West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 1: Barfield
1
Later Lithics in the West Midlands Counties
Lawrence Barfield
Institute of Archaeology & Antiquity, University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
lawrence@barfield.powernet.co.uk
Introduction
On account of the prevalence of chronologically mixed assemblages and the difficulties of
dating all but a small percentage of lithic items, the study of lithics is currently best dealt with
as a single subject. Even the separation of Mesolithic assemblages from later ones is
problematic. In the West Midlands, unlike the Lower Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic periods,
no serious analysis has yet been made of any general aspect of the Neolithic or Bronze Age
flintwork. All we have are a few site-specific published lithic reports, and many others
unpublished as appendices in extensive excavation reports of usually non-prehistoric sites.
The SMR maps of lithic finds prepared for this review represent the first attempt to produce a
general plot of flint finds from the whole or part of the region (I have not included axes in
this study). It shows for the first time that flint finds can and should be studied seriously in
the West Midlands. The potential for a dramatic increase in our knowledge of the later
prehistoric past by systematic flint collection in field survey has been well documented in
recent years in neighbouring east Midland counties (Clay, n.d., a & b).
Unfortunately, there have been fewer field surveys carried out in the West Midlands
compared to the East Midlands counties, but where these have been undertaken they have
also shown an unexpected number of finds. These include the surveys in the Wroxeter
Hinterland (Barfield forthcoming), at Sutton Coldfield (Hodder 1988), and surveys carried
out by the Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society on the route of the
Birmingham Northern Relief Road and at Barston in Warwickshire). Systematic and accurate
amateur surveys have also provided valuable information. These include surveys by Mrs.
King at Kinver (Bevan 1995), M.Smith around Halesowen (1990), and the Deakins on the
Upper Avon (2000). The majority of finds in the SMRs, however, still consist of randomly
collected material from a variety of different contexts, including chance finds and selective
and imprecisely provenanced amateur collections.
An important source of flint finds are excavations of later sites. Discrete flints collections
come from Iron Age hill forts such as Midsummer Hill (Saville 1981) and the Breidden
(Green & Wainwright 1991). Many Roman sites have also revealed prehistoric activity such
as Tiddington (Barfield, forthcoming), Wroxeter (Barfield, forthcoming), Coleshill (Barfield,
forthcoming), Droitwich (Barfield, forthcoming), and Rocester (Barfield & Kalali 1996).
There are also large excavations that have produced little flint, such as at Stafford, Alcester,
and Birmingham, providing important negative evidence contributing to the overall picture.
Distribution
Given the unsystematic nature of recovery, the resulting distribution pattern as represented by
the SMR plots is for the most part highly unreliable beyond showing us that there was
widespread and continuous activity during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Clusters of
West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 1: Barfield
2
finds are largely due to, or enhanced by, the activities of individual collectors or the intensive
localised surveys mentioned previously. The results of some surveys such as that of the
Wroxeter Hinterland Project and the Birmingham Northern Relief Road are not yet entered
on the map and would produce further concentrations.
The problems of interpreting surface scatters, even those collected from controlled surface
survey, has been highlighted in other counties (e.g. Garton and Bestwick 1983; Knox n.d.). In
the West Midlands we can cite cases where surface survey clusters have not been confirmed
by subsequent excavation (eg. the Northern Relief Road) and other examples where
excavation has revealed lithic concentrations where field survey produced none, as at Meole
Brace, Shropshire (Hughes 1995).
Some preliminary comments can however be made about the distribution map. While no
attempt has been made to correlate finds with geology we can note the presence of some foci
of activity on high ground. Thus there appear to be significant concentrations in the Welsh
Marches. There are two areas here in which the density of material appears to be significantly
higher, even though this has not been controlled by modern survey methods. One is the
Golden Valley in south Herefordshire, where high lithic concentrations places like Dorstone
and Cefyn Hill. Children and Nash (1994) see this as a bridgehead of folk from the Wye
Valley. The area is significantly the location of the only megalithic tomb from the West
Midlands; Arthurs Stone.
The other area is the Clun area of Shropshire. The collecting of flint in this areas goes back to
1877 (Luff 1888), continued in the 1930s (when the boys from Clunbury School were paid a
penny a piece by the school, leading to a collection of more than 3000 flints in the 1930s),
and up till the present day. The concentration of lithic scatters was first recognised by Chitty
in the 1930s when she linked it with her Clun-Clee Ridgeway (Chitty 1963). Stanford
calculated that there were 70 sites in an area of 20 sq. kms (Stanford 1980). These sites are
associated with several monuments including at least two stone circles, and consist
predominantly of Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age lithic artefacts. There can be no doubt
that they form part of high-density settlement centred on Late Neolithic ritual monuments.
