Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep
Direct analysis of ground stone artefacts; a study of the use of Early Bronze Age stone Battle-Axes and Axe-Hammers
Amber Sofia Roya, b
a School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University, Armstrong Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
b Archaeology Research Laboratory, Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, WallenberglaboratorietLilla, Frescativ¨agen 7SE-114 18, Stockholm
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords:
Ground stone
Use-wear analysis
Experimental Archaeology
Early Bronze Age
Battle-axe
Axe-hammer
Most interpretations of ground stone artefacts are still based on their form and depositional contexts and lack scientific functional assessments, such as use-wear analysis and experimental archaeology. For instance, previous interpretations of perforated stone battle-axes and axe-hammers have been influenced by their form and similarity to the battle-axes of the Single Grave Culture in Scandinavia and have assumed the British battle-axes were purely ceremonial while the rougher axe-hammers were too large and crude to be either ceremonial or functional. Studies of typology, manufacturing processes and identification of petrological sources have failed to resolve the use of these implements. This paper presents the methodological approach used to revisit artefact function in the first large-scale application of use-wear analysis on Early Bronze Age battle-axes and axehammers from Northern Britain and the Isle of Man, 2200–500 BCE. The data supports a reassessment of the role of these objects, indicating they were versatile and multi-functional tools while expanding traceological research data for bladed ground stone artefacts. Moreover, it enhances the field of use-wear analysis on bladed ground and polished stone artefacts, of which only a small fraction have been analysed in this manner. As such, this research demonstrates the academic potential of applying use-wear analysis and experimental archaeology to the study of ground stone artefacts, which has thus far received less attention than knapped and flaked industries.

E-mail address: amber.roy@arklab.su.se.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103646
Received 4 January 2022; Received in revised form 6 August 2022; Accepted 24 September 2022
Available online 14 October 2022
2352-409X/Crown Copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1.		Introduction
Battle-axes and axe-hammers are stone implements with a central or off-centre perforation to accommodate a haft. They have a blade parallel with the perforation at one end and a butt at the opposite end (Fig. 1.) Battle-axes are less than 190 mm long and 80 mm broad while axehammers are greater in either dimension (Roe, 1966). There are a total of 183 battle-axes and 362 axe-hammers from Northern Britain and the Isle of Man (Fig. 2).
The use of Early Bronze Age (EBA, 2500–1500 BCE) British stone battle-axes and axe-hammers is poorly understood. Dating projects (Sheridan, 2007) and material associations in funerary contexts Roe 1966; Needham, 2011) have firmly placed these objects within the EBA. Both implement types were deposited in ceremonial and non-ceremonial contexts, (ceremonial: eight axe-hammers and 38 battle-axes; nonceremonial: 363 axe-hammers and 144 battle-axes - Table 1; See Roy, 2020a, supplementary material Table 1 showing cases of artefact association and funerary context). Non-ceremonial contexts from battle-axes and axe-hammers include stray finds, from rivers, a shell midden and the
Ness of Gruting house site. Battle-axes and a smaller number of axehammers are also found in a variety of funerary contexts, including barrows, cairns, pits, cists and stone circles, and alongside associated artefacts, such as cremated remains, cinerary urns, daggers, beads and worked flint. Both funerary battle-axes and axe-hammers were used as part of the same rules of engagement and their deposition included a variety of grave goods which are in line with funerary deposits across EBA Britain (Roy, 2020a; Woodward et al, 2005; Woodward & Hunter 2015). Unlike the Scandinavian Single Grave Culture and the British Beaker burials, EBA battle-axes and axe-hammer burials do not distinguish between gender and are associated with a wider variety of grave good types (for artefact association see Roy, 2020a) which correspond to the same pool of artefacts used in funerary deposits across EBA Britain (Woodward & Hunter, 2015).
This article presents the analysis of 63 battle-axes and 59 axehammers from across the study area, implementing use-wear analysis and experimental archaeology, such as tree felling, wood splitting, bonebreaking and land clearance, to understand their uses. The study area included all counties in the north of Britain, the Scottish Isles, and the

Fig. 1. Image A shows a schematic representation of the form of a battle-axe showing the anatomical areas of these implements. Image B shows an axehammer, these are larger than battle-axes in length and width, but their form remains similar – 1 column width in black and white.

Isle of Man. The article tests the hypothesis that these implements saw functional use; it asks if and how they were used. Were they tools or weapons? Did ceremonial battle-axes and axe-hammers see functional use? Does the use-wear indicate the length of use and events of resharpening and re-polishing? Is there a difference between the use of battle-axes and axe-hammers?
The combined application of use-wear analysis and experimental archaeology has been used successfully to enhance our understanding of a number of archaeological artefacts made of different materials. Such progress in the field of microwear analysis on ground stone demonstrates the potential of using this method to explore hypotheses for bladed ground stone artefacts. Of note, use-wear analysis has been employed most frequently to study Neolithic quernstones, which have been manufactured and used experimentally and analysed using usewear and residue analysis. These methods have been critical for understandings of Neolithic cereal cultivation and meal-based foods which led to the development and increased use of the saddle quern (Lidstr¨om Holmberg 2008, 75; Nieuwenhuis & Van Gijn 2008; Hamon 2008; Adams 1999). Similarly hammer stones, grinders and polishers have frequently been used in experiments which manufactured flint artefacts and applied use-wear analysis, experimental archaeology and residues analysis to investigate Prehistoric stones used for grinding, percussion, and polishing (Hamon 2008; Byrne et al. 2006; Roda Gilabert, et al. 2012; Cristiani et al., 2012; 2016; Roda Gilabert et al. 2016; Hayes et al. 2018; Zupancich, et al. 2019; Paix˜ao et al. 2021), artefact production (Wright 2008), and metal ore extraction (Hern´andez et al., 2020; Car- icola et al. 2020; Breglia et al.. 2016; Hamon 2016).
Yet, this method has only been applied to a small fraction of the bladed ground and polished stone tools. Neolithic stone axes, adzes and perforated adzes have been used in numerous experimental studies across Europe which have contributed to interpretation of these artefacts as tree felling tools (Sehested, 1884; Smith, 1891; Montelius, 1906; Pond, 1930; Morris, 1939; Potratz, 1941; Hyenstrand, 1969; Townsend, 1969; Bordaz, 1970; Heider, 1970; Semenov, 1964; Saraydar & Shimada, 1971 & 1973; Kozak, 1972; Coles, 1973 & 1979; Coles, Heal, & Orme, 1978; Carneiro, 1979; Harding & Young, 1979; Steensberg, 1980; Olausson, 1982 & 1983; Orme & Coles, 1983; Coles and Orme, 1985; Jorgensen, 1985; Meier, 1990; Holsten & Martens, 1991; Mathieu & Meyer, 1997; Elberg et al. 2015). More recently, a number of axes and adzes globally, mostly dating to the Neolithic but including a few dating to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, have been analysed with use-wear analysis or a combined use-wear and experimental approach (Binne- man & Deacon, 1986; Wentink, 2006; Pawlik, 2007; van Gijn, 2010; Takashi, 2012; Yerkes et al. 2003; Yerkes & Barkai, 2013; van Gijn & Raemaekers, 2014; Little et al. 2016; Masclans Lattore et al. 2017a; Masclans Latorre et al., 2017b). Such research has focussed on large assemblages with interpretations based on extensive experimental programmes that have been essential for interpreting such implements.
British battle-axes and axe-hammers lack research such as the expansive use and experiment data on Neolithic stone axes. Indeed, only a tiny assemblage of six Dutch battle-axes (Wentink, 2020) have been analysed using experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis. Likewise, other bladed ground and polished stone artefacts have a similarly small number of use-wear and experiment research projects, such as mace-heads (use and experiment research is limited to Sicilian Neolithic mace-heads, Martellotta et al, 2020) and stone hatchets (use and experiment research is limited to Australian stone hatchets, Akerman, 2014), and, there still remain vast assemblages of these implements and other ground and polished bladed stone tools globally, which lack such investigation. These include, but are not limited to, Scandinavian and European and Irish Mesolithic polished stone axes, European and British Neolithic and EBA mace-heads, European Neolithic perforated adzes, Irish, Scandinavian and European Neolithic and EBA battle-axes, prehistoric stone ard points, British Neolithic stone axes and adzes, and global ethnographic bladed tools. The research presented here aims to add further knowledge to the use of bladed stone artefacts which is relevant to battle-axes and axe-hammers as well as other bladed stone objects, such as those listed above, which would greatly enhance their interpretations and understandings of the groups of people using them.
The data presented here demonstrates how the novel application of use-wear analysis and experimental archaeology on a large sample of British EBA battle-axes and axe-hammers, can produce remarkable results when questioning supposedly non-functional bladed ground stone artefacts. The article identifies the specific contact materials, the kinetic use motions of the implements, the duration of use, and the treatment of the implements during their use lives. As a result, these objects are interpreted as versatile and multi-functional tools that had the potential for use as weapons alongside other utilitarian uses. The methodological approach is a valuable addition to traceological research on ground stone, which has received less attention than knapped industries (e.g., Adams, 1989; 1993; 2002; 2003; 2010; 2014; van Gijn, 1990; Hamon, 2008; Masclans et al. 2017a; Masclans Latorre et al., 2017b; Yerkes et al., 2003). Its application in the research reveals the potential for analysis of ground and polished bladed stone artefacts which have not been researched using such methods.
1.1.		Battle-axes and Axe-hammers
Previous research of stone battle-axes and axe-hammers from northern Britain and the Isle of Man has focussed on their typological, manufacture and petrological features. Roe (1966; 1979) established a typology for battle-axes which consists of five stages, each representing an expansion of the butt and blade, while the axe-hammer typology split the implements into two classes, according to their concave or convex profile (Figs. 3 and 4). Both battle-axes and axe-hammers were manufactured with a wide range of petrologies, including from identified stone sources were used, including but not limited to Groups XII, XIII, XIV, XVIII, and XXIII, taken from cobbles and glacial erratics exploited haphazardly (Roy 2020a; Fenton, 1984, 1984, Based on the ceremonial context of a small number of battle-axes, past interpretations have assumed they were weapons (Mortimer, 1905, 159; Anderson & Low, 1942, 80; Evans, 1897, 185; Greenwell & Rolleston, 1877, 159, 298; Smith, 1926, 80) or were purely ceremonial (Roe, 1967). Whereas the rougher axe-hammers were seen neither as functional nor prestigious, being too large and crude (Leahy, 1986; Pegge, 1773). Suggestions for the utilisation of axe-hammers in woodworking, agricultural, and metal ore preparation roles also exist (Roe 1967, 69; Bradley 1978, 13). However, a direct evidence-based assessment of use, as opposed to reasoning by analogy or deriving a functional hypothesis from the tool shape, has not occurred (Roe, 1966; 1969 & 1979; Fenton, 1984 & 1988). As a result, little is understood of the narratives of these artefacts. The methodology implemented to assess the function of these artefacts will further demonstrate that advances in interpretation can be achieved

Fig. 2. The distribution of all battle-axes and axe-hammers from northern Britain and the Isle of Man – 2 column width in colour.
Table 1
The quantities of battle-axe and axe-hammer from depositional contexts across Northern Britain and the Isle of Man – 1 column width in black and white.
Context	Battle-axe quantities	Axe-hammer quantities	
Pit	2	0	
Cairn	7	7	
Barrow	15	1	
Cist	6	0	
Stone circle	3	0	
House site	3	0	
Shell midden	1	0	
River	5	10	
Mine spoil heap	0	1	
Stray find	133	354	

Fig. 3. The axe-hammer typology, Class I and II, after Roe, 1966 – 1 column width in black and white.

