European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015, 222–244

Facing the Chop: Redefining British

Antler Mattocks to Consider Larger-Scale
Maritime Networks in the Early Fifth
Millennium Cal BC

BENJAMIN ELLIOTT
Department of Archaeology, University of York, UK

This paper provides a critical review of Smith’s (1989) typological discussion of the antler ‘mattocks’ of
the British Mesolithic. The evidence for use of the term ‘mattock’ is assessed in relation to a new techno-
logical analysis of antler tools from Britain. In the light of the data presented here and developments in
the study of Mesolithic osseous technologies from elsewhere in northwest Europe, a redefinition of the
terminology and typology used to study these artefacts is presented. The potential for this redefinition to
shape research across Mesolithic Europe is demonstrated through a discussion of the earliest occurrence of
antler T-axes around the North Sea basin.

Keywords: Mesolithic, antler, T-axe, mattock, North Sea basin, 5th Millenium BC

INTRODUCTION However, since the publication of

The study of Mesolithic antler ‘mattocks’
in Britain can be traced back to the late
nineteenth century (Turner, 1889), and
has been taken up sporadically by various
authors ever since. The most direct and
exhaustive discussion of these artefacts was
provided by Smith (1989), who defined
antler mattocks as being made from antler,
featuring some form of perforation, and
an oblique working edge where the antler
has been truncated (Smith, 1989: 272).
Using this definition, Smith developed a
typo-chronology for British antler mat-
tocks, which spaned the length of the
Mesolithic period and incorporated several
shifts in both typological form and raw
materials.
Smith’s typological framework for British
mattocks, the development and application
of AMS radiocarbon dating techniques to
antler artefacts has allowed a more
nuanced understanding of their chrono-
logical distribution. This has significantly
undermined the Mesolithic affinities of
several mattock types, and has profound
implications for the previous model of
technological change through time
(Tolan-Smith & Bonsall, 1999). This
article will present a comprehensive review
of Smith’s (1989) typological discussion of
British antler mattocks, based on first-
hand study of the artefacts themselves and
a reappraisal of the current radiocarbon
dating evidence. The implications of this
redefinition for further research will then

© European Association of Archaeologists 2015 DOI 10.1179/1461957114Y.0000000077

Manuscript received 24 April 2014,
accepted 23 August 2014, revised 23 July 2014
Elliott – Facing the Chop
be discussed, with the earliest appearance
of antler T-axes around the North Sea
basin being explored as a case study.
THE HISTORY OF BRITISH MATTOCK
TYPOLOGIES
Artefacts that can be classified as antler
mattocks have been recognized in Britain
from as early as the mid-nineteenth
century. During the drainage of estates in
Scotland, objects initially termed
‘implements of stags’ horn’ (Turner, 1889:
789) were discovered in association with
whale skeletons. These consisted of a per-
forated length of antler with a sloping
break at one end to create an angle similar
to that of an axe blade and were initially
interpreted as tools for whale butchery,
based on their close association with
beachings (Woodman, 1989; Saville,
2004b). The deposits from which these
finds were made were dated to the post-
glacial period by the excavators, and as
such were initially attributed to the Neo-
lithic period. However, later work by
Bishop (1914) at the Scottish shell
midden site of Cnoc Sligeach, Oronsay,
demonstrated the Mesolithic date of sites
from which broken fragments of mattocks
were recovered. Bishop’s work in the early
twentieth century was published alongside
a growing body of literature concerning
Danish sites where these ‘shoe horn’ arte-
facts occurred frequently within Mesolithic
contexts (Burkitt, 1926). This led to the
ascription of these tools to the Mesolithic,
with the assumption cemented by Clark’s
(1954: 158) discovery of a series of elk
antler mattock heads during excavations at
the Pre-Boreal site of Star Carr, North
Yorkshire.
The recovery of perforated antler tools
has continued throughout the twentieth
and twenty-first centuries, although due to
the preservation conditions required for
223
the survival of organic materials they have
tended to be identified through chance
finds in association with contextually inse-
cure river sediments (Lawrence, 1929;
Wymer & Bonsall, 1977; Middleton &
Edwards, 1993). Smith’s (1989) gazetteer
and typo-chronology of British antler mat-
tocks represented the first attempt to bring
together these otherwise isolated and
sporadic finds for collective academic con-
sideration. Mattocks were defined by
Smith (1989: 272) as featuring a ‘round,
oval, or sub-rectangular perforation for
inserting a haft’, and the ‘presence of a
working edge made by an oblique trunca-
tion of the antler’, to create a facet at
around 50° to the main axis of the artefact.
This definition was used to unite a large
range of artefacts that had previously been
termed as ‘axes, adzes, perforated picks,
hoes, and mattocks’ (Smith, 1989: 272),
eliminating much of the terminological
variation that was previously present
within the literature (Lawrence, 1929;
Wymer & Bonsall, 1977). Smith was able
to locate and access seventy-seven ‘mat-
tocks’ from across Britain, and suggested a
further twenty-two that were unavailable
for direct study, giving a total of
ninety-nine.
Smith (1989) noted that the vast
majority of the British mattocks are made
from Cervus elaphus (red deer) antler, with
a small minority of Alces alces (elk) antler
mattocks at Star Carr. He defined five
typological groups, based on variations in
the part of the antler being used, the
location of the perforation, and the angle
of the working edge. Types A–D are
shown in Figure 1, whilst type E consists
of the elk antler mattocks from Star Carr.
In terms of chronological distribution,
Smith stated that they are Mesolithic in
date, with red deer antler replacing elk as
the material of choice at around 8000 BC
due to dwindling elk populations in Early
Mesolithic Britain. He argued that the elk
224
Figure 1. Smith’s (1989: 276) typology for red deer antler mattocks. Types A and B utilize the base of
the antler, whilst types C and D use the beam.
antler artefacts were replaced by types A
and B of red deer, which in turn were
succeeded by types C and D at around
4500 BC (Smith, 1989: 279). Smith noted
that, whilst types B, C and D are recog-
nized in European Mesolithic contexts,
type A appears to be a purely British
phenomenon.
Smith’s use of the term ‘mattock’ to
define this group of artefacts requires
some further consideration, as it has impli-
cations for interpreting the function of
these objects. The term was originally pro-
posed by Clark (1954) in relation to the
elk antler artefacts from Star Carr. Clark
noted that, although the angle of the elk
antler tools’ working edges run at 90° to
that of the haft, they should be termed
mattocks rather than adzes, as the acute
angle of the haft would make them unsui-
table for woodworking. As such, they
would have been better suited to digging
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
activities (Clark, 1954: 158). Smith (1989)
concurred with this interpretation, noting
the occurrence of polish and what he
referred to as ‘chatter marks’ on the
working faces of many of the artefacts
included in his study. Although Smith
offered little explanation and no clear illus-
tration to show what these ‘chatter marks’
consist of, their presence, combined with
the polish and sediments that Smith
observed adhering to the working faces of
the tools, led him to conclude that these
artefacts had been used as digging
implements—hence the term ‘mattock’.
This term has been used explicitly to infer
the function of the artefacts, regardless of
the orientation of the working edge in
relation to the haft, and this inference can
be seen in the work of Zvelebil (1994),
who interprets the distribution of ‘mat-
tocks’ across Europe as evidence for
widespread plant exploitation.
Elliott – Facing the Chop
OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS
Although Smith’s (1989) work represents
the most focused and definitive discussion
of antler mattocks within a British
context, elements of his study have been
contested by a range of authors over the
past two decades (Woodman, 1989;
Jensen, 1991; Tolan-Smith & Bonsall,
1999; Bell, 2007). These have focused
around two key areas—the functional use
of mattocks and their chronological
distribution.
Smith’s conclusion that all mattocks
were used primarily in digging activities
contradicts Clark and Piggott’s (1965:
145) earlier suggestion that the appearance
of ‘heavy antler tools’ in Mesolithic
Europe is linked to the first woodland
clearance events, and that the red deer
antler artefacts that Smith terms mattocks
were used to fell trees. Woodman (1989:
19) highlighted the specimens from the
coastal sites of Oronsay and Risga, which
were recovered in association with seal
bones, and referred back to Turner’s
(1889) suggestion that mattocks were used
to butcher marine mammals at coastal
sites. Experimental work carried out in
Britain and Denmark suggests that mat-
tocks can be used to fell trees, split
timbers, and remove large portions of bark
(Jensen, 1991; Bell, 2007). As such, it
appears that red deer antler mattocks have
the potential to have been used for a range
of activities during the British Mesolithic
(Saville, 2004b: 200).
Smith’s broad typo-chronological frame-
work has also been challenged by the
application of AMS radiocarbon dating to
bone and antler artefacts from the British
Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
(Bonsall & Smith, 1989, 1992; Bonsall
et al., 1995; Tolan-Smith & Bonsall,
1999). Table 1 and Figure 2F demon-
strate that types A and B date mainly to
the Bronze Age, with a single type B
225
mattock producing an Early Mesolithic
date. However, types C and D were
found to date exclusively to the Meso-
lithic (Tolan-Smith & Bonsall, 1999:
254). It can be seen in Table 1 and
Figure 2F that although there is a broad
pattern of type B proceeding type A,
there is no such chronological dis-
tinction between types C and D. This has
led to a distinction being drawn between
the more widely distributed ‘base mat-
tocks’ (types A and B) and the specifically
Mesolithic ‘beam mattocks’ (types C and
D), but an abandonment of any further
typological distinctions within these
groups.
However, Tolan-Smith and Bonsall
(1999) do not provide any further discus-
sion of the technological and typological
variation of these artefacts within the
British Mesolithic. It is important to note
that the period itself spans approximately
5800 calendar years in Britain, and as such
any form of ancient technology would be
expected to vary across time and space
over such a long period—as similar tech-
nologies do elsewhere in northwest
Europe (Clark, 1969; David, 1999; Blan-
kholm, 2008; Bogucki, 2008). The
all-encompassing use of the term mattock
(which masks the basic distinction
between axes and adzes) makes it difficult
to establish if broader European trends are
mirrored within British antler technol-
ogies. Furthermore, the term mattock
creates problems for interpreting the
relationship between these artefacts and
other forms of comparable technology—in
particular, the relationship between stone
and osseous axe and adze technologies
(Saville, 2001). The ongoing uncertainty
surrounding the functionality of mattocks
may also disguise diversity in the role that
these artefacts played within daily Meso-
lithic activities. As such, it appears that
the mattock tools from Mesolithic Britain
are in need of reanalysis.
226 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015

