Report on a small worked stone assemblage from Dorset

Attention: Important Disclaimer

This paper is a recent modification of a mock report on a small lithic assemblage. The original report was a marked assignment for the University of Southampton, during the author’s MA studies between 2008 and 2009. The aim of the original assignment was to prepare the graduate to produce basic archaeological reports on lithic assemblages. The lithic material discussed in this paper is authentic and was handed to the author by a UK commercial archaeology unit, which still reserves publication rights for the site report and its excavated material.

To avoid any complications, the author decided not to upload his original assignment to the web due to copyright issues and out of professional courtesy to the archaeological unit that originally handled the assemblage. The current paper presents the author’s analysis and discussion of the material, including personal illustrations and photographs, which remain the author’s intellectual property. The location of the archaeological site, the source of the material, and other information related to its excavation have been deliberately altered.

The author clearly states that publishing his work on his personal website is not a commercial activity and does not aim at economic profit. By contrast, the author wishes his work to be publicly available for free and shared openly with those interested in reading it, particularly students in the analysis of ceramics and lithics who might be looking for examples of find reports.

Introduction

This report discusses six worked stone objects recovered from the Late Iron Age – Early Roman settlement of Bethlehem Farm, Dorset. The report is divided into three artefact groups: mortars, quernstones and a possible whetstone. The location of Area 52 and the broader archaeological site of Bethlehem Farm are noted by Davies (1964, 75).

Mortars

Three mortar fragments were recovered from the site’s topsoil. Although unstratified, such fragments suggest domestic activities dating to the Roman period. All fragments are made of local Purbeck Limestone, the main geological formation in the area (Davies, 1964). Hand specimen examination shows that the three fragments come from three different mortars. More specifically:

Figure 1: Mortars

M1 (Figure 1, n.1 and Figure 2, M1) is 12cm X 10.2cm, and its wall thickness ranges between 2.6cm and 3.5cm. It weighs 627 g, and it comes from a mortar with a 22cm external diameter.

M2 (Figure 1, n.2 and Figure 2, M2) is 15.4cm X 9.8cm, and its wall thickness ranges between 2.1cm and 3.6cm. It weighs 913 g, and it comes from a mortar with a 25cm external diameter.

M3 (Figure 1, n.3 and Figure 2, M3) is 12.3cm X 10.6cm, and its wall thickness ranges between 2.2cm and 3.6cm. It weighs 573 g and comes from a mortar with an external diameter of 28 cm.

Figure 2: Illustrations of whetstone and mortars

Quernstones

Two quernstone fragments were recovered from the site’s topsoil layer. The quernstones are made of Upper Greensand, a rock composed of fairly large, angular quartz grains. According to Davies (1964), Upper Greensand is also common in a narrow zone crossing Dorset from South-East to North (Davies, 1964). A fresh break on one of the fragments suggests the presence of Fossiliferous Greenstone, similar to other samples from the quarry of Pen Pits on the Wiltshire - Somerset - Dorset border (Crawford 1953, 100). Hand specimen examination suggests that both fragments derive from two quernstones of different sizes. The bottom surfaces of both fragments are heavily worn, indicating extensive use. Their top surfaces carry deep pecking marks.

Figure 3: Quernstones

Q1 (Figure 2, n.1) is 13.7cm X 11.8cm, and its thickness ranges between 3.6cm and 4cm. It weighs 921 g and is estimated to come from a quernstone with a 45cm diameter. The top side of this fragment carries a small circular mark from oxidised iron, 1.1cm in diameter. It is probably due to post-depositional contact with a metal object. Nothing suggests that the oxidised spot might have been caused by the oxidation of a metal rod or mechanical part attached to the original quern.

Q2 (Figure 2, n.2) is 10.3cm X 9.6cm, and its thickness ranges between 3.8cm and 4.5cm. It weighs 565 g and is estimated to come from a quernstone with a diameter of 40-45cm.