Fig. 4. The battle-axe typology, Stages I to V, after Roe, 1966 – 1 column width in black and white.

when a combined use-wear and experimental archaeology approach is applied to many of those stone artefacts which lack evidence-based assessments of use.
Method and Materials.
To test the hypothesis that battle-axes and axe-hammers were used, the project employed use-wear analysis to assess the microwear related to manufacture, use, re-sharpening, and hafting. For more accurate interpretations the use-wear data was compared to the microwear on newly made battle-axes and axe-hammers used experimentally, 1. to chop wood (pine tree branches) using a stage II battle-axe using a horizontal thrusting chopping motion; 2. splitting birch logs with a stage I battle-axe using a vertical thrusting chopping motion; 3. splitting wood for plank creation by hammering a class I axe-hammer into the length of the log; 4. clearing earth containing roots with a stage IV battle-axe; 5. clearing earth containing stones with a stage III battle-axe using vertical oblique chopping motions to break up and remove material; 6. a bonebreaking experiment striking pigs’ skulls (with regards to the use of animal remains, no animal was slaughtered for this research. At fixed points (after 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 strikes) throughout each experiment, the use-wear was recorded at low and high magnifications to understand its development throughout each different activity.
The replicas were washed with water and dabbed with a small amount of ethanol on a cotton pad before use-wear analysis to remove residues from use and handling. All procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and ethical approval was sought from Newcastle University) using a class I axehammer with a vertical thrusting chopping motion to test animal slaughter (Roy, 2021 – please contact the author to access this unpublished manuscript). Each experiment was designed to test previous interpretations of battle-axes and axe-hammer function (Roe 1967, 69; Bradley 1978, 13; Saville & Roe, 1984; Leahy 1986). The reference collection of experimental tools, used in various actions, times and against different contact materials, at Leiden University was also used to interpret use-wear on the archaeological implements. Use-wear analysis and experimental archaeology are commonly and successfully employed together to understand artefact function (e.g. Semenov, 1964; Keeley, 1980; 1982; van Gijn, 1990; Fullagar, 1991; Adams, 1993; 2010; Yerkes et al., 2003; Dubreuil, 2004; Hamon, 2008). Their application in this study allowed the function and treatment of ceremonial and nonceremonial battle-axes and axe-hammers to be addressed.
The experimental replicas were made by David Horan using modern tools. This choice was made due to resource and time constraints and did not affect the experimental tests as the power tools did not weaken the stone. The replicas were analysed microscopically before each experiment to understand the type of production wear. Six replicas - four battle-axes and two axe-hammers - were manufactured from dolerite, also known as Poortown Gabbro, sourced from Poortown Quarry, Peel, Isle of Man and with a Mohs Hardness of 4.76–6.21 and a compressive strength of 18000–44000 psi (Fig. 5). Dolerite was a common stone type used for the manufacture of battle-axes and axe-hammers. An angle grinder with a cutting disc was used to cut the stone into shape, followed by the combination of a grinder, with sanding discs, and a Dremel, a rotary grinding tool, to finish the surface. The perforation was drilled using a pillar drill with a hole corer.
Sixty-two battle-axes and 55 axe-hammers from Northern Britain and the Isle of Man were studied using use-wear analysis (for examples, see Fig. 6; for a table of concise results, see Table 2.). The implements were selected to represent the different typologies, raw materials, provenance, and deposition contexts of both implement types to determine if their use was associated with any of these parameters. Moreover, by analysing artefacts from ceremonial and non-ceremonial contexts, questions about the use of ceremonial artefacts were addressed. Fragmented implements were not included in the sample, nor were those which were overly weathered since weathering removes traces of use (see section 3.1). Online museum databases and the Implement Petrology Group data were used to select the artefacts for analysis. Implements from each county in Northern Britain and the Isle of Man were selected, where available and existing. A total of 40 out of 68 different petrologies were represented in the sample.
Use-wear analysis was carried out on a selection of battle-axes and axe-hammer in museum collections (The museums visited included: Edinburgh Museum; Stranraer Museum; Dumfries Museum; The British

Fig. 5. Images of the replicas used in the experimental tests – 2 column image in colour.

Museum; York Museum; Tullie House Museum, Carlisle; Manchester Museum; The Great North Museum, Newcastle upon Tyne; Manx Museum, Isle of Man; and Sheffield Museum.). Low power microscopy, using a Huvitz HSZ-600 stereomicroscope with a x0.8 – x4.5 magnification range and a GXCAM microscope camera with GXcapture 7 software were used to capture wear patterns directly. Analysis at low magnifications allowed for the analysis of use-wear attributes, including linear patterns such as striations, pits and grain extraction, levelling, residue and the presence of polish or sheen on the blade edge and tip. In addition, analysis of edge modification or damage, such as fractures

Fig. 6. Examples of the assemblage analysed – 2 column width in colour.

such as flakes and crushed grains, micro-fractures from impact, edge rounding and abrasion (Plisson, 1991; Adams, 1993; 2002; 2003; 2010; 2014; Dubreuil, 2004; Hamon, 2008; Hamon & Plisson, 2008; Adams et al. 2009; Liu et al, 2010; Dubreuil & Savage, 2013). The systematic description of use-wear (see supplementary material 3 for term definitions) allowed the recognition of recurring use-wear patterns and associated attributes which were used to inform on motions and contact materials (Dubreuil & Grosman, 2009); both the use and manufacture were recorded to ensure a distinction between each event. Attributes, such as location, distribution, density, orientation, morphology, incidence, width, length, and the depth of the use-wear were recorded on an analysis form (Dubreuil, 2004; Hamon, 2008; Adams et al, 2009; Delgado & Risch, 2008); a colour coding system was used to record attributes from different locations on the implement (Supplementary material 1). Prior to analysis, the archaeological implements were washed using the same procedure used during the experiments.
Casts using acetate film were also taken from the same areas on each implement to allow comparable analysis (Gonza´lez-Urquijo & Ib´an˜ez, 2003) and to replicate the use-wear for future analysis (Young & Syms, 1980; Knuttson & Hope, 1984; Fullager, 1991; Liu et al. 2010). These were analysed using a Leica DM2700 M metallographic microscope, x40 – x400 magnification range and micrographs were taken using a Leica

Α-Η	A-H	A-H	A-H	A-H	A-H	A-H		A-H	A-H	+	A-H	A-H	A-H	A-H	>	• =	> =	A-Η	• =	• ±	A-H	A-H	A-H	A-H	Α-Η	A-H	• =	A-H	A-H	A-H	A-H	A-H	-	A-H	A-H	-	Implement	
NOR	NOR	NOR	O or	NOR	NOR	MLT	2 %	LAN		KRK	KRK	IOM	1ΟΜ	FIF	•	-	|DMF|	CUM	ICUM |	ICUM |	CUM	CUM	|CUM |	CUM	CUM	CUM	I CUM |	CUM	CUM	CUM	=	Q =	IAYR|	AYR	ANG	|ABN|	County	
Newcastle
1973.3	Newcastle
1942.10	Newcastle
1939.10	Newcastle
1938.18	Newcastle
1933.38	Newcastle
1945.1	NMS AH 16	|NMS AH 50 |	Manchester 38351	Manchester 25927	NMS AH 171 |	NMS AH 224	MNH I954- 6684	MNH 1954
1252	BM 562,9-5,1	NMS AH 215 I	NMS AH 11 |	1 HV SWAN	Carlisle R.41|	Carlisle R.l.|	|Carlisle L43|	Carlisle Α 11 210	Carlisle 83.1962	Carlisle RF 28|	Carlisle 2015.76.7 EF3667	Carlisle 118.1977.2	Carlisle 119.1961	Carlisle R.2 |	Carlisle 69.1950	Carlisle 27.1926 331	Carlisle 1916.37	Manchester 1998.353	Manchester 25939	NMSAH1471	NMS AH 14	NMS AH 98	161 HV SWAN	Accession	
Blackhall Mill	Gunnerton qy, Barrasford	Alnwick, North Charlton	Felling	Ingleton and Hcadlam - between Scot’s Dyke	Sunderland	Leith, Edinburgh	Aikbrac	Heaton Chapel (Great
Manchester)	Upper Pike Lane/Hill, Rawtenstall	Minnigaff	Co 09 C =	uro 2 o B > 28 %	Shellag Brooghs	Balmerino	Athelstaneford |	Lochmaben	Westhills Farm	Aspatria	nr Wigton	Skclsmergh	Grinsdale	Gilgarran	Ulveston	Woodend	no provenance	Brougham	@	?Wolsty Bank	Kirkbride	nr Silloth	Dickens Wood	Chelford	Colmone11	Preston, Colmonell	Tannadice, Forfar	(Turriff	Locality	
																																					Stage	
unknown	unknown	unknown	unknown	unknown	greywacke	porphyritic basalt	metagreywacke|		unknown	XXVI11 (XVIII)|	sandstone			porphyritic olivine basalt	(AX) IIAXX	Unknown	quartzite (ns)	ΛΧ|	<	AX	XV		unknown	unknown	unidentified (ns)	sandstone	picrite		greywacke	greywacke		XV	11ΛΧΧ|	porphyritic olivine basalt	XXVII	IIAXX	Petrology	
																															χ						Hard contact	
	Χ													x				X										χ		χ		χ					Medium hard	
																			x			X	x		χ	X			χ								Medium/mediu	
	x	χ	χ	χ		χ	X	χ	χ	X		X	χ		χ		χ				x						χ						Χ	χ	X	x	Medium	
																χ								*													Medium/Mediu	
					χ																																Medium-soft	
	χ		X	χ	χ	χ			X		χ		X	X	χ	χ	X	χ		X	χ	X	X		χ				χ			χ	χ	X			Chopping	
		χ						χ											x								χ			χ							Angled	
										χ								χ										χ			χ						Percussive	
							X								X																				χ	*	Wedge	
																																					Production	
							X	χ				X		X																							Butt used	
X		χ		χ	χ	χ	X	χ		X	χ	X	X		X	χ	χ	χ	x		x	X	x	χ	χ	X			χ	χ		χ	x	χ	χ	X	Contact with	
	χ		X											X													x										Contact with	
															X				x																		Contact with	
								χ						X													χ										Contact with	
									χ											X					χ			χ			χ						Uncertain	
							X					X																									Undeveloped	
						χ										χ																					Less developed	
			X								χ	X												*													less-moderately	
		χ		χ	χ			χ								χ		χ					x						χ	χ							Moderately	
	χ									X								χ			x				χ		χ										Moderate-we11	
							X							X	X				X	X		X				X		χ			χ	X	x	X	χ		Well developed	
X												X	X			χ		X											K								Reground	
X	χ							χ				X	X	X	X	χ		x											%		χ						Reused	
									χ			X	X										x		χ												Weathered	
											χ																										Heat damage	
(continued on next page}
A.S. Roy	Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 46 (2022)

A-H	NOR	Newcastle 1981.5	Corbridge	I	unknown				X						X			X									X						
A-H	NOR	Newcastle 1992.4	Felton	1	unknown					X			X						X							X							
A-H	NOR	Newcastle 1899.2	Whaggs Estate	I	XVIII				X														X	X								X	
A-H	NOR	Newcastle 1891.3	Edgewell, Prudhoe	1	unknown				X						X		X	X										Χ					
A-H	PER	NMS AH 237	near Perth	I	gabbroic troctolite		x								X			X			X							X					
A-H	ROS	NMS AH 249	Ballavullin	1	metamorphic rock (ns)		X		X			X						X						X					X	X			
A-H	ROX	NMS AH 212	Nisbet Hill Moor	1	porphyritic olivine basalt				χ			X		X				X						X					x?	X			
A-H	WIG	Stranraer 1945.01	Culmore	1	coarse greywacke					X		X						X						X				Χ		X	X		
A-H	WIG	NMS AH 21	Machermore	1	diorite			X					X					χ						X					χ	X			
A-H	WIG	Stranraer 2002.15	Blairbuy	1	Sandstone (greywacke)				x			x?						X					X				X		Χ	X			
A-H	WIG	NMS AH 226	Whithorn	1	Unknown		X								x ?			χ									χ						
A-H	WIG	NMS AH 26	Cunningham Farm	I	XXVII					X								X															
A-H	WIG	NMS AH 22	High Clone	1	XXVIII c											X		Χ											χ				
A-H	Υ	ShM J.93.3	Sherburn	2	near XVIII				Χ			X?						χ						X									
A-H	Υ	Yks Mus 1036.1948	Hutton Cranswick	2	Unknown					X		Χ						X									Χ						
A-H	Y	Yks Mus 1037.1948	Strensall	1	Unknown		Χ					X						X·										χ					
A-H	Y	Yks Mus 1051.1948	Fimber	2	Unknown				X				X					X								x							
A-H	Υ	Yks Mus 1063.1948	Grosmont	1	Unknown													X				X		X							X		
A-H	Υ	BM Sturge 460	Kirklington	I	Unknown				X									X			X			X					Χ	X			
B-A	CUM	Carlisle 41.1932	Stanger Farm, Embleton	1	ash			X				X					X	X						X				x			X		
B-A	ABN	NMS EP 2	Broomend of Crichie	4	XXVII					X						X							X						x?			X	
B-A	ABN	NMS AH 202	Mid Clova	1	XXVIII c											X							X										
B-A	ANG	NMS AH 142	Burnside Mill	1	XXVII		X		X			X						X?								χ			X	χ			
B-A	BRW	NMS EQ 322	Hagg Wood, Foulden	1	XXIX		Χ		Χ			X						X									X						
B-A	MLT	NMS AH 116	Cranstown	1	mudstone (ns)			X				Χ						X						χ							χ		
B-A	IOM	MNH 19540593	Knockaloe	1	unknown		X?		X/			X					Χ	X								χ					X		
B-A	ΙΟΜ	MNH 19542801	Jurby	1	Unknown		X		X			X			Χ			X								X							
B-A	MLT	NMS AH 93	Cobbinshaw Lock	1	XXVIII		X		Χ			X						X						Χ									
B-A	IOM	MNH 19710201	Cronk Υ
Voddy, Ballagecil	1	Unknown		X		X			X						X								X							
B-A	ROS	NMS AH 221	Balnagown	1	XXVII		X		X			X						X'						χ									
B-A	SUT	NMS AH 239	River Fleet	1	XXVII		X		χ			X						X?						χ									
B-A	Y	Yks Mus 1090.1948	Cawthorn, Stackyard	1	Unknown		X		Χ			X					X	X	X								X		X	Χ			
B-A	FIF	NMS EQ 916	Barns Farm	1	porphyritic olivine basalt		X		X						X			X?										X					
B-A	FIF	NMS AH 230	Cluny Muir, Thornton	1	unknown																		X										
B-A	FIF	NMS AH 185	Barlass. Newport	4	XXVII											Χ							X										
B-A	PBL	NMS AH 137	Ladyurd	1	tholeiite		X		X			X								χ							X						
B-A	IOM	MNH 19800406	Ballakilley	1	fine grained grey sandstone		x?		x?					X			X	X								X							
B-A	PER	NMS AH 44	Mugdrum Island	1	quartzite (ns)		X		X			χ						X		X							X						
B-A	1ΟΜ	MNH 19540617	Foxdale	2	unknown	X									X	Χ							X								X		
B-A	Y	Yks Mus 1022.1948	York	1	Unknown			X					X					X								X			X	X			
B-A	CUM	Carlisle 16.1953	Solway Moss	3	epidiorite						X							X						X									
(continued on next page)

