Flint Scraper?

pete2009

Hi folks:

Can you have a look at this to see in your opinion, if it has been worked, or just a plain old naturally occuring bit of flint. Also colour strange?

Thanks

pete2009

More photos: Thanks

jimmyarch

Hi,

It's a cultural piece, not natural, that shows clear invasive, bifacial retouch with some steep retouching along at least one edge giving it a scraper-edge type appearance. Don't think it's a scraper though, or at least not a 'classic' scraper.

These things turn up in Neolithic and later assemblages but don't really figure in Irish lithic typologies but I have seen them in assemblages from around the country a few times and they are always a slight bafflement as we have no idea of their function.

slowburner

Is it flint?

pete2009

Thanks Jimmy for your very interesting and helpful reply.

I found it when digging in the garden about 3 miles away from the Carrowmore Megalithic centre in Sligo.

I'll drop them an email to see if they would like it for display.

Many thanks

Pete

jimmyarch wrote: »

Hi,

It's a cultural piece, not natural, that shows clear invasive, bifacial retouch with some steep retouching along at least one edge giving it a scraper-edge type appearance. Don't think it's a scraper though, or at least not a 'classic' scraper.

These things turn up in Neolithic and later assemblages but don't really figure in Irish lithic typologies but I have seen them in assemblages from around the country a few times and they are always a slight bafflement as we have no idea of their function.

Wibbs

slowburner wrote: »

Is it flint?

Doesn't look like it to me. Like pete2009 said the red colour could be throwing us. Then again the soil they're buried in can create all sorts of colour changes over time.

Very small too? Well unless that's one big AA battery Looks more like the broken off tip of something larger to me? I'm saying that from a practical point of view, as how else would the maker be able to shape something at that scale? Unifacially* yea then strike it off the main body of flint, but bifacially? Use wise if it was made at that size who knows? Bit too bulky for a microblade I would have thought even if added with others in a wooden mount. Though to be fair what I know of meso and neolithic stuff could be written in large letters on a pretty small stamp.

Nice find and fair play for spotting it as something our of the ordinary especially given it's size. Even more fair play for reporting it.









*I've a very nice in the miniature Italian(Neandertal) levallois point in my collection that's under 2 cm so it can be done.

pete2009

Hi Wibbs,

I think you are spot on with the likelyhood that it may be the broken off tip of something larger. The bottom end of it would suggest that too. I'll post up photo shortly.

Its certainly one of the hardest materials I've ever come across, but Im no geologist either.

I didnt want to leave it lying around to end up back in the garden again.

many thanks for your reply...cheers

pete

Wibbs wrote: »

Doesn't look like it to me. Like pete2009 said the red colour could be throwing us. Then again the soil they're buried in can create all sorts of colour changes over time.

Very small too? Well unless that's one big AA battery Looks more like the broken off tip of something larger to me? I'm saying that from a practical point of view, as how else would the maker be able to shape something at that scale? Unifacially* yea then strike it off the main body of flint, but bifacially? Use wise if it was made at that size who knows? Bit too bulky for a microblade I would have thought even if added with others in a wooden mount. Though to be fair what I know of meso and neolithic stuff could be written in large letters on a pretty small stamp.

Nice find and fair play for spotting it as something our of the ordinary especially given it's size. Even more fair play for reporting it.









*I've a very nice in the miniature Italian(Neandertal) levallois point in my collection that's under 2 cm so it can be done.

pete2009

2 more photos

slowburner

I wonder if you posted a few pics in the Geography forum would anyone identify the rock type. There are geologists lurking there from time to time but they can be slow to respond.
Jpg 15 makes me think that it looks a bit more like a quartz than flint but that colour is odd if it is either - could it have been in contact with something ferrous over the years?

Wibbs

Just my take mind Pete, but like you to me it looks like the tip/part of something larger. IMHO it's not flint, or flint of any quality anyway. You'd see more of the signs usual in flint. Things like bulb scars and striking platforms conchoidal fractures and the like. With the high quality stuff you can damn near see where the guy was hitting and in what sequence. I'm not seeing that here. Maybe it was water rolled? That might take the edge off a lot of those signs. Damn funky find though

pete2009

slowburner wrote: »

I wonder if you posted a few pics in the Geography forum would anyone identify the rock type. There are geologists lurking there from time to time but they can be slow to respond.
Jpg 15 makes me think that it looks a bit more like a quartz than flint but that colour is odd if it is either - could it have been in contact with something ferrous over the years?

