1. The Story of the Axe

Certainly the axe coming from Chester Street has witnessed of many events throughout the centuries and millennia. We can only guess its past life starting in the Neolithic maybe as an implement used to tree felling or as a dangerous weapon or an object inheriting particular significance (ritual or sentimental value), and then continued its life underground. On the other hand, we now know a little more about the adventures that this axe witnessed after it was discovered.

The collection of objects is very common in our society, in fact in almost all habitations can be found curios gathered by chance or coincidence, which in that precise moment struck an unconscious reasoning to take such object with us. In this case the axe was picked up by a man who was working to build a street, later called Chester Street. Maybe the workman recognized that “the strange stone” was different from other stones from the mess and chaos of the excavation (unlikely he could know about the tool used in the Neolithic). We can never know what came to his mind in that moment, but surely something made him decide to keep the “stone” with him and bring it at home. Here it comes another episode in the life of the axe, if in the past this object was held in high esteem for its properties, once entered into the workman’s house, it ended up in the hands of his wife, who utilized the axe to prop her window open. So whatever may have been its function in the past, the axe from Chester Street assumed also the role of a window’s support.

How long the axe was used as a prop we do not know, however, if it was not for this reason, the axe probably would not have been preserved in a museum. In fact on the basis of the documentation the axe was sold to a Mr Roe. It may be assumed that Mr Roe recognized the object as an axe of considerable antiquity while walking around in Jericho and noticing the implement stuck in the window. Pursuing his interest in antiquities and maybe as a antique collector, he proposed to buy the object from the workman’s wife, who unlikely did not have the knowledge to identify the object for what it was in reality. While purchasing it, he was also able to acquire some useful contextual information about the discovery of the axe.

The axe adventures came to an end when it was recorded as recognisable Neolithic artefact in the Ashmolean collection. Left in the museum store room for more than a century gathering dust and unloved, it was then chosen as an object to study along with other artefacts to be part of the ‘Archaeological Illustration’ and ‘Object biographies’ workshops.

2. Basic Information

3. Following Crumbs of Data – A Summary

The Neolithic axe has been preserved as part of the collection at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford since 1893. The information was recorded in section data no. 177 in the Museum’s accessing register. The entry specifies that one Mr Roe, dealer in antiquities, St. Aldates, Oxford, purchased the object for two pounds in Cardigan Street, Jericho. The annotation provides clarification about the discovery of the artefact. According to the written entry, the axe was found by a workman about 4 feet (c. 1.30 metres) deep during an excavation to build the future Chester Street. Thanks to this information it may be possible to place the Neolithic axe in a more secure context.

Until now, note no. 177 is the most reliable information about the axe. The unknown aspect is the precise time when the Neolithic axe was found. In fact the 17th July 1893 is the first recorded date when the implement was described in the Ashmolean Museum but is not the date of the discovery, which must have happened earlier. Although the annotation indicates that the axe was found during the construction of Chester Street, it does not mention when this street was excavated and for how long the workman’s family may have kept this artefact in their property.

Regarding the date about the construction of the street it could be useful to refer to the Oxford City’s mapping done prior to, and later than, the year 1893. The map available before the year of the record is that of 1886 (Crown Copyright) and can be observed that Chester Street was not in the zone next to the Iffley area. In the later map of Oxford dated 1900 (Crown Copyright), Chester Street is featured.

Following the time span between the two maps, the building of Chester Street must have started after 1886. Therefore, the discovery of the axe might have occurred after 1886 but before 17th July 1893, this being the time of the object’s registration when it entered into the Ashmolean collection. The discovery of finds by accident occurred in a lot of cases especially from the 19th century, a period in which the growth of the city of Oxford began, and in most cases present problems for us, because of loss of details and the lack of adequate stratigraphical reports of the discoveries (Beckley and Radford, 2012). The absence of a specific report providing context for the find of the Neolithic axe in Chester Street is proof of this. To fill this lack of data, at least in part, all information procured have been elaborated to contextualize better the Chester Street axe.

