Abstract
In this paper, I explore the relationship between an artifact's biography and the raw material from which it was made. Specifically, I discuss the biographies of groundstone tools from five Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic (3500-2000 BC) sites in lowland Portugal. An analysis of the formal and material characteristics of tools (totalling over 1300) from these sites indicates that the raw material from which a tool was made not only constrained the form and function of that tool, but also determined, to a large extent, whether that tool would be recycled and the context (settlement V5. burial) in which that tool would be ultimately deposited. I suggest that both the material properties and the socio-symbolic associations of different raw materials might explain the biographies of the artifacts from which they were made.
Highlights
This is curious as Leceia is situated atop an outcrop of basalt. Perhaps this reflects the unsuitability of the local basalt for the purposes at hand. This may suggest that the acquisition of polished stone tools was embedded in a fundamentally social exchange or prestige goods network in the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic, and that tools made from the local basalts were traded out for tools made from other raw materials, such as amphibolite or dolerite
The evidence from the five sites discussed suggests that late prehistoric communities approached polished stone tools from both materialist and idealist stances
The durability and versatility of amphibolite and basalt were put to good use in a wide range of tool types and dolerite's ruggedness was appreciated in the hammers that were made from it
Summary
The best explanation for the near-absence of dolerite tools in burials may involve ideological reasons; Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic groups who buried their dead at Cova da Moura and Algar do Bom Santo may not have considered objects made from this raw material appropriate for burial offerings. Perhaps this reflects the unsuitability of the local basalt for the purposes at hand This may suggest that the acquisition of polished stone tools was embedded in a fundamentally social exchange or prestige goods network in the Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic (rather than part of an economy based entirely on a least-cost/least-effort principal), and that tools made from the local basalts were traded out for tools made from other raw materials, such as amphibolite or dolerite.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
