Is this Worked Flint?

Step23

Hi all,

Hopefully someone can help with this! Anyway I was out over the weekend and came across a piece of flint in a field close to the Hill of Ward, the flint looks like it might have been worked etc I can't tell, my background is geology so all flint looks the same to me :P however my GF who has an archaeology background thinks it has been worked.

What do people think? Sorry about the pictures, taken on my phone! The piece of flint is 37mm long and 27mm wide. Only one side shows "edges", the back is flat.

Thanks

Stephen

Wibbs

It looks like it is IMvHO. I can see what looks like a percussion bulb on the back side. Better counsel on the matter will likely arrive soon mind you.

Cailleachdubh

I see what you mean about the percussion bulb Wibbs...

Hmm. Hard to see any definite worked edges from the photos, but maybe the images are too blurry. Also the flint looks like pretty rubbish quality, so doesn't have the lovely shine and shadows of good quality worked flint, where it is easier to see retouching. If this came from an area of abundant flint I'd say nah, probably not, but given that it was found in an archaeology-rich area, then possibly.

Again, this is a humble opinion so don't take my word for it. Any chance of any sharper close-ups (no pun intended)?

Wibbs

Good points CD. On the other hand if it was bigger, more patinated, the bulb was more central and had no retouching to the edge, I'd be surmising/hoping/praying pseudo-levallois point/flake. At which point all bladder control would be gone and a likely heart event would kick off*.








*TBH the only lithics I'd have any vague hope in spotting would be from our heavy browed sadly gone cousins. Sadly lacking here.

jimmyarch

Hi,

Yes this is indeed a worked piece of flint, no doubt about it!

The bulb of percussion on the ventral surface (second image) shows distinct rippling and an 'eraillure scar'. The eraillure scar is unlikely to form on a piece not worked by hand although their exact formation reasons are unknown.

The first image shows two erris lines on the dorsal surface of the flake and these are paralell to the long axis of the artefact and indeed to one another. This means that there were other flakes removed from the core before this one. There is one clear, large previous flake scar in the centre of the dorsal surface and this flake was removed from the opposing end to the flake you have a picture of. This means this flake was produced from a 'dual-platform (opposed) core', i.e. a core with two platforms from which removals were made and these platforms are at opposite ends of the core.

I think there is some evidence of light retouch along the left side of the piece (on the left side in the second image). The piece has weathered to a point that we might suggest it is abraded-rolled in condition and it may have spent some time in water-logged conditions. Unfortunately it is not a typologically diagnostic piece. Dual patform cores can really be seen throughout Irish prehistory as well so the technology does not help to date it. I would however bet a steak dinner that it is not Palaeolithic!!! Sorry to disappoint!

The material looks a bit rubbish but that is only because it is so heavily weathered, the ventral surface rippling shows that this stone is actually quite fine-grained. It's a nice find, well done and let us know of any more than come along!

Cailleachdubh

Jimmyarch = a rock of sense in a flakey world.

Step23

Thanks very much for all the replies!! I've learned quite a bit from the replies, as I know nothing about flint in an archaeological content! I'm quite happy with the piece of flint and will definitely take another look in the field I found it in it!

I've added some much better pictures taken with my DSLR, hopefully some of the features are clearer!

Thanks!!!

Stephen

Wibbs

jimmyarch wrote: »

The bulb of percussion on the ventral surface (second image) shows distinct rippling and an 'eraillure scar'. The eraillure scar is unlikely to form on a piece not worked by hand although their exact formation reasons are unknown.

No doubt this has been suggested all over the place, but casting my mind waaaaay back when I was having a go at knapping, you'd not get a bulb scar like that if you just haphazardly bashed the hammerstone on the flint(say when you were in the initial stages of reduction, though you would get rippling), like what might happen if two rocks bashed together naturally. They'd only form when you had a prepared striking platform and ground the striking edge. For that to happen naturally you'd need a freshly split chert, then another rock would have to abrade it and then yet another rock would have to hit it pretty precisely, hence as you say it's almost a given that it's manmade.

The first image shows two erris lines on the dorsal surface of the flake and these are paralell to the long axis of the artefact and indeed to one another. This means that there were other flakes removed from the core before this one. There is one clear, large previous flake scar in the centre of the dorsal surface and this flake was removed from the opposing end to the flake you have a picture of. This means this flake was produced from a 'dual-platform (opposed) core', i.e. a core with two platforms from which removals were made and these platforms are at opposite ends of the core.

This is the bit that's confusing me a little JA. The "finished" flake is shaped like \/, the strike being at the open end of the V. Now the previous flake is also \/ shaped, which would also suggest the strike being at the open end of the V. If it was dual platform core surely they would be shaped more along the lines of \/ /\? To be fair I'm just going on the Mousterian stuff, where if you saw such a flake you'd say the previous was struck from the same end of the core.

