sign in sign up
<<
Home , Lithic analysis

Lithics 31

DURRINGTON WALLS THEN AND NOW: THE DESCRIPTION, INTERPRETATION AND MEANING OF A MONSTROUS ASSEMBLAGE Benjamin Tun-Yee Chan1

ABSTRACT There have been two principal excavations at Durrington Walls; those conducted by Wainwright from 1966– 1968 and those conducted by the Riverside Project from 2004–2007. Comparison between the assemblages from the two excavations reveals similarities and provides the ideal opportunity to consider how lithic studies have changed over the last forty years. The 1971 publication of the worked assemblage from Wainwright’s excavation is typical of its day being primarily descriptive and concentrating on the presentation of typology. The current analysis places a much greater emphasis on the potential of detailed statistical, contextual and spatial analyses. Most fundamentally the approach is interpretative in treating the mass of worked flint, not as a passive record of the past, but as the product of material practices that helped constitute society. A general description of the assemblage and detailed examples of a house floor assemblage and a context are used to demonstrate the potentials that the assemblage holds for revealing the significance of flintworking at Durrington Walls. Full reference: Chan, B. T.-Y. 2010. Durrington Walls then and now: the description, interpretation and meaning of a monstrous assemblage. Lithics: the Journal of the Lithic Studies Society 31: 44–54. Keywords: Durrington Walls, Neolithic occupation surfaces, daily practice, spatial analysis, context of practice, Late Neolithic flintworking.

THE EXCAVATIONS INTRODUCTION Wainwright’s excavations at Durrington Walls Over the years there have been a number of followed the route of the proposed realignment excavations at Durrington Walls but by far the of the A345, which cut a 20 m – 40 m wide most significant have been those directed by linear transect across the (Wainwright & Geoffrey Wainwright from 1966–1968 Longworth 1971, 10). The excavation was (Wainwright & Longworth 1971) and those ground breaking for its time in terms of its conducted by the Stonehenge Riverside Project scale, the widespread use of mechanical (SRP) between 2004–2007 (Parker Pearson et excavators and the speed with which it was al. 2006a, 2006b & 2007). These two projects completed (Pitts 2000, 48–61). It was also have produced two of the most significant later successful in uncovering extensive remains Neolithic flint assemblages from southern including parts of the Northern Circle, the Britain and accordingly a comparison of the Southern Circle, the henge ditch, the henge two is warranted. As the analyses are separated bank and the occupation debris sealed beneath by a period of 40 years, and in keeping with it. The SRP arrived at the site under very the retrospective sentiment of the Lithic different circumstances and without the Studies Societies 30th anniversary conference, exigency of road construction. Seeking this also provides an opportunity to assess the initially to explore the relationship between the changes in lithic studies that have occurred henge and the River Avon, the SRP first over that time. It should be stressed from the investigated the area between the East outset that it is relatively easy and perhaps Entrance of Durrington Walls and the river and unfair to critique a lithics report with the subsequently went on to excavate parts of the benefit of 40 years of hindsight. My intention Southern Circle, the Western Enclosures, the is not to set up a one-sided debate and hence I South Entrance and the West Entrance. Like shall keep discussion of Wainwright’s the former project, the findings have been methodology to a minimum, focusing instead ground breaking and have included the on the approach that is being adopted by the remains of a number of -preserved house SRP and the potentials it offers for floors, associated and an avenue understanding later Neolithic society.

1Department of , University of Sheffield, Northgate House, West Street, Sheffield S1 4ET. Email: [email protected]. 44 Lithics 31

Approximate Area Excavation Total Worked Flint Worked Flint/ha. of Excavation (ha.) Wainwright 12596 1.150 10953

