3.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Rock procurement and use during the Middle Neolithic: The macrolithic tools of Dambach-la-Ville (Alsace, France)

Journal

JOURNAL OF LITHIC STUDIES
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

UNIV EDINBURGH, SCH HISTORY, CLASSICS & ARCHAEOLOGY
DOI: 10.2218/jls.3090

Keywords

grinding tools; querns; hammerstones; Neolithic; procurement; quarry

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A preventive archaeological excavation carried out in 2012 at Dambach-la-Ville (Bas-Rhin, France) uncovered a large Middle Neolithic settlement (Upper Rhine West Bischheim group) dating from the second half of the 5th millennium BCE. The site comprised a very large assemblage of welldated macrolithic tools (more than 600). Grinding stones, including about roughouts, make up the bulk of the assemblage. Morphological analyses indicate that certain types of use-wear are linked directly to specific types of rock. The variety of rock types is unusual for this period. In fact, contrary to other assemblages from the same period mainly made up of Lower Triassic sandstone (Vosges sandstone; 43%), the tools fashioned on this settlement are mostly made from sedimentary rocks of the Permian and Lower Triassic (possible sources at 15 km), and more rarely from plutonic and metamorphic rocks (possible sources between 5 and 15 km). The use of rough textured rocks such as arkosic sandstone or microconglomerate largely dominating the assemblage. This one also includes a large group of hammerstones from different rock types (sedimentary, plutonic, volcanic and metamorphic). More than half are silicified micritic limestones, a rock that is extremely rare and can be unambiguously traced to a single outcrop about 15 kilometres from the site. This systematic interdisciplinary study of the tools and their petrography offers the opportunity to explore questions regarding provenance and procurement networks in Alsace around 4150 BCE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available