% (5) responded to this question by saying they still
grind by hand when using the madqos for salt, spices, beans, chick peas, etc. It should
be noted that more than those 23% of respondents also still use the madqos as
evidenced by the madqos still in or near their home, but they provided a different
response for this particular question. The question may have been a bit ambiguous –
“When do you grind by hand?”
There were also complaints about the mills. Negative aspects are related both to
the introduction of mechanical mills and the move to a more cash reliant economy. A
common reply (84% (22) of women and some men) to the question “What don’t you like
about using the mill?” was that mill flour was “burned by the electricity” 87 so it gives “less
energy”. There were conflicting answers about whether flour tasted different from the
“burning” at the mill. Two individuals claimed that the mills remove vitamins and lower
nutritional value of flour. It was explained that hand ground flour gives more energy and
is more fulfilling for an appetite. One female said that when she is hand grinding flour
her energy from grinding goes into the flour and strengthens those who consume the
bread baked with that flour.
One of the expert grinding stone makers had some
concerns about the new mechanical mills and stated, “When a crop is ground in the mill
one gets dead flour, it does not have the energy received from our manual grinding, so it
only fills your stomach – it does not make you strong.” Some Minyanka of Mali claim
flour ground by mechanical mills is polluted by metal particles and cause digestive
disease (Hamon and Le Gall 2013:118). The science to prove any of these claims is still
pending.
There were 27% (7) who complained that the quantity of flour coming from 50 kg
of grain was less from the mill than hand grinding. Both types of grinding, hand and mill,
were witnessed, and there was obvious waste at the mill, whereas very little flour and
few grains fell from the maṭhan.
Another negative consequence of mechanical mills discussed by several women
was the change in their own strength. When grinding by hand, one becomes “strong like
87
Teklu (2012: 86) also noted this comment during interviews.
211
an athlete” one woman explained. Another said, “Grinding by hand made us very strong
and gave us energy. Now with the mill, we are becoming weak, and have less energy.”
Another commented that if one has the strength, she should grind at home to stay
strong. Others however welcomed the reprieve from the gruelling work and focused on
a little more rest and other new ways to fill their time.
Mechanical mills coupled with an economy more reliant on cash transactions
than reciprocal obligations and cooperation has changed the communities visited.
Comments were made such as, “In earlier times, we did grind together and helped each
other – not so much anymore.” The son of a previous feudal leader stated, “People are
still helping each other a little bit, especially relatives, but not as much as earlier times”.
He is concerned about the changes, where people would come out and help
automatically in the past, now one would have to ask, and he said, “I miss it, in earlier
times people love and help each other, and eat and drink together. Now people need
money, so cannot help each other [as much as before]”. A 52 year old male consultant
also saw the changes, stating that people “still help each other in harvesting, threshing,
house building, but less than before.”
These sentiments were repeated by several
others and the move to an economy more reliant on cash has created a situation where
people do not automatically help one another in the community as it was in the past, but
rather one would need to ask for help, and often offer remuneration.
A 71 year old male was quite concerned about societal changes. He admitted
he misses those earlier times including manufacturing sessions, even if he was hungry
then. He explained further, “Everyone has lots of clothes, new technology, but they do
not love each other today – when you need help, only family helps, and sometimes only
to avoid insult, the help is not from the heart. People are quarrelling now.”
I did meet some younger women who did not know much about grinding, and
some women were not planning to teach their daughters. Women talked about people
“leaving the tradition of grinding’”. The knowledge of grinding could be lost within the
next generation as women move to using mechanical mills for all processing. A concern
was expressed by a 41 year old woman when she stated, “Society has changed; we
have come to depend on the mill. When it breaks, we become hungry. In the future, if it
breaks, and the grinding tradition has been left behind, people will go hungry.”
212
6.2. The Artifacts
6.2.1.
Antiquity of Traditions
The key to interpreting the grinding stone artifacts was to have an understanding
of the typology. The maṭhan and madit pair used for grinding cereal grains into flour
have certain shapes, use surface shapes and stone thickness. The madqos on first
impression looks like a maṭhan but when it is used for processing different vegetal matter
(salt, spices, beans, and wet corn), the motions of grinding on this tool differ. The
strokes are shorter and not always reciprocal. Further, the bulk of the grinding occurs in
the center of the stone creating greater concavity.
Understanding the different
processing techniques, the difference between these two querns is more apparent. The
act of recycling the maṭhan for use as a grinding stone/processor of other foods
happened in the past as it does in the present and this is evidenced by the artifacts
showing a similar morphology as modern madqos stones. The wedimadqos tools are
smaller than the madit tools and are used with different motions. These same types of
grinding stones are found in the present as well as in the archaeological contexts in
Mezber.
The typology of grinding stones was learned through ethnoarchaeological
interviews combined with a workshop where elders guided identification and
classification of the artifacts.
Their recognition of the types in the artifacts, and
subsequent laboratory analysis, confirms the long held traditions of maṭhan, madit,
madqos and wedimadqos.
There is evidence from the material culture of the present compared to that from
the archaeological past, which suggests that long held technological traditions changed
little through time.
Grinding stones look very similar, though sizes have changed
somewhat. Tables were built against walls to hold the maṭhan in ancient times, as well
as in modern times. The handstones recovered from excavations in Sukur, Nigeria and
examined by David (1998:51) dating back at least 200 years, possibly 400 years are
“identical to those of the present day”.
He states that the grinding toolkit including
cleaning and resharpening tools has not changed in living memory (David 1998:23).
The grinding stones from Mezber, almost 3000 years old, have changed only minimally.
213
6.2.2.
A Multi-Purpose Tool
A key discovery made during this research while analyzing artifact madit surface
textures was the identification of archaeological bi-faced handstones (madit) with
different surface textures. Observations of the bifacial madit stones revealed that 50%
(n=24) had one fine textured/smooth surface side and the opposite surface was medium
to coarse. An additional five artifacts had one medium textured surface and one coarse
surface. The bifacial stones that have one fine/smooth and one coarse side (Figure 6.5
– 6.8) have been dated to all pre-Aksumite Phases, but most commonly have been
recovered from loci dated to the Early and Middle Phases. The bifacial artifacts, wellworn on both the coarse and fine/smooth surfaces of the same handstone, suggest that
various types of grains were being exploited during pre-Aksumite times and that these
were multifunctional tools. Ethnoarchaeological data from this study supported the usewear analysis as it had been learned through interviews that women could own two
madits, one fine/smooth for grinding small grains and one coarse for larger grains.
Woodbury (1954:55) states that smooth or rough grinding surfaces from grinding
stones recovered from Jeddito Valley sites in Arizona depended on the amount of
previous use, with smoother surfaces having been used more and not resharpened. L.
Phillipson (2012) refers to varying types of surfaces on handstones found in Seglamen
and Kidane Mehret near Aksum as a reflection of a transition from one type of grain to
another. I would argue that rather than worn through use, or a sign of transition, varying
surface textures such as fine/smooth and coarse, are more reflective of a population
using a broad spectrum of grains in their diet, perhaps to build resiliency to potential
problems e.g., failure of a particular crop due to climate or pests that can arise when
subsistence is too reliant on narrowly focused resources.
David (1998:23) mentions that with multiple querns in a table in Sukur, one would
have a rougher surface for coarse grinding and one smooth surface for finer grinding.
From the Northern Black Mesa excavations in Arizona, both coarse and fine raw material
metates were recovered and the explanation was that there were multiple grindings first
coarse, then fine (Parry and Christenson 1987:55). Handstones from Guatemala have a
course surface for the rough grind and a smooth surface for the fine grind (Searcy
2011:102). Both of these last two cultures mentioned process maize, and in Tigrai we
214
learned that maize if first ground on using coarse surface maṭhan and/or madit, then
water is added and it is ground a second time on the madqos. The second grinding of
maize seems to be a cross cultural practice.
Through ethnoarchaeological interviews it was also learned, as previously
mentioned, that the smooth and coarse textures in Gulo Makeda reflect the grinding of
different types of grains – small and larger sized grains respectively. Teklu (2012:71)
also noted this practise in Lakia’a near Adwa, Tigrai.
Knowing this can aid in
understanding how artifact surface textures can indicate the type of grain worked on that
surface. A coarse surface with exposed angular edges of quartz inclusions are able to
shear and tear the outer layers of larger grains, including barley, sorghum, wheat and
maize, removing the outer hulls for later separation during sieving. Horsfall (1987:341342) refers to raw material design constraints selecting for rough/vesicular stones for
grinding due to their ability to catch and freely cut the cereal grains in the topographic
variances as the handstone meets the quern. However, a smooth surface for these
grains would just crush the grain and make it more difficult to separate the chaff from the
flour. Fine textured or smooth surfaces are required for grinding t’ef and finger millet
because these are small grains that could get caught in the interstices of coarse
surfaces. In South Africa it has been reported that different handstones were required
for sorghum versus maize due to the different types of grinding needed to reduce the
grains to flour and according to Huffman (2006:68) different grinding stones can be
reliable indicators of different crops. I would argue that even different surface textures
can be reliable indicators of different crops.
The possibility that these fine textured/smooth surfaces were being worn through
grinding rather than prepared for small grain processing was considered and discounted
for several reasons. The first argument against this proposition is that on the examined
fine textured/smooth surfaces the asperities or raised grains/projections on the surface
are in close proximity, leaving narrow interstices. Where there is a coarse or medium
textured surface, the grains are further apart and interstices are wider. It would seem
that if these were worn surfaces, the interstices would still be wider, however they are
not.
215
Another indication that these fine textured/smooth surfaces are not worn is that
many of the surfaces show some evidence of resharpening (peck marks), indicating that
the fine textured/smooth surface had been maintained on these grinding stones, not left
to wear down. Further, consultants from Gulo Makeda had advised that they would need
to resharpen surfaces as soon as they became a medium texture to effectively grind the
larger grains. They would however allow the surface to become worn further if they were
planning to grind smaller grains, or would prepare a fine texture for this purpose.
Considering the bifacial madit stones, with two types of surface textures, there
are studies that suggest handstones can be turned over to avoid grinding these tools
into wedge shaped (see for example Adams 1993; Bartlett 1933). Several of the madit
bifacial stones from the study are wedge shaped, so the biface is not a result of turning
the stone to avoid a wedge shaped tool, there must be another reason, such as a need
to maintain different types of surface.
Finally, through experience it was learned that using a handstone with a rounded
dorsal surface is much more comfortable and easier to manage than a handstone with
two flat surfaces, such as those found on bifacial madit. The cost benefit to using a flat
dorsal/flat ventral handstone could be having both a coarse textured surface for large
grains and a fine textured surface for small grains readily available to grind either type of
grain.
216
Figure 6.5.
Bifacial Madit, Artifact 4200, Smooth Surface
SN 4200, Square C2, Locus 30, Pail 94
1 cm
Figure 6.6.
Bifacial Madit, Artifact 4200, Coarse Surface
1 cm
217
Figure 6.7.
Bifacial Madit, Artifact 1832, Smooth Surface
SN 1832, Square E1, Locus 8, Pail 8
1 cm
Figure 6.8.
Bifacial Madit, Artifact 1832, Coarse Surface
1 cm
218
6.2.3.
Phytolith Analysis
The people living at Mezber were agriculturalists, and much of their plant
processing activities focused on domesticated cereals and pulses. Maize is a recent
introduction and as such maize was not ground on pre-Aksumite grinding stones.
Although sorghum is an indigenous African cereal, prehistoric evidence for sorghum is
lacking in the Ethiopian highlands. The expectation is that finger millet, t’ef, wheat barley
and pulses were most commonly processed using pre-Aksumite grinding stones from
Mezber. Tigrayan consultants communicated that large grains (wheat, barley, sorghum
and maize) require a rough or coarse grinding surface texture while small grains (t’ef and
finger millet) require smooth or finer textured surfaces. Observations of the artifacts
identified (Table 6.5.), then analyzed against the phytolith and starch data from those
grinding stones support the contention that Mezber grinding stones were multifunctional
tools. However it should be stressed that these phytolith data are preliminary and final
conclusions await the study of soils associated with the grinding implements.
219
Table 6.5.
Phytolith Analysis and Surface Textures
Artifact Data
Serial Number (SN)
1910
1103
1855
649
1182
410
717
Grinding stone type
madqos
madit
maṭhan
madqos
maṭhan
maṭhan
madit
Early
Early
Middle
Mixed
Late
Late
Late
fine
medium &
resharpened
fine
resharpened
Phasing
surface texture
medium &
coarse
mixed
fine
Phytolith Data : Short Cells by Subfamily and Photosynthetic Pathway*
Pooid (C3) Subtotal
39
10
57
52
58
52
45
Panicoideae Subtotal
60
25
31
48
21
51
44
Chloridoid Subtotal
107
50
125
124
67
100
107
Total Short Cell Count
206
85
213
224
146
203
196
C4 (Panicoid +
Chloridoid)
167
75
156
172
88
151
151
% C4
81
88
73
77
60
74
77
*NB: This tally includes only short cells that are CLEARLY one subfamily or the other; there are others whose
taxonomic affinity is not well established for the African continent.
C3: wheat, barley, pulses from Near East
C4: t'ef, finger millet, sorghum (indigenous)
Preliminary Phytolith Data prepared by Dr. Ahmed Fahmy modified by L. Nixon-Darcus to incorporate
artifact data.
The following is a discussion of the individual artifacts in Table 6.5. There are
two madqos specimens, SN 649 and Sn 1910. A madqos is typically used for spices,
salt, beans, and wet grinding of corn and sorghum, as mentioned, and as such could
have various types of surface textures required depending on the material being ground.
SN 1910 has a medium and coarse surface, and madqos SN 649 has a finer surface. It
should be noted that madqos grinding stones are most often recycled maṭhan stones.
The phytolith samples from these two madqos reflect a high percentage of C4 plants
(81% and 77%) representing indigenous species t’ef and finger millet which require fine
grinding surfaces, and possibly sorghum which needs a coarse grinding surface
although to date sorghum has not been recovered from prehistoric sites in the highlands.
220
If these stones served as a maṭhan previous, they could have accumulated these
residues at that time. SN 649, with a fine surface and a high occurrence (77%) of C4
phytoliths may have been converted to a madqos, therefore retaining the smooth surface
from grinding t’ef and finger millet. SN 1910 is a madqos with a medium and coarse
surface. Due to the high percentage of C4 phytoliths on this artifact, it may have been
made medium/coarse through repecking to prepare it for use as a madqos.
Samples SN 1855 and 410, both maṭhan grinding stones fit the profile of t’ef, and
finger millet grinders, as they have fine/smooth surfaces and show high percentages of
the C4 phytoliths (73 and 74%).
The other maṭhan, SN 1182 with only 60% C4
phytoliths, has a medium surface but had recently been resharpened as evidenced by
the peck marks on the surface. According to interviews, when a maṭhan has a smooth
surface it can be resharpened to accommodate the grinding of larger grains. Based on
lower percentage of C4 phytoliths, it would seem this stone was used for smaller grains
which left some residue, and then had been prepared through repecking, making the
surface coarser for use with larger C3 grains (e.g., wheat, barley, pulses).
The
subsequent grinding of the C3 grains increased the percentage of C3 phytoliths, and
wore down the surface somewhat to a medium texture.
Samples SN 717 and 1103 are madit grinding stones. SN 717 shows evidence
of recent resharpening based on the presence of peck marks. The high percentage of
C4 phytoliths (77%) suggests that the residues could still be from the previous fine
textured surface grinding sessions and this madit was being prepared for coarse grinding
of C3 plants and sorghum. Sample SN 1103 has a mixed surface texture and a high
percentage of C4 phytoliths (88%). A mixed texture on the surface suggests a transition
from grinding one type of grain to another, and in this case the high percentage of C4
residue would suggest the transition was to grinding the smaller t’ef and finger millet
grains which have left their phytoliths to dominate.
The surface texture and phytolith residue results strongly indicate that these were
multifunctional tools that were used for different types of grains and resharpened to
accommodate the different types. This supports the proposition that a variety of grains
were being used and ground into flour throughout the pre-Aksumite period.
221
6.2.4.
What Else Did Grinding Stones Grind?
Although madqos appear similar to maṭhan, from the ethnoarchaeological
interviews it was learned that the madqos is used to grind several types of food as stated
previously.
Grinding stones recovered from the ancient Asmara Plateau in Eritrea,
adjacent to northern Ethiopia, display a high gloss suggesting they were used to process
an oily substance possibly linseed (Schmidt et al. 2008:125).
Hamon and Le Gall
(2013:114) identify one type of grinding stone used for cereals, while another type is
used for condiments. Mauldin (1993:320) discovered that small handstones were used
for chili, salt, dried meat and other items in New Mexico.
Searcy (2011:76) writes
different stones were also used for corn versus coffee versus achiote and chili in
Guatemala. Horsfall (1987:336) found stones in Maya Highland homes that were similar
in appearance to grinding stones but were used for alternative purposes such as clothes
washing and processing herbs.
Perry (2003:1079) states that grinding stones were
manufactured for various uses in Venezuela. Grinding stones as multifunctional tools
are consistent cross culturally and can be used as an analogy to interpret the past. A
single grinding tool may have been used for several purposes, or multiple products.
Alternatively similar tools may have been manufactured for different purposes.
In reviewing the surface configurations of the madqos and wedimadqos artifacts
several interpretations are possible. First, the people of the past may have used several
wedimadqos with a single madqos as we have recovered far more wedimadqos (32)
than madqos (6) 88. The flat surfaced wedimadqos could have been used along the
sloping flat surfaces of the madqos for one type of product. Convex wedimadqos could
have been used in the deeper concave centres of the madqos or near the apparent
madqos break where there are concave sections, and this might have a different motion
or more pressure related grinding for a different type of product.
These are also
multifunctional tools and further madqos studies are warranted, ethnoarchaeological plus
residue and use-wear analysis, to understand what other substances were being ground
or crushed for further interpretation about subsistence during this time.
88
Even if some of the discarded madqos were used in construction, there is still quite a difference
in numbers for these stones used as sets.
222
6.3. Changes Through Time – Designing Efficiencies from
the Archaic through the Late pre-Aksumite and
compared to the Modern
In describing one of the reasons grinding stones have been typically ignored in
archaeological research, Rowan and Ebeling (2008:2) point out that there is relatively
slow change in these types of tools over time. This undermines the potential to use
grinding stones as chronological indicators.
As described in the previous chapters,
modern stones are similar to ancient grinding stones at first glance, however when one
starts to examine the details it is possible that chronologically there have been small
changes in the overall design with what seem to be efforts to make the grinding stones
more efficient.
Renfrew (1973:24) asserts that efficiency in technology should be
expected, and it manifests in change over time in material culture variability in the
direction of increasing efficiency. Potential efficiency design changes noted in Mezber
grinding stones include: increasing surface area and overall size; shapes of handstones
that make them more suitable for grasping with fingers; and tilting the maṭhan grinding
stones too allow gravity to enhance greater downward pressure, resulting in a more
concave long axis of maṭhan stones.
Although it is difficult to know absolutely what aspects of ethnoarchaeological
data can be projected back into the past, as has been discussed herein, there are clues
in the archaeological record that provide opportunities for interpretations based on what
has been learned in the present. For example, we know that grinding is strenuous,
difficult work. The interviews revealed this, the observations confirmed this and the
literature supports this. It would make sense that individuals using these tools would
want them to be as efficient as possible.
Considering the significant amount of time spent grinding, having efficient
grinding stones to be effectively producing the quantities of flour required while serving
to save expended energy would have been desirable.
If only small amounts of a
substance are needed, smaller less cumbersome stones would probably be employed
as these are easier to use. Smaller grinding tools (wedimadqos) are used currently to
grind salt, spices, beans and other food stuffs where only small quantities are required.
It is arguable that the large grinding stones from the pre-Aksumite contexts at Mezber
223
were used to produce considerable amounts of flour and that most likely women were
spending many hours grinding. If only small amounts of flour were required, it is more
likely that women would have been using smaller more manageable tools that would
have used less energy.
Efficient tools would have been desirable if the task of grinding was time
consuming. As has been noted by Tigrayan grinders, the average time spent grinding
each day (except holy days) is 5.5 hours.
Looking at data cross culturally Bartlett
(1933:3) describes Pueblo Indian women as spending “practically their whole lives
grinding corn.” In his research, Searcy (2011:85 – 88) took a mean of five ethnographic
descriptions of time spent grinding per day and then through experimentation arrived at
the same 4.8 hours per day to feed five individuals. Regardless of which study one
considers, there is a significant amount of time dedicated to grinding by women in these
cultures.
Furthermore, in the cases cited here all grinding has been attributed to
females. The extensive amount of time required for grinding would have existed in the
past to fulfill needs of a population highly reliant on grains in their diet, and initial
evidence indicates the people of the pre-Aksumite period had such reliance.
Reasons for desiring efficiency can be related to longer periods spent at a
particular task. For grinding, longer sessions could be due to the need to feed more
people, an increase in the percentage of flour required in the diet for the same number of
people (Adams 1999:484) or possibly the desire to create a surplus for storage for lean
times or to use as tribute payments to a ruling class (Wright 1994:254). Another reason
for efficiency could simply be to make the work less time consuming. According to
Nelson and Lippmeier (1993:296) any additional effort investment in designing and
manufacturing efficient tools is returned in the time saved using the tools. During the
pre-Aksumite period, initial indications are that grain products constituted a large part of
the diet already. Creating a surplus of flour for household use to guard against times of
distress such as drought seasons or failed crops seems unlikely as advisors informed
that it was better to store grains than flour. The hard outer coatings of grains reduced
infestation, where flour had no such protection against insects. Other reasons for storing
grains versus flour could include deterring rodent snacking and preventing mold
(Walshaw 2010). Moves toward any increased efficiency through grinding stone design
changes are more likely due to increasing populations, a desire to create a surplus of
224
flour, or to reduce the time standing and grinding. The exact reasons are still unknown,
but there is evidence of possible efficiency design changes.
The larger grinding surfaces to grind more flour and the angled querns to take
advantage of gravity and the ability to use the whole body to grind have already been
discussed as possible design features that increase efficiency. Features of handstones
can also indicate efficiency design.
acknowledged by Bartlett (1933:11).
Finger grips in Pueblo handstones are
In the Mezber artifact assemblage there are
examples of handstones which have been ground to fit the hand, and grooves or grips
designed into the shape, and could be evidence of the design toward efficiency. Madit
handstones are often very large, and heavy. Having the shape of the tool fit the hand,
and grips and grooves to allow for better handling would have provided the grinder better
control and made a laborious job just a little easier.
They can also help a person
maintain a hold on a handstone during long grinding sessions (Adams 1999:492).
Eventually replacing grips and grooves with rounded ends to allow the whole hand to
cup the handstone could indicate a further design change to promote efficiency.
6.4. Chapter Summary
Grains were an important contribution to diet in the past, as they are today in
eastern Tigrai.
There are multiple lines of evidence for the use of both local and
imported Near Eastern grains in the results of macrobotanical remains, phytolith residue
analysis, carbon isotope analysis and grinding stone use wear especially as it relates to
bifacial handstones having opposing coarse (for large imported grains) and fine
texture/smooth (for small indigenous grains) surfaces. Early indications are that both
types of grains were being exploited through all pre-Aksumite phases.
When looking at changes through time on grinding stone surface textures, the
Archaic evidence suggests an almost equal reliance on small grains 89 (locally
89
It should be noted that sorghum is a large grain and an indigenous African domesticate.