B-A	Υ	ShM J.93.9	1 1 mE of Pickering	2	dolerite		x		X			X						X						X									
B-A	LNK	NMS AH 136	Westside
Wood	4	XXXI											X							Χ										
B-A	Y	ShM J.1923.38	Blackburn Brook, Sheffield	1	unknown					X			X					χ								X							
B-A	Υ	Yks Mus 1030.1948	Duggleby	2	Unknown		Χ		X			X						χ						χ									
B-A	Υ	BM 79 12-9 605	Cowlam	2	dolerite		Χ		X			X						X						X					X	X			
B-A	MRY	NMS AH 60	Elgin	Foreign	XXVII											Χ							X										
B-A	WIG	Stranraer 2008.24.5	Cairnderry	3	Granite						Χ	X						x?								X							
B-A	ABN	NMS AH 225	Thistley Crook Farm	4	porphyrite (ns)		x		X									X						X							X		
B-A	NOR	Newcastle 1932.14.3	Rothbury	Unknown	unknown																		χ										
B-A	FIF	NMS AH 57	Ballinbreich, Newburgh	4	XXVII		x?		x?									Χ						Χ							Χ		
B-A	ORK	NMS AH 36	Whitehall, Stronsay	4	porphyritic olivine basalt																		χ										
B-A	ORK	NMS AH 133	Stromness, Sandwick	3	XXVII																		X										
B-A	BNF	NMS AH 104	Unknown	2	quartz syenite					X		X						χ								χ							
B-A	PER	NMS EQ 610	Doune	1	altered porphyritic igneous rock																		X									X	
B-A	LAN	Manchester 1990.2	Failsworth	2	unknown		Χ		X			Χ						X								X					X		
B-A	AYR	NMS EQ 65	Chapleton Farm	4	plagioclase orthopyroxene amphibole quartz granulite						Χ								X				X										
B-A	Υ	Yks Mus 1048.1948	Unknown	2	Unknown							X						X								X						X	
B-A	SHE	NMS HD 1025	Ness of Gruting	1	banded metamorphic rock (ns)																		X										
B-A	PER	NMS AH 106	Grantully	1	Unknown		X		X			X						X						X					χ			Χ	
B-A	NOR	BM Sturge
471	Holystone	5	XVIII						X	Χ						X			X			Χ							X		
B-A	Υ	BM 79 12-9 107	Ganton	3	dolerite		X		X			Χ					X					X				X							
B-A	Υ	ΒM 2010,8035.20	Loose Howe	5	unknown		X		X							χ			X				χ						Χ				
B-A	SHE	NMS HD 1026	Ness of Gruting	2	fine grained red sandstone (ns)		X		X													Χ							x?		X	Χ	
B-A	MLT	NMS EQ 64	Pentland	4	unidentified (ns)		X		X			X								X					X								
B-A	AYR	NMS EP 57	Nith Lodge	4	Unknown		Χ		χ			χ						x?						Χ									
B-A	Y	BM 82 3-23 23	Hambleton Moor	3	unknown		X		X													x				X			Χ	X		Χ	
B-A	Υ	BM 79 12-9 1062	Rudston	4	XV													X						X					X	x?			
B-A	Υ	BM 79 12-9 1 175	Goodmanham	4	lithic sandstone						Χ		X												X								
B-A	WIG	NMS AH 45	Portpatrick	4	near XXVIII						X	X						x?						Χ									
B-A	SHE	NMS HD 1024	Ness of Gruting	2	Unknown																		X						X				
B-A	EL	NMS AH 108	Longniddry	5	garnet amphibolite		X		Χ			X						X									X						
B-A	NOR	Newcastle 1904.6	Newcastle, Barras Bridge	5	unknown			X				Χ		X	Χ			X	X		X							X		Χ			
B-A	WIG	NMS EQ 486	Sandmill Farm	4	XXVIII (XVIII)		X		X			X						x?					X						X				
B-A	Y	Yks Mus 4824.2000	Ravensworth	1	Unknown		Χ		X													Χ		X							X		
B-A	Υ	BM 76 4-10 34	Western Howes	2	unknown		X		X					x								X		X								X	
B-A	Υ	BM 76 4-10
46-47	Herd Howe	3	unknown		Χ		Χ				χ				X	X			X					X							
B-A	BRW	NMS AH 151	Lauder	4	XXVII		X		X			X						x?						Χ					X	X			
B-A	NOR	BM Sturge 470	Seghili	2	quartzite (ns)													X?					χ						X				
B-A	Υ	ShM J.93.10	nr Scarborougli	5	XVIII		X		X			X						X									X				X		
B-A	CAT	NMS AH 175	Wick	5	unknown													X						χ					x?				

Fig. 7. Graphs to demonstrate the different materials in contact with the battle-axes and axe-hammers and how they are represented within the battle-axe and axehammer types. They represent all implements analysed for the study – 2 column fitting image in colour.
Fig. 8. Two micrographs showing wood polish, demonstrating the similarity in wear between the experimental replicas (A) and the archaeological record (B). (A) shows a large patch of smooth, domed polish, surrounded by smaller, partially connected patches of the same polish type; (B) shows a less developed patch of similar smooth domed polish within the circle. The polish in both images is on blade edge – 2 column width in black and white.

A table to show the wear analysed at the end of each experiment, at 2000 strikes – 2 column width.
Experiment
Manufacture traces
Striations
Grain removal pits
References to micrographs
Chopping wood
Replica 2
Wedge-splitting wood Replica 6
Manufacture traces cover the implement. Close, shallow, v-shaped striations cover the implement. They are long and intermittent and in a parallel arrangement, occasional overlapping when grinding direction changes. Very small, superficial pits with a close density exist next to the striations. The striations are associated with closely connected patches of levelled and polished stone grains, which cover the stone surface, with excepting of the tip.
The manufacture traces are the same as replica 2
Dense striations cover the blade edges, bifacially. They are u-shaped in profile, 10 mm long and in a parallel arrangement, running perpendicular to the blade edge. Some at the corners are diagonal, pointing towards the centre of the blade. They are interrupted by pits on the blade edge.
Dense pits cover the blade tip and extend onto blade edges bifacially 10 mm, they are narrow and superficial. Those closest to tip are wider and deeper.
Use-wear from working wood, Fig. 7; Roy, 2021.
Splitting wood
Replica 1
The manufacture traces are the same as
replica 2
Digging/	The manufacture traces are the same as
clearing soil replica 2 and roots
Replica 4
Digging/	The manufacture traces are the same as
clearing soil replica 2
and stones
Replica 3
Bone breaking
Replica 5
The manufacture traces are the same as
replica 2
Close density, parallel, extend up to 30 mm onto blade edge, interrupted by pits causing them to become intermittent, length varies from small to long, orientated perpendicular to the blade tip. Dense, u-shaped in profile, striations extend 10 mm onto blade edges, bifacially. They have a parallel arrangement orientated perpendicular to blade tip.
Dense, thin striations, u-shaped in profile, have a parallel arrangement. They are orientated perpendicular to the blade tip. Those in the centre overlap and are orientated diagonally, they extend up to 20 mm onto blade edges, bifacially. Dense, u-shaped, long and intermittent striations are interrupted by pits. They extend 20 mm from the tip in the centre of the blade edges and 50 mm towards to corners so that they meet the perforation, bifacially.
Dense striations cover the blade edges and are spread up to 15 mm onto blade edges, bifacially. They have a parallel arrangement and are orientated perpendicular to blade tip. They are a mixture of short and longer striations; the longer striations are orientated diagonally and overlap. There are also large scratches in multiple directions on blade edges, associated with fractured stone grains.
Close density, pits cover the blade tip and extend onto the bade edge 30 mm. They are narrow and superficial and surround and interrupts the striations on the blade edges.
Dense pits cover blade tip and edge and extend 10 mm onto blade edge. They are narrow and superficial. The densest patches occur in three groups, the centre and towards the edges of the blade, surround striations.
Dense pits cover the blade tip and edge. They extend 20 mm onto blade edges bifacially, close to striations. The pits on the tip are wide, shallow and with rounded edges. The pits on the blade edge are superficial and narrow.
Dense, angular, superficial and narrow pits extend up to 20 mm in centre of the blade and 50 mm towards the corners to that they meet the perforation, bifacially. There are crushed and fractured stone grains within pits.
Dense, wide pits exist close to the blade tip. They are superficial and narrow further from it and spread up to 15 mm onto blade edges, bifacially.
Use-wear from use as a wedge to split wood, Fig. 16; Roy, 2021.
Use-wear from working wood, Fig. 14; Roy, 2021.
Use-wear from working soil and roots, Fig. 26; Roy, 2021.
Roy, 2021.
Use-wear from bone breaking, Fig. 24;
Roy, 2021.

DMC6200 camera with LAS X software. Analysis at high magnifications was used to identify the type of use polish and therefore also the contact materials. The definition of recorded variables of the polish and its characteristics were drawn from methodological advances in microwear analysis of stone under high magnifications, they included the form of the polished grains, polish development, texture, location, directionality, linkage, brightness, distribution and the presence and type of striations (Plisson, 1985; Vaughan, 1985; Fullager & Field. 1997; Dubreuil, 2002; 2004; Borel et al. 2014, 273; van Gijn & Houkes, 2006, 168; Dubreuil & Savage, 2014; Ib´an˜ez & Mazzucco, 2021). For example, Ib´an˜ez and Mazzucco’s (2021) research determined that it is important to characterise the development of polish throughout the duration of use as it has been recognised that polish continues to evolve throughout use. As such, this project assessed the development of wear, including polish, at both low and high magnifications during the experiments to create a reference collection needed to recognise the evolution of microwear.
Using the multi-scale approach of low and high-power microscopy allowed for a broader range and accuracy of results (Dubreuil et al. 2015, 124) as well as analysis of both the stone matrix and grains/ crystals (Clement Conte & Gibaja Bao, 2009). Each object was measured, drawn to scale, and described, including rock texture, the state of the implement, the type of use-face (convex, concave or straight), and the type of perforation (convex or concave). All use-wear was recorded on an analysis form on which the scaled drawing was annotated using a colour-coded system to define different use-wear attributes. The analysis form (Supplementary material 2) and the terms used to describe the usewear features were based on use-wear training at Leiden University under the guidance of Professor Annelou van Gijn, and on the methodological literature on ground stone use-wear analysis which has developed our understandings of the microwear of non-flint tools, definitions of microwear characteristics and valuable methods for their analysis (for key examples see: Vaughan 1985; Clemente Conte 1995/2008; van Gijn 2010; Hamon, 2008; Adams et al. 2009; Dubreuil et al. 2015; Ib´an˜ez & Mazzucco, 2021).
2.		Use-wear results
The successful application of use-wear analysis and experimental archaeology has revealed remarkable results which suggest that both axe-hammers and battle-axes were utilitarian and possibly multifunctional tools (Fig. 7). Over 98 % of axe-hammers and 88 % of battle-axes displayed clear use-wear traces from utilitarian use which were comparable to the wear that developed on replicas during the experiments (Fig. 8; Table 3.) (Roy, 2021).

