20 views and 0 replies. Doesn't anyone know what I am talking about?
I have remembered where I read it: Ancient Dunstable (by CL Matthews, I think), but are we talking about just the Dunstable area... or the eastern Chilterns... or all chalk downlands... or the south of England... or all of Britain...?
Which era?
What were they for?
Were they rather specialised and confinded to one area, so no one else knows?
Thank you, Tetricus. Since you are a seasoned player here, is it fair to surmise that these are such localised artefacts that whatever I can track down in Ancient Dunstable is the authoritative account? (It was published by the Manshead Archaeological Society.)
"The Iron Age farmers could world work flint with skill when required as is shown by the number of round hammer stones found. These were fashioned from flint to make perfectly round balls that vary from the size of a tangerine to that of a cricket ball. What they were used for we do not know but they were thrown away after the whole of the surface had been bruised by hammering."
Not "smooth" then, as I had remembered it.
"They were so common that they must have been in almost daily use, possibly for striking fire."
Over what area and time period, he does not say.
"To control the sparks a definite point of impact would be needed which could be obtained by using a spherical ball gripped firmly in the palm of the hand. By twisting the ball slightly a new striking point could be obtained for each blow."
I see, it's not the flint that was round, but the hammer stones used to knapp the flint.
I've not heard of hammer stones being shaped to use for knapping, I don't see the point in doing it. There would normally plenty of choice of stones to use, the size of the hammer stone being relative to the size of flake to be knapped. An antler then being used for intricate pressure flaking.
I would have thought that for fire lighting, the shape of stone would be irrelevant.
Then again, I'm no expert.
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
I see, it's not the flint that was round, but the hammer stones used to knapp the flint.
No, the terms are perhaps imprecise, but it says "round hammer stones... These were fashioned from flint...". The flint balls are the "hammer stones": they're round because they've been hammered on something.
Not very common apparently, perhaps because Dunstable is flint country, but does the fire-lighting explanation ring true or jibe with other finds?
I have found dozens of these in my garden and in the fields so I sent some off with my field walking samples (I now have instructions as to what I am to seek having found some flint that has excited comment in the museum!)
the reply says 'nodules' these will sometime contain fossils but more often than not whatever creature, plant or other presence that originally created the void has vanished and is replaced with flint, or other stony deposits. In reply to my statement that an amateur archaeologist had told me that they were iron age sling shots, the reply was that 'there is no reason why the very round nodules should not have been utilised as missiles'.
I have not, as yet, collected the samples from the museum but will be interested to see the catagories into which they have been placed. (Actually I was more interested in the posssibly roman pottery but am now getting flint orientated -move over Phil here I come!)
Dunstable and Silchester are on chalk. How about your garden and fields, Ann?
---
In terms of understanding how archaeology is done, it seems these "hammered flint stones" do not have an accepted explanation; so what is the status of CL Matthews' account of fire strikers; and what would have to happen for archaeologists to chime "yes, we know what those are..."?
Originally posted by Innocent Bystander: Dunstable and Silchester are on chalk. How about your garden and fields, Ann?
---
In terms of understanding how archaeology is done, it seems these "hammered flint stones" do not have an accepted explanation; so what is the status of CL Matthews' account of fire strikers; and what would have to happen for archaeologists to chime "yes, we know what those are..."?
Not convinced by the hammer stone theory, or the source. Flint shatters fairly easily, which is one of the reasons people used to knap it to make tools. That makes it hard (and dangerous) to use as a hammerstone. Most hammerstones tend to be harder rocks, although many are rounded pebbles - often river cobbles are used
What ever they are, they are unlikely ro be used for knapping in the Iron Age - flint knapping was in serious decline by then, flint having been replaced by iron copper and bronze as the material of choice.
"Round hammer stones" was evidently a poor choice of words by Matthews, but he did qualify it with an account of fire-striking rather than flint-on-flint knapping or hammering per se.
Why is his explanation not generally accepted?
What is the proper explanation? Wouldn't the river cobbles (or pebbles) you mentioned make better sling stones?
Originally posted by Innocent Bystander: "Round hammer stones" was evidently a poor choice of words by Matthews, but he did qualify it with an account of fire-striking rather than flint-on-flint knapping or hammering per se.
Why is his explanation not generally accepted?