Table 1. Direct AMS radiocarbon dates from British antler ‘mattocks’ discussed by Tolan-Smith and
Bonsall (Tolan-Smith & Bonsall, 1999)
Site Type Sub-type Lab no. 14C Age BP Calibrated BC (95.4%)

Kew Bridge (Thames, London) Base B OxA-1160 8820 ± 100 8232–7614

Finsbury Circus (London) Base A OxA-2024 4140 ± 70 2893–2497
Willington Quay (River Tyne) Base A OxA-1157 3880 ± 80 2574–2136
County Hall 3 (Thames, London) Base A OxA-2020 3850 ± 70 2547–2058
County Hall 2 (Thames, London) Base A OxA-2021 3800 ± 80 2471–2026
Southery Fen (Norfolk) Base A OxA-3745 3460 ± 70 1964–1608
Peterborough 2 (Huntingdonshire) Base B OxA-3742 3430 ± 75 1924–1531
Kew 2 (Thames, London) Base B OxA-2022 3300 ± 80 1767–1416
Brentford (Thames, Middlesex) Base B OxA-3744 3245 ± 75 1733–1389
Putney 2 (Thames, London) Base B OxA-3743 3155 ± 70 1608–1264
Feltwell (Norfolk) Base B OxA-3741 3000 ± 75 1416–1020
Alton Longville (Huntingdonshire) Beam D OxA-4606 8005 ± 80 7136–6657
Splash Point (North Wales) Beam D OxA-1009 6560 ± 80 5636–5366
Hutton (Lancashire) Beam D OxA-4800 6520 ± 60 5616–5363
Uskmouth (Gwent) Beam D OxA-4547 6180 ± 80 5319–4933
Meiklewood (Carse of Stirling) Beam C OxA-1159 5920 ± 80 5207–4706
Staines (Thames, Middlesex) Beam D OxA-1158 5350 ± 100 4358–3971
Isle of Risga (Argyll) ? ? OxA-2023 6000 ± 90 5207–4706
Cranit Farm (Orkney) ? ? OxA-4606 3385 ± 55 1876–1526
Hammersmith (Thames, London) ? ? OxA-1156 2240 ± 100 731–734