2.1.		Post-depositional alteration
Damage caused by modern and post-depositional processes was easily identifiable. Post-depositional processes, such as weathering, create rounded stone grains across the entire object, rather than in localised areas (Fig. 9A). Weathering removes use-wear attributes and therefore reduces the chance of a reliable functional interpretation. As a result, highly weathered implements were not included in the sample. Plough marks were also clearly distinguishable from use marks; these marks were long, wide scratches that appeared bright and fresh, most often white or light in colour, and located in large areas across most of the body of the implement (Fig. 9C). Within the sample analysed, plough marks did not obscure the wear on the blade edges, and therefore it did
not negatively affect the functional interpretation. Bright, fresh wear marks can identify signs of modern re-use, often lighter in colour which visibly cut through older traces and interrupted micro-polish. Large scratches from plough damaged, for instance, fractured stone grains and crystals and were found to run through and interrupt polish matrices. All modern wear showed no association with other, older microwear. Ancient traces will be altered from weathering and depositional processes; modern use-wear occurs on top of or cutting through the ancient wear. Weathering was found to round stone grains, seen in the lower and higher interstices at high magnifications, across the entire implements, obscuring use-polish seen under high magnification and smoothing abrasion and fractures seen under low magnifications. Modern wear may be caused by poor storage and conservation (Fig. 9B), and modern

Fig. 9. Three images of wear associated with non-use. Image A shows a highly weathered axe-hammer from Felling, Northumberland; the white paint marks on axehammer B from Hutton Cranswick, Yorkshire, are the result of poor storage; the large scratches on axe-hammer C from Sunderland, Northumberland, are plough marks – full width image in colour.
Fig. 10. Micrographs A and B of wear from a miniature battle-axe from Doune, Perthshire with only production traces. Image A shows dense parallel striations from grinding during the manufacturing process, their direction is indicated by the arrows. They cover the entire axehead. Image B shows the production polish, it is levelled with parallel striations indicating stone on stone contact - see the circle. The Doune miniature battle-axe can be seen in image C. Image D shows production traces on a battle-axe from Westside Wood, Lanarkshire. The micrograph shows separated rough polish possibly caused by grinding with sand – 2 column width in colour.

Fig. 11. Micrographs of wood polish of artefacts, analysed under a metallographic microscope, rounded partially connected patches of wood polish visible with parallel striations, as indicated by the small arrow (A) and circle/oval, and a clear directionality, as indicated by the large arrows – 2 column width in black and white.
Fig. 12. Micrographs of battle-axes presenting wear indicative of chopping motions, in contact with wood under a Stereomicroscope. Parallel striations are evenly spread across the blade edges. They are associated with groups of grain removal pits, with associated microfractures within some of the pits, on the blade tip and immediately on the blade edges. Those on A are denser and include crushed grains and a more frosted appearance on the tip and blade edge from more prolonged use. The edges of the pits are rounded – 2 column width in colour.

handling and use, such as by a private collector (some axe-hammers are recorded as being used as doorstops). Only one implement had signs of modern use and treatment which obscured the ancient use-wear on the blade and so it was not included in the dataset.
2.2.		Production traces
A small number of battle-axes have limited or undeveloped wear which suggests their utilitarian use was unlikely (b-a = 6; a-h = 4). The traces visible on these examples are attributed to the manufacture of the implements, although re-grinding cannot be ruled out (A and B in Fig. 10). Under low magnifications, the wear marks include either levelled grains with shallow, parallel striations in random arrangements, or more granular grains associated with multi-directional, overlapping, shallow striations in random arrangements. Under high magnifications, the flat, smooth polish with parallel striations indicated stone on stone contact, while polish related to the granular polish was possibly caused by grinding the stone with stone and sand (D in Fig. 10) (Mansur, 1997; Adams 1993; Dubreuil, 2002; Hamon 2004; Adams et al. 2009; Cunnar, 2007; Hamon, 2008; Verbaas & van Gjin, 2008; Bofill et al. 2013; Dubreuil et al. 2015). Only one implement, a miniature battle-axe from Doune, Perthshire, had evidence of ceremonial use. The battle-axe was deposited in a cist with a child’s inhumation and two Food Vessels. It was placed by the head, an action which parallels the earlier placement of battle-axes next to the head of deceased males in the Scandinavian Battle-axe Culture c. 2850–2350 BCE (Jensen, 1995; Vander Linden, 2007, 183). It may be that this implement was manufactured specifically for burial, possibly to demonstrate the adult that the child should have become, such as an esteemed member of the community, or to prepare them for another life (Fowler, 2013, 518).
2.3.		Contact with wood
Despite the difference in size, the use-wear patterns analysed on axehammers and battle-axes were remarkably similar, indicating that they were used with similar motions, for similar amounts of time and against similar contact materials. Wood was the most common contact material, although contact with soil, roots, and bone were also identified through the presence of wood, bone and soil polishes. Thirty-eight out of sixty- two battle-axes and thirty-eight axe-hammers out of fifty-nine exhibited evidence of wood polishes. Analysis of these implements showed variability of wear attributes which were the result of different use motions, angles of use, wood hardness, and the duration and intensity of use.

Fig. 13. Micrographs of battle-axes (D, E, F, G, J, K, L) and axe-hammers (A, B, C, H, I) from the archaeological record demonstrating the edge modification and damage, such as crushed stone grains (A, B, C, F, G, H, I, K), microfractures (A, B, C, H, I, K) and edge rounding (B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, L) visible on implements used with chopping motions in contact with wood. The images show a variation in use-wear development. – 2 column width in colour.

Wood polish was identifiable by the domed appearance and directionality of the micropolish (Fig. 11), with associated striations in a parallel spatial arrangement. It was comparable to the wood polish analysed on Neolithic stone axes from the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula (Masclans Latorre et al., 2017b). The connectedness of wood polish depends on the use extent, with it becoming more developed and connected over time. Analysis of the replicas used in contact with wood showed that, in the early stages of use, less developed domed wood polish occurred on singular, unconnected grains, whereas continued use created larger patches of domed polish.
By observing the evidence presented on the thirty-eight battle-axes and thirty-eight axe-hammers with wood polishes, it was apparent that, of these, twenty-eight battle-axes and twenty-seven axe-hammers showed that the kinematics of use was a chopping motion. Chopping motions were indicated by the bifacial striations (striations on both sides of the blade) running perpendicular to the blade tip which extend across the blade edges, evenly spaced when well developed, at similar lengths (Fig. 12; 14).
These examples had varying degrees of wear development, however, in all cases, edge rounding was present along the blade tip, with concentrations at the centre and corners of the blade. Grain removal pits were also visible on the blade tip, in separated groups for less developed examples and extending across the tip and onto the blade edges, 10–20 mm, for more developed examples. The striations were associated with the pits and edge scars on the blade tip, travelling from them onto the blade edges. The edges of the pits were often fractured, and small associated areas had a frosted appearance. On those implements with more developed wear, groups of pits with micro-fracturing extended onto to blade edges by between 10 and 20 mm and occurred in dense patches along the blade tips, often creating a frosted appearance. On those which had been used for less time, individual stone grains were fractured occurred at the centre and towards the corners of the blade tip, extending slightly onto the blade edge up to 5 mm (Fig. 13).
The wear on these artefacts is comparable to the experimental replica battle-axes (Fig. 14) used to split and chop wood; the experiments proved that a blade which appears blunt, like many battle-axes and axe-

Fig. 14. Micrographs which demonstrate comparable microwear analysed on the experimental replicas used to chop after 1000 strikes (C) and split wood after 2000 strikes (A), with implements in the archaeological record (B, D). A and B both show similar edge damage (B is slightly more developed than A), with dense groups of grain removal pits, and micro-fractures on the blade tip and edges. The pits surround the close striations on the blade edges. C and D demonstrate similar, superficial pits extending on the blade edges, associated with parallel striations and rounded high topography– 2 column width in colour.

Fig. 15. An axe-hammer from Athelstaneford, East Lothian (A) and a battle-axe from Newcastle, Barras Bridge, Northumberland (B) with use-wear interpreted as use as a wedge used to split wood – 1.5 column width in colour.

Fig. 16. Micrographs of battle-axes and axe-hammers from the archaeological record with wear suggestive of use as a wedge, in contact with wood. A and B demonstrate the wide, deep and long intermittent striations and scratches that run from the blunted blade tip of a battle-axe. Dense microfractures exist within and around the linear features but the high topography is rounded. C shows an axe-hammer with multiple, overlapping flake negatives and dense microfractures with crushed high topography in the middle of the blade and from the tip onto the blade edge by 40 mm. The micrograph in D shows a large strep fracture on the corner of the blade of an axe-hammer. The blade has been truncated, it has flattened grains, dense fractures and microfractures - 2 column width in colour.

Fig. 17. A diagram to clarify the three-group arrangement. The black line indicates the striations on the blade edge, these will be bifacial on both blade edges, and the white dots represent the grain removal pits on the blade tip, associated with the striations – 1 column width.

hammers, can chop wood effectively. As well as the published use-wear attributes on replica Neolithic stone axes used in tree felling experiments (Masclans Latorre et al., 2017b; Mills, 1993) all examples had the same bifacial striations on the blade edges, travelling from grain removal pits with separated micro-fractured grains on the blade tip and edges. Edge rounding also occurred on the pits and stone grains on the blade tip, particularly towards the corners. The variable density and quantity of use-wear attributes on the archaeological artefacts are similar to the variable density and quantity of attributes analysed on the replicas at different stages of the experiments (Roy, 2021), indicating that the archaeological artefacts were used for variable periods of time. The similarity between the experimental replicas used to chop and split wood and the archaeological artefacts suggests that they were potentially used for these purposes (see Table 3.).
Four battle-axes and six axe-hammers, with wear indicative of chopping motions in contact with wood, had more wear on one side of the blade than the other. This uneven development of wear suggests an angled position of the implement (not set at a right angle to the contact material) in relation to the contact material during use, or it may have been caused by the handedness of the user or multiple users. Further experiments are needed to confirm these hypotheses.
Indications of battle-axes used as wedges to split wood were found on three occasions and on seven with axe-hammers (Fig. 15). A wedge use was hypothesised from a combination of percussive traces and wood polish on the butt, possibly caused by a wooden hammer or stone hammer with a wooden subsidiary material, and a heavily flaked and fractured blade with long bifacial striations running perpendicular to the blade tip (Fig. 16). All examples were used heavily. The hypothesis was tested experimentally with a replica axe-hammer; however, the replica did not split the log; further tests are needed to confirm the hypothesis.
Several axe-hammers (n = 5) and battle-axes (n = 6) with micropolish indicating contact with wood had less developed wear (n = 5). At

Fig. 18. Micrographs of the three-group arrangement on an experimental replica (B) and an ancient battle-axe (A). Sparse, shallow pits on blade tips towards one corner with associated striations, 2–3 in number, see circle and arrows. The central group of pits is visible in the smaller circle on A and the larger circle on B. – 2 column width in colour.

Fig. 19. An image of an axe-hammer from Wolsty Bank, Cumbria, with a truncated blade. It is probable that, prior to truncation, this implement was re-ground to continue to the use of the blade after breakage, hence the limited length – 1.5 column width in colour.

Fig. 20. Two micrographs demonstrating the edge damage and micro fractured stone grains caused when a thrusting percussive action is used with the blade (A) and the butt (B). The high topography on B is rounded, suggesting possible contact with a medium hardness contact material, such as wood - 2 column width in colour.

low magnifications, the wear on these examples was sparse in density and quantity. During the experiments, it was apparent that less developed use-wear from chopping motions in contact with wood developed in three groups on the blade tip and edges: the ‘three-group arrangement’ (Roy, 2020b). One group occurred in the centre of the blade, and the other two towards the corners (Fig. 17). Each group consisted of pits on the tip with associated striations on the blade edges, both sparse and with a limited quantity. Continued use increased the density and quantity of the wear, filling in the gaps between the groups. The observation of this wear pattern during the experiments allowed the interpretation of the use of nine archaeological implements, six battleaxes and three axe-hammers (Fig. 18), which would have previously been impossible due to the lack of referential data.

2.3.1.		
Fig. 21. Micrographs illustrating the difference in use-wear between the blade and the butt on a battle-axe from Herd Howe barrow. Image A shows the butt with close density pits and short striations facing multiple directions surrounding several large groups of dense pits and microfractures, creating a frosted appearance, on the butt and butt edges. Whereas B shows that the blade has longer striations in a parallel arrangement associated with deeper and narrower groups of pits and fractures along the tip with a close density – 2 column width image in colour.

Fig. 22. An axe-hammer from Barrasford, Northumberland, (A) and a battle-axe from Cawthorn, Stackyard, Yorkshire, (B) using in contact with bone– 1.5 column image in colour.

