Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep
Use-wear analysis reveals the first direct evidence for the use of Neolithic polished stone axes in Britain
Amber Roy a, Rachel J. Crellin b, Oliver J.T. Harris b,*
a Stockholm University, Sweden
b University of Leicester, UK
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords:
Neolithic
Polished stone axes
Use-wear analysis
Polished stone axes have long been recognised as one of the most important forms of material culture in the Neolithic. Research over the last 40 years has done much to understand their origins, patterns of exchange across Europe, deposition, and social importance. Despite this long-recognised importance, little work in Britain has focused on the actual use of these objects. This article presents the first use-wear analysis of 20 Early Neolithic polished stone axes from Britain. This research shows that whilst many were used for woodworking, no doubt associated with forest clearance as agriculture spread, this masks the detailed and variable roles polished stone axes played in the emergence of Neolithic worlds in Britain, which use-wear has the capacity to reveal.

1.		Introduction
Polished stone axes are the defining form of material culture from Neolithic Britain, the first period of farming on this island; the prestige symbol of the period par excellence. Over the last 40 years, our knowledge of these objects has grown exponentially: petrological sourcing has allowed us to trace the sources from which raw materials for their production were extracted (Clough and Cummins, 1988); excavations have uncovered their production sites, and holistic studies have explored their value and symbolism (Bradley and Edmonds, 1993); most recently, new dating programmes have shown how central axe quarries were to the start of the Neolithic (Edinborough et al., 2020). Critical examples of both stone and flint extraction sites have been dated to the very start of this period around 4000 cal BCE (Edinborough et al., 2020; Whittle et al., 2011). As a result, scholars have suggested that they were important resources drawing Neolithic farmers to Britain (Topping, 2021).
Alongside these practical concerns, archaeologists have long recognised that the time and care that went into the production of axes far exceeded any practical functionality (Edmonds, 1995). No matter how essential they were to Early Neolithic farmers economically, they also had a social and symbolic centrality (Topping, 2021). Axe quarry sites are not simply placed at the most convenient locations. Work at the Langdale Fells in the Lake District, the key site for the present article, shows that stone was deliberately extracted from hard to access locations at the very top of mountains, places with extensive views across the landscape (Bradley and Edmonds, 1993; Taylor, 2017; Topping, 2021). The import of axes to Britain from continental Europe has also been traced, and axes from specific sources clearly had particular meanings and significance (Sheridan et al., 2019). More widely, ethnographic data suggests making axes was a high skilled affair (Stout, 2002). The centrality of axes is evident not only from their production but also from their deposition. Axes have been recovered from pits, rivers, and monument ditches, often while still in working condition (Pitts, 1996). They were deliberately broken and disassembled at times, for example at monuments like the causewayed enclosure of Etton in Cambridgeshire (Edmonds, 1998, 261-2). At Haddenham, another enclosure, a burnt and broken axe was deposited on a mound of soil which contained fragments of human bone (Garrow, 2007, 18). The end of their lives was as important as their birth, and both demonstrate not only the functional necessity of axes to the people of Neolithic Britain but also their social significance. Indeed, these two elements, function and form, purpose and symbol, economy and society, are utterly entwined in these critical objects that helped shape – literally – the worlds of the first farmers and are an essential element of the first agricultural and economic revolution.
Yet between these two moments of production and deposition, there remains a deafening silence. The assumption has been, not unreasonably, that axes in Britain were primarily used for forest clearance (Edinborough et al., 2020), making space for agriculture in both its