SRP (all DW excavations) 89446 0.226 395779

Table 1. The total assemblage size and amount of worked flint/ha. connecting the East Entrance of Durrington fact that during Wainwright’s excavation, Walls to the River Avon (Parker Pearson et al. whilst and were normally 2006a). The important point for our current collected, only tools were retained from certain purposes is that, whilst the excavations were contexts such as the secondary and tertiary fills conducted under very different circumstances, of the henge ditch (Wainwright and Longworth the range of contexts excavated by Wainwright 1971, 161). and the SRP were essentially the same. This This perhaps highlights the first major facilitates a comparison of the worked flint difference between the approaches of the two from the two projects. projects. One was essentially carried out as rescue archaeology, whereas the other was ASSEMBLAGE SIZE AND conducted as a research project geared towards COMPOSITION close contextual analysis. Indeed developments It is first necessary to examine the assemblages within the last few decades have made it clear at their broadest scale, which is in terms of that contextual and spatial analyses, and their size and composition (Table 1). Before consequently our understandings of prehistoric proceeding it should be noted that, whilst the inhabitation, are only as good as the recording of the SRP assemblage is excavation they are based on. With this in substantially complete, the data analysis and mind the SRP wet sieved a high proportion of writing up is still in progress and hence the excavated contexts with the remainder being data utilised here should be regarded as dry sieved and all occupation surfaces were preliminary. It should also be mentioned that excavated on grids to allow the spatial the area of the excavation calculated for recovery of artefact patterns. The commitment, Wainwright’s excavation within Table 1 dedication and resources it takes to conduct includes only the area within Durrington Walls such detailed artefact retrieval within a site of and excludes the long transect which stretched such complexity and richness of material south of the henge. The area for the SRP culture should not be underestimated. excavations includes only those trenches which Despite the large differences between the lie within the monument and the trench at the retrieval rates of the two excavations the basic East Entrance, which lies partly outside of the assemblage composition is remarkably similar bank of the henge. (Figure 1). The main difference between the As can be seen some differences between the two is that within Wainwright’s assemblage two assemblages are immediately apparent. In cores account for 0.5% of the assemblage proportion to the relative size of the excavated whereas within the SRP material (excluding areas, the SRP recovered about 36 times the chips and irregular waste) the figure is 1.4%. quantity of flint than Wainwright’s The low frequency of cores within excavations. Of course the comparison is not Wainwright’s assemblage was noted in the entirely on even ground as it has not been excavation report (Wainwright & Longworth possible to calculate the total volume of 1971, 162) although no explanation was excavated soil. Despite this, the massive offered. Given the results of the more recent contrast in the quantity of worked flint excavation it is likely that the figure of 0.5%, retrieved by the two projects does indicate which is low compared to most Neolithic sites, significant differences in retrieval rates. This is at least partially a result of retrieval biases. clearly affects the statistical comparability of The differential classification of cores may the two datasets and this is compounded by the also have been an issue as many cores

45 Lithics 31

Figure 1. The frequencies of flakes, cores and tools from Wainwright’s and SRP excavations.

Figure 2. The frequencies of and scrapers from Wainwright’s and SRP excavations. recorded within the SRP consist of nodules Despite the statistical differences between the with minimal removals, often with no prepared two assemblages, my overriding impression platform, and in other circumstances such when reading the earlier report is one of artefacts may have been discarded as little familiarity, particularly in the forms of the more than bashed lumps. various cores and tools. In this sense I am confident that the two sets of material Whilst the broad similarities between the two represent the same assemblage, produced from assemblages provides hope for a detailed the same types of contexts and containing the statistical comparison, when one looks in more same range of artefact types. Despite this, the detail differences start to emerge. In particular brief analysis conducted here indicates that there is a clear difference in the ratio of direct comparison in statistical terms would be arrowheads to scrapers recovered by the two problematic and for the most part unnecessary projects (Figure 2). Within the assemblages as given the large well-excavated assemblage a whole scrapers and arrowheads are both the from the recent excavations. The main most ubiquitous of types and also exception to this is the Southern Circle where probably the most recognisable. Hence, it is not only did Wainwright excavate a much hard to understand whether the difference in greater proportion of the monument than the the two assemblages is archaeologically SRP, but the distribution of artefacts across the meaningful or merely a result of differential circle provided the basis for Richards and retrieval rates. Further analysis of the SRP Thomas’s (1984) seminal article on structured material will examine the ratios of arrowheads deposition. Hence combining the results of the to scrapers across a range of contexts across analysis of the SRP assemblage with the earlier the site and this may provide further insight material is highly desirable and will be into this issue.