A FRESH APPROACH: MATERIALS AND
METHODS
The current published body of AMS dates
for British antler beam mattocks indicates
that this form of artefact can be attributed
to the Mesolithic with a reasonable degree
of confidence. The six dates presented by
Tolan-Smith and Bonsall (1999) are further
supported by the identification of an artefact
from Risga, Argyllshire, as a fragment of an
antler beam mattock (Elliott, 2013).
Mellar’s excavations at Priory Midden on
Oronsay (Mellars, 1987) have also recovered
a beam mattock. Although the precise
context from which this has been recovered
is yet to be published, Wicks et al. (2014)
have produced Bayesian dating models for
occupation on Oronsay that predict activi-
ties at Priory Midden commencing at
4600–3800 cal BC and ceasing at 4320–
3740 cal BC (Wicks et al., 2014: 417). This
gives a total of eight beam mattock speci-
mens, which can be confidently dated to the
Mesolithic—some 25 per cent of the orig-
inal thirty-one specimens identified by
Smith (1989). Given the lack of evidence
for beam mattocks from earlier or later con-
texts, the remainder of the beam mattocks
from Britain can be attributed to the Meso-
lithic period. As discussed above, the case
for base mattocks is far more complex. The
uncertainty over the undated specimens
allows only the positively dated Kew Bridge
base mattock to be included in this study. A
list and illustrations of the 27 artefacts
located and accessed as part of this study is
provided in Table 2 and Figures 4–6.
RESULTS
On inspection, the majority of the arte-
facts consisted of large enough portions of
Elliott – Facing the Chop
Figure 2. Plot of calibrated AMS radiocarbon dates on British antler mattocks (Tolan-Smith &
Bonsall, 1999).
the original object for accurate measure-
ments of both width and length to be
taken. The results presented in the Online
Supplementary Data (http://www.man
eyonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1179/1461957
114Y.0000000077) indicate that the
length and width of the intact mattocks
vary considerably (Figures 7 and 8), but
that this variation is distributed evenly with
no clear bimodality to imply typological dis-
tinctions based on simple metric values.
The majority (81 per cent) of beam mat-
tocks utilize material from around the trez
tine junction, following the removal of the
227
trez tine. A minority (19 per cent) deviate
from this trend, with nondescript sections
of beam or possibly tine being used. There
is also a predominance of medial-lateral
perforations created through the upper
beam (74 per cent), although some vari-
ations are noted, including a group of finds
from Scotland that feature perforations
through the stump of the removed trez
tine. The vast majority (96 per cent) of
artefacts also feature a working edge that is
aligned parallel to that of the orientation of
the perforation, with a single exception to
this pattern from Uskmouth.
228
Figure 3. Explanation of different elements of a red deer antler, and the terminology used to refer to
the form of an antler mattock.
DISCUSSION
These results allow a more detailed apprai-
sal of the suitability of the term mattock
to define these artefacts. The majority
feature perforations aligned with the
working edge of the tool. Clark’s (1954)
original use of the term was based on arte-
facts with perforations at 90° to the
working edge, and so these data appear to
undermine Smith’s (1989) use of the term.
Smith’s interpretation of the sediments
adhering to the working faces of the arte-
facts as evidence for use in digging
activities can also be challenged, as the
porous character of the exposed spongy
tissue on the working face allows the sedi-
ments into which the artefact was
deposited to become trapped, and the
often fragile nature of waterlogged organic
material prevents the rigorous cleaning
required to remove this sediment following
recovery. As such, the presence of adher-
ing sediment need not necessarily dictate a
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
digging function. The macroscopic polish
that Smith notes across many of these
artefacts also needs to be treated with
extreme caution. Many of these artefacts
were recovered during the nineteenth
century, and have been exposed to exten-
sive handling and conservation during
curation, which may have created a similar
polish. Also, the binding and hafting of
these artefacts may have created further
areas of polish, which make Smith’s
(1989) interpretation of the distribution of
polish as indicative of use in digging diffi-
cult to substantiate in the absence of a
more detailed microwear analysis on care-
fully excavated material. Finally, the
‘chatter marks’ that Smith noted across the
working face of these artefacts could well
correspond to the scraping marks that
have been created in the original shaping
and secondary reshaping of the working
face itself. These have been widely recog-
nized as part of the traceological analysis
of this material, the full results of which
Elliott – Facing the Chop
Figure 4. British antler ‘mattocks’.
are presented within the author’s doctoral
thesis (Elliott, 2013).
This leaves very little direct evidence for
the use of the red deer antler artefacts as
mattock tools. That is not to say that the
229
form of these tools would prevent them
from being used in digging activities, but
that this single function cannot be given
primacy over other possible activities
such as the butchery, carpentry and bark
230
Figure 5. British antler ‘mattocks’.
processing tasks outlined by previous
authors (Woodman, 1989; Jensen, 1991;
Saville, 2004b; Bell, 2007). As an alter-
native, a more traditional distinction
between axes (as defined by a working
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
edge being aligned with the direction of
the perforation) and adzes (as defined by
a working edge that is aligned at 90° to
that of the perforation) may be more
useful (Figure 9). This brings terminology
Elliott – Facing the Chop
Figure 6. British antler ‘mattocks’.
in line with that used elsewhere in north-
west Europe for osseous technology, and
also facilitates comparisons with contem-
porary lithic technologies without overtly
implying a single function. However, it is
231
crucial to note the distinction between
the elk antler mattocks from Star Carr and
the artefacts manufactured from red deer
in Britain. Clark’s (1954) illustrations
clearly demonstrate these artefacts
232 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015

Table 2. List of ‘mattock’ artefacts accessed as part of this study*

Site/findspot Accession code Holding institution Figure

Risga, Loch Sunart A.1955.56.cag Kelvingrove Museum 5

Meiklewood, Stirling HLA 3 National Museum of Scotland 5
Priory Midden, Oronsay x.1997.127 National Museum of Scotland 5
Splash Point, Rhyll 47.101.4 National Museum of Wales 6
Uskmouth, Gwent 92.242H National Museum of Wales 6
Windmill Lane, Brentford 0.1158.a Museum of London
Hammersmith, London 71 Museum of London 4
Hammersmith, London C714 Museum of London 4
Hammersmith, London A13648 Museum of London 4
Hammersmith, London A13728 Museum of London 4
Hammersmith, London A22556 Museum of London 4
Hammersmith, London WG1223 British Museum 4
Hammersmith and Wandsworth, London WG113 British Museum 4
Kew Bridge, London 49.107/897 Museum of London 6
Kew, London A13647 Museum of London 5
Kew, London A13685 Museum of London 5
Battersea, London A7350 Museum of London 4
Syon Reach, London 33.153/5 Museum of London 5
Mortlake, London 2004.167 Museum of London 5
Mortlake, London A13641 Museum of London 5
Mortlake, London 2004.170.1 Museum of London 5
Richmond, London 0.1157.d Museum of London 6
Twickenham, London 49.107/899 Museum of London 6
Twickenham, London 49.107.902 Museum of London 6
Chelsea, London 60.176.299 Museum of London 4
Boveney Lock, Windsor 49.107/898 Museum of London 4
Staines, Surrey 49.107/900 Museum of London 6

