The Ubiquitous Pitted Stone

During the 1930’s Henry Deisher published several articles in the Pennsylvania Archaeologist on the topic of pitted stones (Deisher 1935; 1939). Prompted by the abundance of pitted stones from archaeological sites in Pennsylvania, he set out to identify their true function based on the profile characteristics of the stone’s indentation.

Some archaeologists and other researchers place these unique tools in the “problematic” category offering little convincing evidence for a functional interpretation. In fact, when Deisher questioned Warren Moorehead, Director of the Peabody Museum, about the function of pitted stones, his reply was “The man who made them is dead” (Deisher 1939).

 The statement “Generally the pits are worn deep and smooth, produced by long usage” (Deisher 1935) indicates that he was referring only to a certain type of pitted stone that he interpreted as nut crackers and nut hullers. Other forms of this tool type are known and some of these are described below.

Deisher was intrigued by pitted stones as he reported on more than 1300 specimens held in Pennsylvania museums and private collections. Impressed by the large number of this artifact type (over 800 specimens) from the Jacob Dreibelbis farm in Berks County, Pennsylvania, Deisher conducted archaeological excavations there. The site was located in a large nut grove that had been partly destroyed by a cyclone in 1868 and near the confluence of the Ontelaunee and Saucony creeks (Deisher 1935).

 Nut crackers and nut hullers dominated  Deisher’s study based on the presence of deep gouge marks created with sharp stones that were modified by further reduction from processing nuts one by one. In a later report, he noted that pitted stones could also have been used to crush rock and shell for temper in pottery production and as anvils in splitting chert pebbles used in arrowhead production.  

 In other regions of Pennsylvania, pitted stones are as common as those present in Deisher’s study area. For example, within the Upper Ohio, Allegheny Monongahela, Susquehanna and Delaware river valleys, pitted stones occur abundantly. Let’s look at a few examples from these watersheds. 

Excavations at the Brown site (36Ar188) yielded a date of 6090 BP. The date is associated with Brewerton points, pit features, a mix of other artifact types and pitted stones (George and Davis 1986). Clarion State College (Clarion University of Pennsylvania) conducted a multi-year field school at the State Road Ripple site located in Clarion County. Pitted stones with multiple pits were recovered from stratified Archaic deposits at the site. According to Gustav Konitsky, site director and professor of Anthropology at the University, the objects were anvils used in processing a variety of plant materials.

 Pitted stones were recovered from Archaic and Woodland site contexts in the Susquehanna valley. The deeply stratified site on Canfield Island in Lycoming County yielded several pitted stones and others were found associated with the Late Woodland occupation of the Bull Run site (36Ly119) (Bressler 1980). According to the report, bi-pitted stones were abundant  and likely served a multitude of functions including as anvils and mullers in the processing of nuts, splitting animal bones and crushing rock for tempering pottery (Bressler 1980). At the Allenwood site located along the West Branch of the Susquehanna River (36Un82), pitted stones made from river cobbles were associated with the Late Archaic Lamoka component. This occupation was radiocarbon dated between 3600-3900 BP and Wall (2000) interpreted these as tools used in food processing.

There is evidence that pitted stones were widely used in the Upper Delaware Valley through much of the Archaic-Woodland continuum. All of these sites are situated on stratified floodplains on both sides of the river. 

A pitted stone (designated with the letter “O”) in a Late Archaic hunting and gathering assemblage associated with a wide variety of tools. 

At the Zimmerman site (36Pi14), the category of “Altered by Usage” tools included pitted stones thought to be used as hammerstones from the Late Woodland through Archaic levels (Werner 1972). Nearby at the Faucett site (36Pi13A), pitted stones were recovered from the stratified Delaware Valley Archaic and later Bushkill Complex levels. These all show similar forms of one to seven pits usually paired on opposite flat surfaces of the cobble. The pairing of pits suggests something other than nut processing or use as an anvil stone, but it is still a mystery.

Pitted stone (designated with the letter “u”) in a Late Woodland horticultural assemblage associated with a wide variety of tools. 