* Corresponding author at: School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
E-mail address: Ojth1@le.ac.uk (O.J.T. Harris).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.103882
Received 7 October 2022; Received in revised form 27 January 2023; Accepted 6 February 2023
Available online 30 March 2023
2352-409X/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
arable and animal forms (Schauer et al., 2019). Indeed, recent studies have tended to emphasise this economic aspect of the use of axes (e.g. Edinborough et al., 2020; Schauer et al., 2019; Woodbridge et al., 2014). People in Neolithic Britain also used wood for a variety of purposes from building houses and halls to crafting funerary spaces, fashioning linear monuments, and defining enclosures (Noble, 2017). However, there has never been a direct study of Neolithic polished stone axes from Britain to test this hypothesis. Yet there is a wider pool of resources on which we can draw. Experimental data on flint and stone axes has also long supported the idea that woodworking is a primary focus (e.g. Jørgensen et al., 1985). Ethnographic data suggests tree felling as one of several potential uses for polished stone axes, alongside broader categories of woodworking, butchery and making other tools (Pe´trequin and P´etrequin, 2000). Similarly, functional analysis from Neolithic Spain has identified woodworking, hide processing and butchery (Masclans Latorre et al., 2017a, 165-7). Here 65 polished stone axes and adzes from the site of Bobila Madurell-Can Gambús-1–2 in north-east Spain were examined of which 48 yielded use-wear data. The application of usewear in the Netherlands to flint, rather than stone, axes has showed both utilitarian use in chopping down trees, and a group of more ceremonial axes that were never used but were repeatedly wrapped and unwrapped over time (Wentink et al., 2011). Microwear in Southwest Asia has similarly revealed different categories of used and unused axes that changed through time (Yerkes and Barkai, 2013). In Britain, the study of later stone axes, notably the battle-axes and axe-hammers of the Early Bronze Age, have shown that both types were used for a variety of tasks from chopping wood, to smashing bone, digging in soil, and land clearance (Roy, 2020a). Drawing on this wider context of research, this study conducts a small-scale examination of Neolithic polished stone axes applying use-wear analysis to test the hypothesis that axes were used primarily, or perhaps exclusively, as woodworking tools. This is the first time, to our knowledge, that use-wear has been employed to look at the use of polished stone axes in Neolithic Britain.
2.		Material and methods
2.1.		Materials
To explore this question this study conducted use-wear analysis on 20 Group VI axes currently stored at Tullie House Museum in Carlisle, UK. These axes were all originally produced at the Langdale axe quarry in the Lake District, the most famous and best studied of all the axe production sites in Britain, which has been securely identified as the origin of Group VI axes (Clough and Cummins, 1988) (Fig. 1). The stone used to produce these axes was procured from fine grained bands of volcanic tuff – epidotised tuff of intermediate or basic composition with an isotropic fabric and an aphanitic texture. Located in the dramatic Langdale Fells, this quarry area has long dominated debates around polished stone axes in Britain due to its dramatic landscape location and the difficulty of accessing the faces from which the stone was extracted (Bradley and Edmonds, 1993; Edmonds, 1995; Taylor, 2017). Its archaeological significance is also clear in more quantitative fashion. This source was responsible for around 30% of all recorded Neolithic polished stone axes, which were circulated widely across Britain (Edinborough et al., 2020, 77). As many as 41% of polished stone axes found in Yorkshire, for example, were extracted from the Langdale peaks (Manby et al., 2003, 49). New Bayesian modelling of the dating evidence has placed the first use of the Langdale quarry between 3955 and 3711 cal BCE (95.4%), and the end of its main use between 3696 and 3484 cal BCE (95.4%) (Edinborough et al., 2020, 94). Group VI axes were selected for this study precisely because we know so much about many aspects of their production and deposition, but as with all other Neolithic polished stone axes from Britain, use has remained primarily a matter of conjecture until now. Despite widespread experimental work with replica axes (e.g. Coles, 1979; Mathieu and Meyer, 1997; Elberg et al., 2015), no attempt to assess a British archaeological assemblage has previously been attempted.
An initial 40 axes were selected from images provided by Tullie House to remove those highly weathered, fragmented and missing a

Fig. 1. Find locations of the studies sample of axes.

blade. The final 20 (some pictured in Fig. 2) were chosen from a sample of 40 that were visually inspected to select axes with minimal weathering, including examples that had been deliberately reshaped, even if these had slightly higher levels of weathering than others. Overall sample selection emphasised the need to have axes that were likely to provide useable data, rather than a ‘representative’ sample of the condition of all axes in the museum’s collection. We did not select axes on the basis of their depositional context, and none of the axes in our sample have a meaningful archaeological context to which they can be linked (see Tables 1a and 1b). Finally, the sample was selected to provide axes that were a range of sizes in order to allow for any relationship between size and function to potentially be identified. A longstanding hypothesis has been that axes of different sizes may have been used for different purposes (Chappell, 1987; cf. Cooney, 2017). Chappell (1987, 271) suggested that Langdale axes specifically could be grouped into three different sizes (very large, large, and small) and that these could have had different functions. Overall, the project was designed to explore a) whether data on use could be detected on the axes b) to see if these primarily related to wood working and c) to determine the viability of a larger study looking at a much greater range of axes from multiple sources across the country.
2.2.		Methods
Our methodology draws on the well-established traditions of usewear analysis (Dubreuil et al., 2015; Keeley, 1980; Van Gijn, 2010; Vaughan, 1985). This works by comparing traces detected on objects with those produced in experimental conditions in order to determine the processes by which marks have formed. In particular, use-wear can provide excellent evidence for contact materials – that is the materials which an object has repeatedly encountered through different processes and motions and evidence for practices such as hafting, cutting, pounding, rubbing and so on.
Each axe was examined using a Zeiss Stemi 2000-C stereomicroscope with an external, oblique light source (magnifications up to 50x) to directly examine the use-wear attributes across each axe. These attributes provide a clear indication about whether an axe was hafted, and how it was used. They include: linear patterns; abrasion and grain extraction; residue; the presence of polish; edge modification or damage, such as fractures, flakes and crushed grains; and micro-fractures from impact and edge rounding. Using a Zeiss Axioskop 2 MAT metallographic microscope (at 100×, 200× and 500× magnification) the accuracy of these interpretations was enhanced by the assessment of polish and other wear attributes across each axe, such as micro-striations, micro-removals, and micro-fractures. The systematic description and

Fig. 2. Eight examples of the 20 selected axes showing both major faces in each case. From left to right and top to bottom: axe 7, axe 12, axe 27, axe 3, axe 4, axe 22, axe 1, axe 31,

