Lithies 23
LATER BRONZE AGE FLINT TECHNOLOGY:
A PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF POST-BARROW DEBITAGE
FROM MONUMENTS IN THE RAUNDS AREA, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE
Torben Bjarke Ballin
1
INTRODUCTION
In the years from 1985 to 1992 archaeological investigations were carried out of a 3 x l.5 km large
area in the Nene Valley, Northamptonshire (the Raunds Area Project, Harding and Healy forthcoming). Some 20 Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments were excavated, and extensive trial trenches
were dug between the monuments. Approximately 22,000 lithic artefacts were recovered, mostly
from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods. These finds were supplemented by a
number of Later Bronze Age l assemblages from two round barrows, Barrows 1 and 3 on the Irthlingborough Island on the valley floor (Fig. 1).
The lithic material from the Raunds Area Project is presented in Ballin (forthcoming c). The
purpose of this report is mainly to characterize and date the many individual Raunds assemblages as
well as defining chronologically unmixed sub-assemblages with strong research potential.
Some
chronologically clean assemblages were defined from Mesolithic, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age
contexts, but the largest (and therefore statistically most sound) unmixed assemblages are the Later
Bronze Age flint scatters found on top of Barrows 1 and 3.
The Later Bronze Age flint from the Raunds Area Project adds to the knowledge and understanding of late prehistoric lithic technology, and in the present paper the post-barrow material from
Barrows 1 and 3 will be presented and discussed. The main aim of this paper is to define a precise
technological profile which will allow the post-barrow material from the Raunds barrows to be
compared with similar late assemblages recovered throughout Britain. Later Bronze Age collections
are generally characterized by a shortage of formal tools
1991,67), and
technologi-
cal profile may be helpful in providing relative dates for assemblages lacking
more general level, the technological profile, and its operational schema
tools. On a
op era to ire ), may
add to the understanding of a period when flint was gradually being replaced by metal.
THE ASSEMBLAGES
Most of the finds from the Raunds monuments represent redeposited material from the area between, and around, the monuments. However, where the redeposited material in the monuments
from the Early Neolithic is largely Late Mesolithic or Early Neolithic, the redeposited finds from the
round barrows are mainly of an Early Bronze Age date (Ballin forthcoming c). These finds, which
predate the construction of the barrows, are supplemented by a small number of artefacts deposited
in connection with the ritual use of the monuments (primary as well as secondary deposits), and
post-barrow material of a secular character (lmapping floors).
1
Lithic Research, Banknock Cottage, Denny, Stirlingshire FK6 5NA
3
Lithics 23
•
o
o
Fig. 1: a) Barrow 1, Phase 8.1 -flint distribution, b) Barrow 3, Phase 5.3 -flint distribution
4
Lithics 23
Three assemblages from Barrows 1 and 3 appear chronologically clean, that is, the material
from Barrow 1, Phases 8.1 and 8.2, and the flint from Barrow 3, Phase 5.3. The assemblage from
Barrow 1 Phase 8.1 constituted a concentration of struck flint c. 6 m x 5 m, overlying the final
mound of the barrow and extending over its already silted second ditch. The material from Barrow
1 Phase 8.2 was recovered from the silts of the outer ditch. The lithic finds from Barrow 3 Phase 5.3
constituted a concentration of struck flint on an old land surface outside the barrow ditch, sealed by
material eroded from the mound.
Stratigraphically, the finds from Barrow 1, Phases 8.1 and 8.2, are broadly contemporary., "mce
both accumulated after the digging of the outer ditch and the building of the final mound. However,
the differences in raw material composition indicates that the assemblages may have been deposited
as separate archaeological events (proportions of coarse-grained flint 12.5% and 4.2%, respectively;
see below).
In the lithic report on the Raunds lithics the Phase 8.2 material is not analysed as part of the
Later Bronze Age deposits. This was mainly due to the inclusion in the Phase 8.2 assemblage of
two barbed-and-tanged arrowheads and a fragment of a transverse arrowhead, but the present detailed analysis of the finds demonstrate a homogeneous lithic assemblage very similar to the material
from Barrow 1 Phase 8.1 and Barrow 3 Phase 5.3 (see below). The arrowheads probably represent
individual intrusions from the redeposited material in the general mound fill. A fine pIano-convex
knife from Barrow 3, Phase 5.3, is probably intrusion as well.
The technological profile is based on attribute analysis of debitage samples from the three assemblages supplemented by the information on core and tool types presented in Ballin (forthcoming
c). For practical reasons the three samples will be referred to as Samples 1,2 and 3 (Table 1).
Sample
Barrow
Barrow 1, Phase 8.2 (Sample 2)
Barrow 3, Phase 5.3 (Sample 3)
Parent barrow - total
no.
Parent phase - total
no.
Sample - no. of debitage
5,169
2,235
532
719
211 (39.7%)
150 (20.9%)
Table 1. The sizes of the debitage samples in relation to the sizes of the parent assemblages.
The three assemblages have not been radiocarbon dated, but a number of dates from the barrows
provide a terminus post quem for the post-barrow material. Both barrows were constructed around
the turn of the third and second millennia cal Be
2
.
The combined typological and technological at-
tributes of the three assemblages suggest a Middle to Late Bronze Age date: the primary technology
is characterized by a simplistic operational schema with little or no core preparation
only two
crested pieces (a flake and a blade) were recovered and no platform rejuvenation flakes; the core
group3 is dominated by simpler types with more than one platform (cores with two and three platforms, and unclassifiable cores) (Table 2); the tool group is dominated by plain types, such as, simple scrapers (many of which are denticulated) and piercers, and notched, denticulated and informal
retouched pieces (Table 3).
An important detail in dating the three assemblages is the total lack of invasive retouch on
other pieces than three arrowheads (Barrow 1, Phase 8.2) and a pIano-convex blade (Barrow 3,
5
Lithics 23
Phase 5.3). During the period from the Early Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age not only prestigious
tools, such as, arrowheads, daggers and pIano-convex pieces would be formed by the application of
invasive retouch. This type of retouch would also be found on the lateral edges or working-edges of
scrapers, piercers, serrated pieces and retouched pieces. Most likely, the application of this reduction technique had ceased by the time the three assemblages were being deposited, and the arrowheads and the pIano-convex piece derive from the redeposited material in the general mound fill.
The pIano-convex piece is on a long blade and therefore probably date to an earlier period.
Numbers
Core types
Percent
B1 Ph8.1
B1 Ph 8.2
B1 Ph5.3
B1 Ph8.1
BIPh8.2
B1 Ph5.3
Single-platform cores (A1-A2)
7
34
11
27
25
36
Cores with two platforms (B 1-B3)
5
17
3
19
13
10
Cores with three platforms (C)
3
11
6
12
8
19
Keeled cores (D-E)
4
18
5
15
13
16
Unclassifiable
7
56
6
27
41
19
26
136
31
100
100
100
TOTAL
Table 2. Cores from the three assemblages.
Numbers
Tool types
Percent
B1 Ph8.1
B1 Ph 8.2
Bl Ph5.3
B1 Ph8.1
B1 Ph 8.2
Arrowheads
0
3
0
0
4
0
Scrapers
7
15
7
20
19
64
Piercers
2
6
0
6
8
0
B1 Ph5.3
Knives
0
2
0
2
9
Serrated pieces
0
0
0
0
9
Notches
3
0
Denticulates
3
5
21
49
Retouched pieces
F abri cators
TOTAL
0
0
36
80
0
8
0
0
8
6
9
0
58
61
0
0
0
9
11
100
100
100
Table 3. Tools from the three assemblages.