At the same time we can note concentrations along the axis of major waterways. The SMR
plots suggest concentrations along the Severn, where King's Kinver survey (Bevan 1995)
locally confirms a high density. Along the Avon, the Deakin's collection show intensive
occupation of both sides of the upper Avon between Little Lawford in the east to Wolston in
the west (Deakin & Deakin 2000). Here every field has produced flints. Many finds have
come from other sites along the Avon as might be expected from Hobley and Webster's
(1964) air photographic study of sites along the river. It can also be noted that on the higher
ground between the Severn and Avon (eg. the Clent Hills, and the Nuneaton area) Mesolithic
assemblages seem to predominate. A survey in North Shropshire produced little but
Mesolithic flint (Leah et al 1998).
In addition, in many surveys we have the impression of low background ‘noise’ of material
from many periods; the Wroxeter hinterland project, for example, produced a total of only 94
pieces (Barfield forthcoming).
It should be emphasised that these observations are still somewhat impressionistic and need
to be confirmed by future study.
West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 1: Barfield
3
Chronology
The dating of individual assemblages is difficult. Almost all come from surface collections or
redeposited in later archaeological contexts. The smaller assemblages contain little that is
dateable, while most of the larger assemblages are multi-period, are difficult to define
spatially and usually have a Mesolithic component.
In older collections often only selected tools have been recorded or preserved. Many of the
finds recorded in SMRs are no longer available for examination and have ambiguous
definitions which include terms such as ‘Druidical hatchet’ or ‘odd specimens’. Dating of
lithics in the SMRs is also based entirely on arrowhead typology and thumb-nail scrapers.
There is thus a great need for a detailed reassessment of all the collections using a much
wider rage of technological criteria. Few assemblages are thus dated and the overall
distribution by period has little significance.
I would claim that the separation of Mesolithic material and Early Neolithic is less
problematic than many scholars have suggested (Pitts & Jacobi 1979; Clay nd., a & b), since
Mesolithic debitage and cores, and sometimes raw materials, are usually distinctive. The
Mesolithic component is often heavily patinated in contrast with later material indicating the
complete chronological separation of Mesolithic and Neolithic.
The composition of regional assemblages sometimes show a bias towards one period or
another. It is of interest that whereas the Waite collection in the Nuneaton area is dominated
by Mesolithic artefacts, it only contains one major Neolithic assemblage. The Clun area
where amateur collections started already in the 1870s (Luff 1888), is dominated by Neolithic
and includes little Mesolithic material. Such a relative evaluation could be useful.
Sourcing
Another potential area of research is the sourcing of flint. Although studies using microfossil
analysis (cf. Brooks 1986) would be useful, this approach would only provide evidence of the
ultimate geological source of flint. Since most flint from our area appears to be from
secondary geological deposits, a more useful study should perhaps use macroscopic criteria
such as cortex, texture and colour variations. A pilot study is currently being undertaken in
which a series of such traits has been established and correlated with technical aspects of the
material. This has led to the recognition of clear differences between assemblages with such
traits as beach pebble flint and Bull Head flint (cf. Bradley 1999) found at Clun, identified by
cortex. One very distinctive flint variety from Warwickshire sites (unfortunately not yet
closely dateable) has a distinctive white sub-cortical band. Black Derbyshire chert (Saville
1986) and white chert, as well as metamorphosed mudstone/hornfels (as at Foxcote Lane,
Halesowen; Smith collection), were also used during the Mesolithic and these permit us,
provisionally, to distinguish some Mesolithic from later assemblages.
Late in the sequence we find non-flint materials like Chalcedony used at Hanley William,
Worcestershire, and fine-grained meta-siltstone and altered dolerite employed at Meole
Brace, Shropshire, in Beaker contexts (Barfield 1997). Other tools were imported ready-made
often in a recognisable exotic types of flint. Flint axes are the most obvious and are largely of
grey mottled flint, probably from Lincolnshire (cf. those found in the Walton valley; Bradley
1999). These of course have the added value of being reworkable into other tools once
West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 1: Barfield
4
broken. Although this is a widespread phenomenon it is very common on sites - at least
twelve - in the flint-poor West Midlands.
Certainly imported are a group of fabricators, probably Early Neolithic, distinguished by
being made on extremely large blades. They look like ready-made imports as do Late
Neolithic polished discoidal scapers (Woxeter Hinterland Survey; Barfield forthcoming) and
a Beaker style dagger (Diglis, Worcestershire; Whitehouse 1960) made on rich brown ironstained flint of probably East Anglian origin.
Proposal
The potential for further research into West Midland lithics is considerable and a co-ordiated
research strategy is recommended. Lines of study could include:
1. Detailed and consistent examination of existing collections. This should take into account
multiple criteria, including technology and raw material to enable a comparative review
to be made.
2. Seminars for flint collectors to explain the potential of flint study, and encouragement and
advice for non-professional collectors.