Percussion tools
Some of those implements used in contact with wood, as identified by the type of polish, had wear suggestive of more intense use, termed here as percussion tools due to the likelihood that they were used as hammer-like tools. The thrusting and oblique chopping motions interpreted on the battle-axes and axe-hammers in this paper were also percussive motions (Leroi-Gourhan, 1971; de Beaune 2004, Stroulia, 2010). However, the blunt and fractured nature of the blades and butts of the percussion tools were caused by actions which were more intense and forceful than the chopping motions used for the other artefacts.
Three axe-hammers were used with forceful percussive motions (n = 3) to strike medium-hard and hard surfaces (Fig. 19). On these implements, the use-wear traces on the blades were caused by a forceful perpendicular thrusting action (de Beaune, 2004) as indicated by groups of dense, large grain removal pits, associated with large flake negatives and dense microfractures within the pits. The microfractures included crushed grain edges, occurring at a close density and dense density surrounding and within the grain removal pits. The dense pits and fractured stone grains extended along the length of the tip, blunting and widening it, with large flake negatives travelling from the tip onto both of the blade edges, changing the shape of the cutting edge (Fig. 20). The flake negatives often overlap and contain crushed stone grains and fractured stone grains, creating a rough, and occasionally frosted appearance.
Percussive traces were also analysed on the butts of axe-hammers and battle-axes. These include the implements interpreted as wedges to split wood. A small number of battle-axes (n = 5) and axe-hammers (n = 3) which were not interpreted as wedges also had percussive traces on their butts, although there was no relationship between the use-wear on the butts and blades. These percussive traces consisted of dense, overlapping, wide grain removal pits and small flake negatives in the centre of the butt associated with equally dense microfractures, including

Fig. 23. Micrograph A is bone polish on the blade tip an archaeological battle-axe under a metallographic microscope, X20. The image shows a large patch of bone polish with rounded edges and a high quantity of striations, some overlapping, see arrows. Micrograph B is an acetate cast showing bone polish from the experimental axe-hammer, taken after 2000 strikes, X10. This image shows a large patch of partially connected polish with rounded edges and overlapping striations, see arrows. – 2 column width in black and white.

crushed grain edges. The pits surrounding the centre were slightly less dense and were often interrupted by larger flake negatives. Groups of short striations, in a parallel arrangement with various orientations, were visible towards the edge of the butt, the flake negatives and the large, dense patches of pits. The dense fractures and edge damage in the centre of the butts interrupted and removed traces of striations. Those implements with more developed use-wear from extensive use had larger, and more numerous flake negatives which travelled onto the edges of the butts. On these examples, the dense wear attributes covered a greater area, often the entirety of the butt.
The micro-polish analysis of the butts under high magnifications was interpreted as a wood polish. They were possibly used as percussive tools, with striking motions to hammer wooden objects, such as stakes, posts or beams. These artefacts had multiple uses; the blades of these implements had wear indicative of chopping motions (see section 4.2) which were not related to the wear on the butts (Fig. 21). Although, it is also possible that these examples were used as wedges, after which the blades were reground and used to chop wood.
2.4.		Contact with bone
Micro-polish from contact with bone was evident on four battle-axes and five axe-hammers (Fig. 22). Most of these had been used with a chopping motion which resulted in bifacial striations which were spread along the blade edges, short to medium in length, and often overlapping. Grain removal pits spread evenly along the blade tip and extended onto the blade edges, surrounding the striations, 15–20 mm. This wear was also found on the experimental replica axe-hammer used with a chopping motion in the bone-breaking experiment (this experiment used skulls, ethically sourced; further experiments using battle-axes and axehammers in contact with human bone to test combat cannot occur for ethical reasons) (Fig. 23). As with the implements in contact with wood, angled chopping motions were also found on one axe-hammer used in contact with bone, it had uneven bifacial wear on the blade edges.
The duration of tool use was varied, as indicated by less developed, moderately developed and well-developed wear attributes. One battleaxe had wear which was not developed enough to allow for interpretation of the use motion. Yet, high power analysis of the micro-polish allowed an interpretation of the contact material, as bone (Fig. 24). Bone polish is smooth and bright with a sinuous morphology. The grains have rounded edges but are not domed like the wood polish. Associated striations run across the polish in singular and parallel arrangements, sometimes overlapping. The analysis of micro-polish to identify the contact material of these implements was particularly important for the analysis of those implements with less developed use traces at low magnification. This illustrates the increased data and accuracy of interpretation when applying both low and high-power approaches. The similarities between the wear attributes and both low and high magnification analysis of these archaeological implements and the axehammer used in the bone-breaking experiment indicate that they may have been used in this way; contact with bone was analysed on 9 % battle-axes and 9 % axe-hammers.
2.5.		Contact with earth and roots
Based on the comparability with the experimental battle-axe used to clear soil and roots (Fig. 25), the use of three battle-axes and one axehammer is interpreted as clearing soil containing roots (Fig. 26). The wear development on all three artefacts was less to moderately developed (n = 1) and moderately to well developed (n = 2). The battle-axes were used with oblique chopping motions, as indicated by the overlapping striations on both faces of the working edge. Analogous to the experimental battle-axe, the three implements had narrow striations, in a parallel arrangement, extend onto the blade edges, up to 30 mm, and spread across the width of the blade edges; singular striation overlapped them. Grain removal pits surround the striations on the blade edges in close to dense groups, microfractures occur with those groups overlapping striations. Groups of pits also spread unevenly along the blade tip and extend between 5 and 10 mm onto the blade edge. They are dense with microfractures on the pit edges, creating a frosted appearance. Edge rounding was present on the highest topography of stone grains on the tip, the blade edge, between 5 and 10 mm.
The micro-polish had a combination of patches of domed polish with a rough texture and overlapping singular and parallel striations, and rough polish, occurring on singular, unconnected grains associated with singular, overlapping striations. This was comparable to the micropolish analysed on the experimental battle-axe used to clear soil and roots (Fig. 27).
2.6.		Multifunctional tools
The multiple-use (b-a = 6; a-h = 3) and re-use (b-a = 8; a-h = 15) of battle-axes and axe-hammers suggest that they were versatile, multifunctional tools (Fig. 28) (Hamon, 2008). They may have had multiple users, perhaps through shared use or inheritance. Multiple uses occurred when several areas of the surface of an implement were used in different distinct activities, such as the separate use of the blade and the butt (section 3.3.1). re-use is defined as occurring when the implement was

Fig. 24. Micrographs showing the similarity of wear attributes between the replica axe-hammer (A, C, E) used for the bone-breaking experiment and battle-axes (B, F) and an axe-hammer (D) in the archaeological record. Images A and C show the axe-hammer after 2000 strikes, small grain removal pits with a close density, the edges of which have microfractures, surround by the parallel striations which spread evenly along the blade edge; these occur on both blade edges equally. Edge rounding is present on the highest topography close to the blade tip. Images B and D show similar pits surrounding evenly spread striations in a parallel arrangement on the blade edge. Image D also demonstrates edge rounding of the higher topography. Image E is of the tip of the axe-hammer after 1500 strikes, it shows wide, partially connected pits, some of which contain microfracture. The highest topography is rounded. Image F shows a similar arrangement of wear attributes on its tip. – 2 column width in colour.

employed in a second activity that did not alter the design of the tool (Adams, 2002; Dubreuil et al, 2015). Their ability to be used in different ways, and for different parts of the axehead to be used, indicates the versatile nature of these artefacts, i.e., the ability to adapt or be adapted to different functions or activities.
The wear attributes which were suggestive of different use motions and contact materials, present on the same locations of the implements, such as the blade edges and tip, were used to identify implement re-use.
On two occasions (implements Carlisle R1 and NMS AH 215 in Supplementary Material 1; Fig. 29) the contact material differed between uses, from contact with earth and roots to contact with wood. For both artefacts, there was a mixture of use polishes visible under high magnifications on the blade tip and edges: smooth, domed and in partially connected patches, with associated parallel striations and clear directionality, i.e., wood polish, and domed polish in partially connected patches with a rough texture and overlapping singular and parallel

Fig. 25. Micrographs demonstrating the resemblance between the replica battle-axes (A, C, D) used to clear earth containing roots and archaeological artefacts (B, D, F). Both have medium to long intermittent striations on the blade edges running from the edge damage on the blade tip and edges. The wide patches of grain removal pits and micro fractured stone grains exist on the blade tip and edges extend 10–20 mm, with linear groups of pits surrounding the striations, 20–30 mm from the blade. Single pits exist the c.30 mm from the tip with a close density. Rounding is present on the high topography along the tip, and 10–20 mm onto the blade edges – 2 column width in colour.

striations, consistent with polish caused by contact with earth and roots (Fig. 29a and b). The polish that developed on the replica used to dig and clear earth and roots lacked the smooth, domed polish seen on the replicas used to split and chop wood, therefore, it is possible that these two polish types were the result of contact with two different contact materials, wood and earth/roots. To further this, the wear analysed under low magnifications on axe-hammer NMS AH 215 suggests its use as a wedge to split wood which corroborates with the evidence that it was used in contact with wood: overlapping, wide and dense flake removals and step-fractures truncate the blade tip which is covered in dense microfractures of the grain edges and crushed stone grains and has long bifacial striations running from it on the blade edges (see section 3.3). The truncation of the blade and abrasive action on the blade edge, caused by its use as a wedge, removed much of the previous use-wear.
For the remaining re-used implements, wood was the contact material for each use, but the motion, amount of use, or the hardness of the contact material differed between uses. For instance, the use-wear on a battle-axe from Burnside Mill, Angus, Scotland, shows that this implement was used in contact with wood on both use events (as indicated by high magnification analysis), however, the hardness of the contact

Fig. 26. An image of a battle-axe from Mugdrum Island, Perthshire, used in contact with earth and roots – 1 column width in colour.

material differed between each use. The initial use was identified by wide flake negatives on the blade tip and edges, located towards both blade corners and present on both blade edges (Fig. 30c). The flake removals are associated with fractured stone grains on the blade tip. These wear attributes indicate that the implement was used in contact with a medium to hard contact material. This contact material was harder than the contact material of the re-use event. The re-use can be identified by narrow and superficial grain removal pits which extend evenly along the blade tip, with a larger, slightly denser patch in the centre of the tip and blade edge. Rounding exists on stone grains along the blade tip, including the edges of all the grain removal pits and the edges and centres of the fractures and flake negatives from the previous use (Fig. 30d). The re-use also created striations running from the pits, these are parallel and shallow with a close density. These striations also run through the flake negative, indicating they occurred after the negatives were created. The wear attributes from the re-use event suggest a softer contact material than the initial use. The presence of striations running parallel with the blade edge, which were overlapped by the re-use striations, and the lack of striations associated with the flake removal suggests that both use events may have been differentiated by a regrinding event.
On 18 occasions the blades of the re-used implements were reground between uses, suggestive of multiple events of use (battle-axe n = 7; axehammer n = 11). re-grinding would have occurred to renew and sharpen

Fig. 27. Micrographs of archaeological implements (B, D) and the experimental replica (A, C) demonstrating the polish from contact with earth and roots. The polish on the archaeological artefacts is slightly more developed than the experimental replica, nevertheless, they are alike. Image A shows partially connected patches of polish, the higher topography has a domed appearance, such as within the circle. Image B shows a similar patch of polish, albeit more developed so the patches of polish are mostly connected. The striations which cover the polish are orientated in variable directions, see arrows, and overlap occasionally. The smaller circle shows a rough polish on singular stone grains from contact with soil; this polish surrounds the patches of domed polish. In all four micrographs, the domed polish from contact with wood has a slightly uneven appearance probably caused by contact with soil. Images C and D show patches of polish directly next to the blade tip, on the blade edge. These patches of polish are domed, with both singular and diagonal striations, the circles show the areas of rough polish, taking a granular appearance – 2 column width in black and white.

Fig. 28. A bar graph to demonstrate the re-grinding and multiple-use of battle-axes and axe-hammers – 1.5 column width in colour.

