The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe

by Chris Fowler

  Lech, H. and Lech, J. 1984. The prehistoric flint mine at Wierzbica ‘Zele’: a case study from Poland. World Archaeology 16(2), 186–203.

  Lech, J. 1997. Remarks on prehistoric flint mining and flint supply in European archaeology. In A. Ramos-Millán and M.A. Bustillo (eds), Siliceous rocks and culture, 611–637. Granada: Monográfica Arte y Arqueología.

  Lech, J. 2008. Mining and distribution of flint from Little Poland in the Lengyel, Polgár and related communities in the middle/late Neolithic. A brief outline. In Z. Sulgostowska and A.J. Tomaszewski (eds), Man—millennia—environment. Studies in honour of Romuald Schild, 281–292. Warszawa: Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences.

  Lech, J. and Longworth, I. 2006. The Grimes Graves flint mine site in the light of two Late Neolithic workshop assemblages: a second approach. In G. Korlin and G. Weisgerber (eds), Stone Age—Mining Age, 413–422. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum.

  Lech, J., Longworth, I., and Varndell, G. 2011. Excavations at Grimes Graves, Norfolk, 1972–1976. Fascicule 6: exploration and excavation beyond the deep mines. London: British Museum Press.

  Longworth, I. and Varndell, G. 1996. Excavations at Grimes Graves, Norfolk 1972–1976. Fascicule 5: mining in the deeper mines. London: British Museum Press.

  Mallet, N., Richard, G., Genty, P., and Verjux, C. 2004. La diffusion des silex du Grand-Pressigny dans le Bassin Parisien. Le troisième millénaire dans le nord de la France et la Belgique. Mémoire de la Société Préhistorique Française XXXV—Anthropologica et Praehistorica 115, 123–138.

  Migal, W. 1997. Reconstruction of the flint extraction system in Krzemionki. In A. Ramos-Millán and M.A. Bustillo (eds), Siliceous rocks and culture, 315–325. Granada: Universidad de Granada.

  Negrino, F., Martini, S., Ottomano, C., and del Lucchese, A. 2006. Palaeolithic evidence for quarrying activity at ‘I Ciotti’ (Mortola Superiore, Ventimiglia, Imperia, Italy). In G. Korlin and G. Weisgerber (eds), Stone Age—Mining Age, 153–162. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum.

  Oliva, M. 2011. Chert mining in the Krumlov Forest (southern Moravia). In M. Capote, S. Consuegra, P. Díaz-del-Río, and X. Terradas (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the UISPP Commission on Flint Mining in Pre- and Protohistoric Times (Madrid, 14–17 October 2009), 97–107. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Pétrequin, P., Errera, M., Pétrequin, A.M., and Allard, P. 2006. The Neolithic quarries of Mount Viso, Piedmont, Italy: initial radiocarbon dates. European Journal of Archaeology 9(1), 7–30.

  Rind, M.M. (ed.) 2003. Wer Andern eine Grube gräbt. Archäologie im Landkreis Kelheim Band 4. Büchenbach: Dr. Faustus.

  Roth, G. 2008. Geben und Nehmen. Eine wirtschaftshistorische Studie zum neolithischen Hornsteinbergbau von Abensberg-Arnhofen, Kr. Kelheim (Niederbayern)[in IV Bänden]. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universität zu Köln.

  Saville, A. 2005. Prehistoric quarrying of a secondary flint source: evidence from north-east Scotland. In P. Topping and M. Lynott (eds), The cultural landscape of prehistoric mines, 1–13. Oxford: Oxbow.

  Schild, R. 1995. Tomaszów, Radom Province. Archaeologia Polona 33, 455–465.

  Tarantini, M. 2005. I muretti a secco. Tecniche costruttive e tipologie morfologico-funzionali. In A. Galiberti (ed.), Defensola. Una miniera di selce di 7000 anni fa, 93–102. Siena: Protagon Editori Toscani.

  Thirault, E. 2005. The politics of supply: the Neolithic axe industries in Alpine Europe. Antiquity 79(303), 34–50.

  Topping, P. 2005. Shaft 27 revisited, an ethnography of Neolithic flint extraction. In P. Topping and M. Lynott (eds), The cultural landscape of prehistoric mines, 63–93. Oxford: Oxbow.

  Topping, P. 2011. The evidence for the seasonal use of the English flint mines. In M. Capote, S. Consuegra, P. Díaz-del-Río, and X. Terradas (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of the UISPP Commission on Flint Mining in Pre- and Protohistoric Times (Madrid, 14–17 October 2009), 35–43. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  * * *

  * First submitted in 2009, updated December 2011.

