<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Topics &#8211; CNDR Oxfordarchaeology</title>
	<atom:link href="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/category/topics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 06:13:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-GB</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.1</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Woodworking</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/woodworking/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:26:56 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=427</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Material retrieved from the palaeochannel at Stainton West provides evidence for how wood was worked with stone tools, which can differ from the methods associated with the use of metal ones. Coppicing is an ancient technique of husbanding wood to provide poles of suitable thickness for use as hafts for tools or for use in [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Material retrieved from the palaeochannel at Stainton West provides evidence for how wood was worked with stone tools, which can differ from the methods associated with the use of metal ones. Coppicing is an ancient technique of husbanding wood to provide poles of suitable thickness for use as hafts for tools or for use in construction which was already well established in the Neolithic period.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/worked_stake_web_0.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-430" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/worked_stake_web_0.jpg 749w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/worked_stake_web_0-300x225.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 749px) 100vw, 749px" /></figure>



<p>Techniques, at Stainton West, used to remove coppice stems, sometimes used for the manufacture of stakes, included a combination of cutting, tearing, and cross-cutting.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/bowls_web_0.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-428" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/bowls_web_0.jpg 749w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/bowls_web_0-300x206.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 749px) 100vw, 749px" /></figure>



<p>Several chunks of coppice stool in the assemblage possibly provide evidence of the bowl manufacture. Certain other pieces form debris associated with tree felling, involving a technique where parallel grooves were cut into the trunk, with the wood in between then prised out tangentially. This is the first clear evidence that such a method was used in this country.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/notched_wood_web.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-429" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/notched_wood_web.jpg 749w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/notched_wood_web-300x225.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 749px) 100vw, 749px" /></figure>



<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tridents and Paddle Haft</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/tridents-and-paddle-haft/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=421</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Two wooden tridents or forks and what may have been the haft of a paddle (the blade was missing), were placed along the northern edge of the stream that would have flowed there at the time when the wooden platform was constructed. Indeed these wooden objects may have been foundation elements, placed early in the construction of the platform. Radiocarbon [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/trident_web.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-425" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/trident_web.jpg 506w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/trident_web-200x300.jpg 200w" sizes="(max-width: 506px) 100vw, 506px" /></figure>



<p>Two wooden <em>tridents</em> or <em>forks</em> and what may have been the haft of a paddle (the blade was missing), were placed along the northern edge of the stream that would have flowed there at the time when the wooden platform was constructed. Indeed these wooden objects may have been foundation elements, placed early in the construction of the platform. Radiocarbon assay of the sapwood surviving at the outer edges of the tridents has produced disparate and, slightly puzzling results of and, which nether the less demonstrate that they are of Neolithic origin.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/trident_location_web.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-424" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/trident_location_web.jpg 749w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/trident_location_web-300x201.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 749px) 100vw, 749px" /></figure>



<p>The function of the tridents/forks is not known. Both had broken in antiquity, with, the apparently older, one missing two of its tines and the other being deposited with a tine, which had broken from it, tucked beneath it. In general, their shape resembles that of a modern culinary fork, with three parallel, straight-sided tines, but above the tines there is a well-marked ‘step’, the purpose of which is not obvious.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/close_up_trident_web.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-422" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/close_up_trident_web.jpg 749w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/close_up_trident_web-300x225.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 749px) 100vw, 749px" /></figure>



<p>Both objects have been finely carved, using stone tools, from single pieces of oak heartwood. They are over 2m long, with hafts tapering to points, and the carefully-chamfered tines show no sign of use wear. The trees selected from which to carve the objects were mature specimens, which, if comparable to similar oaks recovered from the palaeochannel, would have been hundreds of years old. In the nineteenth century, comparable objects were found elsewhere, with two being recovered from Ehenside Tarn, in western Cumbria, and another two being found in a peat bog in Co Armargh, Northern Ireland, although no similar finds have been recovered by modern archaeological methods.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/paddle_haft_web.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-423" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/paddle_haft_web.jpg 749w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/paddle_haft_web-300x200.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 749px) 100vw, 749px" /></figure>



<p>The paddle haft revealed and cleaned, before lifting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sieves</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/sieves/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=415</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In order to recover the lithic material from the extensive and populous scatter, that was found at the Stainton West site, an innovative approach had to be adapted. The challenge was to maximise the return of information, within the time constraints of the project, using the resources available. As far as could be determined, the [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>In order to recover the lithic material from the extensive and populous scatter, that was found at the Stainton West site, an innovative approach had to be adapted. The challenge was to maximise the return of information, within the time constraints of the project, using the resources available. As far as could be determined, the lithic material was largely <em>in situ</em>, so, it had great potential to be highly informative, if collected in its entirety and with regard to its spatial context and distribution. There were known to be archaeological features, such as pits, associated with the lithic scatter, and variation was evident within the generic layers of alluvium and colluvium covering the site, meaning that the stratigraphic situation was likely to be complex.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/initial_collection_stainton_west.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-416" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/initial_collection_stainton_west.jpg 749w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/initial_collection_stainton_west-300x225.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 749px) 100vw, 749px" /></figure>