Implement	Accession	Findspot MODES	Length cm	Findspot Register	Hard contact material	Medium/ medium hard contact material	Medium hardness contact material	Medium/ Medium- soft contact material	Medium- soft contact material	Contact with abrasive material	Domed polish with directionality; Contact with wood	Separated domed polish	Handling polish	Contact with bone	Contact with wood and soft granular material	
1	CALMG 1960.40.1	NY0843 Beckriggs, Allonby, Cumbria	26	No additional info			x		x?		x					
2	CALMG 1958.48	NY586734 Side
Fell, Askerton
Parish, Cumbria	13.2	Near the
Maiden Way at Side Fell, Bewcastle, when cleaning out a ditch			x					x	x?			
3	CALMG 1968.38.1	NY1741 Blennerhasset, Cumbria	13.2	No additional info			x				x					
4	CALMG 1981.9	NY2142 Kirkland
Green, Mealsgate, Cumbria	25	OS 2 1/2 SHT
NY14 1903
4002			x				x					
5	CALMG 1946.10.1	NY2262 Bowness on Solway, Cumbria	10.4	No additional info			x									
6	CALMG 1980.20	NY3955 Dalston
Street, Carlisle, Cumbria	12.8	“Lying in the gutter” Dalston St, Denton Holme - probably thrown up by workmen digging trenches	x			x			x		x?			
7	CALMG	NY5931	20	found on arable					x		x					
	1973.62	Staingills Farm, Culgaith, Cumbria		land at
Staingills Farm												
11	CALMG 1970.18.2	NY4532
Blencow, Dacre
Parish, Cumbria	20	Ploughed up at Blencow			x				x					
12	CALMG 1999.576	NY0846 Mawbray, Cumbria	14.9	No additional info			x			x		x	x?			
19	CALMG 1979.128	NY5731 Edenhall, Cumbria	20.4	No additional info			x				x					
20	CALMG 1926.27.321	NY5423 Hackthorpe, Lowther, Cumbria	15	No additional info			x			x	x					
22	CALMG 2008.337
AII 20	Scaleby Moss, Scaleby, Cumbria	39.3	No additional info												
Table 1a
The sample of axes studied, showing find details, contact materials and polish. x = certain, x? = potential, ? = uncertain.
(continued on next page)
A. Roy et al.	J ou rn a l o f A rc h ae o log ic a l S c ien c e: R ep o rts 49 (2023) 103882

25	CALMG 1943.45	NY406512
Durdar, Cumbria	15.4	No additional info		x		x					
27	CALMG 1956.41.1	NY465555 Old
House Farm, Wetheral, Cumbria	9.9	Found during ploughing of old pasture on the lands of Old House Farm on the W bank of the R Eden, N of Wetheral		x		x?	x	x?	x?		
29	CALMG 1946.53	Farley, Cumbria	8.9	No additional info		x	x	x					
30	CALMG 1964.20	From roadworks near Penrith, Cumbria	18.5	South
Cumberland or
Westmorland				x					
31	CALMG 1926.5.2b	Cumbria	22.1	Cumberland, no further information		x		x?					
36	CALMG 1926.27.312	NY6232 Skirwith, Culgaith, Cumbria	14.6	No additional info		x		x					
38	CALMG 1898.22	NY1750 found in a drain near Abbeytown, Cumbria	9.7	“Found in draining near Abbey Town”		x		x				x	
40	CALMG	NY178422	22.3	Found during	x			x					
	1992.27	Mechi Farm, Aspatria, Cumbria: found in centre of a field 500 yards south west of the farm		draining operations in the centre of a field 500yards SW of Mechi Farm (NY 14 SE Grid Ref 178 422)									
Table 1a (continued)
A. Roy et al.	J ou rn a l o f A rc h ae o log ic a l S c ien c e: R ep o rts 49 (2023) 103882

Table 1b
The sample of axes studied, showing motion of use, degree of ware and other key information such as the evidence for hafting x = certain, x? = potential, ? = uncertain.

																								

																								

																								

																								

																								

																								

																								

recording of use-wear during both low- and high-power analysis allowed the recognition of recurring wear patterns and associated attributes, where present, which provided details of the axe’s biography and events such as use, reworking and manufacture to be recorded. Micrographs were taken of all wear traces identified and wear traces were compared with known experimental reference collections of bladed stone implements to enhance interpretation, such as reference collections from the Huize Horsterwold experiment (van Gijn and Pomstra, 2017) and experiments using stone battle-axes and axe-hammers (Roy, 2020a; 2020b).
3.		Theoretical approach
We embed our empirical analyses from wear-analysis within the broader theoretical approach of new materialism (Tsoraki et al., 2020). New materialism explores how, rather than being passive matter awaiting humans to enliven them, materials and material things actively contribute to the formation of past worlds (e.g. Crellin, 2020; Harris, 2021). From a new materialist perspective, all material things are vibrant, they are always changing, and their properties and capacities, rather than being fixed and essential, are relational. That is, rather than being located in the material itself, both material and social properties emerge through the relations in which materials are enmeshed. So, stone emerges as hard in relation to the materials it encounters, gold emerges as shiny in conjunction with light reflecting from its surface, or an axe emerges as meaningful in relationship with human beings. There is no distinction here between ‘material’ and ‘social’ properties, both emerge through relations, both are contingent, and both are historically situated.
From this perspective, use-wear is the perfect new materialist technique because it attends precisely to the relations in which materials were embedded (see Crellin et al., 2023; Tsoraki et al., 2020). Each mark made upon an object maps a history of relations with other materials, and with the people who facilitated those material interactions. Usewear makes a history of material relations visible in an object, allowing forgotten narratives to emerge. Elsewhere these have been described as ‘material memories’ (Tsoraki et al., 2020, 501). By situating our empirical results within a nuanced theoretical framework, we are able to allow the axes themselves to disclose their role in the emergence of past Neolithic worlds.