EXAMINA TION AND ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS
Usually, 100 intact flakes or proximal ends are sufficient to produce a strong technological profile
and avoid random statistical fluctuations (Ballin forthcoming b). As the present profile includes the
description of terminals as well it was decided to increase the number of flakes or fragments to make
certain that each main attribute would be covered by at least 100 pieces. For this purpose, a number
of find bags were selected at random from the three assemblages (Table 1).
The flakes from Sample 2 included practically no chips, whereas Samples 1 and 3 contained
relatively large proportions of chips. It was obvious that the three assemblages had been collected
by the application of different recovery policies, with the retrieval of Samples 1 and 3 including
some degree of sieving, while sieving had not been attempted during the recovery of Sample 2. To
6
Lithics 23
allow inter-assemblage comparison it was therefore decided to only examine flakes larger than 15
mm. Most of these flakes probably represent intentional blanks, with the smaller pieces mainly being debris from the primary production.
By the examination of the flakes from Samples 1-3, a magnifying glass (8X) was used consistently.
Many attributes could not have been characterized satisfactorily with the naked eye.
Recognition of impact scars requires magnification as does the characterization of bulbar and
platform-edge attributes (see below).
In general, the approach follows the one defined in Ballin (forthcoming b), and for the general
definition and discussion of technological attributes and concepts, please see this publication. The
definitions of debitage categories, cores and tools are as follows:
Chips:
All flakes and indeterminate pieces, the greatest dimension (GD) of which is
~
10 mm.
Flakes:
All lithic artefacts with one identifiable ventral (positive/convex) surface, GD > 10 mm and L < 2W
(L = length; W = width).
Indeterminate pieces:
Lithic artefacts which cannot be unequivocally identified as either flakes or cores. Generally the
problem of identification is due to irregular breaks, frost-shattering or fire-crazing.
Chunks are
larger indeterminate pieces, and in, for example, the case of quartz, the problem of identification
usually originates from a piece flaking along natural planes of weakness rather than flaking in the
usual conchoidal way.
Blades and microblades:
Flakes where L:2 2B. In the case of blades W> 8 mm, in the case of microbIades W ~ 8 mm.
Cores:
Artefacts with only dorsal (negative/concave) surfaces - if three or more flakes have been detached,
the piece is a core, if fewer than three flakes have been detached, the piece is a split pebble.
Tools:
Artefacts with secondary retouch (modification).
RAW MATERIAL
The three samples consist of a mixture of fine-grained and coarse-grained flin{ Fine-grained flint
dominates all post-barrow samples, with coarse-grained flint making up 12.5% (Sample 1), 4.2%
(Sample 2), and 13.9% (Sample 3). Fine-grained flint can be found in all parts of the Raunds area,
although most abundantly on the floor of the N ene River valley and on the lower gravel terrace of
7
Lithics 23
that valley. The coarse-grained flint types are associated with higher elevations and, in particular,
the Boulder Clay plateau east of the Bronze Age barrows (Kent & Holmes forthcoming). Based on
the character of the cortex, and sizes of flakes, cores and tools, the three assemblages are thought to
consist entirely of local pebble flint.
The initial Field Walking Survey of the Raunds area suggested that the exploitation of coarsegrained flint may be associated with the later part of prehistory (Humble forthcoming). This impression is supported by the analysis of the excavated material from the Raunds Area Project (Ballin
forthcoming c). In general, between 3% and 8% of the excavated assemblages is in coarse-grained
flint, whereas the Later Bronze Age lrnapping floors from the area's round barrows have somewhat
higher percentages (see above). The fact that the Early Bronze Age assemblages generally have low
levels of coarse-grained flint, whereas the Later Bronze Age contexts on top of the barrows have
considerably higher levels of coarse-grained flint suggests that the local expansion onto heavier soils
at higher elevations (Parry & Humble forthcoming) occurred around the transition between the Early
and Later Bronze Age periods.
Each of the three samples contains small numbers of flakes or cores
by discol-
5
oured removal scars cut by undiscoloured removal scars. This phenomenon indicates limited scavenging of flint eroded out of the barrows.
The three assemblages include very little burnt flint. Samples I and 3 contain 1.3-1.5% firecrazed flint, whereas Sample 2 contains no such flint. This corresponds well with the proportions of
burnt flint from the Raunds barrows as a whole (0-2%), but differs considerably from the assemblages from the Early Neolithic monuments in the area. Approximately 4-11 % of the flint from earlier monuments has been burnt. In the present case, this difference between early and late assemblages may be due to different settlement and burial practices in the N eolithic and Bronze Age periods. In the Raunds area, the N eolithic monuments are situated in areas settled throughout the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods, for which reason the redeposited material in the monuments contain large amounts of flint from base camps with extensive use of fire. The Bronze Age monuments
are partly situated in the same area, and partly on the Irthlingborough Island, which was not the focus of general settlement; the redeposited material in the Irthlingborough Island barrows derive from
small hunting or transit camps and, probably, camps of small groups of Bronze Age herders (who
may be responsible for the deposition of the three post-barrow assemblages) (for discussion of the
settlement patterns in the Raunds area, see Harding & Healy forthcoming; Ballin forthcoming c).
THE WORKED FLINT
Debitage categories
The three samples are characterized by approximately the same composition of the debitage group
(Table 4). Flakes dominate all samples with 84-89%, and blades are almost absent. As illustrated
by Fig. 2, the flakes and blades form a single cluster: no attempts were made to produce blades or
elongated flakes, and the small number of blades are random bi-products of a flake industry.
8
Lithies 23
The high proportion of intact blanks is probably mainly a result of the size and form of the pieces.
With a length:width ratio of c. 1 and a thickness of 5.6-6.7 mm, the blanks do not break easily. If
these squat and thick flakes do break, they generally only break into two pieces, which explains the
low proportion of medial fragments (1-2%).
Accident Siret, or split bulb, fractures are fairly common with 5-7%. The term 'split bulb' is
slightly misleading as only some of these fractures split the actual bulb in two
in most cases the
fracture runs along one side of a prominent Hertzian cone to continue along the flake's longitudinal
axis thus splitting it in two lateral parts. The high proportion of Accident Siret fractures is evidence
of a crude reduction method dominated by hard-hammer percussion (Bordes 1961, 32).
Reduction sequence
The term 'reduction sequence' describes the proportion of cortex on blanks and thereby their place
in the sequence from raw nodule to totally reduced core. Usually, flakes are sorted into three categories, primary, secondary and tertiary pieces, with primary pieces having been detached earliest in
the reduction sequence and tertiary pieces latest in the sequence (for which reason the latter pieces
are frequently referred to as 'inner flakes'). However, in the archaeological literature the specific
definitions of the three terms vary somewhat. In the presentation of the lithic assemblage from Shaft
X at Grimes Graves, Norfolk (Herne 1991, 34), the author has chosen to define primary pieces as
those with a dorsal cortication of between 60% and 100%, secondary pieces as those with a cortication between 20% and 60%, and tertiary pieces as those with a cortication between 0% and 20%; in
the presentation of the lithic finds from the Dorchester By-pass, the author has chosen to define primary pieces as those with more than 66% cortex, secondary pieces as those with 66-33% cortex, and
tertiary pieces as those with less than 33% cortex (Bellamy 1997, 137). Most other lithics specialists
follow Bradley (1970, 346), defining primary flakes as those with totally corticated dorsal faces,
secondary flakes as those with partial cortication, and tertiary flakes are pieces with no cortex at all.