*Intact is taken to mean enough of the artefact surviving to enable the accurate recording of total
dimensions. In order to address some of the questions regarding typological variation within the
Mesolithic mattocks, a number of specific typological features were recorded for the artefacts studied.
These included the specific element of antler utilized in the production of the artefact, its basic
dimensions, the location of the perforation and the orientation of the perforation in relation to the
working edge. An explanation of the terms used is provided in Figure 3.

featuring a perforation with a mattock-
like alignment; an axis of perforation at
90° to the working edge and at 45° to the
axis of the artefact itself. As such, from a
technological perspective, these elk antler
tools can still be considered as mattocks,
based on their orientation and form of
hafting.
Following this redefinition, twenty-
three of the twenty-seven artefacts
analysed can be re-termed ‘red deer antler
beam axes’. Although unavailable for study
at present, the AMS dated specimen from
Hutton can be also be identified as a ‘red
deer antler beam axe’ based on the illus-
trations provided by Middleton and
Edwards (1993). The single specimen
from Uskmouth can be considered as a
‘red deer antler beam adze’. Although this
small sample size prevents any refined
Elliott – Facing the Chop 233

Figure 7. Widths of intact antler mattocks from Britain.

Figure 8. Lengths of intact antler mattocks from Britain.

234 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015

Figure 9. New typology for antler axes, adzes and mattocks from the British Mesolithic.

discussion of chronological distributions, The data presented above also demon-

the AMS date for the Uskmouth specimen
suggests the broadly contemporaneous
occurrence of antler beam axes and adzes
in the sixth and fifth millennium cal BC in
Britain.
The antler axes that appear to be pro-
duced on red deer tines present some
difficulties in terms of assigning Meso-
lithic affinities. Although previously
considered as beam mattocks, these rei-
dentified specimens actually belong to a
typological group that has been linked
through AMS dating to the Bronze Age
(Tolan-Smith & Bonsall, 1999).
strate some internal variation within the
antler beam axe group. The axes from the
Scottish sites of Risga, Mieklewood and
Priory Midden all feature a perforation
through the stump of a removed trez tine,
whilst the axes from England and Wales
are perforated mediolaterally through the
beam itself. The direct dates from a
sample of these artefacts suggest that both
types of axe were in use in different parts
of Britain during the Late Mesolithic, and
the late fourth millennium cal BC date
from the Staines axe (Figure 2F) overlaps
with the modelled occupation dates for