After the acquisition of the axe by Mr Roe in 1893 the implement was preserved in the Ashmolean museum for more than a century. During this time it was used in publications of prehistory subject as evidence to testify Neolithic activity in Oxford. The Neolithic axe was well described at first in ‘Early man from Oxfordshire’ (Sandford and Leeds, 1939), highlighting it with other exotic items discovered in Oxfordshire and referred to the  Neolithic. Since then, it seems that the axe from Chester Street was often used in surveys of prehistoric interest to indicate the mobile presence of early individuals in the Thames Valley. Among these, can be cited the recent ‘Neolithic to the Bronze Age Resource assessment’ (Beckley and Radford, 2012), and the ‘Prehistoric Oxford’ (Lambrick, 2013) Both of the publications mention the axe from Chester Street in a clearer context and along with many other implements found in the Iffley area to indicate an evident distribution of flint finds which may testify to Neolithic activity in the east Oxford.

In specific reading ‘Neolithic to Bronze Age Resource assessment’ (Beckley and Radford, 2012), we now know that the axe from Chester Street is recorded in Oxfordshire HER as find spot no 3614, and in EH Past Escape database as MONUMENT NO. 338391.

4. The Manufacturing of the Axe

Measurements

To understand better the way in which early cultures produced useful objects for their needs, we attempt to display a basic description about the stages involved in the manufacturing of the axe found in Chester Street.

First of all, it is supposed that to obtain such an artefact was to use a nodule of flint quite big in size, which was shaped by flaking. According to Lord (1993) a good knapper would have started to work with a hammerstone, to enable him to gain some early favourable results. In fact large nodules of flint may be needed to be reduced it to a useful and manageable size, allowing the knapper to visualise where the tool’s edge lay. In the first phase, the outer cortex was removed with a hammerstone, producing a number of waste flakes. Then, it was flaked by direct percussion on the edge to obtain a roughly symmetrical form. After the primary work, the core tool was shaped using a bifacial technology by flaking all round its periphery, first from one direction and then from the reverse, possibly with a soft hammer percussor.

Observing the well-formed flaked axe, it is clear that particular attention was paid throughout to its length and thickness. In fact the shape of the implement was well considered in plan and finishing touches were probably achieved by a series of more delicate oblique strokes. The continuing flaking reduced the overall size of the implement but maintaining a central thickness, more protruding in the ventral side, where residual cortex is still intact on the implement. The knapper shaping the axe was unable to remove it, because such an action could provoke serious damage to the form of the axe and consequently compromise its function, whatever it will be.

The axe shows careful work on each side of the edge, where several negative flakes can be detected to make a good sharp form. Focusing on the distal end, a semicircular cutting edge can be observed, displaying at first the use of a hard hammer and then soft hammer retouch. In contrast to the distal end, the proximal end seems not show evidence of the same work. In fact, the dorsal surface does not illustrate the fine retouch, inversely the retouch is present on the ventral side. This preparatory flaking was aimed at shaping a core tool which would be immediately serviceable. Indeed, the axe is, for its nature, in an aesthetically pleasing form, without further need to enhance it by polishing or grinding.

The end result of this work was a flint flaked axe, in plan ellipsoid, wider at the cutting edge and decreasing at the butt end. The phases described are connected to the technology which usually date back to the Neolithic (4000 BC to 2200 BC).

The axe from Chester Street shows a colour from brown to green/grey. Observing the implement one can notice some distinctive characteristics. Of prominence is a small patch of residual cortex (L. 33 mm; W. 21mm; T. 3 mm), and showing a distinctive grey staining of what would have been creamy/white cortex. Together with the presence of cortex, the implement displays a typical random distribution of chert patches, some with a sharp boundary and some with indistinct form. Another characteristic observed on the artefact are white sediments adhering to hinge fracture terminals all around the implement, especially around the edges.

Parallels

The set of Neolithic stone and flint axes found in the River Thames, recorded in an illustrated corpus of the British Museum (Adkins and Jackson, 1978) gives an overview of varieties of types of axes regarding form, character and technology used. The axe from Chester Street can be related to Type N from the catalogue (Adkins and Jackson, 1978) and specifically the axe (Fig. 7) shows some elements in common with the example no. 212 from Putney Reach (Fig. 8).