This author has chosen to favour Bradley's definition (1970) for the following reasons. First of
all, if the term 'tertiary flake' is supposed to identify a removal as an inner piece, then even the
slightest cortex defies this purpose. With close to 20% or 33% cortex, as in the above examples, a
flake would have been detached from a superficial layer of a parent core, and the term 'inner flake'
would be inappropriate.
Secondly, the vast field-walking and excavated assemblages from the
Raunds Area Project (Humble forthcoming; Ballin forthcoming c) were classified according to
Bradley's definitions, and for the reason of intra-project comparison it seems most sensible to follow
Bradley's terminology in the present paper.
Samples 1-3 have approximately the same ratio of primary flakes (10-12%), but the proportions of secondary flakes and tertiary flakes vary (Table 6). The percentage of secondary flakes vary
between 50% and 65%, and that of tertiary flakes between 25% and 38%. The combined proportion
of corticated (primary) and partly corticated (secondary) removals (,outer flakes) varies between
62% and 75%.
10
Lithics 23
The dimensions of the platform remnants describe these as large and broad (Fig. 3). On average,
the platform remnants measure c. 11.8 x 4.3 mm with a W:D ratio of approximately 2.7. The average width and depth of the flakes' platform remnants are the results of poor platform-edge preparation (mainly the absence of platform isolation, see below) combined with free-hand, hard percusslOn.
60.00
y =(
18.115
IR: = .0 04
55.00
50.00
/
45.00
V
40.00
/:
BL IADES
35.00
11•
.s::
......
0)
c:::
30.00
...
"
I
••
25.00
••
A
I
20.00
•• •
• .- •.,
•
I-
lID
15.00
10.00
0.00
•
I
./ • • r
11
;. ..-" . .. .
C!J
..J
5.00
I
/
!V
0.00
• I.. '
• •
I1
5.00
•
•
.,
.,
•
lID
~
1"-
~
•• •
•
~,w",",%,
I·
lID
•
:LA KE
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Width
Fig. 2. Sample 3. Length-width afflakes.
12
35.00
40.00
Lithics 23
50.00
y=
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
..
J::.
i5
~
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00 -!-.-.-'-'+-~~-'·"-·--4\.-.--+-"----+--~--+-->~--·---'
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
Depth
Fig. 3. Sample 3. Width-depth ofplatform remnants.
Figs 2-3 illustrate the dimensions of the post-barrow flakes from the Raunds barrows, as well as the
dimensions of their platform remnants - Sample 3 has been selected as a representative example.
The correlation coefficient (R2) of the flakes' lengths and widths is 0.0049, demonstrating an almost
complete lack of correlation between the two main dimensions. This corresponds well with the almost circular shape of the cluster in Fig. 2. The correlation between platform width and platform
2
depth is slightly better (R = 0.5671), demonstrating the general trend towards broad platform remnants.
The slight variation in size between flakes from the three samples may be explained by one of
the options listed in the discussion of the differences between the proportions of primary, secondary
and tertiary material (above).
Flaking angle
The flaking angle may be defined in two ways, namely 1) as the angle between the platform remnant
and the ventral face (Inizan et al. 1992, 87), and 2) as the angle between the platform remnant and
the dorsal face (Sollberger & Patterson 1976, 518). In the on-going discussion of British Later
Bronze Age assemblages most analysts have chosen to refer to the angle between platform remnant
13
Lithics 23
and ventral side (eg, Stone 1941, 131; Fasham & Ross 1978, 54; Herne 1991, 35), probably because
the dorsal faces of late prehistoric flakes tend to be too irregular to allow these measurements to be
made. As there is general consensus on this approach (in relation to analyses of late prehistoric
flakes), the author has chosen this approach, to0 6 .
Samples I and 2 have the almost exact same average flaking angle, namely 112.4°-112.5°,
whereas the flaking angle of Sample 3 is 109.5° and thereby slightly less obtuse (Table 8). With
average flaking angles of c. 109°-113 0, the three samples are all characterized by very obtuse flaking angles.
3
Table 8. Average flaking angle.
Fig. 4 illustrates the flaking angles of all flakes from the three samples. Though all Samples are
characterized by minor secondary peaks and plateaux, Samples 1 and 2 display fairly regular,
slightly asymmetrical distributions with primary peaks at 116°-120°, whereas Sample 3 forms a
more irregular curve with a poorly defined primary peak at 106°-110° and a relatively distinct secondary peak at 126°-130°. Sample 3's distribution curve may be an indication that this samplejs an
amalgamation of material from different technological traditions and archaeological periods. The
most likely explanation is that Sample 3 includes a higher proportion of intrusive pieces from the
redeposited Neolithic and Early Bronze Age material in the barrow fill, whereas the curves of Samples 1-2 suggest relative chronological integrity.
Series 1
25
-_._-, Series2
20
-Series3
15
10 1 - - - - - - - - -
o
I'-
<.6
co
o
co
<.6
I'-
o
0)
<.6
co
o
o
.,....
<.6
0)
I.()
o
.,....
.,....I
o
o
N
.,....
<.6
o
I.()
N
.,....
.,....I
N
Fig. 4. Flaking angles of the flakes from Samples 1-3.
14
Lithics 23
Bulb-oJ-percussion
np.ln~r?'p""
Usually, when analysts characterize the bulbar area of flakes, they distinguish
bulbar forms: pronounced bulbs and diffuse bulbs or lips. In the present paper, the two
defined as follows:
The term 'pronounced bulb' is in a sense misleading, as the main element of the
not the size or prominence (,pronounced') of this bulbar form, but its shape. Pronounced
ther are Hertzian cones or approach Hertzian cones in shape, and the best way of dell:efJtIHlm[)Lg
whether a bulb is pronounced or not is to examine the outline of the edge
nant and ventral face. If this edge is interrupted by a marked convexity with
vvvu- ..,v.u.u,-,'u.,
angular, 'attachment points' it is considered pronounced, whatever its size. If the
form remnant and ventral face is uninterrupted (it may be symmetrical or as\l'mrnetnc:l1
ered diffuse, whether it is associated with a well-defined lip or not.
As illustrated by Table 9, most flakes included in Samples 1-3 are characterized
bulbs (72-83%). Only 6-15% of the flakes have diffuse bulbs, and 11-13% of the
terminate bulbs. Pronounced bulbs are usually perceived as indicators of hard
tJ""'·'-'UcJCHVH
fuse bulbs of soft percussion, but in the present case the situation is slightly more
than half (55%) of all diffuse or indeterminate bulbs are associated with cortical
r'n,y""IAV
tJAULi.VJ.U.i
A
and most probably the cortex functioned as a cushion, reducing the effect of the
further 17% of the diffuse or indeterminate bulbs are associated with
",""",,..,,·,n
indicators, such as, circular impact scars on the platform remnant. The evidence
all flakes from Samples 1-3 were detached by the application of hard percussion.