4.		Results
The results for each axe are summarised in Tables 1a and 1b with further detail and micrographs in the Supplementary Information. All axes were finished and complete tools at one stage in their histories, apart from one unfinished roughout, axe 19. Finished axes are, of course, composite tools, and all the axes were hafted, with the exception again of axe 19, the unfinished roughout. Rounding, smoothing and polish,

Fig. 3. The distribution of axes hafted with different techniques.

including well-developed wood micropolish, around the body of the axe, particularly in the centre, indicate their hafting with the direct latero- distal hafting type in a ‘male style’, meaning that each haft had a hole through which the axe sat (Rots, 2004). Six are likely to have been hafted in a bent or split haft so that the butt was covered with wood; this was indicated by the spatial distribution of the micro polish whereby the former ‘male style’ was present in the central portion of the axe and the latter was present across the central and butt sections. The remaining 13
were hafted in a similar setting with the butt uncovered. The geographical distribution of hafting methods was plotted to examine if this revealed a pattern that might inform us about whether hafting related to different regional traditions (Fig. 3). Within the small sample size, no clear spatial differentiation between the two hafting methods was detected, indicating instead potentially differences in function as experimental work, and some archaeological analysis, has suggested (e. g. Lunardi, 2008, 372; Maigrot, 2011; P´etrequin and P´etrequin, 2000).
Of the axes analysed, 70% (14 out of 20) were used in woodworking activities, attested by clear wood polish on the blade tip and edges (Fig. 4). The invasiveness of wear on the blade edges, the areas of greater wear development and the characteristics of wear visible on these axes show that different use motions were utilized. Of the 70%, three were used with a percussive action (axes 3, 6, 7), six were used with a chopping motion (axes 1, 4, 25, 27, 31, 36), and five with both percussion and chopping (axes 11, 20, 29, 38, 40). One axe (axe 30) was potentially re-ground, removing most macro use and hafting traces so a use-motion could not be identified, however some micro polish and micro striations remained on the blade tip; the polish was domed with clear directionality indicating possible contact with wood. Those axes used with chopping motions have similarities with experimental axes used to chop wood (Masclans Latorre et al., 2017a; Masclans Latorre et al., 2017b; Yerkes et al., 2003). Moreover, the presence and concentration of fractured with polish and rounded high topography at the corners of the blades of axes, such as axe 4, are particularly consistent with felling branches (Roy, 2020a; 2020b; 2022).
Variation was also seen in the invasiveness and concentration of wear on the blade tip and edges. The greater invasiveness of use-wear on the blade edges (striations, pits, microfractures, polish, and rounding) the further the blade travelled into or against the contact material/s during use. Furthermore, concentrations of wear development along the extent of the blade, such as in the corners or the centre, also indicate differing use motions (Fig. 5). These differences indicate variations in the chopping and percussive use actions or motions applied and may also reflect the type of wood against which the axes were used. Indeed, seven (axes 4, 6, 7, 25, 29, 36, 38) of those with wood polish showed evidence of the use of pressure/force in the centre of the blade. Four of these exhibited an invasiveness of wear on the blade edges of ≤ 1 cm (1 chopping motions, axe 4; 2 percussive, axes 6, 7; 1 chopping and percussive, axe 38), while three exhibited an invasiveness of wear on blade edges of > 1 cm (2 chopping, axes 25, 36; 1 chopping and percussive, axe 25). Four (axes 11, 20, 27, 31) of those with wood polish showed evidence of the use of pressure/force at the corners of the blade. All four of these exhibited an invasiveness of wear on the blade edges of ≤ 1 cm (2 chopping and percussive, 2 chopping). On three axes the usewear had developed evenly along the blade tip and edge; one (percussive, axe 3) exhibited an invasiveness of wear of ≤ 1 cm and two (1 chopping, axe 1, and 1 chopping and percussive, axe 40) exhibited an invasiveness of > 1 cm. The final axe (axe 30) had been re-ground, removing any signs of use-motion, however, wood polish was visible under high magnifications.

Fig. 4. Domed polish with directionality and parallel striations suggesting wood polish (A: axe 1 x200; B: axe 7 x200; C: axe 20 x100; D: axe 19 x200).

