(Flint)Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels: 18th-19th Century Gunflints from Dutch and British Archaeological Contexts

Anna Kohanoff LEIDEN UNIVERSITY

1

(Flint)Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels:

18th-19th Century Gunflints from Dutch and British Archaeological Contexts

Anna Kohanoff

Faculty of Archaeology

University of Leiden

June 2019

Thesis MSc Material Cultures

Supervised by Prof. Annelou van Gijn

Material Cultures

University of Leiden, Faculty of Archaeology

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...... iii 1 Open Scene (Introduction) ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Materials and Methods ...... 2 1.3 Aims ...... 3 1.4 Research questions ...... 3 1.5 Chapters ...... 4 2 The EIC, the VOC, Shipwrecks, and a Quest for Fire-Starters ...... 6 2.1 Gunflint Contexts in the 17th-19th Centuries ...... 6 3 History of Gunflint Research ...... 11 4 The Rolling Stones (Methodology) ...... 16 4.1 Introduction ...... 16 4.2 Materials...... 16 4.2.1 Nepal (Kathmandu, Nepal) ...... 16 4.2.2 The Rooswijk (Goodwin Sands, South Coast of England) ...... 19 4.2.3 NB6 Wreck (Noordoostpolder, Province of Flevoland, Netherlands) ...... 20 4.2.4 OL79 Wreck (Oostelijk, Province of Flevoland, Netherlands) ...... 22 4.2.5 OH48 Wreck (Noordoostpolder, Province of Flevoland, Netherlands) ...... 22 4.2.6 Experimental Material ...... 23 4.2.7 Other Comparative Material...... 25 4.3 Equipment ...... 25 4.4 Provenance ...... 28 4.5 Manufacture ...... 29 4.6 Typology ...... 31 4.7 Use ...... 32 4.8 Discard/PDSM ...... 34 4.9 Residues ...... 35 4.10 Experimental Archaeology ...... 35 4.11 Process ...... 37 5 Bang Bang… (Analysis) ...... 38 5.1 Terminology ...... 38 5.2 Nepal (Kathmandu, Nepal) ...... 38

i

5.3 Rooswijk (Goodwin Sands, South Coast of England)...... 50 5.4 NB6 Shipwreck (Noordoostpolder, Province of Flevoland, Netherlands) ...... 51 5.5 OL79 Shipwreck (Oostelijk, Province of Flevoland, Netherlands) ...... 58 5.6 OH48 Shipwreck (Noordoostpolder, Province of Flevoland, Netherlands) ...... 59 5.7 The Experimental Gunflints ...... 61 6 Viva the Gunflint (Discussion) ...... 69 6.1 Provenance ...... 69 6.2 Manufacture ...... 71 6.3 Typology ...... 72 6.4 Use ...... 74 6.5 Residue ...... 78 6.6 Discard/PDSM ...... 80 6.7 Flintlock Artillery ...... 82 7 Close Scene (Conclusion) ...... 84 7.1 Flint, Morphology and Use-Wear Manifestation ...... 84 7.2 Use-wear and Use-Life ...... 84 7.3 High-power vs Low-power ...... 85 7.4 Terminology ...... 86 7.5 Final Comments ...... 89 Bibliography ...... 90 Figures ...... 95 Tables ...... 98

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Annelou van Gijn for guiding me through the study of lithics, for facilitating contact with Prof. Dr John Whittaker, and for all the time and effort she has put into helping me get this thesis cleaned up, in order and ship-shape.

I would like to thank Dr Martijn Manders who has checked my work and got me involved with the Rooswijk material, helping me to gain access to the gunflints from this shipwreck; and as such also to thank the RCE for this access.

For that purpose, I would also like to thank Mark James for facilitating access to the laboratory at Fort Cumberland, to Nicole Schoute who helped me during the period of laboratory work, and to her again and Kim Roche for sending me updates and information throughout the year. Thanks to the whole MSDS Marine team for the warm welcome at the Rooswijk 1740 open day and meetings, and for their assistance throughout.

I wish to thank Mr Joran Smale at the Batavialand museum in Lelystad for helping me to select material and for facilitating access to the chosen gunflints and the museum itself for the loan of the gunflints. Thanks also to Dr Eileen Gregg for showing me the collection of HMS Invincible gunflints at the Museum of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth.

Thanks to Professor Corrie Bakels and Dr Mike Field for helping me identify pollen when I was at a loss, and to Professor Patrick Degryse in identifying residue. Thanks also to Andrew Sorensen for talking me through fire-stones and facilitating flint striking experiments.

I would like to thank Prof. Dr John Whittaker for the experimental gunflints, and for all the useful information he has provided me regarding his own research. I also would like to thank Mr Torben B. Ballin for providing me with an extensive reading list which has proved invaluable during the past few months.

Thank you also very much to Mr Eric Mulder and Mr Lou Jacobs for helping me in the material cultures laboratory and for the interesting conversations during long lab sessions.

Finally, I wish to thank my family who have been incredibly supportive and tolerant throughout my academic studies and beyond, and for putting their time and energy into proofing this thesis.

iii

This thesis explores the life of gunflints from Dutch cargo ship and mercantile contexts, and from a military Nepalese British context through a use-wear and contextual perspective. Typological assessment and microscopic analysis of micro-wear and residue are employed in tracing the origin, the use-wear, the use-life and death of gunflints from these archaeological contexts. Experimental material is employed for comparative analysis of the use-wear. The resulting conclusions focus on the relationship between the use-wear and the historical contexts of the samples; the adequacy of high-power analytical techniques for use-wear analysis of gunflints and the limitations imposed by current lack of standardisation across this field of study. Analysis by the high-power approach has shown that use-wear varies in manifestation and degree across flint type, whose state and hence study is impacted by depositional factors. Furthermore, a cross-referencing of past publications has highlighted key issues in the modern study of historical gunflints. Finally, a methodology is proposed for the analysis and data collection of distinctive morphological features.

1 OPEN SCENE (INTRODUCTION)

1.1 INTRODUCTION The English-language term “flintlock” was coined by the year 1683 when it was first officially recorded – however, it is known that flints had been used in weapons for at least eighty years by that time, and also that the term “firelock gun” was already in use from the year 1547. Then, in the seventeenth century, flintlock guns were used in parallel with the earlier matchlock weapons, which had to be lit externally with tinder rather than within the cock of the gun itself like in the flintlock (Witthoft 1970, 15).

The need for systematically produced fire-starters – gunflints – arose with the need for a reliable method to ignite gunpowder in the advent of the first flintlock mechanised firearms, which debuted in their final standardized form in the 1620’s (Altamura 2013, 17; Witthoft 1970, 15). The invention of the flintlock mechanism was based on the ancient knowledge of fire starting by the use of striking flint to metal to ignite a spark, with an early written record being described by Pliny the Elder of a silex (flint) being struck against a

1 clevis (key). The technology of flint knapping had been a long-lost art until the invention of this flintlock mechanism; with gunflint factories beginning as a cottage industry and developing into a fully-fledged operation by the peak of the gunflint producing period in the mid eighteenth century (Witthoft 1970, 20). Later, these factories declined as the flintlock fell into disuse due to new weapons being developed and the latter became more widely available. However, in countries on the fringes on the expanding European empires, flintlock firearms were a common weapon for a more extensive period, as the newer weapons were only made available once they were no longer the military standard and were decommissioned (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 3, 21).

Gunflint production followed two major streams of development – the English and the French methods. Hence, research has generally followed in one or the other direction. However, the cultural interactions of the time period in question beg for an analysis of these technologies in integration rather than in parallel. It therefore follows that the history of this research should be discussed chronologically as a whole, rather than in two - or indeed more, parts, thanks to the growth of international movement and trade over this time.

The aim of the study of gunflints, is to establish a provenance, to distinguish manufacture techniques and technologies, to analyse the use-wear on the gunflints, and to use these analyses alongside experimental pieces to gauge the approximate use life of an individual gunflint. The provenance will be approached using published gunflint literature and visual references; looking at the typology of the flint and manufacture technologies approached in the said references. The use-wear on archaeological and experimental pieces will be analysed and compared to assess the approximate amount of times a single gunflint was used to create a spark, and hence, how long one flint was useful for before being discarded.

1.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS The material that will be sampled comes from five different archaeological sites within three different contexts, and an experimental group. The assemblages are from an English East India Trading Company (EIC) context from Nepal, a Dutch East India Trading Company

2

(VOC) context from the Rooswijk shipwreck, and three from Dutch cargo shipwrecks – NB6, OH48 and OL79. The experimental material has kindly been supplied by Professor John Whittaker of Grinnell College, Grinnell, Iowa.

The methodology employed will encompass low-power techniques, coupled with a high- power approach, in the form of optical and reflected light microscopy respectively.

1.3 AIMS The aims of the thesis are to identify defining features of gunflint samples from EIC, VOC and Dutch cargo contexts. These features are related to morphology, flint type, coarseness and use-wear patterns; which will provide an insight into the fabrication and use of gunflints.

A high-power analytical approach will be applied, with the aim of gaining insights into its appropriateness for this type of research. The results will be used to assess to what extent it benefits the area of gunflint research with comparison to a low-power approach.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What is the relationship between intrinsic gunflint properties and the use-wear it exhibits, including its period of usability? • Is there a benefit to a high-power approach to use-wear analysis in gunflint research as opposed to a low-power one? • What can use-wear, the depositional context and historical data tell us about the use-life and death of gunflints from military contexts in contrast to merchant and civilian contexts?

3

1.5 CHAPTERS Chapter two will provide a general overview of the historical context of the gunflint samples. This refers particularly to the eighteenth through to nineteenth centuries in the respective geographical regions, with a particular reference to the English and Dutch East India Companies.

Chapter three will discuss previous research into gunflints, from its beginnings in the late nineteenth century right up to present day. This encompasses approaches such as experimental archaeology, use-wear analysis, and much more innovative approaches in the form of petrographic analyses through thin section analysis, LA-ICP-MS and CODA1.

Chapter four gives a detailed description of the methodology that has been employed in the present paper. Here the samples are described, and the approaches that have been employed are recounted in detail with reference to the data that has been collected. The chapter is broken down into the following categories – materials, provenance, manufacture techniques, typology, use, and post depositional effects.

The fifth chapter gives the results of the analyses, broken down into categories based on the sample contexts, these being: Nepal, the Rooswijk shipwreck, the NB6 wreck, the OL79 wreck, the OH48 wreck, and the experimental material. General features of each collection will be noted, as well as the more distinctive features and observations made of specific gunflints within them.

Chapter six will then discuss the collected data. The information will be used to explore insights into the manufacturing technology of gunflints, their use, their deposition and to the appropriateness of high-power analytical techniques for this purpose. Further, it will

1 Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) and Compositional Data Analysis (CODA) are chemical analyses which give elemental, molecular and isotopic data which may be employed in determining raw material provenance. 4 aim at placing these insights into a discussion with regards to their historical contexts – and, hence, to the greater social role of these objects through the time periods in question.

The seventh and last chapter will make final remarks and conclude this paper, hopefully having provided a clear insight into the life and death of the specific gunflint artefacts being analysed. The chapter summarises the research and proposes future avenues for investigation.

5

2 THE EIC, THE VOC, SHIPWRECKS, AND A QUEST FOR FIRE-

STARTERS

2.1 GUNFLINT CONTEXTS IN THE 17TH-19TH CENTURIES The beginning of the 17th Century marked the beginning of largescale European trade in the East Indies and into Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Small European companies had begun sailing there in the late 16th Century in the hopes of making their fortune in the spice trading industry. However, this abruptly changed at the turn of the following century as the Dutch and British restructured their trading organisations; and thus took up the mantle as the major intercontinental traders (Gaastra 2003, 13-17). Amongst the cargo of these vessels were gunflints in abundance that would end up in the East Indies, South Africa, the Americas, over Europe, and in some cases, submerged at the depths of the seas, lost en route to these destinations (Schrire 2014, 222-8).

On the 31st of December 1600, the English East India Company (hereafter the EIC) was established, with the first monopoly grants being given by Queen Elizabeth I. Funding was initially based per voyage, with shares for its maiden voyage sold for capital to approximately two hundred investors. This was enough to pay for four large ships, a small supply ship, and close to five hundred men. Company servants came to take advantage of their position and began to partake in independent private trade, this internal corruption negatively impacted the EIC. This ended abruptly in 1787 under the newly appointed Governor Charles Cornwallis, who increased salaries to compensate for the loss of this private, if illegal, income (Webster, 2009, 24). The EIC came to have a minor power role on the South Asian coast in the Seventeenth Century, with its sphere of influence creeping increasingly inland into the 1750’s. The EIC would promptly develop a partly military focus, rather than a purely commercial one, as had been initially intended at the birth of the enterprise (Roy, 2018, 195; Webster, 2009, 18-23).

The Dutch East India Company (hereafter the VOC) was founded two years later - in 1602 and was hence run under the governance of the Heeren XVII. It comprised sixteen members distributed amongst six centres and a seventeenth member appointed on a rotational

6 basis. These members were each in possession of ships and storage houses. As the company grew, so did its’ complexity. This demanded the establishment of buitencomptoiren (external offices) outside the Dutch Republic, and, thus also in the proceeding years, of the Hoge Regering (High Government of the Indies) based in Batavia (modern Jakarta) – Asia (Sgourev and Van Lent, 2015, 936; Gaastra 2003, 66). The VOC became one of the defining features of the Dutch Golden Age, along with significant developments in the arts and cartography; in relation to these developments – ships becoming a common feature in paintings (Sutton, 2015, 1-2). The charter set out in 1602 allowed the VOC to make treaties with local Asian powers; and in the process, to hire soldiers and construct their own forts. This would be officially carried out on behalf of the States-General of the Dutch Republic, with the VOC being considered its executive tool. In reality, however, the regulations originally laid out in 1602 regarding the relationship of the governors of the VOC and the States-General, were promptly ignored, with the VOC acting more autonomously than originally supposed to. Within the first ten years of the establishment of the company, it became clear that it was not purely a commercial venture; but that it also served a previously unprecedented military purpose, which was unpopular with the initial shareholders from when the organization was originally conceived (Gaastra 2003, 23). The Governor-General and the Council in Asia would get involved in local warfare and treaty settlement, and the High Governor would also take initiative in Asian internal affairs despite the lack of support from the directors in the Dutch Republic (Gaastra 2003, 66). In 1665 the VOC gave economic aid in the form of a loan to the States-General in relation to the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665-1667), solidifying its’ role in European military operations in the process (Gaastra 2003, 26).

From 1660, the competition between the EIC, the VOC and other, smaller groups of European traders intensified, in part as a consequence of independent changes in social and trade dynamics in Asia and Europe. As a result, the Eighteenth Century appears to show that there was an inverse correlation between the difficulties of the VOC and the increasing success of the EIC. The Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672-1674) left the VOC in financial difficulties – having to rely on the States of Holland and Zeeland for loans. A century later, a combination of bad book-keeping, corruption, inadequate financing and the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780-4), left the VOC bankrupt and particularly vulnerable after a bout of Malaria in Batavia severely depleted its military manpower. By 1796 the

7 company had to be nationalized, until it finally ceased to exist altogether in 1800 (Sgourev and Van Lent 2015, 936-7; Gaastra 2003, 27, 164, 173). For the EIC, on the other hand, 1796 marked its peak, with eighty-four ships being sent out in just the one year; despite the change in its organization due to a shift to colonial rule following the Battle of Plassey in 1760, and also the subsequent financial difficulties and debts. Even with all its issues, the EIC continued to financially aid British generals in their battles in the Indian subcontinent right up to the turn into the next century. The year 1833 marked the end of the EIC’s commercial business as it finally lost its privileges to monopoly, thus surviving the VOC by a third of a century. Despite this drastic change, by 1840 the EIC controlled the majority of the Indian subcontinent, following a set of consecutive military successes that solidified the British colonial precedent (Webster 2009, 22, 24, 27,44; Roy 2018, 195).

As the EIC became more and more involved in the Indian subcontinent, so the resistance to this power increased. Furthermore, internal conflict between local rulers meant that the EIC would have to end up taking sides in military issues (Roy 2018, 195-6). Around 1815, the small kingdom of Nepal – situated to the north of India, decided to descend south and invade its neighbour. The EIC, which by this time had come to represent British interests and had begun to work alongside the British army, suffered multiple losses, until the Nepalese were finally defeated in 1816. Nepal would remain independent under the Treaty of Segauli, under the terms that the EIC would now have a monopoly on Nepalese trade. Furthermore, the EIC was given the liberty to recruit local soldiers, namely the Ghurkha regiment that had impressed greatly with their military skill (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 2).

The Nepalese gunflint assemblage originates from this British Imperialist context, having been discovered by the sack-load in an armament cache whose remnants consisted of decades-worth of decommissioned military weapons. Found alongside the flints were “Brown Bess” flintlock muskets – versions from both before and after the British-Nepalese conflicts, percussion muskets, cartridge rifles, Nepalese copies of the former, as well as small non-military guns, artillery, early machine guns and Enfield bolt-action rifles. The building housing all this old stock was bought in 2003 by Christian Cranmer who owns International Military Antiques (IMA), a stockist of discontinued and decommissioned militaria. The weapons used by the Nepalese were often old, obsolete weapons rejected by the British army – essentially an armament hand-me-down situation (Whittaker and 8

Levin 2019, 2-3, 21). The British allied themselves to multiple local powers in the Indian subcontinent, which provided men to the British regiments, but also often creating independent regiments with hybridised local and British features. The Nepalese manpower aiding the British came in the form of the Ghurkha regiment, which proved useful for suppressing the Indian rebellion that ensued in 1857. The Nepalese forces were armed with these older flintlock firearms from the early nineteenth century, until approximately 1860 (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 3; Roy 2018, 196).

During this period of extended trading networks, increasing warfare and of piracy, the need for artillery on board ships became more pronounced (Borschberg 2013, 47). Merchant ships such as the Dutch Rooswijk had approximately twenty-four cannon, as well as many pistols and muskets; the English warship HMS Invincible which sunk next to the former was equipped with seventy-four cannon amongst other weapons, and even the small Dutch cargo ship recorded as the NB6 wreck had a number of weapons – including a rapier and a musket. Thus, the weapons market boomed, with new technologies developing as seafaring became more dangerous, and international hostilities grew (Rediker 2004).

