Virtual Museum Beaker Gallery Display 2 Link - BNF04 Link

The recovered lithics comprise a small, multi-period and largely derived (re-deposited) assemblage, only a few of which can be dated with reference to well-known types.

The majority of the assemblage was strongly patinated (stained), frequently blue-white or grey-white which is consistent with that normally encountered on chalk-soil sites.

The varying strengths of patinas on otherwise undateable flints from the same context helps to suggest that the flints may be of varying ages. This is because once they reached their final resting place they should all have shared the same conditions of patination that would have obtained there.

Some terms (more below)

Assemblage: a collection of worked flint.

Context: a 'feature' such as a grave or ditch - the digging of which forms the 'cut'; the in-filling of which forms the 'fills'.

The patination suggests that some material had seen prolonged surface exposure and had been disturbed from earlier horizons by activity concerned with and surrounding the barrow.

However the flintwork is largely in a fresh condition and shows little natural abrasion, trampling or plough damage. This suggests that none of it has moved very far or been much disturbed in the intervening periods between their initial discard and subsequent redeposition into the features.

The flintwork offers evidence of activity around this site that is not represented through other finds or features. The conclusions they offer are summarised below.

Top

Two strongly patinated cube-shaped flake cores were recovered from the grave fill and the stripped surface of the Upper Chalk. They are typical examples of cores from Earlier Neolithic assemblages.

Small and carefully worked soft hammer-struck blades (possibly punch-produced) which have the potential to be Late Mesolithic or Early Neolithic were recovered from the grave fill and the upper ditch fill. It is thought that these blades are more likely to be Neolithic in date, given the absence of any definitive Mesolithic artefacts on site and the similarity in their degree of patination compared to the Early Neolithic cores.

Mesolithic activity has been noted in this area however, through lithic finds made on Stone Bay beach (TSMR 213; see the Mesolithic Gazetteer Display in the Mesolithc Gallery).

The larger of the two blades (recovered from the upper ditch fill) was made from Bullhead flint. This raw material can have particularly good flaking properties and may have been preferred for producing quality flakes and blades in the Neolithic. A pit discovered on a site adjacent to the QEQM Hospital Margate (NAM05; Hart 2006) produced both Early Neolithic and Late Mesolithic flintwork, with the recognisable use of Bullhead flint confined to the Neolithic material.

A serrated flake from the lower ditch fill could well be Neolithic/Earlier Neolithic. Serrated-edged tools (formed by micro-denticulate retouching) are often found in Mesolithic and Neolithic assemblages, perhaps being most common in the Earlier Neolithic (Healey and Robertson-Mackay 1983).

Their presence shows that the immediate vicinity had seen flint-knapping and tool-making activity. This may have been due to an opportune availability of raw material or perhaps be indicative of nearby settlement. The good condition of the flakes suggest that they have moved little.

Other evidence of Neolithic activity include a reworked polished flint axe found in the primary ditch fill. The axe had been thinned from a much wider, thicker tool likely to facilitate re-hafting in a smaller handle.

The axe was heavily concreted and almost unrecognisable when it was discovered, so its true identity was not perceived at the time and it is not known whether it came from the actual base of the ditch or was simply incorporated within the fill. It is possible that it's final deposition within the barrow ditch was still an intentional act by someone who thought of the axe as a (perhaps formerly) prestigious object.

A large-ish and slim, hard hammer-struck end-scraper from the upper ditch fill is a type which could well occur in a Late Neolithic or Beaker Period assemblage. The strength of patination might suggest that it may not be contemporary with the Beaker Barrow itself, though it is a distinct possibility.

The characteristics of some of the other strongly patinated flakes from the upper ditch fills suggest that they may have been redeposited from contexts of this period and could be thought of as representing a slightly later knapping technology than that represented by the strongly patinated flakes from the grave fill.

Said flakes from the upper ditch fills may represent material contemporary with the construction of the barrow which had been discarded onto the groundsurface or included with the upcast from the grave and ring-ditch. 'If so, it suggests a very rapid formation of strong patinas; or even perhaps a slightly earlier date for the Late (Style) Beaker' (envisaged at the time as circa 1900-1700 BC and eventually producing a radiocarbon date of 2350-2130 BC; Hart 2005).