Faceting may influence the prominence of the bulb as well. In cases where
exactly on the ridge separating two facets of a platform remnant, Hertzian
bulbs are likely to be very small. Most probably, the summit between two facets
to
impact in a way comparable to the above-mentioned cortication.
3
79
10
83
72
Diffuse
6
15
Indeterminate
11
11
13
TOTAL
100
100
100
Pronounced
Table 9. Bulb-oJ-percussion
Number of bulbs
The post-barrow assemblages from the Raunds Area Project are all characterized
tion of flakes with multiple bulbs (Table 10). Twin, triple or even quadruple bulbs
tion with 13-16% of the flakes suggesting a poorly controlled reduction method. The many
cessful attempts at flake detachment may be explained by the absence of core
above), and core adjustment, such as decortication, platform isolation and cresting, would
have improved the detachment rate considerably.
15
Lithics 23
3
Single
87
84
86
Twin
11
2
0
100
10
13
Triple
Quadruple
TOTAL
5
1
100
0
100
Table 10. Number of bulbs per flake
Bulbar scars
In the archaeological literature bulbar scars are frequently associated with hard percussion, but this
may not be entirely correct (Ballin forthcoming b; also see Zimmermann 1988). As Table 11 illustrates, the proportion of flakes with flake scars fluctuate considerably from sample to sample (3850%), and the author's examination of soft percussion blades from the Norwegian Mesolithic and
Neolithic period (Ballin 1995, 36) resulted in proportions of 32-45%.
Th~re
is an insignificant ten-
dency for hard percussion assemblages to have more, and slightly larger, bulbar scars than soft percussion assemblages, but the overlap between the two groups is great (32-45% against 38-50%),
and the study of this attribute does not appear very fruitful. For that reason, the author suggests to
exclude this attribute from future technological analyses.
3
Bulbar scar
38
50
44
Table 11. Bulbar scars.
Cone characteristics
Cone attributes characteristic of hard percussion are present in the three samples in proportions of
43-57% (Table 12). Variants of circular impact scars occur on the platform remnants of 43-53% of
the flakes, whereas Samples 2-3 have between 3% and 4% flakes with actual cone detachments.
Detached cones define a violent percussion technique which led to the Hertzian cone being separated from the flakes, thus leaving pronounced bulbar concavities.
3
Circular impact scar
22
20
28
Circ. imp. scar continued in ventral cone
21
27
25
Actual cone detachment
o
3
4
TOTAL
43
50
57
Table 12. Cone characteristics.
Platform remnants
Most of the platform remnants are intact (82-86%), with between 10% and 12% being split (Accident Siret) or damaged (usually broken off corners) (Table 13). Only 1-3% of the flakes are bipolar,
which is consistent with the fact that only one classic bipolar core (Barrow 1, Phase 8.2) was found
16
_I
Lithics 23
amongst the more than 22,000 pieces of worked flint from the Raunds Area Project (Ballin forthcoming c).
Approximately 2-3% of the flakes display platform collapse, which is an attribute
caused by positioning the impact point of a hammerstone to closely to an unprepared (unstrengthened) platform-edge.
3
Intact platform remnant
84
86
82
Split or damaged platf. remn.
11
10
12
Bipolar proximal end (linear, type 1)
3
Platform collapse (linear, type 2)
TOTAL
3
2
3
3
100
100
100
Table 13. Platform remnants
Preparation ofplatform-edge and platform surface
Tables 14 and 15 demonstrate a very minimalistic approach to core preparation. 80-90% of all
flakes from the three post-barrow samples are without dorsal preparation, with only 10-20% having
been trimmed. Due to the violent nature of the percussion technique, positioning the impact point
was poorly controlled, and frequently the post-barrow knappers 'missed' and positioned the impact
point too close to, or on, the platform edge. This resulted in many cores having 'crushed' platform
edges which, in some cases, resemble trimming. In a number of instances it was possible to define
the character of an edge as crushing due to, for example, association with a series of impact scars,
but it is very likely that some of the pieces defined as trimmed pieces are in fact pieces with crushed
platform edges. Or to put it differently: most probably not all the trimmed pieces in Table 14 have
been deliberately trimmed, suggesting that the platform edge preparation of Samples 1-3 was even
plainer than it may appear from this table.
As mentioned above, the infrequent application of trimming may have caused some platforms
to collapse, leaving splintered proximal ends, which may be difficult to distinguish from bipolar
proximal ends.
3
No dorsal preparation
90
80
86
Trimming
10
20
14
TOTAL
100
100
100
Table 14. Platform-edge
Approximately one-third (31-37%) of all platform remnants are corticated, and close to half (4247%) of the platform remnants are plain (Table 15). Approximately one-fifth (20-22%) of the platform remnants are facetted, but only a small number (five) of those are finely facetted. The finely
facetted pieces have had their platforms facetted as part of deliberate core preparation, whereas the
cruder platform faceting observed in these three populations is unrelated to core preparation or core
rejuvenation. In general, the crudely facetted platform remnants represent the unschematic reduc-
17
Lithics 23
tion method characteristic of the Later Bronze Age, with the cores having been repeatedly reorientated: most of the uncorticated platform remnants of Samples 1-3 are probably former core sides,
and the platform facets are the negative scars from previously detached flakes (cf. Heme 1991,35).
3
Corticated
Plain
Faceted
TOTAL
31
47
22
100
37
43
20
100
37
42
21
100
Table 15. Plaiform surface
In the three samples, nine out of 10 facetted platform remnants are associated with impact points on
facet summits, suggesting that this choice of strategy must have had an effect on the outcome of the
reduction process. This, and the trimming of a small number of flakes, are the only examples of
attempts to control the reduction process on Barrows 1 and 3.
Flake termination
Taken as a whole, the three post-barrow assemblages are characterized by equal amounts of feathered and hinged terminations (Table 16). Sample 1 is slightly dominated by hinged terminations
(feathered:hinged terminations 40:52%), Sample 2 is slightly dominated by feathered terminations
(48:39%), whereas in Sample 3 feathered and hinged terminations are present in roughly equal
numbers (43:45%). A well-executed flake detachment will usually produce a feathered termination,
whereas detachment by the application of insufficient force frequently results in a hinged termination. With between 39% and 52% hinged terminations, the reduction method(s) responsible for
Samples 1-3 must be characterized as less than effective.
3
Feathered
Hinged (+stepped)
Plunged
Opposed surface
TOTAL
40
52
4
4
100
48
39
5
8
100
43
45
3
9
100
Table 16. Flake termination
The 3-5% plunged terminations were caused by the application of excessive force, which removed
part of the core apex. This attribute adds to the general impression of a poorly controlled reduction
process. In 4-9% of all cases the flakes detached without terminal feathering, hinging or plunging,
and their distal ends are defined by the opposed part of the parent cores. This distal end may constitute either a core apex or a secondary striking platform.
18
Lithies 23
TECHNOLOGICAL PROFILE
Like all other assemblages recovered in connection with the Raunds Area Project, the Later Bronze
Age scatters from Barrows I and 3 consist mainly of fine-grained flint. They do, however, contain
some coarse-grained flint and, in general, the Later Bronze Age assemblages include more coarsegrained flint than the area's Mesolithic, Neolithic and Early Bronze Age assemblages. On average,
the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age monuments contain c. 6% coarse-grained flint, whereas the
later post-barrow contexts contain on average c. 10%.
