This document discusses the refitting and reconstruction of flint dagger production waste found at an archaeological site in Tegelbarg, Germany. Three late Neolithic flint daggers were excavated at the site in 1972. By refitting the waste flakes, the author was able to reconstruct stages of the dagger production process. For Dagger 1, the raw form and two stages of preparation using hard and soft striking were determined. Dagger 2's reconstruction showed a change from hard to soft striking when a natural crack caused it to break. Dagger 3's waste evidenced only soft striking and a hingeflake that left a terrace on the nearly finished form. The waste analysis provided insights into Neolithic flint knapping techniques

1. Flint Daggers – Experiences
of the Production Process
by Refitting the Waste
Volker Arnold, Heide

2. Oftenly, production waste gives more information about the production steps and methods
as completed products – here parts from flint axe production waste found in Dithmarschen.
In the following, results of refitting production waste of three late neolithic flint daggers are
shown, which were excavated 1972 at the site of Tegelbarg (near Flensburg, Baltic Sea).

3. The site Tegelbarg is situated at the northern shore of a former bay („Noor“, today cultivated
bogland) not far away from the cliff coast of the Baltic Sea.

4. Scetch of the shore situation of the excavated site. The Sea
level was at this time (ca. 2000 BC) 1 - 1.5 m lower than
today. The production waste was found at the left rim of the
scetch, were preserved parts of a shell heap begins: remains
of food preparation. The shown C14 dates are uncalibrated.
The waste heap covered ½ qm: Not
made in situ, but thrown away!

5. Some daggers / dagger parts and a
sickle found at the site.
The complete dagger to the left (61,
length nealy 20 cm) which was given
to a female burial at this site shows
the desired dagger form.
Give special attention to the dagger
fragment (66) below right, which was
found 7 m distant from the waste heap
towards the shore, so that it was
covered by water mostly.
All tool drawings were made by Harm
Paulsen around 1975!

6. Three stages of refitting the producing waste of dagger 3.
Please excuse the bad photographs – they were reproduced from old b/w slides.

7. Reconstructing dagger 1. Some smaller flakes could not be
refitted: the equally white flint color made it heavy to find
fittings.

8. Reconstruction of the raw form of dagger 1. It
must be brought to the site in this working stage, because no flakes of the primary
preparation were found (like dagger 2 and 3). The primary working may have been taking
place near the natural stone pavement at the ground of the steep coast.

9. Dagger 1, stage 2: This
was the form of the
dagger when the
knapping method
changed from a striking
stone to an antler tool:
former flakes showed
attibutes of hard stroke,
coming flakes will show
attributes of soft stroke.

10. Dagger one, one
further stage of
preparing (soft
stroke)

11. A transverse cut shows the flakes with
attirbutes of hard stroke (rough raster) and
of soft stroke (fine raster). It can be clearly
seen where the complete dagger was
situated in the midth.
The edges between the percussion platform remains
and dorsal surfaces of all flakes, projected from both
refitting halfparts. Each line shows a temporary outline
part of the rough product. There is too few information
to reconstruct the dagger outline.

12. Dagger 2: the halfparts
of refitted flakes.
Please give attention to
a small natural crack in
the flint (marked)!

13. Dagger 2:
Reconstruction
of brought-in
blank, knapped
by hard stroke

14. Dagger 2, transverse cut with original fragment of a
nearly completed dagger (handle part). The desired
dagger broke during the finishing soft strokes along
a natural crack. There is no evidence if the larger
remaining piece (lenght still 15.5 cm) was prepared
further. – Only soft stroke was applied.
The edges between the percussion platform remains and
dorsal surfaces of all flakes, projected from both refitting
halfparts, together with the fitting dagger handle. Each line
shows a temporary outline part of the rough product. The
desired dagger should have a length of 22 cm.

15. Dagger 3,
refitted waste
(all in soft
stroke
technology).
Because of a
characteristic
flint
patterning
also some
very fine
flakes could
be fitted.
Give
attention to a
flake with a
hinge which
made a sort
of terrace at
the nearly
completed
blank which
could
certainly not
be removed.

16. Dagger 3,
reconstructed
blank, probably
brought here from
the steep coast.

17. This blank was made of
a huge flake; this sketch
shows its complicated
way of origin. This and
some further preparation
was not made at the
actual site.
Remaining node
hughe flake
with big hinge
used blank, brought
to the site after a bit
preparation was done
new core which
remains

18. Dagger 3, a further
reconstructed
working step

19. Dagger 3, transverse cut with reconstructed
dagger cut („Dolch“). One terrace could
certainly not be removed completely. – Only
soft stroke was applied.
The edges between the percussion platform remains
and dorsal surfaces of all flakes, projected from both
refitting halfparts. Each line shows a temporary outline
part of the rough product. The desired dagger should
have a length of 17.5 cm. The relatively high number of
fittings of small flakes allow to reconstruct the dagger
outline with its characteristic natural pattern. The details
of surface traitment has no evidence.

20. Scheme of flint workshop waste as found at
some northern German younger and late
neolithic sites mostly along the (former)
coast. Only flakes with attributes of soft
stroke are taken into consideration.
Analysing of stroke directions, hinges and
the angles between flake and preparation
platform remains allow in most cases to
define the production aims.
Enlarged Photo (an old copy – sorry!) from
the edge between dorsal surface (above)
and percussion platform remain (below) of
a dagger production flake shows that this
edge was treated with a grinding stone.
After Harm Paulsen this edge grinding has
two advantages: Knapping will be easier,
and the antler tools will be protected.

21. Detail of the former scetch. A sure classification of dagger production (wich implicated
sickles and similar bifacial products) can be made only when former strokes came also from
the opposite direction. The more the waste comes from the final stage of preparation, the
clearer and surer the classification will be.

22. County of Dithmarschen: Map of the neolithic sites
with a high part of workshop flint waste. It becomes
clear that there is a reference to the former coast
line. Some sites show only „normal“ flint knapping
of less specialized tools (dwelling places), but many
sites have left only specialized workshop waste.
Anyhow, the overall number of waste is not
comparable e. g. to the masses of flakes around flint
mines in southern Netherlands and Belgium. So this
specialized flint knapping will have had a more
regional importance.
(www.museum-albersdorf.de/poster/
flintwerkstaetten.htm)

23. Thanks for listening!
And if asking me: speak slowly and
clearly due to my poor English!
h.v.arnold@t-online.de
www.museum-albersdorf.de/poster/
flintwerkstaetten.htm