Back to Contents

5. Topography and Geology

Close to the end of the 19th and the start of the 20th century, the small Iffley village began to be absorbed into the city of Oxford. The zone around Chester Street was a lowland, edge of gravel terrace close to the river area, and it was probably pasture and orchards. Chester Street is now a side street leading on the western part of Iffley Road (Google map view), drops in level from 63,2 m AOD at northeast end to 56 m AOD at the southwest end, over a distance of 200 metres.

Unfortunately no sedimentary context exists linked with the implement discovered, so the geology mapping (BGS view) may be of assistance in locating the axe in a more precise location within Chester Street. As the building of the street started approximately around 1893, the excavations exposed Oxford Clay1 overlaid by Summertown/Radley gravel2 and the axe was found at a depth of four feet.

This survey has focused more on the staining of the implement, showing a green/grey colour all around it, a distinct grey colour of the cortex and the white sediments. These are the main elements to which we must refer to achieve, as far as possible, the deposit in which the Neolithic axe was found. Knowing that the cortex (the outer skin of flint), is usually a soft material of porous composition, which absorb the deposit’s element in which it is buried, and showing a grey coloration, it suggests that the finding seems incompatible with the Summertown Terrace detected in Chester Street and it was at first supposed that the Neolithic axe may be placed in the Oxford Clay deposit.

Close-up view of the cortex. © Ashmolean Museum.

However, the lack of patination, the grain-stained grey cortex, the mineral staining and the presence of white sediments could suggest an alternative, i.e. a grey alluvium or river silt deposit. It is possible that a palaeochannel existed at the lower end of the street incised into the Summertown/Radley gravel. This channel may have filled with grey silts and alluvium derived from Oxford Clay.

Figure 11 - Hypothetical cross-section of the Chester street deposits (illustration by author)

It may also be suggested that in past times within the zone southwest of Iffley Road, a side stream or a minor channel could have contributed to producing a deposit of alluvial nature in this locality. On this hypothesis the axe could have been found in the lower zone that starts from the middle of the street, which with high probability was subject to flooding.
Nevertheless, owing to lack of any scientific analyses, the hypothesis discussed above remains unconfirmed.

6.Evidence of Prehistoric Activity

Recently publications have catalogued the distribution of flint and stone finds carried out since the 19th century around Oxford and contribute to give evidence of prehistoric activity. Following the information given by Lambrick (2013), in “Prehistoric Oxford”, one can observe the evidence left at the time around the Iffley zone. This area was visited by early individuals since the Palaeolithic, and the evidence shows that the area was occasionally frequented without permanent settlement. Relevant to the Palaeolithic activity we can be mention the 1880’s collection of material found at the Cornish’s pit, and a small quarry around Fairacres Road near Donnington Bridge. In this area some evidence, though scanty, is also recorded for the Mesolithic (Lambrick, 2013). These attestations of mobile presence, even though still minor, are interesting given the vicinity of Fairacres Road and Donnington area with Chester Street (Google map view).

From this point of view, the tracing of unstratified finds just off the Iffley Road in the vicinity of Fairacres House, specifically a large group of c.470 Neolithic flints collected by A. M. Bell between 1897-1910, testify an increasing activity in the Neolithic period (Lambrick, 2013). Furthermore, the latest pits excavations by the East Oxford Archaeological Project along the eastern side of the river becomes even more interesting, in facts, the area around both Fairacres Road and Donnigton Recreation Ground indicates a suggested activity area related to the Neolithic period (https://www.archeox.net/investigations). In accordance with all this information, the isolated artefact of the axe in Chester Street may be linked with the Neolithic activity in the area next to the Iffley Road.

The distribution of so much evidence concentrated along the east river bank is very interesting for archaeological researches. One ought to remember that rivers have always had a strong influence in the development of human culture. The confluence of the rivers Thames and Cherwell adds significance to the concept of Mother Earth and the forces of nature, especially in ‘watery’ environment (Bradley and Edmons, 1993). This aspect may allow us to give an interpretation of an existence of a wet deposition area to which the axe from Chester Street might be belong.
 
Probably future discoveries could explain better the distribution of many artefacts discovered along the east side of the river Thames and subsequently the presence of the axe of Chester Street in Iffley area.