46 Benjamin T.-Y. Chan considered in more detail within the future It is unnecessary at this point to argue over the analysis for the project. correctness of this suggestion. What is important is that, whilst rejecting Piggot’s THE QUESTION CONCERNING hypothesis of the Rinyo-Clacton Culture, the idea of a tradition is only one Having discussed the assemblages in broad very small step removed from it. Both are terms it is important to move away from a clearly working within the same paradigm; that discussion of basic numbers to compare the of culture-history. The basic premise of the difference in the approaches taken towards the culture-historical approach was that artefacts analysis of the material. Wainwright’s served as markers of ethnic identities and that approach towards the worked flint is quite therefore common groups of artefacts could typical of its day and like many others owes a define cultures geographically and be used to great debt to the standards set by Isobel Smith trace their movement and development (1965) and Grahame Clark (Clark 1934; Clark (Trigger 1989, chapter 5). By the early 1970s et al. 1960). In this respect the report consists the critique of culture-history had begun (Clark of a fairly standard list of tool and core types 1966), however, this was often based upon a alongside some basic metrical analyses of lack of continental parallels from which length-breadth ratios, with some comparisons aspects of British prehistoric material culture with other sites. As is perhaps to be expected could have been derived. What was not yet for its time, the report is descriptive rather than being questioned was that material culture was interpretative with the result that whilst it is anything more than a passive reflection of a known that the flakes from the site are broad society, rather than an active constituent in its and squat and that scrapers and arrowheads formation and reproduction (Thomas 1999, dominate the tool assemblage, there is no 92). Within the culture-historical approach the discussion of what any of this might actually description of artefact typologies and thus the mean. identification of cultures, was a primary goal and it is within this tradition that Wainwright’s The analysis of the worked flint from analysis fits. What is lost in such an approach Durrington Walls is only brought into a wider is any understanding of the crucial relationship archaeological discussion within Wainwright between daily practice, social reproduction and and Longworth’s (1971, 235–306) re- social change. In its widest sense, what is consideration of Piggot’s Rinyo-Clacton missing is an understanding of the significance Culture. In his Neolithic Cultures of the British and meaning of this assemblage. Isles, Piggot (1954) had rejected his earlier idea of a Grooved Ware tradition in favour of a Much of course has changed since the time of unified Rinyo-Clacton Culture spreading from Wainwright’s Durrington Walls report starting northern to southern Britain (Wainwright & with the rise to prominence during the 1970s Longworth 1971, 235). In light of the large and 1980s of ecological and economic Grooved Ware assemblage from Durrington approaches to technology (Torrence 1986 & Walls, Wainwright and Longworth reconsider 1989; Myers 1987 & 1989). Whilst these the material associations of Grooved Ware approaches moved away from the study of across a wide range of sites. Within this, the artefact typologies to provide a much needed worked flint from these sites features as part of focus on aspects of production, consumption a list of Grooved Ware’s “non-ceramic and exchange, it was not until the 1990s that associations”. The conclusion is that the the relationship between technological practice ceramic sub-styles of Grooved Ware overlap and social reproduction began to be geographically to the extent that they cannot be highlighted (Edmonds 1995; Dobres & thought to define a uniform culture. Instead Hoffman 1999; Dobres 2000). Within the they suggest that it should be seen as a sub- study of British later , at the culture defined by a material tradition (the use forefront of this movement has been the work of Grooved Ware) which existed alongside of Mark Edmonds (1990, 1995, 1997, 1998 & other sub-cultures of Peterborough Ware and 1999). In comparison to previous analyses of Beaker users (ibid., 268). worked stone, this new generation of work drew upon a more nuanced and embodied