225
domesticated) as on large grains (imported grains). By the Early Phase there appears to
be a stronger emphasis on larger grains. During the Middle and Late Phases there is an
indication of a resurgence of local grain usage but not back to as high as that in the
Archaic Phase. The pattern may be specific to the rural area of Mezber and similar
studies in other locales are needed to determine if there is a consistency between rural
areas, and if these differ from urban areas.
There are various consistencies between the modern and archaeological records
that can allow for some interpretation of the archaeological record. These include the
four grinding stone types (maṭhan, madit, madqos and wedimadqos). The grinding stone
shapes are reasonably similar through time, and grinding stones were large in size in the
past and became larger through time. There are similarities between the present and
past in grinding stone locations in tables against walls, and discard patterns used as
construction materials. With this number of similarities, perhaps little has changed with
this technology through time generally, but as indicated above, efficiencies in tool design
such as larger grinding surfaces, rounder handstones for comfortable handling, tilting of
querns for greater efficiency and ease of use, may have been introduced.
There are significant socio-cultural changes taking place since the introduction of
the mechanical mills. Women are managing to get better rest through the night, and
they have taken over what was previously children’s daily tasks enabling children to go
to school. Is this new set of tasks seen as less valuable to society since at one time
children were doing the work? How will society replace the community engagement and
cooperation that was once facilitated through grinding stone manufacturing and use?
226
Chapter 7.
Conclusion
This research documents traditions relating to food grinding equipment in
northern Ethiopia that may soon be forgotten as people make use of the mechanical
mills for grinding. While completing interviews there were many comments about how
happy the Gulo Makeda consultants were that this knowledge was being recorded for
their future generations.
In addition to documenting the traditions, there was an
opportunity to analyze and draw some inferences about the ancient artifacts and human
behaviors associated with this material culture. Employing ethnoarchaeological data
assisted in the interpretation of the archaeological record.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of any study and for this research
the time in the field for interviews and field laboratory for artifact analysis was limited.
With additional time in the field it could have been possible to expand the
ethnoarchaeology into a wider region or complete some experimentation to better
understand the mechanics of grinding and surface wear patterns. It might also provide
opportunities to compare grinding stones from other archaeological sites in the region.
Although this study only represents a small region of northern Ethiopia, analysis
attempted to draw in cross-cultural comparisons from both the Old World and New
World.
This research and analysis also focused on particular temporal periods. From
the ethnoarchaeological perspective interviews and observations were done over two
subsequent field seasons, which only reveals a snapshot in time. The archaeological
period investigated is limited to artifacts recovered from only the pre-Aksumite period.
Broadening the focus by returning some years later to continue ethnoarchaeology may
reveal socio-economic changes in how the abandonment of grinding stones has affected
the wider culture through reassignment of duties (women doing tasks previously done by
227
children) and reduced community cooperation that was achieved through cooperative
grinding and sharing of flour. Focusing on a longer temporal period in the archaeological
perspective, for example expanding this study to include the evaluation of Aksumite
grinding stones could expand our knowledge of changes and differences in the
technology through time.
Finally, the interviews relied on translation.
My personal knowledge of the
Tigrinyan language was limited and although attempts were made to mentor my
Ethiopian translators in the proper interviewing techniques and goals, I acknowledge that
things can get lost in translation. To deal with this, questions were sometimes repeated
to ensure the responses were being translated accurately, or a request was made for the
translators to ask the consultant to explain their answer in more detail. As well, there
were ongoing discussions with my Ethiopian translators about the importance of
accuracy and complete translations.
Despite the limitations this research contributes important information to not only
the study of grinding stones generally, but also to the start of what I hope will grow into
greater cross-cultural comparison in future studies.
It also helps illuminate the
importance of agriculture in early stages of state formation in northern Ethiopia. Finally,
this research records a fading tradition of grinding stone manufacturing, use and discard
– a technological life cycle of an important daily tool that has socio-economic
implications.
7.1. Meeting the Research Objectives
The overall goal of this thesis is to understand the cultural context of food
grinding equipment in northern Ethiopia. This goal was met by setting and achieving two
main research objectives. The first objective was to:
1. Through interviews and observations, document the technological and
social interrelationships in the life history of grinding stones in a
traditional (non-mechanized) rural setting in northern Ethiopia using
design theory and the chaîne opératoire approach.
228
Although there can be problems associated with applying ethnographic data
directly to explain archaeological discoveries because of temporal differences, through
well-conceived analogy it is possible to build interpretation and understanding of the
past.
According to David and Kramer (2001:2), ethnoarchaeology can provide the
researcher a privileged position in relation to interpreting the material culture and the
associated human behaviors because the information provided by consultants can open
new avenues of possibilities for interpretation.
At the archeological site of Mezber,
grinding stones are being recovered, and are very similar to the grinding stones used in
the houses around Mezber today. In an effort to better understand the grinding stone
artifacts being excavated, research was conducted on the similar grinding stones of
today, including the witnessing of the manufacturing and grinding processes.
It is
fortunate that we have had the opportunity to witness and document these processes
that have existed for thousands of years in this region. There is more archaeological
literature related to grinding stones than literature focused on ethnoarchaeological
research in many regions of the world.
To understand how grinding stones were used for different purposes, it was
important to establish a typology.
Through the application of ethnoarchaeology,
consultants pointed out to us that there were different sets of grinding stones for different
purposes. This information enabled the development of a typology to identify the four
different grinding stones – the maṭhan, madqos, madit and wedimadqos. Learning that a
maṭhan could be repurposed as a madqos allowed for the development of grinding stone
characteristics that could differentiate a maṭhan from a madqos. The thickness and
concavity of a base stone differentiated the maṭhan, used for grinding cereal grains, from
the madqos used for grinding or crushing salt, peppers, spices and second wet grindings
of maize and sorghum.
It was also through ethnoarchaeology that it became clear that the manufacturing
of grinding stones in northeastern Tigrai is a complex process that requires design
decisions, skills, knowledge, and social interaction that builds interpersonal relationships.
Using a design theory perspective it was learned that manufacturers were faced with
constraints such as: 1) raw material choices; 2) tools available; 3) desired use life; 4)
user needs and preferences; and 5) performance expectations, in particular the
requirement for grinding stones that do not release sand while grinding. By arranging
229
two separate manufacturing sessions, one with experts, one with non-experts,
comparisons were made possible that allowed for discovery of technological and social
differences.
The individuals who are experts in the field of manufacturing grinding
stones made better grinding stones. They are also afforded a special respect, as they
are the creators of the technology “necessary for life” in a culture so dependent on
cereal flours for sustenance. Potentially this respect for experts could be true for the
past as well, since the grinding stone artifacts from Mezber are large stones, likely meant
to produce significant amounts of flour, which would have made them important to daily
life.
In considering grinding stone use, women in all cultures dependent on
agricultural grain products spend long hours each week grinding, making an immense
contribution to the household and community subsistence economy.
In reviewing
grinding times cross culturally it became apparent that output of flour and size of grinding
surface support the claim by the consultants informing this research that larger grinding
surfaces can grind more grain. Also comparing cross culturally, it was learned that
women tend to use grinding stones in areas protected from the elements, but not always
in an enclosed kitchen space. In these spaces grinding stones can be built into tables or
structures that raise the grinding slab allowing for a standing grinding position engaging
the whole body in the strokes. This was supported in other literature as well. A table
also enables a grinding stone to be tilted to take advantage of gravity as is the case in
northern Ethiopia. When the maṭhan was installed at an angle, grinding likely became
physically easier and more efficient.
The purpose of ethnoarchaeology is to acquire ethnographic data to assist in
interpreting the archaeological record. Knowing the manner in which grinding equipment
was installed, in stone tables, provides guidance in interpreting the archaeological
record. Where a quern is found on or near a pile of patterned stones, we can interpret
this as an udo table similar to those used today. Recognizing a modern grinding stone
mid-life cycle versus end of life has helped to identify these differences in the artifacts
and has led to a hypothesis that some households excavated at the Mezber site may
have been abandoned during the Middle and Late Phases as many maṭhan stones had
use life remaining. Following the life cycle of the grinding stones and asking Tigrayan
grinding stone experts how grinding stones break explained possibly why we find so
230
many broken artifacts – they probably broke through resurfacing or were intentionally
broken to use in construction.
Understanding the methods of discard and reuse of
grinding stones as wall construction material gives us notice to investigate walls carefully
for indications of grinding stones incorporated into the structure.
Ethnoarchaeological interviews also provided clues on how to interpret the
context of artifacts. For example when multiple querns are physically located in close
approximation this could indicate multiple grinding stones side by side allowing for
socialization between women. Socialization can build relationships, and relationships
can influence community engagement and cooperation, including neighbor and family
support.
For these communities the recent past was based on community cooperation
through the sharing of labour and sharing of resources, including flour and grains. This
type of an economy builds close relationships and a sense of obligation to ensure the
well-being of the community.
Several advisors referred to ‘obligations’ in the past.
Considering Mezber in pre-Aksumite times, there is a strong possibility that the economy
was based on village cooperation and reciprocal exchange of labour.
Men likely
manufactured grinding stones together to shorten the time required to complete the task,
and there would definitely be a need for multiple individuals to be involved in the
transport of the finished grinding stones due to their large size. These situations would
have provided time for the sharing of vital community information, but also for enjoying
the opportunity to socialize with other men of the village.
The move to a cash economy, in part fuelled by the need for cash to pay for
mechanical mills, is changing community dynamics. According to many interviewed, in
the past everyone helped each other with grinding, with grinding stone making, with
planting and harvesting, and house building. It was said that the sense of community
cooperation is diminishing. Without those ties of responsibility to each other there is a
chance that these communities will see a breakdown in relationships and community
cohesion. It would be important to review options to ensure that there are cooperative
opportunities in the future to ensure the health of the overall community. One example
could be cooperative communal local mechanical mills where local owners would be
responsible for the operation of the mill and would have opportunities to set reasonable
231
prices, reliable operating hours and operating procedures where focus could be placed
on quality.
The second objective for this research was to:
2. Compare gross morphology and contexts of modern and preAksumite (1600 BCE to 1 BCE/CE) archaeological grinding stones.
Like the Tehuacan metate which has remained unchanged in 5000 years (Bauer
(990:3), the grinding stones of present-day northeastern Tigrai appear very similar to the
grinding stone artifacts recovered. When I asked why rotary querns had never been
adopted for use as had happened in North Africa (Mortitz 1958), the responses were
consistently, “It is not our tradition”. It was stated over and over again in interviews how
the men and women involved in the manufacturing and grinding learned the skills and
acquired the knowledge from their fathers and mothers far back into the generations,
and that techniques and behaviors are the same today as they were in recent past.
These are very strong traditions.
Processing different grains on different grinding surfaces is a long held tradition.
It was through ethnoarchaeology that the knowledge was acquired related to different
grinding surface textures for different grains. Recognizing bifacial handstones in the
Mezber artifacts it was noted that there existed a coarse surface on one side and smooth
surface on the other. This is a sign that these handstones had been used for both large
Near Eastern grains such as wheat and barley (coarse side) and smaller local
indigenous cereals such as t’ef and finger millet (fine/smooth side).
This discovery
illuminated the possibility that both types of grains were being processed as far back at
the Archaic and Early phases of the pre-Aksumite period. Further, by examining the
percentage of coarse versus fine textured grinding stone surfaces from the Archaic to
the end of the pre-Aksumite period, the fluctuation in ratios of coarse versus fine suggest
a greater reliance on Near Eastern imports began in the Early Phase, with a resurgence
in the Middle Phase, but not to the same degree as in the Archaic. By the Late Phase
the pattern continues with approximately 22–30% of the stones displaying a surface
suitable for locally domesticated grains. The main conclusion is that both grain types
were being processed throughout the pre-Aksumite period.
232
Study of the Mezber grindingstone assemblage revealed that efficiencies in
grinding and grinding stone design took place during the pre-Aksumite period. These
include grinding surface size enlargement, better hand grips for handstones, and tilting
of the quern to ease the physical stress of pushing and pulling with downward pressure.
Tilting a quern will also result in specific wear – a concave use surface in long section as
was noted in modern contexts and observed in some ancient artifacts. New cereals
might have become available, but they were ground on the same tools as the existing
grains, with some surface modification where necessary.
7.2. Potential for Future Research
There is opportunity with the grinding stones already collected from Ona Adi, a
site located on the plateau above Mezber, to compare the Ona Adi site with Mezber
findings. If Ona Adi is a more urban settlement, the comparison to Mezber, a rural
context, could illuminate the social and economic differences between these sites. What
still needs to be completed with the Mezber artifacts is an analysis of surface use-wear
with comparison to experimental grinding to confirm not only what was ground, but also
what motions were used by grinders in pre-Aksumite times. Adams (1989, 2014a) calls
for more experimentation and analysis on grinding stones including use wear.
Microscopic examination can be an obstacle to analysis when working in remote
locations (Rowan and Ebling 2008:6), however in the ETAP project we have the benefit
of
using
portable
Dinocapture©
microscopes
for
some
surface examination.
Magnification is limited but is sufficient for grinding stone surfaces. Experimentation and
this type of additional analysis could also be applied to the Ona Adi site.
In many cultures resurfacing of grinding stones is essential to keep tools
effective. In northern Ethiopia it is even more important for maintaining a surface texture
suitable for the type of grain being processed. Residue analysis and use wear analysis
linked to type of texture on grinding surfaces should be performed not only in northern
Ethiopia, but also in other cultures to determine if other societies were using coarse and
fine surfaces for different products (see Adams 1988, 1993 for examples). This would
also help us understand the extent of products ground and the variation in grinding tools
used.
233
Archaeobotanical evidence from Mezber may cast further light on the conclusions
reached in this study, especially those related to the types of crops being ground (Perry
2004). The analysis of soil samples from around artifacts analyzed for phytoliths and
starches should be completed to ensure the phytoliths and starches are from the
grinding stones (evidence of processing) versus from the surrounding soils. Further
archaeobotanical analysis related to the presence and ubiquity of different grains could
strengthen the arguments proposed in this thesis related to the economic importance of
Near Eastern to indigenous cereals. Further stable isotope research on human remains
may help to illuminate the diet of Mezber occupants. These types of studies might also
reveal that in fact after the initial introduction and surge in imported grains, domestic
cereals regained their place as an important contribution to the subsistence economy.
There is also a gap between the pre-Aksumite period and modern context that
needs examining to determine if the patterns witnessed in this study are consistent
through the missing time periods (i.e., to test historical continuity).
Additional
excavations that would unearth grinding stones that date between the Late pre-Aksumite
and historic temporal periods would allow for a fuller understanding of changes, and
reasons for change may come to light.
In addition to longer temporal comparisons needed, there is a need for wider
geographical comparisons. This thesis included an attempt at cross cultural studies
related to grinding stone gross morphology as well as human behavior. Men, most often
the manufacturers of grinding stones, are making design decisions related to raw
materials, user needs, expected use life, and in some cultures, the potential return on
investment. The respect acquired by expert manufacturers in northeastern Tigrai is not
common cross culturally. Times to manufacture also differ cross culturally and can be
the result of accessibility of raw material, the difficulty in working raw materials and
special features such as support legs that are standard design elements in the Maya
Highlands for example. Additional cross cultural comparisons are needed.
Grinding stones are a personal tool that females can acquire as a rite of passage
into womanhood when they become responsible for the provision of food for their family.
I believe there is room for additional cross cultural research, not only in the matter of
234
comparing technological attributes, but also in comparing and contrasting the cultural
context of food grinding equipment from various societies.
This study has shown how ethnoarchaeology can contribute to understanding the
archaeological record.
It has been determined that grinding stones from the pre-
Aksumite period were multi-functional tools and the maṭhan and madit were used to
grind both locally domesticated and introduced Near Eastern grains. The large size of
the ancient stones leads to the interpretation that economically grains were important
during that time. There are morphological indications that suggest there have been
efficiency design changes through time, such as larger grinding surfaces, smaller and
better designed handstones for comfort and ease of use, and angling of querns to make
the grinding process more efficient through the harnessing of gravity. Some of these
features are found cross culturally.
Women in the recent past spent many hours
grinding, often with other women in socially interactive situations, and it may have been
true in the past since multiple grinding stones have been recovered in close proximity in
the archaeological record. Men can be experts in grinding stone manufacturing, and that
expertise impacts the manufacturing processes and final product. The grinding stone
craftspersons near Mezber were highly respected for their expertise, but social status
differs cross culturally. The study of grinding stones can inform us about many aspects
of the daily lives of people in the past, and they were a very important tool.
The sound of the hand-mill at night is an indication that the necessary
food is being provided for the household. Where this sound is not heard
desolation reigns.
Dalman (1902:13)
235
References
Abadi-Reiss, Yael and Steven A. Rosen
2008 A Chip Off the Old Millstone: Grinding Stone Production and Distribution in
the Early Bronze Age of the Negev. In New Approaches to Old Stones edited by
Yorke M. Rowan and Jennie R. Ebeling, pp. 99-115. Equinox Publishing Limited,
London.
Abramiuk, Marc A., and William P. Meurer
2006 A Preliminary Geoarchaeological Investigation of Ground Stone Tools in and
around the Maya Mountains, Toledo District, Belize. Latin American Antiquity
17(3):335-354.
Adams, Jenny L.
1988 Use-Wear Analyses on Manos and Hide-Processing Stones. Journal of Field
Archaeology 15(3):307-315.
Adams, Jenny L.
1989 Experimental Replication of the Use of Ground Stone Tools. Kiva 54(3) The
Homol’ovi Research Program: Investigations into the Prehistory of the Middle
Little Colorado River Valley):261-271.
Adams, Jenny L.
1993 Toward Understanding the Technological Development of Manos and
Metates. Kiva 58(3, New Trends in Ground Stone Research: It's Not the Same
Old Grind):331-344.
Adams, Jenny L.
1999 Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding Tools as Correlates for Subsistence
Strategies in the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity 64(3):475-498.
Adams, Jenny L.
2002 Mechanisms of Wear of Ground Stone Surfaces. In Moudre et Broyer: I
Méthods. L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’outillage de moutre et de broyage
dans la Prehistiore et l’Antiquité, edited by Hara Procopiou and René Treuil, pp.
57-68. CTHS, Paris.
Adams, Jenny L.
2010a Understanding Grinding Technology through Experimentation. In Designing
Experimental Research in Archaeology, Examining Technology through
Production and Use, edited by J.R. Ferguson, pp. 129-151. University Press of
Boulder, Colorado.
236
Adams, Jenny L.
2010b Engendering Households through Technological Identity. In Engendering
Households in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by Barbara J. Roth, pp. 208-228.
The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Adams, Jenny L.
2014a Ground Stone Analysis: a technological approach. The University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Adams, Jenny L.
2014b Ground Stone Use-Wear Analysis: a review of terminology and experimental
methods. Journal of Archaeological Science Volume 48, August 2014, pp. 129138.
Alexander, Christopher
1964 Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Anfray, Francis
1967 Maṭarā. Annales d'Ethiopie.Volume 7, pp. 33-88.
Anfray, Francis
1968 Aspects de L'Archeologie Ethiopienne. The Journal of African
History 9(3):345-366.
Aranguren, Biancamaria, Roberto Becattini, Marta M. Lippi, and Anna Revedin
2007 Grinding flour in Upper Palaeolithic Europe (25 000 years bp). Antiquity
81(314):845-855.
Arthur, John W.
2014 Culinary Crafts and Foods in Southwestern Ethiopia: An Ethnoarchaeological
Study of Gamo Groundstones and Pottery. African Archaeological Review
31(2):131-168.
Ascher, Robert
1961 Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 17(4):317-325.
Aschmann, Homer
1949 A Metate Maker of Baja, California. American Anthropologist 51(4, Part
1):682-686.
Audouze, Françoise
2002 Leroi-Gourhan, a Philosopher of Technique and Evolution. Journal of
Archaeological Research 10(4):277-306.
Balme, Jane
1991 The Antiquity of Grinding Stones in Semi-Arid Western New South Wales.
Australian Archaeology (32):2-9.
237
Bard, Kathryn A., Mauro Coltorti, Michael C. DiBlasi, Francesco Dramis, and Rodolfo
Fattovich
2000 The Environmental History of Tigray (Northern Ethiopia) in the Middle and
Late Holocene: A Preliminary Outline. The African Archaeological Review
17(2):65-86.
Bard, Kathryn A., Rodolfo Fattovich, Andrea Manzo, and Cinzia Perlingieri
1997 Archaeological Investigations at Bieta Giyorgis (Aksum), Ethiopia: 1993-1995
Field Seasons. Journal of Field Archaeology 24(4):387-403.
Bard, Kathryn A., Rodolfo Fattovich, Andrea Manzo, and Cinzia Perlingieri
2002 Aksum Origins, Kassala and Upper Nubia: New Evidence from Bieta
Giyorgis, Aksum. Archéologie du Nil Moyen 9:31-42.
Barnett, Tertia
1999 The Emergence of Food Production in Ethiopia. In British Archaeological
Reports, International Series 763, Vol. Cambridge Monographs in African
Archaeology 45, edited by J. Alexander, Archaeopress.
Bartlett, Katharine
1933 Pueblo Milling Stones of the Flagstaff Region and Their Relation to Others in
the Southwest: a study in progressive efficiency. Vol. no. 3., Northern Arizona
Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff.
Bauer, Arnold J.
1990 Millers and Grinders: Technology and Household Economy in Meso-America.
Agricultural History 64(1):1-17.
Belgiorno, Maria-Rosaria
2002 Does Tomb No. 21 at Pyrgos (Cyprus) Belong to a Blacksmith? In Moudre et
Broyer: L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’outillage de mouture et de broyage dan
las Préhistoire et l’Antiquité II Archéologie et Histoire: Du Paléolithique au Moyen
Age edited by Hara Procopiou, René Treuil, pp. 73-80. CTHS, Paris.
Berakhi, Ogbaghebriel, L. Brancaccio, G. Calderoni, M. Coltorti, F. Dramis, and
Mohammed M. Umer
1998 The Mai Maikden Sedimentary Sequence: a reference point for the
environmental evolution of the Highlands of Northern Ethiopia. Geomorphology
23(2–4):127-138.
Binford, Lewis R. (editor)
1977 For Theory Building In Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Binford, Lewis R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff
1982 Paradigms, Systematics, and Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological
Research 38(2):137-153.
238
Boardman, S.
2000 Archaeobotany. In Archaeology at Aksum, Ethiopia, 1993-7, Vol. Volume 2,
edited by David W. Phillipson, pp. 363-368, 412. The British Institute in Eastern
Africa and the Society of Antiquaries of London, London.
Broshi, Magen
2001 Bread, Wine, Walls and Scrolls. Journal for the Study of Pseudepigraph
Supplement Series 36.
Bryman, Alan, and James J. Teevan
2005 Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Toronto.
Butler, Ann and A. Catherine D’Andrea
2000 Farming and Famine: Substitution Strategies in Highland Ethiopia. In Living
on the Margins: The Archaeology of Dry Lands edited by Graeme Barker and
David Gilbertson. pp. 180-200, Routledge, London.
Butzer, Karl W.
1981 Rise and Fall of Axum, Ethiopia: A Geo-Archaeological Interpretation.
American Antiquity 46(3):471-495.
Buxton, D. R.
1971 II.—The Rock-Hewn and Other Medieval Churches of Tigré Province,
Ethiopia. Archaeologia (Second Series) 103:33-100.
Chiñas, Beverly
1973 The Isthmus Zapotecs: women's roles in cultural context. Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, New York.
Clark, Grahame
1960 Archaeology and Society: Reconstructing the prehistoric past. Barnes &
Noble, New York.
Clark, John E.