The Miller Field site on the Warren County, New Jersey side of the river was the focus of a multi-season field school sponsored by Seton Hall University (Kraft 1970;1972).  A number of pitted cobbles were recovered from the Archaic and Woodland deposits there. Kraft’s analysis is perhaps the most in-depth study of use modified cobble stones from a single Delaware Valley site. the assemblage was characterized by pecked cobble tools with single pitted stones, bi-pitted stones, pitted mullers, simple anvil stones and simple hammer stones. These types of pitted stones are found on surface sites throughout Pennsylvania. Finally, Kraft suggested that these tools served different purposes around a camp site including cracking open animal bones for  their marrow; processing chert blocks for tool reduction; processing nuts, crushing stone and shell for temper in pottery and mashing and grinding a variety of other abrasive materials.

The analysis of these stone tools and their use is important; Why? Because archaeologists are always trying to understand the site function or how it was used by the people who lived there previously. As Moorehead said “the man who made them is dead.” so it is up to us to determine in what activity the stone was used. Archaic peoples may have been using pitted stone to process nuts, berries and root supplies, but Woodland peoples who had begun growing squash, beans and corn also used pitted stones. In examining these tools and their function, the context in which they are found is crucial. The environment changed over time and each of these river valleys has unique geography, climate and habitat that influenced the resources being processed and thus the function of pitted stone tools.

Experimental archaeology (the making and using of stone tools by archaeologists) has been successful in answering questions about stone tool use such as adzes, celts and scrapers to name a few. Pitted stone tool use would benefit from this analysis as well. We don’t have the books and documents to tell us what our prehistoric peoples were doing, but we do have the clues left in the ground and the technology to examine these tools in a new perspective.

We hope that you have enjoyed this blog on a topic that is frequently overlooked by archaeologists and other researchers as an integral part of the prehistoric Native American tool kit. Join us next time when we present another look into the archaeology of Pennsylvania through This Week in Pennsylvania Archaeology.

References Cited.

Bressler, James P.

1980    Excavations of the Bull Run Site 36Ly119. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 50(4):31-63.

Deisher, Henry K.

1935    Pitted Stones. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 5(3):77

Deisher, Henry K.

1939    Pitted Stones or Problem of the Pitted Stones. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 9(1):11-12.

George, Richard L. and Christine E. Davis

1986    A Dated Brewerton Component in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist

            50(1-20:12-20.

Kinsey, W. Fred

1972    Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Anthropological Series No.2. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

Kraft, Herbert

1970    The Miller Field Site, Warren County, New Jersey: A Study in Prehistoric Archaeology, Part 1, The Archaic and Transitional Stages. Seton Hall University Press.

Wall, Robert D.

2000    A Buried Lamoka Occupation in Stratified Contexts West Branch Valley of the Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 70(1):1-44.

Werner, David

1972    The Zimmerman Site 36-Pi-14, In Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Anthropological Series No.2. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

K is for Knife

Knife- a small tool with a big role

Reach in your pocket or look in your tool bag, more than likely you will find a knife. Knives have been an essential tool for humans for thousands of years; its shape and size has evolved and changed multiple times, but its role and function has remained the same.

A knife can be defined as a cutting instrument with one or more sharp-edged blades often pointed and set in a handle. Implements for cutting and slicing soft materials have been used by humans for hundreds of thousands of years. The early versions were made out of bone, antler, ivory and stone. In Pennsylvania, knives date to the Paleoindian period and were found at the Meadowcroft Rockshelter dating to 16,250 years ago. The jasper piece above was found in the Allentown area and its age is unknown. It is similar to Paleoindian artifacts that have been described as a meat processing tools. Stone knives such as these would have been placed in handles. The extra leverage provided by the handle vastly improved the cutting efficiency of these tools. Unfortunately the bone and wooden handles are rarely preserved in the archaeological record.

The artifact below was recovered from the Sheep Rock Shelter. It is a carved deer rib handle. The stone blade was found in an adjacent five foot square and fits perfectly in the slot hollowed out of the wide end. The handle is highly polished and engraved on both sides. The engraving was done with stone tools and the polishing resulted from use. The engraved images were probably very important to the owner but we do not know their meaning. It is interesting that these are a combination of dots and lines and not the traditional zoomorphic or anthropomorphic images associated with Native Americans. There is a hole drilled at one end and a leather strap was probably used to carry the tool. Unfortunately, the age of this piece is unknown.