The flint from the post-barrow scatters is pebble flint, and this raw material was readily available throughout the Raunds area. It could be collected on the valley floor in connection with stream
beds and banks of the River Nene, and it could be extracted from pits on the gravel terraces at low
elevations or from the Boulder Clay at higher elevations. From a logistical point of view it is most
likely that the fine-grained flint was collected from nearby sources on the valley floor, whereas the
coarse-grained flint most probably derive from sources at higher elevations. A small number of
flakes and cores have old discoloured surfaces cut by new undiscoloured removal scars, suggesting
limited scavenging of flint eroded out of the barrows.
Only two crested pieces were recovered from the three assemblages, one from Barrow 1, Phase
8.1, and one from Barrow 3, Phase 5.3. The crested piece from Barrow 1 is a blade, and as such it is
likely that it is in fact a Mesolithic or Early Neolithic implement which has eroded out of the barrow's fill of soil and redeposited artefacts. The cores and the flakes do not suggest general decortication of nodules before initiation of blank production, with between two-thirds and three-quarters
of all flakes being cortical.
No platform rejuvenation flakes were found in connection with the excavation of the postbarrow contexts, supporting the notion of limited or poor core
mately one-third of all flakes have corticated platform remnants
The fact that approxithat a platform was not
necessarily created before initiation of blank production. Most likely, core rejuvenation was obtained by simply re-orientating the core to use what ever surface and edge-angle made flake detachment possible (cf. Herne 1991, 35). The crude faceting of some platform remnants in all
represent former core sides with adjoining flake scars rather than actual platform preparation.
five flakes from the combined three samples (561 pieces) have finely facetted platform rerrmants
from adjustment of the platform surface.
The many primary and secondary flakes, as well as a large number of flakes with corticated
platform remnants, indicate that in general blank production was initiated on raw nodules without
prior decortication. The presence of Janus flakes is evidence that, on occasion, old thick flakes were
used as cores, which is supported by a small number of cores with ventral faces cut by flake removals.
The cores recovered from the post-barrow contexts are fairly plain, and even though 'singleplatform cores' dominate the core groups of the post-barrow scatters, few of those are singleplatform cores sensu stricto. Most of these cores have no prepared platform, and a more precise
term would be 'uni-directional cores'. The dominance of this core type is mainly a result of nodule
size and flake size, as few flakes could be struck from the relatively small nodules found in the
19
Lithics 23
Raunds area. This meant that a nodule would be exhausted and discarded before it became necessary to re-orientate it. However, combined, cores with more than one platform dominate (unc1assifiable cores are mostly irregular multi-platform cores), demonstrating the simplicity of the operational
schema of Later Bronze Age lithic production.
10-12%
material
Corticated material (prim. + sec.)
62-75%
Tertiary material
25-38%
Average length
19-21 mm
Average width
18-20 mm
6-7 mm
Average thickness
Platform remnant, av. width
11-13 mm
Platform remnant, av. depth
4-5 mm
LW ratio
1.0-1.1
WD ratio
2.7-2.8
Flaking angle
109°-113°
Pronounced bulbs
72-83%
Multiple bulbs
13-16%
Split bulbs (Accident Siret)
Impact scars / cone detachments
5-7%
43-57%
No dorsal preparation
80-90%
Corticated platform
31-37%
terminations
40-48%
Table 17. Technological key figures.
Flakes would be detached by the application of direct hard percussion using a stone, a large flint
nodule or an abandoned core as a hammer. The impact points would be widely spaced leaving large
protruding overhangs on the core-edge. As only 10-20% of the flakes have been trimmed before
detachment, most removals have large proximal overhangs as well. The lack of core-edge preparation, for example absence of platform isolation, resulted in most flakes having large, broad platform
remnants. The lack of preparation of platform, platform-edge and core-side also added an element
of unpredictability to the reduction process, and the small squat flakes have all manner of shapes.
The Later Bronze Age flintknappers found it difficult, or simply did not attempt, to predict the exact
force needed to detach a blank, and frequently too little force was applied. This meant that approximately one-third of all flakes did not acquire their full potential length but detached prematurely, terminating in prominent distal hinges.
One classic bipolar core and a small number of bipolar flakes demonstrate that, on occasion,
hammer-and-anvil technique was applied to totally exhaust nodules. However, this was a rare occurrence, which may be seen as evidence of access to abundant raw material. Usually, a core would
just be discarded when it became to small for further free-hand production.
20
Lithics 23
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
A relatively large number of British Later Bronze Age assemblages are known (eg, Bellamy 1997;
Bradley 1972; Clark 1936; Clark & Fell 1953; Fasham & Ross 1978; Healy 1981; Herne 1991;
Pryor 1980; Saville 1980; 1981; Stone 1936; 1941; Gardiner & Woodward 1985), but only a few of
these have been presented in ways allowing general comparison of the debitage (primarily Herne
1991; Saville 1981). The finds from the Fengate second millenium contexts supports the Later
Bronze Age technological profile presented above, but as the material from the Newark Road subsite is, in general, a biased sample of secondary rubbish (Pryor 1980, 1147 ), it was decided to exclude Fengate from this comparison.
As noted by Herne (1991, 57), '... the collection and treatment of [Later Bronze Age] flint by
excavators was often seen as being very much secondary to other concerns, particularly those of
pottery and the recovery of ground plans, [and] any comparative study of [Later] Bronze Age flintworking should start from a recognition of these problems '.
Raw material sources and scavenging
Compared to assemblages from earlier prehistoric periods, the Later Bronze Age assemblages appear to have been manufactured in more expedient ways, with Later Bronze Age flintknappers being
less exclusive in their selection of raw material. The published assemblages (see references listed
above) suggest that raw material was generally collected from sources in close vicinity to the Later
Bronze Age settlements, and flint was frequently obtained where it was being knapped by scavenging deposits from earlier prehistoric periods.
In the case of Micheldever Wood (Fasham & Ross 1978),33 knapping clusters (10,500 flakes)
surrounded three mounds, an earth mound, a mound of nodular flint, and a mound of earth and flint
nodules; the post-barrow flint industry was mainly based on robbed flint from the latter two mounds.
At the flint mines of Grimes Graves, the Middle Bronze Age knappers did not mine flint themselves
but scavenged the spoil heaps surrounding the Late Neolithic mineshafts (Saville 1981, 2; Herne
1991, 29-32). At Raunds, flint was collected from local pebble flint sources, fine-grained flint
probably from the Nene River valley, and coarse-grained flint from the Boulder Clay deposits at
higher elevations. At Mildenhall, the flint industry was based on surface nodules (Clark 1936,44).