  CHAPTER 27

  STONE AND FLINT AXES IN NEOLITHIC EUROPE*

  GABRIEL COONEY

  INTRODUCTION—AXES TO GRIND

  GIVEN their sheer numbers, ubiquity, and variability across Europe, stone and flint axeheads are a rich source of information about Neolithic life and society. Axes are frequently regarded as emblematic of the Neolithic and formed part of the original formulation of what constituted the period’s distinctive material (e.g. Childe 1925). Stone axeheads are also used by societies in many parts of the world and European Neolithic axes are often interpreted by analogy with their use in other societies (e.g. Clark 1965; Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993, 2011; Brumm 2011).

  In parts of Europe such as Scandinavia and Ireland (Blankholm 2008; Woodman et al. 1999) stone axeheads were used since the Mesolithic, although significant changes in patterns of source exploitation, use, and distribution appear at the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition (e.g. Cooney 2008). In other areas, the use of stone axeheads correlates with the beginning of the Neolithic (e.g. Bayliss et al. 2011, 779–800). Copper axeheads occur in Neolithic societies in central and south-east Europe from the fifth millennium BC (Whittle 1996, 116–20; Klassen 2004), but stone axeheads continued in use in some areas well until the Bronze Age. The term ‘axe’ normally refers to the axe blade (or head); wooden, antler, or composite handles survive much more rarely (e.g. Sheridan et al. 1992; Stöckli et al. 1995; Maigrot 2011). The term also covers what are in fact a number of related morphological forms: axes, adzes, chisels, and wedges.

  Frequently the stone outcrop(s) from which axeheads originated can be pinpointed and in some cases the actual quarry sites can be identified. This integration of archaeological and petrological approaches has a long history in some parts of Europe. In recent years, the foundational technique of implement petrology has been complemented by a variety of others, refining our knowledge of source use and axehead distribution (e.g. Davis 1997). Given the number and morphological variety of axeheads, long-established typological approaches continue to be an important aspect of stone axe studies both at regional and supraregional level (e.g. Zalai-Gaál 2001; Pétrequin et al. 2011).

  Clark (1965) presciently discussed the significance of the enduring presence of axeheads across human generations, as well as the way in which the surface appearance of the axehead reflects the time and craft invested in it. Recognition that material culture plays an active role in cultural identity has prompted reflection on the wider role of stone axeheads. The symbolic value of the axe is demonstrated by its occurrence as a motif in Breton megalithic art (Shee-Twohig 1981) and the placement of axeheads in symbolically laden contexts; for example in individual male burials, in LBK cemeteries (e.g. Nieszery 1995), in features in enclosures (e.g. Andersen 1997), or as groups formally deposited in a hoard, as in TRB axe hoards (Midgley 1992, 281–284).

  Stone axe studies, then, are marked by a range of complementary approaches: those that could be regarded as traditional, science-based approaches (e.g. Davis 1985; Kars et al. 1991; Cooney and Mandal 1998); those focusing on the materiality and symbolic value of the axe (Cooney 2002; Skeates 2002); and biographical and contextual approaches (Edmonds 1995; Skeates 1995; Wentink et al. 2011). Through these approaches both the materials used and the materiality of the axe as a form and object can be engaged with (Ingold 2007; O’Connor and Cooney 2010). Here, a broadly biographical approach is taken, following the objects through the socially defined life-stages of production, circulation, and consumption (Kopytoff 1986), considering in turn the lithic sources used, the extraction, quarrying, and working of stone, the use life of axes, and patterns of deposition and discard which returned them to the earth.

  BACK TO THE SOURCE

  Macroscopic surface identification of the lithologies from which axeheads are made is very useful where sources are visually distinctive. In the case of Polish flint sources, striped or banded Krzemionki flint, grey, white-dotted
Święciechów flint, and ‘chocolate’ Volhynian flint can all be readily identified (e.g. Balcer 2002). In Great Britain, petrographic analysis (microscopic study of rock in thin section) has been carried out since the 1930s. Pioneering work by Keiller, Piggott, and Wallis (Keiller et al. 1941) led to the establishment of the Implement Petrology Committee (Council for British Archaeology; Clough and Cummins 1979, 1988), and eventually the Implement Petrology Group (Davis 1997; Davis and Edmonds 2011). This leading programme, together with work in Brittany (Cogné and Giot 1952; Le Roux 1990), acted as the model for the wider application across Europe of the petrological analysis of stone axeheads. Optical microscopy remains the basic scientific technique, now complemented by sophisticated geochemical and isotopic approaches.