47 Lithics 31 understanding of technological practice prehistoric communities through technological inspired by the concept of the chaîne practice; the other sought merely to use the opératoire (Edmonds 1990; Pigeot 1990; products of technology to identify them as Schlanger 1994; Dobres 1999). Rather than ethnic entities. concentrating on the consumption of the final During the earlier Neolithic there are many forms of tools it was argued that the character elements of continuity with the preceding and context of their creation was of equal period, both in terms of the continued use of importance (Edmonds 1990, 57). In small scale certain stone sources and in the production of societies there is often a lack of anonymity and blades and elongate flakes, however, there an open knowledge of the abilities of others to were differences too. reduction both make and use tools (Dobres 1999, 137). sequences were not as tightly structured as Therefore stoneworking within such societies before and the resultant flake morphology had can provide the conditions under which tacit become less regular. Long held traditions of distinctions of age, gender and kinship are core working had begun to break down and reproduced. this is interpreted as possibly “reflecting a Much of Edmonds’ work is concerned with gradual shift away from core working [...] as “tacking back and forth” between micro- and [a] media through which basic concepts of macro-scales of activity and hence it is social identity were carried forward” perhaps unsurprising that alongside the idea of (Edmonds 1997, 104). This is suggested to the chaîne opératoire Ingold’s (1993) concept have occurred through shifts in routine practice of the taskscape has also been of central that happened in step with a number of novel importance. Within his work, the taskscape developments including the introduction of moves the concept of the chaîne opératoire monumentality, cattle herding, small-scale away from the analysis of micro-scale contexts agriculture, , mining and quarrying. and individual knapping episodes to generate These material practices affected a change in an inhabited perspective of Neolithic the temporality of daily life and accordingly landscapes as a whole. In this sense a repeated the affordances which it offered for the concern is “the pattern, tempo and roll-call of negotiation of social identity. The importance routine experience” (Edmonds 1997, 100). of this argument is that it reveals the This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated in relationship between daily practice and long his discussion of the manner in which term social change. More specifically, to the continuity and change in the routines of daily lithic analyst, it indicates how the analysis of practice played an integral part in the cultural mundane debitage can inform broad-scale change that occurred across the - archaeological narratives. Looking back to Neolithic transition (ibid.). Within this broader Wainwright’s presentation of length/breadth argument he suggests that Mesolithic ratios; it is not enough to know that flakes flintworking reveals a consistent concern with were broad and squat, it is also necessary to the controlled production of blades represented question what the gradual shift from elongate by considered raw material selection, careful to broad flakes during the Neolithic tells us platform preparation and maintenance, and the about the changing role of flintworking within careful placement of blows on the core. In Neolithic society. essence the process requires a high degree of As contingent and historically situated as craftsmanship and technical know-how (cf. Edmonds’ approach towards technology may Pelegrin 1990). Such structured forms of core- be, many of his arguments are developed at a working reflect long-term traditions of necessarily general level. There is at times a knowledge and technique, which in themselves tension between a desire to focus on the suggests that they were a “medium through composition and performance of individual which ideas about identity and community events and the quality of the archaeological were addressed” (Edmonds 1997, 102). This data at hand. Given what survives to us today, idea contrasts quite neatly with the culture- our understanding of many Neolithic historical approach discussed above within landscapes represents a blurred canvas of which the typological forms of artefacts are generalised activity punctuated by points of taken as markers of ethnic identity. One seeks insight represented by a pit here or a to explain how identity was formed within