Later Bronze Age scavenging is also documented in the form of re-used pieces, for example,
pieces with cut discolouration, or flakes with removals detached from the ventral faces of large
flakes (Kombewa cores), supported by the complementary Janus flakes. Cut discolouration, as well
as cores and flakes characteristic of the Kombewa technique (Inizan et al. 1992, 57-58), were observed in the Later Bronze Age assemblages from Raunds, and in the Middle Bronze Age material
from Grimes Graves. The illustrations of artefacts from the Grimes Graves excavations of 19711972 include several Kombewa cores, such as F28 and F67 (Saville 1981), and as many as 16-41 %
of the cores from the 1971 Shaft, the 1972 Shaft and Trench 2A are on flakes (ibid. 46-47). From
the 1972 Shaft assemblage approximately one-quarter of a sample of tools display cut discolouration
(Saville 1981, 25). Based on an analysis of Early and Later Bronze Age assemblages from barrows
21
Lithics 23
Saville (1980, 19) suggests that '... afundamental difference in assemblage composition
between sites on the chalk and sites away from the chalk, the causal factor being the nature
raw material exploited, and that this difference may be very localised indeed'.
Cortication
The attributes of the Later Bronze Age flakes vary considerably from assemblage to assemblage.
The
assemblages at Raunds had c.
10-12% primary pieces and c. 25-38% tertiary
whereas the assemblages from Grimes Graves (Herne 1991, 34; Saville 1981, 27-38) have
low
nr·l1iYl<;!1..... 1
pieces (a few percent) and higher ratios of tertiary pieces (c. 50-70%). Those
mainly represent the fact that the industry at Raunds was based on relatively
differences
with the Grimes Graves industries being based on larger nodules of mined flint
small flint
collected from the spoil heaps of the Late Neolithic mines. The determining factor in this case is
nodule size: 1) very small nodules do not allow detailed core preparation, as this would remove too
much of the nodules overall mass, and 2) as discussed in Ballin (forthcoming a), it is a natural law
have more cortex (surface) per volume than larger cores (Table 18).
that
2
4
8
24
96
384
4
16
64
8
64
512
3.0:1
1.5: 1
0.75:1
Table 18: nX(1mlneS of changing Surface: Volume ratios with growing nodule sizes. For simplicity's sake
the nodules of the examples are cubic.
Due to differences in terminology, it is not possible to compare the Raunds and Grimes Graves asto the material from the Later Bronze Age contexts at the enclosure at Middle
Dorchester (Bellamy 1997).
Bronze
finds (Middle Farm
However, within the Dorchester By-pass Project the Later
can be compared with earlier prehistoric assemblages,
with the later material having a much smaller ratio of primary material and a correspondingly larger
ratio of
material. According to the excavators (ibid. 146), this is probably due to the later
material
less primary waste and more use.
Fasham & Ross
Micheldever
constitutes a detailed presentation of worked flint from a barrow site in
Hampshire, but unfortunately the definitions of the debitage categories deviate
from the definitions of the present paper (see above). The main problem is Fasham &
Ross's 'waste' category, which includes '... mainly small, non-bulbar chips, cortical lumps and bro52) and, for example, the almost complete lack of primary pieces at Micheldever
Wood may be due to ', .. wholly corticated pieces of debitage resembl[ing] lumps rather than flakes,
and
have tended to be classified as waste' (ibid. 52).
22
Lithics 23
Dimensions and flake shapes
The general dimensions of flakes vary along the same patterns, with the Raunds pebble flint flakes
being small (average L:B c 20 x 19 mm), whereas the flakes based on larger mined nodules are considerable larger (average L:B c. 39 x 39 mm; Grimes Graves, Herne 1991, 38). As the attribute
analysis of the Raunds material discriminated flakes smaller than 15 mm, the size difference between Raunds flakes and Grimes Graves flakes is actually greater than the above figures indicate.
Flakes from non-mined Later Bronze Age assemblages in southern England (e.g., Fasham & Ross
1978, 52-53; Saville 1980, 11-13) are usually somewhat smaller than the Grimes Graves flakes. In
his analysis of assemblages from Wiltshire barrows, Saville (1980, 19) noted slight differences in
size between flakes from assemblages dominated by chalk flint and flakes from assemblages dominated by flint from clay-with-flints, with the former being a fraction larger. The length:width scattergrams of Later Bronze Age flakes from barrows near Roxton in Bedfordshire (Gardiner &
Woodward 1985, 130-131), indicate flake sizes of approximately 20-30 x 20-30 mm. These flakes
in pebble flint are only minutely larger than the flakes from nearby Raunds but smaller than flakes
made from chalk flint.
The general outline of the flakes is the same in all the known Later Bronze Age assemblages,
namely irregular, and the L:W ratio is c. 1. Fasham & Ross's (1978,52) comparison between secondary flakes from Early and Later Bronze Age levels suggest that Early Bronze Age flakes may be
slightly more elongated than later flakes, with the width of the Early Bronze Age flakes being approximately 20-39 mm and the length approximately 30-49 mm. This impression is supported by
the material from Roxton (Gardiner & Woodward 1985, 132), where 13.7% of the flakes from the
primary silts (c. 1800 bc) have W:L ratios of2:5 or less ('blades'), whilst only 2.8% of flakes from
the turf line (c. 1200 bc) can be classed as 'blades's.
Proximal and distal attributes
With few exceptions, the remaining attributes have only been quantified by Herne (1991) and, to
some degree, Saville (1981). At Grimes Graves, Herne (1991, 43) measured the depth of platform
remnants, the average of which is 7.5 mm (Raunds: 4-5 mm). He did not measure the width of the
Grimes Graves platform remnants, as his purpose was to examine the relationship between depth of
platform remnant and flake size. Herne perceives the depth of the platform remnant (the distance
between point-of-impact and dorsal platform-edge) as being a significant factor in determining flake
sIze.
The flaking angles of the Later Bronze Age assemblages are all very obtuse. The flaking angles of Samples 1-3 vary between 109° and 113 0, whereas the flaking angles of flakes from
Micheldever Wood (Fasham & Ross 1978, 54) vary between 115° and 120°; the flakes from Grimes
Graves have flaking angles of approximately 115° (Herne 1991,35).
Bulb types and numbers are not described in any detail, but it is generally accepted that later
prehistoric assemblages are dominated by prominent bulbs, and that incipient cones and multiple
bulbs are common (e.g., Young and Humphrey 1999,233, and case studies). According to Herne
(1991,43), 29% of all flakes from Grimes Graves Shaft X have circular impact scars compared to
23
Lithics 23
43-57% of the flakes at Raunds. This difference may, to a large extent, be due to the fact that all
Raunds platform remnants were carefully examined by the use of a magnifying glass.
The preparation of platform-edges are not dealt with by any of the above authors, but the
preparation of platform surfaces was examined and tabulated by Herne (1991) and Saville (1981).
According to Herne (ibid. 35), 5% of the flakes from Shaft X have cortical platform remnants, 5%
are linear (platform collapse or bipolar), 86% are plain, and only 4% are facetted. According to Saville (ibid. 34-36), there are no corticated platform remnants in the various sub-assemblages from the
1971-1972 excavations, whereas c. 82-86% are plain and 14-18% facetted. In comparison, c. 3137% of the post-barrow flakes from the Raunds barrows have corticated platform remnants, 42-47%
of the platform remnants are plain, and 20-22% are facetted. Both Grimes Graves assemblages are
characterized by a dominance of plain platform remnants and either very few or absence of corticated platform remnants, but the assemblage from Shaft X has almost no facetted platform remnants,
with the assemblage from the 1971-1972 excavations having a fair number. The material from
Raunds, on the other hands, has a large proportion of cortical platform remnants and, like the assemblage from Grimes Graves 1971-1972, it has a relatively large proportion of facetted pieces.