A small end-scraper on a largely cortexed flake approaching blade proportions (likely hard hammer-struck) was recovered from the grave fill. The narrow working edge might suggest that the tool was created for a specialised task. It has a fairly strong blue-white patina, particularly on its underside, but it is not as dense at that on the Earlier Neolithic cores.

Dating is difficult and the scraper could potentially range from the Mesolithic to the Beaker Period. The patination may suggest that the tool is a redeposited Neolithic piece, but uncertainty remains.

Should the few fresher flakes recovered from the grave fills be intrusive (ie. introduced into the fill in much more recent times, perhaps through agricultural or animal activity) the degree of patination on this scraper could be misleading as regards to relative dating and it may be contemporary to the Beaker burial. It would certainly be at home in a Beaker Period assemblage and its patination, though slightly stronger, is not too dissimilar to that on the end and side scraper retrieved from inside the skull.

Interestingly Chris Butler has noted (2005) that many Early Neolithic end scrapers have a large negative scar on their upper (dorsal) side, 'which results in a slight depression into which the thumb fits whilst being used, thus allowing more pressure to be comfortably exerted'.

An identical occurrence to this was seen with the discovery of a crude barbed and tanged flint arrowhead found in the skull of a secondary inhumation burial which cut an Early Beaker burial discovered at QEQM Hospital Margate (NAM05; Gardner and Moody 2006). A similar circumstance occurred at the ‘Late Style’ Beaker burial at Manston Runway Approach where a flint knife was found above the skull (MRA87; Perkins and Gibson 1990; Jay 1995).

Does the frequency of these associations suggests a possible trend? It may be that these objects were placed upon the head of the deceased, though the crudeness of their form (with the exception of the Manston flint knife) may argue against such a deliberate, devotional act perhaps.

Waste-flakes of limited patination found in the upper ditch fills may date from this time, though they are few in number. One large, thick primary waste-flake from the upper ditch fill suggests that flint exposures in the sides of this ditch or from the up-cast material could have been the target of sporadic, opportunistic scavenging for raw materials.

The barrow may have seen some limited activity during this time, but has seen no major discarding of domestic material; suggesting perhaps that any Middle or Later Bronze Age settlement in the area (as suggested by pottery discovered at the former St. Stephen's College site nearby) was not in the immediate vicinity and/or that the barrow was still being respected.

A site at Barrow Hills, Radley (Oxfordshire) revealed that 87% of its Bullhead flint was found in pits containing Late Neolithic Grooved Ware 'suggesting deliberate deposition of this material' (Barclay and Halpin). It has also been found in Grooved Ware pits elsewhere and in the inner ditch of the Abbingdon Causewayed Enclosure (Barclay and Halpin).

Future evidence that these Thanet examples occur consistently in what may be termed special or particularly Neolithic and Beaker Period contexts, or are distributed much more widely and randomly, will help to show whether their presence should be regarded as potentially purposeful or accidental. This cannot be done unless their presence is noted of course and this is the reason for its inclusion here. No firm conclusions can be drawn at present.

I would particularly like to take this opportunity to thank Lithic Specialist Chris Butler who reviewed my analysis of the flintwork from this site and offered kind and helpful comment and advice on the report (basically it was far too long!).

For those who would like to learn more about the subject of lithics I heartily recommend Chris Butler's book Prehistoric Flintwork (published by Tempus in 2005). It is the best, most accessible, most informative and useful and book on lithics that I have yet read. (I wish it had been out years ago, it would have saved an awful lot of time trawling through (sometimes mystifying) site reports, compiling notes!).

I should also like to express my thanks to Alan Hart who advised on the cleaning of the concreted flints.