3. A study of raw material using the criteria of colour, texture and cortex type. An archive of
colour photographs of flint varieties should be established and eventually put on the web.
4. Unworked flint from areas of collection should be made in order to locate utilised sources
of flint.
5. More field collection either perhaps parish based or linked to geomorphological
background, in order to produce meaningful distribution patterns.
References
Barfield, LH & Kalali, I, 1996 Flints. In Ferris, IM & Esmonde Cleary, AS, Excavations in
the New Cemetery, Rocester, Staffordshire, 1985-1987, 182-3
Barfield, LH, forthcoming. The flints. In Palmer, N, Excavations at Tiddington,
Warwickshire
Barfield, LH, forthcoming. Report on the Beaker assemblage and flint industry from
Coleshill, Warwickshire.
Barfield, LH, 1997 Caught short in Shropshire, Lithics, 17/18, 66-9
Barfield, LH, in press. The worked flint from Wroxeter excavations.
Bevan, L, 1995 Later Mesolithic Settlement in the West Midlands: the analysis of worked
flint from surface collections near Kinver edge and excavated assemblages from the
Trimpley-Blackstone aqueduct. MA thesis, Birmingham University
West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 1: Barfield
5
Bradley, P, 1999 The worked flint. In Gibson, A, The Walton Basin Project: excavation and
survey in a prehistoric landscape (CBA Res Rep 118), 49-79
Brooks, I, 1986 Debugging the system. In Brooks, I & Phillips, P (eds), Breaking the Stony
Silence: papers from the Sheffield Lithics Conference (Oxford: BAR Brit Ser xx), xx.
Children, G & Nash, G, 1994 A Guide to Prehistoric Sites in Herefordshire (Little Logaston:
Logaston Press)
Chitty, LF, 1963 The Clun-Clee Ridgeway: a prehistoric trackway across south Shropshire.
In Foster, I. Ll & Alcock, L (eds), Culture and Environment: essays in hour of Sir Cyril Fox
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul)
Clay, P, n.d.,a An archaeological resource assessment and research agenda for the Neolithic
and Early-Middle Bronze Age of the East Midlands. East Midlands Archaeological Research
Framework
Clay, P, n.d.,b An archaeological resource assessment of the Neolithic and Bronze Age in
Leicestershire and Rutland. East Midlands Archaeological Research Framework
Deakin, M & Deakin, T, 2000 Recent flint finds in the Upper Avon Valley, Warkwickshire.
An interim report. West Midlands Archaeology, 43, 41-5
Garton, D & Bestwick, P, 1983 The survey and excavation of a Neolithic settlement area at
Mount Pleasant, Kenslow, 1980-83, Derbyshire Arch J, 103, 7-40
Green, HS & Wainwright, GJ, 1991 Flintwork. In Musson, CR, The Breidden Hillfort: a
later prehistoric settlement in the Welsh marches (CBA Res Rep 76), 113-16
Hobley, B & Webster, G, 1964 Aerial reconnaissance over the Warwickshire Avon, Arch J,
121, 1-22
Hodder, M, 1988 The Development of Some Aspects of Settlement and Land Use in Sutton
Chase. PhD. Thesis, University of Birmingham
Hughes, G, 1995 The excavation of a double ring ditch at Meole Brace, Shrewsbury (SA 14):
interim report on 1994 season. Birmingham University Field Unit, Report no. 344
Knox, R, n.d. An archaeological resource assessment of the Mesolithic in Leicester and
Rutland. East Midlands Archaeological Research Framework
Leah, MD, Wells, CE, Stamper, P, Huckerby, E & Welch, C, 1998 The Wetlands of
Shropshire and Staffordshire (North West Wetlands Survey 5. Lancaster Imprints)
Luff, G, 1888 Neolithic man and his remains in Shropshire, Trans Shropshire Arch & Hist Soc,
11, 211-22
Myers, A, n.d. An archaeological resource assessment of the Mesolithic in Derbyshire. East
Midlands Archaeological Research Framework
West Midlands Regional Research Framework for Archaeology, Seminar 1: Barfield
6
Saville, A, 1981 Flint artefacts. In Stanford, SC, Midsummer Hill: an Iron Age Hill fort
(Hereford: Print Logic), 118-21
Saville, A, 1986 The Lithic assemblage. In Cane, C & Cane, J, The excavation of a
Mesolithic cave-site near Rugeley, Staffordshire, Staffordshire Arch Stud, 3, 1-11
Smith, M, 1990 Halesowen, Foxcote Lane Mesolithic site, West Midlands Arch, 33, 95-7
Stanford, SC, 1980 The Archaeology of the Welsh Marches (London: Collins)
Whitehouse, D, 1960 A flint dagger of the Early Bronze Age from Diglis, Worcester, Trans
Worcestershire Arch Soc, 37, 24