two artifacts reunited?

[fender346]

Hello everybody!
Thanks again for sharing all of your finds here, a great information resource.

I finally made it back to the a stretch of riverbank here in Southeastern PA that produced some cool finds last month.
I originally posted this round ball along with some other stuff I found along the bank.

Today I found the larger stone nearby...
It's about 12" x 10" and flat on the bottom. The indentation is about 1 1/2" deep at its lowest point and seems to be uniformly worn down to the center.
I'm hoping it may be a mortar stone of some sort associated with the ball.
Can anyone provide any insight, thanks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[monsterrack]

If the shoe fits wear it, that is a great find and a perfect fit, that is way cool

 

[rock]

Thats rare you found both pieces in the same area but not impossible. I tell you a story about the 2 you have been lucky enough to find. Usually when a tribe settled into a area they would only bring their Mano or Grinder with them. They would most of the time leave the Metate behind and turn them upside down in order to be able to go back to that spot and already have one made for them to use. Now I dont know if they ever returned or not but its very cool you found both pieces and it looks like they fit well together. I have seen a set found together in my area one time. I have found a Metate but no Grinder. Thats a good save!, rock

 

[fender346]

Nice, that's interesting
The water level here along the Schuylkill River is low (which is normal this time of year). I picked up the large stone directly against the shoreline. The "mano" was a bit further inland along with some quartz flakes that led me to the spot. As far as I've read there were not many permanent settlements along these banks, mainly hunting camps.

Looking forward to getting back

 

[GatorBoy]

Nice find.
Commonly referred to as a nutting stone. Many have indents on both sides.

 

[GatorBoy]

Thats rare you found both pieces in the same area but not impossible. I tell you a story about the 2 you have been lucky enough to find. Usually when a tribe settled into a area they would only bring their Mano or Grinder with them. They would most of the time leave the Metate behind and turn them upside down in order to be able to go back to that spot and already have one made for them to use. Now I dont know if they ever returned or not but its very cool you found both pieces and it looks like they fit well together. I have seen a set found together in my area one time. I have found a Metate but no Grinder. Thats a good save!, rock

Hey rock... the word mano goes with matate because its the same language ...the word pestle goes with mortar for the same reason...what word goes with "grinder"?

 

[Charl]

Thats rare you found both pieces in the same area but not impossible. I tell you a story about the 2 you have been lucky enough to find. Usually when a tribe settled into a area they would only bring their Mano or Grinder with them. They would most of the time leave the Metate behind and turn them upside down in order to be able to go back to that spot and already have one made for them to use. Now I dont know if they ever returned or not but its very cool you found both pieces and it looks like they fit well together. I have seen a set found together in my area one time. I have found a Metate but no Grinder. Thats a good save!, rock

There were also many trail side mortars that were communal and of a size that they simply stayed right where they were as well.
Camp axes are very large axes that were called camp axes by some because they were usually left behind and stashed at the seasonal camp where they were utilized, rather then lug them to and fro seasonal camps. Same idea, rock.

Because the ball and mortar/metate were not found in direct association, it cannot be known if they were actually utilized together, but the setup is right and they are both very nice finds.

 

[quito]

Very Nice Metate!!

I just love it when those big ol relics are discovered.

 

[rock]

Hey rock... the word mano goes with matate because its the same language ...the word pestle goes with mortar for the same reason...what word goes with "grinder"?

I cant believe you have never heard the word grinder used for mano before. Thats what they call them in my area. Maybe its a Hill Billy word. And his find is not a nutting stone by the way. Its a Metate

 

[rock]

Nice find.
Commonly referred to as a nutting stone. Many have indents on both sides.

Metate

 

[GatorBoy]

What's the difference between his find and what are called nutting Stones? Size?

 

[GatorBoy]

Or the type of use wear?



Just seems the two terms get used on a lot of the same artifacts..
I have my own opinion but would like to hear others.
I've seen many with multiple types of use wear..impact damage on one side..circular striations on the other.
Signs of use as a sharpening stone for bone tools and or gringing point bases.

 

[Charl]

There is a class of artifacts known as anvil stones. This would be the "nether" stone for some activity involving laying something on the anvil and pounding away at that something. Now nutting stones could be seen as a type of anvil stone in which the holes were created ahead of time to fit various size nuts. That's always been the theory anyway. On the other hand, here is an anvil stone with 2 pits created by pounding on something that was lain on the anvil stone, unless one wants to assume someone had nothing better to do that peck crude pits into a flat rock. You may notice here was a third pit, and the stone fractured while pounding on that pit. It's to the right of the larger pit. I asked elsewhere what this type of anvilstone was used for? Nutting stone? Nope. Here is the interesting answer I received:

"These items aren’t well studied are they? As Ray and Charlie say, larger anvil stones undoubtedly had a variety of functional uses. There is however some interesting research from Europe by Jan Willem van der Drift in the Netherlands into one of those possibilities.


His analysis (based on both observation of found items and experimentation with knapping techniques) is that anvil stones were an essential part of the toolkit required for lithic bipolar reduction. That is, where the reduction of the core comes via forces working from two opposing sides – as opposed to freehand reduction where it comes from one side only.


We’re all familiar with freehand flaking where you start with an irregular nucleus which can also (if desired) be further refined to a prepared core that has a regular polygonal shape, such that flakes can be readily and repeatedly struck in a predictable manner. But it has limitations.


