The Social Context of Prehistoric Extraction Sites in the UK Peter Topping Thesis submitted for the qualification of Doctor of Philosophy. School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University. 21 February, 2017. Abstract The social context of mines and quarries is fundamental to the interpretation of Neolithic stone extraction. Why did communities choose to exploit certain raw materials in preference to others which were often more accessible? To address this 168 global ethnographic studies were analysed to identify common trends in traditional extraction practices and produce robust statistics about the material signatures of these sites. Repeated associations emerged between storied locations, social networks and the organisation of extraction practices on the one hand, and features of the material world on the other (e.g. landforms, extraction practices, structured deposition), suggesting that we can now probably identify sites which were mythologised/storied locations, those owned, seasonally used, and those practicing ritualised extraction - all leading to product objectification. A second stage of analysis compared the ethnography to 223 global archaeological sites which produced similar patterning in the material record, while suggesting limits to interpretation. These constraints led to a revision of the interpretive framework which was then used to analyse the published excavations of 79 flint mines and 51 axe quarries in the UK and Ireland. This analysis suggested that many extraction sites were special places, deliberately distant from settlements. They followed common practices and assemblages were carefully deposited which the framework suggests reflects technical skill and ritualised practices, but also exclusivity – the sites probably controlled by clans or technical specialists. Previous analyses, particularly of stone axes, demonstrates that many extraction site products travelled long distances, were often unused and deposited in non-settlement contexts. Conversely, artefacts knapped from expedient surface sources are generally discovered in a domestic setting, which confirms the special nature of extraction sites and their products. Overall, this statistically-robust ethnographic probability analysis provides a more confident foundation to model the social context of extraction sites through detailed analysis of their structures and assemblages i Dedication I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wife Joyce, and daughters Emma and Lucy, who have had to live with my obsession with archaeology for so long. I would also like to dedicate this work to my late Parents, who believed in me and wholeheartedly supported my career choice, to the late Colin Burgess, friend and mentor, who steered my early career, and to my old friend the late Mark Lynott who introduced me to so much Native American archaeology. ii Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the following for their kind assistance with this thesis: Gabriel Cooney, University College Dublin, who gave me an opportunity to participate in fieldwork at the Shetland quarries, and for providing information. The late Vin Davis for many helpful discussions about axe sourcing, and general encouragement. Michael Fuller, St Louis Community College, for guiding me around the Crescent Hills quarries, Missouri, and providing information about Native American extraction. Julie Gardiner for many helpful discussions about flint mines and lithics. Frances Healy for information about the Bayesian chronology of Grime’s Graves and the site in general. John Kelly, Washington University in St Louis, for kindly leading me around Mill Creek and Kaolin Quarries in Illinois, and his Cahokia excavations. The late Mark Lynott, US National Park Service, who took me to the Flint Ridge quarries in Ohio and provided much information concerning Native American extraction. Yvan Pailler, Inrap (Grand-Ouest), for providing an informative tour of the fibrolite quarries at Plouguin, Brittany. Pierre and Anne-Marie Pétrequin who kindly guided me around the Mont Viso jadeitite quarries and provided me with one of the most exciting experiences of my career. Charles Le Roux for providing a tour of the museum and quarries at Sélèdin, Brittany. The late Alan Saville, National Museum of Scotland, for sharing information about Grime’s Graves and the Den of Boddam quarries, and general support. Alison Sheridan, National Museum of Scotland, for kindly hosting a field visit to Creag na Caillich and Tayside Neolithic sites, providing access to the NMS artefact store, and for information and general support. Gill Varndell, British Museum, for much helpful information and images from Grime’s Graves. Marshall Weisler, University of Queensland, for information about Polynesian quarries, particularly those on Hawai’i. The author would also like to thank Dave Field for help with the Langdale fieldwork, general support and information; Trevor Pearson, Historic England, for assistance with the Scafell fieldwork and providing illustrations; and John Hodgson, Lake District National