The flintlock mechanism was introduced into artillery at the turn of the Seventeenth Century so as to replace earlier, less efficient ignition systems (Altamura 2013, 17). The gunflint is clamped in the cock of the mechanism. As the trigger is pulled, it slams down and the edge of the gunflint strikes the steel frizzen on the other side. This action creates sparks, in the same manner as the manual flint and firesteel action, which subsequently ignites the black gunpowder. The force created by the combustion of the gunpowder propels the ammunition which is loaded into the weapon (Watt and Horowitz 2017, 1; Whittaker and Levin 2019, 5). This mechanism, which came to be used in all sorts of artillery, from pistols, muskets and even cannons, where it is known as a “gunlock”, would have to be adapted to the type of weapon, in turn impacting the size of the gunflints used (Biagi, Starnini, and Beltrame 2016, 4). The orientation of the gunflint in the mechanism is chosen so that the flattest, straightest and least used edge strikes the frizzen – this allows a greater surface area to maximise spark production (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 5).

9

Figure 1 Flintlock mechanism in a musket. (Kenmotsu 1990, 95)

When in use, a gunflint will be clamped in the cock of the gun, often with a patch of leather to support it. When asymmetrical in thickness, it is the thicker side which is placed toward the inside of the cock mechanism, with the acutely angled end facing out towards the frizzen. When the gunflint has multiple acute edges, the position may be adjusted, and the gunflint rotated along the horizontal axis to use multiple edges. In the United States, the gunflint is generally positioned with the ventral side up, dorsal side down. However, it is found that elsewhere the opposite also occurs – with the smaller dorsal surface facing up, and the larger ventral side facing down (Ballin 2012, 117).

Despite the advent of new, more modern artillery in the nineteenth century - which no longer used the flintlock mechanism, gunflints continued to be circulated. However, unlike the large caches from military contexts, the flints from this period became more prominently found in smaller quantities in civilian, or small trading contexts; perhaps due to the greater availability of older weapon types to these non-military individuals, or perhaps to be reused as fire-stones (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 16). This will be discussed in more depth in the discussion chapter of this thesis.

10

3 HISTORY OF GUNFLINT RESEARCH

The study of gunflints has been sporadically carried out since the late nineteenth century, being led by individuals of various backgrounds – from weapons aficionados, geologists of sorts, and specifically archaeologists in more recent times. The research that has been carried out covers experimental archaeology, petrographic analysis and use wear analysis. This means that a great range of aspects of the gunflints has been investigated, and this data can then aid further study, with the aim of understanding technological aspects, and also the role of these artefacts in the economic and military spheres.

An academic interest in gunflint production began in 1879, with S. B. J. Skertchly’s publication within the Memoirs of the Geological Survey; whereby the methods by which gunflints are manufactured were discussed. His analysis began with a discussion regarding the geological positioning of the flint in the sedimentary layer and thereby its properties. The paper progresses onto the tools used for flint-knapping, followed by the method of extraction from the geology, and finally onto the techniques for the manufacture of the gunflints themselves. He continued to discuss the Brandon mines in England more specifically, and finally gave descriptions of the morphological features of different gunflint types (Skertchly 1879, 1-64).

In and around the same time, in the years preceding Skertchly’s publication, Sir John Evans (1868) – an English firearm enthusiast, and Sven Nilsson (1878) – a Swedish archaeologist, carried out the first technical experiments of flint knapping in the modern period. Personal experience with their own guns, and with knapping of gunflints for these, made them adequate candidates for making studies and descriptions of lithics, gunflints included. They would then go on to visit contemporary gunflint manufactories where they observed the practice of laminar production for tool manufacture (Altamura 2013, 19).

In 1937, decades following S. B. J. Skertchly’s publication, A. S. Barnes wrote about the gunflint industry of the English blade type. For his research he visited the Brandon mines in an attempt to collate the details of gunflint fabrication at this site; where he also attempted to knap a piece himself. The paper goes through the method of knapping 11 including tools and identifying which parts would be discarded or kept. Furthermore, Barnes went on to demonstrate that retouch related to the method of fabrication is the feature which distinguishes the English type from the French one (Barnes 1937, 328-335).

It is impossible to speak about gunflint research without addressing J. Witthofts 1966 seminal publication on the history of gunflints. Despite its’ Amero-centric theme, he made a useful chronology of the development of gunflints in Europe (and outside) which is useful for understanding manufacturing processes and advancements – thus aiding with establishing the provenance of manufacturing techniques if not of the flints themselves. Furthermore, he highlighted issues regarding this flint provenance, which will become more relevant when discussing the gunflint samples themselves (Witthoft 1970). In his discourse he also speaks of other individuals who had previously attempted to classify gunflints; namely the aforementioned A. S. Barnes, and L. Pfeiffer (Witthoft 1970, 43). However, some criticism of his work has ensued, focussed predominantly on the theme of flint provenance, and the unreliability of his techniques (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 2). Furthermore, recent advancements in petrographic analytical technologies bring into question Witthofts assessments and shed light on alternative interpretations (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 14).

In 1975, Stephen W. White wrote on the history of European gunspalls, and in so doing, actively argued against Witthofts attribution of a Dutch origin to the wedge-shaped form. In contrast, he attributed them to an English origin and dated them to approximately 1650- 1770. This chronology was proposed based on the introduction of the blade-type gunflint at the end of the eighteenth century into England, a technology which White suggests was a French import rather than an independent local advancement in its own right. Furthermore, he states that there was a spall (or flake) type production centre in Denmark, and also that the finished product has been found concurrently at this time at American and French sites (White 1975, 65).

1984 saw the proposal of typo-morphological categories by De Lotbiniere in the Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration. These categories have consequently been employed by a number of academics studying gunflints, in an attempt to classify 12 gunflints into the four proposed categories. The focus of De Lotbiniere’s publication discusses gunflint shape, colour and size – in effect, as it is entitled; ‘gunflint recognition’ (Ballin 2014; de Lotbiniere 1984; Whittaker and Levin 2019; Austin 2011).

Figure 2 1) D-shaped gunspall; 2) square gunspall; 3) square blade gunflint with two dorsal arrises; 4) square blade gunflint with one dorsal arris. H= heel; E= leading edge; B= bulb of percussion; d= "demicone". (Ballin 2012, 119)

More recently, in 2011, Austin published a set of drawings in his report on Fort Brooke, Florida. These suggest similarities to the de Lotbiniere typology, however, the dimensional ratios differ somewhat, along with combinations of morphological features. It is important to note that in this case the classification is site-specific, with an attempt to use the former typo-morphological system. The names employed relate to the earlier publication, but there clearly were some complications in their application as there is some divergence from the former system (Austin 2011).

Figure 3 A) gunspall; B) round-heel blade; C) untrimmed blade; D) double-edged blade; E) square-heel blade. (Austin 2011, 87)

13

J. J. Durst has since the turn of the twenty-first century focussed his research on gunflints from VOC contexts in South Africa. According to him, the need for gunflints arose in the 1530’s with the invention of the snaphaunce from Germany, and the subsequent Spanish snaplock. He argues that the first flintlock mechanism originated in France, which is believed to have been developed there in the 1630’s. Durst’s publications discuss the raw materials, morphologies of gunflints, and also the scientific methodologies which may be involved in distinguishing the source of the flint. These analyses and the discussion of them is particularly useful for the present study, in terms of contextualising the gunflints within the greater sphere (Durst 2014, 221-229).

Amongst this contemporary gunflint research, T. B. Ballin is pre-eminent in his field, with an abundance of publications with focusing on varying archaeological contexts. He makes a clear distinction between the origins of gunflints by their morphologies, flint colour and fabrication technologies. Ballin places the flake based, round-heeled gunflints chronologically anterior to the others, being a common form across Europe. This type seems to have been kept in use in Scandinavia, whereas in the rest of Europe, the blade technology was later developed, adopted and adapted. The French developed their own gunflints sometime between the late seventeenth to early eighteenth centuries, with a broad body and a curved heel. The British gunflints, on the other hand, became elongated, and were given a straight heel. Ballin also associates the flint colour to approximate geographical regions. However, this is most relevant in discussion when matched to a morphological type (Ballin 2014, 45).

A recent development aims at identifying the provenance of the flint with analyses focussing of Scandinavian ballast from a Norwegian shipwreck (Brandl et al., 2018). The techniques of comparative analysis, geo-chemical analysis of trace elements by LA-ICP-MS (Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry), stereo-microscopic analysis of microfossil inclusions, and Compositional Data Analysis (CODA) statistical analysis, were employed. The use of petrographic analysis on this ballast is a step further in the application of scientific methodologies in an aim to identify the source of the material. The premise is that it is possible to differentiate between geochemical compositions, which when analysed can give an indication of the depositional environment of the flint (Brandl et al. 2018, 1 & 11-24). This methodology could in theory be employed 14 in the future (although will not be able to be employed for this thesis) for determining the source of gunflints, provided that there is enough comparative material, and that there is not an issue with destroying some of the primary material. It does, however, have complications, as flint can be fairly homogenous at times and, furthermore, the comparative material may not be available or yet recognised (Brandl et al. 2018, 34).

Whittaker and Levin published the latest of papers in relation to a sample of gunflints from the Nepalese armoury at Kathmandu (Nepal) (Whittaker and Levin 2019). The paper focusses on identifying the provenance of the flint by analysing the morphological features and colouration of the gunflints. The aim of this is to gain insight into the origins and organization of historic Nepalese military technology and the European resources acquired, and in some instances imitated, by the Nepalese forces (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 1-2).

This former gunflint research is a valuable tool for present day researcher as it sets precedents and highlights areas that require further investigation. This thesis uses this research as a resource in combination with primary high-power analysis and historical data, so as to give specific gunflint assemblages from British and Dutch 18th and 19th Century contexts a socio-economic narrative.

15

4 THE ROLLING STONES (METHODOLOGY)

4.1 INTRODUCTION Use-wear analysis is a form of study by which the function of a tool or object is interpreted by the observation of physical modifications on its edges and surface. This practice initiated at the turn of the twentieth century through macro-wear analysis, but only really began to take form with the ground-breaking work of Sergei Semenov in the 1930’s. His seminal work introduced new methodologies of practice - including the use of experiments as comparative material, which paved the way to use-wear analysis as we know it today (Gijn 2014, 166; Marreiros, Gibaja Bao and Bicho, 2015, 5 & 8). The following chapter will introduce the material and methodology which will be employed for the study of the gunflint samples.

4.2 MATERIALS The gunflint samples vary greatly in size; this being due to logistical issues concerning the acquisition of materials. The material being studied has been kindly supplied by different organisations, thus the quantity and nature of samples have been predetermined by what has been made available by these organisations (Gijn 1990, 9). The samples are as such: fifteen gunflints from Nepal, nine from the NB6 shipwreck, two from the OL79 wreck, another two from the OH48 wreck, three from the Rooswijk wreck, and finally, ten manufactured and used experimentally by Prof. Dr John Whittaker of Grinnell College, Iowa – in total forty-one pieces.

4.2.1 Nepal (Kathmandu, Nepal) The Nepalese material comes from a cache in a disused building which served as a Nepalese armoury up towards the later part of the nineteenth century. After Christian Crammer purchased the building, he began to explore the different rooms, and as he descended into the basement, discovered that he was treading on thousands upon thousands of stones. When taken back up into the light, it was deduced that they were in fact gunflints. As they were collected, it was estimated that there were approximately 1.3 million; thus the 15 used in this study represent a token sample from this context. The discovery of this cache,

16

its purchase, and the discovery of what lay within has been described by Cranmer himself in a documentary filmed in 2007, where he disclosed the manner in which the objects were found and treated after being found (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 2, 20; Cranmer 2004, 18, 40-2).

a b c d

e f g h

i j k l

m n o p

Figure 4 Gunflints from Nepal: a, b - square blade with two dorsal arrises; c, d – square gunspall; e, f – gunspall?; g, h – round-heel blade; i, j – round-heel blade; k, l – square heel blade; m, n -D-shaped gunspall; o, p – D-shaped gunspall.

17

a b c d

e f g h

i j k l

m n

Figure 5 Gunflints from Nepal: a, b – D-shaped gunspall; c, d – D-shaped gunspall; e, f – square heel blade; g, h – square heel blade; i, j – square blade with two dorsal arrises; .k, l – Square blade with two dorsal arrises; m, n – D-shaped gunspall; o, p – gunspall?.

18

4.2.2 The Rooswijk (Goodwin Sands, South Coast of England) The Rooswijk was a Dutch East Indiaman trading ship, built in 1737, sailing her maiden voyage in that year. Unfortunately, on the first day of her second voyage – from the Texel Roads to Jakarta, in January of 1740, she was struck by savage weather and sunk onto the Goodwin Sands – just off the south coast of England. Here, she joined other vessels taken down by the treacherous regional conditions (https://www.world-archaeology.com; https://wrecksite.eu). The presence of gunflints on this ship is unsurprising as multiple cannon and firearms were found associated with the wreck. Furthermore, the presence of items associated with illegal trade – in particular from Mexico, suggests that the ship could easily have been the target of pirates along her trading route (http://rooswijk.huygens.knaw.nl/).

The wreck site is owned by the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (hereafter the RCE), it is currently protected and managed by Historic England (https://www.bbc.co.uk). A preliminary salvage excavation of the wreck was carried out in 2005 (http://rooswijk.huygens.knaw.nl). Since, there have been rescue excavations in two seasons in 2017 and 2018 – this time undertaken by the RCE in collaboration with Historic England and MSDS Marine (https://msdsmarine.com; https://www.world- archaeology.com). Three gunflints were recovered from the site during the 2017 and 2018 seasons, and one from the previous 2005 season – unfortunately the latter gunflint could

a b c

d e f

Figure 6 Rooswijk gunflints: a, d - fragment; b, e – round-heel blade; c, f – round-heel blade. (Provided by MSDS Marine). 19

not be included in this study. Twenty-four cannons and a multitude of muskets were found in the wreckage, therefore there is reason to believe that there are more gunflints still at the depths of the sea, somewhere on the Goodwin Sands (http://rooswijk.huygens.knaw.nl).

4.2.3 NB6 Wreck (Noordoostpolder, Province of Flevoland, Netherlands) The NB6 wreck is a late eighteenth century of a cargo ship of the tjalk type, discovered in a field in the Province of Flevoland in the Netherlands. The contents of the ship indicate that the port city of origin prior to its’ demise was Groningen (http://cultureelerfgoed.adlibsoft.com; http://www.verganeschepen.nl). The remains of the shipwreck were discovered during work in the Noordoostpolder in 1952 and were explored and subsequently excavated in 1955. The ship was dated based on the contents and this was established as 1787. Furthermore, tree ring dating set the date of tree felling to 1769, meaning the ship was in use no longer than eighteen years after. The cargo of the ship consisted of tiles, but was also carrying soldiers from Muiden to Hoorn at the time she sank (Manders and Kuijper 2015, 154; http://www.verganeschepen.nl). Nine samples are from the NB6 wreck, and a small sample of gunpowder from the same wreck was also kindly supplied by the Batavialand museum in Lelystad (Netherlands).

a b c d

e f g h

i j k l

Figure 7 NB6 gunflints: a, b – round-heel blade; c, d – round-heel blade; e, f – round-heel blade; g, h – round-heel blade; i, j –20 round -heel blade;k, l – “other”.

a b c d

e f

Figure 8 NB6 gunflint: a, b – square blade; c, d – “other”; e, f – square blade.

21

4.2.4 OL79 Wreck (Oostelijk, Province of Flevoland, Netherlands) The OL79 shipwreck is of an eighteenth-century Dutch cargo ship, with the skipper being possibly identified as Pieter Jacobszoon Pondman (Velde, 2014, 6). It sank in the Zuiderzee in the Netherlands in the year 1796 and was discovered when the Flevopolder was created (Filatova and Van Popta, 2014, 99). A survey of the site was carried out in 1959, but it was only in 2013 that the ship remains were excavated (Manders and Kuijper 2015, 154). This was undertaken as part of a collaborative project initiated by the Flevoland provincial authority and integrating the Lelystad council, the University of Groningen, Nieuw Land and the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands. The project was initiated in 2007 titled International Field School for Maritime Archaeology Flevoland (IFMAF) as an educational as well as practical archaeological tool (https://maritime-heritage.com). Two flints were found at this site, and like the NB6 are curated by the Batavialand museum.

a b

c d

Figure 9 OL79 gunflints: a, b – “other”; c, d – round-heel blade.

4.2.5 OH48 Wreck (Noordoostpolder, Province of Flevoland, Netherlands) The OH48 shipwreck is that of a carvel built nineteenth-century Dutch cargo ship going by the name of the Lutina. She was excavated in 1976 after being discovered on the Beverweg – close to Swifterbant in the Noordoostpolder. The cargo she carried included shells and bricks which were being transported from Brielle to the Zwartzluis lime kilns by the skipper Jan Roelofszoon Kisjes and Reinder Tulp – his servant. The ship sank on the 20th of November 1888, being struck on that fateful night by a thunderous storm. The gunflints being investigated were found on board amongst other objects, including, the most striking

22 find: the skeleton of the skipper. (https://www.flevolanderfgoed.nl; https://www.omroepflevoland.nl). This final set of samples from the Batavialand museum consists of two pieces.

a b

c d

Figure 10 OH48 gunflints: a, b - gunspall; c, d – square blade with two dorsal arrises.

4.2.6 Experimental Material The experimental material is supplied by Professor John Whittaker, of which the morphological choices are modelled on the Nepalese samples. However, the flint used in the experiments is of North American origin as opposed to the European and Nepalese flint used for the pieces in the Nepalese sample. The gunflints are based on blade blanks, which however, have different finished morphologies. Whittaker noted in his experiments what edge was used, as well as whether the dorsal surface faced up or down. The number of shots fired with each gunflint was noted – thus providing adequate information for comparison, albeit being most useful for material of a similar coarseness of grain.

23

a b c d u u u u

e f g h

u u u u

i j k l u u

u u

m n o p

u u u u

q u r u s t

u u

v u

Figure 11 (a – t) – Experimental gunflints based on gunflints from the Nepalese armoury in Kathmandu; u, v – leather patch.

24

4.2.7 Other Comparative Material A visit to the Museum of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth (England) has provided a collection of comparative material to be used comparatively against the archaeological samples – in particular the Nepalese sample, for this present study. This material is from the HMS Invincible, which is notable for its English context and its’ relationship to the EIC. The ship was originally a French 74-gun warship named L’Invincible built in 1741 and launched on the 21st of October 1744. She was captured by the English a few years later on the 3rd of May 1747, becoming a model for future English ship building. Ten years later in 1757 she got caught in a hurricane which resulted in her sinking onto a sand bank off the South coast of England, not far from the recently wrecked Rooswijk. The museum has 217 gunflints, which is representative amongst the thousands which were recovered from the wreck – the most notable aspect of which being the uniformity of the flint material, as well as the standardisation in object morphology (https//:historicengland.org.uk).

A second source for comparison is used, particularly for analysing gunflints from amongst the archaeological samples which display signs of having changed purpose into fire-stones. This material consists of three pieces of flint varying in grain coarseness and size, which were consequently struck by the author with a firesteel repeatedly on one location of the stone. The use-wear typical of this action is of large edge removals concentrated on one part of the gunflint, which with repeated use results in a crescent dent (D. S. Buscaglia, Humanas, and Aires 2016, 11).

