Analysis of the lithic assemblage from SERF excavations of an Early Neolithic pit cluster, and a Bronze Age cist with cremation deposit undertaken at Wellhill, Dunning in 2015

Wright, Dene

English

Lithic assemblage from the fieldwork undertaken in 2014 at Wellhill (WH14), Dunning, Perth &amp; Kinross

Enlighten

WH14: SERF Archive Report: Lithics Introduction There are 27 lithics recovered from fieldwork undertaken at WH14 in 2014.  Methodology The methodology, type and attribute terminologies employed for the analysis of the primary and secondary technologies follows the format devised and adopted for the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project (Finlayson et al. 2000). This augmented the research design used for the analysis of the lithic assemblage from the site at Kinloch on Rùm (Wickham-Jones 1990), derived from earlier terminologies and technological classifications (Tixier et al. 1980), and subsequently enhanced (Inizan et al. 1999). This format lends itself to the incorporation of later prehistoric forms such as projectile points, ‘knives’, certain types of scrapers and Post-Medieval gunflints (cf. Wright 2012b). The database for the typological and technological analysis of the lithics uses Access™ 2016.  Primary Technology speaks to those initial procedures of the chaîne opératoire relating to the choices made in the selection and the obtaining of appropriate raw material, the reduction strategies, the production of blanks, e.g. flakes and blades through to the discard of cores. The knapping reduction strategies undertaken in the past are determined by reference to the detailed analysis of the characteristics and attributes of the cores and debitage products recovered during archaeological fieldwork (Finlay et al. 2000a, 553; Woodman et al. 2006, 78).  Secondary Technology refers to the later stages of the chaîne opératoire, which considers the process of the modification of blanks, their utilisation and discard. Following the removal of a blank from a core, modification is generally achieved by the application of pressure to the edge of the blank. In the case of scrapers, the modified edge functions as the working edge. However, that may not be the case for all retouched artefacts. For example, the modification may be undertaken to facilitate hafting (Finlay et al. 2000b, 571; Wickham-Jones and McCartan 1990, 87). Invasive and inverse retouch are generally particular features of secondary modification during the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods (Ballin 1999 and others).  For individual lithics, the first number is the catalogue reference followed by the small finds number, where applicable. Raw materials The solid geology is the Scone Sandstone Formation. The drift geology is glaciofluvial sheet deposits comprising of sand and gravels (Digimap® EDiNA Geology Roam), with glacial till to the south-west of the pit alignment is glacial till (Figure 1).  Figure 1: Drift geology at Wellhill (Digimap® EDiNA Geology Roam online resource; © NERC/Crown copyright database right). Flint dominates the assemblage at 51.85%, followed by quartz and agate at 14.81% each, pitchstone 11.11%, with chert and jasper at 3.71% each. 14 lithics present with cortex, of these six are flint. The cortex variants are smooth and chalky rolled hard, smooth and hard, and pitted which suggests that the flint derives from fluvio-glacial riverine deposits. There are no known local sources of chert (Wickham-Jones and Collins 1977, Figure 2). The British Geological Survey for the Midland Valley notes the occurrence of quartz, chert and andesite in the Scone Sandstone Formation, i.e. parent unit of Sheriffmuir Sandstone (Phillips 2007, 8-9). There are nodules of chert in dressed sandstone, e.g. the dovecote at Green of Invermay and at Invermay House on the Invermay Estate. It is possible that quartz, chert, agate and jasper eroding out of the solid geology and glacial till may have been available from riverine locations (after Wickham-Jones and Collins 1977, 7). The pitchstone is from Arran (cf. Ballin and Faithfull 2009). Character Table 1 shows the character of the assemblage. There are two primary flakes, one each of flint and agate. The majority of flakes and blades are tertiary (47.06), secondary 41.17%. Three (17.65%) of the blanks are regular, comprising a flint flake, flint blade and quartz blade. There is an amorphous flint core and a non-specific pitchstone core fragment. The modified pieces comprise a flint scraper and one a jasper ‘knife’.   