1988 The Lithic Artifacts of La Libertad, Chiapas, Mexico: an economic
perspective. Vol. no. 52., New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young
University, Provo, Utah.
Conkey, Margaret W., and Janet D. Spector
1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory 7:1-38.
Conlee, Christina A.
2000 Intensified Middle Period Ground Stone Production on San Miguel Island.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 22(2):374-391.
Cook, Scott
1982 Zapotec Stoneworkers: the dynamics of rural simple commodity production in
modern Mexican capitalism. University Press of America, Lanham, Md.
239
Cosgrove, Richard, Judith Field, and Åsa Ferrier
2007 The Archaeology of Australia's Tropical Rainforests. Palaeogeography,
Palaeclimatology, Palaeoecology 251(1):150-173.
Curtis, Matthew C.
2008 New Perspectives for Examining Change and Complexity in the Northern
Horn of Africa During the 1st Millennium, BCE. In The Archaeology of Ancient
Eritrea, edited by Peter R. Schmidt, Matthew C. Curtis and Zelalem Teka, pp.
329-348. Red Sea Press, Trenton, New Jersey.
Curtis, Matthew C.
2009 Relating the Ancient Ona Culture to the Wider Northern Horn: Discerning
Patterns and Problems in the Archaeology of the First Millennium BC. The
African Archaeological Review 26(4, Re-evaluating the Archaeology of the First
Millennium BC in the Northern Horn):327-350.
Curtis, Matthew C. and Peter R. Schmidt
2008 Landscape, People, and Places on the Ancient Asmara Plateau. In The
Archaeology of Ancient Eritrea, edited by Peter R. Schmidt, Matthew C. Curtis
and Zelalem Teka, pp. 65-108. Red Sea Press, Trenton, New Jersey.
Dalman, Gustaf
1902 Grinding in Ancient and Modern Palestine. The Biblical World 19(1):9-18.
D'Andrea, A. C.
2008 T'ef (Eragrostis tef) in Ancient Agricultural Systems of Highland Ethiopia.
Economic Botany 62(4):547-566.
D’Andrea, A. C.
2011 Eastern Tigrai Archaeological Project (ETAP): Early State Development in
Northern Ethiopia. Year 1 (2011) Final Report to the ARCCH.
D'Andrea, A. C., and Mitiku Haile
2002 Traditional Emmer Processing in Highland Ethiopia. Journal of Ethnobiology
22(2):179-217.
D’Andrea, A. C., Mitiku Haile, E. A. Butler, and D. E. Lyons
1997 Ethnoarchaeological Research in the Ethiopian Highlands. Nyame Akuma
47:19-16.
D'Andrea, A. C., Andrea Manzo, Michael J. Harrower, and Alicia L. Hawkins
2008 The Pre-Aksumite and Aksumite Settlement of NE Tigrai, Ethiopia. Journal of
Field Archaeology 33(2):151-176.
D’Andrea, A. C., Michael P. Richards, Laurence A. Pavlish, Shannon Wood, Andrea
Manzo, and H. S. Wolde-Kiros
2011 Stable Isotopic Analysis of Human and Animal Diets from Two preAksumite/Proto-Aksumite Archaeological Sites in northern Ethiopia. Journal of
Archaeological Science 38(2):367-374.
240
D'Andrea, A. C., and P. Wadge
2011 T’ef (Eragrostis tef): A Legacy of Pastoralism? In Windows on the African
Past: Current Approaches to African Archaeobotany. Reports in African
Archaeology, Vol. 3, edited by A. G. Fahmy, S. Kahlheber and A. C. D’Andrea,
pp. 547-566. Frankfurt: Africa Magna Verlag.
D’Andrea, A. C., and L. Welton
In preparation - First Millennium BC Rural Life in the Horn of Africa: A View from
Mezber.
David, Nicholas
1998 The Ethnoarchaeology and Field Archaeology of Grinding at Sukur,
Adamawa State, Nigeria. The African Archaeological Review 15(1):13-63.
David, Nicholas, and Carol Kramer
2001 Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
DiBlasi, M.
2005 Foreward. In Changing Settlement Patterns in the Aksum-Yeha Region of
Ethiopia, 700 BC - AD 850, Vol. British Archaeological Reports S. 1446, edited by
Joseph W. Michels, pp. ix-xvii. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Dombrowski, Joanne C.
1972 Excavations in Ethiopia: Lalibela and Natchabiet Caves, Begemeder
Province. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, Boston.
Dodd, Walter A., Jr.
1979 The Wear and Use of Battered Tools at Armijo Rockshelter. In Lithic UseWear Analysis. Conference on Lithic Use-Wear (1st : Simon Fraser University)
edited by Brian Hayden pp.231-242. Academic Press, New York.
Dӧrpfeld, Wilhelm
1902 Troja und Ilion: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in den Vorhistorischen und
Historischen Schichten von Ilion 1870-1894. Beck and Barth, Athens.
Dubreuil, Laure
2004 Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground
stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 31(11):1613-1629.
Ebeling, Jennie R., and Yorke M. Rowan
2004 The Archaeology of the Daily Grind: Ground Stone Tools and Food Production
in the Southern Levant. Near Eastern Archaeology 67(2):108-117.
241
Egziabher, Tewolde Berhan Gebre
1993 The Impact of Modern Science and Technology on Human Rights in Ethiopia.
In The Impact of Technology on Human Rights: global case-studies, studies on
the affirmative use of science and technology for the furtherance of human rights,
commissioned as a special project by the United Nations University, following a
reference to the University by the United Nations Human Rights Commission,
edited by C.G. Weeramantry pp. 189-242. United Nations University Press,
Tokyo.
Ehret, Christopher
2011 A Linguistic History of Cultivation and Herding in Northeastern Africa. In
Windows on the African past: current approaches to African archaeobotany,
Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on African Archaeobotany Cairo
2009, edited by Ahmed G. Fahmy, Ahmed G., Stefanie Kahlheber, A. C.
D'Andrea, pp. 185-208. Africa Magan Verlag, Frankfurt.
Ertug-Yaras, Füsun
2002 Pounders and Grinders in a Modern Central Anatolian Village. In Moudre et
Broyer: I Méthods. L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’outillage de moutre et de
broyage dans la Prehistiore et l’Antiquité, edited by Hara Procopiou and René
Treuil , pp. 211 - 225 CTHS, Paris.
Fattovich, Rodolfo
1977 Pre-Aksumite Civilization of Ethiopia : A Provisional Review. Proceedings of
the Seminar for Arabian Studies 7(Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar For Arabian
Studies held at The Middle East centre, Cambridge on 12th-14th July, 1976):7378.
Fattovich, Rodolfo
1990 Remarks on the Pre-Aksumite Period in Northern Ethiopia. Journal of
Ethiopian Studies 23:1-33.
Fattovich, Rodolfo
1993 The Gash Group of Eastern Sudan: an outline. In Environmental Change
and Human Culture in the Nile Basin and Northern Africa until the Second
Millennium BC, edited by L. Krzyzaniak,M. Kobusiewicz and J. Alexander. pp.
439-448. Poznan Archaeological Museum, Poznan.
Fattovich, Rodolfo
2009 Reconsidering Yeha, c. 800 - 400 BC. African Archaeological Review
26(4):275-290.
Fattovich, Rodolfo
2010 The Development of Ancient States in the Northern Horn of Africa, c. 3000
BC-AD 1000: An Archaeological Outline. Journal of World Prehistory 23(3):145175.
242
Fattovich, Rodolfo
2012 The Northern Horn of Africa in the First Millennium BCE: local traditions and
external connections. In Rassegna di Studi Etiopici, Vol. IV (Nuova Serie), edited
by Carlo C. Rossini, pp. 1-60. Istituto per L’oriente “C.A. Nallino” (Roma)
Università Degli Studi di Napoli “L’orientale”, Roma-Napoli.
Fattovich, Rodolfo, Kathryn A. Bard, LorenzoPetrassi, and Vincenzo Pisano
2000 The Aksum Archaeological Area: a Preliminary Assessment. Istituto
Universitario Orientale, Dipertimento di Studi Ricerche su Africa e Paesi Arabi
Laboratoriodi Archeologia, Working Paper No.1. Naples.
Field, Judith H., Richard Fullagar, Joe Dortch, Adriana Dutkiewicz, and Phil Gordon
2003 Sandstone Quarries and Grinding Stone Manufacture: Survey and
Excavation at Yambacoona Hill in South-Eastern Australia. Australian
Archaeology (56):46-47.
Finneran, Niall
2007 The Archaeology of Ethiopia. Routledge, New York.
Flannery, Kent V.
1968 Archaeological Systems Theory and Early MesoAmerica. In Anthropological
Archaeology in the Americas, edited by Betty J. Meggers, pp. 67-87. The
Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington.
Fratt, Lee, and Maggie Biancaniello
1993 Homol’ovi III Ground Stone in the Raw: A Study of the Local Sandstone Used
to Make Ground Stone Artifacts. Kiva 58(3, New Trends in Ground Stone
Research: It's Not the Same Old Grind):373-391.
Freeman, Derek.
1968 A Theoretical Framework for Interpreting Archaeology. In Wenner-Gren
Foundation for Anthropological Research, and Symposium on Man the Hunter
(1966-1969 Man the hunter), edited by Irven DeVore and Richard B. Lee, pp.
262-267. University of Chicago.
Fullagar, Richard, and Judith Field
1997 Pleistocene Seed-Grinding Implements from the Australian Arid Zone.
Antiquity 71(272):300-307.
Gamble, Clive
2008 Archaeology: the basics. Routledge, New York.
Gebru, Tsige, Zewdu Eshetu, Yongsong Huang, Taddese Woldemariam, Nikki Strong,
Mohammed Umer, Michael DiBlasi, and Valery J. Terwillige
2009 Holocene Palaeovegetation of the Tigray Plateau in northern Ethiopia from
Charcoal and Stable Organic Carbon Isotopic Analyses of Gully Sediments.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 282(1–4):67-80.
243
Gero, Joan M.
1983 Gender Bias in Archaeology: a cross cultural perspective. In The SocioPolitics of Archaeology, edited by J. m. Gero, D. M. Lacy and M. L. Blakey, pp.
51-57. University of Massachusetts, Department of Anthropology, Research
Report no. 23, Amherst.
Goody, Jack
1982 Cooking, Cuisine, and Class: a study in comparative sociology. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge [Cambridgeshire].
Gorecki, P., M. Grant, S. O'Connor, and P. Veth
1997 The Morphology, Function and Antiquity of Australian Grinding Implements.
Archaeology in Oceania 32(2, Studies in Australian and Pacific Archaeology
I):141-150.
Gould, Richard A., Dorothy A. Koster, and Ann H. L. Sontz
1971 The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia.
American Antiquity 36(2):149-169.
Haaland, Randi
1995 Sedentism, Cultivation and Plant Domestication in the Holocene Middle Nile
Region. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:157-174.
Hamon, Caroline
2008 Functional Analysis Of Stone Grinding And Polishing Tools From The Earliest
Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science
35(6):1502-1520.
Hamon, Caroline and Valerie Le Gall
2013 Millet and Sauce: The uses and functions of querns among ht Minyanka
(Mali). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32:109-121.
Hard, Robert J., Raymond P. Mauldin, and Gerry R. Raymond
1996 Mano Size, Stable Carbon Isotope Ratios, and Macrobotanical Remains as
Multiple Lines of Evidence of Maize Dependence in the American Southwest.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 3(3):253-318.
Harrower, Michael J. and A. Catherine D’Andrea
2014 Landscapes of State Formation: Geospatial Analysis of Aksumite Settlement
Patterns (Ethiopia). African Archaeological Review, 31:513–541.
Hayden, Brian
1979 Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Conference on Lithic Use-Wear (1st : Simon
Fraser University) 1977. Academic Press, New York.
Hayden, Brian
1987a Traditional Metate Manufacturing in Guatemala Using Chipped Stone Tools.
In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya edited by Brian
Hayden pp. 8-119. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
244
Hayden, Brian
1987b Past to Present Uses of Stone Tools in the Maya Highlands. In Lithic Studies
Among the Contemporary Highland Maya edited by Brian Hayden pp.160-324.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Hill, Percy H.
1970 The Science f Engineering Design. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Holmberg, Cecilia L.
1998 Prehistoric Grinding Tools as Metaphorical Traces of the Past. Current
Swedish Archaeology 6:123-142.
Horsfall, Gayel A.
1979 A Design Theory Perspective on Variability in Grinding Stones. Unpublished
Masters Thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,
British Columbia.
Horsfall, Gayel A.
1987 Design Theory and Grinding Stones. In Lithic Studies Among the
Contemporary Highland Maya edited by Brian Hayden pp. 332-377. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
Hosfield, Robert
2009 Modes of Transmission and Material Culture Patterns in Craft Skills. In
Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution, edited by Stephen Shennan, pp. 4560. University of California Press, Berkley.
Huffman, Thomas N.
2006 Maize Grindstones, Madikwe Pottery and Ochre Mining in PreColonial South
Africa. South African Humanities December Vol.18 (2):51-70.
Jones, J. C.
1970 Design Methods: seeds of human future. Wiley-Interscience, London; New
York.
Khan, Farid
1994 The Potential of Ethnoarchaeology, with Special Reference to Recent
Archaeological Work in Bannu District, Pakistan. In Living Traditions: studies in
the ethnoarchaeology of South Asia, edited by Bridget Allchin, pp. 83-99. Oxford
& IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Kleindienst, Maxine R.
1975 Comment. Behavioral Analysis and the Structure of a Prehistoric Industry
[and Comments and Reply]. Sheets, Payson D., B. W. Anthony, David A.
Breternitz, David S. Brose, B. K. Chatterjee, Carl B. Compton, Scott Cook,
Richard G. Forbis, Alexander Gallus, Thomas R. Hester, Fumiko Ikawa-Smith,
Carl-Axel Moberg, Hansjürgen Müller-Beck, Jon Muller, J. -. Rigaud, Michael W.
Spence, Robin Torrence, F. V. Noten, Marcus C. Winter, and John Witthoft.
Current Anthropology 16(3):369-391.
245
Kobishchanov, ︠I︡Uriĭ M., and Joseph W. Michels
1979 [1966] Axum. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.
Leroi-Gourhan, André
1993 [1964-1975] Gesture and Speech. Translated by Anna Bostock Berger. MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Levine, Donald N.
1965 Wax & Gold: tradition and innovation in Ethiopian culture. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Liu, Li, Judith Field, Richard Fullagar, Sheahan Bestel, Xingcan Chen, and Xiaolin Ma
2010 What Did Grinding Stones grind? New light on Early Neolithic subsistence
economy in the Middle Yellow River Valley, China. Antiquity 84(325):816-833.
London, Gloria
2000 Ethnoarchaeology and Interpretations of the Past. Near Eastern Archaeology
63(1, Ethnoarchaeology I):2-8.
Lyons, Diane
2007 Integrating African cuisines: Rural cuisine and identity in Tigray, highland
Ethiopia. Journal of Social Archaeology (7) October:346-371.
Lyons, Diane, and A. C. D'Andrea
2003 Griddles, Ovens, and Agricultural Origins: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of
Bread Baking in Highland Ethiopia. American Anthropologist 105(3):515-530.
Machado, Maria J., Alfredo Pérez-González, and Gerardo Benito
1998 Paleoenvironmental Changes during the Last 4000 yr in the Tigray, Northern
Ethiopia. Quaternary Research 49(3):312-321.
Manzo, Andrea
2009 Capra nubiana in Berbere Sauce? African Archaeological Review 26(4):291303.
Margolin, Victor
1989 Design Discourse: history, theory, criticism. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B. Rossman
2006 Designing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks,
California.
Mauldin, Raymond
1993 The Relationship between Ground Stone and Agricultural Intensification in
Western New Mexico. Kiva 58(3, New Trends in Ground Stone Research: It's Not
the Same Old Grind):317-330.
246
Mauldin, Raymond P., and Steven A. Tomka
1988 Informe Preliminar sobre Experimentos en el Uso de Moledoras de Piedra
(Khona) en la Communidad de Alota, Nor Lipez, Potosi, Bolivia. In Manuscript
submitted to the National Museum of Ethnography and Folklore, National
Museum of Ethnography and Folklore, La Paz, Bolivia.
McBrearty, Sally, and Alison S. Brooks
2000 The revolution That Wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern
human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39(5):453-563.
McCann, James C.
1995 People of the Plow: An Agricultural History of Ethiopia, 1800-1990. University
of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
McLaren, Frances and John Evans
2002 Unlocking the Secrets of the Stones: chemical methods to find tool usage in
the Old World. In Moudre et Broyer: L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’outillage
de mouture et de broyage dan las Préhistoire et l’Antiquité I Methods:
Pétrographie, chimie, tracéologie, experimentation, ethnoarchéologie edited by
Hara Procopiou, René Treuil, pp. 129-137. CTHS, Paris.
Meyers, Carol
2002 Having Their Space and Eating There Too: Bread Production and Female
Power in Ancient Israelite Households. Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women's
Studies & Gender Issues (5, Feeding an Identity: Gender, Food, and
Survival):14-44.
Michels, Jospeph W.
2005 Changing Settlement Patterns In The Aksum-Yeha Region Of Ethiopia: 700
BC - AD 850. Cambridge Monographs in African Archaeology (64), British
Archaeological Reports International Series 1446. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Moritz, L. A.
1958 Grain-mills and Flour in Classical Antiquity. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Morris, Donald H.
1990 Changes in Groundstone Following the Introduction of Maize into the
American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 46(2):177-194.
Nelson, Margaret C.
1987a Site Content and Structure: Metate Quarries and Workshops in the Maya
Highlands. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya edited by
Brian Hayden pp. 120-147. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Nelson, Margaret C.
1987b Contemporary Specialization and Marketing of Manos and Metates in the
Maya Highlands. In Lithic Studies Among the Contemporary Highland Maya
edited by Brian Hayden pp. 148-159. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
247
Nelson, Margaret C., and Heidi Lippmeier
1993 Grinding-Tool Design as Conditioned by Land-Use Pattern. American
Antiquity 58(2):286-305.
Nyssen, Jan, Jean Poesen, Jan Moeyersons, Jozef Deckers, Mitiku Haile, and Andreas
Lang
2004 Human Impact on the Environment in the Ethiopian and Eritrean Highlands—
a state of the art. Earth-Science Reviews 64(3–4):273-320.
Odell, George H.
2004 Lithic Analysis. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Orme, Bryony
1981 Anthropology for Archaeologists: An Introduction. Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, New York.
Pankhurst, Richard
1998 he Ethiopians. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts.
Parry, William J., and Andrew L. Christenson
1987 Prehistoric Stone Technology on Northern Black Mesa, Arizona. Center for
Archaeological Investigation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Perry, Linda
2004 Starch Analyses Reveal the Relationship Between Tool Type and Function: an
example from the Orinoco valley of Venezuela. Journal of Archaeological
Science 31(8):1069-1081.
Phillipson, David W.
2009 The First Millennium BC in the Highlands of Northern Ethiopia and SouthCentral Eritrea: A Reassessment of Cultural and Political Development. African
Archaeological Review 26(4):257-274.
Phillipson, David W.
2012 Foundations of an African Civilisation: Aksum & the Nortern Horn 1000 BC AD 1300. James Currey, Suffolk, IP.
Phillipson, David W., and Peter R. Schmidt
2009 Re-evaluating the Archaeology of the First Millennium BC in the Northern
Horn. African Archaeological Review 26(4):255-256.
Phillipson, Laurel
2012 Grindstones and Related Artefacts from Pre-Aksumite Seglamen, northern
Ethiopia, and Their Wider Implications. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa
47(4):509-530.
Phillipson, Laurel
2001 Grindstones and Related Artefacts from Aksum, Ethiopia. Lithics 22:13-21.
248
Piperno, Dolores R., Irene Holst, Ehud Weiss, and Dani Nadel
2004 Processing of Wild Cereal Grains in the Upper Palaeolithic Revealed by
Starch Grain Analysis. Nature 430(5 August 2004):670-673.
Pritchard-Parker, Mari A., and Dawn M. Reid
1993 Metate Re-Roughening: Results of a Hammerstone Replication Study. Pacific
Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(4):51-60.
Pye, David
1978 The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Rahemtulla, Farid
2006 Design of Stone Tool technology During the Early Period (CA. 10,000-5,000
B.P.) at Namu, Central Coast of British Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Renfrew, Colin
1973 The Explanation of Culture Change: models in prehistory. Proceedings and
Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects (1971). University of
Sheffield.
Revedin, Anna, Jirí Svoboda, Biancamaria Aranguren, Roberto Becattini, Laura Longo,
Emanuele Marconi, Marta Mariotti Lippi, Natalia Skakun, Andrey Sinitsyn, and Elena
Spiridonova
2010 Thirty Thousand-year-old Evidence of Plant Food Processing. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
107(44):18815-18819.
Rich, Jack C.
1947 The Materials and Methods of Sculpture. Oxford University Press, New York.
Richards, Audrey I.
1961 Land, Labour and Diet in Northern Rhodesia: an economic study of the
Bemba tribe. 2nd Edition. Published for the International African institute, Oxford
University Press, London.
Rowan, Yorke M., and Jennie R. Ebeling
2008 New Approaches to Old Stones: recent studies of ground stone artifacts.
Equinox, London; Oakville, Connecticut.
Sandgathe, Dennis M.
2005 An Analysis of the Levallois Reduction Strategy Using a Design Theory
Framework. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.
Sandweiss, Daniel H.
2007 Small Is Big: The Microfossil Perspective on Human-Plant Interaction.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 104(9 (Feb. 27, 2007)):3021-3022.
249
Schiffer, Michael B.
1995 Behavioral Archaeology: first principles. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City, Utah.
Schlanger, Sarah H.
1991 On Manos, Metates, and the History of Site Occupations. American Antiquity
56(3):460-474.
Schliemann, Heinrich, and Philip Smith
1968 Troy and its remains: a narrative of researches and discoveries made on the
site of Ilium, and in the Trojan Plain. B. Blom, New York.
Schmidt, Peter R., and Mathew C. Curtis
2001 Urban precursors in the Horn: early 1st-millennium BC communities in
Eritrea. Antiquity 75(290):849-859.
Schmidt, Peter R., and Jonathan R. Walz
2007 Re-Representing African Pasts through Historical Archaeology. American
Antiquity 72(1):53-70.
Schmidt, Peter R., Matthew C. Curtis, and Zelalem Teka
2008 The Ancient Ona Communities of the First Millenium BCE: Urban Precursors
and Independent Development in the Asmara Plateau. In The Archaeology of
Ancient Eritrea, edited by Peter R. Schmidt, Matthew C. Curtis and Zelalem
Teka, pp. 109-161. Red Sea Press, Trenton, New Jersey.
Schneider, Joan S.
1996 Quarrying and Production of Milling Implements at Antelope Hill, Arizona.
Journal of Field Archaeology 23(3):299-311.
Schneider, Joan S.
2002 Milling Tool Design, Stone Textures, and Function. In Moudre et Broyer:
L’interprétation fonctionnelle de l’outillage de mouture et de broyage dan las
Préhistoire et l’Antiquité I Methods: Pétrographie, chimie, tracéologie,
experimentation, ethnoarchéologie edited by Hara Procopiou, René Treuil, pp.
31-53. CTHS, Paris.
Scholes, France V. and Ralph L. Roys
1968 The Maya Chontal Indians of Acalan-Tixchel: a contribution to the history and
ethnography of the Yucatan Peninsula. 2nd Edition. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Searcy, Michael T.
2011 The Life-Giving Stone: ethnoarchaeology of Maya metates. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
Shelley, Phillip H.