If your raw material is restricted to cobbles and pebbles, as might be the case if you were living on the edge of a river then you’re in trouble. Anything with cleavage planes that are weaker than the rock matrix (slate for example) is workable. But if those cobbles are uniform and isotropic in structure (like flints and cherts and many quartzites) then it’s nigh on impossible to reliably peel flakes from a round core that has no striking plane, no reduction face, no edge or rib. A freehand blow directed to the centre will be too weak to break the core and – at best - produces a dead end cone. The smaller the core and the more isotropic the material, the bigger the problem. That’s the problem faced by so-called “pebble-tool” cultures and it’s a problem that was solved by the use of bipolar reduction.


Hold a small pebble in your hand, take a swing at it with a hammer and the combination of mass and deceleration might produce a force of no more than around 100 Newtons – about the same as resting a bucket of water on it. Your hand absorbs most of the shock because the deceleration is slow. In free collision the blow would need to be struck at about the speed of sound to break the pebble – or you would need a massive hammer.


Putting that pebble on an anvil and taking a swing at it produces an entirely different result. The deceleration is then almost instantaneous because the anvil doesn’t give way. You might then produce a force of around 25,000 Newtons – about the same as 3 small automobiles resting on it. That’s enough to break it, or even crush it.


That gives the advantages that it’s safer, you don’t need extreme striking speeds or enormous hammers and you have better control. For larger cobbles, an anvil which has a pointed top (roughly conical or pyramidal) gives more precise control, such that you can easily split a cobble in half, into slices, or peel a corticated flake off the end. For small cobbles and pebbles, you get better control using a “cupped” anvil and a pointed hammer.

 

[rock]

@ GB The type he has (the poster) was used for corn types of grinding. Yours was used for shelled nuts to crack them open. Im sure they could of been used however the need was. But you know modern man and his theories and ego they always have to be correct so we will call them what they say that they were used for.

 

[rock]

I dont know if they had anvil type of stones around here or not. Thats a interesting artifact charl.

 

[GatorBoy]

@ GB The type he has (the poster) was used for corn types of grinding. Yours was used for shelled nuts to crack them open. Im sure they could of been used however the need was. But you know modern man and his theories and ego they always have to be correct so we will call them what they say that they were used for.

We are only talking theory here .. I appreciate the input guys.
One of mine was cracking dubble time huh?

 

[rock]

How did you come to have these in your hands?

 

[GatorBoy]

rock.. I have friends in several states.. one is from Tennessee and the other from Arizona.
Both have indents on both sides.
One side showing impact damage the other worn divots obviously from grinding.

 

[Charl]

Please read the photographed passage I posted in my last comment for an explanation of a certain class of pitted stones, of which so- called nutting stones are but one type.

sorry for the screwup. Took over 2 hours, but I was finally able to cut and paste describing how a certain type of these pitted stones were used, and it was not for nuts in all instances. Geez, 2 hours plus, I'm going back to bed. LOL....


"These items aren’t well studied are they? As Ray and Charlie say, larger anvil stones undoubtedly had a variety of functional uses. There is however some interesting research from Europe by Jan Willem van der Drift in the Netherlands into one of those possibilities.


His analysis (based on both observation of found items and experimentation with knapping techniques) is that anvil stones were an essential part of the toolkit required for lithic bipolar reduction. That is, where the reduction of the core comes via forces working from two opposing sides – as opposed to freehand reduction where it comes from one side only.


We’re all familiar with freehand flaking where you start with an irregular nucleus which can also (if desired) be further refined to a prepared core that has a regular polygonal shape, such that flakes can be readily and repeatedly struck in a predictable manner. But it has limitations.


If your raw material is restricted to cobbles and pebbles, as might be the case if you were living on the edge of a river then you’re in trouble. Anything with cleavage planes that are weaker than the rock matrix (slate for example) is workable. But if those cobbles are uniform and isotropic in structure (like flints and cherts and many quartzites) then it’s nigh on impossible to reliably peel flakes from a round core that has no striking plane, no reduction face, no edge or rib. A freehand blow directed to the centre will be too weak to break the core and – at best - produces a dead end cone. The smaller the core and the more isotropic the material, the bigger the problem. That’s the problem faced by so-called “pebble-tool” cultures and it’s a problem that was solved by the use of bipolar reduction.


Hold a small pebble in your hand, take a swing at it with a hammer and the combination of mass and deceleration might produce a force of no more than around 100 Newtons – about the same as resting a bucket of water on it. Your hand absorbs most of the shock because the deceleration is slow. In free collision the blow would need to be struck at about the speed of sound to break the pebble – or you would need a massive hammer.


Putting that pebble on an anvil and taking a swing at it produces an entirely different result. The deceleration is then almost instantaneous because the anvil doesn’t give way. You might then produce a force of around 25,000 Newtons – about the same as 3 small automobiles resting on it. That’s enough to break it, or even crush it.


That gives the advantages that it’s safer, you don’t need extreme striking speeds or enormous hammers and you have better control. For larger cobbles, an anvil which has a pointed top (roughly conical or pyramidal) gives more precise control, such that you can easily split a cobble in half, into slices, or peel a corticated flake off the end. For small cobbles and pebbles, you get better control using a “cupped” anvil and a pointed hammer."

 

[Charl]

And here is another small pitted stone that may have been used as described in my last post, that is, part of the toolkit for lithic polar reduction.