		The Beaker Period 2500 - 1700 BC
Return to Beauforts main Display Display Contents Beauforts, North Foreland Avenue Link - The flint		Beauforts, North Foreland Avenue Link - The flint Introduction The recovered lithics comprise a small, multi-period and largely derived (re-deposited) assemblage, only a few of which can be dated with reference to well-known types.
Introduction Earlier Neolithic Neolithic Late Neolithic/Beaker Contemporary Mid/Late Bronze Age Curio? Scale in centimetre divisions		The majority of the assemblage was strongly patinated (stained), frequently blue-white or grey-white which is consistent with that normally encountered on chalk-soil sites. The varying strengths of patinas on otherwise undateable flints from the same context helps to suggest that the flints may be of varying ages. This is because once they reached their final resting place they should all have shared the same conditions of patination that would have obtained there.
Some terms (more below) Assemblage: a collection of worked flint. Context: a 'feature' such as a grave or ditch - the digging of which forms the 'cut'; the in-filling of which forms the 'fills'. Cortex: the natural 'outer skin' of a flint. Lithics: worked flints. Patination: a discolouring of the surface of a flint basically caused by the effects of weathering, exposure and percolating water. It becomes denser and thicker over time and is generally thought to stop forming (or slow considerably so that for our purposes it appears to stop) once the flint is protected from these processes (ie. buried).		The patination suggests that some material had seen prolonged surface exposure and had been disturbed from earlier horizons by activity concerned with and surrounding the barrow. However the flintwork is largely in a fresh condition and shows little natural abrasion, trampling or plough damage. This suggests that none of it has moved very far or been much disturbed in the intervening periods between their initial discard and subsequent redeposition into the features. The flintwork offers evidence of activity around this site that is not represented through other finds or features. The conclusions they offer are summarised below. Top
Core Core Blade Blade		Earlier Neolithic 4200-3500/3000 BC Two strongly patinated cube-shaped flake cores were recovered from the grave fill and the stripped surface of the Upper Chalk. They are typical examples of cores from Earlier Neolithic assemblages. Small and carefully worked soft hammer-struck blades (possibly punch-produced) which have the potential to be Late Mesolithic or Early Neolithic were recovered from the grave fill and the upper ditch fill. It is thought that these blades are more likely to be Neolithic in date, given the absence of any definitive Mesolithic artefacts on site and the similarity in their degree of patination compared to the Early Neolithic cores. Mesolithic activity has been noted in this area however, through lithic finds made on Stone Bay beach (TSMR 213; see the Mesolithic Gazetteer Display in the Mesolithc Gallery). The larger of the two blades (recovered from the upper ditch fill) was made from Bullhead flint. This raw material can have particularly good flaking properties and may have been preferred for producing quality flakes and blades in the Neolithic. A pit discovered on a site adjacent to the QEQM Hospital Margate (NAM05; Hart 2006) produced both Early Neolithic and Late Mesolithic flintwork, with the recognisable use of Bullhead flint confined to the Neolithic material. A serrated flake from the lower ditch fill could well be Neolithic/Earlier Neolithic. Serrated-edged tools (formed by micro-denticulate retouching) are often found in Mesolithic and Neolithic assemblages, perhaps being most common in the Earlier Neolithic (Healey and Robertson-Mackay 1983). Top
Serrated flake Note the hard chalky concretion on this flint Many were covered in this deposit Reworked polished axe Reworked polished axe (reverse side)		Neolithic 4200-2000 BC The majority of the waste-flakes from the grave fills were strongly patinated and likely represent redeposited Neolithic material disturbed during the cutting of the grave. Many of these flakes had characteristics indicating the careful and well-controlled flintknapping techniques expected on material of this date. Their presence shows that the immediate vicinity had seen flint-knapping and tool-making activity. This may have been due to an opportune availability of raw material or perhaps be indicative of nearby settlement. The good condition of the flakes suggest that they have moved little. Other evidence of Neolithic activity include a reworked polished flint axe found in the primary ditch fill. The axe had been thinned from a much wider, thicker tool likely to facilitate re-hafting in a smaller handle. The date of the reworking of the axe is hard to ascertain. It could have been rediscovered in the Early Bronze Age (perhaps during the construction of the barrow itself) and re-worked. However, the strength and consistency of the patination would suggest that all of it's use-life was in the Neolithic, since other flakes which are little patinated have also been obtained from the same fill. The axe was heavily concreted and almost unrecognisable when it was discovered, so its true identity was not perceived at the time and it is not known whether it came from the actual base of the ditch or was simply incorporated within the fill. It is possible that it's final deposition within the barrow ditch was still an intentional act by someone who thought of the axe as a (perhaps formerly) prestigious object. Top
