The Sands of TimeThe Desert Neolithic Settlement
at Ayn Abū Nukhayla
edited by

Donald O. Henry

Joseph E. Beaver

University of Tulsa

University of Minnesota Morris

bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis
ex oriente, Berlin (2014)

address of the bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis:ex oriente e.V., c/o Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie,
Freie Universität Berlin, Hüttenweg 7, 14195 Berlin, Germany

Copyright: ex oriente e.V., Berlin (2014)
Printed in Germany by dbusiness GmbH, Berlin
ISSN 1616-9360 (bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis)ISBN 978-3-944178-05-9

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements  	ix

Contact Information for Corresponding Authors  	

xi

Chapter 1. The Problems, Questions, and Getting the Answers  	Donald O. Henry
The Age of Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
The Climate and Environment During the Occupation of the Site  	
The Economy and Land-Use Strategy of the Inhabitants of Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
The Social and Demographic Aspects of the People of Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	1

Chapter 2. Geology, Landforms, and Depositional Systems in Wadi Rum  	Carlos E. Cordova, Regina DeWitt, and Barbara WinsboroughLithostratigraphic Units and Hydrology  	Landforms and Quaternary Deposits  	

13

Alluvial systems  	
Aeolian Systems  	Qa‘ (Playa) Deposits  	

3
6
6
8

13
16

16
16
17

Deposits at the Site  	18

The Qa‘ Sequence  	

18

Paleolandscapes Around the Site  	26

Summary: Landscape Successions and Climatic-Environmental Change  	

27

Pre-settlement Deposits  	
Related Features  	
Laboratory Analyses  	
Dating: Radiocarbon and OSL  	
Stratigraphic Units  	
Organic Carbon and Microscopic Charcoal  	
Diatoms  	Interpretation of the Qa‘ Sequence  	Pre-Occupational Phase  	
Synoccupational Phase  	
Post-occupational Phase  	

Chapter 3. The Setting, Site Plan, Excavation Strategy,
and Integration of Evidence  	Donald O. Henry
Regional Landscape and Resources  	
From the Plateau to Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
From Ayn Abū Nukhayla to the Gulf of Aqaba  	

Local Catchments and Resources  	

18
18
19
21
21
23
23
25
26
26
26

29
29

30
31

32
i

The Site of Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	

33

Integration of Material Finds  	39

The Site Plan  	The Excavation Plan and Provenience System  	
The Excavation  	
The Qa‘ Excavation  	

Chapter 4. The Stratigraphy, Occupational Phases, and Chronometry  	Donald O. Henry and Joseph E. Beaver
The Stratigraphy  	Red Sand Layer  	
Initial Wall Construction and House Floor   	Overlying Fill and House Floors   	
Rubble Layer from Wall Collapse  	The Occupation Sequence  	Chronometry  	
Floors and Fills  	
Summary: Integration of Site Use and Phases of Occupation  	

Chapter 5. The Built Environment: Architecture at Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
Joseph E. Beaver
Background  	
Block I Structure Descriptions  	
Locus 1  	Locus 2  	Locus 3  	
Locus 4  	Locus 5  	
Locus 11  	

41
41

41
41
41
41

44
44
46
47

49
49
50

50
51
52
54
55
56

Block II Structure Descriptions  	

57

Summary and Discussion  	64

Conclusions  	

68

Locus 20  	
Locus 21  	
Locus 22  	
Locus 23  	
Locus 25  	
Locus 26  	

Storage, Structure Size, and Social Organization  	Construction Investment  	Chapter 6. Hunting and Herding at Ayn Abū Nukhayla: The
Vertebrate Faunal Assemblage  	
Rebecca M. Dean
Methods  	
The Ayn Abū Nukhayla Faunal Assemblage  	Faunal Resources of the Wadi Rum  	Osteoichthyes (Bony Fishes)   	

ii

34
36
36
38

58
59
60
62
62
63
65
66

69
69
70
71

71

Reptilia (Reptiles)   	
Aves (Birds)  	
Paraechinus aethiopicus (Desert Hedgehog)  	
Procavia capensis (Hyrax)  	Meriones sp. (Jird)  	Hyaena hyaena (Striped Hyena)  	
Felis silvestris/cattus (Cat)  	
Panthera pardus (Leopard)  	
Canis sp. (Dog or allies)  	
Vulpes sp. (Fox)  	
Lepus capensis (Cape Hare)  	
Equus sp. (Horse and allies)  	
Capra sp. (Goat and allies)  	Ovis sp./aries (Sheep)  	Bos primegenius (Cattle)  	
Gazella sp. (Gazelle)  	
Other Species  	

71
73
73
73
74
74
74
75
75
75
76
76
76
77
78
78
79

Herding at Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	

79

Hunting at Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	86

Conclusions: Economy and Environment  	89

Age Profiles  	
Metric Data  	
Changes in Herding through Time at Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
Discussion of Herding  	Changes in Hunting through Time at Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	

Chapter 7. Tracing Herding Patterns at Ayn Abū Nukhayla throughBiogeochemical Analyses (d13C, d18O, 87Sr/86Sr) in Faunal Remains  	Marie Balasse, Jamal Salamah Al Zaidaneen, Rebecca M. Dean,
T. Douglas Price, and Donald O. Henry
Principles and Methods of the Stable Isotope Study  	Principles of the Environmental Isotope Signature   	Principles of the Skeleton Isotope Ratios  	
Methods of Preparation  	Methods of Analyses  	

80
82
84
84
88

91

91

91
92
93
93

Defining the Isotope Signature of the Wadi Rum and the Ma‘an Plateau  	

94

Analysis of the Archaeological Faunal Remains  	

99Strontium Isotope Signature of the Wadi Rum and the Ma‘an Plateau  	
Oxygen Isotope Signature of the Wadi Rum and the Ma‘an Plateau  	
Carbon Isotope Signature of the Wadi Rum and the Ma‘an Plateau  	
Choice of the Species and Skeleton Parts  	
Results from the Strontium Isotope Analysis  	
Results from the Carbon Isotope Analysis  	
Results from the Oxygen Isotope Analysis  	Conclusion  	

Chapter 8. Establishing the Environment, Seasonality, and Economy
from Plant Micro-Remains: Pollen and Starch  	
Aline Emery-Barbier
The Modern Regional Context and the Local Flora  	

94
94
96

99
100
101
102

103

105
105
iii

The Regional Context  	Regional Plant Types by Edaphic Context   	
Flora in the Vicinity of the Site  	

105
105
106

The Sediments Analyzed, Chemical Treatment, and Identification  	108

Results and Interpretation  	

109

Climatic Conditions in the Near East During the Early Holocene  	117

Summary and Conclusions  	118

The Qa‘ Samples   	Samples from the Site  	
Pollen Extraction and Identification  	
Starch Granules  	
The Qa‘ Samples   	
The Site Samples   	

Paleobotanical Records  	Geoarchaeology  	Organic Matter   	
Deep Sea Cores  	
Speleotherms: δ18O and δ13C  	
Paleoenvironments   	
Plant Use  	
Seasonality  	

Chapter 9. Early Crop Cultivation and Caprine Herding: The Evidence
from Phytolith and Fecal Spherulite Studies  	Marta Portillo and Rosa M. Albert
Materials and Methods  	Phytolith Analyses  	
Spherulite Analyses  	
Phytolith and Spherulite Studies of the Site’s Deposit and Artifacts  	
Block I – Loci 2, 3, and 4  	
Block II – Loci 20, 22, and 26  	The Qa‘ Abū Nukhayla Sequence  	Interpretation  	
Summary: On-site and Off-site Interpretations  	

108
108
108
108
109
113

117
118
118
118
118
119
119
119

121
122
123
124
125

125
129

134
135
136

Chapter 10. Archaeobotanical Finds from Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
Joy McCorriston and Heidi Ekstrom
Methods of Charcoal Analysis  	
Results  	Regional Context and Vegetation History   	Interpretations  	139

Chapter 11. The Technotypology of Chipped Stone Artifacts  	
Donald O. Henry, April Nowell, Keith Mendez, Elizabeth Peterson,
Matthew Senn, and Heather Rockwell
Raw Material Acquisition and Use  	

145

Identification of Chert Sources  	

iv

139
140
143
143

145

145

Classification of Chert Varieties  	Tracing the Chert Sources  	

145
148

Technology  	152

Typology  	

159

Summary and Discussion  	

164

Debitage Classes  	
Debitage Classes Compared by Phase  	
Metrics of Debitage and Core Exhaustion  	Retouched Blades  	Retouched Flakes  	
Points  	
Scrapers  	
Denticulates  	Notches  	
Borers  	
Perforators  	Knives  	
Truncations  	Burins  	
Varia  	Chapter 12. Attribute Studies of Points, Perforators, Knives,and Lithic Caches from Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
April Nowell, Jennifer Gutzeit, Colleen Bell, and Donald O. Henry
Projectile Points  	
Attribute Analysis: Intrasite Comparisons  	Regional and Temporal Comparisons   	
Ayn Abū Nukhayla Compared to Select MPPNB and LPPNB Sites  	Southern Versus Northern Sites   	
Summary  	

154
156
156
159
159
159
160
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164

171
171

172
174
174
176
176

Nahal Hemar Knives  	

177

Nukhayla Perforators  	

182

Lithic Caches at the Site  	

188

Spatial Analysis  	Temporal Analysis  	
Summary and Conclusions  	
Spatial Analysis  	Temporal Analysis  	
Other Assemblages  	

The Locus 22 Cache  	
Chert Sources and Technology  	
Similar Caches at Other Sites  	Interpretations and Conclusions  	Chapter 13. Under the Microscope: Edge Wear Analysis of Chipped
Stone Artifacts and Intrasite Patterns  	Sean M. Bergin
Social Group Composition in the PPNB  	
Low Power Use-Wear Analysis   	

179
179
181
183
186
187
188
188
190
190

193
193
194
v

Sampling Strategy and Methodology  	
Use-Wear Results  	

Intra-Floor Spatial Analysis  	

197

The Use of Space at Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
Conclusions  	

202
203

Locus 2, Floor 1  	Locus 22, Floor 2  	Locus 22, Floor 3   	Locus 25, Floor 2  	

Chapter 14. A Closer Look: High-Power Use-Wear Analysis
of Prismatic Blades  	
Marvin Kay
Methods  	
Wear Trace Identification  	
Statistical Quantification and Evaluation  	

199
199
200
201

205
208

209
212

Results  	Technological and Functional Tool Types  	
Sickles  	
Recycled and Multifunctional Tools  	