Figure 10. Highly fragmented segments of working faces from Cnoc Sligeach, Oronsay.
Elliott – Facing the Chop
Priory Midden (Wicks et al., 2014),
suggesting contemporaneous use of both
types within Britain. In Scotland specifi-
cally, we have no direct evidence for beam
axes, but the identification of a small
number of fragmented working faces from
Cnoc Sligeach, Oronsay which lack the
intact areas of hafting to be considered
typologically diagnostic (Figure 10),
coupled with the limited sample sizes for
this region, mean that their presence
cannot be completely ruled out.
The Scottish specimens have previously
been described as ‘T-axes’ (Woodman,
1989), forming a characteristic ‘T’ shape
when a haft is inserted into the trez tine
stump (Figure 9). However, the full sig-
nificance of the relationship between
T-axes in Scotland and elsewhere in
Europe is yet to be fully commented
upon. This may be due directly to the
inconsistent application of mattock and
axe terminology within Britain, undermin-
ing confidence in the actual distribution of
similar artefacts. It may also be linked to
the fact that few other parallels can be
drawn between the material cultures of the
Scottish Late Mesolithic and contempor-
ary communities living elsewhere around
the North Sea Basin (Woodman, 1989;
Mithen, 2000; Saville, 2004a). Given the
redefinition of antler technology proposed
here (Figure 9), it now seems prudent to
review the implications for the identifi-
cation of ‘T-axes’ within the Scottish
Mesolithic, and the impact this has on our
understanding of communication and
exchange around the North Sea Basin
during the late Mesolithic.
T-AXE TECHNOLOGY AROUND THE
NORTH SEA BASIN
Within a broader European context, the
occurrence of T-axes has long been associ-
ated with the Ertebølle culture of southern
235
Scandinavia (Andersen, 2002). However,
since the original characterization of the
T-axe as a type fossil of the Ertebølle, the
geographical distribution of these artefacts
(Figure 11) has been found to extend
across large areas of Europe. Zvelebil’s
(1994) plot of the T-axe zone is shown in
Figure 11, and includes southern Scandi-
navia, Central Europe, the Iron Gates
Region (Serbia/Romania), and the Baltic
Coast. In light of the identification of
T-axes from Scotland, and a series of
other more recent finds, this distribution
can be reviewed and extended. Excavations
of wetland sites and chance finds in the
Netherlands (Louwe Kooijmans, 1971,
2001; Classon, 1983) have demonstrated
the presence of T-axes in this area. Pre-
vious discussions of antler artefacts from
Belgium have utilized Smith’s (1989)
‘mattock’ terminology, classifying T-axes
as ‘Ba1 type mattocks’ under Hurt’s
(1982) widely used typology. However,
the illustrations provided by Crombé et al.
(1999) clearly show the parallels between
Ba1 mattocks recovered from the Schelde
River system and the T-axe forms recog-
nized elsewhere. They also provide direct
AMS dates from a number of specimens.
When this material is considered together,
it extends the distribution of T-axes
plotted by Zvelebil (1994) further along
the North Sea Basin around the Low
Countries and onto both the west and east
coasts of Scotland (Figure 11).
The recovery of T-axes from early
agrarian contexts within southern Scandi-
navia and northern Europe has triggered
debate as to their role within exchange
networks between foraging and farming
groups present in this region of Europe
during the fifth millennium cal BC.
Despite the historical association between
T-axes and the Ertebølle fisher-hunter-
gatherer groups, many authors have com-
mented on the fact that the datable
specimens in northern Germany predate
236
Figure 11. Zvelebil’s (1994) plotted distribution of antler T-axes across Europe, and the newly
defined area of T-axe distribution.
the occurrence of T-axes in Denmark, and
as such may represent the adoption of a
‘Neolithic’ piece of material culture in the
Ertebølle areas of Jutland and Funnen.
Within these contexts, T-axes are
restricted exclusively to the Ceramic
Ertebølle period, and although ubiquitous
across areas of western Denmark, actually
appear notably later than in other areas of
Europe (Andersen, 1994).
In the Low Countries, T-axes are said
to directly replace a similar unperforated
version of antler axe technology—the ‘ont-
shorser’ (Louwe Kooijmans, 2001;
Crombé, 2010). In Scotland, these finds
are restricted to coastal locations alongside
marine mammal-dominated faunal assem-
blages (Woodman, 1989), and seem to
have no immediate predecessor within the
local osseous technological repertoire. In
Denmark, the occurrence of T-axes in
both inland and coastal contexts has been
interpreted as evidence for their role in
carpentry tasks, and taken as indirect evi-
dence for the importance of carpentry
throughout the Ertebølle settlement
system (Andersen, 1994, 2002) where they
appear alongside a broad and varied suite
of antler axes and adzes (Blankholm,
2008). It has also been argued that, in
Poland, T-axes took on an important
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
symbolic value—being manufactured at
Neolithic sites and being placed within
Neolithic burials (Bogucki, 2008). In the
Netherlands, the occurrence of perforated
T-axes at Hardinxveld-Giessendam De
Bruin demonstrates the in situ adoption of
this technology by hunter-gatherer groups.
The occurrence of both radiocarbon-dated
and undated specimens within a multi-
period collection of osseous finds from
Spoolde indicates that T-axes were pro-
duced during the late Mesolithic, and may
have persisted within this area throughout
the Neolithic and Bronze Age (Classon,
1983).
Whilst the persistence of the T-axe
within Early Neolithic farming commu-
nities varies across the continent, the dates
for the initial appearance of these artefacts
are remarkably consistent at sites around
the North Sea Basin. Through the appli-
cation of AMS dating to finds dredged
from the river Schelde, Crombé (2010)
has established that the earliest T-axes
appear in France and Belgium at the
beginning of the fifth millennium cal BC.
At the Dutch site of Hardinxveld-
Giessendam De Bruin, perforated antler
T-axes have been recovered from the third
phase of the site’s occupation, dated to
4700–4450 cal BC (Louwe Kooijmans,
Elliott – Facing the Chop
2001). T-axe finds from northwest
Germany have produced direct dates from
the early fifth millennium cal BC (Hartz,
2004; Kaute et al., 2004; Stapel et al.,
2012). The dating of two of the three con-
firmed antler T-axes in Scotland also
appears to fall within the earlier end of the
T-axe chronological range in this particu-
lar region of northwest Europe. Whilst
the occupation dates for Priory Midden
indicate that this specimen dates to the
mid-fifth millennium cal BC at the very
earliest, the direct AMS dates from the
Risga and Mieklewood specimens fall into
the late sixth/early fifth millennium cal BC
(although the broad error ranges for these
dates make a more definite ascription dif-
ficult). These earliest T-axe dates from
around the North Sea Basin are presented
in Figure 12 and Table 3, alongside some
selected later dates from Danish and Scot-
tish sites which illustrate the chronologies
discussed above.
From the data presented in Table 3 and
Figure 13, it can be seen that T-axes first
appear around the North Sea Basin during
the late sixth and early fifth millennia cal
BC, with no secure dates in this region pre-
dating 5250 cal BC and a widespread
distribution of T-axes across Holland,
Belgium, northwest Germany, and the
east and west Scottish coasts by c. 4500 cal
BC. Given the levels of overlap in the cali-
brated ranges of these dates, it is also
possible that this spread of technology
occurred over a much shorter period of
time. This distribution of T-axes also
encompasses sites on the Baltic coast
(Figure 13), suggesting a similar spread of
T-axe technology in contexts beyond the
North Sea Basin. Although beyond the
scope of this current discussion, it may be
interesting to consider in future the ways
in which T-axe technology first appeared
in different areas of Europe, and the
relationships between the spread of the
same technology within different regions.
237
The diverse range of social behaviours
associated with T-axes across Europe, and
the lack of an associated pattern of
material culture would suggest that this
spread of T-axes does not correspond to
the dispersal of a defined ‘cultural group’
across the North Sea Basin. Instead, the
adoption of T-axe technology appears to
have been carried out in a range of
regionally-specific social contexts, and the
use of the artefacts appears to vary accord-
ingly. However, in order for such a
uniform shift in technological practice to
spread around this area, some form of
communication network must have been
in place to connect these otherwise
geographically dispersed Mesolithic com-
munities, and allow the spread of a
common technological ideal. The existence
of sophisticated maritime networks in
more localized regions of the North Sea
Basin has long been documented within
the archaeological literature (Mellars,
1987; Wickham-Jones, 1990; Finlayson,
1995; Mithen, 2000; Rankama, 2003;
Schulting et al., 2004; Warren, 2005;
Hardy & Wickham-Jones, 2009; Garrow
& Sturt, 2011), yet larger-scale discussions
of the links between these networks during
the Mesolithic have seldom been explored.
The movement of ideas and technologies
on the scale proposed here has tended to
be restricted to discussions of the spread of
agricultural practices across Europe—
either in the case of the initial spread of
the ‘Neolithic package’ of material culture,
or through the responses of hunter-
gatherers to the arrival of agriculturalists in
the form of trade and exchange networks
with early farming groups. As such, the
clustering of early antler T-axe dates
around the late sixth and early fifth millen-
nia cal BC offers a rare opportunity to
examine larger scale networks of com-
munication and exchange within
hunter-gatherer groups in northwestern
Europe, prior to the arrival of agriculture.
238 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015

Figure 12. Plotted 95.4 per cent and 68.2 per cent certainty calibration ranges of radiocarbon dates
from sites around the North Sea Basin region that have produced antler T-axes. Italic text indicates
indirect dates from the contexts from which T-axes have been recovered. Shaded bars represent chrono-
logical ranges of occupation from which T-axes have been recovered, either through modeled dates or the
earliest and lowest ranges of multiple dates.

