The Origins and Primary Types of Groundstone
Qian Yaopeng
Keywords: origin
type
groundstone
Following C.T. Thomsen’s “three-period” theory, British scholar John Lubbock defined “Old Stone Age” and
“New Stone Age” based on tool manufacture technology
and their morphological forms. Thus this began a new
phase of understanding nature of Neolithic. Since then,
with accumulation of archaeological data and progress
of research around the world, debates on criteria of the
beginning of Neolithic occurred frequently. In this paper,
we will discuss one of these criteria: the emergence of
groundstone and their primary types, on the basis of
current research and new data from the field of world
archaeology.
I. Emergence of Groundstone and Its Primary
Types
Primary types of groundstone is defined here as those
tools that occurred in the beginning and continued
throughout time. We will first examine these tools that
first emerged in different regions of the World.
In Japan Islands, the earliest type of groundstone
occurred is the axe with grounded edge, dated to Upper
Palaeolithic around 20,000–30,000 BP. During the Jomon
period (c.a. 1,000 BCE–3rd century BCE), chipped
stone is predominant types, while groundstone type is
primarily of “stone axe” (including axe, adze, chisel). In
the following Yayoi period (c.a. 3rd century BCE–3rd
century AD), with the emergence and spread of
agriculture, the use of groundstone types started to be
intensive, showing new types of knife, arrowhead, and
sword. Nevertheless, stone axes are still of primary type
(Fig. 1).
In Australia, stone technology in Stone Age is classified as the “Australia core-tool and scraper tradition” and
“Australia small-tool tradition,” while their subsistent
strategy was still hunting-gathering. Within the coretool and scraper tradition, axe with grounded edge appeared around 22,000–18,000 BP. After 5,000 BP, this
core-tool and scraper tradition was replaced by the
170
small-tool tradition which was characterized by blade
tools. The axes, however, did not disappear but continue
to be used in a great extend.
In China, groundstone tools were found within archaeological sites of transitional period from Palaeolithic
to Neolithic and across lands from north to south. Especially during 14,000–9,000 BP in south China, it was a
clear fact that there was a co-existence between chipped
stone tools and groundstone with grounded edges and
grounded perforation. Within a few of these tools, morphological types include axes, adzes, chisels, as well as
cutting tools and drill-shape tools; however, types of
axes, adzes, and chisels are dominant (Fig. 2). In addition,
in the northeast hunters-gatherers societies where chipped
stone tools including microblades were primary toolkits,
the earliest types of groundstone were also of axes,
adzes, and chisels.
In Vietnam, Hoa Binh-Bac Son cultures (Mesolithic
to Neolithic period, c.a. 10,000–5000 BP) were represented by predominant uniface-chapped pebble tools
including elongated axes, short and broad axes, oval
axes, and circular tools, as well as mortars and pestles.
The only type of groundstone is axe with grounded edge.
In following prehistoric cultures, additional groundstone
type like hoes, spades, knives, and sickles, and other
types started to increase.
Groundstone tools vary in the different part of the
World, but share some characteristics that are shown on
the types of these tools and that their toolkit consisted of
axes, adzes, and chisels, among which axes are mostly
notable. In some areas, the primary form of these tools
appeared in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods.
In some parts of Japan, groundstone axes occurred along
with chipped-stone axes. Within Upper Palaeolithic
cultures, such as Xiachun 下川 Culture, there were also
chipped stone tools in forms of axe-shaped, adze-shaped,
and chisel-shaped. There were large axe-type tools existed in European Mesolithic cultures. Those chipped
Chinese Archaeology
2
1
3
5
4
6
7
8
Fig. 1 Major types of stone implements from late Palaeolithic to initial Jomon period in Japan
1. micro-stone tools and micro-blades 2. micro-cores and micro-flakes 3. micro-core 4. macro-spear heads 5. micro-spears 6. axes
with polished edge 7. micro-stone edges 8. whet-stone with grooves (1, 2. late Palaeolithic period; 3–8. initial Jomon period)
stone tools must have been earliest forms of groundstone
tools with edge grounded. Thereafter, grounded axes,
adzes, chisels continued to appear in Neolithic and
Bronze Age cultures. It is clear that these three types of
groundstone tools should be the so-call primary types, or
basic types.
II. Primary Types of Groundstone Tools and
Advancement of Architecture Technology
Groundstone not only was one of natures of Neolithic,
but also represented evolutionary changes in tool
manufactures. The reason for this kind of change did not
necessarily coordinate with the transition from
Palaeolithic to Neolithic; it must be relied on the way of
life in the Neolithic settlement.