There are other forms of variation we can detect. For example, the butts and blades of three (15%) of the axes (axes 19, 22, 30) had been used with a percussive action against wood, indicating the multifunctional nature of these implements. Furthermore, seven (35%) of the axes had been used against different contact materials, including single examples with contact with an unknown material and bone, and three with abrasive material possibly associated with wood (2, 6, 12,

27)		
Fig. 5. Micrographs illustrating use-wear caused by pressure/forced focussed on the centre of the blade (A. axe 3, x6.3; B. axe 3, x16; C. axe 20, x16; D. axe 15, x12.5), and at the corners of the blade (E. axe 11, x8; F. axe 4, x10; G. axe 20, x16; H. axe 21, x16).

. Possible handling traces were found on four (20%) of the axes (axes 2, 6, 12, 27); although their use motions, invasiveness and concentrations of wear are the same and have the same variability as those used in contact with wood.
Re-use, defined as occurring when the implement was employed in a second activity that did not alter the design of the tool but overlays previous use-wear, and multiple use, occurring when several areas of an implement were used in different distinct activities which may alter the design of the tool (Adams 2002; Dubreuil et al., 2015), were detected on nine (45%) of the axes analysed. All examples of re-use displayed wood polishes from different use episodes; only two (10%) were also re-used for a task focused on other materials.
A key line of evidence we looked for was whether axes had been reground. Our analysis showed that eight axes (40%) were reshaped in
this way, with six (axes 2, 3, 27, 29, 21, 38) of these (30% of the overall sample) being re-used after re-grinding occurred to prolong axe function (Fig. 6); axe 38 was potentially re-used at a much later, possibly modern, date (see supplementary material). Two axes (10%) were reground (axes 30, 40) and show no signs of re-use, suggesting either re-use was too short to leave evidential wear or that the purpose of re-grinding was associated with their subsequent non-use. The act of re-grinding removes all traces of previous uses and treatment; this may have acted to disconnect the axe from its history, or perhaps to allow the object to regenerate. Three (15%) were also used in separate episodes without being reground in between (axes 1, 6, 7).
In the sample analysed, there is no relationship between use type and the act of re-grinding. The same can be said for most re-use events, 18 examples (90%) show no relationship between use-type and re-use. However, two (10%) stand out as anomalies since they were used for non-wood-based tasks which were singular occurrences within the sample. Yet, these are not comparable to one another, since they do not share similar contact materials or use-wear characteristics associated with re-use. One, axe 27, was possibly re-used in contact with bone (see supplementary material), but this is uncertain due to weathering. While the multiple use of the other axe (axe 6, Fig. 8) is interesting and unique, changing the form of the axe suggests a re-shaping event and may indicate re-use, although the contact material could not be interpreted. One margin of the axe had been flattened and smoothed from re-use as if it has been used to smooth or polish an object. This re-use event flattened and smoothed the stone grains on the axe side, and caused singular transverse and longitudinal, overlapping and v-shaped striations which are associated with a white-ish residue and dense angular pits and microfractures along the edges. The polish presents as small, partially connected flattened polish with a matt shine in elongated groups which follow the long striations and scratches in the stone matrix. Parallel striations exist on the surface of the polish in transverse and longitudinal groups. The micromorphology around the polish was rough and regular with dense long parallel striation and scratches covering the axe edge longitudinally (Fig. 7).
Within the sample, two axes (10%) revealed no signs of use, showing production traces only; these included the unfinished axe roughout (axe 19), which revealed signs of possibly coming into contact with wood (a patch of sinuous, connected and domed micro polish was present on the axe tip, it was different to the polish analysed on the remainder of the axe and did not have associated use-wear which would indicate use) for a period of time during its manufacture or storage, and a very long axe (axe 22; 39.9 cm in length; Fig. 9) which was clearly hafted but not used in a utilitarian manner (as suggested for very large axes by Chappell (1987, 265)). The latter object indicates that not all axes were manufactured for utilitarian use and that, perhaps oversized axes had a nonutilitarian, possibly symbolic purpose. In contrast the very long, but unused Neolithic flint axes, examined by archaeologists in the Netherlands were not hafted (Wentink et al., 2011, 400).
There was a wide variation in the length of the axes; the lengths ranged from 8.9 cm to 39.9 cm, with the latter, axe 22, being the longest by far. Re-use and re-grinding were evident on axes of both shorter and longer lengths, and use-type also was not specific to axe length. Nevertheless, the axes showing potential handling polish were all under 15 cm in length. Another correlation is that all axes under 10 cm had been re-ground; these were once much longer and have been re-shaped to prolong the blade function, suggesting the extended use of axes as well as treatment to continue use after breakage. Indeed, prolonged use of four axes (20%) is also evident from the truncation of their blades and continued use of truncated blades, such as axe 7 (Fig. 10) which was used after the blade was lost; this possibly occurred when it twisted in its haft (James Dilley pers. comm.).
Further variation in the appearance and shape of the axes was not associated with a particular use type or treatment. An example of this is axe 4, which had a stylistic differentiation whereby the bottom half of the axe had been ground and polished on the diagonal, less than the top half. This created a clear difference in texture compared to the smooth polish of the top half; due to the shape, this does not appear to have been created to aid hafting (Fig. 11).

Fig. 6. Examples of axes with altered forms due to re-grinding (axes 12 and 29).

