6.2 EURO-CANADIAN ARTIFACTS (CONTINUED)

6.2.6 Gunflints

Michael Barnes

A total of 10 gunflints were recovered from the LaVase Island site. Typically, gunflints are discussed using basic descriptions such as "French" or "Dutch", and "wedge-shaped" or "rectangular". A more detailed description of gunflints however, was sought out. Stone (1974), uses the following system for classification:

Series: Distinguishes differences in technique of manufacture.
Type: Distinguishes differences in shape.
Variety: Distinguishes differences in colour.

I) Series A (SA): Blade Gunflints

Blade gunflints were manufactured by detaching individual blade segments from a long, narrow blade which is derived from a flint core. The bed of the resulting product is flat and is parallel to the face. The bed also bears secondary retouch flaking on the edge. The top has transverse flake scars, and evidence of retouch flaking on all sides except the edge.

Series A (SA) Type 1: Bevelled edge and back; flat face; rounded back heel. Flint colour can vary from blond to light grey, but is usually referred to as "beeswax". The texture is "fine" grade. It bears 3 transverse scars, the centre face, and the front and back bevel.

Series A (SA) Type 2: Bevelled edge; flat face; rounded back heel, no back flake. Bears two transverse flake scars on top, with the centre scar (or face), normally parallel to the bed. The second flake scar forms the bevel or edge.

Series A (SA) Type 3: Bevelled edge and back; no face flake; and triangular in cross section.

II) Series B (SB): Blade-Spall Gunflints

Distinguished by the presence of 1 transverse and 1 longitudinal flake scar on the top face. The longitudinal flake scar has a central bulb of percussion. The flint used in SB specimens is dark grey.

III) Series C (SC): Spall Gunflints

Produced by the removal of individual spalls from a flint pebble or nodule. The top face of the gunflint has a slightly convex surface on the edge side of the bulb of percussion and is sharply bevelled toward the back by secondary flaking. The bed of the gunflint is slightly concave to flat in longitudinal cross section, and often bears negative flake scars from prior removal of gunflints.

Type 1: Wedge shaped

Variety a)grey to brown
Variety b) dark grey to black
Variety c) brownish red.

The concavity of a spall gunflint shown in the longitudinal cross section of the bed (or bottom face) represents the outside face of the core from which it was produced. Some specimens of spall gunflints (such as 1-92-36a) have negative flake scars on the bottom flakes which is due to prior removal of gunflints.

Category A: Specimens grouped into category "A" are those flints that have been used with fire steels, fire flints, or a "strike-a-lights".

It should be noted that Stone's method is not the most common system cited in current literature. The technique of dividing by "Series", "Type", and "Variety" is used throughout his report of Michilimackinac, for most artifact categories. However to the credit of this report, it was clearly the most detailed in describing gunflints, and was therefore used as a guideline for the analysis of gunflints.

Discussion

The LaVase Island Site recovered a total of 10 gunflints from 1992 and 1997 excavations.

European gunflints fall into 4 areas of origin. Listed chronologically from their popularity in use and trade they are: Nordic, Dutch, French, and English. For this particular study, only the latter three types are of interest. Generally speaking, these gunflints have the basic characteristics and traits in the following table:

Table 21. Gunflints

N.B. Dates listed are not indicating production of gunflints, but are a collaboration from different sources (Karklins, 1983; Hamilton and Fry, 1975;Stone, 1974, and Kenyon et al. 1985) indicating the dates of most common usage, and gunflint findings at datable sites.

The following Table gives technological descriptions, in addition to measurements and scanned images of all gunflints. For diagrammatic reference to morphological terms of gunflints, see Hamilton and Fry (1975:108).