Palaeolithic settlement are mostly limited to caves
Volume 5
and open sites in the upperlands, which may not be ideal
locations for human living. However, while living caves,
Palaeolithic hominids also selected seasonally open-site
in lowland and near lakes. At the Dela Amorta site at
Nice city of southern France, archaeological excavations
reveal small structures as later spring and early summer
camp settlement. During the Upper Palaeolithic, such
non-cave settlement camps are frequently found around
the world. From those archaeological discoveries so far,
we come to following understanding. First, during Upper Palaeolithic, human beings began to have desires to
be living in the river plain and lakesides for permanent
settlement, instead of cave living. Second, Palaeolithic
structures were mostly likely made with animal bones,
skins, and rocks. Wooden structures were relatively rare.
Those structures thus were not durable but rough, not
171
5
4
3
2
1
7
6
8
13
12
11
10
9
16
14
15
17
18
19
Fig. 2 Major types of stone implements from the Late Pleistocene to Early Recent Epoch from the Southern Five Ridges
1. chopper (Chenqiao 陈桥 CC020) 2. pint-end scraper (Bailiandong 白莲洞BLWS③:75) 3, 4. choppers (Zengpiyan 甑皮岩 DT5
③:7, Liyuzui 鲤鱼嘴 T2①:1) 5–7. objects with perforations (Zengpiyan 甑皮岩 T1③:1, Liyuzui 鲤鱼嘴 T1②:6, Xianrendong 仙
人洞 T1③:56) 8. dish-shaped object (Xianrendong 仙人洞 T2③:17) 9. style I axe (Dushizai 独石仔 T3②:3) 10, 12. style II adzes
(Zengpiyan 甑皮岩 BT2 ③:2, Liyuzui 鲤鱼嘴 T2 ①:2) 11, 15. style I adzes (Xianrendong 仙人洞 T3 ①:1, Bailiandong 白莲洞
BLES④:2) 13. style III adze (Chenqiao 陈桥 CC030) 14. style II axe (Zengpiyan 甑皮岩 BT1③:3) 16, 17. style III axes (Zengpiyan
甑皮岩 BT1③:4, Baozitou 豹子头 T2:2–42) 18. pestle (Xianrendong 仙人洞 T3③:12) 19. whet-stone with grooves (Xianrendong
仙人洞 T3 ③:81) (Note: 1–8. chipped stone tools, 9–19. polished stone tools)
good enough for human who desire for permanent
settlement. Third, while it was easy to obtain animal
bones for construction materials, the size and scale of the
structures were limited due to the size of bones; thus
172
Palaeolithic structures were not ready for evolutionary
change yet.
Therefore, evolutionary change in structures called
for new materials and technology. In Neolithic, woods
Chinese Archaeology
N
1
3
2
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
5m
Fig. 3 Subterranean house structures in the early Jomon period in Japan
1. Iwashitamukai A site 2. Miya-bayashi site 3, 4. Souji-yama site 5. Kacu-zaka site 6. Sendai-uchimae site 7. Maeda-kouchi site
8, 9. Omiya-no-moriura site
3
4
1
2
8
7
5
6
0
5 cm
Fig. 4 Shang and Zhou period stone implements from Zhongbazi 中坝子 site in Wanzhou 万州
1. core (IIT1003④:45) 2. axe (IIT0303⑥:17) 3. flake (H26:3) 4. dish-shaped implement (IIT1003④:51) 5. adze (M7:2) 6. axe
(M7:3) 7. wedge (IIT0803 ④:6) 8. chisel (M7:1)
became one of major construction materials. In Japan,
subterranean house structures were frequently found in
early Jomon period, showing a series of post moulds
(Fig. 3). The ceiling and beams must also have been
made of woods, indicating technological advancement
over Palaeolithic structures. The complicity of Chinese
Volume 5
Neolithic also indicates that the use of groundstone tools
was close associated with woodworking relating to house
building. For instance, forms of groundstone tools from
Yangtze River valley and southern China were complicate and delicate, accordingly in this areas wooden
structures were well developed. However, in the areas of
173
Yellow River valley, Neolithic settlements were mostly
underground house or subterranean house, therefore
requirement for woodworking in this area is not as high
as in the south. In the Three Gorges area, cultural
development was rather different from abovementioned
areas. In this area chipped stone existed in large quantity
in the Bronze Age, while groundstone was rare. Those
chipped stone included cores, flakes, and tools. Type
tools included choppers, circular tools, axes, knives.
However, groundstone tools, although few, have set of
axes, adze, chisels, and wedges (Fig. 4).
Apparently, in the views of early Neolithic groundstone
toolkits as well as natures of Neolithic culture diversity,
it suggests that appearance of groundstone tools was
closely related to woodworking and house constructions.
Thus we conclude that the emergence of groundstone
tools occurred during the transition from Palaeolithic to
Neolithic, and in accordance with demands of technological advancement and increase of woodworking. In
hunting-gathering economic subsistence, groundstone
tools were likely used for making wooden tools, whereas
in agricultural societies, the use of groundstone tools
became intensified, thus grounding technique was the
dominant method of tool manufacture. As a result, types
of groundstone become more diversified.