End scraper		Late Neolithic/Beaker Period 2500-1700 BC A large-ish and slim, hard hammer-struck end-scraper from the upper ditch fill is a type which could well occur in a Late Neolithic or Beaker Period assemblage. The strength of patination might suggest that it may not be contemporary with the Beaker Barrow itself, though it is a distinct possibility. The characteristics of some of the other strongly patinated flakes from the upper ditch fills suggest that they may have been redeposited from contexts of this period and could be thought of as representing a slightly later knapping technology than that represented by the strongly patinated flakes from the grave fill. Said flakes from the upper ditch fills may represent material contemporary with the construction of the barrow which had been discarded onto the groundsurface or included with the upcast from the grave and ring-ditch. 'If so, it suggests a very rapid formation of strong patinas; or even perhaps a slightly earlier date for the Late (Style) Beaker' (envisaged at the time as circa 1900-1700 BC and eventually producing a radiocarbon date of 2350-2130 BC; Hart 2005).
End scraper		A small end-scraper on a largely cortexed flake approaching blade proportions (likely hard hammer-struck) was recovered from the grave fill. The narrow working edge might suggest that the tool was created for a specialised task. It has a fairly strong blue-white patina, particularly on its underside, but it is not as dense at that on the Earlier Neolithic cores. Dating is difficult and the scraper could potentially range from the Mesolithic to the Beaker Period. The patination may suggest that the tool is a redeposited Neolithic piece, but uncertainty remains. Should the few fresher flakes recovered from the grave fills be intrusive (ie. introduced into the fill in much more recent times, perhaps through agricultural or animal activity) the degree of patination on this scraper could be misleading as regards to relative dating and it may be contemporary to the Beaker burial. It would certainly be at home in a Beaker Period assemblage and its patination, though slightly stronger, is not too dissimilar to that on the end and side scraper retrieved from inside the skull. Interestingly Chris Butler has noted (2005) that many Early Neolithic end scrapers have a large negative scar on their upper (dorsal) side, 'which results in a slight depression into which the thumb fits whilst being used, thus allowing more pressure to be comfortably exerted'. Top
End and side scraper		Contemporary Beaker barrow flintwork Few lithics can be considered as more certainly contemporary, save a couple of little-patinated waste flakes from the grave fills and the primary ditch fills (and possibly the end-scrapers described above). The raw material for some of these could have been gained during the digging of the barrow. The grave fill seems largely to be comprised of re-deposited earlier material, with perhaps one significant exception. A small end-and-side scraper (likely hard hammer struck; Butler Pers comm.) was found inside the skull and is of a type that could well occur in a Beaker-associated assemblage. Its slightly greater degree of patination compared to the two other little-patinated flakes recovered from the grave fill could perhaps be due to its close association with the body. The scraper's position shows that some significant movement has taken place within the grave-fill. This scraper could be an intentionally deposited grave good, though if so then its somewhat 'domestic' quality might suggest that it was of personal or practical significance perhaps. The position suggests it may have originally been placed very close to the head. An identical occurrence to this was seen with the discovery of a crude barbed and tanged flint arrowhead found in the skull of a secondary inhumation burial which cut an Early Beaker burial discovered at QEQM Hospital Margate (NAM05; Gardner and Moody 2006). A similar circumstance occurred at the ‘Late Style’ Beaker burial at Manston Runway Approach where a flint knife was found above the skull (MRA87; Perkins and Gibson 1990; Jay 1995). Does the frequency of these associations suggests a possible trend? It may be that these objects were placed upon the head of the deceased, though the crudeness of their form (with the exception of the Manston flint knife) may argue against such a deliberate, devotional act perhaps. Top
		Middle/Late Bronze Age 1500-700 BC Waste-flakes of limited patination found in the upper ditch fills may date from this time, though they are few in number. One large, thick primary waste-flake from the upper ditch fill suggests that flint exposures in the sides of this ditch or from the up-cast material could have been the target of sporadic, opportunistic scavenging for raw materials. The barrow may have seen some limited activity during this time, but has seen no major discarding of domestic material; suggesting perhaps that any Middle or Later Bronze Age settlement in the area (as suggested by pottery discovered at the former St. Stephen's College site nearby) was not in the immediate vicinity and/or that the barrow was still being respected. Top