Table 22. Gunflint descriptions

5-92-20	L:21.6 W:19.04 T:7.1	SA,T1,Cat.A. Colour: Beeswax or blonde, transparent. Texture: Fine to very fine. Shape: Rounded back heel. Portion of bottom left edge bevel broken. Flat bed or bottom face. Three transverse scars: one centre, and one for both top and bottom bevels. Bears secondary flaking on back heel. Significant fracturing and wear indicates prolonged usage, most likely as fire flint.
97-292	L:28.2 W:35.3 T:8.2	SC,T1,VA. Colour: Beeswax. Texture: Fine. Shape: Top face is convex, Bottom face is concave. Rounded heel retouched to 80 degree angle, edges slightly retouched at a lesser angle. Evident bulb of percussion at centre of heel end bearing under layer shatter scar. No fracturing on front with minor wear indicates little usage.
5-92-25	L:29.3 W:28.8 T:7.7	SC,T1,VA. Colour: Opaque grey and Translucent brown. Colours cut bottom face diagonally and top face in back left edge corner. Texture: Grey is course, brown is semi-fine. Shape: Top face is concave in transverse cross section, and convex in bottom face transverse cross section. 3 longitudinal flakes make up bevelled back at 70 degree angle. Left edge fractured. Top face is convex in longitudinal cross section and bottom face is concave Save one fracture on front edge, little indication of usage.
5-92-28	L: 21.7 W:24.5 T:9.7	SC,T1,VA,Cat.A Colour: Very dark brown Texture : fine Shape: Convex top face, concave bottom face in longitudinal cross section. 3 longitudinal flake scars creating steep back bevel at 85 degrees. Some retouching or wear usage on back bevel. Extensive fracturing on front and edges indicating extensive usage most likely as fire flint.
5-92-29	L:19.2 W:21.4 T:3.4	SC,T1,VA Colour: beeswax with white impurity Texture: fine Shape: Top face removed due to fracturing, bottom face flat. No evidence of bevel flake scars due to absence of top face, however, retouching evident on back heel and right edge. Impurity from the outer chert cortex on back heel connecting to right edge. Either extensive use-wear, or poor quality material to create fracturing.
5-92-22	L: 15.8 W:26.3 T:6.7	SC,T1,VA,Cat.A Colour: grey to brown Texture: semi-fine Shape: similar morphology to 1-92-36b. Convex top face in longitudinal cross section, concave on bottom face in longitudinal cross section. Two longitudinal flake scars creating back bevel at 65 degrees. Minor retouching on heel and edges. Significant use-wear marks on front creating a "U" shape, indicating prolonged usage as fire flint.
5-92-23 -No scan-	L: 21.9 W:21.7 T:3.7	SC,T1,VA Colour: light grey (opaque) and orange (transparent). Texture: light grey: rough, red: semi-fine. Shape: In general morphology similar to spall gunflint, however all of the bottom face has been clearly removed from one clean fracture. One small remaining portion of bottom face indicates flat surface in longitudinal cross section Top face has at least 2 flake scars creating back bevel at 80 degree angle. This specimen was probably used little due to poor quality of material fracturing the whole bottom face cross section.
97-478	L:24.0 W:26.6 T:6.0	SB Colour: Grey and Light Grey mix Texture: Semi-fine Shape: Back bevel is created by one transverse flake with it's bulb of percussion on the corner of the left edge and back. Another transverse percussion flake from the same bulb of percussion creates the centre face. The tapering down from the centre face to the front has been created by one or more longitudinal percussion flakes. Fractured front right corner. Although surface damage due to negative flake scars, or use wear on the bottom, the original bottom face would have been flat. Significant fracturing on exterior has taken place in what appears to be a specimen that has been submitted to heat. This would correspond with its provenience, within a fire pit.
5-92-24	L:25.8 W:29.6 T:7.3	SC,T1,VA Colour: Dark Brown Texture: fine Shape: Convex top face, flat bottom face in longitudinal cross section. 1 longitudinal flake scar from bulb or demi-cone of percussion on back top face, creating bevel at 75 degree angle. Retouching in direction of top face on back bevel and edges. Front left corner connecting to edge fractured. Minor evidence of use wear.
5-92-87	L:18.2 W:20.9 T: 7.0	SC,T1,VA,Cat.A. Colour: beeswax with light grey impurity. Texture: Beeswax: fine, Light grey: rough. Shape: Convex top face, flat bottom face in longitudinal cross section. At least 3 longitudinal flake scars at back creating bevel at 80 degree angle. Extensive prolonged use, most likely as fire flint after use of gunflint.