4.3 EQUIPMENT The techniques presently employed for use-wear analysis include the use of low and high- power microscopy – in the form of stereo and reflected light microscopy; these being used in tandem with experimental archaeology (Evans and Donahue 2005, 223-4; Gijn 2014, 166; Marreiros, Gibaja Bao, and Bicho 2015, 9). Analysis of retouch is the primary analytical approach which will be applied to the gunflints; this can be used to classify the retouch into use, intentional, and unintentional so as to see how the gunflints were used and if they were adapted. This can generally be distinguished by the location, position, distribution pattern and form of retouch. This can be achieved initially by observation with the naked eye in the aim to identify points of interest, and then these areas will be studied more 25 thoroughly with a Nikon SMZ800 stereomicroscope. Zones with particularly interesting features will be studied even more closely with a Leica DM1750 M reflected light microscope. Using microscopes with different magnifications and qualities is important to get a greater overall view of the gunflints, however for this purpose a microscope with such a high magnification and resolution such as Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) or laser confocal microscopy is unwarranted, and thus will be limited to the reflected light microscope (Marreiros, Gibaja Bao, and Bicho 2015, 41-2).

The Nikon SMZ800 stereomicroscope being used can give a magnification between 10x and 80x (without added accessories), has a zooming range of 1-8x and a working distance of 78mm (Catalogue Nikon Corporation 2017, 2 & 29). The low-power approach to lithic analysis, is limited in that it is only sufficient for initial observations – such as edge angles, edge damage, and fractures. It does not have the resolution to identify other traces which can give more insight into the nature of this damage and fractures (Marreiros, Gibaja Bao, and Bicho 2015, 9). It is, however, sufficient to identify traces of wear and residue, and to give a crucial general overview, which can then be examined more closely by higher magnifications for affirmation (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 11).

The Leica DM1750 M reflected light microscope being used has a magnification range of x100-400. It has a variety of illumination options – brightfield, oblique and polarized light. This allows different aspects of the objects to be studied as it can be adjusted accordingly to how the material interacts with the light type at different source angles. All the reflected light illumination is done with integrated Power-LED segmented lighting; which aids analysis when coupled with the different angles of illumination. The combination of features of the microscope makes it particularly suitable to investigate microwear and for topographical features. Furthermore, different accessories may be used with the microscope to obtain the best possible image (Catalogue Leica Microsystems 2015, 7; Marreiros, Gibaja Bao, and Bicho 2015, 9).

The Rooswijk samples were studied at Fort Cumberland (Portsmouth, England), which has a different microscope. The microscope employed is a Leica Wild M3B on magnifications

26 of x16 and x40, with eyepieces of x20. This stereomicroscope uses an external light source, in this case a Schott KL 1500 LCD which has a somewhat yellow hued light.

The use-wear that is examined is as follows:

• Edge removals • Residue • Post-depositional surface modifications including patination • Striations • Polish

As opposed to the stereomicroscope, a reflected light microscope can give a detailed view of the surface of lithic material. The nature of the fractures and polish have a different texture which is visible by this method due to the higher magnification, and manner by which the light interacts. This means that in theory, in combination with experimental reference material, the type of use-wear can be categorized and attributed to a specific action and material (Marreiros, Gibaja Bao, and Bicho 2015, 9). Furthermore, small particles, such as metal residues from the frizzen used in flintlock mechanisms, are more likely to be seen by this type of microscope (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 10-1). However, an issue with this type of microscope is that it has a restricted focus plane which makes sampling more complicated (Gijn 2014, 168). The Leica DM1750 M has the benefit of being able to be fitted to take photographs – in this case being used with the Helicon focus program; these photographs can then be layered to give a focussed image of the whole surface topography, as opposed to just a slice of it (Catalogue Leica Microsystems 2015, 11-12). However, due to the material, and more in particular morphological, nature of the sample material, it is often difficult to obtain an accurate representation of the surface.

The biography of the use-life and death of the gunflints is read through the interpretation of the typo-morphological features and use-wear traces on the gunflint surface. The provenance is examined through the knapping technology, object form and flint type; the life – including functional changes, through the interpretation of edge removals, crushing,

27 flaking and residues; and the death through the depositional context and post-depositional surface modifications.

4.4 PROVENANCE Flint comes in a variety of colours and qualities; even within one location there can be huge variations in the nature of the flint quarried – related primarily to the depth it is from as explained by the sedimentation process of flint (Durst 2009, 24; Skertchly 1879, 5-8). Therefore, using flint qualities and chemical properties as a method of source identification is almost impossible - although the honey-coloured type is nearly always identified as French (Ballin 2014, 45; Durst 2009; Whittaker and Levin 2019, 7; Witthoft 1970, 39). Hence, the method employed to interpret the provenance of the gunflints will be by the analysis of their morphological features, measurement of dimensions, measurement of the front and rear edge-angles, and identification of general form; and thereafter categorizing them into one of the previously established and recognised (Ballin 2014, 51-6). This data can be used in conjunction with colour and grain coarseness to give an indication of the most probable provenance of the individual gunflint; when there is a relevant reference collection. The pioneering work of modern research by John Witthoft, and the publications by Prof. Dr John Whittaker and Torben Bjarke Ballin will be considered in this procedure (Witthoft 1970; Whittaker 2001; Whittaker and Levin 2019; Ballin 2014; Ballin 2012).

European gunflints from a great variety of contexts, are generally attributed to French and British Industries, although Witthoft had claimed that there was a Dutch workshop (due to flint colour and the existence of a stock factory) (Witthoft 1970, 34). However, this has been under question due to lack of substantial evidence, and appears to since have been disproven by the lack of a good flint source in the Netherlands (Durst 2013, 20; Ballin 2012, 118-9). Other European gunflint industries can be sourced to Italy, Austria, Germany and into Eastern Europe, however, these were minor industries in comparison to the French and British, at least until the later period of gunflint use (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 4; Zeebroek et al. 2010, 267; Ballin 2013, 1-4). French flint has multiple sources, with the Meusne region in North East France appearing to be the most prolific source for gunflint material. Witthoft explained that French flint had also been transported to Britain at the turn of the nineteenth century, this must be considered as it can explain the presence of 28

British style gunflints produced with French material (Witthoft 1970, 36, 41, 43). English gunflints, whether used at home or abroad, are produced with flint native to England due to the prevalence of high-quality stone in the British Isles – most notably at Brandon, but also in other regions. Ballin attributes different physical qualities in the flint to a source, thus narrowing down the possible locations of origin (Ballin 2012, 121; Karklins 1984, 51- 2; Whittaker 2001, 382). Italian flint from Verona became prolific during Napoleonic occupation of the region, therefore adding another typology into the mix (Chelidonio and Woodall 2015, 1).

Gunflint assemblages outside Europe, however, may derive from a different source. Only some of the gunflints are imported from Europe, whereas a large proportion are actually believed to be of local stone and production. This assumption is based on the flint typology and the different skill level in the knapping of gunflints (Witthoft 1970, 52; Whittaker and Levin 2019, 7-8, 11-2). A step in attempting to solve these issues, is an experiment which was executed in an attempt to sort the flint by atomic absorption spectrometry. By this method, it has shown that it is possible to establish a probable generic European origin, albeit a non-specific one (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 8). With that in consideration, Prof. Dr Whittaker’s analysis of gunflints from a nineteenth century British stockpile in Nepal – which will be re-examined here, has suggested that the assemblage is composed of British type, some French type, and some “other” that do not fit either of the former typologies. The latter have been suggested to be a local production, however, as they are not yet formally recorded, they do not currently belong in a reference collection – thus they are for the time being, categorised simply as “other” (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 1).

4.5 MANUFACTURE A macroscopic analysis of the gunflints is sufficient to establish the technology employed in the manufacturing process. It has been generally established that there are two main gunflint manufacturing technologies - the flake technique, and the later snap-blade; the latter being considered to be more efficient as it produces less waste (Kenmotsu 1990, 98- 9). The techniques can be identified by examining the gunflint morphology, and in so doing, by also identifying and studying the bulbs of percussion (Ballin 2012, 117-8; Barnes 1937, 330). 29

Gunflints may be manufactured by use of either flake (fig. 12. Pg 31) or blade blanks (fig. 13. Pg 31) which are obtained from prepared cores by having had the external cortex removed. Flake blanks are often struck off the ventral surface of the flint flake, which are then heavily retouched on all four edges, and occasionally also on the surfaces. Blanks from blades, however, are taken by the segmentation of blades struck from the flint core. The form of a gunflint is largely determined by the manner in which the blank is segmented, and the way in which it is retouched to give it its form (Arcos, Fernandez, and Rodriguez 1996, 111-3; Ballin 2012, 118; Whittaker and Levin 2019, 5-6).

In identifying the blade technique, useful morphological features on the gunflint include: a side snap fracture, the presence of a dorsal ridge, and of erailluer flakes (Kenmotsu 1990, 100). The Italian gunflints have been described as a “platform type” which is one derived from the blade technology, no flake types have been found amongst the Italian examples, which aids in classification of unknown samples (Chelidonio and Woodall 2015, 2-3). Gunflints that do not fit to either technology type, on the other hand, - for example some of the Nepalese ones, cannot be put into a clear typology, but are fairly uniform and are believed to be produced locally (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 7-8).

The morphology of a gunflint is not only dependant on the technology employed in manufacture, but also what part of the process it is derived from. What is meant with this, is that if a gunflint is produced using blade technology, the portion of the blade the individual flint is acquired from will impact its shape, size and potentially the number of dorsal arises it has; furthermore, in French and English contexts, these examples are often much retouched – to be almost straight, dorsal and ventral edges (Kenmotsu 1990, 2013, 98-100). A flake gunflint however, unlike the blade type, displays a different general shape type being less standardised and clean cut, often with less defined edges. Where the blade type is quite thick and has generally quite a standard thickness (apart from the rear and leading edges, the flake type is more of a wedge in terms of thickness, with one end being thinner than the other, in some contexts being more retouched than in others (Ballin 2012, 118; Kenmotsu 1990, 98).

30

Figure 12 Figure 12 Reduction of a 'flaked flake': 1. Figure 13 Blades for gunflint production (Ballin 2012, 135) platform remnant with bulb of percussion; 2. Ventral face of the 'flaked flake'; 3. decortication flakes; 4. gunflint blanks. (Ballin 2012, 132)

4.6 TYPOLOGY Gunflints are generally easily distinguished from the standard tinderbox flint staple due to their clear morphological differences. However, something that should be kept in consideration is that a disused gunflint – no longer being useful in a firearm, was likely often recycled to be used with a fire steel; which was still a common tool during the period of gunflint use (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 16).

There are two methods for blank production; that is the blade technique and the flake method. The technology employed for this can be identified by the gunflint morphology – the location and orientation of the bulb of percussion, the gunflint shape, and the geometry of the dorsal side of the gunflint (Ballin 2012, 117-8; Barnes 1937, 330).

31

TYPOLOGIES:

Flake based

• Gunspall • D-shaped gunspall

Blade based

• Square blade gunflint • Rectangular blade • Square heel blade • D-shaped blade • Round-heel blade

When classifying into a typo-morphological group, we must be weary and keep in consideration that there could be a plethora of reasons for similarities in gunflints discovered in different geographical regions, and vice versa – differences in those from the same region. These can be for example, the hardness, brittleness or coarseness of the flint, as well as the colour. These physical features can vary greatly not only geographically, but also even within a single source site – in relation to the depth, and therefore the geological layer it is from (Skertchly 1879, 5-8; Whittaker and Levin 2019, 7). The typo-morphological features associated with each gunflint may in turn vary according to the skill of the flint knapper, and due to manufacturing mishaps that can happen even to the most proficient of craftsmen (Luedtke 1998, 36-7).

4.7 USE The examination of the use of the gunflints will be approached by macro and microscopic analysis in an aim to observe the manner in which use-retouch manifests, which edges were used to strike the frizzen, and also to an extent which part was clamped into the cock of the flintlock mechanism. The listed variables impact the form in which the following use- wear develops on a gunflint:

32

Variables:

• Morphology • Flint coarseness • Angle of use edge

Use-wear:

• Edge removals – step, hinge and feather terminations • Erailleur flakes • Polish • Residue • Crushing • Striations • Patination

It is important to bear in mind the intrinsic properties of the flint type when carrying out use-wear analysis, as the grain size of the flint will impact the manner and degree in which use wear traces develop. For example, it is logical to expect a finer grained flint to display more intensive use than a coarser flint. Furthermore, the typo-morphological qualities of a gunflint, in particular with regards to the edge angles, may have an impact on the creation of edge removals, and the degree of their manifestation (Ballin 2014).

Gunflints and fire-starters can have essentially the same (although not exclusively) morphology; therefore, microwear analysis is a useful tool which may be used so as to distinguish between the two. This is relevant to this study as, for example, in the seventeenth century, both flintlock firearms and fire-starters were used simultaneously (Witthoft 1970, 37). Another possibility is also that these flints were multipurpose, however, these hypotheses require further testing through experimentation and comparison of wear marks.

33

4.8 DISCARD/PDSM The discard of gunflints generally results in the development of post-depositional surface modifications. This is primarily due to the disposal context of these objects, which means that once used to their maximum potential, the gunflints are collected in large containers where they hit each other, or in caches where they are easily trampled (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 3). Another possible source of post-depositional surface modification is from an excavation or extraction process. The identification of post-depositional surface modifications is approached by both a macro and microscopic approach, though the latter may be more effective in yielding results.

Gunflints are often recovered from maritime contexts – generally in the form of shipwrecks, be it sunken, or, as is common in the Netherlands, from terrestrial sites such as buried in a polder (Manders and Kuijper 2015, 153-5). Other gunflints have been recovered from battlefield contexts – in Europe for example, a large quantity has been found in Spain and France; and in Asia they can be also be found in armament caches (Witthoft 1970, 50; Whittaker and Levin 2019, 1-4). The effect of water – which can result from water-logged soils or indeed direct water on flint contact, can be observed in the form of a white patina – this being particularly relevant to gunflints recovered from a marine context (Ballin 2014, 45; Burroni et al. 2002, 1281). The white patina is generally attributed to alkaline solutions, which is therefore easily explained as sea water is alkaline due to the ions dissolved in the solution (https://www.lenntech.com). Furthermore, the wear on these flints can differ from those retrieved from terrestrial sites as they may be cleaner due to the cleansing action of the water. Furthermore, extraction from concretions, if done incorrectly or without due care, can result in damage of the gunflints in question. Gunflints from terrestrial shipwrecks however, such as the NB6 wreck, can display not only the effects of water, but also are more prone to post depositional surface modifications – due to an increased risk of trampling or damage during the excavation process which does not happen during an underwater excavation (Burroni et al. 2002, 1277).

Post-depositional surface modifications (PDSM) can make interpretation difficult as they alter the surface and polishes on the objects, thus complicating the microscopic analysis (Levi Sala 1986, 229; Burroni et al. 2002, 1277-8). In terms of gunflints, the action of

34 disposal or deposition into a cache – where this would not be done with care, could result in surface modifications unrelated to use in the flintlock mechanism. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the extraction of the gunflints from concretions – which is how a great proportion of maritime material is found, could also result in surface modifications. The issue is distinguishing between natural depositional modifications from use-wear as the effect can appear similar. Finding multiple alterations can help identify a process, and thus the real use surface and wear patterns (Burroni et al. 2002, 1278-9).

4.9 RESIDUES A further application of microscopic analysis is the identification of residues on the gunflint surfaces (Gijn 1990, 8). In this case, the residue of interest clearly is gunpowder, keeping a keen eye on how it is manifest and its distribution on the gunflint surface. It is important however, to also be attentive to any other possible residues which may give some other information, perhaps relating to the deposition context or other outlying factors. The questions of interest in this regard concern the distribution pattern and intensity of said residue, and the degree of preservation of gunpowder in relation to the archaeological context of the gunflints. The naked eye can be enough to establish the presence of residue – assuming that there is a substantial amount of it. However, the use of a stereomicroscope can be beneficial to identify if there are residues in small quantities. Reflected light microscopy, can aid in discriminating between residue types; and can therefore be used to establish the presence of gunpowder more specifically – when in doubt. Residue from the gunflints – both from historical and experimental, samples will also be compared to a sample of gunpowder recovered from the NB6 shipwreck with the aim of observing if there is a standard form of black gunpowder over these periods and geographical regions, during the period of flintlock weapon use, however not too much is expected from this aspect of the study.

4.10 EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY Experimental archaeology allows us to directly compare the different actions taken on an experimental object, against an archaeological object for which these are an unknown. It is possible for us deduce how an object will look after use based on its morphology,

35 material properties and knowledge of how such an object is used. However, this can often be an incorrect interpretation for which experiments aim to compensate, as statistical probability cannot account for the variability that occurs in the natural world (Akoshima and Kanomata 2015, 23; Burroni et al 2002, 1282, 1286). With this in consideration, the intrinsic qualities of different flint varieties vary greatly, some being more fine-grained than others, with more or fewer inclusions, thus having different hardness and shock resistance. As a result, they break in slightly different manners and degrees, and this manifests visibly on the flint (Quinn 2004; Quinn 2010). It is important therefore, to consider that the flint available to Prof. Dr Whittaker in the United States for these experiments, will most likely be of an American source as opposed to the European of the archaeological samples. Consequently, these gunflints may display wear of a slightly different degree and distribution than the others (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 10-12). Furthermore, the experimental pieces do not have the post depositional surface modifications which may be seen on archaeological pieces (Gijn 2014, 167-8).

A final point to consider regarding experimental archaeology, is the firing implement itself. Eighteenth century flintlock muskets and pistols may differ in manufacture from modern ones or even reconstructions. Furthermore, there are variations in flintlock mechanisms in historical weapons depending on their origin and period (Moshtagh Khorasani 2009, 23-6; Whittaker and Levin 2019, 8-9). All things considered, if there is enough variability in flint types and substantial, well documented experimental pieces, there should be sufficient evidence to be able to make a comparison of use-wear to the archaeological gunflints.

Gunflint analysis must be approached with caution, mostly when dealing with provenance, but also to a degree the manufacture process and use. Use-wear analysis on both a macro and microscopic scale require a scientific methodology, approached with a human view, which is required to approach meaningful questions in archaeology (Gijn 2014, 166). However, the issue with use-wear analysis, is the difficulty of inferring functionality objectively – which is a result of the difficulty in standardizing formal descriptive terminology. In brief, quantifying qualitative features remains a fundamentally subjective exercise (Gijn 2014, 166-7).