What is the proper explanation? Wouldn't the river cobbles (or pebbles) you mentioned make better sling stones?
Without any idea of the exact form of these spheres, it is difficult to say. Were they found with the cortex still present? If so, that would suggest that they are not strike-a-lights. What is the evidence for their Iron Age date?
Waterworn cobbles do indeed make very good slingshot - loads found at sites such as Maiden Castle
Originally posted by Innocent Bystander: No idea, but the man and the organisation are entirely orthodox.
What on earth does this mean? he is orthodox? In what, his religious beliefs?
What is the significance of these objects? Are you even sure they are humanly modified and not geological? Am I right in thinking that the book you culled this from was published some time ago?
What on earth does this mean? he is orthodox? In what, his religious beliefs?
I mean a pukka, professional archaeologist working for a pukka archaeological society: Manshead Archaeology Society, which works in association with the Bedfordshire Archaeology Council. Proper Establishment stuff, not a bunch of frootloops.
quote:
What is the significance of these objects?
That's what I'd like to know.
quote:
Are you even sure they are humanly modified and not geological? Am I right in thinking that the book you culled this from was published some time ago?
As an aside, it's interesting that you question the report before suggesting a practical explanation. Maybe it's the way I tell 'em.
As less of an aside, it's interesting that what strikes me as the obvious explanation doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone else.
Originally posted by Innocent Bystander: As less of an aside, it's interesting that what strikes me as the obvious explanation doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone else.
The complete reverse of Matthews' suggestion. He said
"To control the sparks a definite point of impact would be needed which could be obtained by using a spherical ball gripped firmly in the palm of the hand. By twisting the ball slightly a new striking point could be obtained for each blow."
Whereas, on the contrary, • a sphere doesn't have any definite points of impact; • there is no point in bashing a flint nodule into shape so you can use it to bash things; • flint is useless when blunt.
A ball of flint, bruised all over, is what is left behind and thrown away once all the definite points of impact have been knocked off an irregular lump used for striking fires.
(The useless scraps of iron, on the other hand, can be recycled by the blacksmith.)
Originally posted by Innocent Bystander: once all the definite points of impact have been knocked off an irregular lump used for striking fires
Errr, have you ever done it? You do know that in using a firesteel, the spark comes from the steel? So a lump of flint like this was well useless long before it got to that stage. In fact to my mind its way too big. You need a nifty hand movement, not bash the hell out of it. I have a firesteel and flint set (which seems from its tin to be WWI trench issue) and it has been used - so it works. The flint is an interesting blade segment about 25 mm long. Excavated flints which seem to have been used for this purpose (battered ridges) are about the same size.
But in fact you don't need flint at all, you can strike a spark from a firesteel with almost any hard stone with a suitable edge.
I don't think round flint lumps the size of cricket balls are for use with firesteels. How about a pounder, grinder or crusher for food preparation or crushing plant material to get fibres out? I've seen similar size stones found with saddle querns.
I don't think round flint lumps the size of cricket balls are for use with firesteels. How about a pounder, grinder or crusher for food preparation or crushing plant material to get fibres out? I've seen similar size stones found with saddle querns.
You might be right, PMB. Although if the firesteels of the time have never been found, this is still somewhat speculative. And for all we know, where flint was a throw-away item, different techniques were used.
I know I would be disinclined to use flint for food preparation. But then again, flint was perhaps the hardest stone available among the soft chalk. But then again again, we're talking about the Iron Age here, so there is no reason to suppose they were limited to local materials. (Mind you, I don't know to what extent the Iron Age dating was influenced by the assumption that flints were used with steels.) And the sheer quantity (apparently) means they were "used up" quickly, so it's hard to imagine they were considered good for pounding of any kind. (As someone exclaimed earlier, flint hammer stones would be strange indeed.)
Whatever they were for, it surely revolved around the flintiness of flint (which includes it's abundance in chalk hills). However, my initial enquiry concerned
a) the status of the published account, which appears to be not widely known and (at least since I aired it) not widely trusted; and
b) the fact that with the best will in the world, a bona fide archaeologist (plus peer/editorial review) advanced a nonsensical explanation with inside-out logic.
Archaeologists make a living at this stuff, but it does not mean they have a monopoly on the application of good sense in the interpretation of the data.