L=Length (from front edge, to back heel)
W=Width (from left to right side edges)
T=Thickness (from top face to bottom face)

It is important to note however, that gunflints designated in category "A", used with fire steels originally would have been formed as gun-flints. It would be difficult to determine the amount of use, if any, a gunflint would have been used for the purpose on the firearm. Of the 10 gunflints, only one example does not have a large amount of breakage and scarring on the front, specimen 97-292. In many cases it is difficult to distinguish wear on the front from the use with a firearm, or as a fire-flint.

Hamilton and Fry (1975), state characteristics when determining whether a front edge has been damaged due to the frizzen while firing, or for use as a fire-flint. They point out the following observations for detecting fire-flints:

1. A used fire-flint has concave edges, sides, or back, depending upon the particular area used in striking.
2. In seeking the best shower of sparks, there is a tendency to turn the flint over from time to time to get a sharper edge. This results in a biface striking edge.
3. In forming the concave bifacial striking edge, only a few large flakes are removed, and those are incidental. Instead, many minute flakes are removed from a fire-steel, giving the striking edge, a sort of mottled appearance. (Hamilton and Fry 1975:121-122).

According to these guidelines, at least three gunflints from this assemblage were used as fire-flints, with 1 questionable specimen.

Gunflints 1-92-36b, 5-92-28, and 5-92-22, were used as fire flints. Specimen 1-92-36b, most likely a spall gunflint (originally), has significant evidence of fire-flint wear. The front is concave shaped with minute flake scars throughout. This minute flake scarring is evident on all edges including the bevel. This specimen clearly shows the most use as a fire-flint. Specimen 5-92-22 is also of spall manufacture, and has a more pronounced concavity at the front edge. Similarly this specimen shows some minor use along the side edges and heel, but not as obvious as 1-92-36b. Catalogue number 5-92-28, also of spall manufacture displays at least three areas where use on a fire-steel may have taken place. Two areas on the front edge and two on the right edge have minute scars creating mini concave sections. Finally, the questionable specimen 5-92-26, is of spall-blade manufacture and has less pronounced concave sections throughout the front and heel.

Hamilton and Fry (1975) refute discussions by Witthoft (1966) that French gunflints were made solely for the use with fire-steels. They state the following: "A fire flint can be any flint used with a firesteel to make a fire, but a used gunflint, even though it shows extensive use against a firesteel, is still a gunflint" (Hamilton and Fry 1975:122).

All specimens save 2 are of spall manufacture. One complete gunflint without any scarring from its use is 97-292. Specimen 5-92-26, represents the only blade manufacture in the sample. This specimen has also been used as a fire-flint. The ability to distinguish a French or English style on this artifact is almost impossible, however the light beeswax colour may suggest French.

Catalogue number 97-478 is a combination of blade and spall manufacturing techniques. Stone (1974), categorizes this as "SB" or spall-blade gunflint. The top face has been removed from the bulb of percussion on the left edge in one clean transverse flake. Similarly, the back and front bevels have been removed from the same bulb of percussion.

The degree of use wear among gunflints ( those not categorized as fire-flints) varies. There does seem to be a direct association from the degree of fracturing and use-wear and the quality of flint. Hamilton and Fry (1975), explain that the quality of flint can be determined by the flaking technique. Specimens that display erratic flaking are said to be of poor quality. They also go on to explain the poor quality of "chalk-heels". These gunflints retain a chalk cortex from the original nodule. "Chalk-heel" flints were well known for their low quality in trade (Hamilton and Fry 1975:114). From the present assemblage of 10 gunflints, only one specimen retained a "chalk-heel". Not coincidently, this specimen represents one of the highest degrees of fracturing.

Upon visual inspection, three specimens (5-92-87,5-92-25,and 5-92-23) represented poor quality of flint used. Examples 5-92-87 and 5-92-25 have veins of impurities throughout. Specimen 5-92-23 is light grey in colour and rough in texture. All three of these specimens exhibit significant fracturing.