48 Benjamin T.-Y. Chan monument there. Within southern Britain there is a general paucity of excavated occupation sites and accordingly there is little social contexts and worked them in relation to understanding of the character of domestic other materials. Understanding the network of architecture, the layout of settlement sites and relationships between flint use, pottery use and the articulation of daily practices across them. the consumption of animals is an important In their absence Edmonds has often had to aspect of the work and will hopefully be refer to more broad scale evidence, such as the achieved through the close collaboration of the changing character of lithics scatters over time, various specialists involved in the project or to the implications of practices we know combined with a contextual analysis of the took place (e.g. cattle herding, flint mining, material and spatial analyses utilising a GIS. In aggregation at enclosures) even if we do not accordance with the approach just outlined, know the details of them. This has certainly before moving onto to discuss the lithics provided insight into the general contexts and assemblage, it is first important to consider the implications of routine practice, but details contexts of practice that existed on the site. have often been left necessarily fuzzy. We might know cattle herding took place, but over The contexts of practice what distances and between which landscapes At the East Entrance the later Neolithic were cattle moved? We might know that occupation surfaces were preserved communities aggregated at causewayed substantially intact and the remains include enclosures and later at , but where did seven house floors, pits, large areas of they come from and which parts of the middening and the Durrington Avenue leading community gathered at these times? Such down to the River Avon (Parker Pearson et al. detailed questions may seem forever out of our 2006a; Chan 2009). Bayesian modelling of reach, but recent advances allow us to provide C14 dates indicates an extremely short-lived ever finer chronologies for our sites through occupation spanning less than 50 years in the Bayesian modelling (Bayliss et al. 1997) and mid-3rd millennium BC (Peter Marshall pers. to tackle questions of population movement comm.). through isotope analysis (Evans et al. 2006). At the same time, the excavations by the SRP So what more do we know about the at Durrington Walls have also provided us with inhabitants of Durrington Walls? First of all a rare set of contexts, including in situ we know that the occupants were involved in occupation debris and domestic architecture, monument building. A recent redating of the with which we may start to look in detail at the Stonehenge sequence indicates that in dating articulation of daily practice. There are terms the inhabitation of Durrington Walls and therefore some grounds for optimism about the the construction of the sarsen phase of potentials of the current analysis. Stonehenge are statistically indistinguishable (Parker Pearson et al. 2007). Therefore, it ANALYSING THE DURRINGTON seems likely that the inhabitants of Durrington WALLS ASSEMBLAGE Walls were involved at different times in not only the construction of the timber circles and The current approach starts from the analysis massive henge at Durrington Walls, but also of the contexts of flintworking in its broadest the construction of Stonehenge itself. Previous sense. That is, not only to examine its analysis of pig teeth from Durrington Walls archaeological context, but also the contexts of (Albarella & Payne 2005) has also led to the practice itself. Within the analysis choices in suggestion that a concentration of pig killing the production, consumption and discard of occurred in winter, when the site must stone tools are treated as meaningful (even if therefore have been occupied. Work on the not always discursively so). Hence it is hoped bones from the largest midden (context 593) that mapping activities across the site will from the SRP excavations has confirmed the provide insight into the structure of the presence of this winter peak, but has also inhabitation of Durrington Walls and therefore identified a smaller summer cull (Umberto into later Neolithic society as a whole. It is Albarella & Elizabeth Wright pers. comm.). also understood that production, Hence it seems likely that the occupation of consumption and discard was never conducted Durrington Walls was seasonal or at the least in isolation. People most often worked flint in fluctuated seasonally.

49 Lithics 31

The possibility that Durrington Walls was a fragments from flaked flint (Wainwright seasonal aggregation site has also been & Longworth 1971, 156 & 176). Two of the strengthened by preliminary isotope analysis of three artefacts come from the old land surface 13 cattle molars from Durrington Walls, which beneath the enclosure bank with only the tip of has indicated that 11 of the 13 cows were a flaked being found within a reared off the chalk (Viner et al. 2010). These demonstrably Late Neolithic context (the fill of cattle were reared on a range of different the enclosure ditch). geologies which vary in distance from 30 km Where the assemblage stands out most is in its to at least 90 km away and potentially include assemblage of arrowheads. Since areas such as Wales, Devon and Cornwall. The Wainwright’s excavation (Wainwright & evidence of the cattle and pig bones also Longworth 1971) there has been a known indicate that at Durrington Walls people were association between Durrington Walls and involved in wasteful feasting on a large scale oblique arrowheads and this has become even (Albarella & Serjeantson 2002). In this sense, clearer within the SRP assemblage. Not only is the huge quantity of animal bones on the site the sheer quantity of arrowheads unusual (384 represents large-scale conspicuous consump- from all SRP Durrington Walls excavations at tion and the similarly large quantities of present count), but their proportion within the pottery and worked flint must be seen in the assemblage (as measured by their ratio to same light. Consumption was important at scrapers) is also extremely high compared to Durrington Walls and being seen to consume other Neolithic enclosures (Chan 2009). equally so. Previous work by Umberto Albarella and Dale Serjeantson (2002) identified four pieces of The assemblage of worked flint flint embedded in animal bones, mainly pig, In many senses the assemblage of worked flint one of which was positively identified as a from Durrington Walls is quite typical for a . Further examples from the Late Neolithic assemblage from Wessex. current excavations await analysis and Within the limits of identification all of the identification. Therefore it seems likely that flint worked on the site is of local origin. The the association between the site and oblique quality of the utilised raw material varies from is linked to the shooting of pigs thermally flawed surface nodules to some prior to their slaughtering for feasting. This is better quality and less weathered flint probably just one of many aspects of highly visible acts retrieved during the various digging activities of conspicuous consumption that took place on that must have taken place in and around the the site. site. Technologically the worked flint is extremely uniform in character and in keeping Contexts of production and deposition with other later Neolithic assemblages revolves Having looked at the assemblage in general around the ad hoc or expedient production of terms it is necessary to examine examples of broad flakes with little apparent care taken the contexts of production and deposition from over platform maintenance or core control the site. Firstly, is a context of production in (Chan 2009). There is very little evidence for the form of the floor of House 851 (Figure 3). specialised reduction sequences for blank During excavation this house floor was cleaner production for specific tool types and the range than other house floors from the site, some of of tools on the site is quite typical of the which have complex post-abandonment period. The most common tool types are treatment. The distribution of worked flint scrapers, arrowheads, denticulates, fabricators, across the floor of House 851 is uneven. The , piercers/awls with serrated flakes and majority of the central chalk platform was plano-convex knives also being present but in relatively clean, especially the area towards the small numbers. One tool type which is notably door. In contrast, the areas around the edges of absent is the stone or flint axe. At present only the house, where beam slots suggest furniture a single flake from a ground flint axe has been once stood, have significant quantities of identified within the current assemblage and debitage. These patterns are interpreted as both its context and condition suggest that it is sweeping out patterns with the central floor a residual find. Wainwright’s assemblage being swept clean and other materials having contains one polished flint axe and two been trapped amongst the furniture around the