212
214
216
219

Edge Maintenance and Tool Utility  	Contact materials  	

223
224

Engineering Design Characteristics  	
Summary Conclusions  	

228
231

Nukhayla Perforators  	Nahal Hemar Knives  	

Organic Microremains  	
Wear Hardness Scale   	

Chapter 15. The Worked Bone Assemblage from Ayn Abū
Nukhayla: Implements and Ornaments  	
Ashton J. Spatz and Agatha K. Baluh
Worked Bone Assemblage  	Classification  	
Pointed Implements  	
Flattened Implements  	Ornamental Objects  	
Varia  	Fragmentary  	

220
222

224
228

235
235
236

236
238
239
240
240

Uses of Worked Bone  	
Diachronic and Spatial Patterns  	

240
241

Regional Intersite Study  	Summary: Implications of Worked Bone Variability  	

242
243

Patterns Through Time  	
Across the Site Analysis  	

vi

195
195

241
241

Chapter 16. Ornaments of Shell and Stone: Social and Economic Insights   	245Ashton J. Spatz, Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer, April Nowell, and Donald O. Henry
Methodology  	245
Shell Assemblage Overview  	
246
Shell Distributions: Household and Community Scale  	
246
Regional Comparisons of Shell Assemblages  	
250
Diachronic Patterns in Shell Distributions  	251
The Stone Beads, Pendants, and Exotic Stones of Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
253
Disc Beads   	Carnelian Rhomboid-Shaped Bead  	Green Barrel Beads  	
Double-holed Pendants  	Single-holed pendants  	Discussion of Stone Ornaments  	Concluding Remarks  	Chapter 17. Groundstones and Grinding Technology  	
Seiji Kadowaki
Introduction  	
Raw Materials  	Production Technology  	Coarse Flaking  	Fine Flaking and Pecking  	Grinding, Drilling, and Incising  	

253
254
254
254
255

256
256

259
259
259
262

264
265
265

Tool Typology  	

266Technological Analyses of Grinding Tools  	

273

Grinding Slabs/Querns  	Mortars  	Handstones  	
Pestles  	
Pounders  	Polishing Pebbles  	
Worked Pebbles and Cobbles  	
Ground Axes and Celts  	
Grooved Stones  	
Perforated Stones  	
Stone Vessel  	
Debitage  	
Unidentifiable Ground Stone Fragments  	Function of Grinding Tools  	Density and Proportion of Milling Tools  	
Tool Morphology and Size  	Grinding Motion  	
Reduction of Grinding Tools through Use  	
Summary: Grinding Technology at Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	

266
267
267
268
270
270
270
271
271
272
273
273
273
274
274
278
280
282
283

vii

Chapter 18. Stratigraphic Identification and Spatial Examinationof House Floors at Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	
287
Donald O. Henry, Seiji Kadowaki, and Sean M. Bergin
House Floors: Formation Processes, Depositional Factors, and Behavioral Models	   288Use-Habitation Stage  	
Abandonment Stage  	Post-Abandonment Stage  	

288
289
289

Identifying Floors and Fills  	

289

Examining Site Structure Within and Between House Floors  	

303

Summary of Stratigraphic and Spatial Studies  	309

Formation Processes Associated with Floor and Fill Deposition  	
Establishing the Integrity of De Facto Refuse Assemblages  	
Behavioral Inferences  	Description of House Floors and Fills  	
Overview of House Floors and Fills  	
Spatial Patterns of Type I and II House Floors   	Spatial Patterns of Type III House Floors  	
Spatial Patterns of Type V Fills  	

Chapter 19. Pulling It All Together: Answers to Many Questions  	Donald O. Henry
Time  	Chronometry  	Seriation and Phase Definition   	Regional Placement  	Seasonality and Settlement Length  	

290
290
292
292
300
303
306
309

315
315

315
316
316
317

Paleoclimate and Environment  	Prehistoric Economy  	

318
319

Social and Economic Organization  	

326

Landscape Archaeology and Looking Outward from Ayn Abū Nukhayla  	336

Evidence for Herding and the Exploitation of Secondary Products   	
Evidence for Cereal Cultivation  	
Evidence for Foraging  	Trade and Exchange: Other Aspects of the Economy  	Household Composition and Control of Resources  	Social Differentiation  	
Public Space and Interaction   	Craft Specialization  	
Gender Distinctions  	
Demographic Parameters  	
Site Catchment  	Transhumance and Meso-Scale Land-Use Practices  	Regional Interaction Sphere  	
Supra-Regional Interaction and the PPNB Koine  	

References Cited  	
Digital Appendices 2.1, 16.1, 17.1-17.19, and 18.1 can be accessed at
http://orgs.utulsa.edu/sands
viii

320
322
323
324
326
327
327
329
330
333
336
339
340
341

347

Chapter 17
Groundstones and Grinding Technology
Seiji KadowakiIn an effort to better understand the roleof grinding technology in the behaviors of
the inhabitants of Ayn Abū Nukhayla, thisstudy examines (1) the functions of the groundstone tool types, (2) the density of millingstones in the site and their proportions within
the groundstone assemblage, (3) the groundstone tool morphometrics, (4) the motor habits
associated with grinding motions , and (5) thetransformation of groundstone tool morphology through use. These technological traits areshown to have been influenced by a complex set
of factors involving the availability and varietyof the raw material used in the fabrication ofgroundstone implements and the designs andsizes of the implements as they were linked tohuman motor habits and efficiency of use.
Introduction
Three seasons of excavations and surface collections in 2000, 2001, and 2005 resulted in
the recovery of more than 400 groundstone artifacts (Table 17.1; See Digital Appendix 17.1 forthe detailed information for each piece). Mostof these samples (371 pieces) were found inside
structures (loci) and assigned to one of the threephases of occupation. Other pieces were either
excavated outside the loci (11 pieces) or collected on the surface (25 pieces), making theirphase designation difficult. However, thesesurface collections are likely to have originated from the Neolithic deposits given that thesite is dominated by PPNB occupations and thesurface samples resemble those of this period in
the range of tool types and general techno-morphological characteristics. Thus, all of thesesamples are included in the following examination of Neolithic groundstones from Ayn Abū
Nukhayla.
The typological and technological analysesof groundstones in this study follow the behavioral sequence associated with the artifacts’ life
history from the acquisition of raw materials,
through production to use. Groundstone artifacts are classified according to Wright’s typology (1992a) in order to make systematic comparisons with the assemblages of other Early
Neolithic sites. Based on this typological examination, in combination with the morphometric attributes of grinding tools, I also analyze thegrinding technology of handstones and querns
to obtain insights into the food-grinding strategy at the site. In these examinations, the samples from different phases are amalgamated toenlarge the sample size because the three phases
do not differ from one another significantly intool types or techno-morphological traits.
Raw Materials
Raw materials for groundstones were exploited mostly from the talus at the foot of the cliff
located 60-80m west of the site (Digital Appendix 17.2). Here, clasts of different textures,
sizes, and forms are derived from the Cambriansandstones (Umm Ishrin and Salib Arkose) andPre-Cambrian granite (Qara) formations. The
source provides clasts of quartz rich sandstone,
often cemented with hematite, with morphologies ranging from cobble, pebble, and boulder,to slab. Also encountered in the rock samples
from the scree are granite, diorite, and siltstone.1

The raw materials were identified by Dr. Dennis Kerr, Dr. Peter Michael, and Dr. Winton Cornell of the Departmentof Geosciences, the University of Tulsa.

1

259

260

Grinding Slabs/
QuernsMortars

Handstones

A

B

C

Type Group

Bifacial Discoidal/Lens

Bifacial Discoidal/Tapered

22

23

Bifacial Loaf/Lens

Bifacial Ovate/Planoirregular

36b

38

Bifacial Ovate/Planoirregular

Bifacial Ovate/Triangular

35

36a

Bifacial Ovate/Wedged

Bifacial Ovate/Flat

33b

34

Bifacial Ovate/Flat

33a

Bifacial Ovate/Planoconvex

Bifacial Ovate/Lens

30b

32

Bifacial Ovate/Lens

Bifacial Discoidal/Planoirregular

28

30a

Bifacial Discoidal/Wedged

26

Bifacial Discoidal/Planoconvex

Bifacial Discoidal/Oval

21

24b

Miscellaneous mortar

20

Bifacial Discoidal/Planoconvex

Pebble mortar

12

24a

Miscellaneous slab

Bifacial punctuated quern

9

11

Unifacial punctuated quern

8

Fragment

Basin quern

7

10

Boulder quernType Name

2

Type
No.

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

Phase
I

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

Phase
II

2

3

3

2

3

7

5

7

11

4

2

0

1

2

1

4

1

2

1

12

15

2

5

23

2

Phase
III

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Unphased

Table 17.1 Inventory of groundstone artifacts from Ayn Abū Nukhayla

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

1

0

10

0

Unprovenienced

3

3

3

2

5

10

6

7

14

4

2

1

1

2

1

6

2

3

2

12

18

3

6

36

3

176

5

78

Totals

43.2%

1.2%

19.2%

261

PestlesPounders

Polishing Pebbles

Worked Pebbles
and Cobbles

Ground Axes
and Celts

D

E

F

G

H

Bifacial Rectilinear/Oval

Irregular

Unifacial Discoidal

Unifacial Ovate

Unifacial Loaf

Fragment

Miscellaneous handstone

Un-analyzed

Unipolar cylindrical

Unipolar conicalIrregular core

Spherical/Irregular

45

55

56

57

59

60

61

NA

63

65

72

73

Ground sphere (larger)

81a

Ground knife

93b

Flaked chopper

Small slab abrader

85b

95

Small slab abrader (red clay shale)

Pecked cobble

85a

82

Ground sphere (smaller)

Ground pebble (quartzite)

80b

81b

Ground cobble (granite)

80a

Bifacial

Bifacial Loaf/Triangular

43

78

Bifacial Loaf/Wedged

Bifacial Loaf/Flat

41b

42

Bifacial Loaf/Flat

Bifacial Loaf/Planoconvex

41a

40

0

0

1

1

0

3

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

3

3

7

1

5

0

6

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

6

0

1

0

4

0

2

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

22

4

4

5

13

2

1

0

1

1

3

5

2

23

6

6

3

6

2

3

4

1

1

16

1

0

0

3

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

5

4

33

5

13

5

22

4

2

1

1

1

4

5

2

33

7

7

3

16

2

5

4

1

1

18

8

86

2

2

5

2.0%

21.1%

0.5%

0.5%

1.2%

407 407 100.0%
25
11

0

63
24

A few of the groundstones recoveredfrom the site are made of non-local materials. Soapstone was used for shaft straighteners (Type No. 97, Figure 17.4:1-4, Digital
Appendix 17.5:2), while a piece of basaltic
pumice was formed into a conical shape(Type No. 65, Figure 17.2:6, Digital Appendix 17.5:1). The nearest source of pumice
is ca. 40-50km away on the Ma‘an Plateau,
while that of soapstone is unknown.
Production Technology

TotalsIndeterminate
139

2

1

0

0

3

5
1
0
0
0
Unknown fragment
M

138

0

1

1
0
0
0
0
Handstone/Slab fragment

Unidentified
Groundstone
Fragments

136

1

284

1.2%

5.7%
23
15
0
0
4
Flake
134

1

10

8
0
0
2
1
Pecked preform

DebitageL

132

0Body fragment
Stone Vessels
K

124

0

5

0.2%
1
1
0
0

6
2
0
0
1
Spindle whorl
105

0

1

4
0
0
1
Counterpoise Weight

Perforated
Stones
J

101

0

3

2
1
0
1
0
Miscellaneous grooved stone
100

0

1

1.5%

2.5%
4
0
0
3
1
0
Cutmarked slab
Grooved Stones
I98

0
Shaft straightener
97

1

3

0

0

4

10

Totals
Unprovenienced
Unphased
Phase
III
Phase
II
Phase
I
Type Name
Type Group

Type
No.