The Sheep Rock Shelter knife essentially functioned as a pocket knife with a bone handle, which is a form similar to the one you likely possess. A 2008 market survey by the American Knife and Tool Institute (AKTI) reported that over 35 million households in the United States have pocket knives. Not unexpectedly, men possess sixty-eight percent of these knives. The traditional role of “man the hunter” has made this the essential tool for many men, long before they were old enough to assume the role as provider. A quick poll of staff found that most men had received their first pocket knife by the time they were seven and all fondly recall the experience. While men possess the greater percentage of knives, women have utilized knives for equally as long for food preparation and household chores.



We have often discussed the role of archaeology in examining past human behavior to understand patterns of change over time. The changes that we see in knife forms reflect changes in society as well. The standard clasp knife has evolved into the “Swiss army knife” or the “pocket multi-tool” a tool with a bottle opener, screw driver, vise grips, cork screw, and the list goes on. For archaeologists knives can function as a tool for dating the occupation of a site and the activities which occurred there. In our Native American knife examples the Paleoindian knife is a tool distinct to that period, where as the knife from Sheep Rock Shelter is a form that was used throughout multiple culture time periods. Their shape changed as their function evolved, in the same manner as blades and handles changed during the historic period.

These clasp knives recovered from Conoy Town, a village site of the Conoy Indians in Lancaster County which dates from 1718 to 1743, are examples of pistol grip handles. This shape was replaced in the 1800’s losing the curve pistol shaped handle for a straighter handle. The development of spring blade knives in the 18th century was a significant advancement in the industry and provided the creation of the multi-tool knife.


This little tool that you rely on for multiple tasks has served us well for thousands of years and will continue to evolve and change as our lifestyles change.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Experimental Archaeology at the Historical and Museum Commission - Building a Dugout Canoe

The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) has carved three dugout canoes over the past decade. These have been done as public programs using replicated historic and/or prehistoric tools. The sight of people sometimes dressed in loin cloths, wood chips flying and fire attracts a lot of attention and these programs have been very popular with the public. The resulting dugouts have been included in a variety of presentations, most notably, the annual Pennsylvania Farm Show. Although the publicity is good, these projects are examples of experimental archaeology. They are being conducted to aid in the interpretation of the archaeological record.

As a simple definition, a dugout canoe or, simply, a “dugout” is a hollowed-out log used as a watercraft. It is typically made in a cycle of burning and cutting that includes repeatedly burning the log with a controlled fire and then scraping and chopping out the charred and softened wood with a variety of tools that can be as diverse as shells, wooden scraping tools and stone adzes.

The dugout is likely the earliest form of constructed watercraft in the world, and specimens in Europe have been dated to over 9,000 years old. Considering that humans voyaged to Australia at least 50,000 years ago, dugouts are probably at least that old. In North and South America, dugouts have been the main form of water travel since Native Americans arrived from Siberia over 16,000 years ago. In addition, there has been recent speculation that these early people first arrived by boat. The Northwest Coast seems to have the greatest variety of dugouts with some of these being very large and elaborately designed. In Eastern North American, dugouts are preserved in the lakes and bogs of Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The oldest of these date to over 6,000 years before the present.

During our 2005 project, we only used tools that were available to the prehistoric inhabitants of the Commonwealth. It has frequently been assumed by archaeologists that stone adzes were a common tool in dugout construction. The stone adzes were made by grinding down basalt into the desired shape. This was time consuming but attaching them to handles was the real challenge. Several handles and one adze were broken but eventually we developed a design that worked very well. Once the dugout was completed, the wear patterns on the stone adzes were analyzed and compared to archaeological specimens. Surprisingly, the wear patterns on the experimental specimens were not the same as most of the archaeological specimens. Our conclusion was that adzes were not commonly used in dugout construction. For more information on dugouts, visit our Building a Dugout page.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .