the Cupstone, a solution to the long standing mystery

[Gold Maven]

It's not too often that a new discovery takes takes place regarding the actual use of a prehistoric tool.

In the fall issue of the Ohio Archaeologist, Scot Stoneking presents a new theory concerning the Cupstone.

I have found a few over the years, with many shallow cups, I was told, and read, where nuts were cracked there until the cup became too deep, and then another hole was started.

This never made sense to me, why would you need a cup to hold the nut? the cups were always shallow too, so that a nut wouldn't get stuck. I never really bought the story, but I had nothing better.....'till now.

The article is very detailed, and my hunt and peck typing skills prevent me from copying the entire article.

The gist of it is, the author is a flint knapper, and concluded that the cups are from dressing antler billets used in the flint knapping process. He goes into detail about why the antler billet has to be continuously dressed, and it makes perfect sense. He took a sandstone block, and by twisting the base of his antler he formed a cup, and dressed his tool perfectly in about a minute.

Very interesting, that this mystery has been solved.

Volume 63 no.4 Fall 2013
Ohio Archaeologist mag.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[catherine1]

He may be right as I have found quite a few antler artifacts along with a few cupstones at the same site, and they could be related.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Scot was displaying last year at the Portsmouth Ohio artifact show and he had a lot of his Pitted Stones with multiple pits in them with him. He told me he had found most of them in one spot at a rock shelter dig he did near Jackson Ohio and there were lots of Antler Billets found in association with them. He also told me his theory and after seeing it shown to me in person I have to agree with him. It makes perfect sense once you get to see it demonstrated.

 

[monsterrack]

Makes sense to me a antler billet has to have a dome shape are the strike will not land right to remove the flake.

 

[quito]

Cool! So simple and it makes perfect sense.

I never did subscribe to them being a nut cracking aid.

 

[Charl]

Another explanation, also having to do with knapping, was offered recently by a European researcher where some types of pitted stones are concerned. This example might have been used in the fashion described here. Somewhat different then the perfectly round "nutting stones" pits. Looks like different knapping activities behind pitted/anvil stones like the one seen here as well as nutting stones.

"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." [Ref: Bipolar Techniques in the Old-Palaeolithic - JWP van der Drift]

 

[Tnmountains]

I agree with his theory on cupulets. I also think there is a small lap stone used to hold items maybe for lithic reduction. I also think the large mortars were for the crushing and processing of nuts. The large ones we dig out of shelters.
Great read and info.

 

[monsterrack]

Another explanation, also having to do with knapping, was offered recently by a European researcher where some types of pitted stones are concerned. This example might have been used in the fashion described here. Somewhat different then the perfectly round "nutting stones" pits. Looks like different knapping activities behind pitted/anvil stones like the one seen here as well as nutting stones.

"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." [Ref: Bipolar Techniques in the Old-Palaeolithic - JWP van der Drift]

This some good info but it is not completely correct in the point of free hand knapping JMO. Where I live the stone is mostly creek pebble's small has the palm of your hand or smaller and I have at many times free handed a stone tool with just 2 stones. To reduce a large piece of stone I will lay it on my thigh with a leather pad and it gives you more control and your leg takes some of the shock out of the impact that passes through the stone. After I get a piece down to a certain size then I free hand knapp it. I am not so sure of the stone anvil theory , I have seen and read of it but I myself have never had any luck in reproducing any type of work on such of a hard surface, I have found that the shock wave breaks the piece of flint most of the time on a hard surface. On the point of knapping with a great force, as long as you have your striking face at the right angel and lower than the center plane of the stone ,a flake will come off. There are people that know a great deal more than I, so this is JMO from doing knapping and stone work. I can go along with stones being used for shaping of billets ,but like Tnmnts said they did use the larger mortars for crushing and grinding , but also and this is JMO I believe they used a stone to crack all the nuts on before grinding, I have seen to many stones with many small cups just about the size of a nut.

 

[pickaway]

Makes sense to me...Mr Stonekings theory.