<p>Ideally, each lithic item would have been recovered individually and its three-dimensional location logged, to enable a total reconstruction of the site in the archaeological record. It was soon appreciated, however, that this was not a practicable approach. A compromise was arrived at which was considered practically achievable, justifiable and, in the circumstances, provided an optimal information return. The extent of the lithic scatter within the site was subdivided into a grid of one metre squares, numbering 820, in total. The deposit within each square was collected by context (stratigraphic unit), in its entirety. Excavation ceased if an archaeological feature was encountered – in this case the feature was excavated in trowel spits and any finds three-dimensionally recorded. Once the deposit within a grid square had been sampled, it was wet sieved to separate the coarse component >2mm, including any lithic tools, from the clay-silt matrix.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/unsorted_residue.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-419" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/unsorted_residue.jpg 749w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/unsorted_residue-300x200.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 749px) 100vw, 749px" /></figure>



<p>In the event, this involved sieving approximately 270,000 litres of sediment from 3159 individual contexts – which is slightly more material than the upper range of that originally projected.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/sieves_in_operation_web_0.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-418" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/sieves_in_operation_web_0.jpg 380w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/sieves_in_operation_web_0-225x300.jpg 225w" sizes="(max-width: 380px) 100vw, 380px" /></figure>



<p>There was no off-the-peg system, in use within British archaeology, that was capable of efficiently sieving this volume of material, to such a fine grade, especially when the cohesive nature of the parent sediment was factored in. Instead, a system, pioneered in the Netherlands by a Dutch archaeological practise (Archeologisch Diensten Centrum; <a href="https://www.archeologie.nl/">https://www.archeologie.nl/</a>), was imported and successfully employed. This involved using pumps and water management to cycle the groundwater that inundated the deeper parts of the excavation and use it to wash the samples through an on-site sieving plant. In this manor, the sieving, which geared up to a maximum capacity of four archaeologists, 16 sieves, four high-pressure pumps and two steel-lined sumps was able to keep pace with the excavation team as they sampled the grid squares, using a pool of 12,000 sample tubs, the latter being recycled for use again as soon as they were emptied. The coarse fraction was dried on site, weighed, bagged, labelled and logged, then sent off site for the lithic artefacts it contained to be sorted and separated, by a team of specialists.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/sieve_maintanence_web.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-417" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/sieve_maintanence_web.jpg 749w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/sieve_maintanence_web-300x200.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 749px) 100vw, 749px" /></figure>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pollen</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/pollen/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=413</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[During the course of the CNDR excavations samples were routinely taken for pollen where deposits were judged to have good potential for its survival. The analysis of this pollen will hopefully enable the reconstruction of the vegetational history of the landscape at large and, more specifically, in close proximity to the sites where it was [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>During the course of the CNDR excavations samples were routinely taken for pollen where deposits were judged to have good potential for its survival. The analysis of this pollen will hopefully enable the reconstruction of the vegetational history of the landscape at large and, more specifically, in close proximity to the sites where it was retrieved. The most promising conditions for pollen preservation were encountered within the <a href="/palaeochannel/">palaeochannel</a> at <a href="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/final_stainton_west_assessment_report_no_images-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Stainton West</a>, although potentially informative samples were also retrieved from an Iron Age ditch at <a href="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/final_stainton_west_assessment_report_no_images-1.pdf#page=35" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Parcel 36</a>, from the <a href="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/final_stainton_west_assessment_report_no_images-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Vallum ditch</a> associated with <a href="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/final_stainton_west_assessment_report_no_images-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Hadrian&#8217;s Wall</a> and a ditch pre-dating the construction of the Wall and Vallum. When these sequences are &#8216;stitched together&#8217; it should be possible to understand how the landscape changed and evolved between at least the Early Mesolithic and the post-Roman periods. Humans will have played a major role in this and, amongst other things, this sequence should chart the maturation of the deciduous woodlands post-glaciation; the introduction of agriculture and the clearing of the landscape; the extent to which the construction of Hadrian&#8217;s Wall and associated Roman reorganisation had an effect; and whether there was a regeneration of woodland cover in the post-Roman period.