36

Experimental gunflints provided by Prof. Dr John Whittaker of Grinnell College, Iowa (USA), will be used comparatively against the archaeological pieces. Much like the other gunflints, they will be examined macro and microscopically, and the use-wear will be assessed and documented to interpret functional aspects of the gunflints (Marreiros, Gibaja Bao, and Bicho 2015, 5). In parallel to the archaeological and experimental gunflints, experiments carried out by the author will be employed to assess the form of use-retouch which occurs on fire-stones, which will then be used as a comparison to the use-retouch on the archaeological gunflints.

4.11 PROCESS The gunflints were examined twice; the first time as they came, without any treatment, so as to observe residue and wear without the fear of having washed anything off, and once again after being washed with soap and water so as to discriminate between grease and dirt from polish and residue. Alcohol was also used in some instances to clean the surfaces when this was deemed necessary (Gijn 1990, 11, 54).

The gunflints were then studied by the stereomicroscope and reflected light microscopes as discussed in the previous chapter. The magnification used with the stereomicroscope was x20, whereas resolutions obtained with the reflected light microscope are 200µm and 100µm, greater resolutions were attempted, albeit with little success. However the level of magnification achieved may be deemed sufficient for the use-wear on gunflints as the resolution at these magnifications were sufficient to obtain a clear view of the use-wear traces (Gijn 1990, 12).

Before beginning analysis, the typical gunflint use-wear was accounted for from the bibliography – edge removals, polish, gunpowder residue, Ballin’s “micro-crazing”, and powder burn (Ballin 2012). Hence, the observed use-wear traces on the samples are analysed and the variable attributes are noted and recorded using the pre-existing terminology.

37

5 BANG BANG… (ANALYSIS)

5.1 TERMINOLOGY The terminology employed in the description of the gunflint refers to both morphological features as well as use-wear. To avoid confusion, the term “curved” will be used to describe morphology, whereas “rounded” will be reserved exclusively for the use-wear feature. The term “flake” refers to the manufacture technology, where the term “gunspall” will be maintained to describe this in its typo-morphological terms. Edge removals are referred to when related to use, alterations to the gunflints related to post-depositional surface modifications are discussed separately. Despite debate in the use of the term, the word “platform” is employed to describe the smaller flat top on the dorsal surface of blade- derived gunflints – in the current absence of a standardised term for this distinguishing feature. The residues are discussed in each individual case, with physical differences being clarified respectively. There is also an attempt to identify features that resemble what Ballin defines as “micro-crazing” (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 14; Ballin 2012, 118). Finally, typology is assigned, attempting to follow the De Lotbiniere classification system, however, issues with classification are noted, and hence some deviance and adaption following Ballin’s examples is taken (de Lotbiniere, 1984; Ballin 2014).

5.2 NEPAL (KATHMANDU, NEPAL) Fifteen gunflints were sampled – kindly supplied by Prof. Dr J. Whittaker, which according to the armament distributor who supplied them – Christian Cranmer, were randomly selected from of a cache estimated to contain over one million pieces (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 20). A typological analysis of the Nepalese assemblage shows a variety of gunflint types, differing in morphology – and thereby in their manufacture technology, in size, in flint colour and of grain coarseness. There is no direct correlation between the flint type and the manner in which it was treated in the manufacturing process.

The quality of the Nepalese gunflints is varied, with some displaying a greater level of knapping expertise than others. This is exemplified by the morphological choices taken whilst knapping, as well as the level of skill exerted in their execution, the various sources

38 are likely responsible for this (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 12-13). The use-wear on the gunflints is not uniform, with differences in type of retouch being most clearly observable between flint types primarily differentiated their grain size. The distribution of this retouch is most similar in gunflints of the same morphology and flint type, with greater difference in gunflints of very different forms.

Gunpowder residue is present on the gunflints from this assemblage, with the quantity surviving to different degrees. The amount of gunpowder present on a single gunflint is correlated to the flint type and appears to be relative to the coarseness of the flint surface. Furthermore, areas with use-wear or patches of coarser flint trap more gunpowder particles on the surface than other, non-used areas of the gunflints.

Gunflint N-01 (fig. 4a, 4b) is a square blade with two dorsal arrises made of a fine grained greyish brown flint. The dorsal side has gunpowder residue on the top platform, from this side, gunpowder can be seen on one of the edges in the form of black powder and a green globular residue. This same edge has

Figure 14 Gunpowder trapezoidal step fractures. The opposite edge from the ventral perspective also has gunpowder residue (fig. 12) burnt onto the gunflint which has oxidised in a yellow- orange colour, as well as possibly what Ballin refers to as “micro-crazing” (fig. 13). The proximal and distal edges on the other hand, appear to have manufacture traces and perhaps wear from the cock of the mechanism rather than use from striking the Figure 15 “Micro-crazing” frizzen.

39

N-02 (fig. 4c, 4d) is a bit smaller than the former, and more irregular in form – appearing as an attempt at a more traditional square gunspall with little success and is made from a pinkish grey flint. Deep striations (fig. 17) on a lateral edge from the dorsal perspective are clearly from

Figure 16 Removals with polish and rounding manufacture as they are too great and well defined; with yellow spots located near to them. A glossy polish and extreme rounding surrounds large circular removals (fig. 16).

Figure 17 Deep striations

N-03 (fig. 4e, 4f) is of an irregular form made out of a greyish brown flint, with a generally more circular shape. It has the typical narrow on one end, thick in the other profile of a flake made gunflint, which does appear to have been adapted to taper down on the thick end to create two useable edges. Black gunpowder residue is over the surface of the Figure 18 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal dorsal side on both slopes, along with patina- like polish with streaks of light striations over it (fig. 19). A greater quantity of use-wear is concentrated on the more obtuse angled edge, rather than the more acute one. This is in the form of striations, yellow and black gunpowder marks, polish and rounding. The ventral side has a red residue on the acutely Figure 19 Patination with striations 40 angled, and some black gunpowder also over the edge. Very few edge removals (fig. 18) are clearly visible on either side, with mostly the residue, polish and rounding being noticeable (fig.20).

Figure 20 Trapezoidal edge removal with some rounding

N-04 (fig. 4g, 4h) is a round-heel blade type made out of pinkish grey flint, it could perhaps be of a similar context as the N-02 – the other gunflint of this flint type, as the form is not completely dissimilar, and differences may be related to factors other than individual knapping style – uniformity in

Figure 21 Oxidised gunpowder one assemblage is not common. In fact, the thickness and size ratios make it a reasonable suggestion that both gunflints were obtained from different parts of the same blade, although the vast size of the assemblage as a whole would open this to the same flint core or source rather than narrowing it down to the same blade. From the dorsal side, only a

Figure 22 Manufacture retouch with polishing and small number of step fractures are visible on rounding the straight edge. On the ventral side, however, step and hinge fractures are all along this straight edge. Yellow and black residue is found on both sides, indicative of gunpowder, along with a bright yellow staining on the surface. One lateral side edge has gunpowder residue burnt to a red oxidation state (fig. 21), with black gunpowder, and step fractures also along this edge. The opposite edge displays rounding and polishing (fig. 22) over manufacture retouch.

41

N-05 (fig. 4i, 4j) is a round-heel blade type gunflints made from a brown flint which is almost twice the size as N-04, it is more similar in size and shape to the Rooswijk pieces, albeit of a slightly poorer execution. Black gunpowder residue is present sporadically over both surfaces. An erailleur scar, some edge removals – with hinge and Figure 23 Dorsal arris with removals and striations step termination, and some striations are present on the dorsal surface, with some rounding and polish over this use-wear (fig. 24). The striation use-wear originates at the top of the dorsal arrises and extends approximately half a centimetre down the slope towards the edge of the gunflints. This also displaying edge removals on the arris in a Figure 24 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal fashion typical of gunflints (fig. 23). The with rounding and striations curved end of the piece displays mostly polish over a very rounded edge, with the lateral sides extending down the side presenting some black residue and some polish and rounding visible from the ventral side. Use- wear on the straight edge can be seen from ventral and dorsal sides, although that which is present from the dorsal perspective displays Figure 25 Sharp step fractures with large striations rounding and polish over it. The opposing side has some step fractures along the edge; however, it is the striations associated that extend approximately half a centimetre from the edge inwards along with step fractures which give the best indication of use. These suggest that this side was facing down and would come in contact with the frizzen (fig. 25).

N-06 (fig. 4k, 4l) is a square blade gunflint with two dorsal arrises made out of black flint which has some chalk inclusion in its matrix. A small quantity of gunpowder is present on all four of the gunflint edges. The dorsal arrises display glossy polish and rounding over the

42 edge and in the crushed regions (fig.30). A large erailleur scar is beside the edge of the one of the more acutely edged sides – most likely related to a manufacturing accident as there is retouch on its edges (fig, 28). Edge removals are most clear from the ventral side, hinge and step fractures are most present on the acute angled edges, as well as some smaller quantity on the distal and proximal edges (fig. 26; fig. 27; fig. 29). One of the lateral sides displays pitting beside the edge near a hinge edge removal.

Figure 26 Scalar edge removal with large striations Figure 27 Scalar edge removal with some polish and rounding

Figure 28 Edge with some dents Figure 29 Scalar edge removal with large striations

Figure 30 Dorsal arris with dents, polish, rounding and striations

43

N-07 (fig. 4m, 4n) is a D-shaped gunspall made from a very dark grey, opaque flint with a medium-fine grain. The dorsal surface presents a large erailleur scar toward the middle of a lateral side – thus most likely a manufacturing error. The thicker, rounded side of the gunflint has horizontal incisions

Figure 31 Internal fractures and flaking across it most likely from the manufacturing process, as this is atypical for use marks. The straight edge displays the most use-wear – in the form of hinge and step fractures which are mostly on the dorsal side and flaking (fig. 31) which is on both. Gunpowder is visible in the form of specks of black powder on the straight edge, and two orange-yellow burn

Figure 32 Internal fracture with orange-yellow marks on both ventral and dorsal surfaces gunpowder mark (fig. 32), and approximately the same relative position on the surfaces – this may in fact be related to the being clamped in the cock of the gun.

Gunflint N-08 (fig. 4o, 4p) is a slightly abnormal D-shaped gunspall made of a fine grained very dark-grey opaque and matte flint. Of particular interest is the presence of an organic substance that has been identified as disaccharide pollen grains (fig. 33). Gunpowder is also present on the gunflint edge despite not being present at all on the Figure 33 Disaccharide pollen grains surface of the rest of the flint. It is primarily in the form of unburnt powder, this residue clinging particularly well between the globules of disaccharide pollen grains. An orange coloured gunpowder residue is also by the straight edge on the ventral side.

44

N-09 (fig. 5a, 5b) is an irregular form based on a flake which appears to be an attempt at recreating a D-shaped type. A yellow and red crystalline residue, and trapezoidal step fractures are present on the straight edge, as well as some flaking (fig. 34); these aspects being most prominent in the ventral side, where the ventral perspective displays more Figure 34 Internal fracture and flaking rounding and polish, at some points smoothing over some hinge and step fractures (fig. 35). This use-wear suggests that the straight edge is the use edge; whereas the others display use-wear traces resembling crushing and some flaking – possibly from being clamped in the cock of the gun. The same yellow crystalline substance is found on Figure 35 Edge with extreme rounding and polish the edge of the curved side of the gunflint on the dorsal side; the ventral side displays a yellow/orange residue which is most likely oxidised gunpowder (fig. 36). Some loose black gunpowder particles are also present in miniscule quantities over the gunflint.

Figure 36 Yellow/orange gunpowder residue

45

N-10 (fig. 5c, 5d) is a square heel blade, which is made from a fine-grained black flint. The use-wear proves complicated to observe on the dorsal side as the relatively obtuse edge angles make the use-wear difficult to focus on and analyse adequately. On the ventral side, the observed use-wear is in the form of scalar

Figure 37 Scalar edge removal with hinge hinged and stepped edge removals (fig. 37); termination one of the edges has crushing with rounding and some polish (fig. 38). A yellow crystalline residue is present on one of the edges, and black gunpowder residue is present on the opposite edge and on one of the lateral edges.

Figure 38 Rounding and polish over crushing

N-11 (fig. 5e, 5f) is a roughly made, fine- grained black square heel blade, which has a slightly misshapen platform on the dorsal surface. Like the former gunflint, the dorsal edges are difficult to observe, however, the ventral side allows a better perspective on Figure 39 Scalar edge removal with rounding and next to pitting these edges. On this latter side, there are two prominent erailleur scars along one edge, whereas step and hinge fractures are visible on all four edges. Here, one of the lateral edges displays glossy polish-like striations along with some edge rounding and surface pitting (fig. 40). Striations and pitting next to a scalar edge removal (fig. 39) are visible on

Figure 40 Mild edge rounding, polish-like striations one of the lateral edges which displays most and pitting

46 edge removals as well as possible “micro- crazing” (fig. 41), whereas the opposite edge shows much less use-wear. This pattern of one edge being much used with many edge removals – and its opposite being the lesser used one is also visible with the top and bottom edges, suggesting that this gunflint was rotated 90 degrees rather Figure 41 Trapezoidal edge removal with hinge than the expected 180 degrees. termination, striations and possible “micro-crazing”

N-12 (fig. 5g, 5h) is a dark grey square blade with two dorsal arrises made from a fine- grained flint displaying evidence of the French snap-blade splitting technique – manifesting as the form of the platform on the dorsal side. A light distribution of loose black gunpowder is visible on the upper and lower edges. Use-wear is difficult to observe Figure 42 Gunpowder staining on the dorsal side. A small light quantity of black gunpowder is located on one lateral edge, and a step fracture on the opposite one; angled striations (fig. 43) are also visible by this edge, which also appears to display some rounding. The ventral side shows much clearer use-wear with hinge and step fractures on all four edges – albeit with some smoothing and polishing over Figure 43 Deep rounded striations three of the gunflint edges. Striations are also present on multiple edges, with some also crossing over a yellow gunpowder stain (fig. 42). Internal fractures are also present by one of the edges.

47

N-13 (fig. 5i, 5j) is a slightly irregularly shaped square blade with two dorsal arrises displaying evidence of the French snap- blade method of blade splitting by the presence of demi-cones at the sides of the dorsal platform. The flint it is made from has a very dark grey colour and is fine-grained. The dorsal side displays hinge and step Figure 44 Scalar edge removal with projecting striations fractures on the more acutely angled edge – one which projects out and has straight ridges running horizontally across it (fig. 44), with some crushing on the other three edges and polishing on the proximal edge. Striations are present sloping down towards the distal edge at a diagonal angle, as well as on the lower edge itself. Some black gunpowder particles are found on Figure 45 Scalar edge removal with hinge termination both the proximal and distal edges. On the with rounding ventral side, step fractures are seen on one lateral edge and scalar edge removals with hinge terminations (fig. 45) on the opposite, which also has crushing and flaking with polish and rounding, whereas the lower edge has some flaking and internal fractures. A small amount of black gunpowder is visible on these two edges, Figure 46 Dorsal arris with some crushing and and on one of the lateral edges which also striations displays striations and some crushing (fig, 46).

48

N-14 (fig. 5k, 5l) is a D-shaped gunspall made out of a dark greyish brown coloured flint with a fine-grained matrix. Some traces of black gunpowder are visible on both surfaces, in particular in flake negatives such as the erailleur scars on the dorsal surface, which also has some step and hinge fractures on the distal, acutely angled edge. Figure 47 Pitting and striations This same edge but on the ventral side displays some step fractures and internal fractures all along it, as well as some striations and pitting (fig. 47).

N-15 (fig. 5m, 5n) could not be attributed to a standard type of gunflint and hence fits only into the “other” morphological typology and is made of a fine to medium- grained black flint. Internal fractures are visible all over the gunflint, with some specks of black powder on the surfaces. Very few edge removals are visible – only a Figure 48 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal couple of hinge and step fractures (fig. 48) on the dorsal side and only what looks like crushing on the ventral side. The clearest evidence of use is the above-mentioned use-wear. One of the thicker parts displays crushing on the thickest point (fig. 49), which may be indicative of the pressure from being held in the cock of the gun mechanism. Figure 49 Crushing displaying internal fractures and residue on the surface

49

The most common type of edge removals present on the gunflints are trapezoidal step fractures, and scalar hinge fractures – with a little bit of overlap as some edge removals display aspects of both. Erailleur scars are found on around half of the gunflints, where those displaying this use-wear are fine-grained, and range in colour from pinkish grey, dark grey, dark greyish brown and black – a feature in common being a semi-translucent quality.

Using the HMS Invincible sample as a reference, some of the Nepalese gunflints show the potential of having the same if not somewhat similar origin. The colour and morphology of the gunflints were assessed, with gunflint N-06 displaying almost identical morphology to the HMS Invincible square blade gunflints, as well as having the corresponding grain size, colour and white chalk inclusions. N-11, N-12 and N-13 have a lesser potential to be of the same provenance, as they are similar to a small, less prominent group of gunflints from the HMS Invincible assemblage, however not identical. The morphologies are correct, and the colour and grain size are also as such, thus arguing the case for the possibility of the same source.

5.3 ROOSWIJK (GOODWIN SANDS, SOUTH COAST OF ENGLAND) There are two distinctive forms from amongst the Rooswijk samples. Gunflint RK17A00564 is particularly difficult to contextualise as it small (2.45cm x 2.20cm x 0.80cm), fragmented in places, of an irregular shape, and is difficult to match to a colour due to a thick yellow- orange layer over the surface left by the concretion (fig. 6a, 6d). The majority of the identifiable wear on it is manifest as post-depositional surface modifications which comprise of striations on the surface of this orange layer, a large scalar edge removal which cuts through this layer, and further residue left by the concretion. A small quantity of black residue at some points could be gunpowder, however this is unclear due to the high level of post-depositional modifications.

The other two gunflints are large examples resembling what Ballin refers to as a ‘flattened D’ in his categorisation of the gunflints from two Swedish ships (Ballin 2014, 50). The Rooswijk pieces have a mean length of 3.93cm and width of 3.28cm, but a mean thickness of only 0.71cm. The colour varies from black, greenish black and blueish black in

50

RK18A00051A (fig .6b, 6e), whereas RK18A00051B varies from dark grey to black (fig. 6c, 6f) – both being of a fine-flint with a mildly translucent quality. Despite the colour variation, when looked at together the gunflints look like they are made from flint from the same source. Some residue from the concretion remains on both gunflints, and a white patina coats the surface of the gunflints, with a yellowish patina on one of the two. A small quantity of black residue engrained on the gunflint surfaces and on in the edges appear to be gunpowder, and a small orange spot in an orange coloured area seems to be powder burn. Deep striations are present on both dorsal and ventral sides of the gunflints, with pitting being present only on the ventral side. Edge removals are …. Crushing and edge removal is also present on the dorsal arrises, and striations come from the arrises and down the acute edges.

