Lawrence Billington 08/2015
Access Cambridge Archaeology
Nayland, Suffolk (NAY14)
The Flint
Quantification and distribution
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
0
1
1
1
5
2
1
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
3
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
unworked burnt flint
weight (g)
unworked burnt flint
no.
total worked
blade
3
4
7
10
2
6
8
14
2
3
4
5
6
8
5
6
2
3
4
1
2
2
4
1
1
5
6
7
7
1
2
3
4
7
tertiary flake
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
9
10
11
11
11
11
11
secondary flake
Context
primary flake
TP
irregular waste
A total of 42 worked flints and 38 unworked, burnt, flints (477.6g) were recovered from the test
pitting. The assemblage is quantified by type and context in table 1. The flint was widely, but thinly,
distributed across the excavated test pits. All of the test pits contained worked flint with the sole
exception of test pit 12. Similarly only three test pits (8, 10 and 14) did not contain unworked burnt
flint. The density of worked flints recovered from the test pits ranged from nine pieces to one (mean
2.8 pieces per test pit).
1
34.7
1
5.2
1
13.5
1
4
2
1
7.1
17.6
25.1
1
1
2.6
1
14.9
1
3
1
2
7.3
7.4
0.6
7.8
1
1
1
45.6
9.2
110.1
1
1
2
1
2.4
1.5
10.4
15.2
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
24
11
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
42
unworked burnt flint
weight (g)
unworked burnt flint
no.
total worked
blade
tertiary flake
9
5
9
10
10
11
12
3
4
4
5
9
7b
Totals
secondary flake
12
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
16
primary flake
Context
irregular waste
TP
1
1
46
1
43
1
2
1
1
1
1
38
7.2
9.9
3.3
7.8
2.7
18.5
477.6
Table 1. Quantification of the flint assemblage by context and type.
Raw Materials and condition
The entire assemblage is made up of good quality fine grained flint, varied in colour but generally a
dark grey/black. Surviving cortical surfaces suggest the use of relatively small nodules/cobbles
deriving from fluvial or glacio-fluvial gravels. Such material is probably locally available in the river
terrace gravel deposits that flank the Stour valley, or in the glacial outwash/fluvial gravels that
outcrop further up the valley slopes and on the interfluves (Kesgrave gravels and Lowestoft
formation).
The condition of the assemblage is varied but generally pieces are in poor condition, with frequent
edge damage and rounding consistent with extensive post depositional disturbance. Some pieces
(notably from Test Pits 1, 3, 9 and 11) are very worn with heavily abraded glossy surfaces. In contrast
some of the worked flint is in relatively fresh condition, these include most of the nine worked flints
recovered from test pit 3 and individual examples from test pits 8 and 14. These pieces do not
appear to have suffered much in the way of redeposition/disturbance and may relate more closely
to locations of prehistoric activity than the remainder of the assemblage.
Technology and dating
The assemblage is made up exclusively of unretouched removals and there is a complete absence of
cores or tools. This makes any assessment of the date of the assemblage difficult. There are very few
pieces which show technological traits characteristic of ‘early’ (Mesolithic/earlier Neolithic) blade
based technologies, which appear to be represented solely by the broken medial portion of a fine
blade from test pit 3. The remainder of the assemblage is best described as representing a
generalised and expedient flake based technology. Most removals are clearly hard hammer struck
and there is a lack of platform preparation or evidence of core maintenance. Partly cortical flakes
dominate the assemblage, suggesting either that the earlier stages of core reduction are over
represented in the assemblage or that relatively few removals were made from individual cores
before they were discarded. This material is not strongly chronologically diagnostic but is
characteristic of later prehistoric flint working and it is likely that it relates largely to activity during
the Early Bronze Age through to the Iron Age (c. 2300 – 500 BC).
Discussion
The assemblage from Nayland clearly indicates that evidence for later prehistoric activity is widely
distributed across the site of the modern village. There is very little evidence of activity predating the
Early Bronze Age but this is likely to be an artefact of the small size of the assemblage rather than
indicating a genuine lack of activity during the Mesolithic and Neolithic. It is difficult to interpret the
kind of activities that the flintwork represents but it certainly included the working of flint probably
obtained from immediately local sources. Whether this was associated with any ‘domestic’ or
settlement type activity is unclear from the present assemblage.