50 Benjamin T.-Y. Chan edge of the house. This is significant as it ultimately used and/or deposited elsewhere. In suggests that this assemblage represents that of either case it is clear that flintworking was a house in active use. In comparison to the taking place in inherently social contexts, in majority of other contexts examined from the this case within the house. This is an important site, cores and tools were heavily under- reminder that “industrial” and “domestic” represented in House 851 (Table 2; cf. Chan practices that within modern Western societies 2009). The presence of large quantities of have become mutually exclusive spheres of waste flakes suggests that flintknapping and life (Brück 1999, 60–64), were not tool use did take place within the house and conceptually or spatially separated in the also that it was being actively cleaned. Neolithic. Therefore, whatever tools were in use were

Figure 3. The distribution of worked flint across the floor of House 851 (plan digitised by M. Dover, background photo copyright Aerial-Cam).

Artefact Type Context 852 All contexts excl. 852 No. % No. % Flakes and Blades 1274 92.9 73565 90.3 Misc. Waste 56 4.1 2532 3.1 Chips 21 1.5 1020 1.3 Cores 3 0.2 1119 1.4 Retouched flakes and 14 1.0 2075 2.5 utilised flakes Formal Tools 4 0.3 1114 1.4 Other 0 0 50 0.1 Total 1372 100 81475 100 Table 2. The assemblage composition of house floor context 852 (from House 851) compared to all other East Entrance contexts.

51 Lithics 31

In studying the significance of flintworking characterised as being wasteful in nature; within Neolithic societies it is important to articulated animal bones are relatively study not only contexts of production, but also frequent, flintworking was profligate and contexts of deposition. Indeed the majority of pottery appears in unusual quantities. In many worked flint from the site lies removed from ways the site is a celebration of wastefulness. its immediate context of production and within Like so many other aspects of life at features such pits and middens. There are Durrington Walls middening seems to have several areas of middening at the East been employed as an act of conspicuous Entrance, the most extensive occurred consumption, which in this case represented alongside five houses to the north of the the wealth of an individual household. This is Durrington Avenue, covering an area of not a wealth as recognised in the usual roughly 20 m x 30 m (Figure 4). A GIS based archaeological terms of prestige or exotic analysis of the midden material revealed it to goods, but in a massive concentration of be a series of three middens, each roughly 6 m otherwise quotidian refuse. across (Chan 2009). Each of these middens was closely associated with a house platform CONCLUSION and in the case of House 851 its midden seems Hopefully the preceding discussion has to have been contained within its perimeter provided some insight into the approach that is fence. It would therefore appear that at least being taken towards the analysis and some middening at Durrington Walls occurred interpretation of the Durrington Walls at a household level. Moreover, the extreme assemblage. Gatherings at Durrington Walls proximity between house and midden during the mid 3rd millennium BC represents a emphasised the sense of ownership between coming together of disparate communities, the the two. It should be reiterated at this point that huge pooling of resources, the active the contents of the middens can be consumption of those resources and the often

Figure 4. The distribution of worked flint across midden context 593 (plan digitised by M. Dover).