Table 17.1 (cont.) Inventory of groundstone artifacts from Ayn Abū Nukhayla

262

All handstones and most grinding querns
are made of local sandstone, while only three
grinding slabs are made on small bouldersof granite (See Table 17.2 for the correlations between tool types and raw material
types). Cobbles and pebbles of sandstone
and granite were also used for grindingor pecking with little modification (e.g.,worked pebbles and cobbles, Digital Appendix 17.3). Unmodified quartzite pebbles,
often recovered from floor levels, may also
have been brought from the foot of the talus
for ad hoc uses (Type No. 80b, Digital Appendix 17.3:2-4). Excavations also recovered small fragments of clay shale modified
by grinding into tabular forms with several facets (Type No. 85a, Digital Appendix
17.4, Digital Appendix 17.5:3). Clay shale
was also used for some cutmarked slabs(Type No. 98, Figure 17.4:6-7). Anothercutmarked slab is made of hornphers (Figure
17.4:5), and a fragment of a possible stone
vessel (Type No. 124, Figure 17.5:6, Digital
Appendix 17.5:4) is made of rhyolite. Thesetypes of igneous rocks also are likely of local
origin.

The raw materials received various types
and degrees of modification before being
used as tools. This involved several manufacturing stages following various reduction
technologies, as suggested by ethnographic
records (Hayden 1987; Cook 1973), studies of archaeological workshops (Hersh
1981; Hoffman and Doyel 1985; Roubet

263

0
4

Small slab abrader (85a)Small slab abrader (85b)

Total

Unidentifiable Fragments

Debitage
329

5

23

0

Stone Vessels

2

Misc. grooved stone
6

1

0

Cutmarked slab

Shaft straightener

3

Pecked cobble

7

18

Ground sphere2

Ground pebble (80b)

Perforated Stones

Grooved Stones

Ground Axes and Celts

Worked Pebbles
and Cobbles

1

2

Polishing Pebbles

Ground cobble (80a)0Pounders

171

5

75

4

Type Name

Pestles

Handstones

Mortars

Grinding Slabs/Querns

Type Group

Sandstone

35

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

33

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Clay
Shale

22

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

20

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Quartzite
Granite Rhyolite

Locally Available

Table 17.2 Crosstab of raw material by tool type

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hornphers

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Flint

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Soapstone

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Basaltic
PumiceImported

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

5

0

0

Unidentified

407

5

23

1

6

2

4

4

8

4

33

5

18

22

4

2

2

5

176

5

78

Total

1989; Runnel 1981; Schneider 1996), and experimental manufacture (Hersh 1981; Wilke
and Quintero 1996). The insights from thesestudies provide a basis for the expectations of
production stages, techniques, and their material correlates (e.g., Wright 1992a:496). Each
manufacturing stage is characterized by certain

1

2

Coarse Flaking
Many grinding querns from Ayn Abū
Nukhayla show large flake scars on their lateral sides (Figure 17.1:7, 11), indicating that

3

6

4

7

10

14

types of production techniques, debitage, products, and manufacturing tools.

11

15

5

8

12

16

9

13

17

18

0

50cm

Figure 17.1 Grinding Slabs/Querns from Ayn Abū Nukhayla: (1-11) Basin Querns, (12) Unifacial
Punctuated Quern, (13) Bifacial Punctuated Quern, (14-18) Miscellaneous Slabs.

264they received coarse flaking in the secondary
reduction/roughout stage of the tool manufacture. However, the excavation did not recover any large flakes or coarse choppers thatwould have been linked to coarse flaking. Thissuggests that coarse flaking took place outside
the excavated area, probably adjacent to the
nearby source of raw material in an effort to
reduce portage weight. This is consistent withseveral ethnographic records and archaeological
data which indicate that primary production
often occurs near the sources of raw materials (Hayden 1987; Hoffman and Doyel 1985;
Roubet 1989; Schneider 1996).
Fine Flaking and Pecking
This production stage may have taken placeon site as reflected in the recovery of debitage,
including tool-preforms and flakes. According
to Wright’s (1992a:496) scheme of groundstone production, preforms should be left inthe secondary reduction/roughout stage, which
involves coarse flaking or pecking. However, the preforms of handstones from Ayn Abū
Nukhayla do not appear to have received extensive modification such as coarse flaking, butthey do appear to have been modified with fineflaking, pecking, and grinding (Digital Appendix 17.6:1-2). Fine flaking is also suggestedby the small size (less than 4cm) of sandstone
flakes from the site.
Traces of the pecking technique are visibleon the lateral sides of various tool types such as
handstones, pestles, mortars, and worked cobbles. The technique was probably employed in
the retouch stage of the tool manufacture. The
pecked marks are also left on the working surface of the handstones and the grinding querns,
indicating the maintenance or rejuvenation ofworking surface for regaining a rough surface(Wright 1992a:134-135).
Possible manufacturing tools include small
chopping tools (Digital Appendix 17.7:4-6),
pounders (Digital Appendix 17.8:1-2), andseveral handstones with flaking scars, which
probably resulted from their secondary use forpounding (Figure 17.3:6-7, 11). These fistsize tools were probably used for fine flaking or
pecking. On the other hand, a heavy chopping
tool (Digital Appendix 17.7:4) may have beenused for coarse flaking. However, the tool’sedge is still sharp without distinct batteredmarks that should have been left as a result ofcoarse flaking. The tool may have had different
uses such as chopping softer materials.
Grinding, Drilling, and Incising
Although almost all groundstone tools havetraces of grinding, it is difficult to assess towhat extent the grinding technique was usedin the tool production stage. The experimental
manufacture of pestles by Wilke and Quintero (1996) shows that the grinding technique isrequired only in the last stage of manufacture
for smoothing out the surface. Raw material
can be modified mostly by the pecking technique. However, certain tool types appear tohave received extensive grinding in their manufacture. These types are the shaft straighteners(Figure 17.4:1-4) and the spindle whorls (Figure 17.5:1-2). Both tool types are entirely covered with smooth surfaces and show no clear
pecking mark.
Drilling was employed for the production of
perforated stones, which include spindle whorls(Figure 17.5:1-2) and counterpoise weights(Figure 17.5:3-5). Drilling was probably performed with drills and perforators of chippedstones recovered from the site, but the task
could also have been achieved by pecking witha chopper with a pointed end (Digital Appendix 17.7:5). All the perforations show bi-conical cross sections, indicating that both opposing
surfaces were worked to make a hollow.
Grooves of the shaft straighteners (Figure
17.4:1-4) and some cutmarked slabs (Figure 17.4:5-8) are formally shaped and musthave been intentionally fabricated rather thanformed through use. Longitudinal striations
on the surface of the grooves indicate that they
were created by incising the surface probably
with chipped stone blades.
265

Tool Typology
The typological description of the groundstone assemblage follows the classification system developed by Wright (1992a) (Table 17.1;
Digital Appendix 17.1). It should be notedthat the type list in Wright (1992a) is slightly different from that in Wright (1992b). This
study employs the former version because it isapplied to a number of prehistoric groundstoneassemblages in Wright (1992a), from which thisstudy cites data for comparison with Ayn Abū
Nukhayla. In addition, several tool types inWright’s list were subdivided to fit the variability of the present assemblage.
Grinding Slabs/Querns

only two pieces have working surfaces on opposed sides. Sandstone boulders are used as
raw material. Most specimens show various
sizes of flaking and pecking scars on their sides
or around the periphery of the working surface,indicating that flaking and pecking techniques
were employed in the tool manufacturing process (Figure 17.1:7, 11).
No. 8: Unifacial Punctuated Quern. The
querns of this type are principally similar to thebasin querns except for the presence of a hollow
on the grinding surface, which is a worn-out
penetration due to the prolonged use, maintenance, or ritualistic breakage by pecking (Figure
17.1:12).

Grinding slabs/querns are defined as “thelower, stationary stone in a pair of tools usedmainly for grinding. Most of the grinding action is in a plane parallel to the side on which
the artifact rests” (Wright 1992a:625). Six
types were identified in the assemblage (Table 17.1). They are Boulder Quern (No. 2),
Basin Quern (No. 7), Unifacial PunctuatedSlab/Quern (No. 8), Bifacial Punctured Slab/Quern (No. 9), Slab/ Quern Fragment (No.
10), and Miscellaneous Grinding Slab/Quern(No. 11). The basin quern is most frequent,accounting for ca. 46% of the grinding slabs/
querns, and no formal grinding slab has so far
been recovered.

No. 9: Bifacial Punctured Quern. Two opposed oval and concave working surfaces were
worn through to the opposite surface (Figure
17.1:13). The lateral sides of the querns show
flaking and pecking scars, which may have beenleft in the roughout or retouch stage of tool
production.

No. 2: Boulder Quern. Large cobbles andsmall boulders are used as raw material without
formal modification, and they have a shallow
oval grinding surface located on a naturally flat
surface. This tool type includes only three specimens that are all small and informally modified, indicating their expedient usage. Theirshallow grinding surfaces suggest that they wereused only for a short period and one specimen
shows a series of pecked depressions on thegrinding surface.