5.4 NB6 SHIPWRECK (NOORDOOSTPOLDER, PROVINCE OF FLEVOLAND,

NETHERLANDS) A preliminary observation of the NB6 gunflint assemblage showed a high quality of craftsmanship, and with what appears to be gunpowder residue coating the surfaces of every sample. This seems likely due to the similarities of the black residue on the gunflints to the sample of loose black gunpowder from the same wreck.

All of the gunflints appear to be made of the same type of fine-grained flint; despite the slight colour variation, the flint appears homogenous in nature. The size of the gunflints does not vary greatly, with the approximately smallest gunflint having dimensions of 2.45cm x 2.05cm and a thickness of 0.40cm; and the largest of 3.42cm x 3.10cm and a width of 1.00cm.

Gunpowder residue is visible on all gunflints from the assemblage; however, it appears to be manifest primarily in its unburnt form. The gunpowder is over a vast part of the surface of the gunflints, seen easily optically, and being able to be seen better in the edge through reflected light microscopy.

51

Figure 50 Dorsal arris with striations Figure 51 Steel residue with striations

NB6-379 (fig. 7a, 7b) is a D- shaped gunflint made in the blade manner. The use-wear is concentrated on the flat edge of the piece, constituting of scalar and trapezoidal edge removals with terminations which resemble a mix of hinge and step fractures. The edge is rounded on the ventral side of the edge, Figure 52 Internal fracture and striations whereas the edge removals on the dorsal side appear fresher. Some steel residue marks appear as large striations with narrow striations over the top following the same direction (fig. 51). Internal fractures appear on the ventral surface, with striations crossing over the top (fig. 52). Striations are present on the slopes downwards of both dorsal arrises, with crushing on the apexes (fig. 50).

NB6-380 (fig. 7c, 7d) is a slightly off-shape square blade with two dorsal arrises crossing with a D-shape, the top platform being a bit rough in shape, with some extra flakes having been removed in the manufacturing process. The use-wear on the dorsal side is concentrated on the shallower angled long

Figure 53 Scalar edge removal with deep striations edge, and on the ventral side on the more obtuse angled long edge. On the dorsal side the use-wear consists of scalar edge removals with hinge terminations and striations (fig. 53). The ventral side has a greater quantity of

52

Figure 54 Striations and pitting Figure 55 Scalar hinge terminated edge removals with striations and pitting use-wear in the form of multi-directional striations and edge removals in the feathered and hinge type, many of which have rounded edges (fig. 55), along with pitting (fig. 54). Furthermore, striations are present all over the ventral surface, yet the manifestation is multi and omni-directional.

NB6-381 (fig. 7e, 7f) is D-shaped, made using the blade technology, the top platform is an oval shape, with extra flakes removed in manufacture. It displays use-wear primarily on its ventral side, there is however very little visible wear, with very few hinge-terminated edge removals, and some gunpowder in the edge (fig. 57), as well as an edge removal with rounding, polish and striations (fig. 56).

Figure 56 Lamellar edge removal with striations, Figure 57 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal polish and rounding

53

NB6-382 (fig. 7g, 7h) is a blade made round-heel shaped gunflint, with the ventral surface having four horizontal surfaces, and an extra flake having been taken across it in the creation of the top platform. The use-wear is focussed on one of the long edges with hinge and step terminated edge removals and light striations appearing on the dorsal side; striations are also all over the ventral surface on top of steel residue (fig. 60). The edges of the gunflint also seem rounded and polished over a crushed appearance which displays what appears to be residue from impact with the frizzen (fig. 58), along with a flaking edge Figure 58 Polished step fractures with steel residue removal (fig. 59). This gunflint specifically appears very lightly used, if at all.

Figure 59 Scalar edge removal with hinge Figure 60 Striations on a glossy polish terminations and flaked appearance

Figure 61 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal Figure 62 Scalar edge removal with striations with oxidised gunpowder

54

Gunflint NB6-383 (fig. 7i, 7j) a blade made into a D-shape with an oddly shaped top platform, which has been knapped around to give the piece the correct shape. The use- wear manifest on the straight edge, dorsal side primarily, with the typical crushing on the dorsal arrises as well on this side. The

Figure 63 Gunflint edge with striations edge removals are a mix of all forms and terminations all along the edge, as well as pitting by this same edge and oxidised gunpowder – including in an edge removal itself (fig. 61). Striations are also present in a removal (fig. 62). On the ventral side use-wear is seen as light fracturing in the form of small hinge and step fractures and of internal fractures on the curved end of the gunflint. The straight edge on this side presents rounded hinge edge removals, and striations at an angle to the edge are present (fig. 63)

NB6-384 (fig. 7k, 7l) is an irregularly shaped gunflint, however, the knapping technique seems the same as the other gunflints. This is as such as the knapper used multiple flake removals to achieve an approximate, usable shape, this is as this piece looks like it was meant to be a D-shape, which is the most

Figure 64 Trapezoidal edge removal with hinge prominent form in this assemblage. The terminations and black residue use-wear is mostly located on one of the lateral edges with most of the edge removals visible on the dorsal side, these being primarily hinge terminated in the trapezoidal form which in one case has a black residue which is likely from the frizzen (fig. 64). Deep, smoothed over, polished striations (fig. 65) are also present over this surface. The ventral

Figure 65 Deep, smoothed, polished striations side displays the same trapezoidal edge removals with hinge terminations, albeit in a

55 much-reduced quantity in comparison to the dorsal side, these also have a flaky, crushed quality (fig. 66). The opposite lateral edge demonstrates very little use-wear on either side, mostly being internal fractures and some rounding and polish over the edge.

Figure 66 Scalar edge removal with feather termination and a crushed quality

NB6-385 (fig. 8a, 8b) has one slightly rounder long edge, which displays as much use-wear and of the same form as the straight edge – this being trapezoidal step fractures and scalar hinge fractures, some with a residue lodged in them (fig. 67). The use-wear is primarily on the dorsal side, suggesting that the gunflint was orientated so that the dorsal arris was facing Figure 67 Scalar edge removal with rounding and residue, and striations up, and it was the ventral side striking against the frizzen. Light striations on the ventral side on the curved end supports this hypothesis that the gunflint was struck with this orientation, furthermore, it would seem that the gunflint was rotated 180 degrees once keeping the arris facing up.

NB6-386 (fig. 8c, 8d) is an irregular shaped piece which is almost rectangular, it is relatively smooth and does not appear to have had flakes removed from the dorsal surface. The gunflint has had a post-depositional break almost directly down the middle of the long edge, with an extra fracture on the dorsal side next to this break. The gunflint has few edge removals, some in the form of trapezoidal step fractures alongside striations, which due to the localised positioning and the beginnings of a dent suggest use with a fire-steel.

56

Figure 68 Hinge edge removal with polish, Figure 69 Trapezoidal hinge terminated edge rounding and striations removal with gunpowder residue

NB6-387 (fig. 8e, 8f) is a square blade gunflint with one dorsal arris, the same as NB6-385. Use-wear on the dorsal side is present on both long edges, on one being like that on fire- stones including flaking and striations – specifically in the central section which dents in, whereas the other long edge has edge Figure 70 Wide, deep striations with rounding removals with hinge terminations with rounding and polish (fig. 68) and some step fractures. One of the lateral edges of the dorsal side also displays some deep and fairly wide striations that are rounded over (fig. 70), perhaps from a fire-steel, as this is use-wear a-typical of use as a gunflint. On the ventral side of the latter edge, there are some hinge edge removals, and some internal fractures, with what seems to be some gunpowder residue with striations over the surface (fig. 69).

57

5.5 OL79 SHIPWRECK (OOSTELIJK, PROVINCE OF FLEVOLAND, NETHERLANDS) OL79-23 (fig. 9a, 9b) is a slightly misshapen, elongated square blade with two dorsal arrises. It has a fine grained, brown matrix, which has an almost translucent quality – which looks much like the NB6 flint of gunflints. It displays use-wear on one of the long edges which is creating a dent into the gunflint. This section Figure 71 Edge with striations displays many edge removals in the form of scalar step fractures, some displaying features which are between the step and the hinge termination forms, some gunpowder is also still present on this part, along with some striations (fig. 71). There are also edge removals on the other long edge of the gunflint on the dorsal side, however these are more Figure 72 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal with internal fracturing and striations clearly in the scalar hinge form, and also appear alongside internal fractures and deep striations (fig. 72). On the ventral side of this same edge is burnt and oxidised gunpowder (fig. 74). A scalar edge removal with curved striations (fig. 73) is found on the distal end, which looks like manufacture retouch, the most clearly defined edge removals are found Figure 73 Scalar edge removal with curved on this distal end. striations

Figure 74 Oxidised gunpowder

58

OL79-149 (fig. 9b, 9d) on the other hand is almost the opposition to the former gunflint. It does not have a distinctive form and for this reason cannot be fitted in such a standard type and thus only fit in the “other” category. It has a dark grey colour and of medium grain, displaying very little visible use-wear due to a layer of concretion still adhered to the dorsal Figure 75 Trapezoidal edge removal with rounding and polish surface. From the ventral perspective, use- wear is visible along the more acutely angled region of the edge, with the other two thirds of the gunflint edge displaying considerable rounding and a glossy polish over flaky trapezoidal edge removals (fig. 75). The edge removals on the used sections follow the scalar form with a mixture of step, hinge and feather Figure 76 Gunflint edge with internal fractures terminations. Internal fractures are also and striations present close to the edge of the gunflint along with some striations (fig. 76).

5.6 OH48 SHIPWRECK (NOORDOOSTPOLDER, PROVINCE OF FLEVOLAND,

NETHERLANDS) Gunflint OH48 557-86 (fig. 10a, 10b) has a very dark brown colour, with some translucency and reddish tones in the light. The piece is fractured; however, it can be seen that it was originally a square blade with two dorsal arrises. There is still part of the concretion on the gunflint, which complicates the use-wear analysis of the edges Figure 77 Edge removal with possible sulfosalts, and of potential residues, however, it does not striations and pitting impact the identification of the retouched fractured area. A green and an orange-yellow

59 globular residue is found in abundance in a fractured region along with edge removals, striations and pitting (fig. 77). A large scalar edge removal with deep, ridged striations (fig. 78) is present and resembles that of manufacture found on OL79-23.

Figure 78 Scalar edge removal with deep ridges striations and a yellow residue

OH48 557-85 (fig. 10c, 10d) on the other hand, does not have this issue with concretion, thus making it easier to examine the surface of the whole object. The gunflint is made from a flake blank and has a D-shaped morphology, where one end is much thicker than the other. It has Figure 79 Steel traces a grey colour with some lighter, almost white patches. Use-wear is only clearly visible on the thin end of the gunflint, manifested primarily as edge removals, internal fractures and the presence of gunpowder in the form of black specks of powder, red globular residue and yellow burn marks (fig. 80). Traces of steel are Figure 80 Oxidised gunpowder found on the proximal of the dorsal side of the gunflint (fig. 79). The edge removals are specifically step fractures, with both trapezoidal and scalar forms. Pitting and scratching is also present on the used edge, along with the beginnings of a scalar, hinge terminated edge removal (fig. 81).

Figure 81 Half-formed scalar edge removal

60

5.7 THE EXPERIMENTAL GUNFLINTS 10 gunflints manufactured and used by Prof. Dr J. Whittaker between 2009 and 2013 are employed as comparative material used against the archaeological pieces. The leather slip used to hold the gunflint in the cock was also provided for study. Each gunflint is individual in its own way by the variation in that the combination of morphology, flint type and number of shots fired is unique for each. These gunflints were used experimentally with a flintlock musket, the number of shots fired and misfired were recorded for each, as well as which edge was used – which is marked on each experimental gunflint in the methodology chapter as u. Further data provided by Prof. Dr Whittaker on the experimental process notes the abundant presence on gunpowder on the exposed used edge of each gunflint.

Ex. 3915 (fig. 11a, 11b) is made of a grey and white flint in the square gunspall form. It was shot 12 times off edge u. Gunpowder is predominantly on the use edge on both sides, with a little on one of the lateral edges, step and hinge terminated edge removals are also present here on the use edge. On the dorsal side, striations are present on a streak of steel Figure 82 Steel streak residue with striations residue (fig. 82), as well as on the use edge and a lateral one. Steel residues are found abundantly on the gunflint. The edge opposite the used one has some polish over it as well as a small number of hinge-terminated edge removals and trapezoidal step fractures (fig. 83). Figure 83 Trapezoidal step fracture

61

Figure 84 Internal fractures and light flaking Figure 85 Pitting near edge Ex. 3916 (fig. 11c, 11d) is a grey square blade gunflint with two dorsal arrises that was shot successfully 12 times with 1 false shot off edge u. The used edge displays a great number of edge removals with predominantly step and hinge terminations, but with also feather terminations – these being visible on both sides of the gunflint along with substantial Figure 86 Glossy polish internal fractures (fig. 84). The opposite edge displays some step fractures on the dorsal side, whereas the ventral side displays only one, and a great quantity of polish along this edge, and the lateral edges. Pitting also appears close to the edges (fig. 85). As well as a glossy polish that appears in thick lines (fig. 86).

Figure 87 Pitting Figure 88 Hinge terminated edge removal and internal fracture

Ex. 3917 (fig. 11e, 11f) is a brown and grey gunspall that was shot successfully 11 times, and 3 times falsely off edge u. The orientation of this piece is likely with the ventral side up

62 as the majority of the use-wear is visible on this side, with only a little on the dorsal – such as pitting (fig. 87), the use-edge being the straight one. The edge removals are in the hinge and step form on both sides (fig. 88), however, polish only appears on the ventral side. Gunpowder is present on both sides of the used edge, and also over parts of the ventral Figure 89 Steel residue surface. Steel residue is also present on a ridge (fig. 89).

Ex. 3918 (fig. 11g, 11h) is a grey and almost white square gunspall, which was shot 20 times successfully and 3 unsuccessfully off edge u. Use-wear is visible on both sides of the gunflint, on the used edge the edge removals are step fractures, whereas on other parts of the gunflint on the ventral side there is more evidence of flaking along with internal Figure 90 Flaking and internal fractures fractures (fig. 90), and some step fractures appearing sporadically. Loose gunpowder is found on all edges of the gunflint, although in greater quantities on the used edge – particularly visible on the dorsal side. Furthermore, there is some yellow residue on the flaked section of one of the lateral edges.

Ex. 3919 (fig. 11i, 11j) is a light grey and greyish brown square blade with one dorsal arris gunflint type, which was shot 10 times successfully, 4 not off edge u. The use-wear is somewhat unexpected as on the dorsal side it is concentrated on the non-used side, whereas on the ventral side it is on the used edge. On the former it manifests as flaking and step Figure 91 Red gunpowder stain with steel residue fractures, on the other only as step fractures. Gunpowder appears sporadically on both the used and non-used edge, in one case as a red staining next to steel residues (fig. 91). 63

Figure 92 Step fractures and hinge terminated Figure 93 Glossy polish trapezoidal edge removals with rounding and polish

Ex. 3920 (fig. 11k, 11l) is a very dark grey square blade gunflint which has been shot 10 times successfully and 4 times unsuccessfully. The use edge u displays significant use-wear in the form of step and hinge terminated edge Figure 94 Internal fractures in a striation pattern removals, along with what appears to be down from the edge crushing and rounding and polish of the edges over the use-wear (fig. 92). On the ventral side, there are features that look like the flint has been scraped from a side with some internal fractures (fig. 94).. A little bit of use-wear is also visible on the opposite edge on the dorsal side as step fractures, although this is minimal. Gunpowder residue is visible in minor quantities on this latter edge and on the ventral side on the use-edge. A glossy polish appears near to an edge (fig. 93).

Ex. 3921 (fig. 11m, 11n) is a dark grey D-shaped gunspall that was shot successfully 10 times, and 4 times flashing. The used edge u displays most use-wear on the ventral side as step fractures, scalar edge removals and striations along with some traces from the steel frizzen (fig. 95), whereas from the ventral side two step fractures can be seen – as can a crushing Figure 95 Steel traces on a scalar edge removal with striations extending down from it similar to figure 92.

64

Ex. 3922 (fig. 11o, 11p) is a grey and white a gunflint classified as “other” that was shot 20 times. The use-wear is seen predominantly on edge u on the dorsal side as hinge terminated edge removals. These removals show traces from the steel frizzen on the edge, which also is somewhat rounded, and can be seen over a Figure 96 Steel residue with striations trapezoidal, hinge terminated edge removal (fig. 97). Gunpowder is present in abundance on this edge, as well as some on the opposite end of the piece from the ventral perspective, where striations are also present. Traces from the steel frizzen are present with striations over the top (fig. 96).

Figure 97 Trapezoidal edge removal with internal fractures and steel residue over rounded edges

Ex. 3923, Ex. 3924 and the leather patch came together and were used in the same musket. Ex. 3923 (fig. 11q, 11r) is a very dark grey, almost black square blade piece with a layer of chalk cortex on the dorsal side, which was shot approximately 10 times. The used edge u Figure 98 Scalar edge removal with striations displays step fractures on the dorsal side as around the edge and with a secondary removal well as gunpowder residues, whereas on the within it ventral side some flaking, and gunpowder residue can be seen. A large scalar edge removal is present with striations around it and with another removal within it (fig. 98). On the opposite edge of this side, there is a yellow mark resembling a gunpowder burn (fig. 99). Ex. 3924 (fig. 11s, 11t) is an almost black square blade gunflint with two dorsal Figure 99 Yellow gunpowder staining 65 arrises which was shot approximately 10 times. The use edge u displays edge removals in the form of hinge and step fractures on both sides, as well as having gunpowder residue and striations. On the dorsal side, the angled edge which leads to the used edge has pitting and gunpowder residue next to an edge removal with striations (fig. 100). The Figure 100 Edge removal with striations and pitting opposite edge has a couple of step fractures and polish over parts of the edge. The leather patch (fig. 11u, 11v) has some black gunpowder residue and is stained an orange-yellow colour.

The experimental gunflints display good examples of striation manifestation on gunflints, showing particularly clearly on the patches of gunpowder residue and steel residue (fig. 42; fig. 82; fig. 96) on the surface of some of the gunflints, as well as marks from the steel frizzen. The used edges of these experimental samples range from 19 to 40 degrees, thus showing a great variation which may be compared to the archaeological pieces.