Table 1: Character of the assemblage. Condition The majority of the pieces within the assemblage are fresh (92.59%). The other two lithics are a burnt agate chunk and flake. The frequency of burnt pieces is probably understated. Experimental work undertaken on flint indicated that some burnt pieces would not be classified as such due to the absence of burnt attributes (Finlayson 1990, 53). Primary technology The bipolar reduction strategy produced two agate tested split pebbles, two flint flakes, a quartz flake and quartz chunk. All of the remaining blanks indicate platform reduction, including the amorphous flint core and the pitchstone core fragment. Generally, bipolar blanks will be under-represented because not all debitage products will present with attributes associated with a bipolar reduction strategy (after Kuijt et al. 1995, 117).  There are 12 blanks where it is possible to determine the bulb of percussion. Six have a diffuse bulb and one has a pronounced bulb. The former indicates the use of a soft hammer and the latter a hard hammer to remove blanks from cores. Five blanks present with lip attributes. Three of the non-bipolar blanks, i.e. two flint flakes, and a quartz blade have evidence of anvil support. The practice refers to the placing of the platform core on an anvil for support to facilitate blank removals. It suggests that platform and bipolar reduction strategies may have been coeval (cf. Wright 2012a). The recovery locations of the lithics are: Unstratified Lithics recovered from the interface of the top soil and sub-soil: • One fresh, tertiary, regular, platform flint flake fragment (0476/Test pit 3); • One fresh, secondary, irregular, platform jasper flake (0477/Test pit 7); • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, platform flint flake (0478/14001/Test pit 8); • One burnt, secondary, irregular, platform agate chunk (0479/14017/Area T); • One fresh, primary, irregular, bipolar agate tested split pebble (0492/14072/Area JJ); • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, platform flint blade (0500/14108/Area JJ); and • One burnt, secondary, irregular, platform, agate flake fragment (0490/14077/Area Z). DF0004 Primary fill (14068) of pit [14067] underlying (14145) and (14110). • One fresh, secondary, irregular, bipolar, quartz flake fragment (0480/14025).  Table 2: Radiocarbon dates from DF0004. DF0005 Primary fill (14066) of pit [14065] underlying (14151). • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, platform, pitchstone core fragment (0493/14066). DF0016 Fill (14045) of posthole/pit [14044] with redeposited packing stones (14109). • One fresh, secondary, irregular, amorphous flint core (0481/14035); • One fresh, secondary, irregular, platform flint flake (0483/14038); • One fresh, secondary, irregular, platform flint flake with evidence for anvil support (0485/14034); and • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, platform flint flake with evidence for anvil support (0484/14039). Late Neolithic pottery recovered from this feature.  Table 3: Radiocarbon dates from DF0016. DF0019 Fill (14122) of pit [14121]. • One fresh, secondary, irregular, bipolar flint flake (0491/14069). Late Neolithic pottery recovered from this feature. DF0025 Fill (14089) of pit [14088]. • One fresh, tertiary, irregular quartz small fraction debitage (0499/14100). Late Neolithic pottery recovered from this feature. DF0136 Fill (14049) of pit [14096]. • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, platform, pitchstone flake fragment (0487/14137); and • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, pitchstone, small fraction debitage (0497/14098). Early Neolithic pottery recovered from this feature. DF0138 Fill (14105) of pit [14136] underlying (14108) and (14092), and underlying (14114). • One fresh, primary, irregular, bipolar flint flake (0486/14043). Upper fill (14092) overlying (14108), (14105) and (14114). • One fresh, primary, irregular, bipolar agate tested split pebble (0498/14099). Early Neolithic pottery recovered from this feature. DF0139 Upper fill (14069) of pit [14138] overlying (14106) and (14107). • One fresh, secondary, regular, platform quartz blade with evidence for anvil support (0482/14036). DF0266 Fill (14085) of pit (14084). There is a lens of charcoal (14137) within (14085). • One fresh, tertiary, regular, platform flint blade (0489/14060); • One fresh, secondary, irregular, platform flint flake (0494/14075); and • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, platform, flint flake fragment (0495/14077). Late Neolithic pottery recovered from this feature. Secondary technology The recovery locations of the two modified lithics are: Unstratified Lithics recovered from the interface of the top soil and sub-soil: • One fresh, irregular, flint concave scraper (0501/14109/Area Y). The scraper has been fashioned on a flake core. Conversely, and more likely it may be a core with a facetted platform. It is sub-triangular. There are two sides with edge damage. One has direct, short, scalar retouch and the