Tables 1a and 1b shows that none of the axes in the sample have detailed contextual information associated with them. Since the depositional context of all axes in the sample is unknown, there is no known relationship between use and treatment (i.e., regrinding) and deposition (cf. Masclans Latorre et al., 2017a; Wentink et al., 2011). Analysis of a wider sample of axes from known contexts should be carried out to understand this further. Whatever the process of deposition, four (20%) axes (5, 25, 27, 29) were weathered enough to impact the use-wear (although not enough to reduce the reliability of use interpretation) which suggests these were subject to a different type or duration of weathering conditions compared to the other axes. Signs of weathering included rounded stone grains across the entire body of the axe, the removal if loosened (through post-depositional processes) stone grains

Fig. 7. Use-wear of the re-shaped margin of axe 6.

and patina within fractures (see SI). It is important to note that weathering of a lesser degree was visible on other axes in the sample. Weathering was apparent in each case across the entire implement rather than just one side or area. As such, weathering was likely post- depositional.
Further alteration to the axe sample was from modern contaminants and modern fractures (three axes) and scratches (three axes) were identified through their bright colour, lack of rounded edges comparable to the surrounding areas of the axe, and lack of association with surrounding use-wear. Ten (50%) of the axes were contaminated by probable paint coloured orange, red, blue, and white which was found in separated and sparse areas of the axe body, sides, and areas of high topography of fractures etc. They were most likely caused by their modern storage in painted drawers or boxes. This may also account for the possible wood polish seen on the tip of axe 19, the roughout.
5.		Discussion
The results of this study, in one sense, confirm what archaeologists have long suspected: that polished stone axes were used in woodworking in the Early Neolithic, as has been evidenced elsewhere in Europe at this time (e.g. Masclans Torres et al., 2017a; and on flint Wentink et al., 2011). The clearance of the landscape for farming was an important element of the transition to agriculture in Britain. However, a closer inspection of our results shows a more complex picture. The evidence demonstrates these axes were not all hafted in the same way; this could relate to functional or social differences, or perhaps both. As noted above, ethnographic and experimental analysis has suggested that different forms of haft may facilitate different tasks being carried out (Lunardi, 2008, 372; P´etrequin and P´etrequin, 2000). Furthermore, whilst the evidence for woodworking is unequivocal, there is a significant amount of variety within this. Different motions, actions, and damage to the axes suggest not uniform practice but varied traditions. Within the singular category of woodworking we can move from chopping down trees, to the detailed shaping of planks for architecture, to the making of arrows and other wooden technology. This perhaps parallels some of the range of carpentry tasks identified in a Neolithic context in Southwest Asia by Yerkes and Barkai (2013). Whilst in our case we cannot directly link individual axes to individual practices, the evidence clearly demonstrates a wide variety of engagements between people, axes, and wood embedded in the stone blades themselves. A larger sample could allow for a more detailed exploration of this

Fig. 8. Axe 6, showing the flattened side.

question, drawing on the extensive modern experimental studies that exist, perhaps furnished with additional work in this area.
These axes not only provide evidence of varied uses, but also having different biographies. Almost all were used, but one finished example at least was not, though this too was hafted. Some of the axes saw multiple episodes of use, some did not. Some were reground and reworked perhaps after damage, some were not. It is striking that whilst only one of the finished axes was never used (5% of the sample), a higher percentage of reground axes never saw further use that left a mark on their blades (25% of these axes). In this context was regrinding preparation for deposition? Notable here is a comparison with use-wear analysis of flint axes in the Netherlands which showed axes being resharpened before being deposited in graves (Wentink et al., 2011, 403).

Fig. 9. Axe 22, the long axe.

It has long been suggested that there may be a connection between the size of an axe and its function (Chappell, 1987), something clearly identified in Neolithic Funnelbeaker contexts with flint axes, for example (Wentink et al., 2011). In our small sample, there appears to be no clear connection between size and use, despite the largest axe never have being used, but this perhaps masks other interesting connections. Smaller axes under 15 cm in length show evidence of handling polish absent on larger axes, and all axes under 10 cm had been reground from larger original forms. As we noted above, these reground axes were far less likely to be used after this. This evidence can be read a number of ways. One could suggest that smaller axes were less functional than their larger counterparts. However, it is unclear why Neolithic people would spend considerable time and effort regrinding axes for no apparent purpose. It seems more likely, therefore, that smaller axes had attracted

Fig. 10. Axe 7 with a truncated blade, possibly from twisting in its haft.

