170 Chinese Archaeology

Following C.T. Thomsen’s “three-period” theory, Brit-

ish 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 classi-

fied as the “Australia core-tool and scraper tradition” and

“Australia small-tool tradition,” while their subsistent

strategy was still hunting-gathering. Within the core-

tool and scraper tradition, axe with grounded edge ap-

peared around 22,000–18,000 BP. After 5,000 BP, this

core-tool and scraper tradition was replaced by the

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 ar-

chaeological sites of transitional period from Palaeolithic

to Neolithic and across lands from north to south. Espe-

cially 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, mor-

phological 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 repre-

sented 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 ex-

isted in European Mesolithic cultures. Those chipped

The Origins and Primary Types of Groundstone

Qian Yaopeng

Keywords: origin type groundstone

171Volume 5

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

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)

1

3

2

6

4

8

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 Up-

per 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

5

7

172 Chinese Archaeology

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

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)

1

2 34

6 7 8

9

10 11

12

13

5

14 15 17 18 19

16

Palaeolithic structures were not ready for evolutionary

change yet.

Therefore, evolutionary change in structures called

for new materials and technology. In Neolithic, woods

173Volume 5

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

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 compli-

cate and delicate, accordingly in this areas wooden

structures were well developed. However, in the areas of

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

1 2 3 4

56 7

98

N

0 5 m

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)

1

0 5 cm

2

3 4

5

6

7 8

174 Chinese Archaeology

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 techno-

logical 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, in-

stead should be harder materials like stone. Thus exist-

ence of chipped axes, adzes, and chisels probably func-

tioned 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

function requirement. Chipped stones were gradually

replaced with well-developed groundstones for wood-

working 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 de-

veloped 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

175Volume 5

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

Weiyuanhui 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.