Mystery British Object ?

[Sunny]

A question for those familiar with British handaxes and Neolithic artefacts.

The handaxe (?) below was found the in the UK and posted on social media requesting information on age. The type appears to be indicative of an Upper Palaeolithic handaxe, based on size and shape.
However, one person has commented that the object appears to be a reused handaxe, probably late Neolithic; to create a Neolithic Ovate. Further, the opinion is that the flake scars on the reverse face (non-white patination) are indicative of hard percussion removal from the original handaxe.
Part of the evidence for that claim is the difference in colour on the two faces.
I am not entirely convinced by these arguments, but it is worth breaking down and learning from.
The dual patination is not compelling. I have seen objects with two such colours, which reflect exposure to different local geology and even surface exposure regimes. Sedimentation can also effect oxidation colours. So The difference in colour may be due to later rework of the original handaxe, or be simply a natural process ?
The rough flaking on the non-white side is not refined pressure flaking, which would have been a technique known and extensively practiced in the Neolithic. The flaking technique used on this side of the object is crude and could be consistent with any period.
The shape. Is it an ovate Neolithic scraper or a Mousterian handaxe. Without a profile picture it is a little bit unsure. The size and shape are consistent with both; although the similarity with the collection of French Mousterian handaxes I have is entirely consistent. Such objects are exceptionally rare in the UK and my only one is quite different (as posted recently on here).
The photos are both taken in entirely different lighting conditions, so the colours may vary if taken in the same lighting conditions and some close-ups would be helpful; along with a profile shot.
Any thoughts, opinions and evidence appreciated

[painshill]

Differential patination on opposing surfaces of bifacial flint artefacts (even as extreme as you are showing there) is a well-established phenomenon when the artefact has been in a horizontal orientation for long periods. The effect can often be seen in artefacts of the same age and made from the same lithic found within a few yards of each other because the conditions that dictate the patination can be highly localised.

The effects are usually driven by chemical alteration via groundwater, but these alterations are not only progressive when the artefact is undisturbed “in-situ”… they can also influence the structure of the surfaces in a way that determines what type of patination will subsequently develop when the artefact is disturbed and exposed to other environmental factors. Things like availability of water, minerals, oxygen and exposure to sunlight or temperature fluctuations may then play a part in determining the patination type.

Annelou Van Gijn provides an excellent summary together with some personal observations in “The Wear and Tear of Flint” (Leiden University Press, 1989). Leiden University has kindly made Chapter 4: “Post-Depositional Surface Modifications” available on-line as open-access, so I reproduce the relevant sections below (without the pictures, which are photomicrographs and generally unhelpful to any comparisons here):

>>>4.2.2 Chemical Alterations
4.2.2.1 White or bluish patina

White patina has been described by a number of people (a.o. Schmalz 1960; Stapert 1976). The term refers to a thin layer of whitish colouration covering (part of) the tool. Schmalz (1960) describes the surface of white patinated flint as being 'sugary', highly porous, and reflecting light to all directions. As to its origin, most authors agree that alkaline environments induce white patina; Rottlander (1975a) mentions a pH of 10.0 or higher. Both Schmalz (1960) and Plisson (1985a) have experimented with various alkaline Solutions and were able to reproduce white or bluish patina in a relatively short time. Characteristic for patinated flint is a slight weight loss. This is often attributed to a dehydration of water present in the pores between the quartz crystals, but it appears that the latter also dissolve themselves (Schmalz 1960).

A film of patination with a 'sugary' surface has also been observed on many of the flints from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Belvédère, the Netherlands (Van Gijn 1989). One phenomenon, observed at site K, must be mentioned here. From site K a large number of flakes was retrieved, all displaying a dark-grey colour similar to fresh Rijckholt flint. However, after some time (varying between two days and a few months) the implements attained the creamy, light-yellow colour (white patina) characteristic for much of the previously excavated Belvédère material. A microscope was set up adjacent to the excavation trench to enable the examination of the 'fresh' flints as soon as they were recovered. For the first two minutes the flint surface of the site K implements indeed looked in mint condition under the microscope, with no sign of the 'sugary' surface (fig. 34a); however, the dissolution of the surface occurred after a short while (2-3 minutes), but this could not be observed with the naked eye, as the creamy colour did not appear till later. Apparently, even though the flint seemed to be fresh, the soil-matrix evidently had already altered the structure of the stone in such a way that exposure to light, or desiccation, caused a catalyzation leading to the dissolution of the surface (fig. 34b). This suggests that water plays a crucial role, something which has been argued before (Andersen/Whitlow 1983). The process of dissolution is not reversible, but can be stopped by immediately putting the implements in water and storing them in a dark place (Van Gijn 1989: 127). The fact that the process is irreversible would indicate that it is not free water present in the pores that disappears, but water-groups bound into the chemical structure of the flint. Roltlander stresses that:

'light gives the energy to split off water even from a chemical bondage' (Rottlander 1975b: 56).