I would however bet a steak dinner that it is not Palaeolithic!!! Sorry to disappoint!

I live in hope

The material looks a bit rubbish but that is only because it is so heavily weathered, the ventral surface rippling shows that this stone is actually quite fine-grained. It's a nice find, well done and let us know of any more than come along!

+1

Cailleachdubh

Thanks for the new photos - worlds apart and the features are much clearer.

dublinviking

i spoke to some guys working on stone wall in my street. Asked them if they have seen any flint while working in ireland. They said in Mayo they had sparks flying all over the place when they worked the stones there.

This document gives map of flint rocks in Ireland.

http://www.lithicsireland.ie/Driscoll_K_2009_they_wrought_almost_any_material_that_came_their_way_mesolithic_flint_alternatives_in_the_west_of_ireland_internet_archaeology_26.pdf

Do you know of any identified flint deposits in Mayo?

Wibbs

Well "flint" is a type of chert. Chert is found all over the place in Ireland. Particularly in Lower Carboniferous limestone outcrops and Mayo is chock full of that stone.

Flint is usually a name reserved for the higher density/quality chert nodules that you'd find in say the Cretaceous chalk deposits of Southern England. It's more "glassy" in consistency, with fewer inclusions/faults than our own stuff(in general) so easier to work by comparison and get consistent results and sharper edges. The stuff you see in some parts of France is even better on this score. The only land based outcrop of Cretaceous rocks in Ireland that would contain some flint would be around Lough Neagh in Ulster.

A further technology could also be applied to lesser material, namely heating it to produce a more consistent stone to work from. This (AFAIR?) was a modern human innovation, that made previously crappy stone much more amenable to knapping(the heating changes the crystalline structure for the better). I dunno if such material has been found in Ireland? I would presume it has.

Other examples of rocks used as raw material would be stuff like quartz/quartzite of which we'd have a fair amount here, basalt, volcanic glass/obsidian(which is the sharpest edge of all. Way sharper than a surgeons scalpel) and even jasper, though it tends to be a real bitch to work as it splinters like a bugger and is full of faults. Quartzite brings it's own difficulties.

To give an idea of how two very different raw materials can be used to get the same result here are two examples of Neandertal double scrapers. the first made from jasper from Fontmaure in France(at circa 50,000 BP). A very small outcrop and very splintery, but they seemed to dig it for some reason. To be fair it is very pretty so...


And nearly an exact copy in size and design of a Neandertal double scraper from another French site Kervouster, made from quartzite from an earlier date(circa 80-100,000BP).

Akhenaten

I thought this an appropriate thread to post pics. of flint and chert artefacts which I found last Saturday.Four of the flints are rather unremarkable looking waste flakes,but I've numbered(1-4) some of the more interesting looking pieces(2 flint,2 chert).With the image upload limits per post,I've attached more pics. in the following posts too.

A brief description of each flake:

No.1: A grey,patinated flint which bears evidence of significant flake removal and retouch.It looks like it's been worked to a tang(for hafting?) and may have been the butt-end of a chisel or small adze prior to breaking.If you look at the ventral side(see photos in the following post),you can see a fossilised inclusion along the edge where the tool snapped,an obvious flaw or weak point in the flake.

No.2: A chunky chert flake(50mm. long),that may have been used as an End scraper;most of the distal end has broken off,but you can still see what looks like retouch on the dorsal side.Interestingly,there may be use-wear evidence on one of the flattened lateral edges;when the flake is held comfortably in my hand,and where my finger runs along this lateral edge,it has a smooth,shiny surface.

No.3: This flint flake looks remarkably like a fragment(the tip) of an arrowhead,but I'm not totally convinced!The dorsal side looks convincing but the opposite side less so.It would even appear to have what looks like a barb,ie.barbed-and-tanged arrowhead,but there's a chip along the lateral edge of the flake that may help exaggerate this 'barb'.What do you guys think?

No.4: A nice,small chert flake - Mesolithic???

Incidentally,If you're new to lithics,I'd highly recommend the following book which can be picked up on Amazon:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Prehistoric-Flintwork-Chris-Butler/dp/0752433407/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386334923&sr=1-1&keywords=prehistoric+flintwork

Akhenaten

Flint Flake No.1:Butt-end of a chisel or adze?

Akhenaten

Chert Flake No.2: Probably an End scraper with possible use-wear evidence?

Akhenaten

Flint Flake No.3: A fragment of an arrowhead?

Wibbs

Nice finds A!

Akhenaten

Wibbs wrote: »

Nice finds A!

I knew you'd appreciate them!

Thanks.