Blimey you folks are good ! Yeah I've kept it in a metal biscuit box with nails, screws, keys, any manner of metal things . It probably is quartz sb. I will post in geography too. Thanks

jimmyarch

Hi Folks

It's flint without a shadow of a doubt. You get flint that is that colour but it is less frequent that the light/dark gray coloured flint we most frequently find. The texture looks odd for two reasons: first it has undergone a process called patination while in the ground (essentially it's surface has become coated) and secondly it is quite abraded or rolled (in other words its surface has also been weathered). This is quite normal!

Having had a second look (many thanks for the new pictures!) I would suggest that it is broken off a bigger piece but that the break has had slight retouch. In other words it has broken off, then the break has been slightly trimmed and it has been further used.

It is clearly worked on both faces (there are flake and bulbar scars present) and it's size does not mean that it is not worked bifacially, after all we get early Mesolithic microliths which are half a centimetre in width that are extensively worked!

Wibbs

I still say it's not flint. Chert, yes, but not "proper" flint from chalk and the like. There is a distinction. Like you say colour wise patination in chert or flint tends to cause two changes; going towards white or red depending on soil chemistry and permeability of the material(it looks quite course a material in the pics). I dunno about any Irish raw flint that's a reddish colour like French Grand Pressigny flint though? In a couple of the pics you can make out the original colour which looks like a dark grey.

On the bifacial working part, as I understand it microliths are fashioned from larger pieces, mostly blades which are unifacial in character? Retouching on that scale fine, but not shaping up of both faces at that scale by hard percussion. So whatever it is it started off as a larger piece IMH.

pete2009

Thanks Jimmy

Thats all making sense, the patination is spot on. It has a hard smooth leather/enamel type feel to touch.

Thanks everyone for helping out with ideas and opinions.

I shall give the Duty Archaeologist at the National Museum a call to let them know.

Thanks all

jimmyarch wrote: »

Hi Folks

It's flint without a shadow of a doubt. You get flint that is that colour but it is less frequent that the light/dark gray coloured flint we most frequently find. The texture looks odd for two reasons: first it has undergone a process called patination while in the ground (essentially it's surface has become coated) and secondly it is quite abraded or rolled (in other words its surface has also been weathered). This is quite normal!

Having had a second look (many thanks for the new pictures!) I would suggest that it is broken off a bigger piece but that the break has had slight retouch. In other words it has broken off, then the break has been slightly trimmed and it has been further used.

It is clearly worked on both faces (there are flake and bulbar scars present) and it's size does not mean that it is not worked bifacially, after all we get early Mesolithic microliths which are half a centimetre in width that are extensively worked!

slowburner

I came across this sample of chert (online sadly). Just thought it looked like a fairly similar rock type to the OP's find.

pete2009

Very interesting Slowb.

I can now understand better the limitations you guys have in evaluating the original object when you only have photo to go by.

If i had to make a call on this Id say, "very similar, but not the same". ie: its not chert.

However the object is now with the Archaeology dept National Museum. Their initial evaluation of the object (by photo) was the same as JimmyArchs', but they will provide further comment now that they have the object.

I shall keep you posted.

Thanks for that too

slowburner wrote: »

I came across this sample of chert (online sadly). Just thought it looked like a fairly similar rock type to the OP's find.

slowburner

For goodness sake, don't get the impression that I am one of the guys
I'm only a (very) interested bystander with no expertise whatsoever.
Seeing a find like this, together with the posts of those with experience, is part of my informal education here.
It's a wonderful find, and kind of you to share it.
Looking forward to the update.

pete2009

Slowburner, credit where credit is due. You should award yourself a few more stars for valued comment and participation. Good on ya, no need to be bashful as far as i can see. Cheers. Pete





Quote=slowburner;75670379]For goodness sake, don't get the impression that I am one of the guys
I'm only a (very) interested bystander with no expertise whatsoever.
Seeing a find like this, together with the posts of those with experience, is part of my informal education here.
It's a wonderful find, and kind of you to share it.
Looking forward to the update.[/Quote]

OhYesItIs

Hi all:

The find has now been confirmed by the National Museum as a ‘retouched flint flake’.

Heres part of their reply:

"What this means is that it is a deliberately worked piece and the sloping sides have worked edges that would have been used for cutting.

It is not possible to say what date it is exactly but it is most likely Neolithic or early Bronze Age.

That would be in keeping with the landscape in this part of Sligo where there are of course many monuments of the prehistoric period including Carrowmore, Knocknarea etc."

Thanks for all your comments