No. 11: Miscellaneous Grinding Slab. The
tools of this type are made of sandstone slabs
and boulders, and the working surfaces are relatively flat. Five pieces from Locus 20 are tabular sandstones with little modification (Figure
17.1:15-17). They were recovered on the cobble floor in the western corner of the room. One
specimen from Locus 25 is a large boulder witha flat surface on one side, while the other side
is convex and retains traces of pecking (Figure
17.1:14). A piece from Locus 3 received a low
degree of modification without distinct flaking
or pecking marks (Figure 17.1:18). Although
the type name indicates the function for grinding, the above pieces from the site are not likely

No. 7: Basin Quern. This type includes 36
pieces (Figure 17.1:1-11). They have an oval
and concave working surface on one side, and
266

No. 10: Slab/Quern Fragment. The pieces ofthis type retain concave surfaces that indicate
their function as lower stones, but they are too
fragmented to be identified at the level of thespecific type. However, they are probably fragments of basin querns, which constitute themajority of the lower stones from the site.

to have been used for food grinding because theworking surfaces show no clear traces of grinding.
Mortars
Mortars are defined as “a lower, stationary
stone in a pair of tools used mainly for pounding” (Wright 1992a:626). Mortars constitutea small component of the assemblage (Table
17.1).

ing and coarse grinding on lateral sides. The
working surface is slightly concave and exhibits pounding marks. The piece from the surface has two small depressions on a sandstoneslab. These depressions are shallow and show
pecking marks.
Handstones

No. 12: Pebble Mortar. Two pieces of thistype were recovered in Block II (Figure 17.2:12). They have a round outline formed by pecking and coarse grinding. Two shallow depressions are located on the opposing surfaces. The
surface of the depression is coarsely ground withno distinct pounding marks. The working surfaces appear to be too shallow and too small for
pounding task, and no pestle in the assemblage
would fit within such small depressions (Figure
17.2:3-6). Thus, these small mortars probably
had other functions than pounding.

This tool category is defined as an “upper, mobile stone in a pair of grinding tools”(Wright 1992a:628). Handstones account fornearly half of the assemblage (Table 17.1) andcomprise three major forms:discoid, ovate, andloaf. The discoid handstone has a subcircular shape (the ratio of length to width ≈ 1.0),
while the ovate and the loaf handstones havean oval shape. The loaf handstone is larger andmore elongated (the ratio of length to width≈1.75-2.0) than the ovate one (the ratio oflength to width ≈1.5-1.75; Wright 1992a:628631). These handstones usually show signs ofwear on both surfaces.

No. 20: Miscellaneous Mortar. Two pieces
from Block I and one from the surface are included in this type. The former two pieces are
irregular in shape and show a few traces of peck-

Wright (1992a:501-502) proposes several
subtypes of handstones according to the combination of different plan forms and cross-section forms. Her list of subtypes is employed

0
1

3

5cm

2

4

5

6

Figure 17.2 Mortars and pestles from Ayn Abū Nukhayla: (1-2) Pebble Mortars, (3-5) Unipolar Cylindrical Pestles, (6) Unipolar Conical Pestle.

267

here, but some modifications, with additional
subdivisions, were made to fit the morphological variability of handstones from Ayn Abū
Nukhayla. The following description will focus
on the definition and the explanation of thesubtypes modified by the author (See Digital
Appendix 17.9 for the schematic illustration of
the subtypes).
No. 24a and 24b: Bifacial Discoidal/Planoconvex.
Wright originally defined this tool type as discoidal handstones with two opposed working
faces that are flat and convex meeting at thesides. However, two pieces of the assemblage
are thick and have round lateral sides instead of
having the opposing faces meeting at the sides(Figure 17.3:1, 3). These pieces that do not fallin the original definition were grouped as No.
24a, while the specimens assuming the form of
Wright’s original definition are named No. 24b
here.
No. 30a and 30b: Bifacial Ovate/Lens. Ovate
handstones of this type have two opposing convex faces and straight sides (Wright 1992a:628),
assuming lenticular cross section. The two opposing surfaces of No. 30b handstone are inparallel, while those of No. 30a are tilted (Figure 17.3:17).
No. 33a and 33b: Bifacial Ovate/Flat. Wrightdefines this type as ovate handstones with twoflat parallel faces and approximately straightsides, but a number of specimens from the site
show a weak ridge on the working surface, consisting of two beveled planes. Because the ridge
is not developed enough to assume a triangularsection, these pieces are grouped under the tool
type of No. 33b. The form of the original definition is numbered as No. 33a.
No. 36a and 36b: Bifacial Ovate/Planoirregular.
This type is originally defined as ovate handstones with two opposing faces that are flat andirregular, but some pieces of the assemblage havea convex surface instead of a flat one. They areclassified as No. 36b, while the form of original
definition is grouped as No. 36a.
268

No. 41a and 41b: Bifacial Loaf/Flat. This
type is defined as loaf handstones whose “opposed faces are flat and parallel, and sides are
straight” (Wright 1992a:629). Some specimens
have a weak ridge on the working face, which
is formed by two beveled planes. Because suchbeveling is not distinct enough to assume a triangular section, these pieces are grouped under
the type of No. 41b (Figure 17.3:11), and theform of original definition is numbered as No.
41a.
Some handstones received a variety of secondary use. For example, flaking scars at theend surfaces of tools indicate the use of handstones for pounding (Figure 17.3:6, 7, 11),
while incisions and small depressions left on
working surfaces suggest their use as abraders
for the production of bone tools or shell ornaments (Figure 17.3:14, 16-18).
PestlesThis class is defined as an “upper, mobile
stone in a pair of pounding tools” (Wright
1992a:631). This tool category includes only
five pieces and forms a small portion of the assemblage. Two types were identified.
No. 63: Unipolar Cylindrical Pestle. Plan shapeis cylindrical, and the cross-section assumes anoval form. End surfaces show traces of grinding in addition to a few flaking scars, indicatingthat the tools were used for both grinding andpounding (Figure 17.2:3-5). These tools may
have been used in a set with grinding querns
instead of mortars because the mortars from thesite are too small to fit the working surface ofthe pestles (Figure 17.2:1-2).
No. 65: Unipolar Conical Pestle. A single pieceof this type has a conical shape (Figure 17.2:6;
Digital Appendix 17.5:1), and its narrower end
is missing with a part of irregular surface. This
piece differs from other pestle not only in the
shape but also in the raw material, which isporous basaltic pumice that was probably imported from a distance near Ma‘an plateau. A
broader end of the tool does not show clear

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

8

12

13

15

14

16

17

18
0

5cm

Figure 17.3 Handstones from Ayn Abū Nukhayla: (1, 3) Bifacial Discoidal/Planoconvex, (2,8) Unifacial
Discoidal, (4, 6-7) Bifacial Discoidal/Lens, (5) Bifacial Discoidal/Oval, (9) Bifacial Ovate/Triangular, (10)Unifacial Ovate, (11) Bifacial Loaf/Flat with beveled planes, (12) Bifacial Loaf/Planoconvex, (13) Irregular, (14) Miscellaneous with ground depressions, (15) Bifacial Rectilinear/Oval, (16) Bifacial Discoidal/
Lens with incision, (17) Bifacial Ovate/Lens with incision, (18) Bifacial Loaf/Planoconvex with incision.
Shaded areas indicate red stains on the surface.

269

traces of use for pecking or grinding but issmoothly ground. The tool may not have actually functioned as a “pestle”.
Pounders
The original definition of this type is a “coreor unmodified angular nodule…almost alwaysof flint, with heavy battering marks (crushingfractures) on any or all sides…. Forms range
from irregular to spheroid. Easily held in one
hand” (Wright 1992a:632).
One flint core was classified as an irregularcore pounder (No. 72), but the edges of thecore are ground instead of being battered (Digital Appendix 17.8:1). Another specimen of
the pounder is a quartzite cobble that falls inthe subtype of spherical/irregular pounder (No.
73). This piece is covered with battering marks
and has a semispherical outline (Digital Appendix 17.8:2).

1

Polishing Pebbles
This category includes an “unmodified
pebble or small cobble, generally waterworn
or riverine. One or more brightly polishedsurfaces on a small flint or quartzite pebble(other raw materials occasionally encountered). … Surface plan shape variable, but always either slightly convex or flat in section”(Wright 1992a:633). Two specimens thatare classified into this type are tabular sandstone pebbles with two opposing polished surfaces (No. 78) (Digital Appendix 17.8:3-4).
Worked Pebbles and Cobbles
This type is defined as “artifacts showing
traces of reduction by ad hoc use but withdiffuse use surfaces lacking clear patterning”(Wright 1992a:633). Because of the little
modification of raw material, the morphological variability of this tool type depends
on the shape and the size of raw material.
No. 80a and 80b: Ground Cobble/Pebble. These
subtypes include unmodified cobbles or peb-

2

3

0
5

4

5cm

6

7

8

9

Figure 17.4 Grooved stones from Ayn Abū Nukhayla: (1-4) Shaft Straighteners, (5-8) Cutmarked
Slabs, (9) Miscellaneous Grooved Stone.

270bles with one or more ground surfaces, whichshow irregular shape and distribution (Wright
1992a:633). Specimens of No. 80a are cobbles of granite or sandstone (Digital Appendix
17.3:1) and are larger than No. 80b, which aremostly unmodified pebbles of quartzite (Digital Appendix 17.3:2-4). The ground surface of
No.80a is clearer than that of No.80b.
No. 81: Ground Sphere. Artifacts of this type areentirely covered with ground surface and assume
a nearly perfect sphere (Wright 1992a:633;
Digital Appendix 17.3:5-10). They are mostly
made of coarse sandstone cobbles or pebbles,
and their size appears to distribute in two modes(Digital Appendix 17.10). Wright reports small
ground spheres from Azraq 31, a Late Neolithic site, as “tokens” (Wright 1992a:238). Larger
ground spheres were probably used as grinding
tools in the pair with grinding querns since theoutline of large ground spheres fits quite wellwith the concavity of the working surface of thebasin querns.
No. 82: Pecked Cobble/Pebble. Artifacts of thistype have pecked marks in addition to theground surface (Digital Appendix 17.3:1112). They are made of granite or sandstone
cobbles, and are quite similar in shape and size
to the ground cobbles of No. 80a except for thepresence of pecking marks.
No. 85a and 85b: Small Slab Abrader. Bothsubtypes are tabular in shape, and show wear
facets and abrasive scratches (Digital Appendices 17.4 and 17.5:3). The artifacts of No. 85adiffer from No. 85b in their use of red clay shale,
while those of No. 85b are made of light grayor beige sandstone. Given the irregular shapeand the variability in size of the No. 85a pieces,they were probably used as a source of pigment
rather than any kind of grinding tools. Indeed,
several handstones retain red pigment on theirsurfaces (Figure 17.3:12, 15), indicating thatclay-shale slabs were abraded against handstones to produce the powder of red pigment.