7. Flint Sources

The Neolithic was the period in which the Chester axe appeared as an object deliberately manufactured by individuals of that time. It was a period in which many stone implements were produced, at first for daily life and then also for other aims. For this reason prehistoric man started to gain experience about how to seek nodules of flint and having already a good idea of relative tool functions that may be obtained from that source and over generations early man would have earned a very good knowledge of flint quality (i.e. testing for ringing sound for perfect nodule).

The flint to produce the Chester axe could be obtained in different ways, i.e. from superficial deposit in the form of river gravels, or from chalk deposits below the surface (Kenneth, 1975). In this part of the survey, the remaining cortex on the axe acquires important value and significance. In fact the thickness of the cortex (about 3 mm) may suggest that the material was quarried from a deposit below the surface.

We know that flint is formed into the chalk deposit and, according to map available on the British Geology Survey website, the geology around Oxford does not show this type of deposit. Therefore, it could be supposed that the raw material used to make the Chester axe had not been quarried in the Oxford area but somewhere else. 

The quality of the flint material of the Chester axe strongly suggests that the supply does not come from the famous flint mines in Grime’s Graves, as this is by its nature very black and clear without major flaws and very malleable. It seems that possible supply points most likely come from to the southern part of England, where they can be found in the Neolithic flint mines at Blackpatch, Church Hill, Cissbury, Harrow Hill, Long Down and Stoke Down in Sussex (Miles, 2000). However, it should be mentioned Berkshire Downs, and Chilterns where are present Chalk escarpment (steep embankment) containing bands of flint, which are the nearest to Oxford (Arkell, 1947). In this area is situated Peppard Common (south-east of Oxford), although it is not considered as a mining site used in the Neolithic, it should be considered one of several potentially good quality flint sources nearest to Oxford.

Having a closer look at some flint examples from the site of Peppard Common, in a first observation, it seems the source of flint may be compatible with the material belonging to the Chester axe. Therefore, we turn to references in the archaeological journals, concerning flints from Peppard Common. A paper by Peake (1913) discusses his pit excavations at Peppard Common in Berkshire, to search some evidence about the existence of a flint factory in this location. The specimens discussed in the publication came from two neighbouring but distinct sites, called site 1 and site 2.

The Map of the Pit’s Excavation (focused on the site 1 and site 2)

In the excavation report the flint material is described as:

“The flint used on both site is bad, mixed with chert, and full of pockets and crystals of calcite. The implements when first taken out, are mostly dark blue in colour, but turn white as they dry. The patina is very thin coating and varies with the composition of the flint from a dead white through various shades of blue. A peculiarity of the flint from site 2 is a black lustrous band of varying width beneath the crust, which does not change colour like the rest of the chipped surface. A good many are covered with a deposit of carbonate of lime. The colour is more variable onsite 1, and in the upper clay layer appear flakes entirely unpatinated, withothers blue, or white, or mottled.” (Peake, 1913)

To understand better this description, we selected a focus approach to this collection. It was observed that the examples coming from the site 2 illustrates more than one element in common with the material of Chester axe. Apart from the colouration that does not match, but that is a fact of how the implement was preserved through passing time, the composition of the source flint seems compatible. The staining, the diffusion of the chert  and quartz inclusions in the implements are all harmonious.

Currently Peppard Common does not show strong evidence to prove the existence of a flint mine used in the Neolithic period. However it should not be excluded that the flint source from this site was utilised to be worked elsewhere by the prehistoric flint knappers in the Neolithic period.

8. Hypothesis concerning flint supply and function of the axe

On the previous pages we attempted to explain better the contexts along the discovery of the Chester Street axe, but there are many unknown aspects and open questions of which we do not know the answer as regards the axe found in Chester Street.

• Why did the individual who created it goes through to the trouble of digging for flint when it can be found other material on surface close to him?
• Was the axe manufactured where the raw material was exploited or worked in a local place around Oxford?
• What did this individual wanted to communicate producing this singular object, and then deposited it?

The Chester Axe needs to be considered in context which would enable clarification of its presence.

Following this point of view, it may be suggested that some kind of trading or exchange could have existed between Peppard Common and the Upper Thames Valley zones. Individuals may have brought rough out flints from Peppard Common and then worked to form into completed artefacts in the local area. Continuing this line of thought, should other objects manufactured from the same source of Peppard Common flint exist in Oxford other than the Chester street example?