  Examples of combined petrographic and geochemical analyses include the work of Christensen et al. (2006), who used elemental and Sr, Pb isotopic methods to show that a homogeneous actinolite-hornblende schist rock type (AHS) was the major source of the metamorphic amphibolites widely used in the early and middle Neolithic across what is now Germany. This could be reasonably matched to a single outcrop at Jistebsko in the Czech Republic where there are traces of prehistoric extraction, up to 600km east of the find locations of the axes (see Ramminger 2007, 230–40; 2009). Lillios (1997) found the two potential source regions for the amphibolite axeheads from Copper Age hilltop settlements in lowland Portugal to be geochemically distinctive, with all the artefacts in the sample analysed from the settlements being similar to the source in the Alentejo to the east and south-east. Davis et al. (2009) combined petrology, geochemical portable X-ray fluorescence (PXRF), and geochemical inductively coupled plasma-atomic spectroscopy (ICP) to establish a signature for gabbroic prehistoric stone implements from northern England, securely linking some objects to particular outcrops.

  Implement petrology work in Great Britain has concentrated on identifying major sources or Groups. The most important sources for axes in England are the volcanic tuffs from Great Langdale in the north-west, known as Group VI (see Fell and Davis 1988; Bradley and Edmonds 1993). Other important Groups are Group VII (augite granophyre) from Graiglwyd at Penmaenmawr in north Wales (Darvill 1989; Williams et al. 1998; Williams et al. 2011) and Group I (uralitzed gabbro) from Cornwall (Markham 2009; Floyd 2009). In the Mediterranean regions of Iberia six main lithological groups have been identified based on general rock classification (Risch 2011 with references).

  The Irish Stone Axe Project (ISAP) (Cooney and Mandal 1998; Cooney et al. 2011) has provided a comprehensive overview of all stone axeheads with a provenance on the island of Ireland, incorporating archaeological and petrological data. Over 20,000 axeheads are currently recorded on the database, with over 17,000 identified macroscopically as the basis for a programme of petrographic and geochemical analysis. This has established, for example, that the two sources for porcellanite (a metamorphic rock) in north-east Ireland, known as Group IX in the UK scheme (see Sheridan 1986; Sheridan et al. 1992) can be separated geochemically (Mandal et al. 1997; Meighan et al. 1993). Alongside this dominant source a wide range of lithological sources was used, spanning sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks (Cooney and Mandal 1998, fig 4.1). This systematic approach has also led to the evaluation of the use of particular sources, such as gabbros (Mandal 1997), and identification of a quarry site on Lambay Island off the east coast of Ireland, where porphyry (porphyritic andesite) was extracted for axehead production (Cooney 2005; Fig 27.1a and 27.1b).

  Fig. 27.1a. Porphyritic andesite from Lambay, Ireland, sample of outcrop and small polished axehead from the Eagle’s Nest quarry site.

  (Photograph: Gabriel Cooney).

  Fig. 27.1b. Eagle’s Nest, Lambay, Excavation of quarry site; the quarried face to the left of the photograph with a propped anvil stone in front of it.

  (Photograph: Gabriel Cooney).

  Looking more widely across Europe, the dominance of a major source and/or the use of a variety of sources are common. For example, in Greece microcrystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks were the most widely used (Moundrea-Agrafioti 1996; Perlès 2001, 232). A petrographic and archaeological assessment of prehistoric stone artefacts in northern Italy revealed a raw material circulation network involving the whole region (D’Amico and Starnini 2006). At a broader level, Risch (2011) has identified patterns in the social and economic organization of stone axehead production and distribution in the western Mediterannean suggesting a reliance for the most part on easily accessible local resources (mostly from secondary sources) and the presence of axeheads from different distant sources. Five major sources were exploited in Brittany, with the dolerite (metadolerite Type A) from Sélédin, Plussulien accounting for about 50% of all axes in Brittany (Le Roux 1999). Recent work has demonstrated how focused research can both reveal new sources and quarries (Kerdival et al. 2011; dolerite, north-west Mayenne) and change our understanding of the use and extent of circulation of axeheads from particular sources (Pailler 2010; fibrolite, north-west Finistère).

  The sources used generally reflect local geology, but there is also the common occurrence of axeheads from distant sources, which may be regarded as imported or exotic. Thus, in the Maltese islands from the sixth to the second millennium BC, stone axes were both locally produced and imported from Sicily (Skeates 2002). A functionalist view would suggest that the choice of sources was guided by seeking rocks with suitable mechanical properties for manufacture and use, but other factors were also at play (e.g. Bradley et al. 1992; Pétrequin 1993). One literally obvious example was the significance of colour. Major sources used in different regions tend to be visually distinctive, most notably the green jadeitite, eclogite, and omphacitite axeheads from Alpine sources that are very widespread across western Europe, but also major axehead sources in Ireland and Britain (e.g. Cooney 2002). On the Channel Islands, the axes brought from the mainland belonged to visually quite distinctive sources (Patton 1991a, 39). Distinctive white/yellow speckles are a feature of a number of the Irish axe sources, and it has been suggested (Cooney 1998, 117–8) that this might symbolize an ancestral presence. The same speckled effect occurs for example in thin butted porphyritic axeheads from central Sweden (Welinder and Griffin 1984), diabase adzeheads from Stakaneset on the Norwegian coast (Olsen and Alsaker 1984), and amphibolite axeheads in western Iberia (Fig. 27.2a; 27.2b, Lillios 1997).