At present, the author can offer no explanation to the difference in the proportions of facetted
pieces (chronology, idiosyncrasies???), but the difference in the proportions of corticated platform
remnants may be a result of the difference in available raw material. In the Raunds area small flint
pebbles were used, and the size of the pebbles, combined with a crude reduction method, did not
allow core preparation. For this reason, flake production was initiated without prior decortication or
platform preparation. The Later Bronze Age settlers at Grimes Graves had access to vast amounts
of flint in large nodules, allowing more careful core preparation. This explains not only the few, or
absent, corticated platform remnants at Grimes Graves, but also the low proportion of primary
pieces (the relation between nodule size and proportion of primary pieces is discussed above).
A tendency for Later Bronze Age flake terminations to be hinged has been observed by several
analysts (e.g., Fasham & Ross 1978, 54), but rarely quantified.
On the basis of flakes from
Micheldever Wood, Fasham & Ross (1978, 54) calculated a proportion of 10.4% flakes with hinge
fractures in their Phase 4 (Termini post and ante quem of 1420±90 bc [HAR-I044] and 1050±90 bc
[HAR-I041]), whereas the post-barrow assemblages from Raunds have proportions of 40-48%. The
difference between the proportion observed at Micheldever Wood and the proportions observed in
the Raunds assemblages may, to some degree, be explained in the same way as the varying proportions of flakes with impact scars (see above), that is, the consistent use of a magnifying glass during
the examination of the Raunds material: some hinge factures may be difficult to identify on thin
flakes without the help of magnification.
The operational schema of the Later Bronze Age
The technology, or operational schema, responsible for the post-barrow assemblages from Raunds,
as well as the contemporary assemblages referred to above, is aptly described by Heme (1991, 47):
There were no stages of reduction to follow, nor were there any standardised products to create.
The commonly held view offlintworking as a learned tradition, often implicitly assumed in British
studies, would seem to be inappropriate in this context. Equally hard to apply would be a cognitive,
24
Lithics 23
or 'mental template', model offlintknapping, as for instance that proposed by Bonnichsen (1977).
If
any model is a useful one in this instance it might simply be that which is given by the notion of following a rule', the rule perhaps being: 'rotate the core to find a flat platform above a ridged face
and hit it'.
CONCLUSION
Lithic technology in Britain after the Early Bronze Age has been discussed in detail by a number of
analysts (Ford et al. 1984; Heme 1991; Young & Humphrey 1999; inter alia) who, in unison, explain the late prehistoric decline in knapping skills as the consequence of the development of metallurgy. This process may be summed up in the following way:
l.
Tool production is totally dominated by lithic raw materials ( - Late Neolithic).
2.
Introduction and increasing use of metals - competition between lithic and metal production
leads flintknappers to replicate metal products, and within the sphere of prestige objects a remarkable increase in knapping skills is observed (Early Bronze Age).
3.
Metal production reaches an output level, and degree of organisation, which makes it possible
to substitute lithic raw materials in the production of prestige objects - plain utilitarian tool
types are still manufactured in lithic materials (Later Bronze Age and ?Early Iron Age).
4.
Lithic raw materials are phased out completely (?mid Early Iron Age).
There seems to be general consensus on this 4-point model (not necessarily on the chronology of
Step 4), although the 'Swan Song' of lithic technology (Step 2) is usually shown little attention in
British lithic research. Though touched upon by Herne (1991, 72), most analysts discussing the final
stages of British lithic technology focus on Steps 3-4.
This may be due to the fact that Step 2 is less visible in British collections than it is in the national collections of most other North-West European countries. Finds from the Danish Late Neolithic (corresponding to the beginning of the British Early Bronze Age) and Early Bronze Age include several exact copies of recovered bronze items. These replicas include (Lomborg 1959; Vang
Petersen 1993, 134-5): flint replica of an Aunjetitz bronze dagger (Serup, Funen); flint replica of a
bronze scimitar (Favrskov, Funen); flint replica of a Karpathian bronze sword of type Hajdu-Samson
(Atte near Ribe, Jutland); and flint replicas of flat broad-edged bronze axes and asymmetrical bronze
sickle blades.
In addition, the knapping seams on the handle of the Type IV 'fishtail daggers'
clearly imitates the burrs left by the bronze moulds (cf. Vang Petersen 1993, Fig. 225).
However, the decline in knapping skills in the Later Bronze Age is also generally perceived as
the final stage of a process initiated at the transition between the Early and Late Neolithic periods
(e.g., Saville 1981, 42-44). At this point of time, production of blades was terminated, and in the
following period only flake blanks were produced. Over time, these flakes grew gradually shorter
and broader, with the flakes of the Later Bronze Age typically having average LW ratios of approximately 1. This process started long before metal production became a contributing factor, and
25
Lithics 23
the gradual decline, and finally termination, of lithic technology may need more scrutinizing before
a full understanding of the phenomenon can be reached.
This, however, requires further research and is beyond the scope of the present paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to Alan Saville, the National Museums of Scotland, and Frances Healy, the
University of Newcastle, for their comments on the paper. I would very much like to thank Jan
Harding and Frances Healy from the Raunds Area Project, University of Newcastle, for permission
to use Fig. 1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen, S.H.
1978. Flade, skcelhuggede skiver af Brovst-type (,The scale-worked flakes, a
newly-discovered artifact type from the early Erteb011e Culture of western Denmark'). Kuml
1978: 77-98.
Ballin, T.B.
1995. Teknologiske Pro filer.
Datering af Stenalderbopladser ved Attributanalyse.
Universitetets Oldsaksamling. Arbok 1993/1994: 25-46.
Ballin, T.B. forthcoming a. The Lithic Assemblage. In P. Ashmore, Callanais, Lewis, Western
Isles. Proceedings of the Society of the Antiquaries of Scotland.
Ballin, T.B. forthcoming b. The Mesolithic Period in Southern Norway. In A. Saville (ed.), Meso-
lithic Scotland: The Early Holocene Prehistory of Scotland and its European Context. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.
Ballin, T.B. forthcoming c. Struck flint from West Cotton, Irthlingborough and Stanwick / Overview of the lithic evidence. In J. Harding and F. Healy (eds.), Raunds Area Project. The
Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscapes of West Cotton, Stanwick and Irthlingborough,
Northamptonshire.
Bellamy, P. 1997. Flaked stone assemblages. In R.J.C. Smith, F. Healy, M.J. AlIen, E.L. Morris,
1. Barnes and P .J. Woodward, Excavations along the Route of the Dorchester By-pass, Dor-
set, 1986-8. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology Report 11. pp136-154
Bonnichsen, R. 1977. Models for Deriving Cultural Information from Stone Tools. Ottowa: National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series Paper 60
Bordes, F. 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique ancien etmoyen. Bordeaux: Delmas.
Bradley, R. 1970. The Excavation of a Beaker Settlement at Belle Tout, East Sussex, England. Pro-
ceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36: 312-379.
Bradley, R. 1972. The Flint Industry. In E.W. Holden, A Bronze Age Cemetery-Barrow on Itford
Hill, Beddingham, Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 110: 93-102.
Clark, J.O.D. 1936. Report on a Late Bronze Age Site in Mildenhall Fen, West Suffolk. The Anti-
quaries Journal XVI: 29-50.
