A Late Archaic Muller

[CMD]

One of the fields we walk, for decades now, is so rock free, unlike most New England fields, that we can afford to poke at just about any rock we come across. In so doing, we have found many crude notched weights, hammerstones, anvil stones, etc., that earlier generations may have either missed, or simply passed on collecting. Many decades ago, this farm did produce outstanding pieces that nobody would pass on, like a perfect popeye birdstone, that the farmer himself found, and gave to an old timer I knew, when that old timer was still a young man.

Anyway, I was checking out a neat artifact my wife found there years ago. Studying its usage wear. If found in the top side position, one could easily just keep walking. But, as noted, sometimes poking at "just a rock" produces surprises. As in this case. What turned out to be a really nice, and classic, sandstone muller.

So the artifact guide I use, published by the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, lists mullers under "Grinding Equipment" and describes them as ranging Late Archaic through Late Woodland, and has this to say:

"Another grinding tool, whether for maize or nuts, is the Muller. It is made of a flat-faced cobble of convenient size for hand use, and was used to grind...in shallow stone mortars. This kind of grinding, evidently, was infrequently used, to judge from the scarcity of these artifacts. Mullers from Late Archaic contexts are definitely associated with nutting activities".

Well, the Late Archaic around the Northeast Woodlands was coined the "Mast Forest Archaic" by archaeologist Dean Snow, because a staple of the Late Archaic diet here were in fact the many types of nuts produced by such a forest. Pits containing nuts cached by the thousands have actually been found preserved in Rhode Island, as I recall.

Well, no doubt in my mind that this was a Late Archaic muller. That little pecked area in the center of the ground down flat bottom cracked nuts, INHO. Perfect size, I believe for a pit produced by whacking acorns or hazelnuts, and then grinding them up. The field where it was found is a multicomponent site ranging Late Paleo through Contact Period. Largely played out now, it was, and always will be, my personal "field of dreams".

Typical mullers, from the MAS artifact guide:


Topside of the muller in question:

[CMD]

I cannot add any more photos to the first comment, so continued here...

Two views of the business end, with the nutting pit, and showing the well ground sandstone surface:




While examining this find recently, I noticed the ancient user had also started to use one end of this muller for grinding operations:



And, while photographing the piece this morning, another "nutter" showed up. This is "the little girl", easily recognizable because she only has one ear. She's been coming around every morning for years, for her morning walnut. Here she is waiting for me to "finish taking the photo already, and give me my walnut". Which of course I did!

[Jethro355]

She’s beautiful.👍

[awassamog]

Great squirrel story!
And thank you for the rundown on that heavy patina nutting stone. I think ive got one, will hunt for it and post separately. Any photo or sketches of the birdstone?

[SDhunter]

Thanks for sharing this muller. It’s a new term for me. I like your squirrel too

[Scorpion68]

Charlie - You're exactly right. If I had come across that on the logging road, I'd have passed it over. That color and the fact that it's sandstone would not have piqued my interest. Now I'm wondering if I might have actually passed over some of this stuff. Sure will make me think twice now. Your pictures really show the wear patterns well. Overall it was a perfect multi tool. Muller - huh, whoda thunk it? Thanks Charlie.

[Kyflintguy]

Thanks for this informative post Charlie! Learned something new here today, had never heard of a muller but maybe I've seen a few. I guess its kind of an impromptu, palm sized pestle so to speak. Cool! Thanks for sharing!

[Tam]

This was my new learn for the year probably . Never have even read about that . Great pictures and an explanation .
I do look at every rock .
ahhh you have a little Charlie .🤗

[Havenhunter]

Hoss sent me a muller the first month after I joined the forum and to be honest I never would have picked it up, newbie or otherwise. Since then I've found one of my own on the beach. Surrounded by shells & granite chunks of Armourstone, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
Thanks for sharing the detailed photos, Charlie!

[Andy W.]

Do you agree they're a scarce item? I think they are quite common around here.

[CMD]

I honestly have no idea one way or the other. That observation is from Wm. Fowler, who was writing that in the 60's. I assume he was speaking of New England generally, and since this was mast forest ecology, I'd expect them or something similar to be common enough. I also don't know what "around here" means in your instance, not knowing where you're from. But, bottom line, I have no idea....

[CMD]

Do you agree they're a scarce item? I think they are quite common around here.

I've been thinking about this, and want to comment further. First, to reiterate, it was an observation made by the original leading founder of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society, William Fowler. Even today, his significant contributions to the early development of prehistoric archaeology in New England is recognized by the professionals in the region. There were virtually no such professionals working in the region at the time he led excavations for both the now defunct Narragansett Archaeological Society and the MAS. So, I can't just dismiss his opinion. That said, his theorizing on New England's past should be expected to be dated. He was, after all, working from the 40's-70's primarily.

But, I don't think he would have commented on the scarcity of mullers, unless they were in fact scarce. This because he would have been familiar with the entirety of the collection of the Bronson, later the Robbins, museum, which even in Fowler's day numbered in the tens of thousands of artifacts. As well, he would have been familiar with a great many private collections. So, if he noted their scaricity it can only be because he saw very few examples in those collections.

The real question might be what would explain their scarcity if in fact nuts were a staple of Late Archaic diets, and Woodland as well most likely. Maybe they are simply not easily recognizable when laying in a field. Maybe few have turned up in controlled excavations, where they would have to be recognized. I can't answer why Fowler considered them scarce, but there would have been few people in a position to have examined as many collections as he did when he was active in archaeology. So his statement must have been based on what he himself had observed to be the case. I know, in our own personal experience, I believe this is the only example my wife or I have found in our hunts, covering quite a few decades now.

Thanks for raising the point, because it is interesting to try and understand.

[Andy W.]

I agree it's interest to ponder.

[OnewiththewilD]

My guess could be one of two things, first is possibly back in the day the “ pickin’s” were so good that people might not have bothered to collect such a simple seeming artifact?
And my second guess is possibly because it was such an easy task to do ( bust open nut shells) that any old rock would work but few were used enough to create obvious usage wear? Or maybe the ones that were also used as grinding stones as well as mullers are what really caught the eye? Who knows?! Really cool artifact either way. Imagine how many nuts that rock helped process to create that kinda wear! Very cool.

[Hi-Lo]

Great intel Charlie. Thanks.