Could this be a prehistoric hearth stone?

KnapperHandy

The images attached below show a rather large and curiously shaped stone,which appears to have been heat-reddened.This stone was recently removed from the plough soil of a field where I have found significant numbers of flint and chert lithics;it now lies close to a field boundary hedgerow.

It would appear to be a sedimentary rock bearing small white fossilised inclusions.The reddened area on the lower part of the stone has somewhat of a crumbly texture.This wedge-shaped stone measures approximately 59cms. x 57cms. and is approximately 29cms. thick.The longest edge is rounded and quite smooth(some parts of the edge have broken away).

Is it possible that this once may have surrounded a prehistoric hearth along with other kerbstones,to help contain a fire.The narrow tapered part of the stone could very well have been buried in the ground.The link to a youtube clip below shows an example of a neolithic hearth,in which it illustrates clearly how this stone may have been used:

http://youtu.be/5RvLELTiU9U

To assume that this is definitely a prehistoric hearth stone would be quite churlish indeed without perhaps further evidence,but I have also found several pieces of burnt flint flakes and some smaller stones which also appear to have been heat-reddened and cracked(I've attached images of these in the post immediately below this one).However,I'm not ruling out the possibility that these lithics had been heat damaged through stubble burning either;I've found significant amounts of medieval pottery and post- medieval materials,including early clay pipe bowls and stems,which would suggest that the site itself has seen significant agricultural activity and cultivation over many centuries(possibly even millennia).

There is also the argument that these lithics have not been found within a sealed archaeological context,and know that this can undermine my hypothesis greatly,but what do you guys think?

KnapperHandy

More images relating to the above thread.

slowburner

It's a difficult one without any real context and the morphology of the stone doesn't really add any information, one way or the other.
There is no doubt that the stones were in a sustained fire but it could have been burning at any time.
Is there any chance that you could find the original site of the stones?
I suspect that this might be the only option available at this stage.

KnapperHandy

Hi slowburner,

To be fair,this is an awkward one I know!The large 'hearth stone' had been sitting on an unploughed slope of the field;it had obviously been removed from the plough soil further up the slope in an area very close to where the burnt flint flake was found.The other heat-reddened stones were found in a different area of the field.

I did record where I found the burnt flint flake on field plans which I submitted to the NMI.The two heat-reddened stones were found in a patch of ground, where rather curiously,the wheat crop is not growing at all(I've attached a pic below).

I know it's a long shot,but just thought I'd throw it out there for debate.

Thanks again slowburner.

Jogathon

I'd say yes! But obviously with no context or certainty then we don't know when the stone was used. Nice flake find too. I like the look of the bare patch in the field too. I would agree with you on instinct but but with no proof?... Back to the age old question of is archaeology an art or a science?

KnapperHandy

Thanks Jogathon

I think it's okay to think outside the box once in a while!

slowburner

Art asks the questions, science provides the answers.
©slowburner 2013

We have burnt flakes from within the crop mark and a reasonable probality of the larger stone coming from the same area.
Subject to the discovery of further surface evidence we have at the very least, a burnt spread.
We can't rule in or rule out a fulacht fiadh at this stage (ploughed out most likely).
Perhaps the ploughing season will allow a closer look at this spot.

Intriguing stuff Knapperhandy and an absolute treat to view.

KnapperHandy

Sorry slowburner,just to clarify - the burnt flake and the large 'hearth stone' were found close together,however,the two heat-reddened stones were found in this bare patch within the crop,but at a significant distance away from the others.

I must admit I did start to wonder if we had a fulacht fiadh on this patchy area too,but with just two heat damaged stones,it's hardly definitive evidence!

JAMES NASH

I have a near identical stone, found this year next to our house. Flint fields covered in worked axes etc, a roman villa and 3 bronze or iron age round houses. In addition there are so called chalk pits which I suspect were mines for extracting the black flint. The hearthstone was hit by a plough and came from one of two circles of heavily charred earth. The stone is not naturally occurring here, flint would not have been used as it shatters when subjected to heat. Our stone is also burned red on one side.

On the other hand your stone is concave, looks like it had been used for grinding corn at some point? Subsequently used as a hearth stone?

cfuserkildare

Hi Knapperhandy,

Looking at the stone I am thinking that surely a more suitable stone would have been selected for a hearth-stone, not 1 with such obvious fracture lines as these as it would split even worse once exposed to sustained heat.

JAMES NASH

In the perfect world I would agree that a flawless stone should be used BUT, how close is the nearest source for a suitable type of stone? if it there isn't a particularly local source would they not have made a hearth from whatever was available, even if that was a broken quernstone?