Fig. 29. A battle-axe from Lauder, Berwickshire, with signs of re-use and an axe-hammer from Wigton, Cumbria, (B) that has use-wear suggestive of multiple-use – 1 column width image in colour.

the blade to continue its utilitarian use (Fig. 31). Fractures and breakage of the blade were also re-ground to reduce the chance of further damage (Fig. 30B). Analysis of stone and flint Neolithic axes and Dutch battleaxes indicates that these artefact types were also frequently re-ground to re-sharpen the blade (Masclans Latorre et al., 2017b; Mills, 1993; Yerkes et al., 2003; Yerkes and Barkai, 2013). It is likely that many more implements were re-ground and re-used, but their re-use removed any signs of re-grinding and previous use. These implements may have been re-ground repeatedly to continue their functionality (Wijnen et al. 2018), a process which also often removes signs of previous use.
Six battle-axes were re-ground but lack any signs of re-use (Fig. 32). All examples have extremely limited, faint wear, mostly consisting of sparse striations and superficial and sparse (in quantity and density) grain removal pits, because of re-grinding. Regrinding striations, running parallel with the blade edge, are noticeably different from the use traces. Occasionally, re-grinding did not remove all traces of use (n = 5). On these examples, limited patches of micro-polish, wood polish (n = 3) and bone polish (n = 2) remained on the blade edges and tips.
On no occasion were axe-hammers re-ground and not re-used. This is a marked difference from the battle-axes which were re-ground and not re-used since examples are only from funerary contexts. Yet not all funerary battle-axes were re-ground which suggests that the placement of these artefacts in burials was not drawing upon one fixed idea, but many (for an in-depth discussion see Roy, 2019a; 2020b).
2.7.		Heat damage
Analysis of the use-wear also revealed wear which occurred through non-utilitarian events, such as through contact with heat. Heat damage (battle-axe n = 6; axe-hammer n = 2) was defined by the altered colour of the stone, such as blackened or red in colour (Corkill, 1997), often accompanied by deep cracks, and shattering of the stone grains and crystals. The heat also weakens the stone causing the grains to become loose, thus the removal of stone grains is evident at both micro and macro levels (Fig. 33). Under high magnifications, it was clear that such grain removal interrupted the polish and was evident as both microremovals within the polish and wider areas of angular removals

Fig. 30. Image A shows smooth, domed and partially connected patches of polish, with associated parallel striations and clear directionality in the large oval. The smaller circle shows domed polish with a rough texture and overlapping singular and parallel striations. Image B shows a similar rough polish with overlapping striations, see arrows. Image C shows a large flake negative caused by a previous use of the battle-axe. This implement was re-ground followed by a subsequent use as indicated by the ovals and circles in C and D – 2 column width image in colour.

Fig. 31. Images of an archaeological re-ground axe-hammer from Stranraer, Wigtownshire, and battle-axe from Rudston, Yorkshire: A shows the re-grounding of the blade and tip causing the length to shorten; B shows a flake removal which has been reground – 1.5 column width in colour.

separated and caused holes within an area of polish. In some instances, micro-cracks through stone grains were also visible. Damage caused by heat was not uniform and regular at both low and high magnifications, so, it was easily distinguishable from manufacture and use-wear.
Contact with heat has potentially caused the formation of cracks and breakage of several battle-axes into two. This may have been the result of contact with a funeral pyre or with hot cremated remains. For instance, the Bargrennan battle-axe, Wigtownshire, was found shattered and blackened inside a Collared Urn containing cremated remains.
Moreover, the battle-axe from the nearby chambered tomb at Cairnderry (Fig. 33A), has a crack along the perforation that is thought to have occurred through contact with hot cremated remains; both were from pits containing cremated remains outside the entrance of tomb chambers (Cummings & Fowler, 2005; 2007). Indeed, research into heat treatment has demonstrated that heating stone with high silica content can cause fractures in weaker areas of the stone to take a less meandering path, in other words, cracks are likely to be straighter (Schmidt et al., 2018). The Cairnderry battle-axe, being made from

Fig. 32. Micrographs of wear on archaeological battle-axes from re-grinding using a stereomicroscope. Image A shows the blade edge of a battle-axe which has been re-ground and not re-used. Striations run parallel with the blade tip from re-grinding, the arrow indicates the direction. re-grinding striations cut across sparse striations from use. Battle-axe B has been re-ground and re-used. re-grinding striations covering the blade edge running parallel with the blade tip. re-use after regrinding caused polished the tip, see circle – 1.5 column width in colour.

Fig. 33. A battle-axes and an axe-hammer with heat alteration. Image A shows a crack which extends the length of one side of the battle-axes from Cairnderry, Wigtownshire. The reddening of the stone is also close to the crack. The blackened area on image B also possible indicates heat damage. Patches such as this cover the object and do not appear to be interrupted by use wear. – 1.5 column width in colour.

Table 4
The utilitarian uses of battle-axes and axe-hammers detected from the use-wear analysis and experiments– 2 column width.
Proven Use
Battle-axes and axe-hammers were used to chop wood, fell trees and to split wood into smaller pieces ideal for other uses or firewood
Axe-hammers and battle-axes were used as wedges to split wood into planks
Battle-axes and axe-hammers were used to clear undergrowth and roots
Battle-axe and axe-hammer were used to dig through soil and stones
Battle-axes and axe-hammers were used as weapons; this may have been more widespread but not evident since it would cause little wear
Battle-axes and axe-hammers were used to slaughter animals by delivering blows to the skulls; this may have been more widespread since it would cause little wear

