Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2013
The type of flint implement which we are investigating here was first distinguished by the late Sir John Evans in his Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain as long ago as 1872. Out of a total of 52 specimens noted in this paper, 12 were mentioned by Evans in his 2nd edition, 12 have been published elsewhere, and 28 are here recorded for the first time. Outlines of 50 and a photograph of another are given in Figs. 1-3,7 and 8.
They consist of long narrow blades carefully flaked over both faces, which are of roughly equal convexity, to produce two cutting edges. In plan the tip and the butt are usually defined by the more tapering character of the former, while the general outline is asymmetric. The type as thus defined is quite distinct from any other, though it differs only by its asymmetry from certain leaf-shaped blades flaked over both faces. There is, however, a further characteristic, namely a varying extent and degree of concavity of one cutting edge, which further defines our type and marks it off still more from other flint forms. We mention in this paper two examples showing asymmetry of form (Nos. 28 and 29), but lacking any degree of concavity in either cutting-edge, as they may be related to the true sickle form.
page 67 note 1 These are separated in Fig. 1 by a broken line, which also marks them off on the distribution map.
page 67 note 2 SirEvans, J., Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain, 2nd. edition, p. 358Google Scholar.
page 70 note 1 Blinkenberg, Chr., Mén. de la Soc. des Ant. du Nord, 1896–1901, pp. 183–98Google Scholar and Figs. 9–10.
page 70 note 2 Evans, op. cit., p. 358.
page 70 note 3 Spurrell, F. C. J., Arch. J., XLIX., p. 58Google Scholar.
page 70 note 4 Munro, R., Prehistoric Problems, chap, viii, “Prehistoric Saws and Sickles,” p. 333Google Scholar.
page 70 note 5 Jessup, R. F., Archæology of Kent, pp. 42–8Google Scholar.
page 70 note 6 Dr.Curwen, E. C., Antiquity, June 1930, p. 186Google Scholar.
page 71 note 1 K. Munro, Lake Dwellings of Europe, Figs. 34 and 38.
page 71 note 2 Dr.Keller, F., The Lake Dwellings of Switzerland and other parts of Europe, p. 104Google Scholar and pl. XXVIII, No. 32.
page 71 note 3 R. Munro, op. cit., pp. 148 and 157.
page 73 note 1 Evans (2nd. edt., p. 356 and Fig. 268, refers to a specimen “found in drainingat Fimber, Yorkshire … preserved in the collection of Messrs. Mortimer of Driffield.” It seems, however, that he is in error in giving Fimber as the provenance. The specimen to which he refers is evidently none other than our No. 31 found at Kilnwick some 9 miles from Fimber. I have arrived at this conclusion for the following reasons:— (a) The Kilnwick example is not mentioned by name in Evans's book, while neither Mortimer's book nor his collection knows a specimen from Fimber. (b) Allowing for the different styles of representation there can be no doubt that Evans and Mortimer were both illustrating the same flint, (c) In both references the sickle was said to have been found when draining.
page 76 note 1 Leeds, E. T. first pointed out the eastern distribution ol the type in Ant. J., VIII, p. 468Google Scholar.
page 76 note 2 Payne, G., Arch. Cant., XIII, pp. 122–3Google Scholar.
page 76 note 3 R. F. Jessup, op. cit., pp. 42.
page 76 note 4 Piggott, S., Arch. J., LXXXVIII, pp. 90 and 138Google Scholar.
page 76 note 5 Rosenberg, G., Kulturströmungen in Europa zur Steinzeit, p. 162Google Scholar.
page 77 note 1 G. Rosenberg, op. cit., Figs. 64 and 67.
page 77 note 2 G. Rosenberg, op. cit., Figs. 68 and 69.
page 77 note 3 G. Rosenberg, op. cit., Fig. 208.
page 77 note 4 Leeds, E. T., Ant. J. VIII., pl. LXXII, n., and pp. 467–8Google Scholar
page 77 note 5 S. Piggott, op. cit., p. 85.
page 77 note 6 S. Piggott, op. cit., p. 135.
page 77 note 7 Leeds, E. T., Ant. J., VII, p. 448Google Scholar, and Figs. 5a.
page 78 note 1 Mortimer, J. R., Forty Years Researches … pp. 106–7Google Scholar, and Fig. 254.
page 78 note 2 J. R. Mortimer, op. cit., p. 107.
page 79 note 1 Anon., Ant. J., IX., pp. 249–50Google Scholar.
page 79 note 2 J. R. Mortimer, op. cit., p. 107 (footnote), and Fig. 253a.
page 79 note 3 Warren, S. H., Essex Nat. XVI., pp. 49–50Google Scholar, and pl. iv., Fig. 7.
page 80 note 1 Mrs. M. E. Cunnington also assures the writer that she knows of no examples from Wiltshire.
page 80 note 2 Dr.Curwen, E. C., Antiquity, 1930, p. 186Google Scholar.
page 80 note 3 Clark, J. G. D., S. A. S. C., LXXII, p. 138Google Scholar.
page 81 note 1 de Pradenne, Vayson, L'Anthropologie, XXIX, pp. 393–422Google Scholar.