Ground Axes and Celts
The original definition of this type is “a stone
tool with a cutting edge perpendicular to thelong axis of the tool and manufactured partly
via abrasion” (Wright 1992a:634), but it also
includes a tool type (No. 93) that has a cuttingedge along the long lateral edges.
No. 93a: Flaked “Knife” and No. 93b: Ground“Knife”. The tool type of No. 93 is defined as“any elongated non-flint tool which is groundalong the face but flaked along the long lateral edges. No evidence of polishing or grindingon the edges” (Wright 1992a:636). The finds
from Ayn Abū Nukhayla (Digital Appendix
17.7:1-3) are elongated tabular sandstone, carefully ground over the entire surface, and one of
their lateral edges tapers out, although it does
not form a sharp cutting edge. Because the tapering edges were not formed by flaking but by
grinding, the No. 93 was subdivided into No.
93a, which has a flaked edge, and No. 93b,
which has a ground edge.
No. 95: Miscellaneous Flaked Chopper. This
tool type (Wright 1992a:636) makes up another type of ground axes and celts, and threepieces in the assemblage fall in this type (Digital
Appendix 17.7:4-6). They are chopper-chopping tools with a bifacially flaked edge made on
sandstone or quartzite cobbles. The batterededges indicate the use for chopping, batteringor pecking tasks. Heavy duty tools of this typemay have been used for the production andmaintenance of groundstone tools, as indicatedby several ethnographical records and experimental studies (Hayden 1987; Hoffman andDoyel 1985; Roubet 1989).
Grooved Stones
The grooved stone is “any blank with a groove,
defined as a concave use surface much longer
than it is wide (more than 3 times as long), lenticular in plan and V-shaped or U-shaped intransverse section” (Wright 1992a:636). Threetypes of grooved stones are identifiable in theassemblage.
271

pebble of hornphers with two narrow parallel
grooves (Figure 17.4:5). The last specimen of
this type is an angular sandstone cobble that ismuch larger than the other three pieces. A longnarrow groove is oriented longitudinally acrossthe flat surface of the cobble (Figure 17.4:8).

No. 97: Shaft Straightener. All four pieces included in this type have a squarish outline andU-shaped grooves, sometimes accompaniedwith several lines of incisions (Figure 17.4:14). Two of them have an angular cross section(Figure 17.4:2, 4) and have two grooves in parallel on a single plane, while the other two pieces are lenticular in cross-section and have only
one groove on a single plane (Figure 17.4:1,
3). Shaft straighteners are exclusively made ofsoapstone (Digital Appendix 17.5:2).

No. 100: Miscellaneous Grooved Stone. Oneof the two pieces, included in this type, is asandstone cobble with a couple of shallow
grooves that appear to have been left throughuse (Figure 17.4:9). The other piece is madeof a flat sandstone cobble and has two shallow
grooves with a square cross section on a smoothly abraded plane.

No. 98: Cutmarked Slab. The type is characterized by the presence of “a long and very
narrow cut mark, lenticular in plan, and always
sharply angled V shape in transverse section”(Wright 1992a:637). Four pieces, identified as
this type, are variable in shape and size. Two are
red clay-shale slabs shaped into a square form
by grinding, with narrow incisions cut longitudinally across the flat surface (Figure 17.4:6,
7). Another cutmarked slab is made of a small

Perforated Stones
The type is characterized by “the presenceof either a perforation (which connects two
sides of an artifact), or one or more drill marks(which do not fully penetrate opposing sides)”(Wright 1992a:637). Perforated stones from

1

3

2

6

0

4

5cm

5

Figure 17.5 Perforated stones and stone vessel from Ayn Abū Nukhayla: (1-2) Spindle Whorls, (3-5)
Counterpoise Weights, (6) Body fragment of a stone vessel. Shaded areas indicate red stains on thesurface.

272

Ayn Abū Nukhayla are grouped into two types,
which are the counterpoise weight (No. 101)and the spindle whorl (No. 105).
No. 101: Counterpoise Weight. One complete specimen is a sandstone cobble elaborately
shaped into a discoidal shape by pecking, andan oval perforation is sunk near one end of thedisc (Figure 17.5:4). At another end is locateda trace of grinding. Two other specimens arebroken fragments, but they appear to have had
more elongated outline than the former discoidal piece (Figure 17.5:3, 5). One of themshows the stain of red pigment on the side as
well as on the broken surface, indicating the reuse of the broken piece for pigment processing(Figure 17.5:5).
No. 105: Spindle Whorl. One of the twopieces in this type (Figure 17.5:2) has a discoidal outline and is lenticular in cross section,
covered entirely with smoothed surface. A perforation in the center has a bi-conical cross section. The other piece (Figure 17.5:1) is a small
fragment of discoidal sandstone slab. It shows
clear traces of abrasion and a perforation with abi-conical cross section.
Stone Vessel
No. 124. A possible body fragment of a stone
vessel was recovered. (Figure 17.5:6; Digital
Appendix 17.5:4) The specimen is made ofrhyolite and has a smooth exterior surface thatwas finished by grinding. The piece may haveoriginated from a closed-form vessel like a globular bowl (No. 113) because the wall is invertedwith a consistent thickness. One of the broken
surfaces is rounded with some traces of pecking
and striations perpendicular to the edge, indicating that the fragment was re-used as a tool
for pecking or scraping. The virtual absence ofstone vessels at Ayn Abū Nukhayla contrasts totheir frequent occurrences at other PPNB sites,
particularly in the Mediterranean environmental zone (Wright 1992a:473-477).

DebitageNo. 132: Pecked Preform. Most pecked preforms in the assemblage appear to represent
unfinished handstones (Digital Appendix
17.6:1-2). The preforms are shaped into ovateor rectangular forms, showing traces of pecking and grinding. Accidental breakage during
the manufacture of the tools or the unsuitable
forms may have caused the abandonment of the
preforms. In addition, a single piece is an elliptic sandstone slab, whose periphery is roughly flaked and partly ground (Digital Appendix
17.6:3). Its peculiar flat shape and the trimmed
edge suggest that it is a preform of a flaked/
ground knife (No. 93).
No. 134: Flake. Several small flakes of sandstone were recovered, indicating that small-scale
fabrication or the maintenance of groundstone
implements took place in the excavated area.
Unidentifiable Ground Stone Fragments
No. 136: Possible Handstone/Grinding Slab.
This is “a fragment with a single flat ground surface which could be either a handstone or grinding slab fragment” (Wright 1992a:642). Only
one piece is included in this type.
No. 138: Unknown. This is an “unidentifiable ground stone fragment” (Wright
1992a:642). Only one piece is included in thistype.
No. 139: Indeterminate. “Possible groundstone outil à posteriori but ambiguous” (Wright
1992a:642). Three pieces of irregular forms areincluded in this category. They show traces offlaking, pecking (Digital Appendix 17.6:4), ora small depression (Digital Appendix 17.6:5),
indicating the uses for various activities.
Technological Analysesof Grinding Tools
This section examines the technology offood-grinding performed with handstones andgrinding slabs/querns, which together accountfor more than 60% (N = 254) of the ground273

stone assemblage. The handstone and thegrinding slab/quern are conventionally regarded as upper and lower grinding stones, particularly, for food processing. Thus, these tool types
are often called “milling stones” or “millstones”(Bartlett 1933; Euler and Dobyns 1983; Wilke and Quintero 1996). On the basis of thisgeneral assumption, this study examines (1) the
function of these tool types, (2) the density of
milling stones in the site and the proportion of
milling stones in the groundstone assemblage,(3) tool morphology and size, (4) motor habits,
and (5) the transformation of tool morphology
through use. The results of these analyses are
discussed in terms of the grinding technology
employed by the Neolithic inhabitants at Ayn
Abū Nukhayla.
Function of Grinding Tools
Various ethnographic accounts and experimental uses of millstones suggest that they are
primarily used for food preparation, and theseobservations conventionally provided the basis
for the archaeological explanations of “millstones” (Bartlett 1933; Eddy 1964; Euler and
Dobyns 1983; Hard 1990; Jones 1996; Kraybill 1977; Mauldin 1991, 1993; Morris 1990;
Woodbury 1954; Wright 1992a, 1993). In thecase of the Levantine prehistory, the link between the millstones and the food processing is
considered quite strong as Wright (1992a, 1993)
has shown through the diachronic developmentof milling tools from the Epipalaeolithic to the
Neolithic period. According to her, mortars
and pestles were prevalently used during the
Natufian period, gradually supplanted by a setof grinding slabs/querns and handstones fromthe PPNA to the PPNB period. She further
suggested that the increasing use of grinding
slabs/querns and handstones resulted from theeffort to reduce the particle size of plant foods
for better digestion. She thought this was promoted for maximizing “the nutritional returns
from limited ‘catchments’ close to settlements”
as settlements became more sedentary and theclimate deteriorated in the Late Natufian period (Wright 1992a, 1993:97). In this sense, theuse of milling tools does not necessarily mean274

the dependence on the agricultural crops, but atleast the ties of milling implements to the foodpreparation activity is indicated.
However, ethnographic data also indicatethat there are other functions of milling implements than food processing, such as for hideprocessing (Adams 1988), the pulverization oftemper and clay for pottery manufacture (Euler and Dobyns 1983), crushing pigments, andsharpening other tools (Schneider 1993). In
fact, the processing of pigment by handstones
is indicated by the adherence of red stains onsome handstones (Figure 17.3:12, 15). Flaking
scars at the end surfaces of handstones indicate
their use for pounding (Figure 17.3:6-7, 11),
while incisions and small depressions left on
working surfaces suggest their use as abraders
for the production of bone tools or shell ornaments (Figure 17.3:14, 16-18). These uses ofhandstones, nonetheless, appear to have resulted from their secondary use because the handstones show clear traces of grinding on theirworking surfaces.
More direct evidence on the function of millstones can be obtained by analyzing microscopic use-wear or residues from the tool surface(Adams 1996; Atchison and Fullagar 1998; Dubreuil 2004; Fullager et al. 2008; Roland Jones
1989). At Ayn Abū Nukhayla, phytoliths frominflorescences of wheat and cerealia-type pollen
were recovered from the surfaces of handstones
and grinding querns, suggesting their use forprocessing cereals (Portillo et al. 2009; Chapter 8). Phytoliths of wheat inflorescences werealso concentrated in the areas where grinding
querns were located on the building floors ofLoci 2, 3, and 20 (Albert and Henry 2004; Portillo et al. 2009; Chapter 9). Thus, it is quite
likely that primary functions of handstones andgrinding querns at Ayn Abū Nukhayla included
the processing of plant food, particularly cereal
grains.
Density and Proportion of Milling Tools
The density of milling tools and their proportion to the total groundstone assemblage

