The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca
The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca
The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
• 50 • Steven Mithen<br />
Attempts have been made to organize assemblages <strong>from</strong> throughout <strong>Britain</strong> into classes relating<br />
to past functions. Mellars (1976) published an important interpretation <strong>of</strong> assemblage variability<br />
with regard to settlement patterns. He compiled data on the frequencies <strong>of</strong> different tool types<br />
within assemblages to show that sites fell into three classes: class A sites have assemblages<br />
dominated (>80 per cent) by microliths; in class B sites, microliths constitute 30–60 per cent; and<br />
class C sites are dominated by scrapers. Class B is by far the most common, being found in<br />
upland, lowland and coastal areas; Mellars interpreted these as winter base <strong>ca</strong>mps at which several<br />
groups <strong>of</strong> people aggregated. <strong>The</strong> class A microlith-dominated assemblages, found principally in<br />
the uplands <strong>of</strong> the Pennines and North York Moors, are considered as summer hunting <strong>ca</strong>mps.<br />
Only three scraper-dominated assemblages were found; the processing <strong>of</strong> animal hides is assumed<br />
to be the major activity indi<strong>ca</strong>ted.<br />
Barton (1992) recognized a correlation between artefact frequencies, topographic lo<strong>ca</strong>tions<br />
and the underlying geology in Early Mesolithic assemblages <strong>from</strong> central southern England. Sites<br />
including Hengistbury and Iping C, which have assemblages that lack tools such as burins, axes<br />
and drill bits, are found on high ground and generally occur on sandstone. In contrast, Downton<br />
and Thatcham III, on relatively low ground and on silty substrates, have more diverse toolkits.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se latter appear to be lo<strong>ca</strong>tions where a wider range <strong>of</strong> activities was undertaken, compared<br />
with the specialized manufacture and use <strong>of</strong> hunting equipment on the higher sites.<br />
Microwear analysis and tool function<br />
Microwear analysis, as already described, may give indi<strong>ca</strong>tions <strong>of</strong> artefact functions. At Gleann<br />
Mor, for instance, some microliths were employed as projectile points, identifiable due to tell-tale<br />
striations left on their surfaces. Other microliths here had clearly been used in a circular motion,<br />
apparently as bits for awls or drills.<br />
While the Star Carr microwear analyses showed that a variety <strong>of</strong> tasks had been undertaken,<br />
few relationships between tool types and specific functions were noted. For instance, 56 scrapers<br />
(<strong>of</strong> 374 <strong>from</strong> the site) were examined for wear traces: 36 showed signs <strong>of</strong> use, representing 55<br />
episodes. <strong>The</strong>se were mainly scraping/planing actions, directed principally against hide (40 per<br />
cent), bone (22 per cent), antler (22 per cent) and wood (13 per cent). Hints <strong>of</strong> differences in the<br />
morphology <strong>of</strong> artefacts used on different materials were noted: those used on antler tend to be<br />
longer and more curved.<br />
A detailed microwear study was undertaken on artefacts <strong>from</strong> Thatcham (Healey et al. 1992).<br />
<strong>The</strong> results included the identifi<strong>ca</strong>tion <strong>of</strong> a specialist area for bone and antler working. Of six<br />
microliths examined, only one appeared to have been a projectile; the remainder had signs <strong>of</strong> use<br />
as borers and piercers.<br />
Debitage analysis and site function<br />
Tools usually only constitute a small fraction <strong>of</strong> the artefacts <strong>from</strong> a site. Much more common is<br />
the manufacturing waste, or debitage; indeed retouched tools <strong>of</strong>ten form as little as 1 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
an assemblage. This division between tools and waste needs <strong>ca</strong>reful consideration. At Thatcham,<br />
for example, a higher percentage <strong>of</strong> unretouched artefact edges had been used compared to<br />
those that exhibited retouch. ‘Debitage’ thus includes tools that are not retouched.<br />
Mesolithic sites on Islay illustrate how debitage <strong>ca</strong>n be studied. <strong>The</strong> proportions <strong>of</strong> tools at<br />
Coulererach and Bolsay Farm are very similar. At Coulererach, however, the debitage is dominated<br />
by large cores and flakes, <strong>of</strong>ten the first detached <strong>from</strong> the raw material; indeed, several dis<strong>ca</strong>rded<br />
flint beach pebbles had just one or two flakes removed. Nodules were tested for quality and the<br />
initial stages <strong>of</strong> flint knapping took place; there was little concern for efficient use <strong>of</strong> materials.<br />
In contrast, at Bolsay Farm, most cores are small and debitage is dominated by little flakes