Lawrence Billington 09/2014
Great Bowden Heritage and Archaeology CORS Project
GBO 14 - The Flint
Quantification (table 1)
The lithic assemblage submitted for analysis comprised 42 worked flints, one unworked burnt flint, 18 unworked natural flints and 36 pieces of non-flint stone. The worked and burnt flint are quantified by context in table 1. The non-flint stone is not reported on here.
irregular waste / chip / primary flake (plough struck?) / secondary flake / tertiary flake / blade / scraper? On natural flake / flake core reused as hammerstone / small multiple platform flake core / total worked / unworked burnt flint no. / unworked burnt flint weight (g)1.1 / c1 / 1 / 1
1.4 / c4 / 1 / 1 / 2
1.5 / c5 / 1 / 1 / 2
1.6 / c6 / 1 / 1 / 2
2.2 / c2 / 1 / 1
2.3 / c3 / 1 / 1
2.7 / c7 / 1 / 1
2.8 / c8 / 1 / 1
3.6 / c6 / 1 / 1
4.4 / c4 / 1 / 1
4.7 / c7 / 1 / 1
5.3 / c3 / 1 / 1
5.5 / c5 / 1 / 1 / 2
5.4 / 2 / 2
8.6 / 1 / 1
9.4 / c4 / 1 / 1
10.6 / c2 / 1 / 1
11.1 / c1 / 1 / 1
11.2 / c2 / 1 / 1
11.5 / c5 / 1 / 1
15.4 / c4 / 1 / 1
15.5 / c5 / 1 / 1
18.2A / c2A / 1 / 1
18.5 / c5 / 1 / 1
20.2 / c2 / 1 / 1
21 / c8 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 26.5
21.3 / c3 / 1 / 1
21.4 / c4 / 1 / 1
26 / c2 / 1 / 1 / 2
26 / c5 / 2 / 2
27.4 / c4 / 1 / 1
28.6 / c6 / 1 / 1 / 2
29.6 / c6 / 1 / 1
totals / 2 / 1 / 5 / 15 / 14 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 42 / 1 / 26.5
Raw materials and condition
The flint is generally fine grained and translucent and of high quality although incipient thermal fractures were noted on some pieces. Surviving cortical surfaces suggest the use of relatively small cobbles/nodules of flint derived from secondary contexts – probably fluvio-glacial gravels - most likely relatively local river terrace gravels.
The condition of the assemblage is very varied. A majority of pieces display some degree of edge damage which varies from slight to severe. The severely edge damaged pieces are typical of flints derived from ploughsoil contexts and it seems likely that these pieces have been subject to similarly aggressive post depositional processes. Several primary (dorsal surface totally cortical) flakes were recovered which may have been plough struck rather than intentionally worked (see table 1). In some cases the severity of edge damage may have obscured traces of retouch. Two pieces, from 21 c8, are naturally fractured pieces which bear scraper like retouch (figure 1). This retouch may in fact represent severe edge damage and these pieces could be entirely natural. In contrast to these edge damaged pieces some of the flintwork was in fresh condition and appears to have seen relatively little post depositional damage, most notable in this respect are the flints from 26, c2 and c5. None of the flintwork is corticated (‘patinated’).
Figure 1. Possible scrapers or severely edge damaged pieces on naturally fractured flints [21 C8].
Composition and dating
The assemblage is made up almost entirely of chronologically undiagnostic flake based debitage. A single blade based piece was recovered from 5.5 c5 (figure 2) and represents the only clear evidence for Mesolithic or earlier Neolithic (c. 9000-3000 BC) activity within the assemblage. The remainder of the assemblage is made of generalised flake based material typical of prehistoric assemblages from the late Neolithic into the later Bronze Age or even Iron Age. Many of the flakes and cores show a relatively expedient and unsophisticated approach to knapping, evidenced by frequent hinge fractures, cortical striking platforms and irregular dorsal scar patterns. Aside from the possible scrapers (see above) no tools were identified although a flake core reused as a hammerstone or pounder was recovered from 11.1 c1 (figure 3).
Figure 2. Mesolithic/earlier Neolithic blade [5.5 c5].
Figure 3. Flake core reused as hammerstone or pounder [11.1 c1]. Note the incipient cones of percussion and areas of crushing.