The density is calculated by the number ofmillstones per square meter of excavated areas. The areas surveyed for surface collection
are also included for the assemblages of Ba‘ja(Gebel and Bienert 1997:247) and ‘Ain Qadis (Gopher et al. 1995). Although a moreaccurate comparison would be the number ofartifacts per cubic meter, such a comparison isdifficult due to the lack of data on the thickness of excavated deposits at most sites. Thus,
it should be noted that the tool density is likely
to be overrepresented at sites with thick cultural deposits, such as at Basta, while it may beunderrepresented at Ba‘ja, which includes only

were compared between Ayn Abū Nukhayla
and other PPNB sites. The groundstone dataof the other PPNB sites were mostly obtained
from Wright (1992a), whose use of a common
classification system facilitated the intersite
comparison. Other sources of data include
Simmons and Najjar (2006) for Ghwair I, Gopher et al. (1995) for ‘Ain Qadis I, and Gopher
and Orelle (1995) for Munhata (see Table 4-2
in Kadowaki 2002 for the correspondence ofthe groundstone typology at Munhata to thatof K. Wright).
3.00

Number of milling stones per m²

Sites in the Mediterranean environment
Sites in the steppe-desert environment

Basta

2.00

Ujr. etl Mehed
Ayn Abū Nukhayla

Ghwair I
1.00‘Ain Ghazal(Late PPNB)

Jilat 70.00

JerichoAzraq 31
Abu GoshNahal Divshon
0.0%

20.0%

‘Ain Qadis I

Abu Madi III

BeidhaBa‘ja

Beisamoun
Dhuweila 1

40.0%

Munhata Jilat 26

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%% of milling stones in the assemblage
Figure 17.6 Correlation between the density (number per m2) and the proportion (% of the groundstone assemblage) of milling stones from selected PPNB sites in the Levant.

275

surface collections. The proportion of millingstones is obtained by the percentage of the six
types of milling stones (grinding slabs/querns,
handstones, mortars, bedrock mortars, pebble
mortars, and pestles) in the total groundstone
artifacts.
The density and proportion of millstones at
Ayn Abū Nukhayla are relatively high among
the PPNB sites as shown in Figure 17.6. It isremarkable that these figures are higher at Ayn
Abū Nukhayla than at many agrarian villages
located in the more favorable Mediterranean
environmental zone. Moreover, the deposits at
Ayn Abū Nukhayla are not significantly thicker than other PPNB sites and thus are unlikely
to overrepresent its tool density. Instead, theoccurrences of milling tools can be influenced
by various factors, such as the wear rates of raw
materials, the availability of raw materials, thesite-functions, and the contexts of excavatedareas. For example, if the grinding tools are
made of raw materials that quickly wear out,
the frequent maintenance and replacement of
the tools should result in the high occurrencesof milling tools. Based on the grinding experiments, Adams (1999) suggests that grinding
tools made of granular materials, like sandstone, wear smooth more quickly than basalt
tools. Because the smoothed surface needs tobe pecked and roughened to regain the grinding efficiency (Adams 1999:486-487; Wight
1990:81-90), the maintenance of grinding surfaces accelerates the reduction of grinding tools,
shortening their use life.
From this viewpoint, the high occurrencesof milling tools at Ayn Abū Nukhayla can be
partly explained as a result of the frequent useof locally available sandstone for handstones
and basin querns (Table 17.2). The same explanation may also apply to the case of Ba‘ja
and Basta, where local sandstone is a major raw
material type of groundstone artifacts (Gebel
and Bienert 1997:247-251; Wright 1992a:231;
Nissen et al. 1987:108). Limestone is another common raw material at Basta and other
PPNB sites, such as ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson276

and Simmons 1988:399, 408), Jilat 7 (Wright
1992a:440), Jericho (Dorrell 1983:491, 520),
Munhata (Gopher and Orelle 1995:71, 95),
Abu Gosh (Lechevallier 1978:78), Beisamoun(Lechevallier 1978:178), and ‘Ain Qadis (Gopher et al. 1995:30). However, these sites except for Basta are also characterized by the useof basalt for some handstones or grinding slabs/
querns. Given the durability of basalt, the longer use-life of basalt grinding tools may havelowered the density and proportion of millingstones.
However, the use of locally available coarse
sandstone for handstones and grinding slabs/
querns at Beidha cannot explain its relatively low density and proportion of milling tools(Wright 1992a:207). This suggests that the
durability of raw materials is not always a determining factor for the density and proportionof milling stones. On the other hand, these figures are high at Ujrat el Mehed and Abu Madi
III, the interim report of which suggests that
local granitic rocks were the major sources for
grinding tools (Bar-Yosef 1984:154-155).
The distance to raw material sources may also
affect the occurrences of the tools because theconsumption of imported raw materials is often
economized (Odell 2003:198-201). However,no significant difference is observable among
the sites in the availability of raw materials,
most of which are reported to have been obtained locally. One clear exception is the case at
Jilat 7, where the tools were made of basalt thatwas imported from at least 45km away (Wright
1992a:225). Despite this great distance to thesources, the density of milling stones at Jilat
7 is relatively high. This is because a cache ofgroundstone artifacts was recovered in the small
excavated area of 85m2 (Wright 1992a:224). A
concentration of handstones (N = 6, of which
five are complete) was also recovered at Feature
1/Locus 2 in Ayn Abū Nukhayla (Kadowaki2008), but the scale of this cache appears too
small to have significantly increased the tool
density at the site.

The high density and proportion of millingstones at Ayn Abū Nukhayla can also be related to the excavated contexts, most of which
are indoor spaces surrounded by the densely
distributed stone-walls of a “beehive structure”(Chapters 4 and 5). However, the excavationof the indoor space does not necessarily increase
the recovery of artifacts because building floors
often receive cleaning that removes obtrusiverefuse to extramural middens. The maintenance of indoor space is usually rigorous at
sedentary settlements in the Mediterranean environment (Goring-Morris 1994:438). On theother hand, at Ayn Abū Nukhayla, numerous
artifacts were recovered inside the pithouses,
particularly at floor levels, suggesting the low
degree of area-maintenance (Chapter 18; Henry et al. 2011; Kadowaki 2008). Such conditions in the discard locations and the excavatedcontexts also may have affected the patterns in
the density of milling stones.
Other probable reasons for the occurrences of milling stones are the site-function andthe mobility of inhabitants. For example,
no food-grinding tools were recovered at Nahal Divshon (Servello 1976) or in the PPNB
contexts at Azraq 31 (Baird et al. 1992:18),
which appear to have been temporary, hunting
camps. On the other hand, “more than a dozen handstones” were recovered at a small occupation (ca. 20m2) of Abu Madi III (Bar-Yosef
1984:155). Other sites have architectural remains of various scales and structures, which
include what is interpreted as windbreaks at
Dhuweila (Betts 1998:48), clusters of circularstone-walled buildings at Ayn Abū Nukhayla,
at Phase A of Beidha (Byrd 2005), and at Ujrat
el Mehed (Bar-Yosef 1984:153-154), somewhat
standardized, rectilinear residential structures,
called “pier houses”, at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson1997), in Phase C of Beidha (Byrd 2005), at
Beisamoun (Lechevallier 1978:134-141), andat Jericho (Kenyon 1981), and large, compartmentalized building compounds at Basta (Nissen et al. 1987) and Ba‘ja (Gebel and Bienert
1997).

Although this chapter is not intended to examine the functions of these sites in depth, it
is noted that the patterns in the occurrences of
milling stones in Figure 17.6 do not correspondto the dichotomous distinction between “farmers” in the Mediterranean environment and“mobile foragers” in the steppe-desert environment, which is expected from other archaeological records (Bar-Yosef 2001; Goring-Morris etal. 2009). This is because the use of millingstones was not restricted to sedentary, agrarian villages in the Mediterranean climate zone
but also occurred at some sites in the arid environment, such as Ayn Abū Nukhayla, Jilat 7,
Ujrat el Mehed, and Abu Madi III. These sites,
except for Abu Madi III, are associated withstone-walled residential buildings with abundant remains of domestic activities and thus
considered major settlements in the arid zone
(Goring-Morris 1993:68-70). Such examples also include Nahal Issaron (Goring-Morris and Gopher 1983), Nahal Reuel (Ronen etal. 1999), and Wadi Tbeik (Bar-Yosef 1984).
It is also noted that these settlements arecharacterized by a dominance of grinding
slabs/querns and handstones over mortars andpestles (Kadowaki 2002:Table 4-3; Wright
1992a). Based on an experimental study andethnographic account, K. Wright suggested thatmortars and pestles are effective in pounding
seed foods especially for their dehusking, while
the use of grinding slabs/querns and handstones reduces the grain size of seed foods forbetter digestion, which helps people maximize
the nutritional return from a given amount offood resource (Wright 1992a). Given the advantage provided by the use of grinding slabs/
querns and handstones, the high occurrence ofthe grinding tools in the arid zone may indicate
the attempt to intensively exploit the available
territory and the limited amount of the plantfoods by increasing nutrient extractive efficiency (cf. Fullagar and Field 1997).
In sum, the variability in the density and the
proportion of milling stones among the PPNB
sites is likely to involve multiple factors, includ277

ing the durability and availability of raw materials, the contexts of excavated areas, discard
behaviors, site-functions, and available plantresources. Despite such diverse potential causes, the observed pattern can still help illustrate
the grinding technology at Ayn Abū Nukhayla,
which is characterized by the intensive use of
locally available sandstone for the production ofhandstones and grinding querns. These milling
implements were demanded by the inhabitantsof the settlement probably for the efficient consumption of plant foods in this marginal, arid
environment.
Tool Morphology and Size
The aim and scope of the following morphometric analyses draw on a number of ethnographic, experimental, and archaeologicalstudies on food-grinding tools in the American Southwest and Mesoamerica (e.g., Adams 1999, 2002; Bartlet 1933; Eddy 1964;
Euler and Dobyns 1983; Hard 1990; Hayden
1987; Horsfall 1987; Mauldin 1993; Stone
1994). These studies offer significant insights
into the relationship between the tool morphology and the grinding technology. Among
various technological implications of the toolform/size, this study focuses on the grinding
efficiency, the ground material, the raw material availability, and the portability of tools. I
selected several morphometric attributes that
Ayn AbūNukhayla18