Hopefully, it will be possible to extend the research into the patination process on the Belvédère material during future excavations.

While patina also seems to develop on flint which is exposed to the sun for extended periods of time, especially in hot climates with large daily temperature amplitudes. During a survey of flint knapping sites on Long Island, Antigua (West-Indies), it was noted that the side of the flint facing upwards frequently displayed white patination, while the opposite aspect was still fresh (Verpoorte/ Van Gijn in prep.). It seems unlikely that an alkaline matrix would have been responsible for the patination process, because the stone-surface lying in the soil was still fresh. Texier (1981) notes that at Khor a Qatar (Tunesia) all small debitage has disappeared from the surface of the site, while larger artefacts have been heavily patinated; under the surface of the ground the implements are however still fresh. He attributes this to the alternating phases of desiccation during the hot days and the formation of dew on the pieces in the early mornings. The dew could initiate the dissolution of the quartz crystals under certain conditions (Texier 1981: 167), eventually leading to the total disintegration of the smaller artefacts.

To conclude, it would appear that white patination can occur under different circumstances. First of all, it develops in alkaline environments, secondly, it seems that desiccation and exposure to the elements (a combined effect of sun, dew and temperature differences) can play a role.

4.2.2.2 Colour patina

Colour patinas are generally explained as being a deposit of various minerals present in the groundwater. Already patinated surfaces are more prone to this, due to their increased porosity (Schmalz 1960: 49). An alternative hypothesis is provided by Rottlander (1975a: 109), who suggests that it can also be the result of iron, already present in the flint, oxydizing at the surface. Yet another suggestion is that peat can cause a black or yellowish-brown colour patina. Although most artefacts with colour patina display a waxy texture, some remain dull despite the change in colour. It is perhaps this last phenomenon which is referred to as 'staining' in the archaeological literature (Frame 1986: 354; Dumont 1988: 34).

4.2.2.3 Gloss patina and other sheens

Rottlander has done extensive research into the somewhat elusive phenomenon of gloss patina. It concerns a more or less uniform sheen over the surface of the flint; some variability may be present on one and the same artefact. When examined with a scanning-electron microscope the surface appears smoothed (Rottlander 1975b: fig. 6). Rottlander argues that under the influence of plant juices, the protrusions of the flint are dissolved into a silicious gel, which then flows to the lower-lying parts of the surface, resulting in a smoothed, polished surface. The formation of gloss patina occurs especially in acidic environments such as peat layers, with pH 4 or less (Rottlander 1975a, 1975b). Because gloss patina does not develop uniformly over the tool, depending as it does on very localized groundwater circulation, the phenomenon can be quite confusing for the use-wear analyst.

For example, one transverse arrow head from the Bronze Age site of Oldeboorn (Friesland) was initially interpreted as displaying meat-, and wood-/soft plant-polish. However, upon analysis with the SEM, the surface turned out to be smoothed and polished, and quite unlike the original flint surface (fig. 35) (Van Gijn 1983: 65).

In reports on high-power use-wear analysis one frequently encounters the term 'soil-sheen'. Unfortunately, this term has rarely been defined. I would suppose that at least part of the observed post-depositional surface modifications subsumed under the category 'soil-sheen' actually concerns instances of gloss patina. Stapert (1976: 14) discusses yet another, possibly related, natural modification, i.e. the rounding of ridges and edges. He considers this rounding to be due to solution, caused by the tools having lain in the soil for a long period. According to Stapert it is seldom seen on Mesolithic or younger flints. However, high-power analyses indicate that at least some solution of edges and ridges also occurs on assemblages from more recent times than the Palacolithic.