Frequency

Frequent, 58 %

Occasionally, 9
%
Occasionally, 4
%
Never, 0 %
Possibly

Occasionally, 8 %

granite, has a silica content of 70–77 %, which could result in a similar, less meandering fracture when subjected to heat and suggests this may have been the reason for such a crack in this implement. Moreover, the heat of cremated remains soon after removal from a funerary pyre is sufficient to cause macro damage in granite with the optimum temperature for the damage being 600–900 ◦C (Tian et al. 2018).
3.		Discussion
This paper demonstrates the significant contributions that integration of microwear analysis and experimental archaeology can make to the interpretation of ground stone tools. It has established a nuanced and more accurate interpretation of why battle-axes and axe-hammers were made and how they were used. The results challenge past interpretations which have no equivalent empirical basis (Pegge, 1773, 126–7; Roe, 1966; 1967; Leahy, 1986, 148). This method has shown that battle-axes and axe-hammers were highly utilitarian and versatile objects, being used in contact with wood, bone and earth and roots (those implements used in contact with earth and roots have similarities with the use-wear on Dutch Corded Ware battle-axes which also have possible land clearance roles (Wentink, 2020)) (Table 4.). Moreover, the data shows that there is no differentiation between the use of battle-axes and axehammers or between the use of different battle-axe and axe-hammer types. Therefore, the form did not influence function.
Since re-grinding is evident on a number of implements, it is possible that their use was sustained through events of re-sharpening. This is further established by the evidence that some of these implements were used for either extended periods or short-period intense use and had events of multiple uses, re-use and then re-grinding to continue their utilitarian use. re-grinding may have occurred between use events by different users and artefacts used over long periods could also have had multiple users, perhaps handed down through generations, although further research is needed to determine this. Moreover, continental
battle-axes are also interpreted as being extensively used and re-ground to re-sharpen the blade (Wentink, 2020; Hübner, 2005; Bakker, 1979; Z´apotocký, 1992). The versatility of these tools is clear, which suggests that those using these artefacts were also versatile, being able to move these tools between uses and people, from tool to weapon, perhaps. Such movement would have created webs of relationships between users and materials, places, people, and the implements themselves, creating significant moments in the biography of these artefacts that could be drawn upon later in their itineraries, for example in trade and exchange or their deposition in funerary contexts (Roy, 2019; 2020a).
The inclusion of multiple strands of evidence, through analysis of contextual frameworks, alongside use-wear and experimental data indicates the presence of utilitarian battle-axes (n = 18) and axe-hammers (n = 2) in EBA ceremonial contexts and demonstrates that these implements were used functionally as well as ceremonially (Roy, 2020a). Such combined analysis has revealed data which would not have been known without implementing use-wear analysis and can be used to reflect on the importance of using such methods alongside other strands of analysis and evidence; the regrinding of a small number of funerary battle-axes (n = 5) prior to their deposition and the deposition of seemingly unused battle-axes (n = 2) and axe-hammers (n = 1) in funerary contexts which are the only observed differences between some of the ceremonial and non-ceremonial implements. In these cases, usewear analysis has enabled the identification of possible ceremonial treatment (lack of use or removal of use traces) which sets a few battleaxes and axe-hammers apart. This ceremonial treatment, re-grinding, may have separated the deceased and the mourners from the previous use lives of the implement by removing the traces of its functional use, or, by allowing the implement to absorb marks of a meaningful history regrinding primed the axe for action. Moreover, a freshly re-ground object may have been essential for the funerary deposit in those cases, such as open opportunities for new relations to form (Roy, 2020). Yet, evidence of regrinding was also found on non-funerary battle-axes (n = 5) and axe-hammers (n = 11), and funerary battle-axes (n = 4) and axehammers (n = 4) were all re-ground and re-used, indicating that not all re-grinding treatments were ceremonial; they also occurred to prolong the use of the tool.
For those implements which were not re-ground ceremonially, the use-wear data did not differentiate between depositional contexts, so those tools deposited in ceremonial contexts did not receive special treatment and, thus, use was not a determining factor for deposition (Roy, 2020). In fact, neither was the implement type, their petrology, or extent of use (the implements were deposited at various stages of use) a determining factor which suggests that artefact deposition drew upon other points or relationships in the objects’ itineraries during ceremo- nial/funerary deposition. For instance, the repeated functional use or shared use of many of these implements would have secured a link between the users and artefact which could be drawn upon in such contexts (See Roy, 2020 for further discussion).
Yet, whether or not the meaning behind each use is known, the usewear analysis and experimental archaeology method successfully established potential functional uses of stone battle-axes and axehammers. Moreover, archaeology rarely fits neatly within either ritual or secular dualistic boxes (Leach 1966; 1968; Brück, 1999a; 1999b). As such, it must be considered that the same functional use could be implemented for both secular and sacred roles which may mean that use traces could be same for both secular and sacred functions or that sa- cred/ritual action may leave no trace (Fogelin, 2007). The ceremonial chopping of a tree is likely to use the same actions as the everyday chopping of a tree, for instance, thus creating parallel use traces.
Ground stone tools have received far less attention than flaked stone artefacts, and programmes of microwear analysis are long overdue for many such artefacts, particularly those that are bladed, ground and/or polished. For those artefacts which have received such analysis, there have been significant advances in their interpretations and of the associated society. For instance, experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis of Neolithic quernstones have been critical in understanding the spread of agriculture, farming practices and consumption of mealbased foods (Santiago-Marrero et al. 2021; Nieuwenhuis & Van Gijn 2008; Hamon 2008; Adams 1999). Moreover, recent use-wear analysis of Bronze Age ore mining hammerstones used to reconstruct the chaîne ope´ratoires, economic choices, and cultural aspects of mining in Southern Italy (Caricola, 2020) also demonstrates how the implementation of direct analysis, such as use-wear, residue, and experiments, could significantly advance the functional understanding of stone artefacts. Indeed, such analysis has the potential to complement the current knowledge of petrology, manufacture, function, and trade and exchange for many ground stone objects, particularly perforated adzes and wedges, British stone axes, and European battle-axes and mace-heads. Functional interpretations of British EBA axe-hammers could positively impact the interpretation of European Early Neolithic perforated adzes and wedges, particularly when comparing use-wear development due to their similarities in form (the relationship between Neolithic perforated adzes and EBA axe-hammers is uncertain, particularly due to the limited dating evidence for axe-hammers; future research is needed) and the similar hypothesised function of the adzes. Moreover, while a limited number of European battle-axes have been directly analysed (Wentink, 2020), it is clear that the vast assemblages of battle-axes and axe-hammers from across the continent and other areas of Britain, such as Ireland and Wales, which lack direct functional analysis, would significantly benefit from a study such as this which can positively feed into the contextual analysis of such artefacts (as demonstrated here and in Roy, 2020a).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Dr Annelou van Gijn and the Material Culture Laboratory at Leiden University, and Profs Chris Fowler and Andrea Dolfini and Associate Prof Rachel Crellin for their support and guidance. I offer great thanks to those who supported this research project; it is greatly appreciated. The organisations and charities who kindly funded my research trips to museums was integral to the project completion, I would like to thank the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, The Catherine Mackichan Bursary Trust, the Sir Richard Stapley Education Trust, and Materiality, Artefacts & Technologies in Culture & History (MATCH), Newcastle University. The following museums granted me permission to access and analyse the battle-axes and axehammers in their collections, for which I am grateful: British Museum; Great North Museum, Newcastle; Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery, Carlisle; Sheffield Museum; York Museum; Manchester Museum; National Museum of Scotland; Stranraer Museum; Dumfries Museum; and the Manx Museum.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103646.
References
Adams, J.L., 1989. Experimental Replication of the Use of Ground Stone Tools. Kiva 54 (3), 261–271.
Adams, J.L., 1993. Mechanisms of wear on ground stone surfaces. Pacific Coast Archaeology Society Quarterly 29, 60–73.
Adams, J.L., 1999. Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding Tools as Correlates for Subsistence Strategies in the U.S. Southwest. American Antiquity 64 (3), 475–498.
Adams, J.L., 2003. Ground Stone Tool Analysis. Portland, University of Utah Press, A Technological Approach.
Adams, J.L., 2010. Understanding grinding technology through experimentation. In: Ferguson, J. (Ed.), Designing Experimental Research in Archaeology: Examining Technology Through Production and Use. University Press of Colorado):, (Boulder, pp. 129–151.
Adams, J.L., 2014. Ground stone use- wear analysis: a review of terminology and experimental methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 12–138.
Adams, J., Delgado, S., Dubreuil, L., Hamon, C., Plisson, H., Risch, R., 2009. Functional analysis of macro-lithic artefacts:a focus on working surfaces. In F. Sternke, L. Eigeland & L.J. Costa (eds) Non-Flint Raw Material Use in Prehistory Old prejudices and new directions L’utilisation pr´ehistorique de mati`eres premi`eres lithiques alternatives Anciens pr´ejug´es, nouvelles perspectives. BAR International Series 1939. Archaeopress, Oxford.
Adams, J. L. 2002. Mechanisms of wear on ground stone surfaces, in H. Procopiou, R. Treuil (Eds.), Moudre et Broyer. (CTHS: Paris): 57-68.
Akerman, K., 2014. Observations on edge-ground stone hatchets with hafting modifications in Western Australia. Australian Archaeology 79 (1), 137–145.
Anderson, R., Low, A., 1942. A cinerary urn from Sandmill Farm, Stranraer, Wigtownshire. With a Note on the Associated Cremated Remains. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 76, 79–83.
Bakker, J.A., 1979. The TRB West Group – Studies in the Chronology and Geography of the Makers of Hunebeds and Tiefstich Pottery. University of Amsterdam), (Amsterdam. PhD thesis.
Binneman, J., Deaconb, J., 1986. Experimental Determination of Use Wear on Stone Adzes from Boomplaas Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 13, 219–228.
Bofill, M., Procopiou, H., Vargiolu, R., & Zahouani, H. 2013. Use-wear analysis of near eastern prehistoric grinding stones. In P. C. Anderson, C. Cheval, & A. Durand (Eds.) Regards crois´es sur les outils li´es au travail des v´eg´etaux: 225–242.
Bordaz, J., 1970. Tools of the Old and New Stone Age. Natural History Press, Garden City.
Borel, A., Oll´e, A., Verg`es, J.M., Sala, R., 2014. Scanning Electron and Optical Light Microscopy: two complementary approaches for the understanding and interpretation of usewear and residues on stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 46–59.
Bradley, R., 1978. The Prehistoric Settlement of Britain. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Henley- on-Thames.
Breglia, F., Caricola, I., Larocca, F., 2016. Macrolithic tools for mining and primary processing of metal ores from the site of Grotta della Monaca (Calabria, Italy). Journal of Lithic Studies 3 (3), 57–76.
Brück, J., 1999a. Houses, Lifecycles and Deposition on Middle Bronze Age Settlements in Southern England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 145–166.
Brück, J., 1999b. Ritual and rationality: some problems of interpretation in European archaeology. European journal of archaeology 2, 313–344.
Byrne, L., Oll´e, A., Verg`es, J.M., 2006. Under the Hammer: Residues Resulting from Production And Microwear On Experimental Stone Tools. Archaeometry 48 (4), 549–564.
Caricola, I., Breglia, F., Larocca, F., Hamon, C., Lemorini, C., Giligny, F., 2020. Prehistoric exploitation of minerals resources. Experimentation and use-wear analysis of grooved stone tools from Grotta della Monaca (Calabria, Italy). Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12 (259), 1–26.
Carneiro, R. L. 1979. Tree Felling with the Stone Axe. In, C. Kramer, (ed). Ethnoarchaeology. (New York: Columbia University Press): 21-58.
Clemente Conte, I., & Gibaja Bao, J.F. 2009. Formation of use-wear traces in non-flint rocks: the case of quartzite and rhyolite – differences and similarities. In F. Sternke, L. Eigeland & L-J. Costa (eds.) Non-Flint Raw Material Use in Prehistory: Old prejudices and new directions / L’utilisation pr´ehistorique de mati`eres premie`res lithiques alternatives : Anciens pr´ejug´es, nouvelles perspectives, Vol. 11, Session C77. (Oxford: Archaeopress).
Clemente Conte, I. (1995/2008). Instrumentos de trabajo líticos de los y´amanas (canoeros-n´omadas de la Tierra del Fuego): una perspectiva desde el ana´lisis funcional. Thesis doctoral, Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona. Published in 2008 in: Publicaciones de la Universidad Auto´noma de Barcelona.
Coles, J.M., 1973. Archaeology by Experiment. Hutchinson, London.
Coles, J.M., Heal, S.V.E., Orme, B.J., 1978. The Use and Character of Wood in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 44, 1–46.
Coles, J.M., Orme, B.J., 1985. Prehistoric woodworking in the Somerset Levels: 3: Roundwood. Somerset Level Paper 11, 25–50.
Coles, J. M. 1979. An Experiment with Stone Axes, in T. Clough and W. Cummins, (eds) Stone Axe Studies (Council for British Archaeology Research Report 23: 106-107.
Corkill, T., 1997. Red, yellow and black: Colour and heat in archaeological stone. Australian Archaeology 45 (1), 54–55.
Cristiani, E., Lemorini., C. & Dalmeri, G. 2012. Ground stone tool production and use in the Late Upper Palaeolithic: The evidence from Riparo Dalmeri (Venetian Prealps, Italy). Journal of Field Archaeology, 37(1): 34-50.
Cristiani, E., Radini, A., Bori´c, D., Mutri, G., Filipovi´c, D., Allu´e, E., Bonsall, C., Boroneant¸, A., Dalmeri, G., Fontana, F., Lo Vetro, D., Martini, F., Negrino, F., Peresani, M., Riel-Salvatore, J., Sarti, L., Vujevi´c, D., Vukojici´c, S., 2016. The ‘Hidden Foods’ project: new research into the role of plant foods in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic societies of South-east Europe and Italy. Antiquity 315 (90), 1–4.
Cummings, V., Fowler, C., 2005. Construction and Re-use of Bargrennan chambered cairns, South-West Scotland. Archaeology Data Service, York.
Cummings, V., Fowler, C., 2007. From Cairn to Cemetery: An archaeological investigation of the chambered cairns and early Bronze Age mortuary deposits at Cairnderry and Bargrennan White Cairn, south-west Scotland (Oxford. British Archaeological Series 434).
Cunnar, G., 2007. The production and use of stone tools at the Longshan period site of Liangchengzhn, China. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT).
De Beaune, S.A., 2004. The invention of technology: Prehistory and cognition. Current Anthropology 45 (2), 139–162.
Delgado, S. & Risch, R. (2008). Lithic perspectives on metallurgy: an example from Copper and Bronze Age south-east Iberia. In L. Longo, N. Skakun, Eds. “Prehistoric Technology” 40 years later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy. Museo Civico di Verona, & Universita degli Studi di Verona, Verona. BAR International Series 1783. (Oxford: Archaeopress): 235-253.
Dubreuil, L., 2004. Long-term trends in Natufian subsistence: a use-wear analysis of ground stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (6), 1613–1629.
Dubreuil, L., Grosman, L., 2009. Ground stone tools from the Natufian cave site of Hilazon Tachtit (Israel): Skin working with ochre. Antiquity 83, 935–954.
Dubreuil, L.L., Savage, D., 2014. Ground stones: a synthesis of the use-wear approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 139–153.