Whetstone

One possible whetstone, made of local Purbeck Limestone, was recovered from the site’s topsoil. The shape of the stone suggests that it was probably used as a sharpening and percussion tool (Figure 3; Figure 2). This possible whetstone is 16.1cm X 7.6cm and weighs 915 g. Its examination under a X20 compound microscope did not show any scratches or other linear patterns of wear, which are likely to indicate sharpening of pointed metal objects (e.g., needles). Two short linear marks are certainly due to deposition. One of the stone’s curved edges carries chipping and hammering marks. The stone’s surface curves smoothly towards its centre. Its thickness fluctuates between 4.7cm towards the edges and 4.2cm towards the centre. Furthermore, the stone’s colour fades towards the centre, which is likely to suggest that the stone's central part has been worn by the sharpening of flat metal objects (e.g. knives). Due to its multiple use-wear marks, this specific stone tool is classified as both a hammer and a whetstone.

Figure 4: Whetstone

Discussion

The analysis of the worked stone assemblage from Area 52, Bethlehem Farm, Dorset, suggests that the inhabitants of the Late Iron Age and Early Roman settlement accessed and utilised local stone resources. The extraction, processing, and use of local stones follow a regional pattern. Similar quernstones, made of Upper Greensand, have also been recovered from the Iron Age and Early Roman settlement of Shapwick (Papworth 1997). Same types of mortars, made from Portland Limestone, along with quernstones and millstones made of Upper Greensand, have been recovered from the Roman villa at Halstock (Lucas 1993). Even though there are no similar examples of local sharpening tools, it is generally argued that local (Jurassic Purbeck Limestone), regionally imported (e.g. Cretaceous Kentish Rag) and other ‘exotic’ hone-types were used in the vicinity throughout the Roman period (Moore 1978; Moore 1983).

Given their national significance, Roman milling stones were usually quarried locally. For example, the use of local Carboniferous Millstone Grit associates with milling activities in Derbyshire and Norfolk (Moore 1983, 291). Other evidence suggests the exploitation of Millstone Grit from the Pennines, Devonian Quartz Conglomerates from the Forest of Dean, Hertfordshire Puddingstone and finally, Greensand from the Hythe beds of Sussex (Peacock 1980, 43-4). It is generally argued that in Roman Britain small hand-mills, such as those recovered from Bethlehem Farm, were supplied by local production centres and their distribution ranged from a few tens to several hundred kilometres (Peacock 1980, 44).

Although local millstones were popular in the area, the importation of foreign millstones was not unknown during the Roman period. The majority of imported millstones in Britain, particularly between the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, were believed to have originated in Mayen, Niedermendig, or the Eifel Hills of Germany. Such imported millstones are mostly found in East Anglia, the Thames Valley and further North, and are often associated with the presence of the Roman armies (Peacock 1980, 49-50). Based on our current knowledge, the production of Roman millstones in the vicinity of Bethlehem Farm was dependent solely on local resources.

Bibliography

Crawford, O.G.S., 1953, Archaeology In The Field, London: Phoenix House .
Davies, G.M., 1964, The Dorset Coast: A geological guide, London: Adam and Charles Black.
Lucas, R.N., 1993, The Romano-British Villa at Halstock, Dorset, Excavations 1967-1985, Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society Monographs Series (13).
Moore, D.T., 1978, ‘The petrography and archaeology of English honestones’, Journal of Archaeological Science (5), 61-73.
Moore, D.T., 1983, ‘Petrological aspects of some sharpening stones, touchstones, and milling stones’, in Kempe, D.R.C. and Harvey, A.P. (eds.) The Petrology of Archaeological Artefacts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 277-300.
Papworth, M., 1997, ‘The Romano-British settlement of Shapwick, Dorset’, Britannia (28), 354-358.
Peacock, D.P.S., 1980, ‘The Roman millstone trade: a petrological sketch’, World Archaeology 12(1), 43-53.