52 Benjamin T.-Y. Chan visible deposition of the remains of that ACKNOWLEDGMENTS consumption. As a lithics specialist I have struggled in the past to seek the social The research was conducted whilst working on the significance of the wasteful and expedient use AHRC funded Stonehenge Riverside Project and of flint exhibited in Wessex in the later Feeding Stonehenge Project. The analysis has only been made possible by the enormous number of Neolithic. As discussed, the lack of core directors, supervisors, students and volunteers that control exhibited during later Neolithic formed the SRP excavation and post-excavation reduction sequences may tell us a lot about the teams. The work has benefitted enormously from declining role of flintknapping as an effective conversations during the course of the project with medium for expressing social identity. Christina Tsoraki, Jim Rylatt, Hugo Lamdin- However, as has been shown here, the Whymark, Erick Robinson, Umberto Albarella and consumption of flint still had the potential to of course the individual site directors Mike Parker carry a powerful message, even if through Pearson, Josh Pollard, Colin Richards and Julian quantity rather than quality. Thomas. In this respect, it is important to understand REFERENCES that probably many of these people were not Albarella, U. & Payne, S. 2005. Neolithic pigs from from the chalkland. Indeed, many may have Durrington Walls. Wiltshire, England: A come from areas where flint raw materials biometrical database. Journal of were of a very different character or did not 32 (4): 589–599. occur at all. Hence, when they came to Albarella, U. & Searjentsen, D. 2002. A passion for Durrington Walls flint suddenly became pork: Meat consumption at the British Late abundant. I think it is important to realise how Neolithic site of Durrington Walls. In P. these occasions offered different affordances to Miracle & N. Milner (eds) Consuming those that were available at other times. The passions and patterns of consumption: 33– working of such quantities of flint surely gave 49. McDonald Institute, Cambridge. the young and inexperienced contexts within Bamforth, D.B. & Finlay, N. 2008. Introduction: Archaeological approaches to lithic which they could learn knapping skills without production skill and craft learning. Journal wasting what at other times may have been a of Archaeological Method and Theory 15: 1– scarce material. At the opposite end of the 27. scale, the production of oblique arrowheads Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C. & McCormac, F.G. provided a context for skilled hands to show 1997. Dating Stonehenge. In B. Cunliffe and what they could do. With this in mind, future C. Renfrew (eds) Science and Stonehenge: work on the assemblage will examine its 39–59. Oxford University Press, Oxford potential to address crucial questions of skill Brück, J. 1999. What’s in a settlement? Domestic acquisition in detail (cf. Pigeot 1990; Bamforth practice and residential mobility in Early ӧ Bronze Age southern England. In J. Brück & Finlay 2008; H gberg 2008). and M. Goodman (eds) Making places in the Gatherings of such widespread communities prehistoric world: Themes in settlement may have represented opportunities for archaeology: 52–75. University College different kin groups to either emphasise their London Press, London. Chan, B.T-Y. 2009. Life amongst the rubbish: similarities and/or differences to the supra- Middening and conspicuous consumption at community group. The technological Durrington Walls. Internet Archaeology 26. homogeneity evident throughout the http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue26/chan_ind assemblage suggests that perhaps, at least in ex.html. terms of lithics practice, there was a tacit Clark, J.G.D. 1934. Derivative forms of the Petit- desire to emphasis similarities. In this sense, Tranchet in Britain. Archaeological Journal like monument building, flintworking at such 91: 32–58. gatherings may have served to engender a Clark, J.G.D. 1966. The invasion hypothesis in feeling of community amongst a widespread British archaeology. Antiquity 40: 172–189. population and served to homogenise material Clark, J.G.D., Higgs, E.S. & Longworth, I.H. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic site of Hurst practices and cultural traditions across large Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk1954, 1957 and parts of the country. 1958. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 26: 202–245. Dobres, M-A. 1999. Technology’s links and chaînes: The processual unfolding of