III. Functions and Significance of Primary
Types
From the fact that those primary types of groundstone are
the earliest ones to appear and continued, emergence of
groundstone seemed not necessarily to have relation to
introduction of agriculture, which is exemplified by
evidence from Japan, Australia, and West Asia.
It is no doubt that axes, adzes, and chisels were
woodworking tools. During Upper Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic periods, there were evidence for the existence
of woodworking tools. In Japan, wooden specimen were
identified with worked marks from Noshiriko site in
Naganoken (radiocarbon dating 37220 ±1240 BP).
Wooden boat, paddle, and bow were recovered from
European Mesolithic. Theoretically speaking, tools of
manufacturing wooden objects could not be wood, instead should be harder materials like stone. Thus existence of chipped axes, adzes, and chisels probably functioned as such tools. However, a main problem of using
chipped stone tools on wood materials is that chipped
working edge of the tools did not function well on wood.
Therefore, chipped stones with grounded edges, like
axes, adzes, chisels, were first appear to fit into this
174
function requirement. Chipped stones were gradually
replaced with well-developed groundstones for woodworking function. However, chipped stone tools still
continue for other preferred function, co-existing with
groundstone in some areas.
In West Asia, architectural technology was well developed at Pre-Pottery Neolithic Jericho, Moore, and
Gan Ni. Da Ne sites prior to groundstone and pottery
techniques, but that fact does not necessary that their
construction technique has nothing to do with
groundstone. In West Asia, house construction was
applied with technique other than groundstone
woodworking. At Na Tu Fu site, clay-bricks and stone
were used in house building, while clay-brick techniques
appeared in China as later as in Longshan 龙山 Culture
around 3000 BCE. Although groundstone tool occurred
related later in West Asia, woodworking tools like chipped
adze and chisel developed clearly during Upper
Palaeolithic. Especially in the Pottery Neolithic (PNA),
the first types of groundstone were also combination of
axes and adzes. Therefore, this also supports the view
that emergence of groundstone was association with
house construction.
From what we have discussed above, we should arrive
at following conclusions: First, origins of groundstone
has no direct relation to introduction of agriculture,
especially true during early stage of agricultural origins.
Second, although criteria using groundstone emergence
for defining Neolithic is misinterpreted, the same is true
for original agriculture and appearance of pottery to
define Neolithic beginning. Thus, there is no single
criteria to mark the beginning of Neolithic so far. Third,
Neolithic, or New Stone Age, was created because the
new form of groundstone, suggesting the process of
cultural development－such process has been accepted
by scholars worldwide. Thus, it is not necessary to, or
could not, suggest a new term for this period. Last, from
the view of origins of groundstone and their primary
types, it is hardly to suggest that there would be a
“Wooden Age” prior to “Stone Age.” Even if there were
likely to have wooden tools used by hominids before
using stone tools, such “wooden tools” are not evidence
enough to mark an “Age” featuring wooden materials.
References
1. Jiao Tianlong 焦天龙 (1994). “Gengxinshi Mo Zhi
Quanxinshi Chu Linggnan Diqu de Shiqian Wenhua 更
新世末至全新世出岭南地区的史前文化” (Prehistoric
Cultures in the Southern Five Ridges from the Late
Chinese Archaeology
Pleistocene to Early Recent Epoch). Kaogu Xuebao 考
古学报 1994.1.
2. Shi Xingbang 石兴邦 (1989). “Xiachuan Wenhua
Yanjiu 下川文化研究” (A Study of Xiachuan Culture).
Qingzhu Su Bingqi Kaogu Wushiwu Nian Lunwenji 庆祝
苏秉琦考古五十五年论文集 (Collection of Papers on
the 55 Years Su Bingqi in Archaeology). Beijing: Wenwu
Chubanshe 文物出版社.
3. Yan Wenming 严文明 (ed.) (2000). Daozuo, Taoqi
he Dushi de Qiyuan 稻作·陶器和都市的起源 (Rice
Cultivation, Pottery and the Origin of City). Beijing:
Wenwu Chubanshe 文物出版社.
4. Zhongguo Dabaike Quanshu Kaoguxue Bianji
W e i y u a n h u i 中国大百科全书考古学编辑委员会
(1986). Zhongguo Dabaike Quanshu: Kaoguxue 中国
大百科全书·考古学 (Encyclopedia of China:
Archaeology). Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike Quanshu
Chubanshe 中国大百科全书出版社.
Note: The original paper, published in Kaogu 考古 2004.12: 66–75 with 4 illustrations, is written by Qian Yaopeng
钱耀鹏. The summary is prepared by the original author and English-translated by Shen Chen 沈辰.
Volume 5
175