Fig. 11. Axe 4 showing the stylistic differentiation.

significant biographies to them, and these stories led people to handle and value them in particular ways (cf. Bradley and Edmonds, 1993). Given that evidence shows Langdale axes were extensively produced in the Early Neolithic, this poses questions about the afterlife of axes beyond the major periods of production. Clearly further analysis with axes where we have better chronological control across a larger sample size would allow for us to investigate this critical question more closely.
A shortcoming of this particular sample is its lack of associated contextual information and thus chronological resolution (compare Wentink et al., 2011). What more subtle pictures might emerge from a larger dataset that would allow for other variables to be both included (e.g. multiple sources of axes) and also controlled for (e.g. chronology and depositional context)? Whilst we have been able to extract extensive new information from this sample, this has merely opened the door to demonstrate the wealth of insights that might be acquired from a larger study. Indeed, the research conducted here poses a series of new questions, which our evidence suggests could be answered. These include: is there a relationship between different axe sources and the uses of those axes? Does axe use vary through time and space? Were axes deposited in particular ways in relation to their biographies, and were axes specially prepared for deposition? Were large axes rarely used, and were smaller reground examples more often handled? What variations in woodworking and other uses can a larger sample size reveal?
6.		Conclusion
In this paper we have conducted the first use-wear analysis of Neolithic polished stone axes from Britain. We examined 20 Group VI axes originally produced at quarry sites in the Langdale Fells. Our research has shown that most of these axes were used for different kinds of woodworking, but that they also had complex life histories, episodes of reworking, forms of hafting and more. This suggests that use-wear analysis offers an excellent technique for examining legacy collections and extracting new forms of data.
Such approaches are critical to our developing understanding of Neolithic worlds. We have long recognised the importance of polished stone axes both as functional tools and social symbols in the development of the Neolithic and the emergence of farming. They play a key role in this transition, but historically our understanding of the use of these objects, as opposed to their origin, production, and deposition, has been limited. New work exploring the dating of Neolithic axe quarries as well as ancient DNA analyses have shed new light on the importance of these objects in the first phases of farming, and the arrival of new people from the European continent (Topping, 2021). As archaeologists increasingly appreciate that past and present worlds emerge not just from the human beings that occupy them, but from the complex interactions of humans, animals, plants, places and things, understanding axes in detail allows us to appreciate their complex role as active members of Neolithic societies. An approach that emphasises the role of humans and non-humans together in the production of history can be profitably coupled with detailed empirical questions of the materials that lie in our museums and emerge in our excavations. The potential for the use-wear analysis of polished stone axes to open new engagements with the role of these materials in Neolithic Britain, and the way their biographies were shaped by people and materials, is clear in this study. This research has helped to clarify elements of what Neolithic axes were used for, but has also opened up the possibility to ask more detailed, more specific and indeed more important questions in the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Amber Roy: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Rachel J. Crellin: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Oliver J.T. Harris: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
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
The data is all available in the supplementary information attached at the file upload stage.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded through grant from the College Development Research Fund from the College of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities at the University of Leicester. It could not have been undertaken within the support of Elsa Price, Curator of Human History, and Dot Boughton, at Tullie House Museum, Carlisle, who helped facilitate the loan of axes to Leicester.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.103882.
References
Bradley, R., Edmonds, M., 1993. Interpreting the axe trade: production and exchange in Neolithic Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chappell, S.J., 1987. Stone axe morphology and distribution in Neolithic Britain. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Clough, T.H.M., Cummins, W., 1988. Stone Axe Studies, vol. II. Council for British Archaeology, London.
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.
Cooney, G., 2017. Stone and flint axes in Neolithic Europe. In: Fowler, C., Harding, J., Hofmann, D. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 515–534.
Crellin, R.J., 2020. Change and Archaeology. Routledge, London.
Crellin, R.J., Tsoraki, C., Standish, C., Pearce, R.B., Barton, H., Morriss, S., Harris, O.J.T., 2023. Materials in movement: gold and stone in process in the Upton Lovell G2a burial. Antiquity 97, 86–103. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.162.
Dubreuil, L.D., Savage, D., Degado-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, M., Gibaja Bao, J.F., Ferreira Bicho, N. (Eds.), Use-Wear and Residue Analysis in Archaeology. Springer, New York, pp. 105–158.
Edinborough, K., Shennan, S., Teather, A., Baczkowski, J., Bevan, A., Bradley, R., Cook, G., Kerig, T., Parker Pearson, M., Pope, A., Schauer, P., 2020. New radiocarbon
dates show Early Neolithic date of flint-mining and stone quarrying In Britain. Radiocarbon 62, 75–105.