other is the unmodified edge of a platform. DF0137 Upper fill (14095) of pit [14093] overlying (14123) and (14094). • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, chert flake modified to create cutting edge (0496/14121). The cutting implement is sub-triangular. There is direct, semi-invasive, scalar to the perpendicular axis. There is evidence of ‘sickle’ gloss at the median of the inverse face. Early Neolithic pottery recovered from this feature. Summary None of the lithics are diagnostic to any given archaeological period. Pitchstone recovered on the mainland is usually associated with Early Neolithic features (cf. Ballin 2017). However, there is recent evidence for its recovery from Mesolithic contexts, e.g. West Challoch, Dunragit (W. Baillie pers.comm.). DF0005 is a Mesolithic pit to the alignment.  Dr Dene Wright 29 August 2018  References Ballin, T. B. 1999. The Lithic Assemblage in S. Speak and C. Burgess: Meldon Bridge: a centre of the third millennium BC in Peeblesshire. Proceedings of The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 129: 81-93. Ballin, T. B. 2017. Pitchstone from radiocarbon-dated pits – an update. PAST(87): 14-15. Ballin, T. B. and  J. Faithfull. 2009. Gazetteer of Arran Pitchstone Sources: Presentation of exposed pitchstone dykes and sills across the Isle of Arran, and discussion of the archaeological relevance of these outcrops. (http://www.sair.org.uk/sair38/): SAIR 38. Finlay, N., B. Finlayson and  S. J. Mithen. 2000a. The Primary Technology: its Character and Inter-site Variability. In S. J. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98. Volume 1: Project development, palaeoenvironmental studies and archaeological fieldwork on Islay. Volume 2: Archaeological fieldwork on Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental archaeology, and final interpretations: 553-569. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Finlay, N., B. Finlayson and  S. J. Mithen. 2000b. The Secondary Technology: its Character and Inter-site Variability. In S. J. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98. Volume 1: Project development, palaeoenvironmental studies and archaeological fieldwork on Islay. Volume 2: Archaeological fieldwork on Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental archaeology, and final interpretations: 571-587. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Finlayson, B. 1990. The examination of surface alteration. In C. R. Wickham-Jones (ed.), Rhum, Mesolithic and later sites at Kinloch: Excavations 198-86: 53-54. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Finlayson, B., N. Finlay and  S. J. Mithen. 2000. The cataloguing and analysis of the lithic assemblages. In S. J. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98. Volume 1: Project development, palaeoenvironmental studies and archaeological fieldwork on Islay. Volume 2: Archaeological fieldwork on Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental archaeology, and final interpretations: 61-72. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Inizan, M.-L., M. Reduron-Ballinger, H. Roche and  J. Tixier. 1999. Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Nanterre: CREP. Kuijt, I., W. C. Prentiss and  D. L. Pokotylo. 1995. Bipolar Reduction: An Experimental Study of Debitage Variability. Lithic Technology, 20(2): 116-127. Phillips, E. 2007. Petrology and provenance of the Siluro-Devonian (Old Red Sandstone facies) sedimentary rocks of the Midland Valley, Scotland: British Gelogical Survey Internal Report (IR/07/040). Tixier, J., M.-L. Inizan and  H. Roche. 1980. Préhistoire de la pierre taillée, 1 terminologie et technologie. Valbonne: CREP. Wickham-Jones, C. R. (ed.). 1990. Rhum, Mesolithic and Later Sites at Kinloch: excavations 1984-86. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wickham-Jones, C. R. and  G. H. Collins. 1977. The sources of flint and chert in northern Britain. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 109: 7-21. Wickham-Jones, C. R. and  S. B. McCartan. 1990. The Lithic Assemblage: Secondary Technology. In C. R. Wickham-Jones (ed.), Rhum: Mesolithic and Later sites At Kinloch: excavations 1984-86: 87-102. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Woodman, P. C., N. Finlay and  E. Anderson. 2006. The Archaeology of a Collection: The Keiller-Knowles Collection of the National Museum of Ireland. Wicklow: Wordwell. Wright, A. D. 2012a. The Archaeology of Variation: a case study of repetition, difference and becoming in the Mesolithic of West Central Scotland. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Glasgow (Available to download from 'http://theses.gla.ac.uk/3310/'). Wright, A. D. 2012b. SERF Archive Report: Flaked Lithic Assemblages 2007-10. Unpublished SERF Report: University of Glasgow.  