1983 Lithic Specialization at Salmon Ruin, San Juan County, New Mexico.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington State University, Washington.
250
Simms, Steven R.
1983 The Effects of Grinding Stone Reuse on the Archaeological Record in the
Eastern Great Basin. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology
5(1/2):98-102.
SIL International
N.d. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. www.ethnologue.com accessed
November 12, 2013.
Smith, M. A.
1986 The Antiquity of Seedgrinding in Arid Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 21(1,
Papers Presented to John Mulvaney):29-39.
Smith, Mike, Isabel McBryde, and June Ross
2010 The economics of grindstone production at Narcoonowie quarry, Strzelecki
Desert. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2010(1):92-99.
Stahl, Ann B.
1989 Plant-Food Processing: implications for dietary quality. In Foraging and
Farming: the evolution of plant exploitation, edited by David R. Harris and David
C. Hillman, pp. 171-194. Unwin Hyman, London.
Stahl, Ann B.
1993 Concepts of Time and Approaches to Analogical Reasoning in Historical
Perspective. American Antiquity 58(2):235-260.
Stone, Doris, and Carlos Balser
1957 Grinding Stones and Mullers of Costa Rica. Journal de la Société des
Américanistes 46:165-180.
Stone, Tammy
1993 Small Site Function and Duration of Occupation in the Hohokam Northern
Periphery. Kiva 59(1):65-82.
Stone, Tammy
1994 The Impact of Raw-Material Scarcity on Ground-Stone Manufacture and Use:
An Example from the Phoenix Basin Hohokam. American Antiquity 59(4):680694.
Teklu, Gebre
2012 Ethnoarchaeological Study of Grind Stones at Lakia'a in Adwa, Tigray
Regional State, Ethiopia. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Addis Ababa University,
Addis Ababa.
Terwilliger, Valery J., Zewdu Eshetu, Yongsong Huang, Marcelo Alexandre, Mohammed
Umer, and Tsige Gebru
2011 Local Variation in Climate and Land Use During the Time of the
MajorKingdoms of the Tigray Plateau in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Catena 85(2):130143.
251
Ungar, Peter S., and Matt Sponheimer
2011 The Diets of Early Hominins. Science (New York, N.Y.) 334(6053):190-193.
Valamoti, Maria, Chondrou, Danai and Lambrini Papadopoulou
2013 Plant Food Processing and Ground Stone Equipment in Prehistoric Greece:
An experimental investigation using seeks of eikhorn and grass-pea. In Regards
Croisés sur les Outils Liés au Travail des Végétaux (An Interdisciplinary Focus
on Plant-Working Tools). Actes des Rencontres 23-25 octobre 2012 sous la
direction de Patricia C. Anderson, Carole Cheval et Aline Durand, pp. 169-187.
Association Pour la Promotion et la Diffusion des Connaissance Archéologiques
(APDCA), Antibes.
Veth, Peter, Richard Fullagar, and Richard Gould
1997 Residue and Use-Wear Analysis of Grinding Implements from Puntutjarpa
Rockshelter in the Western Desert: Current and Proposed Research. Australian
Archaeology (44):23-25.
Walshaw, Sarah
2010 Traditional Crop Processing and Sustainable Storage on Pemba Island,
Tanzania. Poster presented at the 2010 Ethnobiology Congress, Tofino, British
Columbia.
Weedman, Kathryn J.
2006 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Hafting and Stone Tool Diversity among the
Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13(3):188-237.
White, Randall
1993 [1964] Introduction. In Gesture and Speech by André Leroi-Gourhan, pp. xiiixxii. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Williams-Thorpe, Olwen, and Richard S. Thorpe
1993 Geochemistry and Trade of Eastern Mediterranean Millstones from the
Neolithic to Roman Periods. Journal of Archaeological Science 20(3):263-320.
Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje
1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25(6):617-639.
Wilson, Graham C., and Lawrence A. Pavlish
2005 Field Geology of Gulo Makeda Area, Eastern Tigrai Province, Northern
Ethiopia: An Illustrated Report. Ontario.
Wilson, Richard
1995 Maya resurgence in Guatemala: Q'eqchi' experiences. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Wisdom, Charles
1940 The Chorti Indians of Guatemala. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
252
Wobst, H. Martin
1978 The Archaeo-Ethnography of Hunter-Gatherers or the Tyranny of the
Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity, Vol. 43, No. 2: pp.303309.
Wollstonecroft, Michèle M.
2011 Investigating the Role of Food Processing in Human Evolution: a niche
construction approach. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 3(1):141150.
Woodbury, R. B.
1954 Prehistoric Stone Implements of Northern Arizona. Peabody Museum of
American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Wright, Katherine
1991 The Origins and Development of Ground Stone Assemblages in Late
Pleistocene Southwest Asia. Paléorient 17(1):19-45.
Wright, Katherine
1992 A Classification System For Ground Stone Tools From The Prehistoric
Levant. Paléorient 18(2):53-81.
Wright, Katherine I.
1994 Ground-Stone Tools and Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence in Southwest Asia:
Implications for the Transition to Farming. American Antiquity 59(2):238-263.
Wright, Katherine (Karen) I.
2008 Craft Production and the Organization of Ground Stone Technologies. In
New Approaches to Old Stones edited by Yorke M. Rowan and Jennie R.
Ebeling, pp. 130-143. Equinox Publishing Limited, London.
Wright, Mona K.
1993 Simulated Use of Experimental Maize Grinding Tools from Southwestern
Colorado. Kiva 58(3, New Trends in Ground Stone Research: It's Not the Same
Old Grind):345-355.
Wylie, Alison
1985 The Reaction against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and
Theory 8:63-111.
253
Appendix A.
Interview Questionnaire and Observation Guideline
Notes: The Questionnaire and observation guideline is divided into sections for chaîne
opératoire, morphology and Socio-economic data collecting from manufacturers and
users, and the section headings identify which group of consultants the questions would
apply to, including sections that would apply to both groups.
Greyed out questions are duplicates (ask once but may be applied for multiple lines of
analysis), or have been determined to be not applicable through the first season of
interviews. New questions that were added during discovery interviews are located at
the bottom of the pages.
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
Appendix B.
Ethnoarchaeology Data Analysis
Note: All interviews were entered into a spreadsheet verbatim (each question had a
column).
Coding using standard or most common phrasing/words was used to
extrapolate the key responses in a second column. This data was then transferred to
this worksheet. Where important statements were made, these were highlighted in the
spreadsheet for inclusion in text where appropriate, often as direct quotes or specific
references.
Number of Individuals
Ages:
Average
Median
Mode
High
Low
Villages
total
list (no. of interviews)
Female
32
49
48
48
90
20
Male
20
62
62
52
81
45
11
Aby Adi (3)
Adi Mhigay (2)
Adis Alem (2)
Dehane (1)
Hamodo (1)
Ker Tsodo (2)
Membro (3)
Menebeit (6)
Mzbat Lidet (2)
Tsahwa (1)
7 (1 quarry site)
Aby Adi (1)
Dehane (3)
Ker Tsodo (1)
Membro (3)
Menebeit (5)
Tsa’eda Hamed (5)
Quarry: Gerahu (Grat)
Saharti (2)
Economic Class 90
Low
Middle
High
90
6
19
7
2
14
4
Economic class is based on observations: Type of housing and number of rooms combined
with number and variety of animals and general display of material goods. This area has
gone, and is going through transitions based on Ethiopia’s changing political systems (from a
feudal system to socialist and now democratic), so most homes are in the middle economic
class as far as I could tell. Only a handful of homes stood out as being better off or worse off.
The discrepancies more apparent near Mezber than Ona Adi.
261
32 women
20 men (2 at quarry site)
women:
Average
Median
Mode
High
Low
49
48
48
90
20
Average
Median
Mode
High
Low
62
62
52
81
45
men:
villages:
Aby Adi (4)
Adi Mhigay (2)
Adis Alem (2)
Dehane (4)
Hamado (1)
Ker Tsodo (3)
Membro (6)
Menebeit (11)
Mzbat Lidet (2)
Tsa’eda Hamed (14)
Tsahwa (1)
Quarry Location: Gerahu (Grat) Saharti /GPS UTM N 14 26 259 E 39 24 053 elevation
estimate 2411 (1)
262
Q. 2-39, Chaîne Opératoire – Grinding Stone Manufacturing (Q. 25-39 are
observations)
Question
Response
or observation
Number Number % of overall
who were of same/ e.g. #% of
asked/
very respondents
responded similar
response
2. What triggers a craftsperson to make a grindingstone or mano?
someone needs one
4
if asked to help father
1
when starting to live alone as couple
1
14
when wife needs one
1
14
3. Where is the raw material procured?
All responded Various Quarry Sites except 1 who said hills nearby
(could be quarry site)
Other
Important
comments
7
19
(2 areas)
57
100
Grat Tselimo (all from Menebeit or Dahane)
8
100 from
area 2
Dala
1
9
Gerahu (Grat) Saharti (also referred to as Tsa-eda
Hamed)
5
45
Lebeda Gebrezgi (only masters and son)
3
27
“quarry site” not specific
1
9
hills nearby
1
9
3 main quarries near Mezber:
a) Gerahu (Grat) Saharti (best site – where we are
today)
b) Nizibat lidet (near Segelat – 2 hours walk away)
c) Libeda Gebrezgi (near Haleka Tehwoelde Brahn’s
house)
Dala is 45 minutes away. Brother of wife lives there
and gives him permission to use the stone; if
someone from another village wanted to access
stone from here, they must get permission. Note:
O’gooke is still good for stone
Grat Tselimo - Government land, no special
permission is required to access
263
Question
Response
or
observation
4. Who goes to the procurement site
Other
important
comments
Number Number of
who were same/ very
similar
asked/
responded response
17
Himself/husband and others (friends, neighbors,
colleagues, relatives)
13
76
Master craftsman and who he invites, sometimes
only to carry
2
12
himself, others to carry only
1
6
himself, others only if needed
1
6
yes: proximity due to labour required to carry
back and time to get there (4); proximity and
good quality (incl large stones (1)) available (10);
master craftsman there (1)
15
83
no: limited options
3
17
Can visually identify with knowledge
6
30
break to see internal structure
13
65
sand not shedding
14
70
rough surface
8
40
medium surface
3
15
quartz inclusions, strongly welded, hard
(observed at both manufacturing processes and
told as well)
5
25
ask expert
3
15
touch
3
15
wife prepares injera
also there is a specialist who will show best stone
and how to break
1 – 4 people (1 person (2); 2 people (1); 2-3
people (4); 3-4 people (2); 4 people (2))
5.
6.
Are there multiple options for locations of materials?
How do they choose if there are optional sites?
7. How do they choose raw materials? Physical characteristics
of stone? What are the selection criteria?
264
18
20
Question
Response
or
observation
Number Number of
who were same/ very
similar
asked/
responded response
8. Are there options they are choosing from?
same or similar to above
9. Are there different choices depending on what is ground?
16
fine textured/smooth for tef & millet, rough/coarse
for maize, sorghum, barley, wheat
9
56 (plus 31
below)
same material; difference is in re-pecking for
grains; smooth for tef/millet and rough for others;
make from same boulder if possible
5, 2, 2
31, 12.5,
12.5
1
6
17
100
madqos same material but smaller
10. How is the grinding stone transported back?
17
melde
2-4 men (1); 4 men (take turns) (8); 6-8 (1); if
large 8 and take turns (7); 6-7 (1), 1 to stabilize)
madit can be carried by 1 man
1
11. /+ 32. Does it go back to a shop for additional
manufacturing? Is this a primary manufacturing site or is the
stone material acquired and then immediately transferred?
(obs + resp) quarry is primary manufacturing site, and
sometimes secondary, other secondary work can take place at
expert’s house or owner’s house
20
most manufacturing at quarry site and finishing at
delivery (by women 3, either or 2, rest no reply)
18
90
finished at quarry site
1
5
I observed all at quarry site, but may be because
I was taking it away to City
1
5
265
Question
Response
Number who were
asked/ responded
or
observation
12. How long will it take to manufacture a grinding stone?
(plus 2 obs)
1 day for 2 – 3 or 3 – 5 people ((includes
experts’ responses)
11
73
2- 3 days for 1 person
7
47
3 – 4 days for 1 person
2
13
1 day for 1 man if young/strong
2
13
2 days for 3 people (1 observ)
2
13
1 partial day with 4 men, 1 partial day with 2 men
for maṭhan and madit (observ)
1
6.5
1 day madit
2
13
2 hours madit
2
13
same amount of time (includes experts’
responses)
6
46
maṭhan takes longer
5
38
if requires excavation, longer
1
7
of very good material (hard) – longer
1
7
4 sizes, Mațhan, Madqos, Madit, Wedimadqos,
all different sizes
8
44
elbow to tip of middle finger, plus outstretched
thumb and index finger (3 + obs) OR plus width
of 4 fingers (1) OR plus width of hand (1) OR
plus width of two fingers
5
33
depends on how many men you have to carry it
back
1
5.5
maṭhan is larger than madqos
2
11
maṭhan for t’ef can be smaller
1
5.5
50 cm thickest
1
5.5
sm maṭhan 150kg, larger 200kg +
3
17
13. Do some take longer?
13
14. Are there various sizes? why
Measure:
15
18
266
Question
Response
or
observation
15. What are the characteristics of a “good grinding
stone/mano”?
Number of
Number
who were same/ very
similar
asked/
responded response
14
(1 obs)
coarse grains for wheat, barley, sorghum,
maize
12
86
2 (experts)
14
not shedding sand
14
100
quartz inclusions
3
21
2 (obs)
14
1
7
1 (expert)
7
1
7
women will tell husband if not smooth or rough
enough (expert)
1
7
She determines quality (good or bad)
10
71
If not good, she will tell him to bring a new one
and he will find the best
10
71
complain if sand is released when grinding
3
21
1 (#17)
7
maṭhan coarse grained for wheat, sorghum,
barley, maize; maṭhan fine grain for tef and
millet; madqos for wet grinding of corn, salt,
spices
(incl Master comment); (2 said this in earlier
times, now only one)( one said small quartz
grains for tef; large coarse grains for maize,
wheat, sorghum, barley)
8
57
re-pecking – smooth for tef and millet, rough for
sorghum, barley, maize, wheat)
5
36
no
1
7
fine grains for tef, millet
hard (strongly welded) sandstone
thicker will last longer
depends on what it will be used for and how
long
not exposed to elements for too long
New Q. Do you get feedback from women on them
14
he will bring best, she will grind and give him
bread
16. Do you make different grinding stones /manos for different
cereals?
267
14
Question
Response
or
observation
17. What decisions are you making while manufacturing the
grinding stone/mano?
Number of
Number
who were same/ very
similar
asked/
responded response
9
quality of stone (masters)
4
best way to excavate; how to crack the rock
(weak points) for straight fracture; what is final
shape you want; size, how long it will last, how
easy to transport, does madit work well with
maṭhan (obs)
1
how long it will last, and length of service
(thicker lasts longer)
3
make plans before you act/strike
4
measure to match existing table
4
how to break the stone
2
what tools do I need
3
18. Are some grinding stones of better manufacture than
others?
12
thicker stones last longer
1
8
made by experts who have the knowledge (
choose best stones; how to break) and skills
are best
4
33
good stones (and do not release sand)
4
33
yes
1
8
need proper knowledge
4
33
same as ancestors
13
93
but using metal tools
7
ancestors may not have access to as good
materials
1
19. Do you remember changes that have occurred in how you
make grinding stones? If so, why were those changes made?
20. Do other manufactures use same techniques? If not why?
14
11
some have better knowledge
11
depends on tools used
1
experts are better
1
same as past
1
268
100
Question
Response
or
observation
21. Are there instances you ruin a grinding stone during
manufacture, and if so, what is done with that stone?
12
discard and make another
11
92
make a madit if possible
6
50
make a madqos if possible
1
go slowly, take caution
1
22. When do you resurface or retouch a grindingstone or
mano?
23.
Number of
Number
who were same/ very
similar
asked/
responded response
10
he will show relative or neighbor how to finish
by pecking (if needed) -master
1
during use life - when surface gets too smooth
for grinding (women)(want rough for big grains,
smooth for tef/millet, so can also peck to make
smooth)
6
60
woman (or man) pecks to match madit to
maṭhan when comes from quarry
3
30
What tools do you use?
15
mokarai in earlier times, now metal
1
modesha (sledge/large hammer
14
93
martello (small hammer)
12
80
melaquino (pry bar)
12
80
magafia (shovel)
9
60
scarpello/punta (wedge/chisel) for splitting rock
7
47
mehu-ati (axe) (for excavation)
5
33
mebarro (large hoe)
2
chukarra (small hoe)
1
24. With what /how do you make the stand/table for grinding
stones? (often made by women, not men)
he chooses best stones, stands the stones,
levels the inside of the table with sand and
small stones, wife use mud and animal dung to
apply final coating (master)
women build the table
2
1
2
269
Question
Response
or
observation
Number of
Number
who were same/ very
similar
asked/
responded response
New: Is Access controlled to the procurement site?
Dala is 45 minutes away. Brother of wife lives there and gives him permission; if someone
from another village wanted to access stone from here, they must get permission. Note:
O’gooke is still good for stone
- Grat Tselimo - Government land, no special permission is required to access;
(Dehane) Access – people who live there own it. Before, all people could use it, now it is
difficult. You need to ask the owner and he may ask for Birr, but earlier no one asks for
money
-Access: in earlier times, everyone had access – now someone owns it so need to ask
permission; government land, no one needs permission (2)
-Quarry access: fallow government land, so anyone can access
-Need permission to access from Grat Saharti? No, because he is part of the village.
Someone from outside must ask permission
-The property is privately owned, anyone from the local area can access, in exchange for a
favour to the owner some other time (reciprocity). If you are from another area, you must
ask permission from the land owner, and then pay him – because lack of the opportunity for
exchange at a later date
25.Do craftsmen have a shop?
no (obs + responses)
27. How do we get to the procurement site?
walk (obs and responses)
28. How far is it to the procurement site?
29. How many hours of travel does it take to reach the
procurement site?
10 minutes from the road, 15 minutes from
the
village. (obs)
One other site is closer (5 minutes) (obs),
one is
farther (2 hours) (resp)
minutes.
minutes (obs)
from the expert maṭhan maker’s house, 2
From the school site (mid valley) 20
- 30 minutes (resp)
- one hour to bring it back (resp)
- few kilometers, 3-4 hours travel time return
- 20 minutes from Menebeit (obs)
270
Question
Response
or
observation
Number of
Number
who were same/ very
similar
asked/
responded response
31.
Is there evidence of prior procurement and
manufacturing?
- I did notice some other debitage and
racked rocks (Grat Saharti)
- noticed large and small flake debitage,
some well weathered, some newer (Libeda
Gebrezgi)
33. If primary manufacturing, observe and sample debitage. *samples taken
34. *Include Complete Description of any primary
manufacturing process step by step, and tools used
35. *Include Complete Description of secondary manufacturing
process step by step, tools used
36. If secondary manufacturing, observe and sample debitage
*see extensive observation notes from manufacturing days
37. *Include Complete Description of finished product (note all
“attributes”/morphological characteristics) (raw material,
dimensions, breakage)
maṭhan: sandstone with significant quartz inclusions (large
grain) strong weld; final size 74.0 cm x 37.0 cm x 27.0 cm
(thick) (obs) * see attribute analysis spreadsheet for all stones
manufactured
Q. 40-55, Chaîne Opératoire – Grinding Stone Use
How did they obtain their current grinding stones?
29
husband (with help of experts - 2)
14
48
father
6
21
experts
3
10
in-laws
2
7
parents
1
3
grandmother
1
3
sons and daughters
1
3
purchased (2 birr 8 years ago)
1
3
271
Number
who were
asked/
responded
Number of
same/ very
similar
response
10 (considered ‘new’)
2
11
20
5
26
30
7
37
40
2
11
50
1
5
60
2
11
herself (wife/mother)
18
67
herself and daughters (and daughter in law (1))
8
30
herself and mother
1
4
not much now, sometimes for sua, or need extra
flour, or big celebrations
6
23
not as much now, more in past
7
27
until tired, not everyday because have mills
1
1 - 2 hours every morning
1
every morning except holy days / or always
6
always even now, large family and need more
than they get from mill
1
2 to 3 hours per day, 2 to 3 times per week now
1
Question
Response
or
observation
How old is their current g maṭhan (rounded)
19
other: one lasted 57 years, some 70-100 years,
madits can last 30 years
40. Who uses grinding stones?
27
41. Why do these individuals use grinding stones?
to grind grains into flour, beans for shiro, spices (this
question became redundant or answered in other
question)
42. How often do they use grinding stones?
26
in the past 4 hours, 2 hours after midnight to sunrise, her and
her daughter
1
once every three days
1
in the past, always grinding
1
272
23
Question
Response
or
observation
43. What triggers processing?
Number
who were
asked/
responded
Number of
same/ very
similar
response
6
intensive grinding for holidays, marriages,
funerals
1
if small amount of grains, grind by hand; or if
there is no money for the mill, grind by hand
1
when there is a need for flour and there are
grains to grind
3
50
Mațhan and madqos
28
90
maṭhan for t’ef/millet (smooth)
10
32
maṭhan for sorghum, barley, wheat, maize
(rough) (1 person said a 2nd one for wheat only)
11
35
one maṭhan, (smooth for tef /millet; re-peck rough
for others )
13
42
now only for sua
2
one maṭhan but use both madit and wedimadqos
1
one maṭhan but two madit: thick and heavy for big
grains; thinner and lighter for tef/millet
1
madqos (total responses)
24
77
identified also madqos for salt
14
45
identified also madqos for spices
11
35
identified madqos for wet grinding (sorghum and
maize)
9
29
identified madqos for beans
1
identified madqos for peppers
7
44. What time of the day/week/month/year is grinding done, for
how many days/weeks/months?
(responses on separate spread sheet)
45. Are different grinding stones used for different purposes –
other foods/products? What about past?
(where women talked about more than one maṭhan, 5 referred
to the past)
273
31
23
Number
who were
asked/
responded
Number of
same/ very
similar
response
same techniques, motions, movements
17
63
more pressure for maize, sorghum, barley
(especially said 1), wheat
9
33
more pressure for t’ef and millet
6
22
different pressures for different crops (not
specific)
2
repeck, rough for large grains, smooth (narrower
hammering) for tef and millet
7
different stones/different madit, or maṭhan, also
madit versus wedimadqos for salt/spices, etc.
3
quick : large grains, slow: t’ef
1
difference in speed, if tired takes longer
1
Question
Response
or
observation
46. What techniques are used for grinding, and are there
different methods for different crops?
47. Are there different sizes of grinding stones? If so, why?
27
25
Mațhan and madit (larger stones) for grains,
madqos with wedimadqos (smaller stones) for
salt, spices, wet grinding and shiro (peppers)
(**note, all identified the different stones (maṭhan,
madqos), some added madit/wedimadqos, and
some elaborated on what types of grains, and
what else madqos was used for)
23
maṭhan coarse for large grains, less coarse for
t’ef
1
in past, different stones for different crops
1
48. Which cereals/legumes are roasted before grinding into?
22
92
28
barley (for t’hini (20); for beer (sua) (10);
for ṭėḣlo (1))
24
86
maize (for sua)
10
36
black wheat (wagi) (for sua (2))
6
21
sorghum (for sua)
5
18
beans/chick peas (for shiro)
4
14
atsa (wheat/barley mix)
2
4
274
Number
who were
asked/
responded
Number of
same/ very
similar
response
for maize - grind first on maṭhan, then add water
to grind on madqos to make finer flour
20
80
as above for sorghum
7
28
sprinkle a little water on barley to keep dust down
1
none
4
16
mogu
9
53
martello (small hammer) or mokarai (small basalt
stone) for re-pecking
4
24
madqos
1
none
4
24
same as in past
18
95
hammers are new
1
Question
Response
or
observation
49. Do you ever practice “wet grinding” and if so, under what
circumstances and for which cereals/legumes?