53 Lithics 31

technique and technician. In M-A. Dobres & Albarella, U. 2006b. Materialising C.R. Hoffman The social dynamics of Stonehenge: the Stonehenge Riverside technology: Practice, politics and world Project and new discoveries. Journal of views: 124–146. Smithsonian Institution Material Culture 11: 227–261. Press, Washington. Parker Pearson, M., Cleal, R., Marshall, P., Dobres, M-A. 2000. Technology and social agency. Needham, S., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Blackwell, Oxford. Ruggles, C., Sheridan, A., Thomas, J., Dobres, M-A. & Hoffman, C.R. (eds) 1999. The Tilley, C., Welham, K., Chamberlain, A., social dynamics of technology: Practice, Chenery, C., Evans, J., Knüsel, C., Linford, politics and world views. Smithsonian N., Martin, L., Montgomery, J., Payne, A & Institution Press, Washington. Richards, M. 2007. The age of Stonehenge. Edmonds, M.R. 1990. Description, understanding Antiquity 81: 617–639. and the chaîne opératoire. Archaeological Pelegrin, J. 1990. Prehistoric : Review from Cambridge 9.1: 55–70. Some aspects of research. Archaeological Edmonds, M.R. 1995. Stone tools and society: Review from Cambridge 9 (1): 116–125. Working stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Pigeot, N. 1990. Technical and social actors: Britain. Batsford, London. Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at Edmonds, M.R. 1997. Taskscape, Technology and Magdelenian Etiolles. Archaeological Tradition. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensis Review from Cambridge 9.1: 126–41. 29: 99–110. Piggot, S. 1954. The Neolithic Cultures of the Edmonds, M.R. 1998. Sermons in Stone: Identity, British Isles. Cambridge University Press, Value and Stone Tools in Later Neolithic Cambridge. Britain. In M.R. Edmonds and C. Richards Pitts, M. 2000. Hengeworld. , London. (eds.) Understanding the Neolithic of North- Richards, C. & Thomas, J. 1984. Ritual activity and Western : 248–276. Cruithne Press, structured deposition in Later Neolithic Glasgow. Wessex. In R. Bradley & J. Gardiner (eds) Edmonds, M.R. 1999. Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic Studies: A review of some current Neolithic: Landscapes, monuments and research: 189–218. British Archaeological memory. Routledge, London. Reports. British Series 133. Archaeopress, Evans, J.A., Chenery, C.A. & Fitzpatrick, A.P. Oxford. 2006. Bronze Age childhood migration of Schlanger, N. 1994. Mindful technology: individuals near Stonehenge, revealed by Unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an Strontium and Oxygen isotope tooth enamel archaeology of mind. In C. Renfrew & E. analysis. Archaeometry 48 (2): 309–321. Zubrow (eds) The ancient mind: Elements of Hӧgberg, A. 2008. Playing with flint: Tracing a cognitivie archaeology: 143–151. Cambridge child’s imitation of adult work in a lithic University Press, Cambridge. assemblage. Journal of Archaeological Smith, I. F. 1965. Windmill Hill and Avebury: Method and Theory 15: 112–131. Excavations by Keiller 1925–1939. Ingold, T. 1993. The temporality of the landscape. Clarendon Press, Oxford. World Archaeology 25 (2): 152–74. Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. Myers, A. 1987. All shot to pieces? Inter- Routledge, London. assemblage variability, lithic analysis and Torrence, R. 1986. The production and exchange of Mesolithic assemblage types. In A. Brown & stone tools: Prehistoric in the M. Edmonds (eds) Lithic Analysis and Later Aegean. Cambridge University Press, British Prehistory: 137–154. British Cambridge. Archaeological Reports. British Series 162. Torrence, R. 1989. Time, energy and stone tools. Archaeopress, Oxford. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Myers, A. 1989. Reliable and maintainable Trigger, B. G. 1989. A history of archaeological technological strategies. In R. Torrence (ed.) thought. Cambridge University Press, Time, energy and stone tools: 78–91. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Viner, S., Evans, J., Albarella, U. & Parker Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Pearson, M. 2010 Cattle mobility in Thomas, J., Tilley, C. & Welham, K. 2006a. : Strontium isotope Stonehenge, its River and its Landscape: analysis of cattle teeth from Durrington Unravelling the mysteries of a prehistoric Walls (Wiltshire, Britain). Journal of sacred place. Archäologischer Anzeiger 1: Archaeological Science 37 (11): 2812–2820. 237–258. Wainwright, G.J. & Longworth, I.H. 1971. Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Durrington Walls Excavations 1966–1968. Thomas, J., Tilley, C., Welham, K. & Society of Antiquaries, London.

54