Flint Use in England after the Bronze Age: Time for a Re-evaluation?

Abstract

Lithic assemblages from a variety of English later Bronze and Iron Age contexts are examined here in an effort to stimulate debate about the later prehistoric exploitation of flint. It is suggested that a variety of technological and morphological features, supporting the idea of discrete later industries, can be identified. A special plea is made to excavators of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement sites to pay greater attention to the contexts of deposition (and to the other artefactual associations), of recovered lithic material. Flint finds should not automatically be written off as residual from earlier activity on settlements.

Flintworking in the British Later Bronze and Iron Ages: Acruical Review and Statement of Research Potential

“…Whilst it is undeniable that functional substitution played a critical role in the decline of lithic utilisation in the Bronze Age, Ford et al's dependence on this factor at the expense of all others can be questioned. It is now widely recognised, for example, that changes in how Bronze Age people perceived stone artefacts socially would have had an enormous effect on the amount of effort that they were willing to invest into the procurement, production and use of such artefacts (Herne 1991;Edmonds 1995;Young and Humphrey 1999). Rather than view the decline in skilled flintworking and formal tool types as a simple reflection of the spread of bronze, authors such as Edmonds (1995) and Herne (1991) have argued that it is just as important to consider the broader social roles of both materials and how these roles changed through time.…”

“…There now exists a significant body of published literature on this subject, both from Europe (e.g., Saville 1981aSaville , 1981bFord et al1984;Ford 1987;Heme 1991;Martial1994;Edmonds 1995;Young and Humphrey 1999;Hogberg 2001Hogberg , 2004Knarrstrom 2001;van Gijn and Niekus 2001;Ballin 2002;Humphrey 2003Humphrey , 2004Humphrey , 2007Martingell 2003;Migal2004;Butler 2005;Bishop 2006) and elsewhere (e.g., Rosen 1984Rosen , 1996Rosen , 1997Kardulias 2003). Subjected to increasingly detailed and sophisticated analyses, later Bronze and Iron Age chipped stone tool assemblages have begun to provide valuable insights into the relative importance -functional and social -of chipped stone versus metal in later prehistory.…”

“…Subjected to increasingly detailed and sophisticated analyses, later Bronze and Iron Age chipped stone tool assemblages have begun to provide valuable insights into the relative importance -functional and social -of chipped stone versus metal in later prehistory. Recent years have also seen a number of useful models put forward to explain the decline and eventual disappearance of chipped stone technologies (e.g., Ford et al 1984; Herne 1991;Edmonds 1995;Rosen 1996Rosen , 1997Young and Humphrey 1999).…”

“…The general technological characteristics of British later Bronze and Iron Age chipped stone tool assemblages are now well established (see, in particular, Young and Humphrey 1999;Ballin 2002;Butler 2005: 179-92). So, too, is the trend towards less technical competence and fewer formal tool types over time (e.g., Fasham and Ross 1978;Gingell and Harding 1981;Ford et al 1984;Ford 1987).…”

“…Studies have also highlighted important changes in the character of chipped stone procurement and deposition from the Middle Bronze Age onwards (Herne 1991;Edmonds 1995:184-186). More broadly, a number of explanatory models have been offered to account for these processes (Ford et al1984; Herne 1991;Edmonds 1995;Young and Humphrey 1999). This paper seeks to complement these existing works by providing a detailed critical review of the key published literature concerning later Bronze and Iron Age flintworking in Britain.…”