Clark, J.O.D., and Fell, C. 1953. The Early Iron Age Site at Micklemoor Hill, West Harling, Norfolk and its Pottery. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 19: 1-40.
26
Lithics 23
Clark, J.G.D., Higgs, E.S., and Longworth, 1.H. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic Site at Burst
Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society XXVI: 202-245.
Fasham, PJ., and Ross, J.M. 1978. A Bronze Age Flint Industry from a Barrow Site in Micheldever
Wood, Hampshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44: 47-67.
Ford, H.S., Bradley, R., Hawkes, J., and Fisher, P. 1984. Flint-Working in the Metal Age. Oxford
Journal ofArchaeology 3: 157-173.
Gardiner and Woodward. 1985. The Flint. In A.F. Taylor and P.J. Woodward, A Bronze Age barrow cemetery, and associated settlement at Roxton, Bedfordshire. The Archaeological Journal
142: 73-149.
Green H.S. 1980. The Flint Arrowheads of the British Isles. A detailed study of material from England and Wales with comparandafrom Scotland and Ireland. Part i-ii. BAR British Series 75.
Oxford.
Harding, J., and Healy, F. forthcoming. Raunds Area Project. The Neolithic and Bronze Age Landscapes of West Cotton, Stanwick and Irthlingborough, Northamptonshire.
Healy, F. 1981. Description and Analysis (of the Flint Industry). In F.F. Petersen (ed.), The Excavation of a Bronze Age Cemetery on Knighton Heath, Dorset. B.A.R. British Series 98, 157166. Oxford.
Herne, A. 1991: The Flint Assemblage. In 1. Longworth, A. Heme, G. Vamdell and S. Needham
(eds), Excavations at Grimes Graves, Norfolk 1972-1976. Fascicule 3, Shaft X' Bronze Age
Flint, Chalk and Metal Working, 21-93. London: British Museum Press.
Humble, J. forthcoming: Flint and stone artefacts. In S.J. Parry (ed.), Raunds Area Survey. An archaeological study of the landscape ofRaunds, Northamptonshire 1985-92.
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H., and Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of Knapped Stone. Prehistoire de la Pierre
Taillee,3. Meudon: CREP
Kent, P., and Holmes, M. forthcoming. Natural flint survey. In S.J. Parry (ed.), Raunds Area Survey. An archaeological study of the landscape ofRaunds, Northamptonshire 1985-92.
Lomborg, E. 1959. Fladehuggede Flintredskaber i Gravfund fra JEldre Bronzealder. Aarb@ger for
Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1959. 146-183.
Pryor, F. 1980. Excavations at Fengate, Peterborough, England: The Third Report. Northamptonshire Archaeological Society Monograph 1 / Royal Ontario Museum Archaeological Monograph 6.
Saville, A. 1980. Five Flint Assemblages from Excavated Sites in Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 72/73: 1-27.
Saville, A. 1981. Grimes Graves, Norfolk. Excavations 1971-72, Volume 11: The Flint Assemblage. London: Department of Environment Archaeological Reports 11.
Schiffer, M. 1976. Behavioural Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
Shepherd, W. 1972:. Flint: its origin, properties and uses. London: Faber & Faber.
Sollberger, lB., and L.W. Patterson. 1976. Prismatic Blade Replication. American Antiquity 41: 517531.
Stone, IF.S. 1936. An Enclosure on Boscombe Down East. Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine
47: 466-489.
27
Lithics 23
Stone, J.F.S. 1941. The Deverel-Rimbury Settlement on Thorny Down, Winterboume Gunner, S.
Wilts. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society VII: 114-133.
Vang Petersen, P. 1993. Flintfra Danmarks Oldtid. K0benhavn: H0st & S0n.
Young, R., and Humphrey, J.
1999. Flint Use in England after the Bronze Age: Time for a Re-
evaluation? Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65: 231-242.
Zimmermann, A. 1988. Some Aspects of the Formation of Flint Assemblages. Archaeologia Interregionalis 1987: 187-201.
NOTES
1 In the present paper the term 'Later Bronze Age' is used to describe the period following the 'Early
Bronze Age'. The Early Bronze Age is defined as the period encompassing the pottery styles Beakers,
Food Vessels and Urns, and their accompanying, more or less diagnostic, barbed-and-tanged arrowhead
types (Sutton/B allyclare, Conygar, Green Low and Kilmarnock) (Green 1980, 121-23). The Later
and
Bronze Age is defined as the remaining part of the Bronze Age with its subsequent pottery
lacking artefacts manufactured by the application of invasive retouch (Clark 1936, 47). A
of the
assemblages dealt with in this paper have been radiocarbon dated, or dated
association with pottery
the post-barrow assemblages from
styles, to the Middle Bronze Age, but as some of the assemblages
Raunds) have only been dated to the post Early Bronze
period sensu largo, it was chosen generally
to refer to this period as the Later Bronze Age.
2 Barrow 1: 2200-1920 cal BC (UB-3148); Barrow 3: 2180-1930 cal BC (OxA-305l, OxA-7903, OxA7949).
3 The cores from the Raunds Area Project were classified and characterized during the 1990s with reference to Clark et al. 's core typology (1960, 216). This typology is, to some degree, outdated, and it ought
to be adjusted. Particularly the type 'keeled cores' is unhelpful, as this term covers a multitude of subtypes, such as, discoidal cores, bipolar cores, and probably - core rough-outs with prepared crests.
4 In the present paper the term 'coarse-grained flint' refers to the flint types labelled 'medium-grained
flint' and 'coarse-grained flint' in Ballin (forthcoming c).
5 In specialist papers and reports discussing lithic assemblages 'cortication' may refer to two different
(though related) phenomena, namely 1) cortex proper (smooth, rough, or powdery), or 2) surface discolouration, which may in time develop into cortex proper (Shepherd 1972). To provide a text free of terminological overlap, the author has decided to use the term 'cortication' as synonymous with 'cortexcover', and 'corticated' or 'cortical' as synonymous with 'cortex-covered'. 'Cortication' sensu Shepherd
(1972) has been replaced with the term 'surface discolouration'.
6 In Ballin (forthcoming b) the author discusses attribute analysis of blade assemblages, and he proposes
to follow Sollberger and Patterson (1976, 518) and measure the angle between platform remnant and dorsal side: 'For these measurements, approximately 20-25% of the dorsal surface, proximal end of the
blade is used, and any bevel at the striking platform is ignored'. By measuring the ventral angle a measure is achieved of the actual result of the applied technology (which, to some extent, is due to chance flaws in the raw-material, technological idiosyncrasies, etc.), whereas measuring the angle with the prepared dorsal side will provide a measure of the intentions or mental template of the jlintknapper.
7 'Flintwork found in the fillings of the second millennium BC ditches is not primary rubbish (i.e. that
deposited during jlint-knapping) nor is it redeposited, secondary, rubbish, as defined by Schiffer (J 976).
It is instead a redeposited, biased, haphazard sample of such rubbish and is consequently prone to distortion. Detailed metrical comparisons within and outside Fengate cannot therefore be attempted' (Pryor
1980, 114).
8 In, for example, Gardiner & Woodward (1985) blades are defined as removals with W:L ratios of2:5 or
less, whereas the present author defines blades as removals with W:L ratios of 1:2 or less (see above).
28