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Polissoir</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/polissoir/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:19:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=410</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A large stone with a slightly dished upper surface was recovered from a pit cut in at a Neolithic level within the palaeochannel, possibly post-dating the main phase of use of the wooden platform. The stone may have been a fragment of what was once a much bigger object. Radiocarbon assay of a hazelnut within the [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>A large stone with a slightly dished upper surface was recovered from a pit cut in at a Neolithic level within the palaeochannel, possibly post-dating the main phase of use of the wooden platform. The stone may have been a fragment of what was once a much bigger object. Radiocarbon assay of a hazelnut within the pit yielded a result of 3630-3360 cal BC. A groove had been worn into the, slightly undulating, dished surface and, being made of sandstone, it is possible that this object was a <em>polissoir</em> used in the finishing of ground-stone <a href="/axes/">axes</a>, like those also found within the <a href="/palaeochannel/">channel</a>.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/polissoir_1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-411" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/polissoir_1.jpg 759w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/polissoir_1-300x200.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 759px) 100vw, 759px" /></figure>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Palaeochannel</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/palaeochannel/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:18:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=408</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The river terrace at Stainton West was sculpted by the glacial outwash channels that laid down the sandy gravel deposits that underlie the site, at the end of the last Ice Age (early-Holocene period 10,300–8,500). As the glaciers retreated, the previously depressed landscape rebounded, or rose, resulting in the formation of a number of terraces which were [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>The river terrace at <a href="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/final_stainton_west_assessment_report_no_images-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Stainton West</a> was sculpted by the glacial outwash channels that laid down the sandy gravel deposits that underlie the site, at the end of the last Ice Age (early-Holocene period 10,300–8,500). As the glaciers retreated, the previously depressed landscape rebounded, or rose, resulting in the formation of a number of terraces which were intersected by channels. The emergence of the palaeochannel in question developed later during the later mesolithic period (or mid-Holocene), and started to infill at the same time that the human activity on site began. The site appears to have occupied a significant position in the floodplain, where the river potentially narrowed and was constrained by several floodplain islands, which would have possibly facilitated crossing at this point. High points or promontories at the edge of a wetland area would have been very attractive locations for early prehistoric communities to exploit the rich wetland and river resources present. The sequence of deposits forming the Mesolithic organic deposit indicates a shallow channel, which was gradually drying out. The deposits filling the channel contained a particularly well-preserved palaeoenvironmental assemblage, including deposits of waterlogged wood, some of which was worked. At various horizons within the channel, <a href="/lithics/">lithic</a>, <a href="/woodworking/">wooden</a> and <a href="/grooved-ware-pottery/">ceramic</a> cultural material was recovered. Radiocarbon dating suggests that the earliest deposits in the channel formed in, at least, the Later Mesolithic period and the latest during the Late Bronze Age. The accumulation of the majority of the wood indicates a significant reduction in the flow of the river and encroachment of vegetation into the channel. It is possible that some of the wood recorded could have fallen in from overhanging branches and the river banks, but it is just as likely that some of this wood was deliberately introduced into the channel. A number of gnawed tree trunks and branch ends indicate <a href="/beaver-activity/">beaver activity</a>. Mesolithic communities may have first been drawn to the <a href="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/final_stainton_west_assessment_report_no_images-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Stainton West</a> site as a result of localised woodland disturbance caused by this beaver clearance. These environments would have been attractive to hunter-gatherer groups, providing ready-made coppice stems that would be ideal for firewood, arrow shafts or harpoons. The new tree growth would also have encouraged foraging and hunting resources, and the ponding of the watercourse may have provided good fishing. These conditions could have been instrumental in the selection of this particular place for camps or more permanent settlement, resulting in the lithic scatter and features within the grid square area. It is within this deposit that the trident was recovered, and other</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Monuments</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/monuments/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=406</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[On a river terrace of the north bank of the Eden are series of cropmarks detected by aerial photographic survey. Many of the cropmarks are annular or penannular in shape and are likely to be Neolithic hengiform monuments or Bronze Age round barrows. During works associated with the grubbing out of a hedge, just outside [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>On a river terrace of the north bank of the Eden are series of cropmarks detected by aerial photographic survey. Many of the cropmarks are annular or penannular in shape and are likely to be Neolithic hengiform monuments or Bronze Age round barrows. During works associated with the grubbing out of a hedge, just outside of the road corridor, a substantial ditch was detected. It corresponds to the projected circuit of a large (100m in diameter) penannular cropmark (SMR 41815). Despite a ninth millennium cal BC radiocarbon date (8720-8450 cal BC) from <em>Prunus</em> sp charcoal found within the basal fill of the ditch, which probably dates residual carbon, this is most likely to be a Neolithic hengiform monument. Similar monumental landscapes are known in other parts of Cumbria, the most notable being the henges of Mayburgh, King Arthur&#8217;s Round Table and Little Round Table, at Eamont Bridge (Hodgson and Brennand 2006, 