To attempt to answer at this question, we thought that if the Neolithic individuals had to go so far to exploit quite good-quality flint, it should be make sense that they would create more than one object from that supply. This curiosity induced us to have another look at the Ashmolean Museum collection in search of other axe examples to compare with the artefact from Chester Street. Consequently, we referred to the paper “Early man from Oxfordshire” (Sandford and Leeds, 1939), where in the Plate II is illustrated the axe from Chester street. Therefore the investigation is expanded to another axe which appeared together with the analysed example, in specific a polished axe from the Thames at Nuneham (AN1889.46).

In addition to these two artefacts, we choose to select another axe example from the Ashmolean Museum Collection useful for the survey, that is a partly-ground axe found around Headington, Oxford (NC-PREHIST.217.1865). Afterwards, it was possible to have a closely look to all the implements and, at first, it was noticed that the flint source was consistent with the Chester street example. Obviously without any scientific analysis this remains an hypothesis.

However, this may support the thesis that large-scale trade links might have existed and consequently groups of skilled knappers may have congregated in this location. In fact, observing all the axes it should prove a high standard of technology used. Moreover, it demonstrated a different method of manufacturing from the flaked axe in Chester Street (located in the middle in the Fig. 14) to a partly-ground axe (situated in the left in the Fig. 14) to a fully ground polished axes found at Nuneham (right side of Fig. 14).

The Comparison of the three axes. © Ashmolean Museum

These three exotic items, maintaining similar shape, should be evidence that may be suggest a large scale production of implements. It is assumed that existed some kind of “specialist” whom handed down knowledge from one generation to another in the local community. Consequently whoever produced the Chester axe had inevitably received some training by a skilled flint knapper either locally or coming from other communities. In the past it was common to exchange the different knowledge of manufacturing that allowed local people to create for themselves similar object using similar technology. From this point of view, it supposed that some Neolithic flint flaking sites may exist in the locality of modern Oxford, maintaining and developing a core tool tradition to create similar exotic artefacts.

What was the use of the axes in the Neolithic communities of the Upper Thames Valley?

Looking the axe from Chester Street and observed one detached flake, it is suggested that the implement was used maybe for tree felling but just for a limited amount of time. But if the axe was really used as a functional tool why did they stop to use it and casually cast it aside? 

Reaching a truth functionality of which the Chester axe was created is complicated. We should suppose at least that the artefact was seen as an important object, given its compositions and good conservation, which means that the object was not neglected or lost but was buried for some reason to maintain it. This point of view suggests an alternative hypothesis regarding a ritual deposition in a watery place. A possible explanation is that the local communities inherited ritual practices connected with the Afterlife. One of these traditions could be connected to a personal relationship with the object.  In accordance to this the axe could belong to a individual, maybe as a personal tool which was used for practical activity. Or maybe it was an object subject to trade or exchange, implicating a personal curated object. It might be possible that, after the individual’s death, and the object keeping the same interaction, it was not allowed to pass to another individual and then deposited near a source of water?

On the other hand, maybe the axe was intentionally created as an offering to a ‘water Deity’ where it may explain why the deposition is suspected to have come from a alluvium/palaeochannel sediment.

All these remain hypothesis when seen in the prehistory context. Most of the artefacts linked with daily life sometimes can be linked also to the Afterlife. Therefore, it would exist in this case a connection between the use and the tradition followed by the local people in the Neolithic?

The presence of other axe and flint artefact in Iffley area may be represent a ritual deposition site?

As the evidence stands now, all these questions remain unresolved.

9. Notes

1. ‘The Oxford Clay is appropriately named, for of all the formations in the neighbourhood it is the most characteristic and obtrusive in the immediate vicinity of the city’ (W. J. Arkell, 1947, p.67). ‘It is a bluish or grey clay turning brown on weathering. Bedding is often obscure, especially in the upper part, and is marked only by septaria and thin layers of earthy limestone’ (Sherlock R. L. 1960, p.13)

2. The Summertown-Radley gravel is the second terrace of the river Thames. http://england.prm.ox.ac.uk/englishness-Iffley-Bell.html