SERF Archive Report: Lithics from WH14

WH15: SERF Archive Report: Lithics Introduction There are nine lithics recovered from the excavations of an Early Neolithic pit cluster, and Bronze Age cist with a cremation deposit undertaken at Wellhill, Dunning (WH15) in 2015.  Methodology The methodology, type and attribute terminologies employed for the analysis of the primary and secondary technologies follows the format devised and adopted for the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project (Finlayson et al. 2000). This augmented the research design used for the analysis of the lithic assemblage from the site at Kinloch on Rùm (Wickham-Jones 1990), derived from earlier terminologies and technological classifications (Tixier et al. 1980), and subsequently enhanced (Inizan et al. 1999). This format lends itself to the incorporation of later prehistoric forms such as projectile points, ‘knives’, certain types of scrapers and Post-Medieval gunflints (cf. Wright 2012). The database for the typological and technological analysis of the lithics uses Access™ 2016.  Primary Technology speaks to those initial procedures of the chaîne opératoire relating to the choices made in the selection and the obtaining of appropriate raw material, the reduction strategies, the production of blanks, e.g. flakes and blades through to the discard of cores. The knapping reduction strategies undertaken in the past are determined by reference to the detailed analysis of the characteristics and attributes of the cores and debitage products recovered during archaeological fieldwork (Finlay et al. 2000a, 553; Woodman et al. 2006, 78).  Secondary Technology refers to the later stages of the chaîne opératoire, which considers the process of the modification of blanks, their utilisation and discard. Following the removal of a blank from a core, modification is generally achieved by the application of pressure to the edge of the blank. In the case of scrapers, the modified edge functions as the working edge. However, that may not be the case for all retouched artefacts. For example, the modification may be undertaken to facilitate hafting (Finlay et al. 2000b, 571; Wickham-Jones and McCartan 1990, 87). Invasive and inverse retouch are generally particular features of secondary modification during the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods (Ballin 1999 and others).  For individual lithics, the first number is the catalogue reference followed by the small finds number, where applicable. Geology The solid geology consists of Scone Sandstone Formation, with glaciofluvial sheet deposits comprising of sand and gravels recorded for the drift geology (Digimap® EDiNA Geology Roam). There is glacial till recorded in the southeast area of the field (Figure 1).  Figure 1: Drift geology at Wellhill (Digimap® EDiNA Geology Roam online resource; © NERC/Crown copyright database right). Primary technology DF0046 Fill (15051) of pit [15006] overlying (15056), (15093) and (15102); underlying (15007), [15144] and (15125). • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, platform quartz flake (1178/15054) with evidence for anvil support; • One fresh, primary, irregular, bipolar andesite flake fragment (1180/15098); • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, platform flint flake (1181/15116); and • One fresh, tertiary, regular, platform pitchstone blade (1182/15129). DF0047 Fill (15005) of pit [15004] overlying (15055), (15096) and (15058). • One fresh, tertiary, irregular, platform quartz flake (1176/15040). DF0049 Fill (15013) of pit [15012] overlying (15068), (15069) and (15070). • One fresh, tertiary, regular, platform pitchstone blade (1175/15002). DS002 Sand natural (15101) below cist structure (DS002) for cremation deposit. • One fresh, primary, irregular, platform flint flake (1179/15058). A piece of burnt tibia produced a radiocarbon date of 2126-1923BCE (3635±25BP SUERC-66242). Secondary technology DF0046 Fill (15051) of pit [15006] overlying (15056), (15093) and (15102); underlying (15007), [15144] and (15125). • A burnt flint ‘slug’ form fabricator fragment with invasive retouch (1177/15046); and • A fragment of a Group VI polished stone axe (1177/15046). Summary There was a substantial assemblage of Early Neolithic pottery recovered from DF0046 as well as the fragment of the polished stone axe (1177/15046). and the fabricator fragment (1177/15046). Table sets out the details of the radiocarbon dates from (15051).   