61

Jilat 7

Handstones. The selected attributes of handstones are length, the ratio of length to width,
and the proportion of the three forms of handstones (discoid, ovate, and loaf ). These data are
available from only a few sites because many
reports do not present the dimensional data ofgroundstone tools, and the handstone typology
varies from one site to another. The data weretaken from four PPNB sites (i.e., Beidha, Jilat
7, Ba‘ja, and Munhata) to be compared withthose of Ayn Abū Nukhayla (Figure 17.7 andDigital Appendix 17.11). Only dimensional
data are available from Munhata (Gopher andOrelle 1995), while only the proportion of thehandstone types has been reported for Basta(Nissen et al. 1987).
The results of a t-test indicate that handstones
at Ayn Abū Nukhayla are smaller than those of
Beidha (t = 2.11, df = 24.7, 2-tailed p = 0.045),
while they are larger than those of Munhata (t= 5.71, df = 97, 2-tailed p = 0.00). The lengthof handstones from Ayn Abū Nukhayla appear
closer to that of Jilat 7, although the sample size

1

14

Beidha

7

84
0%

20%
Discoidal

61
40%

Figure 17.7 Proportions of
three types of handstones fromselected PPNB sites (data for
Jilat 7, Ba‘ja, and Beidha fromWright 1992a). Numbers inbars are the frequencies ofeach type.

39

4

Ba‘ja

278

are particularly relevant to these factors. The
selected attributes are examined by comparing
Ayn Abū Nukhayla with other contemporarysites in the southern Levant. The analyses ofhandstones and grinding querns are followed
by a discussion of the results in terms of thegrinding technology.

60%
Ovate

30
80%
Loaf

100%

for the latter site is too small (N = 2) for statistical comparison. In addition, it is also notedthat handstones from Ba‘ja and Basta appear tobe even larger than Beidha. Ovate handstones
from Ba‘ja range from 100 to 150mm, while thelength of the loaf handstone is “similar to thewidths of the saddle slabs” (Wright 1992a:232),
which measure 222mm and 250mm on thedrawings (Wright 1992a:Fig. 5-36a, b). Semioval handstones from Basta are also large, ranging from 95 to 350mm in length and from 42
to 104mm in width (Nissen et al. 1987).
The ratio of length to width was also statistically examined (Digital Appendix 17.11). The
results show that the ratio does not differ between Ayn Abū Nukhayla and Beidha, but theratio of Munhata is significantly smaller thanAyn Abū Nukhayla (t = −2.91, df = 97, 2-tailed
p = 0.005). This indicates that the handstonesof Ayn Abū Nukhayla are more elongatedthan those of Munhata. The abundance of theelongated handstones at Ayn Abū Nukhayla isalso suggested by the proportions of the threehandstone forms (discoid, ovate, and loaf ). As
shown in Figure 17.7, the handstones of Ayn
Abū Nukhayla are characterized by the highproportion of the loaf handstones and the low
ratio of the discoid form.
Grinding Querns. The forms of grinding
slabs/querns were compared among some
PPNB sites based on Wright’s typology ofthe grinding slabs/querns. Wadi Jilat 7 andBa‘ja are characterized by saddle-shaped slabs,
while the basin querns are dominant at Ayn
Abū Nukhayla (Digital Appendix 17.12). The
abundance of saddle-shaped slabs is also mentioned in the preliminary report of Basta (Nissen et al. 1987). Beidha includes numerous
trough grinding slabs/querns besides basin
querns and saddle-shaped slabs. The troughgrinding slabs/querns are “rectangular in planand S-shaped in long section, curving downward from a ‘shelf ’ at the high proximal end
to an opening at the thin distal end” (Wright
1992a:626). The opening of the trough slabs/
querns allows an easy access to the ground con-tents. The trough grinding slabs/querns arealso abundant at Munhata (Gopher and Orelle
1995) and probably at Beisamoun (Lechevallier1978).
The dimensional data of the grinding slabs/
querns are available only from Beidha andJilat 7 besides Ayn Abū Nukhayla (Digital
Appendix 17.13). Although the small sample
size does not allow statistical comparison, thelength and width of grinding querns from Ayn
Abū Nukhayla tend to be greater than those of
grinding slabs/querns from Beidha. However,the length and width of the use surface do notseem to differ between them as much. In addition, the grinding querns and their use surfacesof Ayn Abū Nukhayla appear to be larger thanthose of Jilat 7 (Digital Appendix 17.13).
Discussion. Among the above sites, the small
size of handstones and grinding slabs at Jilat 7
can be explained as a design to economize theuse of imported basalt (cf. Stone 1994) and as
mobile inhabitants’ intent to increase the portability of the tools (Wright 1992a:225). However, such constraints on the raw material availability or the portability of tools did not exist
at Ayn Abū Nukhayla, where a great volume
of sandstone clasts of various sizes is available
quite near the site. In fact, the size of grinding querns at Ayn Abū Nukhayla is greater than
Beidha and Jilat 7.
On the other hand, the same explanation
does not apply to the size of handstones. It is
not immediately clear why handstones at Ayn
Abū Nukhayla are smaller than those at Beidha,Ba‘ja, and Basta, sites where local sandstone wasalso available. The explanation for this may berelated to the high occurrence of basin querns
in that the concave surface of the basin querns
can be formed by the use of handstones thatare much shorter than the width of lower stones(see Digital Appendix 17.14 for the comparison of the size between handstones and basin
querns). Moreover, the size of handstones
need not be restricted as much in the case oftrough querns, which open at one end, andsaddle-shaped slabs. In fact, manos used with279

trough metates and flat/concave metates areusually larger than those associated with basin
metates in the American Southwest (Adams
1993:332, 1998).
Based on grinding experiments, Adams(1999) suggests that the basin metate, which iscomparable to the basin quern, was efficient ingrinding dry or non-oily foods because the concave surface prevents them from spillage. The
prevention of spillage may have been one of thefactors in deciding the design of grinding tools
at Ayn Abū Nukhayla, as the milling of cereal grains is indicated by microbotanic analyses(Albert and Henry 2004; Portillo et al. 2009;
Chapters 8 and 9).
Another question tied to the analyses is theabundance of elongated handstones despite
the dominance of basin querns. The loaf andovate handstones excavated from the site are
too long, and their outlines are too straight to
fit the concave surfaces of the basin querns; toomuch space is left between the handstones andthe grinding surfaces of the querns. On theother hand, the discoid handstones are shortand have a convex surface, fitting well with theconcave surface of basin querns. However, thelow frequency of the discoid handstones does
not match the dominance of the basin querns.
A similar situation is observable at Archaic sites in the Middle Santa Cruz Valley ofthe American Southwest (Adams 1998). Basin metates are the primary product there although the mano data indicates that they wereused against flat/concave metates. Adams(1998:371-374) explains that the flat/concave
metates existed at the site and were used for
grinding, but they were subsequently removed
from the site. According to her, the flat/concave metates were scavenged because they
were more suitable to efficient grinding thanthe basin querns that were not selected for removal. She also pointed out that most metates
may have been used and stored outside, which
made them accessible for scavenging. However, at Ayn Abū Nukhayla, all grinding slabs/
280

querns were recovered inside pithouses, often
associated with concentrations of other artifacts
and caches on house floors. This contextual
evidence points to house floor assemblages inprimary context that have not experienced extensive scavenging.
To investigate the problem in explaining themorphological variation of handstones andgrinding querns, the following examines thegrinding motion and the progressive transformation of tool morphology through use.
Grinding Motion
The forms of grinding slabs/querns are partly related to how handstones are moved onthem. For example, Wright suggests that grinding slabs were used for lateral (reciprocal) grinding in a linear path, while grinding querns wereused for rotary grinding in an oval or elliptical
path (Wright 1992a:625). On the other hand,
the grinding experiments by Adams (1996:2324, 1999) indicate that basin metates, comparable to basin querns, can be used with manos
moved in not only circular but also reciprocal
paths, while trough and flat/concave metates
are used with reciprocal strokes of manos. In
addition to the two ways of handstone-strokes,
i.e., circular and linear strokes, this study also
takes into account the rocking motion (Bartlett 1933), thus defining the four kinds of motions, which are (1) the rotating motion withthe rocking motion, (2) the rotating motion
without the rocking motion, (3) the one-axis
reciprocal stroke with the rocking motion, and(4) the one-axis reciprocal stroke without therocking motion.
Adams (1996) described how these different motions affect the wear patterns of handstones. For example, she proposes that therocking motion causes particular wear facets
on handstones depending on whether they areused in circular strokes or in back-and-forthstrokes. If handstones are used in the rotating
motion with rocking motion, that part of thehandstone under the palm receives more pressure than the other parts, thus being more heav-Table 17.3 Abrasive scratches on the three types of handstones from Ayn Abū Nukhayla
Transverse

