Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:48:55.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Non-Crescentic Sickle-Flints from Sussex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2012

Extract

The view that diffuse lustre on the sharp edge of a flint indicates that the flint has been used for cutting corn, or at least grass, has often been put forward. It has recently been criticized by M. René Neuville, and these criticisms have been countered by fresh experimental evidence which has convinced the writer that this interpretation holds good. Flint flakes, some worked, some apparently unworked, are frequently found in Egypt, Palestine, and elsewhere, bearing diffuse lustre on both faces adjacent to one or more edges, and such flakes are generally recognized as having served as parts of flint sickles, for some have actually been found in their wooden mounts. The possibility of analogous implements having been used in Britain has not so far received much attention, except that the beautifully worked crescentic ‘knives’ of Scandinavian type are now generally recognized as having been sickles. A few of these latter show the characteristic corn-lustre on their concave edges.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 85 note 1 Antiquity, i (1927), 265–6Google Scholar; iv (1930), 179–86.

page 85 note 2 ‘Les Débuts de l'agriculture et la faucille préhistorique en Palestine’, Recueil de la Soc. Héb. d'Explor. et d'Arch. Palest., Jerusalem, 1934.Google Scholar

page 85 note 3 Antiquity, ix (1935), 63–5.Google Scholar

page 85 note 4 Clark, J. G. D., Proc. Preh. Soc. E. Anglia, vii (1932), 6781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 89 note 1 Arch., xlii (1869), 66 and pl. VIII, fig. 20.Google Scholar

page 89 note 2 Proc. Prehist. Soc., Jan. 1936.