Table 1: Radiocarbon data from DF0046 (15051). Fabricators date from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. For example, there are numerous artefacts illustrated in the Portable Antiquities Scheme database (https://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/q/fabricators/objectType/FABRICATOR). These artefacts were used as either strike-a-lights, or for the processing of other materials such as leather and possibly stone (Edmonds 1995). Hopman (2011), referencing Clarke (1970) and Cave-Brown (1992), refers to fabricators being skilfully worked artefacts, which is case for the artefact from WH15. Pitchstone (DF0046 and DF0049) recovered on the mainland is usually associated with Early Neolithic features (cf. Ballin 2017).  Dr Dene Wright 4 September 2018     References Ballin, T. B. 1999. The Lithic Assemblage in S. Speak and C. Burgess: Meldon Bridge: a centre of the third millennium BC in Peeblesshire. Proceedings of The Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 129: 81-93. Ballin, T. B. 2017. Pitchstone from radiocarbon-dated pits – an update. PAST(87): 14-15. Cave-Brown, P. 1992. The use of Iron Pyrites for the Creation of Fire. Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society, 13: 52-60. Clarke, D. L. 1970. Beaker Pottery of Great Britain and Ireland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools in Society: working stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. London: Routledge. Finlay, N., B. Finlayson and  S. J. Mithen. 2000a. The Primary Technology: its Character and Inter-site Variability. In S. J. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98. Volume 1: Project development, palaeoenvironmental studies and archaeological fieldwork on Islay. Volume 2: Archaeological fieldwork on Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental archaeology, and final interpretations: 553-569. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Finlay, N., B. Finlayson and  S. J. Mithen. 2000b. The Secondary Technology: its Character and Inter-site Variability. In S. J. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98. Volume 1: Project development, palaeoenvironmental studies and archaeological fieldwork on Islay. Volume 2: Archaeological fieldwork on Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental archaeology, and final interpretations: 571-587. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Finlayson, B., N. Finlay and  S. J. Mithen. 2000. The cataloguing and analysis of the lithic assemblages. In S. J. Mithen (ed.), Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98. Volume 1: Project development, palaeoenvironmental studies and archaeological fieldwork on Islay. Volume 2: Archaeological fieldwork on Colonsay, computer modelling, experimental archaeology, and final interpretations: 61-72. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Hopman, E. 2011. Forteviot cist: Fire-making kit. Unpublished SERF Report: University of Glasgow. Inizan, M.-L., M. Reduron-Ballinger, H. Roche and  J. Tixier. 1999. Technology and Terminology of Knapped Stone. Nanterre: CREP. Tixier, J., M.-L. Inizan and  H. Roche. 1980. Préhistoire de la pierre taillée, 1 terminologie et technologie. Valbonne: CREP. Wickham-Jones, C. R. (ed.). 1990. Rhum, Mesolithic and Later Sites at Kinloch: excavations 1984-86. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wickham-Jones, C. R. and  S. B. McCartan. 1990. The Lithic Assemblage: Secondary Technology. In C. R. Wickham-Jones (ed.), Rhum: Mesolithic and Later sites At Kinloch: excavations 1984-86: 87-102. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Woodman, P. C., N. Finlay and  E. Anderson. 2006. The Archaeology of a Collection: The Keiller-Knowles Collection of the National Museum of Ireland. Wicklow: Wordwell. Wright, A. D. 2012. SERF Archive Report: Flaked Lithic Assemblages 2007-10. Unpublished SERF Report: University of Glasgow.  

SERF Archive Report: Lithics from WH15

https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/167830/1/167830.pdf

SERF Archive Report: Lithics from WH15

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Enlighten

Enlighten