A Contextual Examination of Neolithic Axe Distribution in Britain

Archaeological investigation of trade and exchange

“…Studies of lithic production contexts have begun to appear in the archaeological literature on trade (see articles in Earle and Ericson 1982;Torrence 1986). Consumption contexts have been emphasized by Hodder (1982), and, in a study that foreshadows the Bradley and Edmonds' study reviewed here, Hodder and Lane (1982) have argued that the funerary contexts of Neolithic axes indicate that the axe trade was part of the construction and legitimation of social prestige in Neolithic British society.…”

Hawaiian Adze Production and Distribution: Implications for the Development of Chiefdoms. Barbara Lass 1994. Monograph No. 37. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, v + 89 pp., figures, tables, appendixes, bibliography. $15.00 (paper)

“…For example, even though some have suggested that adzes may decrease in size with distance from their source (Hodder 1978:87;Hodder and Lane 1982) or that the bevel angle will become more obtuse if down-the-line exchange was present (Hughes 1977:162,164), changes in adze size or bevel angle over distance could not be studied. No complete adzes were sourced because petrographic analysis would have damaged the object.…”

“…With direct access and/or downthe-line exchange, adzes may become smaller with increasing distance from their source because of increased transport costs, causing tools to be retained longer and resharpened more frequently at greater distances from the source. In a system of down-theline exchange, individuals near the source may also retain large adzes for their own use and pass smaller tools on in the exchange system (Hodder 1978:87;Hodder and Lane 1982;McBryde and Harrison 1981).…”

Archaeology in 1984

“…I have argued elsewhere (Hodder, 1982) that interpretations of the past should take greater account of meaning, the individual, culture and history. These claims for a 'post-processual' or 'contextual' archaeology have been argued for 'academic' reasons to do with the construction of explanations, the inadequacy of the concepts of system and adaptation, the importance of culture in human nature, the central role of intentionality and so on.…”

“…It is simply impossible to test whether prehistoric artifacts moved from source to destination by exchange from person to person or whether, on the other hand, individuals went directly to the source. Recently I thought such a test would be possible in relation to British neolithic stone axes and it was suggested (Hodder & Lane, 1982) that if axes were exchanged from person to person, being used and resharpened through time, they should get smaller with increasing distance from the source. This 'test' was successful since axes did prove to get smaller with increasing distance from their source, but in the end it is apparent that the assumption of exchange itself has not been tested.…”