RandomUnclear

Total

Handstone Type

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Discoidal

10

55.6

3

16.7

5

27.8

18

100.0

Ovate

42

68.9

11

18.0

8

13.1

61

100.0

Loaf

32

82.1

0

0.0

7

17.9

39

100.0

Total

84

71.2

14

11.9

20

16.9

118

100.0

ily abraded. If handstones are used in reciprocal
back-and-forth strokes with the rocking motion, wear facets develop on proximal and distal
edges, forming a triangular cross section. On
the other hand, if handstones are used without the rocking motion either in the rotatingor reciprocal motion, the entire surface of thegrinding surface will be evenly abraded. Adams(1996) also mentions that abrasive scratches
are informative in determining whether handstones were moved in the rotating motion or in
the reciprocal motion.
Evidence from Handstones. Abrasive scratcheson the working surface of the handstones were
examined, and two patterns of scratches wereobserved. The first pattern consists of scratches
running transversally to the long axis (Digital
Appendix 17.15), while the second one shows
scratches running in the random direction. As
shown in Table 17.3, the transversal scratches
are more frequently seen in all handstone forms,
while the latter pattern is observable only in theovate and the discoid forms. This indicatesthat loaf shaped handstones were exclusively
moved with the back-and-forth strokes, whileovate and discoid handstones were occasionally
moved in multiple directions, including the rotating motion.
Wear facets on the grinding surfaces of handstones were also examined. Only three ovate
handstones show a wear facet that may havebeen left by the rotating strokes with the rocking motion (Digital Appendix 17.16). The periphery of the grinding surface is partly heavily worn, possibly having received the stronger
pressure from the palm. Some of the ovate andloaf handstones have a triangular cross-section(including the tool types of No. 35, 43, 33b,and 41b; Figure 17.3:9, 11). This suggests thatthe rocking motion was combined with the
back-and-forth motion more frequently thanwith the rotating motion.
The above observations on the macroscopic
use-wear of handstones indicate that the reciprocal back-and-forth motion was frequently
employed at Ayn Abū Nukhayla, particularly
with loaf handstones, while the rotating motion was occasionally employed with ovate anddiscoidal handstones. The rocking motion was
rarely associated with the rotating motion andmore frequently employed with the reciprocal
motion of loaf and ovate handstones.
Evidence from Grinding Querns. According
to Wright’s proposition, the high proportionof basin querns in the assemblage indicatesthat most of the grinding at Ayn Abū Nukhayla was done with the rotary motion of handstones. However, the working surfaces of somebasin querns show macroscopic linear scratches running in parallel to the long axis of thequerns (Figure 17.1:7-8, 12; Digital Appendix
17.17), and only one quern retains the circular
trajectory of abrasive scratches (Figure 17.1:10;
Digital Appendix 17.18). This indicates thefrequent employment of reciprocal back-andforth motion.
It is also noted that the shape of the working
surface of the querns is an elongated oval, which
does not provide enough space for the rotary
motion. The size of the working surface of thequerns was compared with the size of handstones in order to estimate the space available
281

2.0

Concavity Index

1.5

Width of grinding surface0

1/4 2/4

3/4

d1

d3

d2

1.0

0.5

4/4

Concavity index= (d1+d2+d3) / Width of grinding surface

0.0

Mean=0.71
Std. Dev.=0.303
n=35

0

5

10

15

Frequency

Figure 17.8 Concavity Index of the grinding surface of basin querns from Ayn Abū Nukhayla (Left:
Definition, Right: Distribution).

for handstones to be moved on the surface ofthe querns (Digital Appendix 17.14). Because
the handstones were held perpendicular to theuser, the length of the handstones was comparedwith the width of the querns and the width of
the handstones was compared with the lengthof the working surface of the querns. The result
suggests that there is little space available for thehandstones to be moved in a transversal direction compared to the space available for a backand forth direction.

This observation is consistent with the evidence from handstones described above. Usewear and morphometric attributes of handstones and grinding querns collectively suggestthat the one-axis back-and-forth motion was
more frequently employed than the rotary motion at Ayn Abū Nukhayla.
Reduction of Grinding Tools through Use
The grinding surfaces of the basin querns at
Ayn Abū Nukhayla show a considerable variation in their concavity. Some have quite deep

Loaf

Length of grinding surface
0

1/4

d1

2/4

d2

3/4

4/4

Ovate

d3

Convexity index= (d1+d2+d3) / Length of grinding surface

Ratio of Length to Width

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
Discoidal

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Convexity Index

Figure 17.9 Convexity Index of the grinding surface of handstones from Ayn Abū Nukhayla (Left: Definition, Right: Correlation between the index and the plan form of the handstones).

282

basins, resembling those of the unifacial punctuated quern (Figure 17.1:12), while others
have less concave surfaces, similar to the flat/
concave metates in the American Southwest(Figure 17.1:11). Such variations in the concavity of the grinding surface were examinedby measuring the relative concavity (Concavity Index), proposed by Wright (1992a:657658). Following her methods, I measured thedepth relative to the width of grinding surface
as shown in Figure 17.8. The results show aunimodal distribution of the concavity indices,
indicating that the concavity of the grinding
surface gradually varies, instead of falling within distinct intervals.
The question is whether the concavity of basin querns was intentionally created or formed
as a result of use. Although the handstones
may have been designed to be smaller than thewidth of the basin querns, the uni-modal variation of the surface concavity is likely the resultof the reduction through use. This is because
the milling tools made of granular rocks, suchas sandstone, have to be occasionally maintained by pecking the grinding surface for regaining a rough surface (Adams 1999; Wright
1992a:134-135) and this pecking results in theloss of the volume of the tools (Wright 1990).
The uni-modal variation of the concavity of basin querns is mirrored in the convexity of handstones. The measurements of theirconvexity (Figure 17.9) also distribute in unimode. Moreover, the convexity of handstones
has a statistically significant negative correlation
with the ratio of length to width (R2 = 0.211,
F value = 35.9, p = 0.00). This suggests thatthe grinding surface of handstones tends to be
flatter as their plan form becomes more elongated. In other words, loaf handstones tend tohave flatter grinding surfaces than ovate handstones, and the greater convexity of grinding
surfaces is associated with discoidal handstones.
The above observations indicate that different
forms of handstones were used against the same
type of lower stones, the basin quern, according
to the concavity of the basin querns. For exam-

ple, loaf handstones may have been used against
querns with relatively flat grinding surfaces. As
the concavity of the grinding surface became
more pronounced, the loaf form was replacedwith the ovate and then discoid forms. Such asequential use of the different forms of handstones, however, does not appear to have beencaused by the transformation of handstones
from the loaf through ovate to discoid forms asa result of use and maintenance. This is because
the discoid handstones are significantly thicker
than the ovate and loaf handstones (Kadowaki
2002:Table 3-2). It is likely that the different
forms of handstones were manufactured according to the progressive development of theconcavity of the querns in an effort to maximize
the contact surface between the handstone andquern.
In addition, all discoid handstones from thesite are complete, while loaf handstones include
more broken pieces than the other two forms(Digital Appendix 17.19). This suggests thatthe loaf handstones were prone to breakage due
to its elongated form, or they include many exhausted pieces that were abandoned after a long
period of use. In contrast, the discoid handstones appear to have experienced less exhaustion than the loaf handstones.
Summary: Grinding Technology at Ayn
Abū Nukhayla
The above examinations of handstones andquerns can collectively provide some insights
into the grinding technology. As mentioned
earlier, the results of the phytolith and pollen
analyses show that the grinding activities at Ayn
Abū Nukhayla involved the processing of cereal grains, specifically wheat (Albert and Henry
2004; Portillo et al. 2009; Chapters 8 and 9).
The density of milling tools and their proportion in the groundstone assemblage are relatively high at Ayn Abū Nukhayla in comparison
to other PPNB sites. The high frequencies ofhandstones and querns suggest that the inhabitants of the site attempted to maximize thenutrient returns of the limited amount of plant283

foods in the steppe environment through intensive milling. The recovery of abundant grinding tools is also compatible with the hypothesisthat cereal cultivation was undertaken at the qa‘
or mudflat near the site (Henry et al. 2003:25).
On the other hand, the quantity of grinding
tools can also be influenced by the conditions of
raw materials. For example, the inhabitants ofthe site exploited the nearby talus scree as local
raw material sources, and this may have contributed to higher frequencies of the tools. The
tool density may also have been enhanced by
the use of sandstone that wears out quickly andnecessitates the frequent maintenance of thegrinding surface. The relatively short use-life ofsandstone tools may have caused more frequent
replacements of the milling implements, resulting in their greater abundance.
The proximity of raw material sources should
also have contributed to the large size of grinding querns at Ayn Abū Nukhayla, which are
as large as those at Beidha and larger than at
Jilat 7. However, the same condition does not
explain the relatively small size of handstones
at Ayn Abū Nukhayla. The handstones could
have been made larger to achieve more efficient
grinding, as indicated by grinding experiments(Mauldin 1993). The length of handstones,
however, is smaller than the width of grinding
querns at Ayn Abū Nukhayla (Digital Appendix 17.14). Such a restriction of the size ofhandstones is likely to have contributed to theformation of the basin querns, which frequently
occur at the site.
The dominance of basin querns characterizes the grinding technology at Ayn Abū
Nukhayla because other types of slabs/querns,
such as trough and saddle forms, are prevalent
at Beidha, Ba‘ja, and Basta, where sandstone
was locally available likewise. While the basin
quern is advantageous in preventing the groundfoods from spillage, the morphology of slabs/
querns may also be related to the technique forprocessing grains (e.g., wet- or dry-grinding),
the range of processed foods (e.g., oily or non284

oily), and the motor habits of those using theimplements (Adams 1999). Among these factors, the motor habits were examined throughthe observations of macroscopic use-wear on
both handstones and querns. The results suggest that the handstones were mostly moved ina linear path on the basin querns at Ayn Abū
Nukhayla. The linear motion allows a grinder
to put his/her weight on handstones with both
hands in each stroke to provide strong pressure,thus leading to more efficient grinding thanthe circular strokes (Adams 1993, 1999, 2002;
Bartlet 1933). Interestingly, Molleson’s (2000)
osteo-archaeological analysis of the Neolithic
population at Abu Hureyra revealed musculoskeletal stress markers and arthritic patterns
consistent with women who used a two-handed, reciprocal motion in milling while kneelingadjacent to a quern.
The identification of use-wear that is consistent between handstones and querns suggeststhat they were used together as a set. However, the outlines of most ovate and loaf handstones from the site do not fit the concavity ofthe querns. As discussed earlier, the different
forms of handstones were probably used against
the same type of lower stones, the basin quern,
as its grinding surface progressively developed
a concavity during its use-life. The transformation of the querns indicates their prolonged
use-life and a great intensity of grinding tasks
performed at the site. At the same time, thewear rates of the tools would have been accelerated by the use of sandstone as a raw material.
In sum, the grinding technology at Ayn Abū
Nukhayla is characterized by several observations suggested in the above analyses. They are(1) the high frequency of milling stones, (2)the large size of querns, (3) the dominance ofbasin querns, (4) the linear grinding motion,and (5) the transformation of querns throughuse paralleled by an evolution of handstonemorphology. As discussed above, these technological traits have been not only influenced
by the conditions of raw materials, such as theproximity of raw material sources and the use ofsandstone, but also reflect the effectiveness andintensity of food-grinding performed by the occupants of Ayn Abū Nukhayla, whose attempt
for the efficient exploitation of the surrounding
steppe resources included the cultivation of cereals.

285