66

Site Sample Morphology Colour Grain Dimensions Blank Nepal N-01 Square blade 2 dorsal arrises Greyish brown Fine-Medium 3.55 x 2.90 x 1.00 Blade (Cache) N-02 Square gunspall Pinkish grey Fine 3.15 x 2.50 x 0.90 Flake N-03 Gunspall? Greyish brown Fine-Medium 3.50 x 3.55 x 1,15 Flake N-04 Round-heel blade Pinkish grey Fine 2.65 x 2.70 x 0.70 Blade N-05 Round-heel blade Brown Fine 3.90 x 4.10 x 1.20 Blade N-06 Square blade 2 dorsal arrises Black Fine 3.15 x 3.10 x 1.30 Blade N-07 D-shaped gunspall Very dark grey Medium 3.40 x 3.10 x 1.10 Flake N-08 D-shaped gunspall Very dark grey Medium 2.90 x 2.90 x 0.90 Flake N-09 D-shaped gunspall Very dark grey Medium 2.95 x 2.90 x 0.90 Flake N-10 Square-heel blade Black Fine 3.70 x 2.90 x 1.25 Blade N-11 Square-heel blade Black Fine 2.75 x 2.50 x 0.80 Blade N-12 Square blade 2 dorsal arrises Dark grey Fine 3.00 x 3.00 x 0.90 Blade N-13 Square blade 2 dorsal arrises Very dark grey Fine 3.40 x 2.80 x 0.95 Blade N-14 D-shaped gunspall Dark greyish brown Fine-Medium 2.80 x 2.75 x 1.40 Flake N-15 ? Black Fine-Medium 2.70 x 2.80 x 0.70 Flake Rooswijk RK18 A00051A Round-heel blade Greenish black/Blueish black Fine 3.85 x 3.10 x 1.15 Blade (VOC) RK18 A00051B Round-heel blade Dark grey/Black Fine 4.00 x 3.45 x 0.62 Blade RK17 A00564 ? ? Fine? 2.45 x 2.20 x 0.80 Blade NB6 NB6-379 Round-heel blade Brown Fine 2.90 x 2.51 x 0.90 Blade (Cargo) NB6-380 Round-heel blade Dark greyish brown Fine 3.25 x 2.80 x 1.00 Blade NB6-381 Round-heel blade Yellowish brown Fine 2.95 x 3.15 x 1.00 Blade NB6-382 Round-heel blade? Greyish brown Fine 2.30 x 2.25 x 1.00 Blade NB6-383 Round-heel blade Grey/Dark greyish brown Fine 3.10 x 2.75 x 1.00 Blade NB6-384 ? Grey/Greyish brown Fine 3.42 x 3.10 x 1.00 ? NB6-385 Square blade gunflint Dark yellowish brown Fine 2.50 x 2.25 x 0.90 Blade

67

Site Sample Morphology Colour Grain Dimensions Blank NB6-386 ? Yellowish brown Fine 3.20 x 2.35 x 0.60 ? NB6-387 Square blade gunflint Brown Fine 2.45 x 2.05 x 0.40 Blade OL79 OL79-23 Round-heel blade Brown Fine 3.20 x 2.45 x 0.75 Blade (Cargo) OL79-149 ? Very dark grey Fine 2.60 x 3.00 x 0.70 ? OH48 OH48-557-85 Gunspall Grey/White Fine-Medium 3.10 x 3.20 x 1.30 Flake (Cargo) OH48-557-86 Square blade 2 dorsal arrises Very dark brown Fine 3.00 x 3.05 x 1.40 Blade Experimental 3915 Square gunspall Grey/White Fine-Medium 2.75 x 2.60 x 0.95 Blade 3916 Square blade 2 dorsal arrises Grey Fine 2.75 x 2.45 x 0.80 Blade 3917 Gunspall Brown/Grey Fine 2.51 x 2.40 x 0.80 Blade 3918 Square gunspall Grey Fine-Medium 2.50 x 2.40 x 0.90 Blade 3919 Square blade Light grey/Greyish brown Fine-Medium 2.20 x 2.10 x 0.70 Blade 3920 Square blade? Very dark grey Fine 2.60 x 2.10 x 0.90 Blade 3921 D-shaped gunspall Dark grey/Very dark grey Fine-Medium 2.20 x 2.40 x 0.80 Blade 3922 ? Grey/White Fine-Medium 2.21 x 2.25 x 1.00 Blade 3923 Square blade Black/Very dark grey Fine 2.91 x 2.62 x 0.80 Blade 3924 Square blade 2 dorsal arrises Black/Light grey Fine 2.700 x 2.65 x 0.80 Blade

Table 1 Collated sample data;? refers to ambiguity in analysis

68

6 VIVA THE GUNFLINT (DISCUSSION)

6.1 PROVENANCE The provenance of gunflints is difficult to establish due to the lack of flint inter source variation and of source homogeneity, and also as a result of the intercultural connections of the period in question. This resulted in the adoption and adaption of specific knapping techniques and the movement of materials between countries (Brandl et al, 2018, 24). The best method to approximate the origin of the gunflints is to make an assessment based on colour and typo-morphological classification of the pieces. These must be compared to hoards with consistent gunflint types which have a secure context, and with knowledge of the origin of the raw material; this is why having access to material from wrecks such as the HMS Invincible, or other warships, is useful – the gunflints in this case are mass produced and the production centre may be known (Ballin 2014).

The provenance of the Nepalese gunflints is most difficult to establish, they have often been taken to be predominantly British and French, however, the mixed nature of the assemblage suggest an inhomogeneous source (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 2). Whittaker and Levin recently carried out XRF analysis on 79 samples from this cache – admittedly this technique not being a very reliable one for flint – and by this method distinguished elemental differences between the European and “other” gunflints. However, they were not able to find a significant difference between English and French sources. Furthermore, considering the lack of Nepalese reference flint material, the “other” category could not be definitely identified as being local. Nevertheless, the authors believe that this is the most likely possibility (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 12). The sample variety means that unfortunately the gunflints cannot be given a solid provenance, however, N-06 appears to be very similar to the HMS Invincible pieces. This suggests that, at least this piece from the sample, may have been recovered from a source which had these types of typically British gunflints.

The Rooswijk gunflints prove difficult to provenance due to the unique combination of morphology and a relatively large size. The nature of flint as a material has already been

69 discussed, showing their impossibility of using this aspect as a defining feature for establishing material source. The merchant function of the ship confuses matters further as the gunflints could have been obtained at multiple locations. However, because the ship sank only a few days into its journey, it can be deduced that the pieces at least began the journey in the Netherlands – even if they were not sourced there.

The NB6 gunflints are fairly homogenous in flint type and in typo-morphology. The translucent brown colour is generally attributed to a French origin, bearing a “honey colour”, which is often referred to in the literature (Ballin 2014, 4-5; Chelidonio and Woodall 1999, 13). Furthermore, the gunflints from this assemblage share a remarkable morphological likeness to those manufactured in the Meusne region in France (fig. 101), hence arguing further the French origin of these gunflints (Ballin 2013, 5). The gunflints from the other two Dutch shipwrecks – the OL79 and OH48 wrecks, are all completely different from each other, which may be easily explained if they were discarded to be reused as fire-stones. The origins of these are impossible to deduce, especially considering the uniqueness of the samples, and their somewhat fragmentary Figure 101 Gunflints from Meusne (Ballin 2013, 5) nature. What can be seen however, is that OL79-23 has origins in an iron-rich source, due to the reddish-brown colour of the stone matrix, which bears some resemblance to the red Heligoland flint from Lower Saxony and the Netherlands (Beuker and Drenth 2014). It could therefore be the most local of the gunflints found on Dutch land in this study.

It has been suggested that the Dutch bought gunflints from multiple sources, and that these would then be redistributed (Durst 2013, 20). The question is whether this redistribution differed in nature (such as quality, quantity or destination) in relation to whether it was for trade, for use in merchant or cargo ships, or even for civilian contexts within the Netherlands. It is likely that a greater quantity from a single production centre would end up in military environments, as exemplified by the good quality and homogeneity of the HMS Invincible assemblage. So, the question is how and where from did other enterprises of individuals obtain their gunflints? The NB6 shipwreck which had a

70 richer cargo than the OH48 and OL79 cargo ships, as well as more standardised gunflints, thus suggesting a correlation between cargo value and increased defensive measures. If the gunflints truly were purchased abroad and then sold in the Netherlands, then there must have been several intermediary distribution centres; which are unfortunately not identifiable because gunflints are rarely documented in inventories.

6.2 MANUFACTURE Interestingly, the manufacturing technology of the samples from the Nepalese assemblage appears to be for the most part in the French snap-blade technique (Kenmotsu 1990, 98). However, the late date of the archaeological context could be an explanation for this as over time the most efficient and effective gunflint production technique would be selected, possibly along with the most economical in terms of resource management. Furthermore, cross-cultural contacts could explain the dissemination of production technologies internationally. There is also the possibility that, internationally, gunflints were acquired through the repossession of armaments from defeated opponents. This would explain the great variation in material within the assemblage, however there is no method to prove this definitely.

Regarding gunflint manufacture, one suggestion is that soldiers were expected to produce their own gunflints, particularly in the early days of flintlock use where they would occasionally be knapping them themselves (Luedtke 1998, 25; Whittaker and Levin 2019, 8). However, there are two factors that suggest otherwise. First, the large-scale gunflint manufactories in the European continent – in particular in Britain and France, suggesting that at least soldiers being taken to other countries would have a large stock of pre-made, standardised gunflints. Secondly, the logistics of having the opportunity to knap gunflints abroad seems slim, especially with the need to source the flint upon arrival (Schávelzon 2013, 25).

However, the presence of what appears to be locally made gunflints in the Nepalese cache would suggest that at least local mercenaries would have a local gunflint source or would be knapping their own in imitation of the European forms. Furthermore, there is evidence

71 that the Nepalese were imitating other European weapons – such as the “Brown Bess” musket, so it also seems likely that they would need to imitate the ignition mechanism as well (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 2-3).

Despite the differences in morphology in the NB6 assemblage, the level of expertise and general method does not appear to be majorly different, and the execution of the manufacture would suggest no more than only a few knappers working in a similar manner. The morphological differences could easily be explained by the economic use of the raw flint material by trying to use as much as possible and not wasting any that may have broken incorrectly at first.

The manufacturing technologies differ in efficiency, with the blade technique being significantly more efficient than the flake technique (Kenmotsu 1990, 98-9) . For example, theoretically between 1000 to 1500 gunflints could be produced per day using the blade technique of manufacture (White 1975, 65). A common form of manufacture retouch is a large scalar shaped edge removal with curved striations following that curvature – which is exemplified in gunflint OL79-23; this appears to be the case as it manifests on unused edges.

Important to note, referring to the experimental gunflints, is that the morphological classification may not strictly relate to the manufacture technology. Referring to Table 1 (Pg. 67-8), it can be seen that the experimental gunflints are all made with blade-based blanks. However, the typo-morphological classification, for example the ‘D-shaped gunspall’ Ex. 3921, theoretically belongs to the flake-based technology. Therefore, one must be wary when attributing a technology to a classification, and a margin of error should be acknowledged.

6.3 TYPOLOGY There is very clear variation in the morphological and material qualities between the gunflints studied. Of the samples, the Nepalese material has the most intra-sample variation, being the most eclectic in its totality. There is also distinctive inter-sample

72 variation, with clear differences between those of different archaeological contexts. With regards to the gunflints discovered within the Netherlands, the differences in morphology and flint type are observed at first sight, showing an eclectic variety in the smaller cargo ships, and some more standardisation in the larger, which appears to be wealthier, ship classified as the NB6 wreck.

The Nepalese assemblage provides the most complicated material to categorize as there is no standardization within the assemblage. The typological variations suggest that the material is a mix of salvaged material from different contexts and of locally produced pieces – perhaps some in imitation of international prototypes. Furthermore, it is not possible to establish whether all the gunflints from the cache were used more or less at the same time or whether they were used along an extended range of time periods and eventually came to be dumped together in the building basement.

As discussed previously under the provenance section, the gunflints appear to be of a French blade-based type, albeit displaying slightly poorer knapping skill – needing to pull more flakes from the pieces to create a gunflint. Considering the lack of Dutch flint sources, and that French material was an important import into the Netherlands, it is likely that these gunflints are retouched French flints (Durst 2013, 20; Ballin 2012, 118-9).

The OL79 gunflints are very different from each other, with one bearing a resemblance in flint type to the NB6 gunflints. However, the morphology is more rectangular and the edges less straight than those from the NB6 thus these differences suggest that it may not have been knapped by the same person, although the import distributor within the Netherlands could easily have been the same. They are very different to those from merchant vessels – such as the Rooswijk, thus suggesting use in different type of weapon and/or different source. What is clear is that all those from the OL79 and OH48 wrecks are from different producers – thus bringing into question how they came into possession of the ship’s crew.

Taking into consideration the variety of gunflint shapes, it is logical to discuss the practical benefits of the different morphologies. Each gunflint form has its positive qualities, either

73 as formally discussed in terms of fabrication efficiency, or in the method of its use. The gunflints that are made from a flake blank and which have a thick end that slopes into one shallow-angled end (triangular in profile) – such as OH48-557-85, only have one usable edge, thus making them fairly uneconomical in terms of use-life. This, unless it is considered that perhaps they were made out of incorrectly knapped pieces of flint, or also considering that they may have been made in a hurry.

6.4 USE The identification of use-wear is well observed by the naked eye, stereomicroscopy and by reflected light microscopy. The advantage of the latter is clearest when contrasting the level of detail available from the study of, for example, the NB6 gunflints, against that from the Rooswijk flints, which were only analysed by stereomicroscopy.

A clear observation is that the type of use-wear manifest depends on the flint type the gunflint is made of – in other words, it is related to the grain size of the flint in question. A finer grained flint will display clearer step fractures than a coarser flint, which makes it difficult to establish whether they were utilised for a similar number of shots or not. Furthermore, the fact that one type of flint displays more use-wear than another may actually mean that they could indeed be used for a different period of time or number of uses. Important to bear in mind, however, is that there may be a difference in the spark producing capacity of each flint. One which produces less sparks per strike would have a shorter life span, assuming that this flint wears at the same rate as a flint that produces more sparks.

The orientation in which the gunflint is positioned in the cock of the mechanism can be observed in how the use-wear manifests – in particular regarding the edge removals and striations and which side of the gunflint it is on. The morphology may also be an indication as to the positioning, whereby a square blade gunflint actually has four usable edges, but a D-shape only has one edge available for use. However, the fact that there are “other” irregular shapes suggests that as long as the edge has a relatively acute angle – less than 45 degrees – then it is usable regardless of its straightness or roundness. Prime examples

74 of this are for example square blade gunflint N-06 (fig. 102a) in contrast to “other” N-15 (fig. 102b). Hence, for example N-05 (fig. 102c) which is a D-shape could function as either.

a b c

Figure 102 a - N-06 - square blade; b - N-15- "other"; c - N-05 - D-shape.

The manner of use of the gunflints could likely be related to the size of the gunflints as this could impact in which type of weapon they were utilised. Regarding the gunflint shape, however, it is not so clear-cut as to establish whether there is a relationship between this aspect and the weapon.

The use-wear on the gunflints associated with frizzen impact is manifest primarily as step fractures, as well as hinge terminated edge removals. The majority of this use-wear is present on the opposing side to that of the impact, thus aiding in identifying the position of an individual flint during use, as well as suggesting the number of times the gunflint was rotated in order to maximise its use economy – this is most easily identifiable in gunflints NB6-385 and N-11 (Williams 2010, 25). However, some gunflints display unexpected use- wear patterns, in that for example, it appears on the ventral side of some square-blade gunflints such as N-01 and N-06, where in European contexts it would usually be expected on the dorsal, thus suggesting that it was placed with the platform facing down. This suggests that either the gunflint was placed in the cock in a manner that it fit best, or that there was not specific guideline for the use of gunflints – that rather how it fit best, was the guideline. The fact that these are from the Nepalese context suggests little guideline regardless as the last to use it were locals from Nepal, and not trained British soldiers. It is therefore interesting to explore the possibility that either the gunflints could be used just as efficiently (independent of fit) either side up, whereby this could be tested through experimental archaeology; or that the individual using it did not know the correct way of doing so, or simply that these examples are outliers amongst those with the standard use- wear.

75

Finer grained flint displays a greater degree of wear, especially edge removals, with more defined edges and a great amount of internal fractures, flaking and crushing. Coarser flint on the other hand, would at first glance appear to have less use-wear. However, as opposed to fine grained flint, there is a much greater degree of rounding of edges, and residue particles are retained more readily. Gunpowder in a molten yellow or red oxidised state, or as a stain, is seen most often on finer grained flint, although for the latter this may be related to a starker contrast with the more translucent nature of this finer grained flint.

The hypothesis of intentional retouch of gunflints during battle time is doubtful for two major reasons. The first takes the Nepalese cache as evidence, where the need for gunflint retouch is negligible as there was a huge stockpile of used gunflints, and where the administration of such caches was tightly regulated – as is also the case with examples of British gunflints in Argentine stores (Buscaglia 2017, 172). Because the soldiers would be given a certain number of gunflints – in the United States for example, one gunflint per twenty rounds, it suggests that they were meant to be used only for a set period of time or for a specific number of shots. The appropriateness of this ratio is supported by experimental archaeology (Quinn 2010, 252, 257). Therefore, it stands that once used, the gunflints would be stored in the cache. Furthermore, there is not sufficient evidence to imply that soldiers would have the means, time, skill or necessity to retouch the gunflints.

According to Altamura, the larger gunflints used for muskets or other long firearms, were retouched and rejuvenated to about 3cm in width, so as to fit pistol flintlock mechanisms. Furthermore, at this time in Morocco, prehistoric artefacts would often be retouched into gunflints – in the form of a European prototype (Altamura 2013, 17). Is it therefore possible that either was the case in a gunflint from one or another of the assemblages? From the more standardised groups, this seems rather unlikely, however, from the OH48, OL79 or even the Nepalese assemblage, which are fairly varied, there is a distinct possibility that some gunflints were repurposed in this manner.

On the other hand, the reuse of a gunflint after becoming idle seems to be fairly common, especially in civilian contexts as opposed to military or mercantile contexts. The repurposing of gunflints into fire-stones can be seen most clearly in samples NB6-387,

76

OH48-557-86 and OL79-23, where firearms were only found on the NB6 wreck (Manders and Kuijper 2015, 154). Gunflint OH48-557-86 is particularly interesting because it displays evidence of having broken, and this broken region having provided the surface to be used with the fire steel. The finding of this gunflint along with an intact one – 0H48-557-85, suggests either that there could have been firearms on board at some instance and that this broken gunflint then had second life within that context, or that these gunflints were specifically repurposed to be used as fire-stones prior to ship boarding, but that the latter had not yet been used as such. The presence of yellow and red markings in the same region as a step fracture on OH48-557-85 does however provide evidence in favour of it having been used as a gunflint at some point.

