Dartmoor 5
Image by GLADMAN
Dartmoor

Time Team Reservoir Rituals

Sanctuary S
Sanctuary Feb 7, 2011 16:01:12
Replying to mascot

mascot wrote:
Found this on-line - might help on dating flint - though I'd guess Phil's date was based on type/level of finish and not TL?

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~qtls/flint.htm

Thanks Mascot but I must admit to giving up the will to live reading it :D

So, as an example, someone finds a flint and claims it was a Neolithic cutting tool but a very basic one with no extra knapping being done on it. By chance I find the very lump of flint it came off so whack another bit off that also looks like a cutting tool. Put alongside the other one and they look more or less the same same. They are the same age of course as they came off the same lump, but would they both be claimed as a Neolithic cutting tools if mine was tossed on the ground alongside of it without anyone noticing? It seems to me that a lot is taken for granted in flint discovery sometimes!

M mascot
mascot Feb 7, 2011 16:21:41
Replying to Sanctuary

I'm not an expert here at all and your point is well made. From what I've seen/heard the following apply:

1) It's quite clear to see from a flint flake if it's been made by being "hit" - so you can usually tell human worked flint flakes from "bits of rock"
2) The level of working/quality and the shape can give some indication of age.
3) The more bits of flint you have the more reliable the date is likely to be.

Not that different from pottery - it always amazes me when someone on TT gets given a small fragment of what looks like rock/pot/whatever and says "ah form 35, that'll 35-70 AD" :-) I've been waiting to see what the recent breakthroughs in scientific dating has done to prove/amend dates from this type of pottery dating but haven't seen anything yet.

Mac

© 2026 Head Heritage.

Unless otherwise stated, the copyright in each work is the property of the respective contributor. For usage or questions, contact [email protected].