Making and Breaking Microliths: A Middle Mesolithic Site at Asfordby, Leicestershire

Abstract

Archaeological fieldwork preceding housing development revealed a Mesolithic site in a primary context. A central hearth was evident from a cluster of calcined flint and bone, the latter producing a modelled date for the start of occupation at 8220–7840 cal bc and ending at 7960–7530 cal bc (95% probability). The principal activity was the knapping of bladelets, the blanks for microlith production. Impact-damaged microliths indicated the re-tooling of hunting weaponry, while microwear analysis of other tools demonstrated hide working and butchery activity at the site. The lithics can be classified as a Honey Hill assemblage type on the basis of distinctive leaf-shaped microlithic points with inverse basal retouch. Such assemblages have a known concentration in central England and are thought to be temporally intermediate between the conventional British Early and Late Mesolithic periods. The lithic assemblage is compared to other Honey Hill type and related Horsham type assemblages from south-eastern England. Both assemblage types are termed Middle Mesolithic and may be seen as part of wider developments in the late Preboreal and Boreal periods of north-west Europe. Rapid climatic warming at this time saw the northward expansion of deciduous woodland into north-west Europe. Emerging new ecosystems presented changes in resource patterns and the Middle Mesolithic lithic typo-technological developments reflect novel foraging strategies as adaptations to the new opportunities of Boreal forest conditions. While Honey Hill-type assemblages are seen as part of such wider processes their distinctive typological signature attests to autochthonous, regional developments of human groups infilling the landscape. Such cultural insularity may reflect changing social boundaries with reduction in mobility range and physical isolation caused by rising sea level and the creation of the British archipelago.

Spatial organisation within the earliest evidence of post-built structures in Britain

“…The spatial distribution of hafted tools and those with microscopic linear impact traces (MLITs) is more convincingly interpreted as reflecting de-hafting or de-commissioning practices, rather than where they were last used [ 86 ]. These tools might be expected to cluster spatially if they were dehafted or retooled in a similar location, as observed at other Mesolithic sites [ 87 , 88 ]. For example, dehafting can occur around a hearth, as heat is used to soften adhesives and loosen flint inserts [ 57 , 86 , 87 ].…”

“…These tools might be expected to cluster spatially if they were dehafted or retooled in a similar location, as observed at other Mesolithic sites [ 87 , 88 ]. For example, dehafting can occur around a hearth, as heat is used to soften adhesives and loosen flint inserts [ 57 , 86 , 87 ]. Both microliths found in the central structure suggest use as hafted composite tools, either projectiles or as part of a tool like a knife.…”

Mesolithic projectile variability along the southern North Sea basin (NW Europe): Hunter-gatherer responses to repeated climate change at the beginning of the Holocene

“…Unfortunately, the meagre radiocarbon evidence for the Honey Hill AT does not allow to verify this hypothesis, although recent excavations at Asfordby in Leicestershire yielded a coherent series of very old dates starting from ca. 10,200/9850 cal BP [77]. These dates push the origin of the invasively retouched points in Britain roughly a millennium further in time compared to the continent.…”