Mesolithic Ranscombe artefact record

Following the initial article on Mesolithic Ranscombe featured in Issue 107 – Winter 2017, this article attempts to give a brief insight into the more interesting artefacts found at the site. Calling or describing the site as Mesolithic is rather a misnomer as investigations have revealed that Neolithic artefacts exist there in not insignificant quantities. Therefore, the following divides the many artefacts found into distinct typologies/categories, attributing the period of manufacture where it was known.

1. Cores and rejuvenation tablets

For these cores, various combinations of flakes, blades and bladelet removals have been made, but no differentiation is made:

• 98 single platform cores;

• 54 dual platform cores;

• 14 cores with more than two platforms;

• 10 keeled cores;

• 20 started and abandoned cores;

• 13 cores for which type is undecided.

2. Miscellaneous items

This classification is for items of interest, with varying degrees of secondary working or retouched lateral edges (retouch):

• 111 flakes and blades with varying amounts of edge.

RIGHT Fig 2: Sharpening flake with retouch
RIGHT Fig 3: Microburins
BELOW Fig 1: Open to question item

LEFT Fig 4: Burin spall flake with retouch
BELOW Fig 5: Two of the hammer stones showing impact damage
LEFT Fig 6: Neolithic Plano Convex knife

Retouch. Many of these have no apparent function and were possibly used for a specific purpose using available debitage then possibly discarded. One such example (see fig 1) is a retouched blade for which no consensus of identification has been achieved. With proximal end polish, it could have been hafted.

Another four off flakes of this type have been subjected to secondary working for scrapers, which are listed in the next section (see fig 2):

• 38 notched flakes and blades, with and without other retouch;

• 9 pieces having use wear without other features.

Finally, for this category are items resulting from the manufacture of tools mentioned later:

• 24 Microburins plus 6 more probable microburins (see fig 3);

• 11 Burin spall flakes (see fig 4).

Additionally, there are:

• 4 core rejuvenation tablets, not included in the total above, with retouch;

• 63 flakes attributable to axe sharpening and manufacture without any other secondary working.

Most of these flakes are tranchet flakes, with some having edge damage suggesting re-sharpening.

3. Tools

• 24 axes and adzes, with another 7 abandoned axe or adze preforms;

• 4 hammer stones (see fig 5 - page 33). Two of the hammer stones showing impact damage;

• 1 chopper type tool;

• 1 chisel type tool;

• 2 items with end crushing damage but not considered as hammer stones;

• 14 burins;

• 4 knives and knife type tools (see fig 6 - page 33);

• 13 piercers and awls (see figs 7 & 8);

• 4 fabricators;

• 4 backed blades;

• 22 points, of which 8 are considered as incomplete or abandoned (see fig 9).

Found amongst Mesolithic items in a test pit was a Late Neolithic or early Bronze Age tanged and barbed arrowhead with impact damage to the point, suggesting having been used (see fig 10).

36 microliths of which Manchester University were able to assign dates about half of these to the later part of the Mesolithic.
Microlith breakdown:

• 3 unsure of classification;

• 3 regarded as incomplete;

• 2 considered as probably for composite tool use;

• 4 backed bladelets;

• 4 rods;

• 7 oblique points;

• 1 straight-backed bladelet to Jacobi group 5b;

• 6 rhomboids;

• 5 scalene triangles (see fig 10a: top row – rhomboids; 2nd top row – rods; 3rd top row – oblique points; bottom row – scalene triangles).

RIGHT Fig 7 - The largest piercer found on-site
RIGHT Fig 8 - Piercer, similar to five others found
BELOW Fig 9 - Two points believed late Mesolithic or early Neolithic found c. 2.5 metres apart

4. Scrapers

• 7 for which identification is uncertain;

• 21 end scrapers;

• 13 edge scrapers, of which 4 off utilise axe sharpening flakes, one of which is shown earlier;

• 13 combined end and edge or all-around scrapers (see fig 11);

• 6 denticulated pieces;

• 7 thumbnail type scrapers (see fig 12).

5. An undecided feature

Within test pit 48, there were three off darker patches found at about the lower part of the test pit.
Each feature (see fig 13) was found to be vertical and maintained its diameter for a depth of about 12cm before suddenly disappearing.

What can we say about the Ranscombe Mesolithic site?

What is certain is that it had a commanding view of the Medway gap, which must have been relevant.
Without the present-day chestnut coppice, over an arc of approaching 270 degrees, visibility could be more than 2 miles. To the south, a skyline of over 10 miles, and to the northeast, the Thames at about 15 miles.

With the range of artefacts found, human use spanned the late Mesolithic or earlier and at least through the Neolithic. With the presence of calcined flints or pot boilers at the site and more abundant concentrations in several nearby areas, habitation was probable in the later Neolithic.

From the author’s re-fitting studies, to be detailed in the next article, we can say that knapping was conducted at the site. From the presence of Microburins, albeit in small amounts, Microliths were probably manufactured on-site, suggesting a hunting-type camp. With the number of axes and adzes, along with the quantity of sharpening flakes, it would indicate the finds associated with a base camp.

Despite the site being at about the present-day 130m contour, several areas of damp soil and puddles exist throughout the year.

ABOVE Fig 10 - Tanged and barbed arrowhead
ABOVE Fig 11 - Combined end edge or horseshoe scraper, probably Neolithic
BELOW Fig 12 - Thumbnail type scrapers

Let me know if you’d like any further clarification or details!

RIGHT Fig 13 - unknown feature

"Year within about 150 meters of the site. With considerable water extraction in Cuxton over the last century, which would have lowered the water table, could these latter areas have been more pronounced in the past?"

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to Dr. Chantal Conneller and her PhD student Julie Birchenall of Manchester University for their viewing, dating, and offering amendments to the original artefact identifications by Angela Muthana and the author.