39); other possible hengiform enclosures are known from aerial photographs at Gutterby and Summerhill on the Cumbrian coast (op cit, 42). The activity in the palaeochannel at the <a href="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/final_stainton_west_assessment_report_no_images-1.pdf">Stainton West</a> site may be associated with the monuments, being part of a wider suite of activities undertaken in the landscape surrounding them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Microliths</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/microliths/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=404</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Much of the lithic assemblage (stone tools) at Stainton West is representative of a classic Late Mesolithic narrow-blade microlithic assemblage, with a strong emphasis on blade technology, in core-reduction techniques, knapping products and finished tools. Microliths are small stone tools made by first flaking off a blade of material from a nodule, and then shaping this to [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Much of the <a href="/lithics/">lithic</a> assemblage (stone tools) at Stainton West is representative of a classic Late Mesolithic narrow-blade microlithic assemblage, with a strong emphasis on blade technology, in core-reduction techniques, knapping products and finished tools. Microliths are small stone tools made by first flaking off a blade of material from a nodule, and then shaping this to form, what are usually, geometric pieces. The resultant pieces can be hafted and assembled into composite tools such as fishing hooks or projectiles. The microliths are the dominant tool type amongst the Mesolithic flint: approximately 5600 microliths have been classified. The types of microlith forms present are comparable to those recorded at other Late Mesolithic sites, such as Rum and Mount Sandal, although with relatively slightly higher numbers per form than at the two sites mentioned. Furthermore, there is much variation within the main classifications. For example, scalene triangles (numbering 1032) vary in their size, degree and positioning of retouch and form in plan across the group as a whole. Alongside the complete microliths, there is a significant number of microlith fragments (2034 in total). These fragments are important as they indicate that tools were being manufactured, used and discarded on the site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lithics</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/lithics/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=402</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Approximately 314 000 individual lithics were excavated from the Stainton West site, including retouched/utilised pieces (tools) and debitage, (waste flakes). Two thirds of this assembladge was made up of small flakes, (being less than 10mm in diameter)]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Approximately 314 000 individual lithics were excavated from the Stainton West site, including retouched/utilised pieces (tools) and debitage, (waste flakes). Two thirds of this assembladge was made up of small flakes, (being less than 10mm in diameter)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lithic Raw Material</title>
		<link>https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/lithic-raw-material/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[administrator]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2020 04:17:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Topics]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cndr.local/?p=397</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The study of the lithic (man modified stone) assemblage has highlighted the wide range of sources of raw material which were knapped and used at the site, indicating that the occupants had contacts over a large area of northern Britain. To the north, connections with Scotland are strongly indicated by the presence of tools made from chert [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>The study of the lithic (man modified stone) assemblage has highlighted the wide range of sources of <a href="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/final_stainton_west_assessment_report_no_images-1.pdf#page=35">raw material</a> which were knapped and used at the site, indicating that the occupants had contacts over a large area of northern Britain. To the north, connections with Scotland are strongly indicated by the presence of tools made from chert found in the Southern Uplands of Scotland (Radiolarian chert), and, perhaps more significantly, by a small assemblage of pitchstone, a volcanic rock which is found almost exclusively on the Isle of Arran in Scotland.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/pitchstone_raw_mat_0.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-398" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/pitchstone_raw_mat_0.jpg 600w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/pitchstone_raw_mat_0-300x200.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" /></figure>



<p>The flint tools indicate an overwhelming reliance on nodules retrieved from beach deposits that extend down the west coast of Cumbria. Material from such secondary sources are often of poor quality, as is the chert retrieved from Pennine locations and from local riverine and till deposits.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/brown_flint_raw_mat.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-399" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/brown_flint_raw_mat.jpg 600w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/brown_flint_raw_mat-300x200.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" /></figure>



<p>The distinctive brown and grey &#8217;till flint&#8217; though, is of a superior quality and and most likely derived from sources in the north-eastern regions of England.</p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img src="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/tuff_raw_mat.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-400" srcset="https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/tuff_raw_mat.jpg 600w, https://cndr.oxfordarchaeology.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/tuff_raw_mat-300x200.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" /></figure>



<p>Other Volcanic rocks were also used, notably tuff from the Langdale area of the Lake District.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