The hypothesis of reuse of gunflints as fire-stones is further supported by the lack of military objects on the OH48 and OL79 wrecks despite the presence of gunflints – the combination of the use-wear and the find context points favourably in this direction. However, the shallow depth of the wreckage of OL79 would have allowed easy escape and/or salvage. Therefore, if there were weapons, they could easily have been removed (Velde, 2014, 30). The issue is to identify which region of the gunflint was repurposed, on gunflint OL79-23, this is easy because the dent is very clear, this being thanks to the easily typified morphology and the fine-grained nature of the raw material. With OL79-149, however, this is much more difficult as it has an irregular form and displays no signs that there was a specific area used against a fire-steel, thus the extent and manner of use is unable to be determined.

The three pieces of flint which the author has struck experimentally supports the hypothesis that these three gunflints were indeed used as fire-stones, with the use-wear bearing a significant resemblance – in particular in the form of scalar edge removals with a tendency of displaying step terminations. Furthermore, this test has shown that even small pieces of flint could be used in this manner, albeit with some more difficulty. It does however highlight an important point, as the three pieces of flint also had different grain coarseness. It shows that the degree of wear, and the ease of use is relative to the grain size.

77

The use-wear associated with use as gunflints differs from that of use as a fire-stone in two ways. The most obvious is that in the latter, the edge-removals are larger and concentrated more in one location of the piece of flint, where an indentation develops with increased use. The other is a presence of steel residue from being struck in this area, where in gunflints it tends to appear more on the dorsal surface such as in gunflint OH48 557-86.

NB6-379 displays a good example of use-wear which is suggestive of the clamping action of the screw in the cock of the gun. This manifests itself in the form of internal fractures, which also suggests that a leather patch was not always used in all instances. The presence of a yellow staining on both sides of gunflint N-07, which is at the thickest and almost most central part of the gunflint, is suggestive that this is where it was clamped with a leather patch, and that the oxidised gunpowder that was on this patch may have been burnt into a patina on the gunflint surface.

A final, not so clear form of use-wear is the occasionally occurring pitting on the surface of some gunflints. This appears most often on fine grained flint. However, the distribution pattern is inconsistent. Furthermore, the source of this pitting is unclear as it is not on the use edge and does not correspond to inclusions being expelled from the material. A plausible source of this pitting arises from being clamped in the cock of the flintlock mechanism. However, on gunflint OH48-557-85 and NB6-383 this appears on the use edge. Thus, this explanation appears inadequate and this feature should be looked for specifically in future experimental material with the aim of clarifying its source.

6.5 RESIDUE The majority of the residue present on the gunflints is black gunpowder, visible in its unburnt form, but also in different states of oxidation and heating, as can be observed by the yellow and red patches, as well as the shiny and sometimes globule-like remains on parts of the gunflint surface.

The form in which it is preserved varies quite drastically from context to context, with the black gunpowder being most prominent on the NB6 and experimental pieces. This is most likely due to the manner of their preservation after use as well as their depositional

78 context. Despite the similar contexts of the NB6, OL79 and OH48 samples, the difference between the former and the latter two can be explained by the presence of the large quantity of black powder also found in the NB6 wreck. This, and that there was a greater quantity of gunflints, suggest a higher level of armament organisation on this cargo ship as opposed to the other two. Perhaps this is due to the nature of the cargo or ship, or the projected threat posed by the route taken by these ships.

A very different form of powder residue is the green and orange-yellow globular residue on the fractured and worn section of the edge on gunflint OH48 557-86. This is most likely a sulfosalt with a copper component which thus explains the green hue sections, and the flint itself is highly ferrous, which may explain the orange-yellow aspect of the residue. A sulfosalt residue could be the result of the powder used to create the flame, which oxidises as it is burnt and can leave coloured globular crystalline traces (Degryse. Personal communication. 14/5/2019; https://geology.com). However, the exact chemical composition of this residue can only be achieved through Fourier Transform Infra-Red spectroscopy (FTIR), Raman spectroscopy, or the destructive XRF analytical techniques, which have not been available for this current research (Malainey 2012, 275-284). Hence, the proposal of the residue as a sulfosalt is currently hypothetical. Striations which are present right up next to this worn edge, suggests that this region was likely used against a fire-steel, hence supporting the presence of a flammable powder in close proximity to the edge. This shows strong evidence for the repurposing of gunflints as fire-stones once they were no longer fit for use in the flintlock.

Traces of steel from impact with the frizzen are fairly common on the experimental pieces, whereas the archaeological pieces do not appear to have any steel residue marks on them. Striations are very common on this residue, displaying directionality, as the frizzen should be straight – unless there is damage to the mechanism, then a direction may be related to an unbalanced position of the gunflint in the cock of the gun. If the residue is present in areas of the gunflint other than the used edge, then it is logical that it is from the clamping in the mechanism – most likely in the absence of the leather covering.

The disaccharide pollen on gunflint N-08 is a bright yellow colour which implies that it is too fresh to be archaeological as pollen bleaches with time (Bakels. Personal communication. 4/4/2019). It is likely that this pollen was acquired at some point either by

79 being trampled on in the Nepalese cache during discovery, the packing process, or indeed once at arrival in the United States of America. This pollen belongs to the Pinus family. However, due to the general nature of this form it is unlikely to be able to obtain the exact genus of Pine that it belongs to (Bakels and Field. Personal communication. 19/3/2019). With this in consideration, as pine trees are present at both locations, it is impossible to establish the exact origin of the pollen (Richardson 1998, 3-4). This detail tells us more about the impact of unstratified archaeological contexts in terms of contamination, rather than about the historical life of the object. It does however highlight an important consideration, which is that the after-life of an object can still be part of its story, and bears witness to changing perceptions and approaches throughout the history of archaeology and use-wear analysis.

A big issue with most of the samples, is that the surface is difficult to analyse due to nail polish and pen being applied to label the gunflints. Although this is standard archaeological practice, on a small artefact such as a gunflint, it really causes detriment to its study, especially when it goes over the use edge, as is sometimes the case with the present samples.

6.6 DISCARD/PDSM The general manner of discard and of the deposition of gunflints, is often detrimental to the state of preservation of these artefacts. This comes in the form of patination, amongst other forms of post-depositional surface modifications.

Gunflints from military contexts were discarded or deposited in the cache manner such as the Nepalese sample. The effect of this is particularly damaging for two reasons: the first is that they will be hitting each other in the sacks where they are put into, to be deposited – thus adding scratches and edge removals. Secondly, as Christian Cranmer clearly states in his video documentary, the gunflints were discovered during the exploration process of the stockpile building because as they went into the basement they began stepping on objects that were making clinking noises – these being the gunflints (Cranmer 2004).

80

Therefore, damage to them could very easily have been caused by trampling and the general lack of care taken with the gunflints.

The NB6 gunflints all have a waxy residue on part of the gunflint, the source of which is unclear. This makes surfaces away from the edges difficult to analyse, as is also the case with the patination on the Rooswijk pieces, which is a resultant effect of the concretion.

It is important to bear in mind that gunflints were not seen as a valuable item at the time of their use, being easily disposable and made in masses. Nor have they been seen as a valuable resource thereafter due to multiple factors:

1. Due to disposability as they were not seen valuable at the time 2. They went out of use after flintlock use 3. They were not an item with a clear economic value 4. Due of their abundance 5. Because they are made of a common, widely available stone type with little intrinsic value

Therefore, there has not been an active interest in keeping gunflints well looked after over the last couple of centuries, hence they have the potential to have had acquired a great deal of damage over time. The state of preservation of the archaeological pieces is of different quality, this being as a direct result of their individual deposition contexts.

The use-wear on the NB6 gunflints is the most difficult to assess out of the assemblages. This is due to the nature of the striations – which appear very varied and are often omni- directional, the thick orange residue or patina on the surface of a great part of each gunflint – perhaps from concretion, and the vast quantity of nail varnish and pen used – which at times goes over the edges. The black residue very much appears to be gunpowder, especially when compared to the gunpowder sample provided. However, the thickness and great quantity of it brings into question if it is perhaps not an organic residue from the

81 deposition context. The only way to find out what the substance truly is, is to carry out more scientific residue analysis (Malainey 2012, 275-284, 411-490).

6.7 FLINTLOCK ARTILLERY It is clear that the size of gunflints necessary for use differs between the various types of firearm. What is unclear – due to the range of arms currently available to study, is whether one type of firearm, such as a musket, may have a different flintlock mechanism depending on the manufacturer, and hence different sizes of gunflints necessary to fire them (Salas 1833, 325).

The hypothesis regarding the Nepalese cache is generally that they are for use with muskets. However, the range of shapes and sizes bring into question whether they were for one arm type, or indeed what seems more reasonable, that different gun types were used, hence requiring a variety of gunflint sizes (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 13-15; Whittaker, 2001, 384). There is nothing to say that the Gurkha regiment did not also employ pistols as well as muskets. Furthermore, there is an, albeit unlikely, possibility that the different morphologies relate more to one armament form than another, being more aptly suited for some reason or another.

The general assumption is that gunflints were used for handheld firearms, such as pistols, muskets and carbines, while cannons are often forgotten, with the most common attribution being use in muskets (Salas 1833, 325; Whittaker and Levin 2019, 15; Schock and Dowell 1983, 61). The observation of how muskets are prepared to be displayed in museums suggests that the gunflints used in these mechanisms are generally smaller than those from the majority of the Nepal cache, and most definitely smaller than those from the Rooswijk shipwreck. This issue could however be attributed to the person who prepared the display rather than real historical practice, or a difference in flintlock mechanism size from one musket type to another. Furthermore, the Rooswijk ship had both muskets and cannons on board, thus necessitating gunflints of different sizes so as to be able to ignite both most efficiently – bringing forward the possibility that the recovered flints were for the associated cannon (Biagi, Starnini, and Beltrame 2016, 4).

82

The artillery from the Nepalese cache is a mix – from muskets to pistols of British origin, as well as local imitations of original prototypes (Whittaker and Levin 2019, 15). Hence, there would be a logical reasoning to the presence of a variety of gunflint forms and sizes. However, those present are generally of a fairly standard size with only slight size variation, thus suggesting that pistols and muskets do not require particularly different flint sizes, bearing in mind that there may be some weapons or gunflints absent from representation in the sample from the cache. A further consideration is whether the gunflints from different provenances were used for the artillery of the same provenance, or whether there was no correlation and the flints were used with different weapons indiscriminately.

It is completely possible that smaller gunflints could be used in the flintlock mechanism of a larger firearm. However, this could potentially result in less accuracy in spark production, and hence more likely to misfire (Quinn 2004, 29).

83

7 CLOSE SCENE (CONCLUSION)

7.1 FLINT, MORPHOLOGY AND USE-WEAR MANIFESTATION The intrinsic qualities of the flint material are instrumental in the manifestation of use-wear on the gunflints. The coarseness of grain of the flint plays an important factor in the degree of the wear, the size and frequency of edge removals, and the ease of adherence of residues on the object’s surface. It can be seen that edge removals are larger and appear more frequently on fine-grained flint than on coarse-grained, which is supported by the experimental material – taking into consideration that there may well be room for discrepancies. Unfortunately, the use-life in terms of shots fired cannot be determined for this very reason. However, it may be estimated that gunflints with a greater number of useable edges had a potential for a longer use-life.

The morphology of the gunflints bear relation to the location and, to a degree, to the extremity of the use-wear, specifically regarding edge removals. A square blade with two dorsal arrises has at least two useable edges, potentially four, whereas a D-shaped gunspall only has one appropriate useable edge – although this does not mean that an individual may not have attempted to use the curved side. This latter gunflint type, however, shows better potential for secondary use by turning it over, rather than the former which may be used repeatedly by turning it around rather than over. Furthermore, gunflints will display most evidence of being clamped in the cock of the gun on their thickest part, where it is easier for it to be held in place.

7.2 USE-WEAR AND USE-LIFE Use-wear analysis is integral to the study of the method employed and the skill demonstrated in the manufacture and use of gunflints from different contexts. Furthermore, use-wear analyses can aid in the identification of repurposed pieces, and the manner in which they were adapted and reused, thus telling a narrative about the gunflint itself, and of the historical-archaeological context from which it originated.

84

What is clear, is that the manufacturing techniques and skill levels differ from context to context. Gunflints from a national cargo context appear to be fairly unstandardized and to be found in much smaller quantities; the smaller ships with less valuable cargo – OL79 and OH48 wrecks, contained fewer and more varied samples than the larger, richer NB6 wreck. In comparison, the merchant ship Rooswijk, despite having much fewer surviving samples, has two almost identical pieces, suggesting that there were possibly more of this same type on the ship which were not recovered during the excavation. This is a logical hypothesis due to the great quantity of artillery found in association to the pieces. When compared to the HMS Invincible warship, the gunflints from mercantile and cargo contexts display much less standardisation and are found in much smaller quantities.

In contrast, the Nepalese cache contains an incredible variation in manufacturing style indicative of the period of conflict from which they pertain. The eclectic nature of the weapons collected from the Nepalese cache, including gunflints, shows how the local regiments had to make do with refuse from international soldiers, whilst having to adopt and adapt the imported technologies. It is no surprise that that there is no standardisation in the pieces as there was no direct stockage to the Nepalese on behalf of their British occupants.

It can be seen that in the smaller, less rich contexts, there is a greater rate of gunflint reuse and repurposing, as opposed to military contexts. This may fit into the waste not, want not mentality; whereas in battle, disposability is beneficial and monetary and material economy is not a priority.

7.3 HIGH-POWER VS LOW-POWER The study has shown that a high-power approach to the analysis of gunflints can provide more detailed information about the use-life of the object in contrast to a low-power approach. This is particularly pertinent in the observation and identification of residues and striations on the gunflint surface, which give us a great insight into how the gunflint is affected in the cock of the lock mechanism. The high-power method also allows for a more thorough, albeit not majorly, study of the use-edges and hence edge removals.

85

Other techniques could be also be employed, including chemical analyses, in particular regarding the study of unknown residues such as the crystalline greenish blue, yellow and red ones found on some of the gunflint surfaces. Particularly useful techniques include Raman spectroscopy and XRF as they can provide the most accurate information about the residue’s chemical composition. Other approaches may be used such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM) which may give an even more detailed topography of the gunflint surface. However, this seems redundant considering the questions of interest regarding gunflints (Malainey 2012, 463, 488).

7.4 TERMINOLOGY A final comment is to be made regarding what seems to be the most prominent issue regarding the discussion on gunflints, that is the lack of standardisation in both typology and use-wear terminology. The terms appear descriptive of the general, without being discriminatory of the subtle variations, hence clumping together similar yet clearly different gunflints into the same category.

The most commonly employed categorising system is the one devised by De Lotbiniere, which is however fairly general as it reduces gunflints to four categories (de Lotbiniere 1984). In 2013, T. B. Ballin proposed a working group project including a systematic database format for gunflint attributes using Microsoft Access software, which includes coordinates, raw materials, technologies, morphologies and so forth (Ballin 2013, 5). However, there has not been an attempt to create a typological table involving the condensation of metadata into a more manageable, and universal categorising system allowing for a direct comparison of individual features. This means that many morphological terms are indiscriminately used to describe gunflints that are fundamentally different – most clearly noted with the D-shaped one, which may be made from both flake and blade blanks. Furthermore, classification is subjective, and some typologies are remarkably similar. Therefore, different individuals may use different terms to describe the same piece. For example, De Lotbiniere’s square blade is remarkably similar to Austin’s double-edged blade and square heel blade, thus these classifications may be employed almost interchangeably (Austin 2011, 87; de Lotbiniere 1984, 206).

86

A proposal is therefore put forward, to create a more expansive classification system, which takes into consideration the extensive range of morphological features, which could hence be incorporated into Ballin’s database system. This would enable the possibility of making a checklist of the qualities exhibited by each gunflint, and hence being able to put into a more homogenous typological group. The proposal is as follows (examples are for demonstration only and do not represent real gunflints):

Gunflint 1 Gunflint 2 Gunflint 3 …

Blade Flake

Square Rectangular D-shaped

Elongated D-shaped Irregular

One dorsal arris

Two dorsal arrises Demi-cones

Central platform Side platform Irregular platform

Table 2 Gunflint feature chart proposed by the author; discriminative morphological properties.

This creates a grouping of characterisations that can be cross-referenced against each other. Of course, this does not mean that the origin of the gunflint can be determined exactly, nor does it exclude the possibility of a range of morphologies from one source. However, it does facilitate discrimination between samples as well as their discussion. Furthermore, more rows could be added to consider the colour of the raw flint by the

87

Munsell system, and its grain size. The size would also be beneficial for this purpose. However, with the great range of possible sizes, and overlapping dimensions, the creation a set of discriminatory size categories is unrealistic. Therefore this, as well as the edge angles, could be added in a more specific manner, as outlined in the following example (follows former table, data is exemplary):

Gunflint 1 Gunflint 2 Gunflint 3 … Grain size Fine Medium Fine

Colour Very dark grey Grey Brown

Length (cm) 3.52 3.22 3.24 Width (cm) 3.54 3.24 2.66 Thickness (cm) 1.10 0.82 0.76

Leading edge angle 32 23 24 Heel angle 46 - 35 Right edge angle 61 - 70 Left edge angle 62 - 71

Table 3 Gunflint typology chart proposed by the author; quantitative and qualitative data; example of data input (Gunflint 2 represents a flake type where there is only one clear angle).

Ideally, the data could be quantifiable and/or discriminative enough that with enough collated data some sort of correlational and comparative graph could be created, which may in an ideal world suggest an algorithm for relational values – somewhat like Ballin’s suggestion, which is used to discriminate between assemblages (Ballin 2013, 8). However, it is important to bear in mind that with any type of material culture, there are a great number of human and natural variables which play a part in the creation of an object, resulting in little possibility for quantitative analysis, where a qualitative assessment is generally more appropriate.

88

7.5 FINAL COMMENTS There is a large amount of information about gunflint use through the use of high-power analytical techniques. However, it is important for researchers to take and publish more photographs of specific features with the aim of understanding and standardising descriptive language.

The study of large samples of these objects allow for a greater perspective into the social and economic role of these objects in terms of manufacturing, inter-cultural connections, use and re-use, and potentially the composition of military regiments as explored through the individual’s understanding of how to use these objects.