The revised distribution of T-axes adopt a specific type of technology for

around the North Sea Basin still features a
conspicuous absence of T-axe forms along
the eastern coast of England, despite the
contemporary occurrence of antler beam
axes in this area noted earlier. Does this
indicate the limits of the North Sea
network, and suggest that areas of
southern Britain were relatively isolated
from the circulation of ideas and practices
around the North Sea Basin during the
Late Mesolithic? Or could this absence be
interpreted as an active decision not to
other reasons? The reclassification of
Mesolithic antler mattocks in Britain helps
to frame some of these questions, but
much further investigation is required to
critically engage with them.
There are also some obvious limitations
that prevent a more refined chronology
from being developed at the present
time. The unstratified nature of many
of the dated finds and subtle variations in
the dating techniques employed produce
a series of wide and overlapping error
Elliott – Facing the Chop 239

Table 3. Radiocarbon dates for the earliest occurrences of antler T-axes at sites around the North Sea
basin
14
Location Region Lab no. C date Calibrated Reference
(uncalibrated) range BC
(95.4%)

Hardinxveld-Giesendam Netherlands N/A Multiple 4700–4450 Louwe

De Bruin Kooijmans
(2001)
Spoolde Netherlands GrN-8800 6050 ± 30 5033–4848 Classon (1983)
Schelde A Belgium UtC-8237 6110 ± 40 5208–4942 Crombé (2010)
Schelde B Belgium UtC-8224 6010 ± 40 5000–4796 Crombé (2010)
Schelde C Belgium UtC-8243 5930 ± 45 4932–4714 Crombé (2010)
Schelde D Belgium UtC-8472 5850 ± 60 4844–4547 Crombé (2010)
Schelde E Belgium UtC-8233 5690 ± 45 4684–4406 Crombé (2010)
Schelde F Belgium UtC-8473 5620 ± 70 4651–4336 Crombé (2010)
Schelde G Belgium UtC-8235 5615 ± 35 4517–4360 Crombé (2010)
Stralsund North KIA-20436 6010 ± 35 4996–4802 Kaute et al.
Germany (2004)
Grube-Rosenhof North KIA-15032 5698 ± 35 4667–4456 Hartz (2004)
Germany
Greven North MAMS-11799 6005 ± 30 4989–4803 Stapel et al.
Germany (2012 )
Ertebølle Midden Denmark K-4306 5600 ± 95 4684–4267 Andersen and
(Ceramic) Johansen (1986)
Ringkloster Denmark N/A Multiple 4600–3950 Rasmussen
(1994)
Mieklewood East OxA-1159 5920 ± 80 5001–4590 Tolan-Smith
Scotland and Bonsall
(1999)
Risga West OxA-2013 6000 ± 90 5207–4705 Tolan-Smith
Scotland and Bonsall
(1999)
Priory Midden Inner N/A Multiple 4600–3740 Wicks et al.
Hebrides (2014)