Some more terms Bullhead Bed Flint: glauconitic flint with a thin orange 'rind' below the cortex which had anciently been eroded from the chalk and laid down (redeposited) in a geological deposit underlying the Thanet Beds Sand. Glauconitic flint: flint with a dark, greenish black-coloured cortex (outer skin). Hard hammer: a hammer made of stone. Soft hammer: a hammer made of organic materials such as antler or bone. A 'soft stone' hammer such as a cortexed flint nodule may produce some features on a flake which are similar (or 'crossover') with those produced by soft hammer-striking. Thanet Beds Sand:a geological deposit of largely glauconitic sands and silts laid down by a sea which anciently covered the land in the South East of England (in an area known as the London Basin). It sits above a deposit of water-rolled flint pebbles reworked from the chalk; (Bennison and Wright 1978). Only small pockets of the Thanet Beds now survive on the Isle; the majority has been re-worked by erosion since this area became dry land.		Glauconitic nodule curio? The only other thing of note is the inclusion of a natural glauconitic nodule found within the soil back-fill of the grave. Its presence may be entirely incidental, however such pieces appear to occur infrequently and it is possible that this nodule was deposited intentionally or may have derived from the same context as the redeposited Earlier Neolithic material. Similar occurrences of single nodules have been recognised in a Late Neolithic pit at All Saints Avenue, Margate (ASA04; Hart 2005) and in an Early Neolithic pit at QEQM Hospital, Margate (NAM05; Hart 2006). Glauconitic Bullhead Bed flint frequently has good flaking properties and may have been sought out for making quality flakes and blades in the Neolithic, particularly perhaps the Earlier Neolithic. This has been noted in assemblages elsewhere. The perceived aesthetic qualities of the flint may also have been a factor in its selection at a time when the form and look of a flint tool was also a concern, not just its functional qualities. A site at Barrow Hills, Radley (Oxfordshire) revealed that 87% of its Bullhead flint was found in pits containing Late Neolithic Grooved Ware 'suggesting deliberate deposition of this material' (Barclay and Halpin). It has also been found in Grooved Ware pits elsewhere and in the inner ditch of the Abbingdon Causewayed Enclosure (Barclay and Halpin). Future evidence that these Thanet examples occur consistently in what may be termed special or particularly Neolithic and Beaker Period contexts, or are distributed much more widely and randomly, will help to show whether their presence should be regarded as potentially purposeful or accidental. This cannot be done unless their presence is noted of course and this is the reason for its inclusion here. No firm conclusions can be drawn at present.
		Top
		Bibliography Barclay A. and Halpin C. (year unknown). Excavations at Barrow Hills, Radley, Oxfordshire, Vol. 1. Oxford Archaeological Unit. Thames Valley Landscapes Vol. 2. Bennison G.M. and Wright A.E. 1978. The Geological History of the British Isles. Edward Arnold Ltd. London; 336. First published 1969. Butler C. Prehistoric Flintwork. Tempus, 125. Gardner O.W. and Moody G.A. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital, St. Peter’s Road, Margate, Kent. Trust for Thanet Archaeology report. Healey E and Robertson-Mackay R, 1983. The lithic industries from Staines causwayed enclosure and their relationship to other Earlier Neolithic industries in southern Britain. Lithics 4, 1-27. Hart P.C. 2005. Assessment of the Flint Assemblage from ASA04, in Hart P.C. and Moody G.A.2006. 135 All Saints Avenue, Margate, Kent. Trust for Thanet Archaeology, Archaeological Assessment Report, Appendix 4 and 5. Hart P.C. 2005. Unpublished report on the flintwork from BNF04. Hart P.C. 2006. The Flintwork in Gardner O.W. and Moody G.A. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hospital, St. Peter’s Road, Margate, Kent. Trust for Thanet Archaeology report; Part 5. Jay L. 1995. Thanet Beakers. Trust for Thanet Archaeology. Perkins D.R.J. and Gibson A.M. 1990. A Beaker burial from Manston, near Ramsgate. Archaeologia Cantiana CVIII, 11-27.
		Acknowledgments I would particularly like to take this opportunity to thank Lithic Specialist Chris Butler who reviewed my analysis of the flintwork from this site and offered kind and helpful comment and advice on the report (basically it was far too long!). For those who would like to learn more about the subject of lithics I heartily recommend Chris Butler's book Prehistoric Flintwork (published by Tempus in 2005). It is the best, most accessible, most informative and useful and book on lithics that I have yet read. (I wish it had been out years ago, it would have saved an awful lot of time trawling through (sometimes mystifying) site reports, compiling notes!). I should also like to express my thanks to Alan Hart who advised on the cleaning of the concreted flints.
		The text is the responsibility of the author; the photographs are by the author unless otherwise stated.
		Paul Hart Version 1 - Posted 16.12.06 Top
All content © Trust for Thanet Archaeology