Edmonds, M., 1995. Stone Tools and Society: working stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. Batsford, London.
Edmonds, M., 1998. Polished stone axes and associated artefacts. In: Pryor, F. (Ed.), Etton: Excavations at a Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982–7. English Heritage, London, pp. 260–268.
Elberg, R., Hein, W., Probst, A., Walter, P., 2015. Field Trials in Neolithic Woodworking: (Re)Learning to use Early Neolithic stone adzes. In: Kelm, R. (Ed.), Archaeology and Crafts: Experiences and Experiments on traditional Skills and Handicrafts in Archaeological Open-Air Museums in Europe. Husum Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft):, (Husum, pp. 62–77.
Garrow, D., 2007. Placing pits: landscape occupation and depositional practice during the Neolithic in East Anglia. Proc. Prehist. Soc 73, 1–24.
Harris, O.J.T., 2021. Assembling past worlds: materials, bodies and architecture in Neolithic Britain. Routledge, London.
Jørgensen S., Lerche, G., Troels-Smith, J., Steensberg, A. 1985. Tree-felling: With Original Neolithic Flint-axes in Draved Wood: Report on the Experiments in 195254. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.
Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lunardi, A., 2008. Experimental testing with polished green stone axes and adzes: technology and use. Prehistoric Technol. 40, 369–373.
Maigrot, Y., 2011. Neolithic polished stone axes and hafting systems: Technical use and social function at the Neolithic lakeside settlements of Chalain and Clairvaux. In: Davis, V., Edmonds, M. (Eds.), Stone Axe Studies III. Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 281–294.
Manby, T.G., King, A., Vyner, B., 2003. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages: a time of early agriculture. In: Manby, T.G., Moorhouse, S., Ottaway, B. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Yorkshire: an assessment at the beginning of the 21st century. Yorkshire Archaeology Society, Leeds, pp. 35–116.
Masclans Latorre, A., Palomo P´erez, A., Gibaja-Bao, J.F., Remolins Zamora, G., Go´mez- Gras, D., 2017a. Use-wear analysis of Neolithic polished axes and adzes: The site of “Bobila Madurell-Can Gambús-1-2” (Northeast Iberian Peninsula). Quaternary Int. 427, 158–174.
Masclans Latorre, A., Palomo, A., Gibaja, J., 2017b. 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.
Mathieu, J.R., Meyer, D.A., 1997. Comparing Axe Heads of Stone, Bronze, and Steel: Studies in Experimental Archaeology. J. Field Archaeol. 24 (3), 333–351.
Noble, G., 2017. Woodland in the Neolithic of Northern Europe: the forest as ancestor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
P´etrequin, P., P´etrequin, A.M., 2000. Ecologie d’un outil: la hache de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indon´esie), Nouvelle ´edition, Monographie du CRA 12. CNRS, Paris.
Pitts, M., 1996. The Stone Axe in Neolithic Britain. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 62, 311–371.
Rots, V., 2004. Prehensile wear on flint tools. Lithic Technol. 29, 7–32.
Roy, A.S., 2020a. The use and significance of Early Bronze Age perforated stone battleaxes and axe-hammers. Proc. Prehistoric Soc. 86, 1–24.
Roy, A.S. 2020b. Enhancing the accuracy of use interpretation: the discovery of a new wear formation with the complementary methods of experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis, EXARC J., 2020/3, https://exarc.net/ark:/88735/10521.
Roy, A.S., 2022. Direct analysis of ground stone artefacts; a study of the use of Early Bronze Age stone battle-axes and axe-hammers. J. Archaeol. Sci.: Reports forthcoming.
Schauer, P., Shennan, S., Bevan, A., Cook, G., Edinborough, K., Fyfe, R., Kerig, T., Parker Pearson, M., 2019. Supply and demand in prehistory? Economics of Neolithic mining in northwest Europe. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 54, 149–216.
Sheridan, A., P´etrequin, P., Pe´trequin, A.-M., Cassen, S., Errera, M., Gauthier, E., Prod´eo, F. 2019. Fifty shades of green: the irresistible attraction, use and significance of jadeitite and other green Alpine rock types in Neolithic Europe. In Rodríguez-Rell´an, C., Nelson, B.A. and F´abregas Valcarce, R. (eds), A Taste for Green: A global perspective on ancient jade, turquoiseand variscite exchange. Oxford, Oxbow, 97120.
Stout, D., 2002. Skill and cognition in stone tool production: An ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Curr. Anthropol. 43, 693–722.
Taylor, S., 2017. Journeys to Neolithic Langdale: how a Cumbrian landscape may help explain prehistoric movement of polished stone axes. Lithics: J. Lithic Studies Soc. 37, 15–32.
Topping, P., 2021. Neolithic Stone Extraction in Britain and Europe: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Oxbow, Oxford.
Whittle, A., Healy, F., Bayliss, A., 2011. Gathering Time: dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and Ireland. Oxbow, Oxford.
Tsoraki, C., Barton, H., Crellin, R.J., Harris, O.J.T., 2020. Making marks meaningful: new materialism, microwear and the world of material signs. World Archaeol. 52 (3), 484–502.
van Gijn, A.L., 2010. Flint in focus: lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Sidestone Press, Leiden.
Van Gijn, A.L., Pomstra, D., 2017. “Huize Horsterwold” The reconstruction of a Neolithic house plan using Stone Age equipment. In: Hurcombe, L., Cunningham, P. (Eds.), The life cycle of structures in experimental archaeology an object biography approach. Sidestone Press, Leiden, pp. 177–186.
Vaughan, P.C., 1985. Use-wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Arizona.
Wentink, K., A., van Gijn & D. Fontijn 2011. Changing contexts, changing meanings: flint axes in Middle and Late Neolithic communities in the Northern Netherlands. In V. Davis and M. Edmonds (eds), Stone Axe Studies III, Oxford: Oxbow: 399-408.
Woodbridge, J., Fyfe, R.M., Roberts, N., Downey, S., Edinborough, K., Shennan, S., 2014. The impact of the Neolithic agricultural transition in Britain: a comparison of pollenbased land-cover and archaeological 14C date-inferred population change. J. Archaeol. Sci. 51, 216–224.
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. Curr. Anthropol. 54, 222–231.
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. J. Archaeol. Sci., 30(8): 1051-1066.