89

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Websites: http://rooswijk.huygens.knaw.nl (Accessed June 11, 2019) http://rooswijk.huygens.knaw.nl/#duiken-op-de-rooswijk-de-expeditie-van-2005 (Accessed June 11, 2019) http://www.verganeschepen.nl/schip.php?wrakid=43 (Accessed February 2, 2019) https://geology.com/minerals/sulfur.shtml (Accessed June 6, 2019) https://maritime-heritage.com/articles/fieldschool-Ifmaf (Accessed February 2, 2019) https://msdsmarine.com/en/goodbye-ramsgate-hello-fort-cumberland-the-rooswijk- artefacts-make-thei-big-move (Accessed December 28, 2018) https://wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?128065 (Accessed January 28, 2019) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40962097 (Accessed January 28, 2019) https://www.lenntech.com/composition-seawater.htm (Accessed May 27, 2019) https://www.world-archaeology.com/features/rescuing-the-rooswijk (Accessed December 28, 2018) https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1000052 (Accessed June 3, 2019)

Catalogues :

Nikon Corporation, 2017.Catalogue, Nikon Stereo Microscopes. Tokyo: Nikon Corporation.

Leica Microsystems, 2015. Catalogue, Leica DM750 M Leica DM1750 M Leica DM2700 M Upright Microscopes for Routine Applications in Materials Examinations. Heerbrugg: Leica Microsystems.

Literature:

Akoshima, K., and Y. Kanomata, 2015. Technological Organization and Lithic Microwear Analysis: An Alternative Methodology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 38, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2014.09.003.

Altamura, F., 2013. Reuse of Prehistoric Lithic Implements in Historical Times: Case Studies from the Alban Hills. Origini: Preistoria e Protostoria delle Civilta antiche. Prehistory and Protohistory of Ancient Civilizations XXXV, 7-30.

Austin, R. J., 2011. Gunflints from Fort Brooke: A Study and Some Hypotheses Regarding Gunflint Procurement. The Florida Anthropologist 64 (2), 85–106.

90

Ballin, T. B., 2012. ‘State of the Art’ of British Gunflint Research, with Special Focus on the Early Gunflint Workshop at Dun Eistean, Lewis. Post-Medieval Archaeology 46 (1), 116– 42. https://doi.org/10.1179/0079423612Z.0000000006.

Ballin, T. B., 2013. Characterization of gunflint industries through attribute analysis – a proposal. Gunflints – beyond the British and French empires. 2, 1–15.

Ballin, T. B., 2014. Identification of Gunflints from Shipwrecks. Lithic Research. http://www.vragmus.dk/Nye_sider/andet/Forskning/Gunflints%20from%20shipwrecks%2 0(Maritime%20Newsletter)%20v2.pdf

Ballin, T. B., 2014. Gunflints from Drottningen af Swerige (1745) and Concordia (1786). Arms & Armour 11 (1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1179/1741612414Z.00000000032.

Barnes, A. S., 1937. L’Industrie Des Pierres à Fusil Par La Méthode Anglaise et Son Rapport Avec Le Coup de Burin Tardenoisien. Bulletin de La Société Préhistorique Française 34 (7– 8), 328–35.

Beuker, J. R., and E. Drent, 2014. Prehistoric Artefacts of Red Heligoland Flint from Lower Saxony (Germany) and the Netherlands - an Outline. Siedlungs- Und Küstenforschung Im Südlichen Nordseegebiet Settlement and Coastal Research in the Southern North Sea Region 37, 113–24.

Biagi, P., E. Starnini, and C. Beltrame, 2016. The Mercurio Gunflints: A Techno-Typological and Cultural Assessment. Antiquaries Journal 96, 363–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581516000214.

Borschberg, P., 2013. From Self-Defense to an Instrument of War: Dutch Privateering Around the Malay Peninsula in the Early Seventeenth Century. Journal of Early Modern History 17 (1), 35–52.

Brandl, M., M. M. Martinez, C. Hauzenberger, P. Filzmoser, P. Nymoen, and N. Mehler, 2018. A Multi-Technique Analytical Approach to Sourcing Scandinavian Flint: Provenance of Ballast Flint from the Shipwreck “ Leirvigen 1 ”, Norway. PLoS ONE, 13 (8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200647.

Burroni, D., R. E. Donahue, A. M. Pollard, and M. Mussi, 2002. The Surface Alteration Features of Flint Artefacts as a Record of Environmental Processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 29 (11), 1277–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.2001.0771.

Buscaglia, S., J. Alberti, M. Álvarez, 2016. A Historical and Archaeological Analysis of Gunflints from Patagonia (Argentina, 18th-19th Centuries). Gunflints – beyond the British and French Empires 8, 1–19.

Buscaglia, S., J. Alberti, 2017. Los Chisperos en Perspectiva Hitsórica y Arqueológica. Anthropologia XLII, 159–80.

Chelidonio, G,. J. N. Woodall, 2015. Italian Firesteel Flints and Gunflint Workshop Traces. Archäologische Informationen. 40, 1–8.

Chelidonio, G., and J. N. Woodall, 2005. Gunflints Workshops Traces in Lessini Mountains (Verona, Italy): Flintknappers and Smugglers at the End of Venice Republic. 8th International Flint Symposium, Bochum, 13. - 17. September 1999. Abstracts, 19–20.

91

Cranmer, C., 2004. Treasure Is Where You Find It: The Thirty-Year Quest to Save the Royal Armory of Nepal. Surrey: Tharston Press.

Durst, J. J., 2013. Sourcing Gunflints to Their Country of Manufacture Sourcing Gunflints to Their Country of Manufacture. Historical Archaeology 43 (2), 18–29.

Durst, J. J., Analysis of Gunflints from VOC Sites at the Cape, in C. Schrire, 2014. Historical Archaeology in South Africa: Material Culture of the Dutch East India Company at the Cape. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.

Evans, A. A., and R. E. Donahue, 2005. The Elemental Chemistry of Lithic Microwear: An Experiment. Journal of Archaeological Science 32 (12), 1733–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2005.06.010.

Filatova, S., and Y. van Popta, 2014. Voedsel of Verpakkingsmateriaal? Botanische Resten in Scheepswrak OL 79 (Flevoland). Paleo-Aktueel 25, 99–106.

Gaastra, F. S., 2003. The Dutch East India Company: Expansion and Decline. Zutphen: Walburg Pers.

Gijn, A. L. van., 2014. Science and Interpretation in Microwear Studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 48 (1), 166–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.024.

Gijn, A. L. van., 1990. The Wear and Tear of Flint: Principles of Functional Analysis Applied to Dutch Neolithic Assemblages. Leiden University.

Karklins, Karlis. 1984. The Gunflint Industry at Brandon. Arms Collecting 22 (2), 51–59.

Kenmotsu, N., 1990. Gunflints: A Study. Historical Archaeology 24 (2), 92–124.

Levi Sala, I., 1986. Use Wear and Post-Depositional Surface Modification: A Word of Caution. Journal of Archaeological Science 13 (3), 229–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305- 4403(86)90061-0.

Lotbiniere, S. de., 1984. Gunflint Recognition. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 13 (3), 206–9.

Luedtke, B. E., 1998. Worked Ballast Flint At Aptucxet. Northeast Historical Archaeology. 27 (6), 33–50.

Malainey, M. E., 2012. A Consumer’s Guide to Archaeological Science. New York: Springer.

Manders, M., W.Kuijper, 2015. Shipwrecks in Dutch Waters with Botanical Cargo or Victuals. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 45. Leiden University.

Marreiros, J., J. F. Gibaja Bao, and N. Ferreira Bicho. 2015. Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Basel: Springer.

Moshtagh Khorasani, M., 2009. Persian Firearms Part Two: The Flintlock. Classic Arms and Militaria XVI (2), 22–26.

Quinn, C. P., 2004. An Experimental Use-Wear and Functional Analysis of Gunflints. Lambda Alpha Journal 34, 60–71.

Quinn, C. P., 2010. Use-Wear Under Fire: An Experimental Use-Wear and Functional Analysis of Gunflints. The Michigan Archaeologist 50–52 (1–4), 249–60.

92

Rediker, M., 2004. Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age. London: Beacon Press.

Richardson, D. M., 1998. Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roncal los Arcos, M. E., G. Martinez Fernandez, and A. Morgado Rodriguez, 1996. Las Piedras de Chispa : Una Producción Lítica Olvidada En España Gun-Flint : A Lithic Production That Has Been Forgoten in Spain. MUNIBE 48, 105-123.

Roy, K., 2018. The Hybrid Military Establishment of the East India Company in South Asia: 1750 – 1849 * 1997 (2011), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022811000222.

Salas, R. de., 1833. Prontuario de Artillería Para El Servicio de Campaña Por Orden de Materias. Madrid: La Oficina de E. Aguado.

Schávelzon, D., 2013. Lítica Histórica :La Piedra En Buenos Aires En Los Siglos XVI Al XX, Usos y Tecnologías. Buenos Aires: Aspha Ediciones.

Schock, J. M., and M. Dowell, 1983. Some Early Historic Gunflints Found in Kentucky. Proceedings of the First Annual Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology 1, 58–67.

Sgourev, S. V., and W. van Lent, 2015. Balancing Permission and Prohibition: Private Trade and Adaptation at the VOC. Social Forces 93 (3), 933–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou094.

Skertchly, S.. B. J., 1879. On the Manufacture of Gun-Flints, The Method of Excavating for Flint, The Age of Palaeolithic Man, and the Connexion Between Neolithic Art and the Gun- Flint Trade. Memoirs of the Geological Survey England and Wales. London.

Sutton, E., 2015. Capitalism and Cartography in the Dutch Golden Age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Velde, A. M. van der 2014. Een Opmerkelijke Scheepsinventaris; Een studie naar de objecten van een vrachtschip in de bodem van de gemeente Dronten. Groningen (Master’s thesis Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed).

Watt, D. J., R. A. Horowitz, 2017. An Analysis of a Natchez Gunflint Assemblage from the Lower Mississippi Valley and Its Implications for Eighteenth-Century Colonial Economic Interactions and Its Implications for Eighteenth-Century Colonial Economic Interactions. Southeastern Archaeology 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/0734578X.2017.1336606.

Webster, A., 2009. The Twilight of the East India Company: The Evolution of Anglo-Asian Commerce and Politics 1790-1860. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.

White, S. W., 1975. On the Origin of Gunspalls. Historical Archaeology 9, 65–73.

Whittaker, J. C., 2001. ‘The Oldest British Industry’: Continuity and Obsolescence in a Flinktknapper’s Sample Set. Antiquity 75 (288), 382–90.

Whittaker, J. C., and A. Levin., 2018. Nineteenth Century Gunflints from the Nepalese Armory. International Journal of Historical Archaeology. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-018-0494-x

93

Williams, S. E., 2010. Monhantic Fort Gunflints: Continuity or Change in Mashantucket Pequot Lithic Manufacturing Patterns Due to European Contact. Connecticut (Master’s thesis University of Connecticut).

Witthoft, J., 1970. A History of Gunflints. The Wyoming Archaeologist XIII (4), 13–62.

Zeebroek, I, M. Pieters, C. Andrés-Lacueva, D. Caluwé, J. David, K. Deforce, K. Haneca, et al., 2010. Een 18de-Eeuwse Wraksite Op de Buiten Ratel-Zandbank (Belgische Territoriale Wateren) (I): Multidisciplinair Onderzoek van Het Vondstenmateriaal. Relicta Archeologie, Monumenten-En Landschapsonderzoerk in Vlaanderen. 6, 237–327.

94

FIGURES

Figures are author’s own unless specified

• Figure 1 Flintlock mechanism in a musket. (Kenmotsu 1990, 95) 10 • Figure 2 1) D-shaped gunspall; 2) square gunspall; 3) square blade gunflint with two dorsal arrises; 4) square blade gunflint with one dorsal arris. H= heel; E= leading edge; B= bulb of percussion; d= "demicone". (Ballin 2012, 119) 13 • Figure 3 A) gunspall; B) round-heel blade; C) untrimmed blade; D) double-edged blade; E) square-heel blade. (Austin 2011, 87) 13 • Figure 4 Gunflints from Nepal: a, b - square blade with two dorsal arrises; c, d – square gunspall; e, f – gunspall?; g, h – round-heel blade; i, j – round-heel blade; k, l – square heel blade; m, n -D-shaped gunspall; o, p – D-shaped gunspall. 17 • Figure 5 Gunflints from Nepal: a, b – D-shaped gunspall; c, d – D-shaped gunspall; e, f – square heel blade; g, h – square heel blade; i, j – square blade with two dorsal arrises; .k, l – Square blade with two dorsal arrises; m, n – D-shaped gunspall; o, p – gunspall?. 18 • Figure 6 Rooswijk gunflints: a, d - fragment; b, e – round-heel blade; c, f – round-heel blade. (Provided by MSDS Marine). 19 • Figure 7 NB6 gunflints: a, b – round-heel blade; c, d – round-heel blade; e, f – round-heel blade; g, h – round-heel blade; i, j – round-heel blade;k, l – “other”. 20 • Figure 8 NB6 gunflint: a, b – square blade; c, d – “other”; e, f – square blade. 21 • Figure 9 OL79 gunflints: a, b – “other”; c, d – round-heel blade. 22 • Figure 10 OH48 gunflints: a, b - gunspall; c, d – square blade with two dorsal arrises. 23 • Figure 11 (a – t) – Experimental gunflints based on gunflints from the Nepalese armoury in Kathmandu; u, v – leather patch. 24 • Figure 12 Figure 12 Reduction of a 'flaked flake': 1. platform remnant with bulb of percussion; 2. Ventral face of the 'flaked flake'; 3. decortication flakes; 4. gunflint blanks. (Ballin 2012, 132) 31 • Figure 13 Blades for gunflint production (Ballin 2012, 135) 31 • Figure 14 Gunpowder 39 • Figure 15 “Micro-crazing” 39 • Figure 16 Removals with polish and rounding 40 • Figure 17 Deep striations 40 • Figure 18 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal 40 • Figure 19 Patination with striations 40 • Figure 20 Trapezoidal edge removal with some rounding 41 • Figure 21 Oxidised gunpowder 41 • Figure 22 Manufacture retouch with polishing and rounding 41 • Figure 23 Dorsal arris with removals and striations 42 • Figure 24 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal with rounding and striations 42 • Figure 25 Sharp step fractures with large striations 42 • Figure 26 Scalar edge removal with large striations 43 • Figure 27 Scalar edge removal with some polish and rounding 43 • Figure 28 Edge with some dents 43 • Figure 29 Scalar edge removal with large striations 43 • Figure 30 Dorsal arris with dents, polish, rounding and striations 43 • Figure 31 Internal fractures and flaking 44 • Figure 32 Internal fracture with orange-yellow gunpowder mark 44

95

• Figure 33 Disaccharide pollen grains 44 • Figure 34 Internal fracture and flaking 45 • Figure 35 Edge with extreme rounding and polish 45 • Figure 36 Yellow/orange gunpowder residue 45 • Figure 37 Scalar edge removal with hinge termination 46 • Figure 38 Rounding and polish over crushing 46 • Figure 39 Scalar edge removal with rounding and next to pitting 46 • Figure 40 Mild edge rounding, polish-like striations and pitting 46 • Figure 41 Trapezoidal edge removal with hinge termination, striations and possible “micro- crazing” 47 • Figure 42 Gunpowder staining 47 • Figure 43 Deep rounded striations 47 • Figure 44 Scalar edge removal with projecting striations 48 • Figure 45 Scalar edge removal with hinge termination with rounding 48 • Figure 46 Dorsal arris with some crushing and striations 48 • Figure 47 Pitting and striations 49 • Figure 48 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal 49 • Figure 49 Crushing displaying internal fractures and residue on the surface 49 • Figure 50 Dorsal arris with striations 52 • Figure 51 Steel residue with striations 52 • Figure 52 Internal fracture and striations 52 • Figure 53 Scalar edge removal with deep striations 52 • Figure 54 Striations and pitting 53 • Figure 55 Scalar hinge terminated edge removals with striations and pitting 53 • Figure 56 Lamellar edge removal with striations, polish and rounding 53 • Figure 57 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal 53 • Figure 58 Polished step fractures with steel residue 54 • Figure 59 Scalar edge removal with hinge terminations and flaked appearance 54 • Figure 60 Striations on a glossy polish 54 • Figure 61 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal with oxidised gunpowder 54 • Figure 62 Scalar edge removal with striations 54 • Figure 63 Gunflint edge with striations 55 • Figure 64 Trapezoidal edge removal with hinge terminations and black residue 55 • Figure 65 Deep, smoothed, polished striations 55 • Figure 66 Scalar edge removal with feather terminations and a crushed quality 56 • Figure 67 Scalar edge removal with the rounding and residue and striations 56 • Figure 68 Hinge edge removal with polish, rounding and striations 57 • Figure 69 Trapezoidal hinge terminated edge removal with gunpowder residue 57 • Figure 70 Wide, deep striations with rounding 57 • Figure 71 Edge with striations 58 • Figure 72 Scalar hinge terminated edge removal with internal fracturing and striations 58 • Figure 73 Scalar edge removal with curved striations 58 • Figure 74 Oxidised gunpowder 58 • Figure 75 Trapezoidal edge removal with rounding and polish 59 • Figure 76 Gunflint edge with internal fractures and striations 59 • Figure 77 Edge removal with possible sulfosalts, striations and pitting 59 • Figure 78 Scalar edge removal with deep ridges, striations and a yellow residue 60 • Figure 79 Steel traces 60

96

• Figure 80 Oxidised gunpowder 60 • Figure 81 Half-formed scalar edge removal 60 • Figure 82 Steel streak residue with striations 61 • Figure 83 Trapezoidal step fracture 61 • Figure 84 Internal fractures and light flaking 62 • Figure 85 Pitting near edge 62 • Figure 86 Glossy polish 62 • Figure 87 Pitting 62 • Figure 88 Hinge terminated edge removal and internal fracture 62 • Figure 89 Steel residue 63 • Figure 90 Flaking and internal fractures 63 • Figure 91 Red gunpowder stain with steel residue 63 • Figure 92 Step fractures and hinge terminated trapezoidal edge removals with rounding and polish 64 • Figure 93 Glossy polish 64 • Figure 94 Internal fractures in a striation pattern down from the edge 64 • Figure 95 Steel traces on a scalar edge removal with striations extending down from it 64 • Figure 96 Steel residue with striations 65 • Figure 97 Trapezoidal edge removal with internal fractures and steel residue over rounded edges 65 • Figure 98 Scalar edge removal with striations around the edge and with a secondary removal within it 65 • Figure 99 Yellow gunpowder staining 65 • Figure 100 Edge removal with striations and pitting 66 • Figure 101 Gunflints from Meusne (Ballin 2013, 5) 70 • Figure 102 a – N-06 – square blade; b – N-15 “other”; c – N-05 – D-shape. 75

97

TABLES

Tables are author’s own

• Table 1 Collated sample data;? refers to ambiguity in analysis. 56 • Table 2 Gunflint typology chart proposed by the author; discriminative morphological properties. 75 • Table 3 Gunflint typology chart proposed by the author; quantitative and qualitative data; example of data input (Gunflint 2 represents a flake type where there is only one clear angle). 76

98