Volume_5

Page 248

The above argument also extends to grinding tools, especially manos and metates for processing the hard kernels of corn into meal and flour. Sandstones of the Northern Kayenta region are not all equally suited to processing maize, because of both limited grain textures and poor cementation. The latter influences how much grit is added to the meal or flour, while the former influences how efficiently maize can be processed. Sandstone available from on and around Navajo Mountain appears to be better suited to maize processing than most other rock types of the area. This is true because of a combination of hard cementation of the sand grains, often with silica, a diversity of grain textures ranging from fine to conglomeritic, and an often highly vesicular texture. The combination of coarse grains and vesicularity combines the two aspects that Adams (1999:486-487) noted were the principal qualities of efficient grinding, whether of dried or soaked kernels. So if a Puebloan person was selecting rock for maize processing based on functional suitability considerations alone, sandstone from Navajo Mountain probably would have been the first choice. Whether selecting sandstone for grinding tools or chert for cutting and piercing tools, functional suitability concerns are only part of the equation. Other important aspects concern the degree of residential and logistic mobility and the costs of having to procure resources from distance sources.1 Certainly related to the cost of obtaining raw material is who is performing the task for which a stone tool is used, with particular importance being gender-differentiated roles in the economy. Whether men or women are the principal users of a tool type can have a bearing on the process of stone procurement. The chief importance here concerns the potential for different mobility patterns, with men probably having a much larger lithic procurement territory than women. The simple tools commonly used by Puebloan women for any function, and especially pecking stones for grinding tool production (as supported by ethnographic evidence [Bartlett 1933] and tool assemblages from mealing rooms), can usually be procured close to most habitations because literally almost any hard dense rock that has natural acute edges or that can be flaked to produce these edges will do. As it turns out, this is perhaps where Puebloan women spent much of their time, around the house, given their reduced mobility in being tethered to the home base. If stone of good quality for points/bifaces occurred close to home then men would have exploited it for this purpose. If not, men probably could have picked up more distant stone with more specific qualities (ease of flakability, nodule size, color) in their normal travels for hunting or they could have gone on special extractive or exchange trips. Production Technology For certain stone artifact forms, rocks can be selected directly from the environment and used without any production input. An obvious example of the former is the expedient selection and use of a river cobble as a hammerstone. In many cases, however, nature does not provide desired tool shapes and raw stone must be modified. So, for example, to meet the need for an acute-edged percussion tool, a river cobble might be unifacially flaked on one end. The extent of production investment is affected by several factors, most prominent of which are intended function, various factors related to raw material properties, and technological organization (Binford 1979). Stone tool production is usually conceived as a linear process, broken into successive stages representing alterations in reduction activity and changes in the morphology of the item being produced, such as core form (e.g., Collins 1975; Katz 1976; and many others). This stage concept is derived from experiments with the production of tools by flaking, specifically high-input facially thinned tools such as bifaces, and the preparation of highly specialized cores for the removal of blades or flakes of predetermined form. The linear reduction model was devised as one method to identify productionrelated differences between and within lithic collections and to track the "life" of tools. It is applicable to all manufacturing byproducts (debitage and unfinished, unused items broken or otherwise rejected), as well as finished items. Although formulated to understand the production of traditional flaked stone technology, the linear reduction model has utility in studying the production of all stone artifacts. This is true because the production of stone artifacts by all means (flaking, pecking, and abrasion) is a reductive process that usually proceeds from removing relatively large amounts of material to relatively small amounts, from the application of larger forces to smaller ones. Lithic artifacts are produced by using one or some combination of three techniques-flaking, 1 It is always good to remember that there can be less mundane reasons behind suitability, reasons that relate to spiritual beliefs, social posturing, or other aspects. In Australia, for example, men highly value stone from quarries "at or near … totemic ‘dreaming' places" (Gould 1977:164). Factoring in these sorts of beliefs is admittedly difficult for archaeologists, but for the bulk of rock acquired for tools such beliefs are probably far less significant than concerns with making a living. V.5.4