50. What other tools are used for grinding?
25
17
51. Are they the same tools as in the past?
19
52. How long does it take to process 1 kg of cereal/grasses?
28
10 (minutes)
1
4
12
4
14
15 (1 @ 17)
13
46
20
4
14
30 (inexperienced)
4
14
depends on type of grain – t’ef takes longer; and
size of grinding stone matters (1)
4
14
straw mahado/maheuster
18
64
strips of sheep's wool (only in past times (3))
15
54
pounded aloe vera root
7
25
plastic canvas
5
18
plastic bag
1
goat skin
1
53. What do you use to clean the grinding stones?
28
275
Question
Response
or
observation
53.b – How often do you clean?
Number
who were
asked/
responded
Number of
same/ very
similar
response
18
clean after each grain (both stones)
1
clean after each grinding session (both stones)
1
before and after every grinding, to remove
dirt/excess flour
11
sometimes wash with water, but then need to wait
a day to use
1
before use
4
after re-pecking
1
54. Have grinding techniques changed? If so when, and why?
61
22
19
no – same for generations
19
100
13
100
separate room/building- storage
11
46
kitchen (semi open (3))
10
42
main room
2
corner of courtyard
1
55. Do others use the same techniques?
yes
13
Q. 56-67, Chaîne Opératoire – Grinding Stone Use - OBSERVATIONS
57. Where are they grinding?
24
58. What are they grinding? (observations only:)
wheat
2
grains (unknown)
2
beans
1
59. How much time does one spend per day/week grinding?
I did not observe natural grinding process (all by appt) – see Q. 44
60. Where do they put their grinding stones at the end of a
processing session?
In all instances, I observed maṭhans built into tables
(“maṭhan fixed into stone table covered with mud
and dung, painted”), madits were left on top or
beside. When observed, madqos usually in tables,
or on the floor next to or close to the maṭhan, with
wedimadqos on top or next to it. In four cases the
madqos was in the courtyard on the ground.
276
Response Number who Number of
were asked/ same/ very
or
similar
observation responded
response
Question
61. If possible, observe any differences in use wear patterns on the grinding
stone with different cereals/grasses.
a) I could see the differences in the surfaces of the tef maṭhan
versus other grains – t’ef surface smoother, other more rough.
b) maṭhan has relatively flat surface with some concavity from
proximal to distal end; madqos is very worn in centre, creating bowl like wear
62.*Include Complete Description of used grinding stones and manos –
drawings were made and charts completed
(note all “attributes” /morphological characteristics) (dimensions, weight,
striations (use wear), breakage, retouch indications)
63.*Include Complete Description of any residue produced or
deposited at the grinding site. a. How do they clean up the
processing place?
small straw brushes on stones, leave residue on floor
64. Where is debris deposited?
a) reside spilt onto floor, pecked at by chickens
b) some residue collected in the sides of the table,
alongside
the maṭhan, nothing on the floor
65. What else is in the room (e.g. items that may survive in an
archaeological context)
containers (ceramic or plastic, various sizes,
some large cylindrical, some have grains)
stone benches (seats, beds) around perimeter of
room
21
14
9 (noted,
likely more)
Mogogo (in kitchens)
9
raised stone platforms
8
wooden beams and trusses
5 (noted)
straw baskets, sifters, injera plates
5
cooking pots
4
other: wooden trunks/chests
farming tools, animals, shelving
cooking utensils, sacks of grain
metal pails, kerosene lamp, clothing
66. redundant, see Q. 57
67. on drawings
277
Q. 68-75, Chaîne Opératoire – Grinding Stone Discard
Question
Response
or observation
Number /
responded
Note: 68-75 - often answered as one question, both men and
women
same/
similar
response
41
68. When does one decide a grindingstone has reached the
end of its useful life?
69. Why is that decision made?
too thin from re-pecking or breaks
16
when hammering or grinding sand is produced, or
sand is in flour (or hear “dgggggg” when
hammering
14
becomes too smooth (cannot re-peck coarse),
grinding is difficult
8
if not good anymore; no longer useful; not
functioning well; old, worn out
8
other: gap between maṭhan and madit and do not
fit well together;
cut hands while grinding;
centre concave or bowl like
70. What are the options? Retouch? Lateral exchange?
Repurposing (other uses)?
(repeck through life cycle with hammer until it can no
longer be retouched into usefulness)
41
repurpose as madqos (with additional
manufacturing (1); broken in half (1)) (note, all but
one person noted that if it was producing sand it
would be discarded, with one person specifically
saying it could not be used as a madqos)
18
break in two and use as wedimadqos
2
give to someone who needs it
1
when smaller and smooth, use for t’ef/millet
1
71. How is it disposed of? 72. Where is it disposed of?
41
house or wall construction (broken first (5))
17
tossed into yard
19
use as seat in yard
10
water holder for chicken
2
used to sharpen knives
1
278
% of overall
Question
Response
or observation
Number /
responded
same/
similar
response
% of overall
73. *Include Complete Description of an end of life grinding
stone (“attributes”/morphological characteristics)
74. If possible, describe context of discarded or reused grinding
stones and any additional manufacturing or physical changes
made prior to discard/reuse.
75. *Include Complete Description of disposal contexts.
Not many discarded stones were observed, they
were either in the yard, or they brought them to us
(one was shown to us in a wall – see photo Figure 4.16)
a) a discarded maṭhan - in a corner, inside the
courtyard. There were other stones discarded there
as well
b) no additional changes were made to the stone
that was discarded in this instance
Q. 76-84, OBJECTIVE 2 – morphology of grinding stones: not asked in the field, reviewed if there
were responses from other questions that would apply.
Q. 85-104, OBJECTIVE 1 – socio/economic: manufacturing process
85. What triggers an expert craftsperson to make a grinding
stone?
2
someone needs one (master)
1
wife or neighbor’s wife needs one
1
86. Who are the expert craftsmen?
17
family tradition - Expert Craftsmen learn from
fathers (responses from masters + 1 brother)
others help
3
Experts/Specialists (2 men mentioned there were
no more specialists in their area (passed away));
also mentioned was that others learn from them
11
other men also manufacture but some have better
skills than others (e.g. mason)
4
279
Question
Number same/ similar % of overall
responded
response
Response
or observation
87. If I wanted to order a grinding stone, how would I decide
who to approach to make it for me?
They assumed I was asking and in 12 cases assumed I did
not have a husband, if I did I would tell him I needed one.
13
ask an expert (one with closest relationship (1))
and he would organize helpers, including my
husband
10
77
ask brother, neighbors, relatives
3
23
88. Is there competition among grinding stone makers?
6
no competition, work together to help each other
5
one man showed competitiveness, said better
than father and made more than the Haleka, yet
when asking around the community, Haleka
were experts of choice
1
89. Why did they become a grinding stone expert craftsman?
9
expert father passed on knowledge and passes
on to all sons – there is no obligation to become
an expert (1) (one used the knowledge of how to
break stones to become a mason)
7
by choice, watched the experts and learned,
need to have an interest
2
90. Apprenticeship involved?
78
7
yes
5
watching, helping experts (or masons)
2
91. Is it a choice, or determined?
71
9
no obligation, but it is important, life depends on
it
1
expectation of descent - obligation
2
choice
6
92. What other choices for employment do they have?
(note, grinding making is not a full time profession, stones last
long)
5
expectation of descent - obligation
1
farming
3
mason or priest
1
280
67
Question
Number same/ similar % of overall
responded
response
Response
or observation
93. Hold special social positions?
11
respected for knowing best stones best
techniques (respected for opinions, guidance); in
earlier times very special people, now many
know how (2) (all Mezber area)
5
some are recognized as experts
2
no (1 master); no, not experts in other things (1);
(2- Dehane) no if commercialize; if gave away
yes
4
36
father
8
50
experts (one said his brother but his older
brother was an expert – who was taught by his
father)
4
25
neighbors, friends, older brother
4
25
94. Who taught them? How is knowledge transferred?
95. How long does it take to learn the trade?
16
14
experts say: 1 – 2 months to learn to break and
make (1); 3 years to become expert
2
3 years
1
years
1
2 – 5 times
2
within a month, but won't have all knowledge
1
Menebeity/Dehane answers:
after making 3 maṭhan(1)
within a week (2)
2 to 3 days (2)
1 day (2)
7
96. Will you make a grinding stone for anyone?
7
yes
2
yes with payment
1
help each other: for wife, friends, neighbors
4
281
45
Question
Response
or observation
97. What is the cost of a grinding stone, and who pays for it?
CASH Who Pays - One buying it (husband or wife)
Number same/ similar % of overall
responded
response
8
in past 3 birr (equivalent to 50 kilo of tef); now
100 birr (expert)
in past 5 birr (equivalent 50 kilo of tef), now 5 birr
is worth 100 birr
today, 120 birr/day X 2 days = 240 birr per
person manufacturing
At Dala, used to sell grinding stones 10 birr for
pair (10 birr would also buy 20 kilos of tef)—
there were specialists/craftsmen then, that’s all
they did was make grinding stones.
in past (his lifetime) 9 birr - cost of a meal
(Menebeity)
150 birr, 400 birr with transport (more people to
pay) (Menebeity)
in past 2.5 - 3 birr, no fixed price, some smaller
ones could be less (Menebeity)
2.5 - 3 birr (equivalent 50 kilo tef or a big goat)
97. What is the cost of a grinding stone, and who pays for it?
INKIND
10
if I had no husband, I would make him ənjeura
and sua, if I had a husband, he would help him
make the grindingstone (expert)
1
reciprocal - woman prepares sua, injera, shiro
etc., for those manufacturing (if rich could add
coffee and tea (1))
10
reciprocal: i.e. lend oxen
2
woman helps with other tasks such as weeding,
harvesting
3
98. Is it always a cash transaction or is there a trade/barter
system?
- usually barter, see above
7
were sold in the past (before 1960’s) at markets
4
sometimes cash, sometimes reciprocal
2
not sold
1
282
100
Question
Number same/ similar % of overall
responded
response
Response
or observation
99. Any rituals/prayers involved?
9
The men have the opportunity to socialize: talk,
discuss, drink sua, sing songs. The song they
sang: “this stone is good in quality”
1
no manufacturing on holy days
2
sing songs (note, a few (4) men said they don’t
sing, working too hard, but through the observed
manufacturing, we witnessed singing both times)
4
Observation: when cracking rock, they chanted
“Help me Hail Mary” with each blow. Some
singing too
1
“We drink sua, eat injera, can dance, sing. At
end of transport, will eat/drink, say very nice
words ‘Have a long life for your maṭhan, may it
serve you and your daughter for a long time,
have good crops to grind on this maṭhan’”
1
the wife prepares injera and sua for the men
making her maṭhan; they are joking with each
other, no loud singing though, working
4
44
44
Q. 100 – 104 are duplicates, but can apply to this Objective.
Q. 100 is same as 17; 101 is same as 20; 102 is same as 21;
103 is not applicable; 104 same as 99
Q. 105-114, OBJECTIVE 1 – socio/economic: manufacturing process: OBSERVATIONS
105. Are these craftspersons proud of their trade?
(see comments in text)
5
yes (very proud)
5
106. Are they comfortable talking about their trade?
100
19
yes very happy to share this information with me,
encouraging questions and wanted to express
details often. Even the nonexperts were happy
to explain.
107. Do they talk about their role in society as a grindingstone
maker?
doesn't see himself as special, just a society role
only about helping others acquire knowledge
only as it pertains to helping each other
283
19
100
Number
same/
Response
responded
similar
or
response
observati
on
Question
108. Do they have a shop?
109. If so, is there any evidence of other crafts in the shop –
how much activity do they control?
There are no shops, manufacturing, even when done
commercially, is done at the quarry, sometimes
finishing at
manufacturer’s home
110. How do others treat them?
Experts: their expertise is respected; experts have
supervisory role and pass on knowledge
111. Does it seem to be well kept secret where quarries are?
No, everyone knows, especially the men.
112. Are there any cultural strategies observable?
reciprocal exchange obligations; respect for authority
of experts; continuation of tradition (woman hosts food, sua)
113. Who else is present at the manufacturing site?
Masters and helpers (first session) and wife of master
to serve food/sua; (second session) manufacturers (3
each day), a man who was walking by stayed for
awhile, some younger men and children watched for
a few hours (some came and went) – younger men
ended up carrying the finished stone after
114. How do they act, interact with the grinding stone maker
and others there?
The two masters plus another said that they miss
social interaction: laughing, joking, talking, drinking
sua, but can do this at harvesting, ploughing,
weeding, preparing for funerals and weddings,
114. b – separate analysis
284
Q. 105-114, OBJECTIVE 1 – socio/economic: Grindingstone Use
Question
Response
or observation
Number same/ similar % overall
responded
response
115. Who uses grinding stones? (see Q. 40, duplicate but can
apply under this Objective)
116. Why do these individuals use grinding stones?
To grind grains, salt, spices, etc.
117. Under what circumstances are grinding stones used
today (when a flour mill is available)?
22
if no money for mill
10
45
if mill too far (no time, no donkey)
8
36
madqos for salt, spices, beans for shiro (many
more still use this) (many others still use
madqos)
5
23
mill not available (4 responses from Mezber)
5
23
sua (many others use for sua)
5
23
for ceremonies (weddings, funerals, saint and
holy days)
4
- still use a lot; sometimes prefer to grind before
chores
- some mills add impurities, so would rather grind
- hand grinding is still better for injera (2)
- everyday needs, or need extra (2)
118. Who taught them to grind?
30
mother
29
family
1
118. b. Will you teach your daughters?
97
9
yes
8
no, they go to school
1
285
89
Question
Response
or observation
Number same/ similar % overall
responded
response
118. c. age begin grinding
10
after marriage (1 said she was 12)
2
12
2
14
2
15
1
10 learned salt on madqos
1
learned young, but did not grind (had servants),
started to grind when moved and married at 12
1
started to watch/learn at 9, took over at 15 (when
married)
1
119. What are the relations of those grinding together?
120.
27
mothers
16
59
daughters
4
15
sisters
16
59
relatives, friends and neighbors (“Grinding
together makes good relationships with family
and neighbors”) **None from Menebeit or
Dahane answered this way.
8
30
grind alone
2
relatives and friends for ceremonies, but grind at
own houses
1
Mother in law (after married)
2
not applicable
121. Do they always grind in the same place? If not, what
other places do they use to process?
Obs –maṭhans are fixed, so same place, madqos,
when not fixed could be used anywhere
maṭhan fixed into table, so always same place
122 – 125 duplicates but apply to this objective
Q122 same as 42; 123 same as 43; 124 same as 44; 125
same as 45
286
2
2
Question
Response
or observation
Number same/ similar % overall
responded
response
126. Who brings the cereals/grasses to be ground?
husband (husband and colleagues (1))
10
harvesting is whole family activity
5
husband, wife, nephews, brothers
1
herself, she has no husband
1
127 & 128 duplicates but apply to this objective
Q127 same as 54; 128 same as 55
24
129. Any rituals/prayers involved?
(field notebooks have Tigrinya lyrics)
prayer: Besme ab woweld womenfes Kidus, calls
on the Holy Trinity to bless the grinding process
and provide quality, and greater quantity of flour
(lasts longer)
17
songs – can be seasonal (and a few added
talking, laughing, joking)
6
hammer and clean the stone
3
130. Do they share equally in the food produced?
n/a – they grind for their own family
131. Do they give some of the processed food to others not
involved in the grinding? If so, in exchange for what?
22
loan to others, must pay back (same for same –
e.g. tef for tef); flour or injera
132. Are there other things they do together as a group, or sub
group?
(see also 133 and 134)
22
3
taking care of crops: planting, weeding,
harvesting, threshing
2
celebrations: weddings, funerals, holy and saint
days
1
helping each other
1
lots of activities families and neighbors do
together
287
100
Question
Response
or observation
Number same/ similar % overall
responded
response
133. Under what circumstances do women help their
families/neighbors with grinding – today, and in the past?
22
ceremonies: weddings, funerals, saint days,
baptism (1) (5 mentioned this was in the past)
16
in the past, grinding side by side with mother,
sisters, neighbors through the night
2
not as much as in the past, in the past obligated
to help
3
not helping today, unless paid
1
if woman is sick
1
134. Do they help each other with other tasks?
73
19
ceremonies (weddings, funerals, saint days)
10
harvesting
12
wedding
7
cultivating (for payment (1))
4
threshing
2
planting
1
will help with things (for pay (1))
2
farming
1
build a house
1
14
135. If you did not have to spend time grinding, what would
you do?
Shepherd animals
9
64
SEFT/Net – government terracing program (work
for food: for grain or low payment)
8
57
gardening, farming, cultivating, watering plants
7
50
collect and prepare animal food
3
sleep/rest a bit more
3
raise children
2
collect wood
2
collect water
2
weave
2
288
Q. 136-147 OBJECTIVE 1 – socio/economic: Grindingstone Use - OBSERVATIONS
Question Response
or observation
Number
responded
136. Who is using grinding stones?
Observations are based on both seeing women
grind or demonstrate grinding (~7), and all were
wife/mother except in 2 cases it was daughters;
and also based on who was telling me about the
grinding stone
similar
response
15
wife/mother
15
daughter
4
137. What are ages of grinders?
** see above Q. 118
138. Where are they grinding?
**see Q. 57 and in drawings
139. What do they discuss when they are grinding?
In the two arranged sessions, it was mostly about
how they were grinding and asking us questions,
answering our questions. Not a natural grinding
process
140. How are they treating each other?
mother/daughter respectful, mother directing
daughter, daughter quiet
two friends, support each other
respectful, younger one helps older
sisters physically close together
sisters playful and chatting/laughing, daughter
helping mother
good relations between females
respect shown to mother by daughters, taking
care of mother in law
141. How do they interact?
- helping each other with children, supported
other woman in answers
- interactions pleasant
- laughter, sharing conversations
289
% of overall
responses
Question Response
or observation
Number
responded
142. Are there leaders, and are they evident?
I noticed some very strong and outspoken
women, but never bossy to others.
- younger female deferred to older female
- she is older, and quite strong, seems to lead
her home and has influence in the village
(landowner)
- mother was in charge
143. Do I also see them together in other social contexts?
I was not able to witness other social contexts
144. How much time does one spend per day/week grinding?
duplicate, see Q 44.
145. Who else is in the room?
during interviews all kinds of family would gather,
as well as neighbors at times. During arranged
grinding sessions, usually children joined us. I
was told that they would often grind with children
on their back, and if they were grinding at night,
likely no one else would be there but the baby,
and maybe sisters /mother /daughters also
grinding
146. Are there other activities going on while the grinding is
happening?
again, I only observed arranged grinding
sessions; during interviews often a coffee
ceremony was performed, sometimes food was
made/served, there were instances when women
were tending to animals or shooing them away
147. Observe any cultural strategies.
- retouch to roughen surfaces
- maṭhan 4 cm thick, ready to discard
- father kind to daughters
290
similar
response
% of overall
responses
Q. 148-167 OBJECTIVE 1 – socio/economic: Grindingstone Use and Introduction of Mills
Question
Response
or observation
Number who Number of
were asked/ same/very
responded similar
response
152. Have you used communal mills?
It became obvious quickly that everyone had
used communal mills
5
153. Do you need to do additional processing if you use these
mills?
24
% of overall
e.g. #% of
5
100
sifting (especially barley (3) and sorghum (1)
NOT t’ef)
21
86
additional grinding required for finer flour
sometimes
1
additional processing to remove impurities
(sand, etc.)
1
no additional processing
1
154. Is it easier to use the communal mills?
(one lady said “it gives me rest” – lots of other
comments in text
25
yes (if money and time available, not too busy
(7); and not too far (5); and mill is working (1)
155. What do you like about using the communal mills?
25
27
time savings – mill is quick (1 quintl 1 hr)
10
37
offers opportunity to rest/sleep
10
37
saves her energy
7
28
not always standing night and day
6
22
meet people from other areas, discuss their
towns, joke, talk (see also q. 160)
6
22
she is old/weak and if there was not mill, she
would die (1)
3
tastes the same (but less qty (1))
2
can get flour easily
2
fine flour for baking
1
all good
1
helps us
1
time to visit with guests
1
291
Question
Response
or observation
Number who Number of
were asked/ same/very
responded similar
response
156. What don’t you like?
% of overall
e.g. #% of
26
flour is burned by electricity of mill, tastes
different (gives less energy, see below), (1 said
taste same)
11
42
hand ground flour gives more energy when you
eat it, stronger for the body (mills remove
vitamins and nutritional content (2))
11
42
get less quantity from the mill (lasts longer if
ground by hand)
7
27
nothing
7
flour is too fine, not good for making injera
(difficult to sift out straw(1))
5
crowded and busy, can take a long time just to
get there (4-5 hours including waiting, if local
mill down and need to go to Fatsi – 11 hours) –
if holy day, really busy
4
some mills have impurities (sand etc)
1
flour not fine enough and needs to be ground by
hand
1
women stay strong if grinding
1
mill is often down
1
157. Does it free up your time to do other things?
**see 135, same info (compare two columns)
159. What do others do who have extra time?
**same
160. Do you see the same people as before, when you did
not use these mills?
9
miss the social aspect of earlier times grinding
with other women (ages 76, 70+, 50)
3
33
meet people from other areas, discuss their
towns, joke, talk (see 5 responses under q. 155,
one new one under q. 160)
6
66
161. If yes, do you miss those people?
162. What do you miss?
**see above
292
Question
Response
or observation
Number who Number of
were asked/ same/very
responded similar
response
% of overall
e.g. #% of
163. Technological and Social changes.
**see Q. 54 for no technological changes, and questions
above and below of social changes
164. How much does it cost to use the mill? per 100 kilo
6
local mill (Mezber) 40 birr (35 (1); 37 (1))
6
Fatsi 30 birr (35 (1))
8
100
4
164.b. how long
from Mezber to Fatsi (some prefer Fatsi, they can
grind more types and get a better product,
cheaper) 3 – 4 hour travel time, with wait time 6 –
12 hours total
164. c. how do you get there
donkey if possible
2
165. Have you heard of rotary querns and why have they not
been used?
never heard of, not our tradition
6
6
293
100
167. Changes since introduction of mechanical mills
Doesn’t affect our relations, but then she said, the coming of mills distances our relationships. “grinding
together for marriages and ceremonies is no more” Positive from coming of mills – can facilitate
relationship building, with people from other areas who come together at the mill, and exchange information,
understand each other
traditional culture has changed, not as much time spent grinding. And even though the knowledge is
present, people are not eager to grind, it is hard work, and the mill is faster (also see 156 about if mill
breaks down).
The tradition of the maṭhan is breaking down, but we are happy with the coming of the mill
No changes, but now we save our energy, in earlier times there was more grinding. Maṭhan is better, good.
When grinding our social interaction is better, now do not get this. Hand ground flour gives better energy.
some people might leave
Culture is changing, in earlier days, people always use grinding stones, today people have stopped, they do
not use the grinding stones
Earlier times, life depended on grinding stones. Now with mills, can grind many quintls in shorter time.
Saves time and energy.
Re: using the mills and ease of access - There is a scarcity of crops in the village, so we buy
from the markets in Fatsi, and while right there we can go to the mill. There is not a lot of big
land to cultivate, so not too much to harvest throughout the year. Local grains last Nov – May
If it were not for having to build terraces, we would have time to eat and sleep. Culture is changing, leaving
the grindingstone and going to the mill now
get rest
In earlier times, we were always standing behind our grinding stones, but now the tradition is dying.
Living tradition is breaking down. Earlier times, grind together and help each other, not so much anymore
People used to help each other, in earlier times people loved each other more. There was work 24 hours,
but no conflict. Now it is hard, because at this time there are many meetings and we must go make
terraces and if you do not attend people ask why and talk about you, there are hard feelings. At meetings
people raise their hands and speak out about others or against other opinions, and it creates bad feelings
(later I was talking to Habtamu and Abebe about this and they confirmed they were hearing the same – the
local authorities call many, many meetings and so many people are expected to attend, and often there is
conflict. Many of the meetings occur during the day, so conflict with work time.)
Used to have the grindingstone in her main house, now it is outside. The only change is women get sleep.
Now only use the maṭhan for boli (to make sua), and shiro.
294
168. Other Comments/Info
Female 3 demonstrated using the maṭhan and madit, it takes a lot of effort and skill. Maṭhan is sloped away
from grinder. Push down, pressure downward with palms on madit, pull madit back up, pull with fingers.
To use the mill at Fatsi or Zalambesa – 3 hours. Other: a good grindingstone – the sand does not come off
when you grind; Bigger maṭhans are better as they grind more; Bigger medit helps conserve energy; When
you use medkos, requires more pressure; Pecking, hammering with hard core stone, or small metal hammer
Things are better now; the mill saves our energy, and saves time. In earlier times, all our time was spent
grinding. But, ‘she loves and likes more her grindingstone’. Crops ground on maṭhan make good injera, and
there is more quantity of flour from same amount of grains compared to milled flour. A woman becomes
strong when grinding, like an athlete
Retouch: pecking to roughen surface; For t’ef, softer, closer hammering blows; For other grains, harder
hammer blows, creating larger gaps and a rougher surface
In earlier times, we were grinding side by side, now the grindingstone is left only for sua. The tradition is
changing, and already people have left [it]
When she demonstrated the grinding, it was not just push/pull back and forth, she pushed down, then as she
pulled back and up, her upper body rounding somewhat as she pulled herself up (brought up the shoulders).
There was quite a rhythm to it.
Other: good grinding stones – at the quarry site, they know when they first hammer, if it produces sand, they
discard it and make a new one. To make maṭhan table (she made it); Stand big stones. Then use mud to
bind them, coat them with mud and dung. Fill inside area with smaller stones and sand, then put maṭhan on
top, and seal with mud and dung. Other: I explained that in the archaeological record, the maṭhan are
smaller, and asked her why she thought they would be smaller. Her answer was that probably, in her opinion,
they had less crops to grind, and relied on forms of foraging for food.
In earlier times, people would go to sleep without food because we had no flour. Now that there is a mill,
there is food, we can eat, and not go to sleep without food. (I asked, what if no birr to mill flour?) – they
borrow birr; In earlier times maṭhans made us very busy, could not go outside, did not rest, no time to play,
laugh with brothers and sisters.
I asked why she thought maṭhans are smaller from the archaeological record. She responded that according
to her mother and grandmother, they did not have crops, they foraged in the valley, so had less to grind.
** we had to grind that much, there was no alternative, life depends on it. We slept 3 -4 hours; Why, in your
opinion, are maṭhans smaller in the archaeological record? Because they are worn out, as it has been used
for a long time, also, might be broken; A good maṭhan – does not produce sand, and becomes rough when
you re-touch. Cost to use mills per quintl, local 37 or 40 birr, Fatsi 30; Get to mill by using donkey, and if you
don’t have one, borrow one; Time to get to and use mill – if not many people, 3.5 hours, but if there are a lot
of people and you must wait your turn, could be up to 8 hours.
Other: Grinding together makes good relationships with family and neighbors; If maṭhan is bad, she would
discuss with her husband, and he would bring a new one; he will bring best one, and she will grind and give
him bread; These people (the daughters) have borrowed our knowledge; She built her maṭhan table
A good maṭhan is one when you rehabilitate (peck to roughen) it does not produce sand, and is better from
grinding, grinding goes well.
295
168. Other Comments/Info
Good grinding stone – when you start grinding, can grind a lot of grain in short time, if bad, can grind all day
and only get 5 kilos; Big s grind more flour; Retouch – use a modesha/martello or a black hammer stone to
peck surface to roughen. For tef – peck close together, softer blows. For other grains – more gaps between
blows and use more force
Other: rehabilitation - Uses martello and black hammerstone (basalt/mawqari). Mills: uses mostly Fatsi,
because they can grind more alternatives, even for Tehaini and peppers – local mill cannot do tef, Tehaini,
green peppers (chili peppers – jalepeno?)
Rehabilitate: to hammer to make surface rough; Use martello or mokarai (hard core stone); Know it needs
rehabilitation when the surface becomes smooth and it does not grind well; Clean with mahado, then use root
of aloe vera plant to clean
Rehabilitation – hammer to roughen surfaces of medit and maṭhan. Use martello and hammerstone
(mawqari) – black hard stone (basalt). After rehab, clean to remove sand, add a small amount of grain and
grind, clean that off and feed to dog. Rehab after the surfaces become smooth - maṭhan and madit at the
same time – takes 15 to 20 minutes. Bigger maṭhan grinds more flour, but the madit must be light enough to
pull and push. Breaking during rehab? Yes, especially madit – broke in two places (small pieces off end).
Rehabilitation – uses mawqari (black (basalt) hammerstone) and martello - use same cleaning methods –
mahado and canvas. Breaking during rehab? Yes, have seen this by others. After a long time, when a madit
gets worn down, it becomes thin and can break in two during rehab. Mills Local (“machina”) – 20 minutes one
way, and if there are a lot of people waiting you can wait all day, it is very slow. Fatsi – 2 hours one way, and
can wait 3 – 4 hours, but it is better because it has electricity and metal grinding machines (not stone grinders
like the local mill)
Rehabilitation – for t’ef, very small hammer blows, close together, as you want a smoother surface. For other
crops, you require a rougher surface, so more aggressive hammering is needed. Breakage during rehab?
When a maṭhan has been in service for a long time, it gets worn out and thin, and the tips can break off, or
break at a “serray” (natural fault, where the stone has raised lines). Madits – can break in two. ** have
photos of broken madit.
We are finding small maṭhans in the archaeological record, any idea why? They wear out over long period of
time. Rehabilitation: required after 3 - 4 days of grinding because it becomes smooth Uses a martello, but
earlier times used black hammerstone (basalt) – could find these in the rift valleys. Ever break grinding
stones during rehabilitation? Yes, madit broke in two, pretty straight break. Need to rehabilitate for maize,
sorghum, barley, wheat. T’ef and millet, need surface smoother, so hammer blows are softer and closely
placed; Mills: she uses both. Fatsi is better than the local one, they have separate grinders for t’ef and other
grains. Local only has only one grinder, so it mixes flours. Fatsi, takes 7 hours if there are not a lot of people,
11 hours if there are a lot of people. Uses donkey to go
She showed us how to: make T’holo (from t’haini), add a bit of water so it is a crumbly dough, one grabs a bit
and squeeze it in your palm to form a solid mass, then eat; Make boso (from t’haini), add more water and
knead it like bread into a single ball, then take small bits and roll them into balls, eat with a stick
Get to mill – Adgi (donkey), takes 25 minutes to get to Howahi
I asked if she felt it was important to document this history and how hard women worked. She thanked me for
coming to her home, and felt it is important for future generations, it is very nice to do this because the
tradition has ‘died’, even the production of pottery has been lost – we used to use pottery for ceremonies, now
we use metals/plastics
296
Appendix C.
Workshop with Elders: Classification of Mezber Artifacts
Serial
Grindingstone classification
FieldName SquareName
Locus
Pail
224
madit
A
1
18
38
225
maṭhan
A
1
10
42
229
maṭhan
A
1
10
45
230
madit
A
1
7
47
233
madit
A
1
7
51
236
madit
A
1
7
50
341
wedimadqos
C
1
2
2
373
water trough for bees, chickens
379
madit
C
1
3
9
410
maṭhan
C
1
8
14
411
maṭhan
C
1
8
14
418
madit
C
1
4
17
490
maṭhan
A
2
8
6
504
madit
A
2
13
9
522
madit
A
2
13
9
608
maṭhan
A
1
30
61
609
madqos
A
1
29
62
614
madit
A
1
29
64
615
madit
A
1
29
64
622
madit
A
1
29
64
649
madqos
C
1
10
19
657
madit
C
1
4
23
659
maṭhan
C
1
4
23
660
maṭhan
C
1
4
23
717
madit
C
1
8
14
871
wedimadqos ( probably madit prior))
A
2
7
16
959
madit
A
1
41
69
985
wedimadqos
A
1
43
72
1103
madit
A
1
47
104
297
Serial
Grindingstone classification
FieldName SquareName
Locus
Pail
1104
madit
A
1
47
104
1119
madit
A
1
47
107
1127
madit
A
1
54
108
1182
maṭhan
C
1
8
14
1287
wedimadqos
A
2
26
43
1339
stone - not a grindingstone
A
1
54
109
1440
madqos (?)
A
1
3
4
1816
stone - not a grindingstone
E
1
4
6
1832
madit
E
1
8
8
1842
wedimadqos
E
1
8
9
1855
maṭhan
E
1
11
14
1910
madqos
A
1
67
146
1941
madit
A
3
11
15
2034
madit
A
2
31
60
2059
maṭhan
A
2
32
63
2119
madit
2303
madit
2442
maṭhan
C
2
1
3
2541
madit (small)
C
1
29
54
2548
wedimadqos
C
1
30
55
2564
mawqari
C
1
32
59
2700
stone - not a grindingstone
(informants); looks like a maṭhan
A
2
45
89
2708
mawqari
E
1
25
27
2860
wedimadqos
C
2
6
14
3031
wedimadqos
C
2
8
25
3141
wedimadqos
C
1
36
71
3144
wedimadqos
C
1
36
71
3146
mawqari
C
1
36
71
3148
wedimadqos
C
1
36
71
3176
wedimadqos or mawqari
C
1
39
75
3193
wedimadqos
C
1
36
71
298
Serial
Grindingstone classification
FieldName SquareName
Locus
Pail
3202
Mogogo stone
3203
wedimadqos
E
1
31
40
3220
madit (2 partial)
E
1
28
43
3222
madit
E
1
32
44
3239
madit
3353
madit
A
2
56
121
3419
wedimadqos
C
22
14
39
3470
mawqari
C
2
17
51
3471
madit
C
2
17
51
3495
madit
C
2
17
55
3560
madqos
A
2
46
145
3572
madit
A
2
46
145
3629
mawqari
3711
madit
A
2
59
166
3776
madit
A
2
61
180
3782
madit
A
2
64
184
3791
maṭhan
A
2
64
186
3804
madit
C
2
30
97
3807
wedimadqos
C
2
30
97
3875
wedimadqos
C
2
20
63
3893
madit
C
1
45
85
3895
Mogogo smoothing stone
C
1
45
86
3908
madit
C
1
45
88
3910
mawqari
C
1
45
88
3915
madit
C
1
45
87
3916
wedimadqos
C
1
45
87
3917
wedimadqos
C
2
22
69
3929
madit or wedimadqos
C
2
22
70
3932
wedimadqos
C
2
22
71
3934
madit
C
2
22
71
3940
madit
C
1
46
89
3949
wedimadqos
C
1
46
90
299
Serial
Grindingstone classification
FieldName SquareName
Locus
Pail
3950
mawqari
C
1
46
90
3951
wedimadqos
C
1
46
90
3971
wedimadqos
C
1
47
92
3978
madit
C
2
24
77
3988
wedimadqos
C
2
24
78
3998
madit
C
2
24
78
3999
madit
C
2
24
78
4016
madit
C
2
27
83
4064
wedimadqos
E
1
43
65
4085
Mogogo stone
E
1
45
69
4086
madit or wedimadqos
E
1
45
69
4100
madit
E
1
47
92
4101
wedimadqos
C
2
31
92
4102
madit
E
1
47
72
4150
madit
C
1
48
93
4180
wedimadqos
C
2
29
89
4183
wedimadqos
C
2
29
89
4184
madit
C
2
27
90
4185
wedimadqos
C
2
27
90
4186
madit
C
2
29
89
4188
wedimadqos
C
2
27
90
4200
madit
C
2
30
97
4201
wedimadqos
C
2
31
92
4205
madit
C
2
30
94
4210
madit
C
2
32
95
4211
madit
C
2
32
95
4265
madit
4266
wedimadqos
D
1
10
14
4335
madqos
D
1
21
31
4345
wedimadqos
D
1
23
33
3539
madqos
C
1
36
71
300
Appendix D.
Measurements for Mezber Mațhan and Madqos Artifacts
Mațhan Measurements (cm) page 1 of 2
301
Mațhan Measurements (cm) page 2 of 2
302
Madqos Measurements (cm)
303
Appendix E.
Measurements for Mezber Madit and Wedimadqos
Artifacts
Madit Summary (cm) (shaded rows = side 2 of bifacial stones)
Stone
and
Surface
Length
Serial
(n=23)
No.
(SN) Dating 8 biface
Stone and
Surface
Width
(n=23)
8 biface
Stone
Stone
and
ThickSurface ness
Area
high
(n=23) (n=23)
8 biface 8 biface
Stone
Incomplete Incomplete
Thick- Incomplete
Stone
Stone
(broken)
ness
Thickness Thickness
(low) Width (n=58) high (n=58)
low (n=58)
(n=23)
16 biface
16 biface
16
biface
8 biface
4200
Archaic
29.0
13.5
391.5
4.0
0.8
4200
Archaic
26.0
11.0
286.0
4.0
0.8
1103
Early
37.0
13.0
481.0
5.0
2.0
1104
Early
36.0
14.5
522.0
6.0
4.0
1104
Early
38.0
13.5
513.0
6.0
4.6
4184
Early
20.3
11.0
223.3
5.0
5.0
230
Middle
35.6
17.0
605.2
13.6
13.6
622
Middle
22.0
11.7
257.4
5.0
5.0
1832
Middle
29.0
16.0
464.0
5.0
1.0
1832
Middle
32.0
16.3
521.6
5.0
1.0
2541
Middle
18.0
14.5
261.0
6.5
6.5
2541
Middle
18.0
14.5
261.0
6.5
6.5
3471
Middle
32.0
14.8
473.6
5.0
2.8
3471
Middle
32.7
15.2
497.0
5.0
2.8
3711
Middle
23.5
12.0
282.0
7.0
7.0
3711
Middle
24.0
14.5
348.0
7.0
7.0
3776
Middle
22.0
18.5
407.0
8.0
6.0
379
Late
24.0
11.5
276.0
7.0
4.0
418
Late
24.0
15.0
360.0
4.5
4.5
418
Late
24.0
15.0
360.0
4.5
4.5
657
Late
29.5
15.0
442.5
4.0
1.5
657
Late
30.0
14.5
435.0
4.0
1.5
717
Late
23.0
12.5
287.5
4.0
1.0
304
Madit Summary (cm) (shaded rows = side 2 of bifacial stones)
Stone
and
Surface
Length
Serial
(n=23)
No.
(SN) Dating 8 biface
Stone and
Surface
Width
(n=23)
8 biface
Stone
Stone
and
ThickSurface ness
Area
high
(n=23) (n=23)
8 biface 8 biface
Stone
Incomplete Incomplete
Thick- Incomplete
Stone
Stone
(broken)
ness
Thickness Thickness
(low) Width (n=58) high (n=58)
low (n=58)
(n=23)
16 biface
16 biface
16
biface
8 biface
4150
Archaic
9.0
6.0
6.0
3804
Archaic
13.2
5.5
1.5
3222
Archaic
15.0
9.0
1.0
3239A Archaic
13.5
4.5
1.0
3239A Archaic
13.5
4.5
1.0
3239B Archaic
14.8
6.0
2.5
3239B Archaic
14.8
6.0
2.5
4205
Archaic
9.6
4.2
4.2
4205
Archaic
9.0
4.2
4.2
1119
Early
12.5
7.0
4.0
1119
Early
12.5
7.0
4.0
1127
Early
17.5
7.0
7.0
1339
Early
15.7
7.7
1.0
3978
Early
12.4
3.8
3.8
3220A Early
13.5
6.0
3.0
3220A Early
11.5
6.0
3.0
3220B Early
14
4.8
2.5
3220B Early
12.5
4.8
2.5
3495
Early
12.5
7.0
5.0
3998
Early
8.8
5.5
2.5
3998
Early
8.8
5.5
2.5
3999
Early
13.0
5.5
5.5
4016
Early
14.3
6.0
6.0
4016
Early
12.2
6.0
6.0
4210
Early
15.6
8.0
1.0
4211
Early
11.6
4.4
4.4
224
Middle
13.5
6.8
2.0
224
Middle
13.8
6.8
2.0
233
Middle
19.0
6.5
6.5
305
Madit Summary (cm) (shaded rows = side 2 of bifacial stones)
Stone
and
Surface
Length
Serial
(n=23)
No.
(SN) Dating 8 biface
Stone and
Surface
Width
(n=23)
8 biface
Stone
Stone
and
ThickSurface ness
Area
high
(n=23) (n=23)
8 biface 8 biface
Stone
Incomplete Incomplete
Thick- Incomplete
Stone
Stone
(broken)
ness
Thickness Thickness
(low) Width (n=58) high (n=58)
low (n=58)
(n=23)
16 biface
16 biface
16
biface
8 biface
236
Middle
15.7
5.5
4.0
236
Middle
17.1
5.5
4.0
614
Middle
8.5
5.5
5.5
615
Middle
15.0
6.8
4.7
2034
Middle
14.4
6.2
2.5
4100
Middle
13.0
5.5
1.5
4102
Middle
12.0
4.7
4.7
4102
Middle
12.0
4.7
4.7
959
Middle
17.0
9.5
5.0
504
Middle
12.5
4.5
2.8
504
Middle
12.0
4.5
2.8
522
Middle
12.0
5.5
5.5
522
Middle
16.0
5.5
5.5
3353
Middle
13.3
6.5
1.5
1941
Middle
14.3
6.5
1.5
3572
Middle
15.0
7.0
4.5
3782
Middle
15.5
4.5
4.5
3782
Middle
15.5
4.5
4.5
660
Late
16.1
5.0
5.0
2442
Mixed
19.2
4.5
4.5
3893
Mixed
13.0
5.8
3.0
3893
Mixed
13.0
5.8
3.0
3908
Mixed
11.3
5.5
5.5
3915
Mixed
11.0
3.7
3.7
3934
Mixed
11.0
7.5
7.5
3940
Mixed
10.0
4.5
4.5
3940
Mixed
9.5
4.5
4.5
4186
Mixed
14.9
7.5
5.0
1440
Unknown
12.5
7.0
7.0
306
Stone
ThickSurface ness
Area
high
(n=23) (n=23)
9 biface 9 biface
Stone
Thick- Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete
Stone
(broken)
Stone
ness
Thickness
Width
Thickness
(low)
high (n=57) low (n=57)
(n=57)
(n=23)
9 biface 15 biface
15 biface
15 biface
Surface
Length
(n=23)
9 biface
Surface
Width
(n=23)
9 biface
Median
26.0
14.5
391.5
5.0
4.0
13.2
5.5
4.0
High
38.0
18.5
605.0
13.6
13.6
19.2
9.5
7.0
Low
18.0
11.0
223.3
4.0
0.8
8.8
3.7
1.0
Mean (Average)
27.4
14.1
389.4
5.7
4.1
13.3
5.8
3.8
standard deviation
5.9
1.9
106.7
2.0
2.9
1.2
1.6
newmadit2
39.0
22.0
858.0
14.0
newmadit1
35.0
20.0
700.0
11.0
307
Wedimadqos Summary
Surface
Width
(n=22)
7 biface
Stone
ThickSurface ness
Area
high
(n=22) (n=22)
7 biface 7 biface
Stone
Incomplete Incomplete
ThickIncomplete
Stone
Stone
ness
(broken)
Thickness
Thickness
(low)
(n=22) Width (n=20) high (n=20) low (n=20)
7 biface
3 biface
3 biface
3 biface
SN
Dating
Surface
Length
(n=22)
7 biface
3988
Early
11.0
8.8
96.8
4.0
4.0
3988
Early
11.0
8.8
96.8
4.0
4.0
4185
Early
15.0
11.0
165.0
5.0
5.0
4188
Early
10.3
7.5
77.3
3.3
3.3
4188
Early
10.7
8.1
86.7
3.3
3.3
1842
Middle
13.5
11.0
148.5
5.0
5.0
3141
Middle
16.5
10.8
178.2
3.5
2.0
3141
Middle
16.5
10.2
168.3
3.5
2.0
3148
Middle
11.5
9.0
103.5
4.5
4.5
3148
Middle
11.5
9.0
103.5
4.5
4.5
3193
Middle
14.7
8.0
117.6
5.5
4.0
3193
Middle
15.0
8.0
120.0
5.5
4.0
4101
Middle
12.0
9.5
114.0
3.8
3.8
341
Mixed
9.9
9.5
94.1
4.0
4.0
985
Mixed
14.0
13.0
182.0
6.5
2.5
985
Mixed
15.0
13.0
195.0
6.5
2.5
3031
Mixed
14.5
11.5
166.8
4.0
4.0
3875
Mixed
9.6
6.5
62.4
3.2
1.5
3932
Mixed
14.0
8.8
123.2
3.5
3.5
3932
Mixed
14.0
8.8
123.2
3.5
3.5
3971
Mixed
10.2
6.5
66.3
2.4
2.4
4180
Mixed
9.5
7.0
66.5
3.0
3.0
4180
Mixed
12.5
7.0
87.5
3.0
3.0
308
Surface
Length
(n=22)
7 biface
Surface
Width
(n=22)
7 biface
Stone
ThickSurface ness
Area
high
(n=22) (n=22)
7 biface 7 biface
Stone
Thick- Incomplete Incomplete Incomplete
(broken)
Stone
ness
Stone
Width
Thickness Thickness
(low)
(n=20)
high (n=20) low (n=20)
(n=22)
7 biface 3 biface
3 biface
3 biface
SN
Dating
3807
Archaic
6.3
6.3
3.5
4345
Archaic
8.0
3.0
3.0
3203
Early
10.5
6.0
6.0
4201
Early
9.7
7.5
5.0
1287
Early
10.5
4.7
4.7
3144
Middle
9.5
7.6
7.6
2860
Middle
7
2.9
2.9
4064
Middle
8.2
5.0
5.0
2548
Late
8.6
5.2
3.3
3419
Mixed
11.5
6.5
6.5
3916
Mixed
8.3
4.0
1.2
3916
Mixed
8.6
4.0
1.2
3917
Mixed
6.4
3.4
3.4
3949
Mixed
8.4
4.2
4.2
3949
Mixed
7.8
4.2
4.2
3951
Mixed
9.7
5.0
5.0
4086
Mixed
10.5
3.5
3.5
4183
Mixed
8.3
3.4
3.4
4183
Mixed
8.3
3.4
3.4
4266
Mixed
10
6.0
6.0
Median
12.5
12.5
114.0
4.0
3.5
8.5
4.5
3.9
High
16.5
13.0
195.0
6.5
5.0
11.5
7.6
7.6
Low
9.5
6.5
62.4
2.4
1.5
6.3
2.9
1.2
Mean (Average)
12.7
9.2
119.3
4.1
3.4
8.8
4.8
4.2
Mode
14.0
8.8
103.5
4.0
4.0
10.5
3.4
3.4
standard deviation
2.2
1.8
39.4
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.6
309
Appendix F.
Measurements of Modern Grinding Stones
Modern Udo (table), Mațhan, Madqos (cm)
Ethno- udo table table maṭhan maṭhan surface maṭhan madqos madqos surface madqos
width
area
graphic table width height (n=33) width
thick- (n=11)
area thicklength
Sample (n=26)
ness
length
ness
above
length
table
1
86.5
2
91
73
53
34
1802
61
30
1830
4
3
4
46
30
1380
5
56
38
2128
6
53
35
1855
61
30
1830
8
51
38
1938
9
64
38
2432
76
58
42
2436
17
86
59
30
1770
13
60
29
1740
5
7
84
117
81
112
17
50
30
1500.0
51
36
1836.0
15
11
165
59
35
2065.0
18
61
44
2684.0
15
63
34
2142.0
6
10
11
121
12
99
64
13
122
61
14
104
72
87
56
37
2072
6
15
122
61
76
59
36
2124
6
16
104
85
66
53
37
1961
6
17
114
87
66
53
39
2067
6
57
36
2052
12
61
33
2013
13
59
32
1888
2
33
22
726.0
8
59
39
2301
15
60
36
2160.0
14
18
19
107
100
61
20
21
95
55
56
22
120
57
23
113
122
67
56
34
1904
14
44
29
1276.0
5
24
97
106
63
49
40
1960
17
42
25
1050.0
6
310
Ethno- udo table table maṭhan maṭhan surface maṭhan madqos madqos surface madqos
area
width
graphic table width height (n=33) width
thick- (n=11)
area thicklength
Sample (n=26)
ness
length
ness
above
length
table
25
86
51
55
33
1815
6
26
100
50
74
58
31
1798
7
27
103
50
86
56
31
1736
7
107
56
66
62
35
2170
10
52
32
1664
21
55
29
1595.0
13
28
29
30
31
100
49
59
56
29
1624
8
32
100
50
63
44
27
1188
15.5
33
96
43
49
58
32
1856
20
34
106
43
51
47.5
34
1615
9.5
35
90
72.5
80
33.5
16
536
5.5
56
30.5
1708
9.5
36
22.5
810
14.5
36
37
64
45
21
38
Modern Udo, Mațhan, Madqos Summary
udo table table maṭhan maṭhan surface maṭhan madqos madqos surface madqos
area
width
table width height (n=33) width
area thickthick- (n=11)
(n=26)
ness length
ness
length
above
length
table
Median 101.5
61
66
56
33
1855
9.5
51
30
1715.5
10.5
High
122
122
87
64
42
2436
21
63
44
2684.0
18
Low
64
43
21
33.5
16
536
2
15
11
165.0
5
66.0
54.5
33.0
1818
10.6
48.5
30.1
1703.4
10.6
50
66
56
30
1830
6
#N/A
36
#N/A
6
22.5
15.3
6.8
5.1
388.2
5.2
13.8
8.3
559.4
4.6
Mean 101.9 68.6
/Average
Mode
100
standard 13.5
deviation
311
Modern Madit and Wedimadqos (cm)
Ethnographic
Sample
madit
(n=30)
length
madit
width
surface
area
1
36.5
18
657.0
madit
thickness
wedimadqos
(n=12)
length
wedimadqos
width
surface
area
15
10
150.0
15
9
135.0
19
9
171.0
4.5
20
10
200.0
5
16
11
176.0
4
12
11
132.0
14
13
10
130.0
5
wedimadqos
thickness
2
3
4
28
19
532.0
5
30
18
540.0
6
38
18
684.0
7
43
20
860.0
8
33
20
660.0
10
39
19
741.0
9
11
39
18
702.0
10
12
35
18
630.0
8
13
34
18
612.0
9
9
14
15
36
22
792.0
10
16
39
21
819.0
9
17
36
20
720.0
9
18
35
19
665.0
6
19
34
18
612.0
11
20
15
8
120.0
5
22
41
22
902.0
10
23
36
18
648.0
13
24
41
23
943.0
11
25
31
19
589.0
9
26
32
22
704.0
11
21
312
Ethnographic
Sample
madit
(n=30)
length
madit
width
surface
area
madit
thickness
wedimadqos
(n=12)
length
wedimadqos
width
surface
area
wedimadqos
thickness
27
39
22
858.0
11
15
9
135.0
5
19
12
228.0
8
15
8
120.0
5
15
10
150.0
5
28
29
39
19
741.0
8
30
33
19
627.0
8
31
36
19
684.0
2.5
32
23
17
391.0
4.5
33
35
23
805.0
11
34
27
18
486.0
7.5
33
19.5
643.5
10.5
36
22
792.0
14.5
10
7.5
35
36
37
38
wedi- surface
Ethnographic madit madit surface madit wediarea
area
thick- madqos madqos
Sample
(n=30) width
width
ness (n=12)
length
Summary
length
wedimadqos
thickness
Median
35.5
19
674.5
9
15
10
150.0
5
High
43
23
943.0
14.5
20
12
228.0
14
Low
15
8
120.0
2.5
12
8
120.0
4
Mean
(Average)
34.4
19.2
672.0
9.06
15.8
9.9
157.0
6.3
Mode
39
18
684.0
9
15
10
150.0
5
standard
deviation
5.6
2.7
158.5
2.6
2.4
1.0
32.0
2.8
313
Appendix G.
Shapes: Mațhan and Madqos
Mațhan Shapes
SN
Shape
of use
surface
Shape in
Shape use Shape use
Transsurface
surface # of use long
Dating Overall shape verse Shape in Plan plan view transverse surfaces section
2059
blank
5 (tapers a little)
flat
oval
rectangular
with rounded
ends
608
Middle
5
planoconvex
squared
rectangular
flat
2
concave
dished
1855
Middle
Indeterminate
flat
indeterminate
indeterminate
flat
1
flat
490
Middle
5
planoconvex
loaf shaped
rectangular
flat
1
sl.
concave
2700
Middle
6 (tapers into
rounded point)
planoconvex
squared
rectangular
flat
1
concave
dished
3791
Middle
Indeterminate
planoirregular
indeterminate
indeterminate
sl. concave
u
1
flat
229
Late
Indeterminate
planoconvex
indeterminate
indeterminate
sl. concave
u
1
flat
5
planoconvex but
bottom
almost flat
ovate
oval
sl. concave
u
2
concave
5
planoconvex but
bottom
almost flat
ovate
oval
flat
2
flat
5
planoconvex but
bottom
almost flat
ovate
oval
659
659
Late
Late
flat
2?
flat
sl. concave
1 or 2
u
(see 659) concave
660
Late
410
Late 390350 &
300-210
BC (P14)
6 (rounded
end)
planoconvex
squared with
rounded ends
rectangular
sl. Concave
u
1
concave
dished,
small 7
cm ledge
411
Late 390350 &
300-210
BC (P14)
5 (rounded
ends)
planoconvex
squared with
rounded ends
rectangular
flat
1
flat
314
SN
Shape
of use
surface
Shape in
Shape use Shape use
Transsurface
surface # of use long
Dating Overall shape verse Shape in Plan plan view transverse surfaces section
225
Late 95
BC-AD
125
Indeterminate
(one end
rounded)
wedge
indeterminate
indeterminate concave u
225
Late 95
BC-AD
125
Indeterminate
(one end
rounded)
wedge
indeterminate
indeterminate
1182
Late390350 &
300-210
BC (P14)
5
planoconvex
ovate tapered
2 (?)
flat
2 (?)
sl.
Concave
1
concave
dished at
proximal
only
2/13
(15%)
7/15
(47%) flat
concave
irregular
oval tapered
flat
6/13 (46%) are
5 - Saddle
Shaped Quern 7/13 (54%) 4/13 (31%)
(1 tapers if this planoindeterminate
is distal end)
convex
(fragments)
6/15 (40%)
rectangular (1
w rounded
8/15 (53%)
ends)
flat
2/13 (15%)
are plano4/13 (54%) are convex but 4/13 (31%)
Indeterminate bottom
ovate/oval (1
(only ends)
almost flat tapered)
4/15
(27%)
concave
5/15 (33%)
5/15 (31%)
dished (1
indeterminate sl. concave used both at prox
(fragment)
u
sides
end only)
1/13 (7%) is 5Quern but with
rounded end
4/13 (31%)
2/13 (15%) squared (1
flat
rounded ends)
4/15 (27%)
oval (1
tapered)
1/13 (7%) is 6
Slab with
rounded end
1/13 (7%)
planoirregular
1/13 (7%) is 6
Slab with
tapering to
rounded end
1/13 (7%)
wedge
newmathan1
6
planoconvex
squared
rectangular
flat
1
flat
newmathan2
6
planoconvex
squared
rectangular
flat
1
flat
Coding
1/13 (7%) loaf
shaped
1/15 (6%)
concave u
2/15
(13%) sl
concave
1/15 (6%)
concave
irregular
2/15
(13%)
concave
so 8 are
concave
(53%)
315
Madqos Shapes
SN
Dating
Overall
shape
3539
Archaic
5
Shape use Shape use
Shape in
Shape of use
Trans- Shape in surface plan surface # of use surface long
transverse surfaces
section
verse
Plan
view
tapered
ovate
oval tapered
concave u
1
concave dished
flat
1
concave dished
1910
5 (tapers
into centre,
wider at
end)
Early
wedge
ovate
tapered oval tapered
3560
Middle
5
oval
loaf
shaped
oval
sl. concave u
2
concave dished
3560
Middle
5
oval
loaf
shaped
oval
flat
2
concave u
649
5 (but U
shape
concave
surface,
planoMixed not dished) convex
ovate
tapered oval tapered
flat
1
concave u
flat at
end,
wedge at
break squared rectangular
flat
1
concave dished
4335
CODING
blank
6
5/6 (83%)
2/6(34%) 2/6 (34%)
are 5 –
plano
Saddle
are loaf 4/7 (57%)
convex shaped oval
Quern
1/6
1/6 (17%) (17%)
is 6 - slab wedge
5/7 (71%)
are flat
2/7 (28%)
2/6 (34%)
are concave
are ovate 2/7 (28%)
tapered oval tapered u
1/6 17%) 1/6 (17%) 1/7 (14%)
rectangular
tapered ovate
4/7 (57%) are
concave dished
2/7 (28%)
concave u
1/7 (14%)
slightly concave
1/6 17%) 1/6 (17%)
oval
squared
1/6 17%)
flat at
end,
wedge at
break
Notes:
- Shape for Transverse - used edge to edge as transverse edges (so looking at cross section of the
proximal/distal length)
- I have used: end to end = proximal to distal, edge to edge = lateral sides
316
Appendix H.
Shapes: Madit and Wedimadqos
Madit Shapes (surface no. 2 indicates a bifacial stone)(Overall Shape Coding – pg 329)
Surface Overall
No.
shape
Shape in Shape in Shape of use shape of shape of use
Transverse
Plan surface plan use surface surf long
section
view
transverse
Artifact
No.
Dating
(P=pail)
4150
Archaic
1
62
flat with
rounded
ends
loaf
oval
flat
flat
3222
Archaic
1
62
wedge
loaf
oval
flat
sl. Concave
3239
(A)
Archaic
1
32 but
opposing
sides
concave
oval
ovate
oval
concave
sl. Concave
dished
3239
(B)
Archaic
1
40
wedge
loaf
oval
slightly
Convex
sl. Concave
dished
3239
(A)
Archaic
2
32 but
opposing
sides
concave
oval
ovate
oval
slightly sl. Concave
Concave
dished
3239
(B)
Archaic
2
40
wedge
loaf
oval
slightly
Convex
sl. Concave
dished
3804
Archaic
1
60
oval
flat
flat
4200
Archaic
1
37
sl. Convex
ovate
oval
sl.convex
arc
flat
4200
Archaic
2
37
sl. Convex
ovate
oval
sl convex
sl. Convex
arc
4205
Archaic
1
too small
wedge
indeterinminate determinate
flat
flat
4205
Archaic
2
too small
wedge
indeterin
minate determinate
flat
flat
1103
Early
1
62
plano-convex
flat
concave dish
1104
Early
1
49
lens
squared rectangular sl. Convex sl. Concave
1104
Early
2
49
lens
squared rectangular
1119
Early
1
44
flat
loaf
1119
Early
2
44
flat
loaf
plano-convex ovate
317
loaf
oval
flat
sl. Concave
oval
flat
flat
oval
flat
flat
Surface Overall
No.
shape
Shape in Shape in Shape of use shape of shape of use
Transverse
Plan surface plan use surface surf long
section
view
transverse
Artifact
No.
Dating
(P=pail)
1127
Early
1
60
planoirregular
ovate
oval
sl (slightly)
concave
1339
Early
1
62
plano-convex
loaf
oval
lumpy and lumpy and
flat
flat
3220 A
Early
1
40
wedge
loaf
oval
flat
concave u
3220 B
Early
1
37
wedge
ovate
oval
flat
concave dish
3220 A
Early
2
40
wedge
loaf
oval
flat
concave u
3220 B
Early
2
37
wedge
ovate
oval
flat
flat
3495
Early
1
62
concave
flat
rounded
flat
slightly
concave
3978
Early
1
62
irregular
(surf)-convex
sinuous
sinuous
3998
Early
1
too small
oval
indeterinminate determinate
flat
sl. Concave
3998
Early
2
too small
oval
indeterinminate determinate
flat
concave
dished
3999
Early
1
62
plano-convex
loaf
oval
flat
sl. Concave
4016
Early
1
44 but
concave
tapered
loaf
oval
flat
concave
dish
4016
Early
2
44 but
concave
tapered
loaf
oval
flat
concave dish
4184
Early
1
62
plano-convex
loaf
oval
concave
concave u
4210
Early
1
62
plano-convex
loaf
oval
flat
concave u
4211
Early
1
62
plano-convex
loaf
oval
flat
sl. Concave
224
Middle
1
32
wedge
ovate
oval
flat
concave u
224
Middle
2
32
wedge
ovate
oval
230
Middle
1
62
plano-convex
loaf
oval
flat
flat
233
Middle
1
62
plano-convex
loaf
oval
flat
flat
318
squared, rectangular
rectilinear
tapering
near
centre
loaf
oval
flat
sl. convex sl. Concave
u
Surface Overall
No.
shape
Shape in Shape in Shape of use shape of shape of use
Transverse
Plan surface plan use surface surf long
section
view
transverse
Artifact
No.
Dating
(P=pail)
236
Middle
1
41, but
barely
convex
flat
loaf
rectangular sl.convex sl. Concave
arc
236
Middle
2
41, but
barely
convex
flat
loaf
rectangular sl.convex sl. Concave
arc
614
Middle
1
615
Middle
1
622
Middle
1
1832
Middle
1
45
wedge
loaf
oval
flat
flat
1832
Middle
2
45
wedge
loaf
oval
flat
sl. concave
2034
Middle
1
60
oval
flat
flat
4100
Middle
1
53
flat
flat
4102
Middle
1
52
flat
squared
squared
flat
flat
4102
Middle
2
52
flat
squared
squared
flat
flat
504
Middle
1
52
wedge
squared, rectangular
rectilinear
flat
flat
504
Middle
2
52
wedge
squared, rectangular
rectilinear
flat
flat
522
Middle
1
44
flat
loaf
oval
flat
flat
522
Middle
2
44
flat
loaf
oval
flat
flat
959
Middle
1
62
wedge
loaf
oval
flat
flat
1941
Middle
1
60
wedge
ovate
oval
flat
sl.Concave u
2541
Middle
1
32
flat
ovate
oval
flat
flat
2541
Middle
2
32
flat
ovate
oval
flat
flat
3353
Middle
1
ovate but
pinched
where
concavity
begins
oval
flat
concave U
too small flat rectilinear squared, rectangular
rectilinear
flat
flat
squared, rectangular
rectilinear
tapering
flat
flat
52
flat
62 with plano convex
arch
loaf
plano-convex ovate
rectangular sl. Concave sl. Concave
dished
plano (surf) squared, rectangular
convex rectilinear
plano43 but
only one
convex
use (plano is use
surface
surface)
319
Surface Overall
No.
shape
Shape in Shape in Shape of use shape of shape of use
Transverse
Plan surface plan use surface surf long
section
view
transverse
Artifact
No.
Dating
(P=pail)
3471
Middle
1
52
flat
Squared
edges,
rounded
ends
squared
edges,
rounded
ends
flat
sl. Concave
dished
3471
Middle
2
52
flat
Squared
edges,
rounded
ends
squared
edges,
rounded
ends
flat
concave
dished
3572
Middle
1
60
3711
Middle
1
36
flat
ovate
oval
flat
flat
3711
Middle
2
36
flat
ovate
oval
flat
flat
3776
Middle
1
3782
Middle
1
44
flat
loaf
oval
slightly
Convex
sl. Convex
arc
3782
Middle
2
44
flat
loaf
oval
slightly
Convex
sl. Convex
arc
418
Late
1
52
wedge
loaf
rectangular
flat
flat
418
Late
2
52
wedge
loaf
rectangular
flat
flat
657
Late
1
45
wedge
loaf
other
sl. convex
concave u
657
Late
2
45
wedge
loaf
other
sl. convex
concave u
660
Late
1
62
flat
loaf
oval
flat
sl. Concave
u
379
360-290 &
240-150 &
140-110 BC
(P7) 190-40
BC (P9) Late
1
61
wedge
squared rectangular
flat
concave u
717
390-350 &
300-210 BC
(P14) Late
1
61
oval
squared, rectangular
rectilinear
flat
concave
slight
2442
Mixed
1
60
oval
flat
sl. Concave
dished
3893
Mixed
1
33
oval
flat
concave dish
plano-convex ovate
slight convex
oval
flat (but sl. concave u
Convex)
61 with plano-convex squared rectangular sl. convex sl. Convex
arc
slightly
rounded
ends
plano convex ovate
flat
320
ovate
Surface Overall
No.
shape
Shape in Shape in Shape of use shape of shape of use
Transverse
Plan surface plan use surface surf long
section
view
transverse
Artifact
No.
Dating
(P=pail)
3893
Mixed
2
33
flat
ovate
oval
flat
flat
3908
Mixed
1
62
oval
loaf
oval
convex
flat
3915
Mixed
1
47 with flat rounded
arc
loaf
loaf
flat
flat
3934
Mixed
1
62
plano-convex
loaf
squared
flat (but
lumpy)
flat with
raised area
near break
3940
Mixed
1
too small
wedge
indeterinminate determinate
flat
1
3940
Mixed
2
too small
wedge
indeterinminate determinate
flat
1
4186
Mixed
1
60
flat
ovate
oval
flat
sl. Concave
u
1440
unknown
1
62
triangular
loaf
oval
flat
concave dish
flat
flat
flat
flat but
irregular
new
madit1
1
new
madit2
1
61 with plano-convex squared rectangular
slightly
rounded
ends
61
plano-convex squared rectangular
321
Summary of Madit Shapes (for Overall Shape coding, see next page)
322
Overall Shape Coding
32. Bifacial
Ovate/Oval
33. Bifacial
Ovate/Lens
36. Bifacial Ovate/Flat
37. Bifacial
Ovate/Wedged
40. Bifacial Loaf/Oval
52. Bifacial Rectilinear/Flat
41. Bifacial Loaf/Lens
53. Bifacial
Rectilinear/Wedged
57. Bell Shaped Muller
58. Handstone a posteriori
(unmodified cobble)
60. Unifacial Ovate
61. Unifacial Rectilinear
62. Unifacial Loaf
43. Bifacial Loaf/PlanoConvex
44. Bifacial Loaf/Flat
45. Bifacial Loaf/Wedged
48. Bifacial Rectilinear/Oval
49. Bifacial Rectilinear/Lens
323
Wedimadqos Shapes (surface no. 2 indicates a bifacial stone) (sl. = slightly)
Artifact Dating Surface Overall
shape
No. (P=pail) No.
Shape in
Transverse
Shape in Shape of shape of use shape of
Plan
use surf
use surface surface
plan view transverse long section
3807
Archaic
1
61 with
slightly
rounded
ends
plano-convex
squared rectangular
4345
Archaic
1
60
plano-convex
ovate
3203
Early
1
62
plano convex
3988
Early
1
40
3988
Early
2
4185
Early
4188
flat
flat
oval
flat
loaf
oval
irregular
(bumpy)
flat
flat
(bumpy)
oval
ovate
oval
sl.convex arc
flat
40
oval
ovate
oval
sl.convex arc
flat
1
62
flat rounded
irregular
irregular
flat
flat
Early
1
48
oval
squared rectangular
sl. convex
flat
4188
Early
2
48
oval
squared rectangular
sl. convex
flat
4201
Early
1
62
plano-convex
flat
concave u
1842
Middle
1
58 but
modified
oval
3141
Middle
1
60
wedge
loaf
oval
convex
flat
3141
Middle
2
60
wedge
loaf
oval
convex
flat
3144
Middle
1
62 quite
rounded
dorsal
plano convex
loaf
oval
flat
flat
3148
Middle
1
33
plano convex
ovate
oval
convex
slight
convex
3148
Middle
2
33
plano convex
ovate
oval
convex
slight
convex
3193
Middle
1
52
flat
squared rectangular
flat
flat
3193
Middle
2
52
flat
squared rectangular
flat
flat
4101
Middle
1
60
oval
convex
convex arc
2860
Middle
1
61
flat
squared, rectangular
rectilinear
flat
flat
4064
Middle
1
61
flat
squared rectangular
flat
flat
loaf
oval
convex
squared, rectangular
rectilinear but irregular rounded but
irregular
ovate
324
oval
flat then
convex
rounded
Artifact Dating Surface Overall
shape
No. (P=pail) No.
Shape in
Transverse
Shape in Shape of shape of use shape of
Plan
use surf
use surface surface
plan view transverse long section
1287
Early
1
60
plano-convex
(slightly convex)
ovate
2548
Late
1
61
flat wedge
985
Mixed
1
53
wedge
loaf
985
Mixed
2
53
wedge
3031
Mixed
1
36 but one
end is
wider
3419
Mixed
1
3875
Mixed
3916
oval
flat
flat
flat
flat
rectangular
sl. Covex
to right
sl. Convex
arc
loaf
rectangular
flat
flat
oval
ovate
oval
flat
slight
concave
62 (?)
flat
loaf
1
61
flat
squared
squared
flat
sl. Concave
dished
Mixed
1
37
wedge
ovate
oval
flat
flat
3916
Mixed
2
37
wedge
ovate
oval
flat
flat
3917
Mixed
1
62
plano-convex
(with a
triangular
shape)
loaf
oval
flat
flat
3932
Mixed
1
44
oval
loaf
oval
sl.convex
arc
sl. Convex
arc
3932
Mixed
2
44
oval
loaf
oval
sl.concave sl. Concave
dished
dished
3949
Mixed
1
48
flat
3951
Mixed
1
60
plano-convex
3971
Mixed
1
61 with
slightly
rounded
ends
plano-convex
4086
Mixed
1
too small
4180
Mixed
1
60
squared, rectangular
rectilinear
rectangular sl. Convex
squared rectangular
flat
flat
sl. Convex
arc
flat
flat
squared rectangular
flat
flat
flat
indeterminate
indeterminate
flat
flat
tapered
ovate
oval
flat
flat
325
ovate
oval
Artifact Dating Surface Overall
shape
No. (P=pail) No.
Shape in
Transverse
Shape in Shape of shape of use shape of
Plan
use surf
use surface surface
plan view transverse long section
4180
Mixed
2
60
tapered
ovate
oval
flat
flat
4183
Mixed
1
36
flat
ovate
oval
flat
flat
4183
Mixed
2
36
flat
ovate
oval
flat
flat
4266
Mixed
1
44
oval
ovate
oval
flat
flat
2
48
flat
flat
sl. Concave
u
3949 unknown
squared rectangular
Summary of Wedimadqos Shapes (for Overall Shape Coding see page 323)
Overall shape
Shape in
Transverse
Shape in
Plan
Shape of
use surface
plan view
7/32 (22%) are 10/32 (31%) 11/32 (34%)
61 (2 have
are flat (1
ovate
slightly
flat rounded, 8/32 (25%)
rounded ends) 1 flat wedge)
loaf
6/32 (19%) are
60
6/32 (19%) are
62 (1 quite
rounded
dorsal)
2/32 (6%): 36;
44; 48
1/32: 33; 37;
40; 52; 53; 58
1 is too small
Shape of
use surface
transverse
24/43 (56%) 28/43 (65%) are
oval (7 are
flat
bifacial, all
same shape
both sides)
10/32 (31%) 7/32 (22%)
15/43 (35%)
13/43 are
rectangular (I
convex (1 is
plano convex squared
convex
3/32 (9%) irregular) (4 are
(1 with
bifacial, all
rounded, 7 are
squared
triangular
same shape
slightly (1
rectilinear
shape)
both sides)
convex to right,
2/32
(6%)irregular
3 convex arc)
7/32 (22%)
1
1
1 is irregular
are oval
inindeterminate;
bumpy; 1 is
3/32 (9%) determinate 1 irregular; 1 slightly concave
squared, 1
are wedge
other
1 is plano
irregular and
1 is tapered
326
Shape of use surf
long section
32/43 (74%) are
flat (1 bumpy, 1
flat then convex
rounded)
4/43 (9%)
convex arc (3
only slightly)
3/43 (7%)
concave u (2
only slightly)
2/43 (5%) are sl.
concave dished
2/43 (5%) are
convex (slightly)
Appendix I.
Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity:
Mațhan and Madqos
Mațhan Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity (shaded rows indicate biface)
Surface Surface Surface Surface
Surface
Surface
No. Coverage Wear Configuration Texture Manufacture
Stroke
Artifact
No.
Dating
608
Middle
1
2
2
3
5 (coarse
+medium)
7
7, 2
1
1855
Middle
1
2
2
1
2
7, 2
1
490
Middle
1
2
2
3
4,7
7, 2
1
2700
Middle
1
2
2
3
2,7
7, 2
4
3791
Middle
1
2
3
7, 2
4
229
Late
1
2
3
2
3,7
7, 2
1
659
Late
1
6
2
3
2, 7
7, 2
4
659
Late
2
2
2
3 (slightly)
3, 7
7, 2
1
660
Late
1
2
2
3
2, 7
7, 2
4
410
Late 390-350 & 300210 BC
1
2
2
4
4, 7
7, 2
4 but 1
probably
411
Late 390-350 & 300210 BC
1
2
2
1
3, 7
7, 2
1
1182 Late 390-350 & 300210 BC
1
2
2
3
3, 7
7, 2
4 but 1
probably
225
Late 95 BC-AD 125
1
6
3
3
3, 7
7, 2
1
225
Late 95 BC-AD 125
2
6
3
3
5 with
some 2, 7
7, 2
4
2059
blank
1
2
3
1
3,7
7, 2
1
new
maṭhan1
1
2
1a
1
4
7
n/a
new
maṭhan2
1
2
1a
1
5
7
n/a
327
5 (1 spot
2
(only slightly fine, 1
concave) medium),
7
Coding Mațhan Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity
Surface
Coverage
SCOV
Surface
Wear
SWEAR
Surface
Configuration
SCON
Surface
Texture
STEXT
12/15 (80%)
are 2
10/15 (67%)
are 2
9/15 (60%)
are 3
6/15 (40%)
are 3
3/15 (20%)
are 6 (only
bifacial)
5/15 (33%)
are 3
3/15 (20%)
are 1
4/15 (27%)
are 2
2/15 (13%)
are 2
2/15 (13%)
are 4
1/15 (7%) are
4
3/15 (20%)
are 5
Surface
Manufacture
SMAN
all are 7 & 2
Stroke
STRK
8/15 (53%) are 1
5/15 (33%) are 4
2/15 are 4
but probably 1
Mațhan and Madqos Coding - Use Surface Wear
Category
SCOV = Surface Coverage
SWEAR = Surface Wear
SCON = Surface Configuration
STEXT = Surface Texture
SMAN = Surface Manufacture
STRK = Stroke
Code
Meaning
2
border-flat
6
incomplete
2
moderate
3
heavy
1
flat all over
2
flat-end-to-end; concave-edge-to-edge
3
flat-edge-to-edge; concave-end-to-end
4
concave
2
fine
3
medium
4
coarse
7
resharpened; worn
5
mixed
2
worn to shape
7
pecked and ground to shape
1
reciprocal
3
combination
4
indeterminate (often because stone was not clean)
328
Madqos Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity
Artifact
No.
Dating
3539
Middle
1
2
3
4
4
7. 2.
1. 3.
1910
Early
1
2
3
3
4
7.2.
4. dirty
609
Middle
1
2
3
3
4
7.2.
1
7. 2.
4
Surface Surface Surface
Surface
Surface
Surface
No. Coverage Wear Configuration Texture Manufacture
Stroke
3560
Middle
1
2
3
3
5 fine +
medium
3560
Middle
2
2
3
3
4
7. 2.
4
649
Mixed
1
2
2
3
2
7. 2.
1
4335
blank
1
2
3
3
3
7. 2.
4
Coding Madqos Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity
Surface
Coverage
Surface
Wear
Surface
Configuration
Surface
Texture
Surface
Manufacture
Stroke
12/15 (80%)
are 2
10/15 (67%)
are 2
9/15 (60%)
are 3
6/15 (40%)
are 3
all
7&2
8/15 (53%) are 1
3/15 (20%)
are 6 (only
bifacial)
5/15 (33%)
are 3
3/15 (20%)
are 1
4/15 (27%)
are 2
5/15 (33%) are 4
2/15 (13%)
are 2
2/15 (13%)
are 4
2/15 are 4 but
probably 1
1/15 (7%)
are 4
3/15 (20%)
are 5
(for Coding see page 328)
329
Appendix J:
Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity:
Madit and Wedimadqos
Madit Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity
(shaded rows are side 2 of bifacial handstone)(For Coding definitions see page 336/337)
Artifact
Dating
Surface
Number
SNUM
Grips
GR
Surface
Wear
SWEAR
Surface
Configuration
SCON
Surface
Texture
TEXT
Wear
Level
WRLV
Stroke
STRK
4150
Archaic
1
12
2
1
4
2
11*
3222
Archaic
1
12, 3
2
1 (slightly
concave edge
to edge)
5
2
3239
(A)
3239
(B)
Archaic
1
12
3
8
2
2
Striations
seem
to go
both
ways
1
Archaic
1
12
2
8 but slightly
convex edge to
edge
3
2
1
3239
(A)
Archaic
2
12
3
8
3
2
1
3239
(B)
Archaic
2
12
2
8 but slightly
concave end to
end, convex
edge to edge
2
2
1
3804
Archaic
1
12, 3
2
1
2
3
4200
Archaic
1
12
3
2
2
3
1 (but
from
end to
end)
1
4200
Archaic
2
12
3
4 (but only
slightly)
4
2
1
4205
Archaic
1
12
2
1
2
3
11
4205
Archaic
2
12
2
1
3
3
11
330
Artifact
Dating
Surface
Number
SNUM
Grips
GR
Surface
Wear
SWEAR
Surface
Configuration
SCON
Surface
Texture
TEXT
Wear
Level
WRLV
Stroke
STRK
1103
Early
1
12
2
8
5
2
11*
1104
Early
1
12
2
8 (slightly and
slightly convex
edge to edge)
3
2
1
1104
Early
2
12
2
1 (but v.slight
rise at one end,
dish shape)
4
2
11
1119
1119
1127
Early
Early
Early
1
2
1
12
12
12
2
2
2
1
1
1 flat end to end
concave edge
to edge
3
2
3
2
3
2
11*
11*
11*
1339
Early
1
12, 2
5
5
5
2
11
3220 A
Early
1
12, 3
3
8
4
2
1
3220 B
Early
1
12. 3.
2
8
3
2
1
3220 A
Early
2
12, 3
3
8
4
2
11*
3220 B
Early
2
12
2
2
3
1
3495
Early
1
12
2
1 (but v. slightly
convex edge to
edge)
8
3
5. dirty
11*
3978
Early
1
12
3
7
3
2
11*
3998
Early
1
12
3
8
3
3
1
3998
Early
2
12
3
8
4
2
11*
3999
Early
1
12
2
8
3
2
11*
4016
Early
1
12
2
8
3
2
11*
4016
Early
2
12
2
8
4
2
11*
4184
Early
1
12
2
8
3
2
11*
4210
Early
1
12
3
8
5
3
11* 1
4211
Early
1
12
2
8 (slightly
convex edge to
edge)
4
2
11*
331
Artifact
Dating
Surface
Number
SNUM
Grips
GR
Surface
Wear
SWEAR
Surface
Configuration
SCON
Surface
Texture
TEXT
Wear
Level
WRLV
Stroke
STRK
224
224
Middle
Middle
1
2
12
12
3
3
8
8
2
4
3
2
1
1
230
Middle
1
12
1
5
5
2, 3
14
233
236
Middle
Middle
1
1
12
12
2
2
5
4
3
2
1
11*
236
Middle
2
12
2
1
2 (but almost
flat)
8 (but almost
flat)
2
1
11*
614
615
Middle
Middle
1
1
12
12
3
2
1
8
3
5
3
2
11*
11*
dirty
622
Middle
1
12
2
8, v. slightly
concave end to
end
3
3
11*
1832
Middle
1
12
3
1
1 but has
many
grains
missing
3
1
1832
Middle
2
12
3
8
4
2
1
2034
Middle
1
12
2
1
5
3
1
4100
Middle
1
12
3
1
5
2
11*
dirty
4102
Middle
1
12
2
1
2
3
1
4102
Middle
2
12
2
1
2
3
11*
504
Middle
1
12, 2
3
1
3
4
504
Middle
2
12, 2
3
1
3
4
522
522
959
Middle
Middle
Middle
1
2
1
12
12
12
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
4
2
2
2
3
1941
Middle
1
12
3
8
4
2
11*
dirty
11*
dirty
1
11*
1 (both
directions?)
1
332
Artifact
Dating
Surface
Number
SNUM
Grips
GR
Surface
Wear
SWEAR
Surface
Configuration
SCON
Surface
Texture
TEXT
Wear
Level
WRLV
Stroke
STRK
2541
Middle
1
12
2
1
3
3
1
2541
3353
Middle
Middle
2
1
12
12
2
3
1
8, v. slightly
convex edge to
edge
2
4
3
3
1
11*
3471
Middle
1
12
2
8
3
2
1
3471
Middle
2
12
2
8
4
2
11*
3572
Middle
1
12
2
8 (but slightly
convex edge to
edge)
3
2
1
3711
3711
3776
Middle
Middle
Middle
1
2
1
12
12
12
2
2
2
1
1
4
2
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
3782
Middle
1
12
3
1
2
2
1
3782
Middle
2
12
3
1
3
2
1
379
Late
1
12
2
8
4
2
11* 91
418
Late
1
12
3
1
3
2
11*
418
657
657
660
Late
Late
Late
Late
2
1
2
1
12
12
12
12, 3
3
3
3
2
1
8
8
8 (but only
slightly)
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
11*
1
1
11*
717
Late
1
12
3
8
6
3
1, 16
2442
3893
Mixed
Mixed
1
1
12
12
3
3
8
8
3
4
3
2
11*
1
3893
3908
Mixed
Mixed
2
1
12
12
3
2
1
2
4
4
2
2
1
1
91
All 11* are probably a 1.
333
Artifact
Dating
Surface
Number
SNUM
Grips
GR
Surface
Wear
SWEAR
Surface
Configuration
SCON
Surface
Texture
TEXT
Wear
Level
WRLV
Stroke
STRK
3915
3934
Mixed
Mixed
1
1
12
12, 3
3
2
1
1 flat but
irregular in
sections
4
5
2
2
11*
11*
3940
Mixed
1
12
2
1
3
2
1
3940
Mixed
2
12
2
1
3
2
11
4186
Mixed
1
12, 3
2
8 (but slightly
convex edge to
edge)
3
3
11*
1440
unknown
1
12, 2
2
4
2
11*
new
madit1
(expert
made)
Modern
1
12
None
except
for
against
maṭhan
when
manufactured
8 (slightly
convex edge to
edge)
1
4
6
1
new
madit2
(nonexpert
made)
Modern
1
12
as above
1
4
6
1
334
Coding Madit Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity
GR
SWEAR
SCON
STEXT
all except one are 12
48/81
(59%)
are 2
38/81
(47%) are
8, 10 with
buts
31/81
(38%) are
3
50/81 (62%)
are 2
9 are also 3
31/81
(38%)
are 3
35/81
(43%) are 1
(3 buts)
21/81
(26%) are
4
26/81 (32%)
are 3
35/81
(43%) are
1
3's breakdown –
3 Early (2 are ?Early),
2 ?archaic,
1 late, 2 mixed,
1 unknown
1 is 5;
1 is 1
3 are 2; 2
are 4; 2 are
5; 1 is 7
17/81
(21%) are
2
2 are 4
5/81 (7%)
are 11
below are
the 3 "buts"
for 1:1 flat
but irregular
10/81
(12%) are
5
1 is 1
1 is 14
1 flat end to
end,
concave
edge to
edge
1 is 6
1 is 2 & 3
1 is 1 and
16
1 slightly
concave
end to end
1 is 1
(many
grains
missing)
1 is 5 (dirty)
2 are also 2
See next page for Coding definitions
335
WRLV
COT
STRK
all 8
39/81
(48%) are
11 but
probably 1
Madit and Wedimadqos Use Surface Wear Coding
Category
GR = Grips, Grooves
SWEAR = Surface Wear
SCON = Surface Configuration
STEXT = Surface Texture
WRLV = Wear Level
Code
Meaning
2
groove – 1 edge
3
grip – 1 edge
10
wear only
12
ground to fit hand
1
light
2
moderate
3
heavy
5
indeterminate
1
flat all over
2
flat-end-to-end; concave-edge-to-edge
3
flat-edge-to-edge; convex-end-to-end
4
convex all over
7
irregular
8
concave-end-to-end, flat-edge-to-edge
9
concave all over
10
variable
12
indeterminate
1
smooth
2
fine
3
medium
4
coarse
5
mixed
6
resharpened
9
indeterminate
1
highs only
2
highs and lows
3
smooth spots
4
smooth all over
5
indeterminate
6
unused
336
Category
SMAN = Surface Manufacture
WRPT = Wear Type
STRK = Stroke
Code
Meaning
2
worn to shape
7
pecked and ground to shape
1
abrasion
3
chips
4
sheen
5
abrasion and impact fractures
7
abrasion and sheen
8
chips and impact fractures
10
chips and sheen
15
abrasion, impact fractures, and chips
19
indeterminate
22
abrasion and rounding
1
reciprocal-flat
3
circular-flat
7
pecking
8
pounding
11
indeterminate (often used because stone was not
clean)
16
crushing
337
Wedimadqos Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity
(shaded rows are side 2 of bifacial handstone) (For Coding definitions see page 336/337)
AN
Dating
3949
SNUM
GR
SWEAR
SCON
STEXT
WRLV
STRK
2
12
2
9
slightly)
4
2
11*
3
3
1
3807
Archaic
1
12
2
1 (with
variable
topography)
4345
Archaic
1
12
3
1
2
3
1
3203
Early
1
12
3
7
5
2 significant
11* dirty
2
9 (only
v
slightly)
3
3, esp
centre
1
2
3, esp
centre
1
3988
Early
1
12
3988
Early
2
12
2
9 (only
v
slightly)
4185
Early
1
12
2
1
4
2
11* dirty
2
1 (with
slightly
convex
edge to
edge)
2
3
1 but in many
directions
4
2
1
4188
Early
1
12. 3.
4188
Early
2
12. 3.
2
1 (edge
to edge
slightly
convex)
4201
Early
1
12, 3
2
8
2
2
1
1287
Early
1
12
2
1
2
3
1
1842
Middle
1
12
3
7
4
2
11*
3141
Middle
1
12
3
2
5
2
1
3141
Middle
2
12
3
2
3
2
1
3144
Middle
1
12
3
1
5
2
11*
3148
Middle
1
12
2
4
3
3
11. dirty
3148
Middle
2
12
2
4
3
3
11. dirty
3193
Middle
1
12
2
1
4
2
1
338
AN
Dating
SNUM
GR
SWEAR
SCON
STEXT
WRLV
STRK
3193
Middle
2
12
2
1
5
2
1
4101
Middle
1
12
2
4
2, 3
2
11*
2860
Middle
1
12
2
1
3
5. dirty
11* dirty
4064
Middle
1
12
2
1
1
2
1 (some
diagonal
striations)
341
Mixed
1
12
2
1
4
2
11*
2548
Late
1
12
2
1
3
2
11* dirty
985
Mixed
1
12
2
1
3
2
11*
985
Mixed
2
12
2
1
2
3
11*
3031
Mixed
1
12
2
1
2
4 but gritty
11*
3419
Mixed
1
12
2
2
3
3
11*
8
3 (quite
rough to
the
touch)
2
1
2
11
3875
Mixed
1
12
3
3916
Mixed
1
12
2
1
2 but
irregular
topography
3916
Mixed
2
12
2
1
2
3
1
3917
Mixed
1
12. 3.
2
1
4
2
11
3
4 (only
v
slightly)
3
2
11*
3
2
11*
3932
Mixed
1
12
3932
Mixed
2
12
3
9 (only
v
slightly)
3949
Mixed
1
12
2
4
slightly
2
2
11*
3951
Mixed
1
12, 3
2
1
4
2
11
3971
Mixed
1
12, 3
3
1
1&2
3
1
4086
Mixed
1
12
2
1
3
2
1
339
AN
Dating
SNUM
GR
SWEAR
SCON
STEXT
WRLV
STRK
4180
Mixed
1
12
2
1
1 &2
2
1 but in many
directions
2
1 (ends
round
out)
3
3
11
2
10.
somew
hat flat
5
2
11
5
2
11
3
2
11*
4180
4183
Mixed
Mixed
2
1
12
12
4183
Mixed
2
12
2
10.
somew
hat flat
4266
Mixed
1
12
2
1
Coding Wedimadqos Use Surface Wear Patterns and Intensity
(For Coding definitions see page 336/337)
GR
SWEAR
SCON
STEXT
WRLV
STRK
43/43
(100%) are
12,
33/43 (77%)
are 2
25/43 (58%)
are 1 (4 are
"buts")
15/43 (35%)
are 3 (1
quite rough)
28/43 (65%)
are 2
25/43 (58%) are 11,
of which 19 (19/43
(44%)) are probably 1
6/43 (14%)
are also 3
10/43 (23%)
are 3
5/43 (12%) are
4 (2 only
slightly)
10/43 (23%)
are 2 (1
irregular)
13/43 (30%)
are 3
18/43 (42%) are 1 (2
in many directions, 1
diagonal striations)
4/43 (9%) are
9 (only
slightly)
8/43 (18%)
are 4
1 is 4 but gritty
3/43 (7%) are
3
6/43 (14%)
are 5
1 is 5 (dirty)
2/43 (5%) are
7
2/43 (5%)
are 1 & 2
2/43 (5%) are
8
1/43 is 2 & 3
2/43 (5%) are
10
1/43 is 1
340
Appendix K:
Modern Mațhan Shapes and Angles
Mațhan are in Udo (table) (n=31)
Sample
Shape in plan
Shape ends
Shape of
use surface
long section
Shape of
use surface
transverse
Angle (tilt) in
degrees*
1
squared with
rounded ends
rounded
concave dish
flat
30
2
squared with
rounded ends
squared
slightly
concave
flat
15
3
squared with
rounded ends
squared
flat
flat
almost flat
4
squared with
rounded ends
distal smaller,
both rounded
concave dish
flat
30
5
squared with
rounded ends
squared
slightly
concave
flat
15
6
squared with
rounded ends
distal smaller,
both rounded
very slightly
concave
flat
15
7
squared with
rounded ends
distal smaller,
both rounded
very slightly
concave
flat
15
8
squared
squared
flat
flat
<10
9
squared with
rounded ends
proximal end
rounded
slightly
concave
slightly concave
(handstone smaller
than width of quern)
<10 not fixed
into a table,
proximal
raised slightly
10
squared with
rounded ends
proximal end
rounded
concave dish
flat
20
11
squared with
rounded ends
proximal end
rounded
slightly
concave
slightly concave
(handstone smaller
than width of quern)
20
12
squared with
rounded ends
squared
very slightly
concave
flat
20
13
squared with
rounded ends
squared
flat
flat
flat
14
squared with
rounded ends
squared
flat
flat
<10
15
squared with
rounded ends
distal
rounded,
proximal
squared
concave dish
flat
30
341
Sample
Shape in plan
Shape ends
Shape of
use surface
long section
Shape of
use surface
transverse
Angle (tilt) in
degrees*
16
squared with
rounded ends
distal smaller,
both rounded
concave "u"
(deeper than
dish)
convex
45
17
squared with
rounded ends
squared
concave dish
flat
30
18
squared with
rounded ends
distal smaller,
both rounded
slightly
concave
slightly convex
15
19
squared with
rounded ends
squared
slightly
concave
flat
20
20
squared with
rounded ends
squared
concave dish
slightly concave
20
21
squared with
rounded ends
squared
flat
flat
approx 10
22
squared with
rounded ends
rounded
concave
flat
20
23
squared with
rounded ends
squared
concave dish
(almost "u")
flat
30
24
ovate
rounded
almost flat
flat
10
25
squared with
rounded ends
proximal end
rounded
slightly
concave
flat
20
26
squared with
rounded ends
distal smaller,
both rounded
slightly
concave
flat
20
27
squared with
rounded ends
squared
concave
flat
30
28
squared with
rounded ends
proximal end
rounded
slightly
concave
flat
20
29
squared with
rounded ends
squared
flat
flat
15
30
squared with
rounded ends
squared
flat
flat
flat
31
squared with
rounded ends
distal
rounded,
proximal
squared
flat
flat
<10
342
Sample
Shape in plan
Shape ends
Shape of
use surface
long section
Shape of
use surface
transverse
Angle (tilt) in
degrees*
15 (48%)
squared
9 (29%)
slightly
concave
8 (26%) flat
7 (23%)
concave dish
3 (10%) very
slightly
concave
2 (6%)
concave
1 (3%) almost
flat
1 (3%)
concave "u"
(note 22
(71%) some
form of
concave; 9
(29%) some
form of flat)
26 (84%) flat
3 (10%) slightly
concave
2 (6%) convex or
slightly convex
3 (10%)
flat/almost flat
Summaries
29 (94%) squared
with rounded
ends
1 (3%) squared
1 (3%) ovate
6 (19%) distal
smaller, both
rounded
5 (16%)
proximal end
rounded
3 (10%)
rounded
2 ( 6%) distal
rounded,
proximal
squared
343
6 (19%) are
<10 or appr 6
(19%) are
16ox 10
9 (29%) are
20
6 (19%) are
30
1 (3%) is 45
Laurie Nixon-Darcus