Dubreuil, L., Savage, D., Delgado-Raack, S., Plisson, H., Stephenson, B., de la Torre, I., 2015. Current analytical frameworks for studies of use-wear on ground stone tools. In: Marreiros, J.M., Gibaja Bao, J.F., Bicho, N.F. (Eds.), Use-wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Springer International Publishing):, (Switzerland, pp. 105–158.
Elberg, R., Hein, W., Probst, A., Walter, P., 2015. In: Field Trials in Neolithic Woodworking: (Re)Learning to Use Early Neolithic Stone Adzes. Husum Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft):, (Husum, pp. 62–77.
Evans, J., 1897. Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons and Ornaments of Great Britain, 2nd ed. Longmans, Green and Co, London.
Fenton, M.B., 1984. The nature of the source and the manufacture of Scottish battle-axes and axe-hammers. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, 217–243.
Fenton, M.B. 1988. The petrological identification of stone battle-axes and axe-hammers from Scotland. In T.H.Mck. Clough & W.A. Cummins (eds) Stone Axe Studies vol. II: The Petrology of Prehistoric Stone Implements from the British Isles (London: Council for British Archaeology): 92-132.
Fogelin, L., 2007. The Archaeology of Religious Ritual. Annual Review of Anthropology 36, 55–71.
Fowler, C., 2013. Identities in transformation. In: Nilsson Stutz, L., Tarlow, S. (Eds.), the Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial. Oxford University Press):, (Oxford, pp. 511–526.
Fullagar, R., 1991. The role of silica in polish formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 18 (1), 1–24.
González-Urquijo, J.E., & Juan José Ibáñez-Estévez, J.J. 2003. Quantification of UseWear Polish Using Image Analysis. The First Results. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30: 1–489.
Greenwell, W., Rolleston, G., 1877. British barrows: a record of the examination of sepulchral mounds in various parts of England. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hamon, C., 2008. Functional analysis of stone grinding and polishing tools from the earliest Neolithic of north-western Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (6), 1502–1520.
Hamon, C., 2016. Salt mining tools and techniques from Duzdag˘i (Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan) in the 5th to3rd millennium BC. Journal of Field Archaeology 41 (4), 510–528.
Hamon, C., Plisson, H., 2008. Functional analysis of grinding stones: the blind-test contribution. In: Skakun, N., Longo, L. (Eds.), Prehistoric Technology 40 Years Later: Functional Studies and the Russian Legacy (BAR International Series), pp. 29–38.
Harding, A., & Young, R. 1979. Reconstruction of Hafting Methods and Function of Stone Implements. In T.H.Mck. Clough & W.A. Cummins (eds) Stone Axe Studies (Council for British Archaeology Research Report 23): 102-105.
Hayes, E., Pardoe, C., Fullagar, R., 2018. Sandstone grinding/pounding tools: Use-trace reference libraries and Australian archaeological applications. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 20, 97–114.
Heider, K.G., 1970. The Dugum Dani. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago.
Hern´andez, H.H., L´opez-Tasc´on, C., Aguirre, M., Tarrin˜o, A., 2020. Mining at Pozarrate: Applying Experimental Approaches to Understand the Neolithic Extraction of Flint in the Sierra de Araico (Trevin˜o, Spain). EXARC Journal 2020 (1).
Holsten, H., & Martens, K. 1991. Die Axt im Walde. Versuche zur Holzbearbeitung mit Flint-, Bronze- und Stahlwerkzeugen. In, M. Fansa (ed.) Experimentelle Archa¨ologie in Deutschland. Bilanz 1991. Arch¨aologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Beiheft 6 (Oldenburg): 231–243.
Hübner, E., 2005. Jungneolithische Gr¨aber auf der Jütischen Halbinsel. Typologische und chronologische Studien zur Einzelgrabkultur, København (Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab).
Hyenstrand, A., 1969. Den enkla Skafthalsyxan som Arbetsredskap. Nordsvensk forntid. Skytteanska Samfundets Handlingar 6, 99–110.
Ib´a˜nez, J.J., Mazzucco, N., 2021. Quantitative use-wear analysis of stone tools: Measuring how the intensity of use affects the identification of the worked material. PLoS ONE 16, e0257266.
Jørgensen, S., 1985. Tree-felling with original Neolithic flint axes in Draved Wood. Report on the Experiments in 1952–54 (Copenhagen).
Keeley, L., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Keeley, L.H., 1982. Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 47 (4), 798–809.
Knuttson, K., Hope, R., 1984. The application of acetate peels in lithic use-wear analysis. Archaeometry 26 (1), 49–61.
Kozak, V., 1972. Stone Age Revisited. Natural History 81 (8), 14–24.
Leach, E., 1966. Ritualisation in man in relation to conceptual and social development. In: Series, B. (Ed.), Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences, pp. 403–408.
Leach, E., 1968. Ritual. International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences 520–526.
Leahy, K., 1986. A Dated Stone Axe-hammer from Cleethorpes, South Humberside. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 52, 143–152.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1971. L’homme et la matie`re, (2nd ed.). Albin Michel), (Paris.
Lidstr¨om Holmberg, C. 2008. Grinding technologies, social relations and the becoming of the northernmost TRB. In C. Hamon & J. Graefe (eds.) New Perspectives on Querns in Neolithic Societies (Bonn: DGUF): 69-92.
Little, A., van Gijn, A., Collins, C., Cooney, G., Elliot, B., Gilhooly, B., Charlton, S., Warren, G., 2016. Stone Dead: Uncovering Early Mesolithic Mortuary Rites, Hermitage. Ireland. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 27 (2), 223–243.
Liu, L., Field, J., Fullagar, R., Bestel, S., Chen, X., Ma, X., 2010. What did grinding stones grind? New light on Early Neolithic subsistence economy in the Middle Yellow River Valley. China. Antiquity 84 (325), 816–833.
Mansur, M. E. 1997. Functional analysis of polished stone-tools: some considerations about the nature of polishing. In M. A. Bustillo, & A. Ramos Millan (Eds.), Siliceous Rocks and Culture (CSIC and University of Granada, Madrid): 465-486.
Martellotta, E.F., Castangia, G., Lemorini, C., 2020. “Teste di mazza”: The Nuragic MaceHeads (Sardinia, Italy). Technological and Experimental Analysis. Lithic Technology 45 (2), 86–109.
Masclans Latorre, A., Palomo, A., Gibaja, J., 2017a. Functional Studies of Neolithic Stone Axes and Adzes. Experimental Programme and Archaeological Applications. Cuadernos de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 27, 177–210.
Masclans Latorre, A., Palomo P´erez, A., Gibaja-Bao, J.F., Remolins Zamora, G., Go´mez- Gras, D., 2017b. Use-wear analysis of Neolithic polished axes and adzes: The site of “Bobila Madurell-Can Gambús-1-2” (Northeast Iberian Peninsula). Quaternary International. 427, 158–174.
Mathieu, J.R., Meyer, D.A., 1997. Comparing Axe Heads of Stone, Bronze, and Steel: Studies in Experimental Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 24 (3), 333–351.
Meier, M. 1990. Das Arbeiten mit neolithischen Felsgesteinbeilen. In, M. Fanza (ed) Experimentelle arch¨aologie in Deutschland. Arch¨aologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutchland Beiheft 4 (Oldenburg): 237-278.
Mills, P.R., 1993. An axe to grind: a functional analysis of Anasazi stone axes from Sand Canyon Pueblo Ruin (5mt765), southwestern Colorado. Kiva 53 (3), 393–413.
Montelius, O., 1906. Kulturgeschicht Sechwedens. E. A. Seemann, Leipzig.
Morris, E. A. 1939. Archaeological Studies in the La Plata District, Southwestern Colorado and Northwestern New Mexico. (Carnegie Institute at Washington Publication 519. Washington D.C.: The Carnegie Institution of Washington).
Mortimer, J.R., 1905. Forty years’ researches in British and Saxon burial mounds of East Yorkshire. A. Brown and Sons LTD, London.
Needham, S. 2011. Material and Spiritual engagements: Britain and Ireland in the first age of metal, in 2011 Rhind Lectures, Available at: https://www.youtube.com/w atch?v=HFTttc48g9c [Accessed 01 April 2020].
Nieuwenhuis C.J. & Gijn A.L. van (2008), Cereal harvesting and processing at the middle Neolithic site of Schipluiden, a coastal site in the Lower-Rhine basin. In L. Longo, N. Skakun, M. Saracino (Eds.) “Prehistoric Technology” 40 Years Later: Functional studies and the Russian Legacy. Bar International Series (Oxford: University Press): 453-456.
Olaussen, D., 1983. Flint and Ground stone Axes in the Scanian Neolithic. CWK Gleerup, Lund.
Olausson, D., 1982. Lithic Technological Analysis of the Thin-butted Flint Axe. Acta Archaeologica 53, 1–87.
Orme, B., Coles, J., 1983. Prehistoric Woodworking from the Somerset Levels: 1. Timber, Somerset Levels Papers 9, 19–43.
Paix˜ao, E., Marreiros, J., Dubreuil, L., Gneisinger, W., Carver, G., Pr´evost, M., Zaidner, Y., 2021. The Middle Paleolithic ground stones tools of Nesher Ramla unit V (Southern Levant): A multi-scale use-wear approach for assessing the assemblage functional variability. Quaternary International.
Pawlik, A.F., 2007. Analysis of Two Polished Stone Adzes from Ille Cave at El Nido. Palawan Island. Wilhelm G, Solheim II Foundation for Philippine Archaeology Online Reports.
Pegge, S., 1773.. Observations on stone axe-hammers. Archaeologia 2, 124–128.
Plisson, H., 1985. Etude fonctionnelle d’outillages lithiques préhistoriques par l’analyse des micro-usures: recherche m´ethodologique et arch´eologique (PhD thesis. Universit´e de Paris I).
Plisson, H. 1991. Tracéologie et exp´erimentation: bilan d’une situation, Arch´eologie Expe´rimentale 2: La Terre; l’Os et la Pierre, la Maison et les Champs, Actes du Colloque International ‘‘Exp´erimentation en Arch´eologie: Bilan et Perspectives’’ tenu a‘ l’Archéodrome de Beaune les 6, 7, 8 et 9 Avril 1988 (Errance, Paris): 152-160.
Pond, A.W., 1930. Primitive Methods of Working Stone Based on the Experiments of Havlor F. Skavlem. The Logan Museum, Beloit College Bulletin 2, No. 1. The Logan Museum, Beloit.
Potratz, H.A., 1941. Baumf¨allen mit dem Steinbeil. Die Kunde 9, 230–231.
Roda Gilbert, X., Martínez-Moreno, J., Mora Torcal, R., 2012. Pitted stone cobbles in the Mesolithic site of Font del Ros (Southeastern Pre-Pyrenees, Spain): some experimental remarks around a controversial tool type. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1587–1598.
Roda Gilbert, X., Martínez-Moreno, J., Mora Torcal, R., 2016. Ground stone tools and spatial organization at the Mesolithic site of font del Ros (southeastern Pre-Pyrenees, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 5, 209–224.
Roe, F., 1966. The battle-axe series in Britain. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 32, 199–245.
Roe, F., 1967. The battle-axes, mace-heads and axe-hammers from south-west Scotland. Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History Antiquaries Society 44, 57–80.
Roe, F., 1969. Stone mace-heads and the latest Neolithic cultures of the British Isles. In: Coles, J.M., Simpson, D.D.A. (Eds.), Studies in Ancient Europe: Essays Presented to. Leicester University Press):, Stuart Piggott (Leicester, pp. 145–172.
Roe, F., 1979. In: The typology of implements with shaftholes. Council for British Archaeology):, Stone Axe Studies (London, pp. 23–48.
Roy, A.S., 2020a. The use and significance of Early Bronze Age perforated stone battleaxes and axe-hammers. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society.
Roy, A.S., 2020b. Enhancing the accuracy of use interpretation: The discovering of new wear formation with the complementary methods of experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis. EXARC Journal.
Roy, A. S. 2019. The Use and Significance of Early Bronze Age Stone Battle-Axe and Axehammers. Unpublished PhD Thesis (Newcastle Upon Tyne: Newcastle University).
Roy, A. S. 2021. Six experiments to test the use of ground stone axeheads [Unplublished Manuscript], School of History, Classics and Archaeology, Newcastle University.
Santiago-Marrero, C.G., Tsoraki, C., Lancelotti, C., Madella, M., 2021. A microbotanical and microwear perspective to plant processing activities and foodways at Neolithic Ҫatalh¨oyük. PLoS ONE 16 (6), e0252312.
Saraydar, S., Shimada, I., 1971. A Quantitative Comparison of Efficiency between a Stone Axe and a Steel Axe. American Antiquity 36 (2), 216–217.
Saraydar, S., Shimada, I., 1973. Experimental archaeology: A new outlook. American Antiquity 38 (3), 344–350.
Saville, A., Roe, F., 1984. A stone battle-axe from Wotton-under-Edge, and a review of battle-axe and mace-head finds from Gloucestershire. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 102, 17–22.
Schmidt, P., Buck, G., Berthold, C., Lauer, C., Nickel, K.G., 2018. The mechanical properties of heat-treated rocks: a comparison between chert and silcrete. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 11, 2489–2506.
Sehested, N. F. B. 1884. Praktiske Forsog. Arkaeologiske Undersogelser 1878-1881. (Copenhagen).
Semenov, S. A. 1964. Prehistoric Technology. Translated by M. W. Thompson. (Cory, Adams, & Mackay: London).
Sheridan, A. 2007. The pottery. In Cummings & Fowler (eds) From Cairn to Cemetery: An archaeological investigation of the chambered cairns and early Bronze Age mortuary deposits at Cairnderry and Bargrennan White Cairn, south-west Scotland (Oxford: British Archaeological Report 434): 97–107.
Smith, G.V., 1891. The Use of Flint Blades to Work Pine Wood. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, Part 1, 601–605.
Smith, R.A., 1926. The perforated axe-hammers of Britain. The Antiquaries Journal 75, 77–108.
Steensberg, A., 1980. New Guinea Gardens. Academic Press, New York.
Takashi, T., 2012. MIS3 edge-ground axes and the arrival of the first Homo sapiens in the Japanese archipelago. Quaternary International 248, 70–78.
Tian, W.L., Yang, S.Q., Huang, Y.H., 2018. Macro and micro mechanics behavior of granite after heat treatment by cluster model in particle flow code. Acta Mechanica Sinica 34, 175–186.
Townsend, W.H., 1969. Stone and Steel Tool Use in a New Guinea Society. Ethnology 8, 199–205.
van Gijn, A.L., 1990. The wear and tear of flint. Principles of functional analysis applied to Dutch Neolithic assemblages (PhD thesis). Universiteit Leiden), (Leiden.
van Gijn, A.L., 2010. Flint in Focus: Lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Sidestone Press, Leiden.
van Gijn, A.L., Raemaekers, D., 2014. Choosy about stone: the significance of the colour red in the Dutch Funnel Beaker Culture, in Flint from Heligoland. In: Bitteman, F., et al. (Eds.), The exploitation of a unique source of raw material on the North Sea coast. (Settlement and Coastal Research in the Southern North Sea, Region, 37. Rahden/ Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf, pp. 195–202.
van Gijn, A.L., Houkes, R., 2006. Stone, procurement and use. In: Schipluiden, A. (Ed.), A Neolithic Settlement on the Dutch North SeA CoAst C.3500 CAl BC. (FAculty of ArchAeology. Leiden University), 107–193.
Vaughan, P., 1985. Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. Arizona, University of Arizona Press.
Verbaas, A., & Gijn, A. L. van. 2008. Querns and other hard stone tools from GeleenJanskamperveld. In P. van de Welde (ed) Excavations at Geleen-Janskamperveld 1990/1991. (Leiden: Faculty of Archaeology): 191-204.
Wentink, K., 2006. Ceci n’est pas une hache. Neolithic depositions in the. Sidestone Press, Northern Netherlands. Leiden.
Wentink, K., 2020. Stereotype: The role of grave sets in Corded Ware and Bell Beaker funerary practices. Sidestone Press, Leiden.
Wijnen J., Verbaas A. & Van Gijn A. 2018. Mimicking the Neolithic: long-term experiments with polished stone axes and adzes. Paper presented to AWRANA 2018, Nice, 29-31/ 05/18. Viewed 29/05/18.
Woodward, A., Hunter, J., Ixer, R., Maltby, M., Philip J. Potts, P. J., Webb, P. C., Watson, J. S. & Jones, M. C. 2005. Ritual in Some Early Bronze Age Gravegoods, Archaeological Journal, 162(1): 31-64.
Woodward, A., Hunter, J. (Eds.), 2015. Ritual in Early Bronze Age Grave Goods: An examination of ritual and dress equipment from Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age graves in England. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Wright, K. I. 2008. Craft Production and the Organization of Ground Stone Technologies. In Y. Rowan & J. R. Ebeling (eds.) New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts (London: Equinox): 30–143.
Yerkes, R.W., Barkai, R., Gopher, A., Bar Yosef, O., 2003. Microwear analysis of early Neolithic (PPNA) axes and bifacial tools from Netiv Hagdud in the Jordan Valley. Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 30 (8), 1051–1066.
Yerkes, R.W., Barkai, R., 2013. Tree-Felling, Woodworking, and Changing Perceptions of the Landscape during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant. Current Anthropology 54 (2), 222–231.
Young, H.R., Syms, E.L., 1980. The use of acetate peels in lithic analysis. Archaeometry 22 (2), 205–208.
Z´apotocký, M., 1992. Streit¨axte des Mitteleurop¨aischen ¨aneolithikums. VCH, Weinheim.
Zupancich, A., Mutri, G., Caricola, I., Carra, M.L., Radini, A., Cristiani, E., 2019. The application of 3D modeling and spatial analysis in the study of groundstones used in wild plants processing. Archaeological and Anthropolofical Science 11, 4801–4827.