Park Archaeologist, for facilitating access to the Langdale/Scafell quarries and general support. Finally, thanks go to Chris Fowler, my supervisor, for carefully guiding my thesis. iii Table of Contents Abstract i Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Tables and Figures v Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Chapter 2. Previous research into Prehistoric extraction sites in the UK: a history and critical evaluation 17 Chapter 3. The ethnography of extraction 45 Chapter 4. The archaeology of extraction 109 Chapter 5. The landscape setting of extraction sites 165 Chapter 6. Arenas of extraction: site structures and assemblages 208 Chapter 7. Conclusion: the social context of Prehistoric extraction sites 258 Bibliography 275 iv List of tables and figures Figure 1:1. The 9.5m high axehead-shaped Menhir de Kerloas, Plouarzel, Brittany. 4 Figure 1:2. A tobacco pipe blank returned to the Pipestone Quarries (Minnesota) for symbolic renewal. 8 Table 1:1. Aims and Objectives of this PhD research. 12 Figure 2:1. Grime’s Graves, Norfolk, site of Canon Greenwell’s 1868-1870 excavation campaign. 18 Figure 2:2. Colonel Lane Fox’s 1875 excavations at Cissbury. 20 Figure 2:3. The Prehistoric Society of East Anglia’s excavations at Pit 1 in 1914. 21 Figure 2:4. Hazzeldine Warren excavating at Graiglwyd in 1919-1921. 22 Figure 2:5. John Pull excavating at Cissbury. 24 Figure 2:6. Leslie Armstrong (centre) excavating at Grime’s Graves. 25 Figure 2:7. Samuel Calvin’s photograph of the Pipestone Quarries in Minnesota. 35 Figure 2:8. Mont Viso, in the northern Italian Alps, site of jadeitite axe quarries. 38 Figure 2:9. Obsidian blades and cores from the Melos Quarries, now in Heraklion Museum. 42 Table 3:1. Extraction practices across all raw material types. 50 Table 3:2. Extraction practices by raw material type. 51 Table 3:3. The evidence from storied/mythologised sites. 53 Figure 3:1. A Plains-type tobacco pipe made from Minnesota pipestone. 55 Table 3:4. The evidence of ownership. 62 v Table 3:5. The evidence for seasonal use / permanently settled sites. 66 Figure 3:2. Aboriginal Australians crafting axeheads at a quarry site. 70 Table 3:6. The context of ritualised extraction. 73 Figure 3:3. A sweat lodge at the Pipestone Quarries, Minnesota. 74 Table 3:7. Ritualised reduction. 77 Table 3:8. Ritual and wealth objects. 80 Table 3:9. Functional objects. 81 Figure 3:4. Tchamajillas excavated from Salmon Ruins Chacoan Great House, New Mexico. 83 Figure 3:5. A New Guinea axe in Manchester Museum. 85 Table 3:10. Craft specialists. 90 Table 3:11. Product distributions by distance against potentially archaeologically-visible characteristics. 93 Table 3:12. The social context of axehead production and use in the New Guinea Highlands / Lowlands interface. 98 Table 3:13. Ceremonial use. 100 Table 3:14. Rock art, graffiti and idols. 101 Figure 3:6. The Three Maidens, Pipestone Quarry, Minnesota in 1998. 102 Table 3:15. Burials. 103 Figure 3:7. George Catlin’s painting of the Pipestone Quarries in south-western Minnesota. 104 Table 3:16. The recast data from storied/mythologised sites, highlighting recorded absence and data voids. 107 vi Table 4:1. High level ethnographic themes and practices shown alongside equivalent archaeological features and assemblages. 111 Figure 4:1. Tievebulliagh, Antrim, site of the Group IX porcellanite axe quarries (© Dave Field). 112 Figure 4:2. The quarry at Sélèdin, Plussulien, source of the Breton Dolerite A axeheads. 114 Figure 4:3. A broken jadeitite axehead fragment discovered at Castle Douglas, Dumfries and Galloway, now curated in the National Museum of Scotland. 115 Table 4:2. The comparative analysis of the archaeological and ethnographic traits recorded at extraction sites in relation to mythologised or storied sources and/or prominent topographic locations as shown by averaged statistics based upon a sub-set of the full data assemblage. 117 Figure 4:4. One of the flint mine hollows at Krumlovský les, Czech Republic.119 Table 4:3. The comparative analysis of ownership or restricted access to extraction sites. 120 Figure 4:5. The Mont Viso range, site of the Alpine jadeitite quarries. 122 Table 4:4. The comparative analysis of the evidence for the seasonal use of extraction sites. 123 Table 4:5. A comparative analysis of ritualised extraction practices. 125 Figure 4:6. Pottery vessels discovered within the flint mines at Defensola ‘A’, Italy (from di Lernia et al. 1995). 127 Table 4:6. A comparative analysis of the evidence for ritualised extraction. 129 Table 4:7. The comparative analysis of functional extraction site products. 131 Table 4:8. The comparative analysis of the evidence for dual-use extraction site products. 133 Table 4:9. The comparative analysis of the evidence for ritual/wealth objects. 134 vii Figure 4:7. The burials of two putative flint workers, interred with knapping tools and flint nodules. Discovered at Vel’ké Raškovce, Kr. Trebisov, Slovakia (from Lichardus-Itten 1999). 135 Table 4:10. The comparative analysis of evidence for the involvement of craft specialists.