margins. The current small sample of CONCLUSIONS

dates also makes it impossible to develop
more nuanced chronologies for the precise
mechanics of the spread of T-axe tech-
nology around the North Sea Basin, or
within specific areas. These areas could
be more effectively addressed through
further AMS dating of T-axe finds
from across Europe, the re-dating of
specimens that have so far produced
poorly resolved calibrated ranges, and
the development of Bayesian dating
models for the minority of specimens
that have been recovered from stratified
contexts.
From the data and discussion presented
above, a number of clear conclusions can
be drawn. Firstly, that the antler artefacts
previously defined as ‘mattocks’ from
Britain can be reclassified as red deer
antler axes, red deer antler adzes, and elk
antler mattocks. This is based upon the
ongoing uncertainty regarding their func-
tional use, the orientation of perforations
in relation to working edges, and the rein-
terpretation of Smith’s (1989) ‘chatter
marks’ as manufacturing traces. The dis-
tinction between axes and adzes is, in line
240
with the distinction applied within lithic
technologies, based on the orientation of
the artefacts’ working edge to that of the
perforation and attached haft. Further to
this, the red deer antler axes can be subdi-
vided based on the location of the
perforation, with a small but distinctive
group of T-axes being identified as occur-
ring within Scottish contexts. Red deer
antler axes and adzes can be considered
alongside the previously identified elk
antler mattocks to form an important
component of the osseous technological
repertoire of the British Mesolithic.
This redefinition of antler technology
sets up a series of new and stimulating
questions for further research. Terminolo-
gical consistency across multiple material
types places the relationship between lithic
and osseous technologies within the
British Mesolithic into sharp focus.
Further consideration of the spatial and
temporal distribution of antler axes and
adzes in relation to lithic counterparts is a
clear avenue for further consideration
(Saville, 2001), alongside comparisons in
the way raw materials for these linked
technologies were sourced, and artefacts
manufactured, utilized, and deposited.
The analysis of faunal remains, traceologi-
cal, usewear, and residue analyses, and
more detailed explorations of the archaeo-
logical contexts from which these artefacts
have been recovered will, in time, facilitate
a deeper understanding of this material
and begin to draw out the relationship
between the technical uses of stone and
antler throughout the British Mesolithic.
This redefinition also allows for cross-
comparisons of British and European
material to take place, and the potential for
this has been directly demonstrated
through the case of the antler T-axes in
this paper. The radiocarbon dates presented
here suggest the relatively rapid dispersal of
T-axe technology across the North Sea
Basin during the early fifth millennium cal
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
BC. This can be interpreted as evidence of a
large network of contact and communi-
cation, linking hunter-gatherer groups
around this area of northwest Europe and
allowing the dispersal of specific ideas and
technologies across land and seascapes,
prior to the arrival of agricultural practices.
This pattern requires further investigation
if it is to be fully confirmed, and high-
resolution dating of key sites and artefacts
is necessary in order to move this particular
discussion forward. Again, a more detailed
consideration of the chaîne opératoire of
T-axes in different regions of Europe,
through the application of traceology,
residue and usewear analysis, would also
greatly enhance our understanding of the
ways in which large scale technological
changes might play out within localized
social contexts. The data presented here
therefore raises important questions regard-
ing trade, exchange, the movement of
individuals, and the adoption of other
forms of material culture and social prac-
tices around the North Sea Basin, and
across larger maritime networks more gen-
erally within the Mesolithic of Europe.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Access to the artefacts studied was kindly
provided by Jon Cotton (Museum of
London), Alan Saville (National Museum
of Scotland), Nick Barton (British
Museum), Jane Flint (Glasgow Museums
Research Centre), and Elizabeth Walker
(National Museum of Wales). Comments
and advice were gratefully received from
Harry Robson, Carina Brühl, Harald
Lübke, and Aimée Little.
REFERENCES
Andersen, S. 1994. Ringkloster: Ertebolle
Trappers and Wild Boar Hunters in
Elliott – Facing the Chop
Eastern Jutland. A Survey. Journal of
Danish Archaeology, 12:13–60.
Andersen, S. 2002. The Transition from the
Early to the Late Stone Age. In:
A. Fischer & K. Kristiansen eds. The
Neolithisation of Denmark: 150 Years of
Debate. Sheffield: JR Collis Publications,
pp. 219–31.
Andersen, S. & Johansen, E. 1986. Ertebølle
Revisited. Journal of Danish Archaeology,
5:31–61.
Bell, M. 2007. Prehistoric Coastal
Communities: The Mesolithic in Western
Britain. CBA Research Report 149. York:
Council for British Archaeology.
Bishop, A. 1914. An Oransay Shell-Mound—
A Scottish Pre-Neolithic Site. Proceedings
of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,
48:52–108.
Blankholm, H. 2008. Southern Scandinavia.
In: G. Bailey & P. Spikins, eds. Mesolithic
Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 107–31.
Bogucki, P. 2008. The Danubian-Baltic
Borderland: Northern Poland in the Fifth
Millenium BC. In: A. Van Gijn, B. Coles,
H. Fokkens & J. Kleijn, eds. Between
Foraging and Farming: An Extended Broad
Spectrum of Papers Presented to Leendert
Louwe Kooimans. Analecta Praehistorica
Leidensia 40. Leiden: Faculty of
Archaeology, Leiden University, pp. 51–
66.
Bonsall, C. & Smith, C. 1989. Late
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Bone and
Antler Artifacts from Britain: First
Reactions to Accelerator Dates. Mesolithic
Miscellany, 10:33–38.
Bonsall, C. & Smith, C. 1992. New AMS
C14 Dates for Antler and Bone Artifacts
from Great Britain. Mesolithic Miscellany,
13:28–34.
Bonsall, C., Tolan-Smith, C. & Saville, A.
1995. Direct Dating of Mesolithic Antler
and Bone Artifacts from Great Britain:
New Results for Bevelled Tools and Red
Deer Antler Mattocks. Mesolithic
Miscellany, 16:2–10.
Burkitt, M. 1926. Our Early Ancestors: An
Introductory Story of Mesolithic, Neolithic
and Copper Age Cultures in Europe and
Adjacent Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Clark, G. 1954. Excavations at Star Carr: An
Early Mesolithic Site at Seamer near
241
Scarborough, Yorkshire. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Clark, G. 1969. The Mesolithic Settlement of
Northern Europe: A Study of the
Food-Gathering Peoples of Northern Europe
during the Early Post-Glacial Period.
New York: Greenwood Press.
Clark, G. & Piggott, S. 1965. Prehistoric
Societies. London: Hutchinson and Co.
Ltd.
Classon, A. 1983. Spoolde: Worked and
Unworked Antlers and Bone from Spoolde,
De Gaste, The Ijsselmeerpolders and
Adjacent Areas. Palaeohistoria, 25:77–128.
Crombé, P. 2010. Contact and Interaction
Between Early Farmers and Late
Hunter-Gatherer in Belgium During the
6th and 5th Millenium Cal BC. In:
D. Groneborn & J. Petrasch, eds. The
Spread of the Neolithic in Central Europe:
International Symposium, Mainz, June
2005. Frankfurt: Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum, pp. 551–68.
Crombé, P., Van Strydonck, M. & Hendrix,
V. 1999. AMS-Dating of Antler
Mattocks from Schelde River in Northern
Belgium. Notae Praehistoricae, 19:111–19.
David, E. 1999. L’industrie en matières dures
animals du Mésolithique ancient et moyen
en Europe du Nord. Contribution de
l’analyse technologique à la definition du
Maglemosien. Unpublished PhD thesis,
Université Nanterre-Paris X.
Elliott, B. 2013. Antlerworking Practices in
Mesolithic Britain. Unpublished PhD
thesis, University of York.
Finlayson, B. 1995. Complexity in the
Mesolithic of the Western Scottish
Seaboard. In: A. Fischer, ed. Man and Sea
in the Mesolithic. Coastal Settlement above
and below the Present Sea Level. Oxford:
Oxbow, pp. 261–64.
Garrow, D. & Sturt, F. 2011. Grey Waters
Bright with Neolithic Argonauts?
Maritime Connections and the
Mesolithic–Neolithic Transition within
the ‘Western Seaways’ of Britain, c.
5000-3500 BC. Antiquity, 85:59–72.
Hardy, K. & Wickham-Jones, C. 2009.
Mesolithic and Later Sites around the
Inner Sound, Scotland: The Work of the
Scotland’s First Settlers Project 1998–
2004. Scottish Archaeological Internet
Reports 31. York: Society of Antiquaries
of Scotland.
242
Hartz, S. 2004. Aktuelle Forschung zur
Chronologie und Siedlungsweise der
Ertebölle- und frühen Trichterbecherkultur
in Schleswig-Holstein. Vol. 52. In:
H. Lübke, F. Lüth & T. Terberger, eds.
Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern. Jahrbuch 2004. Schwerin:
Mecklenburg Vorpommern, pp. 61–81.
Hurt, V. 1982. Les haches en bois de cerf en
Belgique. Amphora, 29:14–24.
Jensen, G. 1991. Unusable Axes? An
Experiment with Antler Axes of the
Kongemose and Ertebølle Cultures. In:
B. Madsen, ed. Eksperimentel Arkæologi:
Studier i teknologi og kultur. Lejre:
Historisk-Arkæologisk Forsøgscenter, pp.
9–21.
Kaute, P., Lübke, H. & Schindler, G. 2004.
Der endmesolithisch/frühneolithische
Fundplatz Stralsund-Mischwasserspeicher
- Zeugnisse früher Bootsbautechnologie
an der Ostseeküste Mecklenburg-
Vorpommerns. Vol. 52. In: H. Lübke,
F. Lüth & T. Terberger, eds.
Bodendenkmalpflege in Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern. Jahrbuch 2004. Schwerin:
Mecklenburg Vorpommern, pp. 221–41.
Lawrence, G. 1929. Antiquities from the
Middle Thames. Archaeological Journal,
86:69–98.
Louwe Kooijmans, L. 1971. Mesolithic Bone
and Antler Artefacts from the North Sea
and the Netherlands. Bertichten van de
Rijksdienst voor bet Oudheidkundig, 20:27–
73.
Louwe Kooijmans, L. ed. 2001. Archeologie
in de Betuweroute Hardinxveld-
Giessendam De Bruin Een kampplaats uit
het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin van
de Swifterbant-cultuur (5500-4450
v. Chr.). Rapportage Archeologische
Monumentenzorg 88. Amersfoort:
Betuweroute.
Mellars, P. 1987. Excavations on Oronsay:
Prehistoric Human Ecology on a Small
Island. Vol. 1. Cambridge: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research.
Middleton, R. & Edwards, B. 1993. An
Antler Mattock from Longton,
Lancashire. In: R. Middleton, ed. North
West Wetlands Survey Annual Report 1993.
Lancaster: Lancaster Univeristy
Archaeological Unit, pp. 49–63.
Mithen, S. ed. 2000. Hunter-Gatherer
Landscape Archaeology: The Southern
European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015
Hebrides Mesolithic Project, 1988–98.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Rankama, T. 2003. The Colonisation of
Northernmost Finnish Lapland and the
Inland Areas of Finmark. In: L. Larsson,
H. Kindgern, K. Knuttson, D. Loeffler &
A. Akerlund, eds. Mesolithic on the Move:
Papers Presented at the Sixth International
Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe,
Stockholm 2000. Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 30–
37.
Rasmussen, K. 1994. Radiocarbon Datings at
Ringkloster. Journal of Danish Archaeology,
12:61–64.
Saville, A. 2001. A Mesolithic Barbed Antler
Point from the Foreshore of the Forth
Esturary, Near Carriden, Falkirk. Calatria,
15:70–80.
Saville, A. ed. 2004a. Mesolithic Scotland and
its Neighbours: The Early Holocene
Prehistory of Scotland, its British and Irish
Context, and Some Northern European
Perspectives. Edinburgh: Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland.
Saville, A. 2004b. The Material Culture of
Mesolithic Scotland. In: A. Saville, ed.
Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours: The
Early Holocene Prehistory of Scotland, its
British and Irish Context, and Some
Northern European Perspectives.
Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland, pp. 185–221.
Schulting, R., Tresset, A. & Dupont, C. 2004.
From Harvesting the Sea to Stock
Rearing along the Atlantic Façade of
North-West Europe. Environmental
Archaeology, 9:143–54.
Smith, C. 1989. British Antler Mattocks. In:
C. Bonsall, ed. The Mesolithic in Europe:
Papers Presented at the Third International
Symposium, Edinburgh 1985. Edinburgh:
J Donald, pp. 272–83.
Stapel, B., Scheild, N., Rosendahl, W.,
Pollmann, H. & Baales, M. 2012. Neu
datierte mesolithische Fundplätze und
organische Artefakte aus Westfalen
Mesolithikum. Archäologie in Westfalen,
12:27–30.
Tolan-Smith, C. & Bonsall, C. 1999. Stone
Age Studies in the British Isles: The
Impact of Accelerator Dating. Mémoires de
la Société préhistorique française, 26:249–57.
Turner, W. 1889. On Some Implements of
Stag’s Horn Associated with Whale
Elliott – Facing the Chop 243