The specimens most resembling their original gunflint are of a higher grade material. There are no flaws in the flaking, or impurities. These specimens (97-292,5-92-24, and 1-92-36a) are the only examples for which usage with firearms may have been the primary function.

Dating the assemblage of gunflints may lead to false assumptions due to such a small sample size. However, a similar study conducted by Ferris et al. (1985), based on a sample size of 6 spall gunflints, state the Bellamy Site would represent an "end" date of no later than 1800. Their reasoning for this statement lies in the fact that "spall varieties are generally considered an earlier version of gunflint, disappearing sometime around 1800" (Kenyon et al, 1985:15)

ASI found one English blade gunflint from unit 308/398 at the 10-15cm level with a concave depression in the heel indicating use for a fire flint. Specimen 97-292, of spall manufacture was found at a depth of 34 cm, in square 312/398. This indicates that specimen 97-292 should be earlier than ASI's English "blade" gunflint which are typically thought of as being used in the later historic period.

English Gunflints (also characterized as blade gunflints) first appeared about 1775-1780 (Witthoft 1966:36) and dominated the trade throughout the first half of the nineteenth century (Hamilton 1971:62). These gunflints tend to be black to grey in colour and rectangular in shape. The ability to designate a cultural affiliation from the gunflints with this sample size would be too presumptuous. It is important to note the error that can be made in assigning a French, English, or Dutch affiliation of a site simply from the type of gunflint recovered:

The differential frequency of spall to blade gunflints at a site may not necessarily be entirely a function of differential availability through time but may also be related to differential preferences of the inhabitants of different types of sites. At many sites, both spall and blade gunflints occur frequently, although spall gunflints generally occur in greater numbers. This suggests that either spalls were more readily available or that spalls were preferred over blades (Stone 1974:255).

Some Comments on Specific Problems

The ability to characterize gunflints to European origins is quite ambiguous among authors. For instance, Dutch gunflints are synonymously used with the term spall gunflint. Therefore, it is assumed that all spall gunflints were manufactured by the Dutch and distributed

to the French and English. However, Karklins (1983), points out that spall gunflints were predominantly made in England. This poses as a significant problem since one must consider that "English" gunflints are not only of blade manufacture but also of spall manufacture. It is not within the scope of this report to criticize different authors' opinions on the specific origin and trade patterns on gunflints. The only salvageable technique for characterizing gunflints is from morphology, and percussion techniques.

Conclusions

Despite problems in the literature, the following conclusions can be made when comparing spall to blade gunflints:

1) Blade gunflints have been reported at archaeological sites in the date range of 1740-mid 1800's.

2) Spall gunflints have a more distinct percussion technique where blade gunflints have more variation in flaking.

3) Both the French and English produced blade gunflints.

4) Spall gunflints are more often thought to be of Dutch origin, however they may have been produced in England.

5) English blade gunflints seem to predominate sites post-1800.

6) Types of gunflints found at a site may not necessarily be affiliated to nationality, e.g. the French may have used gunflints produced in England.

It can be stated with confidence that the 1997 and 1992 assemblage represents eight gunflints of spall manufacture, and one of blade manufacture, and one of spall-blade manufacture. Neither of the blade gunflints are similar to "typical" English blade gunflints found on the majority of post-1800's sites. This assemblage, in fact, represents the earlier types of gunflints found on 18^th century sites. Despite the debate of whether spall gunflints are of English or Dutch in origin, they are still characteristic to what is typically referred to as "Dutch" gunflints found on many18^th century sites.

As mentioned in the discussion, the prevalence of spall gunflints may represent the preferred type used by the occupants, or the availability of materials, and also (perhaps to a lesser degree) may be a result of the type of musket gun used.

With this in mind, it would not be safe to speculate on a pre-1800's occupation from a majority of spall gunflints as suggested from the Bellamy site (Kenyon et al., 1985). It should also be noted here that gunflints found in situ from excavations by ASI (1995), and Settlement Surveys Ltd. (1997), possibly represent a transitional stage of preference between spall to blade gunflints (or entirely separate occupants), however the lack of blade gunflints recovered from a site thought to have been intensely occupied in the early 1800's, remains a mystery.

Back to the Lavase River/Fort Laronde