  Fig. 27.2a. Amphibolite axe from Zambujal, Portugal.

  (Photograph: Katina Lillios).

  Fig. 27.2b. Plaque from Olival da Pega (Évora, Portugal).

  (Photograph: Katina Lillios, courtesy of Museu Nacional de Arqueologia).

  QUARRYING AND EXTRACTION, THE POWER OF PLACE

  The rock to make stone axeheads was obtained either from primary outcrops or from secondary sources such as cobbles from rivers, beaches, or glacial deposits (e.g. David and Williams 1995, 454–5; Briggs 2009; Risch and Martinez Fernandez 2008). The morphology of the object frequently reflects its origin from a secondary source. From a prospecting point of view, the context of such cobbles and their naturally polished surfaces could have been a guide to the location of primary outcrops and an indicator of the visual appearance of the axehead after polishing. There are three main forms of initial shaping and processing to bring the stone to a rough-out or preform stage. Flaking is a characteristic of fine-grained, homogeneous material which, like flint, can take a predictable conchoidal fracture. Pecking/hammering is used with coarser-grained igneous and metamorphic lithologies (Coope 1979). Experimental work has demonstrated that pecking is slower than flaking (e.g. Dickson 1981, 36), but coarser-grained rock types do not flake in a predictable manner, excluding rapid reduction by flaking. Cleaving or sawing can also be a primary treatment, for example with fibrolite in Britanny and Alpine jades (Pailler 2010, fig. 11.6; Croutsch 2005). In reality, we sometimes see the combined use of these treatments, for example with jadeitites, omphacitites, and eclogites (Pétrequin et al. 2006, 2008a).

  General differences between the resu
lts of flaking or pecking/hammering have a very significant impact on our ability to identify quarry sites. Where flaking was the major primary treatment, stone extraction leaves distinctive scars and fractures on the rock surface and the steps in the reduction process or chaîne opératoire can be followed through the predictable occurrence of different forms of debitage, resulting in sites with large-scale, highly visible, and sequential evidence of extraction and working, which have dominated our perception of Neolithic quarrying (Coope 1979, 99). This includes flint mines (Allard et al. 2008), such as Grime’s Graves in south-east England (Barber et al. 1999), Rijckholt in the Netherlands (de Grooth 2005), Spiennes in Belgium (Collet et al. 2008), and Krzemianki in Poland (e.g. Babel 2008), as well as quarries such as Great Langdale in north-west England, where a distinctive volcanic tuff was worked (Bradley and Edmonds 1993). Traces on rock faces and debitage are more difficult to discover and interpret where pecking and hammering were the main primary treatment, as at Stakaneset, Norway (Olsen and Alsaker 1984; Bergsvik 2006, 123–24) and Lambay (Cooney 2005).

  Stone axe quarries are located in areas with rock outcrops, flint mines where there are chalk deposits (e.g. Körlin and Weisgerber 2006). Traditionally, these sites have been termed ‘industrial’ and viewed, both in terms of location and function, as peripheral to the main focus of Neolithic settlement and society. However, axeheads often circulated over 150km from their sources (e.g. Pétrequin 1993; Whittle 2003, 45–47), in the case of the AHS axes in LBK contexts up to 600km, and in the case of jadeitite axes over 1000km (Pétrequin et al. 2008b). Allied to the visual distinctiveness of many of these sources, this has led to the recognition of the key, active role of axeheads and their places of procurement. Rock would have had a particular symbolism drawn from its link to the ancestral power of the land, redolent with potency and danger (Whittle 1995). Given the physical and metaphysical danger in working and disturbing rock surfaces (Taçon 1991, 203–204), production activities were most probably guided by ritual as well as craft tradition, with activities taking place in prescribed ways. Axeheads from particular sources frequently have a morphological signature. In Scania, south Scandinavia, axeheads from flint mines retained a small area of cortex to show that they had come from underground sources (Rudebeck 1998, 326). Along with colour, the form of the axe connected it to its place of origin in the landscape. As objects were used and exchanged, they gathered meanings and their genealogy may have included stories of their origin. Their colour and appearance marked them as distinctive from locally available axeheads (Ballard 1994; Cooney 2002).