A last observation pertaining to 'miscellaneous sheens', whether they be referred to as soil sheen, solution phenomena or weakly developed gloss patina, concerns the flint assemblage from Belvédère site J, which is currently under study. This assemblage, dated to the Weichselian, displays virtually no white patination nor rounding of edges or ridges. Invariably, however, one side of the artefacts exhibits a sheen which is visible with the naked eye. Presumably, the shiny aspect is the one which has been facing upwards and has been exposed for an extended period of time. The influence of light alone does not seem to have been responsible, as this is reported to cause a 'dull gray patination' (Rottlander 1975b: 56). No scratches were visible microscopically, suggesting that abrasion was not the causative factor. However, it is suggested that the sheen is due to the polishing by extremely fine loess-particles being blown by the wind; the very fine grain-size of these particles could have caused a uniform sheen, instead of abrasion scratches. This example shows again how complicated the question of 'soil sheen' is.<<<


Personally, I would be sceptical about reliable attribution of the item above (an isolated find?) based on overall shape and flaking pattern alone. I would be even more sceptical about attributing the differential patination to later re-purposing… particularly since it would represent exclusively unifacial re-chipping with no pressure flaking for re-sharpening. Bifacial re-chipping and re-sharpening creating differential patination within the flake scars of a single surface would be a different matter… particularly if it were exclusively around the edges.

What was said about the context of the find and what is the expertise level of the forum concerned (or at least of the commenter who thinks it’s been re-purposed)?

[Sunny]

Thanks Rog....I knew you would provide useful input.

The post was on a facebook forum (which I'm sure you would seriously enjoy; tons of UK finds on which opinions are sought). The find was by a metal detectorist in Bedfordshire; surface of a ploughed field.

The post - suggesting it was a late neolithic ovate - was by Jo Ahmet. I think it is this person:

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jo-ahmet-1b38a821

His stated profession is Archaeological Technician at Albion Archaeology.

He seems to speak with authority; right or wrong :0)

This was the chronology before I sought opinion on here:

ME:
Andrew the size is indicative of an Upper Palaeolithic handaxe. So that means from roughly 50,000 years ago, until the mesolithic. However, handaxes would have gone out of use with the demise of the neanderthals; as EMH people used flake and core tools. Not sure when the last recorded date for Neanderthals in the UK was (try google), but they were pretty much finished by 30,000 years ago (?). The most likely owner and maker of the handaxe was a Neanderthal...how exciting is that :0)

JO AHMET:
Pretty sure its a neolithic Ovate based on an older tool which may have been Neanerthal handaxe (the white patination suggests an old tool).

the flaking on the non white side looks to be post middle neolithic based as it looks to me to be based on hard hammer methodology. Small neolithic handaxe looking things are also know from the later Neolithic so seems possible


ME:
Not sure we can attribute the date to the patination per se. There have been some good examples on here recently of very white patinatinated flint on evidently neolithic objects and conversely palaeolithic finds with dark flint. Agreed, in most cases the oxidation of flint will change its colour, especially over very long periods. But regional and chemical differences in the flint and other local geology need to be understood; which is often where local knowledge of the flint helps. I have also seen objects that have different coloured faces (both flint and other rock artefacts), resulting from different exposure regimes. Jo may be right in thinking this is an earlier object reworked & reused. Not knowing the area of the find or the nature of the flint and the exposure criteria of this object then I think it is difficult to reach a conclusion based on the low resolution photos we are seeing (both taken in entirely different light & background conditions). It might help - in being sure about the object - if the find could be photographed again in all three views, to allow for a more detailed consideration. If the find area is abundant in fresh flint then why would the neolithic farmer reuse aged flint ? Another consideration for a neolithic artefact is why not use pressure flaking to improve the scraping edge ? There doesn't seem to be any refined flaking or retouch that is solely indicative of neolithic flake techniques....that I can see. I have a reasonable number of French Mousterian UP handaxes that are identical to the one pictured. Not all are uniform patination. Better pictures may help


So anything you can add Rog would be appreciated. Obviously some better pictures would be nice; under consistent lighting.
I also looked for similar items on the PAS database; to see if there had been a consensus on calling these shapes Neolithic Ovates. There are ovates on there, but I didn't see any that I would place alongside the one pictured and say they entirely matched. In any event, a PAS identification is not going to be definitive; I have seen some obvious mistakes on there.

I'm no expert on late Palaeolithic handaxes, but that is where my guess still lies.

[Sunny]

Here is one I have in my collection, which has two colours on one face and consistent patination on the reverse......others I have are consistent colour on opposing sides. I will try to post some more later.

[Sunny]

I should have added...the pictured object above (from my collection) is a Neolithic ovate :0)