Skeletons Found in the Carse of Stirling.
Report on the Meetings of the British
Association, 59:789–91.
Warren, G. 2005. Technology. In:
C. Conneller & G. Warren, eds.
Mesolithic Britain and Ireland. Stroud:
Tempus, pp 13–33.
Wickham-Jones, C. 1990. Rhum: Mesolithic
and Later Sites at Kinloch Excavations
1984–86. Edinburgh: Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland.
Wicks, K., Pirie, A. & Mithen, S.J. 2014.
Settlement Patterns in the Late Mesolithic
of Western Scotland: The Implications
of Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon
Dates and Inter-Site Technological
Comparisons. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 41:406–22.
Woodman, P. 1989. A Review of the Scottish
Mesolithic: A Plea for Normality!
Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland, 119:1–32.
Wymer, J. & Bonsall, C. eds. 1977. Gazetteer
of Mesolithic Sites in England and Wales;
With a Gazetteer of Upper Palaeolithic Sites
in England and Wales. Council for Brittish
Archaeology Research Report 20. London:
Council for British Archaeology.
Zvelebil, M. 1994. Plant Use in the
Mesolithic and its Role in the Transition
to Farming. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society, 60:35–74.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Benjamin Elliott completed a PhD titled
‘Antlerworking Practices in Mesolithic
Britain’ in 2012, and is currently an Hon-
orary Research Associate at the University
of York, and a Teaching Fellow at the
University of Leicester.
Address: Department of Archaeology, Uni-
versity of York, Kings Manor, Exhibition
Square, York, North Yorkshire, YO1
7EP, UK [email: ben.elliott@york.ac.uk]

La pioche au couperet: redéfinition des pioches en andouiller de Grande-Bretagne

afin d’examiner des réseaux maritimes de plus grande envergure au début du 5e
millénaire cal av. J.-C.

Nous présentons ici une revue critique de la discussion typologique de Smith (1989) sur les ‘pioches’ en
andouiller du Mésolithique britannique. Les critères qui avaient mené au terme ‘pioche’ sont réévalués
en tenant compte d’une nouvelle analyse technologique des outils en andouiller de Grande-Bretagne. En
vertu des données présentées ici et des développements dans l’étude des technologies en matières osseuses
mésolithiques dans d’autres parties d’Europe du nord-ouest, nous proposons une redéfinition de la termi-
nologie et de la typologie utilisée dans l’étude de ces artefacts. Cette rédéfinition a un potentiel à
façonner la recherche à travers l’Europe mésolithique qui est illustré par un débat sur la première appa-
rition de haches en T en andouiller autour du bassin de la Mer du Nord. Translation by Isabelle
Gerges.

Mots-clés: Mésolithique, andouiller, hache en T, pioche, bassin de la Mer du Nord, 5e millénaire

av. J.-C.
244 European Journal of Archaeology 18 (2) 2015

‚Facing the Chop‘: Eine Neubewertung britischer Geweihhacken für die

Herausarbeitung großräumiger maritimer Netzwerke im frühen 5. Jt. v. Chr.

Dieser Beitrag betrachtet die typologische Diskussion von Geweih-’Hacken’ des britischen Mesolithikums
durch Smith (1989) kritisch. Die Gesichtspunkte für die Verwendung des Begriffes ‚Hacke‘ werden im
Licht einer neuen technologischen Analyse von Geweihgeräten aus Großbritannien bewertet. Vor dem
Hintergrund der hier vorgestellten Daten und von Entwicklungen in der Forschung zu mesolithischen
Knochentechnologien in anderen Regionen Nordwesteuropas, wird eine Neubewertung der Terminologie
und Typologie, die zur Untersuchung dieser Artefakte Anwendung finden, präsentiert. Das Potential,
durch diese Neubewertung die Forschungsansätze zum mesolithischen Europa zu schärfen, wird an
einer Diskussion zum frühesten Auftreten der Geweih-T-Äxte im Umfeld des Nordseebeckens demon-
striert. Translation by Heiner Schwarzberg.

Stichworte: Mesolithikum, Geweih, T-Axt, Hacke, Nordseebecken, 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr.