An Analysis of the Surface Flint Assemblage from Lambay Island, Co. Dublin
Brian Dolan
A thesis presented to
University College Dublin In partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the M.A. degree in
Landscape Archaeology
August 2005
Department of Archaeology Supervisor: Dr Graeme Warren Head of Department: Dr Muiris O’Sullivan
For Granny 1907 – 2005
“Home is where one starts from. As we grow older The world becomes stranger, the pattern more complicated Of dead and living. Not the intense moment Isolated, with no before and after, But a lifetime burning in every moment And not the lifetime of one man only But of old stones that cannot be deciphered”
T.S. Eliot, ‘Four Quartets: East Coker’
Knockbane from the east at dusk (Brian Dolan)
Contents ABSTRACT LIST OF PLATES LIST OF MAPS
I II IV
LIST OF CHARTS
V
LIST OF TABLES
VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
VIII
PART ONE
1
CHAPTER ONE: RESEARCH GOALS AND QUESTIONS
2
CHAPTER TWO: LAMBAY AN INTRODUCTION
3
CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY OF IRISH CHIPPED STONE RESEARCH
7
CHAPTER FOUR: IRISH PREHISTORIC CHIPPED STONE TECHNOLOGIES AND TYPOLOGIES
12
PART TWO
18
CHAPTER FIVE: THE PEBBLE SURVEY
19
CHAPTER SIX: THE LITHIC ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGY
24
CHAPTER SEVEN: THE LITHIC ANALYSIS: RESULTS
29
PART THREE
39
CHAPTER EIGHT: AN ALL-ISLAND VIEW
40
CHAPTER NINE: THE WIDER CONTEXT
50
PART FOUR
57
CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSIONS
58
PART FIVE
61
APPENDIX ONE: TABLES
62
APPENDIX TWO: PEBBLE SURVEY BEACHES
73
APPENDIX THREE: LIST OF ASSEMBLAGES
77
APPENDIX FOUR: THE DATABASE
86
APPENDIX FIVEMETADATA
111
REFERENCES
114
FIGURES
Abstract
This thesis presents the analysis of two surface collections picked up in the last fourteen years on Lambay Island, County Dublin. The artifacts collected were not found in ploughed contexts, they were exposed through various erosion processes including coastal erosion, cattle movement and rabbit excavations. The material posed a challenge in terms of its lack of context and the unusual processes that brought it to light. Analysis of the collections is important in the context of current ongoing research on the island by Gabriel Cooney, providing a baseline survey of the chipped stone technologies of the island as well as an idea of prehistoric use of the island landscape in different periods. The thesis provides an introductory background to the geography, history and research that has been carried out on the island. A historical summary of research into Irish Neolithic and Bronze Age chipped stone technologies is also given together with a brief summary of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age typologies and technologies. The analysis of the collections was carried out through the use of individual artifact analysis in a Microsoft Access database, the generation of maps within a GIS and a field survey of beach pebbles from the coastline of Lambay. The results of the analysis provide the first definite evidence for Late Mesolithic activity on the island in the form of a butt-trimmed flake, possible evidence for Early Mesolithic activity was also found. The majority of the artifacts appear to date to a broad Neolithic/Bronze Age timeframe. One potentially significant and possibly Early Neolithic site was discovered in the northeastern uplands of the island but the majority of finds come from the western lowland area close to the best sources of flint. The analysis also provided definite evidence for links between Lambay and the wider Irish Sea region in the form of a large exotic flint flake and a small pitchstone artifact which originated in the island of Arran off the coast of Scotland. The thesis provides an excellent springboard for future research in Lambay, providing a broad background picture of the extent of activity on the island in different phases in prehistory. It also provides a model for studying non-ploughzone surface collections with reasonably good spatial information.
i
List of Plates Plate 1.
Broad Bay (Beach 5), with tilted sandstone layers visible on the right
(Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 2.
Oblique aerial photograph of the castle and grounds (Photo: Unknown).
Plate 3.
Pebble beach at the base of Bishop’s Bay cliffs (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 4.
Transect 5, viewed from the north (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 5.
Photograph taken from the bottom of Transect 16, looking east (Photo:
Brian Dolan).
Plate 6.
Photograph taken from the top of Transect 16, looking west (Photo: Brian
Dolan).
Plate 7.
Surveying Transect 27, view from the north (Photo: Gabriel Cooney).
Plate 8.
Beach pebble survey form.
Plate 9.
Beach pebble survey guide.
Plate 10. The pebble assemblage from Transect 13 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 11. Transect 21, Beach 11 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 12. Artefact C05.1:0692.
Plate 13. The terrace on which Assemblage 10 was collected, picture taken facing south (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 14. The area from which Assemblage 10 was collected (Photo: Brian Dolan). ii
Plate 15. Artefact C05.1:0199 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 16. Artefact C05.1:0540 (photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 17. Artefact C05.1:0456 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 18. Artefact C05.7:0472 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 19. Artefact C05.1:0022 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 20. Artefact C05.1:0174 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 21. Artefact C05.1:0192 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 22. Artefact C05.1:0457 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 23. Artefact C05.1:0322 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 24. Artefact C05.1:0551 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 25. Artefact C05.1: 0331 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 26. An eroding section of raised beach on Beach 3 at the top of Transect 3 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 27. Artefact C05.1:0318 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
iii
List of Maps Map 1.
Location Map.
Map 2.
Geological sketch map of Lambay (after Stillman 1994, Fig. 4).
Map 3.
Surface geology (after Seymour 1907, Plate 3)
Map 4.
RMP (Record of Monuments and Places) sites on Lambay.
Map 5.
Place-names referred to in the text.
Map 6.
Pebble survey transects and beaches.
Map 7.
The spatial extent of the two collections.
Map 8.
Location of diagnostic artefacts with assigned chronological periods.
Map 9.
Distribution of core types across Lambay.
Map 10.
Assemblages with spatial information.
Map 11.
Assemblages with spatial information, the southwest.
Map 12.
Confidence levels of all assemblages with spatial information.
Map 13.
Artefact density on Lambay.
Map 14.
Artefact density, the southwest.
Map 15.
The spatial extent of the Stacpoole surface collection (after Guinan 1992b, Fig. 7)
Map 16.
Distribution of pitchstone in Northern Ireland (after Simpson 1995, 40). iv
List of Charts Chart 1. Total counts of pebble flint (by size) from all beaches.
Chart 2. Total counts of ‘usable’ pebble flint (by size) from all beaches. Chart 3. Pebble flint per m2 on all beaches.
Chart 4. Plot of artefact sizes, the total assemblage.
Chart 5. Condition of the total assemblage.
Chart 6. Comparative breakage, the total assemblage.
Chart 7. Comparative burning, the total assemblage.
Chart 8. Stages of production, the total assemblage.
Chart 9. Comparative burning, Assemblages 1, 2 and total.
Chart 10. Stages of production, Assemblage 1.
Chart 11. Stages of production, Assemblage 2.
Chart 12. Inter-site comparison of stages of reduction.
Chart 13. Inter-site comparison of stages of blade/flake proportions.
Chart 14. Inter-site comparison of assemblage condition
Chart 15. Inter-site comparison of retouch.
Chart 16. Assemblage 10, artefact size.
v
Chart 17. Assemblage 11, artefact size.
Chart 18. Assemblage 24, artefact size.
Chart 19. Assemblage 43, artefact size.
Chart 20. Assemblage 11 stages of production.
Chart 21. Assemblage 24 stages of production.
vi
List of Tables Table 1.
Number and size of flint collected from each pebble survey transect.
Table 2.
Angularity data collected as part of the pebble survey.
Table 3.
Other data recorded as part of the pebble survey.
Table 4.
Guide to and definitions of terms used in the record fields in the database.
Table 5.
Criteria used to assign confidence levels to assemblages.
Table 6.
The Total Collection.(assemblage make up).
Table 7.
Collection 1.
Table 8.
Collection 2.
Table 9.
Diagnostic artefacts.
Table 10. Frequency distribution of the number of artefacts in each assemblage.
Table 11. Number of finds in each assemblage.
Table 12. Assemblage 10
Table 13. Assemblage 11
Table 14. Assemblage 24
Table 15. Assemblage 43.
vii
Acknowledgements I could not have completed this thesis without the support and help of a huge number of people. I would like to thank Dr. Graeme Warren, who despite having a thousand other commitments always made it seem I was his only one. His support, helpful criticism and his tolerance of my constant questions are very much appreciated. Professor Gabriel Cooney made his time, and his collection of artefacts, available to me as well as organising two memorable and essential trips to Lambay, for this I am very grateful. I would also like to thank Patrick and Margaret Kelly and the Lambay Island Trust for their hospitality while visiting the island and for allowing me to roam free around their home, counting their stones. Beatrice Kelly was also very kind in allowing me access to her personal collection.
The context in which this work came to fruition was a vibrant, friendly and stimulating Department of Archaeology. I would like to thank all of the staff in the department, especially Rob for his guidance and inhuman patience in the face of every computer crisis, and his help with the photographing of artefacts. My colleagues in the Landscape and Art and Architecture MA classes must also be thanked. They provided support, comic value, a shoulder to moan on and a generally fun and engaging atmosphere which has made this year a memorable and enjoyable one through all of the stress and the late nights. In particular, I would like to thank Declan and Niall. Niall’s constant and at times scary optimism throughout the year was always a welcome antidote to my persistent pessimism, while Declan’s company and constant jokes during the lithic analysis, probably prevented my descent into insanity (just!).
Finally my warmest thanks are reserved for my family and friends. To my Mam and Dad for their unfailing support throughout in every possible way, in good times and in bad, I will always be grateful and I will probably never be able to pay them back (sorry Dad!). To Serena for her help and support throughout, her selflessness, thoughtfulness and patience was always appreciated, though she may not have known it. Of course there are many other people who helped me along the way, to all those un-named I extend my gratitude. viii
Part One
1
Chapter One
Research Goals and Questions
Goal of the Thesis The aim of the thesis is, through the analysis of two surface assemblages collected on Lambay Island, to determine what can be learned about the landscapes of the prehistoric people who created them.
In so doing, it is intended that the results of the thesis will be a substantial contribution to research on Lambay; enhancing the chronological, typological and spatial context of prehistoric study of the island.
Research Questions The analysis of the surface assemblages on which the thesis is based represents the first research into the chipped stone technology of the island. With this in mind a number of simple but answerable research questions were posed before the analysis was begun. These questions served to focus the design of the analysis and provided a structure through which the results of the analysis could be interpreted. It is hoped that the analysis will provide a baseline for future research into chipped stone on the island. •
What raw materials were used on the island and where did they come from?
•
What time periods are represented in the assemblage?
•
Where were people manufacturing and discarding chipped stone tools on the island in different periods?
•
What can the analysis of the chipped stone from Lambay tell us about its connections with the wider world?
2
Chapter Two
Lambay: An Introduction
Geography and Geology Lambay Island is the largest island to be found off the east coast of Ireland (Stillman 1994, 62), it is located 4km off the north Dublin coast, east of Rush and north-east of Ireland’s Eye and Howth Head (Map 1). Its location gives it access, in a visual sense at least to a very wide area. To the north can be seen the Carlingford and Mourne Mountains, the North Leinster coast and the small group of islands off Skerries. To the south Ireland’s Eye, Howth Head, Dublin Bay, Bray Head and the Wicklow Mountains and coast can be glimpsed (Cooney 1993, 25). Even farther a field it is even possible to identify the tip of Snaefell on the Isle of Man (Cooney 2004). Lambay therefore occupies a significant place in the Irish sea region, fitting into wider systems of intervisibility, seafaring (eg. Cooney 2004) and trade (see Chapter Nine).
Lambay’s original formation dates back 450 million years to late Ordovician times (Stillman 1994, 63). The modern island is the remnant of a long distinct volcano, part of a volcanic chain of islands, traces of which may now be seen on the Hill of Allen and on the shoreline at Balbriggan. The volcano erupted through a sea floor consisting of sedimentary layers, built up from early deposition of sands and clays (Seymour 1907, 6). The volcano laid down basaltic and andesitic lavas, which make up the body of the island. It is in this period that the famous Lambay porphyry, more correctly termed porphyritic andesite, was formed as intrusions within the lava deposits (Stillman 1994, 64-66, see Map 2). The island also boasts deposits of later sandstones and conglomerate, which can be seen at the northwest tip of the island in the area of Broad Bay (Plate 1).
The island has a modern area of 250 hectares above the high water mark and a highest point of 126m accentuated by a prehistoric hilltop cairn (Cooney Forthcoming, 15). The western third of the Island is low-lying and boasts the largest area covered by drift material, till cover is patchy in the western upland area (see Map 3). This material 3
includes boulder clay with very small scratched pebbles of limestone, chert, flint and andesites laid down as various ice sheets retreated north (see Hoare 1975) as well as locally derived till (Stillman 1994, 1, Map 3). The flint and chert within the soil cover on the island, was casually surveyed during fieldwork and appears to be of very poor quality, extremely battered, and usually measuring less than 30mm in maximum dimension. Some parts of the western shore appears to be made up of raised beach material including sand, shells, beach shingle, and “traces of midden deposits” (Seymour 1907, 8, see Map 3). A very large proportion of the coast of Lambay (c.75%), barring the western low-lying area, consists of steep rock and till cliffs ranging in height from about 15-45 metres, this is the result of tilting of the strata after the formation of the island (Seymour 1907, 7).
Brief Archaeological and Historical Background Lambay Island has a long history of human activity (see Map 4). The surface collection under analysis here demonstrates widespread use of the island in prehistory, as far back as the Late Mesolithic and possibly farther (see Chapters Seven and Eight). In the Neolithic, the island saw use as a source and production site for ground stone axes; these were produced from the distinctive Lambay porphyry mentioned above. The quarry sites were located in the west of the upland area of the island in two small valleys, associated with the quarry sites were numerous pits which had seen complex phases of structured deposition as well as a low cairn-like monument (Cooney 1998a, 1998b, 2000a, 2000b, Forthcoming). Macalister (1929) identified a Neolithic ‘settlement’ on examination of artefacts turned up during works on the island’s harbour in 1927.
Further indicators of prehistoric activity include two hilltop cairns; one forming the highest point on the island (Knockbane), the other a little to the east and not as striking (Map 4). Cecil Baring (1907, 17) suggested that a gold band, ‘chastely ornamented’ could represent evidence of Bronze Age activity on the island. Additional evidence of Bronze Age activity is suggested by the low profile remains of a ring barrow just to the south of the Scotch Point promontory fort and some possible boulder burials to the east and southeast of the island. Evidence of Iron Age occupation of the island comes in the form of at least two crouched inhumation burials discovered at the same time as the aforementioned Neolithic material described by Macalister. These burials were 4
associated with artefacts linking them to the first century AD and have been interpreted as representing the remains of refugees from the Roman conquest of Brigantia in AD 71-74 (Rynne 1976, 242). An alternative view sees them as representatives of a trading community that had strong links with Roman Britain and may have used the two promontory forts to the northwest of the island during a period in which trade was hazardous (Cooney 1993, 26). The most recent evidence of prehistoric activity comes from some human remains that have been identified eroding out of the coastline to the west of the chapel associated with non-diagnostic worked flint (Gabriel Cooney pers. comm.).
Lambay enters the historic record in AD 635 when it is recorded that a monastery was founded by the abbot of Iona (Cooney 1993, 27). Recent geophysical survey of parts of the island has revealed evidence for a circular enclosure in close proximity to the existing chapel which is likely to represent the remains of this monastic settlement (Gabriel Cooney pers. comm.). The island was granted to the archbishops of Dublin shortly after the Anglo-Norman invasion and the moated site located to the east of the modern chapel was most likely constructed in the centuries which followed (Cooney and Byrnes 2001, 2). In the succeeding centuries the island saw various uses; a castle was built on it in the fifteenth century, exploratory mining was carried out in the sixteenth and the island was used as a prison for Jacobite soldiers in the seventeenth. Lintel lined burials found during the construction of the White House in the early twentieth century may be related to the monastic settlement but are more likely to be of early historic date (Cooney and Byrnes 2001, 2), as are burials excavated to the northwest of the church in 1991 (O'Floinn 1991). A mass grave excavated at the point (Cooney 1995) may be of a similar date (Gabriel Cooney pers. comm.). By the nineteenth century the island was extensively settled by in the region of 100 people (Cooney 1993). This was not the case in the twentieth century when the island was purchased by Cecil Baring, whose family still own the island. The Barings were responsible for considerable work on the island, commissioning Edward Lutyens to transform the area between the harbour and the castle into the grand form present today (Cooney 1993, 27, Plate 2). Farm improvements on the low-lying west of the island in the 1940s and 50s have probably destroyed much of the surface archaeology of this area of the island.
5
Lithic Research on Lambay The earliest reference to lithics on Lambay comes from 1896, when members of the Dublin Naturalists Field Club gave an account of finding a number of rough chips, cores, and a retouched flake in some low mounds in the Black Point Field (see map 5, Seymour 1896). Finds from Lambay are also present in the Keiller-Knowles Collection in the National Museum of Ireland (Cooney Forthcoming, 16).The next reported finds from Lambay have been mentioned already and were published by Macalister (1929). The early finds included polished stone adze-heads, a polished stone hatchet-head, numerous flint flakes, some of which may have been scrapers, a complete lozenge shaped javelin head and two other broken examples. The javelin heads suggest that Macalister’s ‘habitation’ site probably had a late Neolithic or Bronze Age date (Woodman 1994). These finds were later described and illustrated by Herity (1982). In 1946 Mitchell recorded in his notebook a number of chipped stone finds including a noticeable concentration in the Black Point Field mentioned above (Mitchell 1946).
Recent research on Lambay has been led by Professor Gabriel Cooney, University College Dublin. This has involved excavation of the quarry site mentioned above, some smaller scale rescue excavations, large-scale geophysical survey of certain areas of the island and the collection of one of the surface assemblages on which this study is based. Although struck flint artefacts including arrowheads and scrapers have been found associated with the quarrying activity, and javelin heads, scrapers, flakes and debitage have been found (by Macalister) associated with a possible settlement site on the western shore, no detailed research into the flint assemblage on Lambay has been undertaken previous to this study.
6
Chapter Three
History of Irish Chipped Stone Research
Introduction This chapter will attempt to summarise the history of research into Irish chipped stone tool technologies. It is included in order to provide a context for this study in terms of the numerous approaches to chipped stone technologies that have prevailed in Ireland. The summary does contain a bias towards later periods of prehistoric use of chipped stone tools. This is a result of the expected composition of the Lambay assemblage at the beginning of the study, more detailed summaries of the history of research into Mesolithic chipped stone technology can be found elsewhere (see Woodman 1978, 2003).
Antiquarian Research The earliest scholarly interest in the study of stone tools in Ireland came from antiquarian collectors such as Knowles, Gray and Buick who amassed large collections of artefacts through surface collection and acquisition (see Woodman 1978, 327-330). Much of the material collected consisted of high quality, retouched, aesthetically pleasing artefacts. Cruder implements such as scrapers were often not valued and one collector even used them to “gravel the walks around his dwelling house� (Knowles 1898, 367). Lithic debitage and un-retouched flakes and blades were usually ignored, and provenance was usually recorded to townland at best. In this period the study of lithics was a hobby and not a science, but antiquarians still did some useful groundwork for later archaeologists researching chipped stone tools.
Research by antiquarians centred on typologies, the sorting of implements such as arrowheads and scrapers into chronological order based on form and associated finds (e.g. Buick 1895, Knowles 1898, 1903, 1912). Much of the work done by antiquarians has been superseded since the development, in the mid-twentieth century, of scientific dating techniques and the development of new theoretical paradigms with which to 7
interpret their collections. An exception to this is the use in modern archaeology of many of the descriptive terms developed in this period (see Chapter Four).
Lithic material collected by antiquarians came mainly from the northeast, the only area in Ireland with high quality sources of flint. During this period and right up until the nineteen-eighties “the most important factor in lithic technology was thought to be a reliance on the abundant flint sources of Co Antrim” (Costa et al. 2005, 23). It was thought that flint was a key resource for survival in prehistory and the lack of flint finds in much of the southern half of the country was taken as evidence of a lack of settlement. The use of pebble flint and other localised materials around the country was not recognised or considered an important factor. This reinforced the tendency to only look for large flints and to create an artificial, if unconscious bias in the collected record.
Scientific Excavation and Culture- History Scientific excavation and study of Neolithic and Bronze Age lithic material only became the norm in Ireland in the fifties. In 1950 Collins (1952, 1959) began excavation of the sandhills at Dundrum, Co. Down, an area from which earlier antiquarian collectors had gathered numerous artefacts. This excavation was carried out with the explicit goal being to “reveal the skeleton of a culture sequence” (Collins 1952, 2). The assemblage found included numerous scrapers as well as a number of pressure flaked arrowheads ranging in date from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. Six years later another excavation at Dalkey Island (Liversage 1968) provided an assemblage with lithics spanning the Mesolithic, the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. The excavation at Dalkey and the excavation of a Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement complex at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (O'Riordain 1954) in the same decade provided at least two significant sites outside the north-eastern core with a noteworthy lithic assemblage. However this did not make much of an impact on prevailing interpretations.
These archaeologists were no longer using ‘intuitive’ interpretations of stone tools. They were working within a culture-history paradigm developed by Childe in the twenties and thirties, intent not just on arranging artefacts in chronological order but on assigning them to prehistoric peoples or ‘cultures’. They saw the different ‘culture
8
groups’ identified through excavation in terms of diffusionist and migratory models (e.g. Mahr 1937, Movius 1942).
The Sixties and Seventies In the sixties and seventies much lithic research continued to focus on the north-east. In the early sixties two papers on excavations in Townleyhall townland were published (Liversage 1960, Eogan 1963), a site with unusual concentrations of a predominantly Irish artefact type, the hollow scraper. Throughout the sixties and seventies the Ulster Journal of Archaeology published numerous reports concerning Neolithic and Bronze Age finds (e.g. Collins 1963, 1966, Woodman 1967a, 1967b, Flanagan 1970, Collins 1978), these articles dealt predominantly with finds in the northeast of Ireland, a foci of work on stone tools and of workers. There was a lack of similar publications and work in the republic; this did nothing to challenge the prevailing ideas about the importance of the Antrim flint. A tendency existed in some of these publications towards simple descriptions of artefacts, assigning them to the appropriate period and comparing them in form and in the make up of the assemblages to other sites. There were exceptions (for example Collins 1978), and the work of P.C. Woodman on stone tools from the Mesolithic period stands out (Woodman 1977, 1978, 1985). Woodman’s work in the seventies (and later) used stone tools to drive interpretation, unlike researchers interested in the Neolithic and Bronze Age, who concentrated on pottery, metallic artefacts and funerary monuments at the expense of lithics. Irish Neolithic and Bronze Age lithic research sorely lacked any explicit theoretical discussions, researchers still worked within essentially the same (cultural-historical) theoretical framework as they had been in the preceding decades.
The Eighties and Nineties Collin’s article on the flint javelin heads of Ireland (Collins 1981) and Lehane’s treatment of the lithic assemblage from Newgrange (Lehane 1983) show little progress in terms of theoretical discussion or social interpretation. They both attempted to understand lithics in terms of description, classification, typology and dating and while they are useful pieces of work, they failed to analyse the material in terms of what it could say about the workings of Neolithic and Bronze Age societies. Woodman’s (1987) consideration of lithic resource availability in Irish prehistory on the other hand, 9
signalled a change; the development of a new, critical approach to lithic analysis in all periods in Ireland. Woodman reinterpreted the lithic evidence, dismissing the long held notion of the key role of flint, its abundance in the north-east and the corresponding lack of it in the rest of the country, pointing to the abundance of pebble flint along the east coast and also the availability of alternative sources such as quartz, chert and rhyolite in inland areas. He then considered the social implications of his findings in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age.
Hodgers (1973, Hodgers 1975, 1979, 1994) had undertaken a ploughzone survey in the seventies but this had focused on County Louth in the northeast, the eighties saw a number of other ploughzone surveys (e.g. Woodman 1984, Cooney 1990b) some of which provided data on previously ignored areas. The Bally Lough Archaeological Project (Green and Zvelebil 1990, Peterson 1990, Zvelebil and Green 1992) focused on the south-east of Ireland. This project involved systematic survey of an area around Waterford harbour and the use of lithic analysis to shed light on the transition between the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Ireland. The project attempted to deal with complex social questions concerning the interactions between hunter-gatherers and farmers. Although it may be argued that some of the conclusions drawn from the data concerning the bipolar technique, ad-hoc use of raw materials and continuity between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic are a little suspect (e.g. Peterson 1990, 93-94), the project was important in definitively showing that lithics could be found in the southern half of the island if the time was taken to look for them.
In the early nineties the importance of flint as a key resource in the Neolithic and Bronze Age continued to be challenged (Woodman et al. 1991/2, Woodman 1992). The analyses of assemblages from Windy Ridge and Mad Mans Window showed that Neolithic peoples’ use of flint (in some areas at least) was casual, with no large-scale exploitation of mines and only quite small-scale movement of raw materials. Windy Ridge provided evidence for continued use of upland areas during the Neolithic, although what exactly they were used for was unclear. Mad Mans Window offered evidence that the use of flint in the area in the Neolithic and probably the Bronze Age too, was largely ad-hoc with different artefact types being produced at adjacent sites, although there was some long distance movement of artefacts. Woodman and Scannell (1993) re-examined the assemblage of lithics from Lough Gur. They found that in this southern assemblage flint was favoured over local materials except perhaps in the 10
production of arrowheads. This analysis raised more interesting questions about the choices people were making in prehistory about what materials to use and for what purpose. Although flint was no longer seen as essential for a population’s existence in prehistory, it was clear that it was favoured for certain tasks over other local, but less efficient raw materials.
Recent Research In one of the most recent articles concerning the study of Neolithic or Bronze Age lithics in Ireland Bamforth and Woodman (2004) argue for a new view of Neolithic lithic industries in Ireland and of Neolithic society. They argue for a regional Neolithic with people in different areas reacting to local social, economic and environmental conditions in different ways; ways of life which can be accessed through the study of prehistoric peoples’ lithic remains. The article is important in terms of methodology, using use-wear analysis to identify the function of artefacts and to draw attention to the importance of artefact dynamism. They note that continuous retouch of scrapers can result in many different forms of the same artefact which in old typological systems would be classified as separate types.
This optimistic and progressive view of the interpretive potential of chipped stone evidence seems to be a major theme in current study of chipped stone tools in Ireland, and it is within this framework that this study exists. As a final note, Bamforth and Woodman’s paper can also be seen as representing a small step towards addressing the imbalance in research on chipped stone in the Neolithic and Bronze Age vs. the Mesolithic. Mesolithic research in Ireland has relied heavily on its most abundant form of evidence: chipped stone, whereas research into subsequent phases of prehistory has tended to focus on the more visible funerary, ceremonial, and later metallic remains of later prehistory. It is hoped that this study will also contribute in this regard.
11
Chapter Four
Irish Prehistoric Chipped Stone Technologies and Typologies
Introduction Typology is as central to lithic analysis today as it was in the nineteenth century. Its success in providing a descriptive vocabulary (often understandable only to initiates) and a method of crude dating and comparison has ensured this. The roots of typologies lie in the nineteenth century desire for order. Artefacts were classified primarily in terms of form and perceived use and these factors overrode spatial, chronological and technological factors completely (Healy 1994, 179). Nineteenth century typologies were evolutionary, arranging artefact types from the crudest to the most intricate. They were also highly subjective, focusing on highly worked tools, especially arrowheads. Modern archaeological typologies are not complete breaks with the past, most terms have not been re-written, and their meanings in terms of space, time and use have simply been refined. In this chapter a short summary of Irish Mesolithic typologies will be given followed by detailed consideration of the key diagnostic artefacts from the Neolithic and Bronze Age and a summary of their typological history.
Brief Summary of Mesolithic Technologies and Typologies Early Mesolithic Microliths and small blades dominated the chipped stone tool technology of the early Mesolithic in Ireland. The microliths and blades were thought for a long time to have been produced by indirect percussion, using a hammer and punch (Woodman 1985). Recent evidence suggests the use of direct soft hammer production (see Costa et al. 2001, Costa et al. 2005). Cores used in this method of production were single or dual platformed with conical or semi-conical shapes, resulting from the removal of small blades (Costa et al. 2005, 24). There is no evidence for the use of pressure flaking to produce blades in this period (Woodman 1987, 140). The main types of microliths found are points, scalene triangles and rods (Waddell 2000, 14). Woodman (1985) identifies three types of points. Type A are elongated, less than 4mm in width and 12
sometimes more than 30mm in length. Type B are broader than type A but of similar length, they have extensive invasive retouch. Type C are shorter than the other two with very little invasive retouch. Scalene triangles are the dominant type of microliths; these are narrow elongated microliths whose form is roughly that of an unequal-sided triangle. Rods are small blades, usually less than 10mm in width with retouch along one side for more than 50% of their length. A number of other microliths types occur such as hollow-based points, obliquely trimmed types and scale-flaked points (Woodman 1985, 41-46). The chipped stone tool technology of the early Mesolithic also included core axes and flake axes. Core axes were made from flint nodules and had a diamond or lozenge-shaped cross-section, flake axes were flakes struck from prepared cores (Waddell 2000, 16). Flake axes seem to have been confined to the northeast of Ireland, probably due to the lack of suitable material in the rest of the country and the existence of an adequate replacement in the use of ground stone axes (Woodman 1987, 142). Late Mesolithic Later Mesolithic assemblages are distinguished by the “consistent use of a hard hammer technology to produce large numbers of robust blades and blade-like flakes” (Woodman et al. 1999, 73). The two main diagnostic artifacts from this period are uni-planar (Larnian) cores and butt-trimmed flakes (often called Bann flakes). Larnian cores are single-platformed flint cores worked to a flat surface with at least half of their surface covered by cortex. Dual and multi-platformed cores are also known. The term Bann flake has been used in the past in a very general sense referring to any leaf-shaped or butt-trimmed flake. True Bann flakes are actually a fairly late occurrence in the later Mesolithic as are uni-planar cores (Anderson and Johnson 1993, 7), butt-trimmed flakes are trimmed along at least one lateral edge at the proximal end for 1.5cm (Woodman and Anderson 1990, 379). Tanged forms were early at Newferry with broader forms in later levels. There are numerous other forms of flakes and blades known from the later Mesolithic ranging in size and form including distally trimmed flakes and backed flakes (Woodman 1978). Bar-forms and points are narrow flakes trimmed along both edges, the latter having much more definite points then former (Woodman 1977, 188). A few scrapers and burins are also known from this period. Heavier tools include large heavy flakes called ‘spokeshaves’, picks and borers. Core and flake axes are rare from this period; they may possibly have been replaced to a certain extent by polished stone axes.
13
Early Neolithic Technologies and Typologies Primary Technology Early Neolithic technologies have been seen as more ad-hoc than preceding period’s. Woodman (1987) cites this as a common change across Ireland while noting that the northeast appears to have had a larger, heavier blade technology with a variety of platform cores, with the rest of the country returning to elongated blade technologies often produced using the bipolar technique. Later Woodman (1994) argued that the Early Neolithic saw a focus on the production of blades and narrow flakes using soft hammers with the bipolar technique being used in a few areas. Ballin (2003a) assigns bipolar technology to ‘later prehistory’ (Late Neolithic and Bronze Age) while its use may also be related to raw material constraints (Odell 2000, 294). It is important to note that the hard hammer technique was also being used in this period (Ballin 2003d). What is clear is that the Early Neolithic saw the introduction of a new range of invasively retouched artefacts and the technique (controlled percussion) required to produce them. Projectile points There is “no such thing as a typical Neolithic assemblage” (Woodman and Scannell 1993, 58) and indeed the full Neolithic tool package does not seem to have been present until quite late (Woodman 1994). However, there are a number of artefacts that first occur with the coming of farming and can be described as classically Neolithic. Arrowheads, particularly leaf-shaped forms are the classic Neolithic indicator throughout the British Isles (Green 1980). Arrowheads were first studied by antiquarians who created the designations still in use today (e.g. Wilde 1857, Knowles 1877, Buick 1895, Knowles 1903). The Irish Early Neolithic incorporates large leafshaped arrowheads and possibly large leaf-shaped ‘javelin heads’ (Woodman 1994). The term ‘javelin head’ relates to large projectile points which have been seen as serving a different function from smaller points, being used on spear/javelin type projectiles. The distinction between the classes is arbitrary (Collins 1981 uses 5cm as the cut off point) and it is not clear how useful it is in interpreting Neolithic assemblages. Scrapers Antiquarian attention to scrapers was slight; Knowles reprimanded his fellow collectors for wanting “only well-formed arrow-heads, or perfect polished axeheads, but nothing of a broken kind or so poor as a scraper” (Knowles 1898, 367). Scrapers occur in large 14
numbers on Irish Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites (e.g. Collins 1952, Eogan 1963, Lehane 1983, 132) and they have received in depth classification according to morphological attributes (Lehane 1983). This kind of detail may not be of much practical use considering the dynamism of this type of tool through their use-lives (see Odell 2001, Bamforth and Woodman 2004). The Early Neolithic sees the appearance of concentrations of convex end scrapers (Woodman 1994, see also Edmonds 1995), concave types appear to be later (see below). Plano-Convex Knives Plano-convex or ‘slug’ knives are present throughout the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in the British Isles (Clark 1932). In Ireland they are found in a number of contexts such as Neolithic court tombs (Collins 1966, Herity 1987) and Bronze Age burials (Waddell 2000, 145). Woodman (Woodman 1994) has argued that Early Neolithic plano-convex knives tend to be elongated and may have a slight tang. Other Retouched Artefacts Woodman (1994) noted the similarity between British and Irish Early Neolithic assemblages, however he does not mention serrated pieces in his review. Edmonds (1995, 40), referring to Britain describes serrated blades as “common in many Early Neolithic assemblages”, he does note their rarity in Scotland but not in Ireland. Warren (Forthcoming-b) notes that serrated blades may actually be significant in Scotland in this period but are so far not well known in Ireland (although Ballin 2003c indicates they also occur in the Late Neolithic). Other artefacts such as fabricators or strike-alights (Green and Zvelebil 1990, 65), perforators (Eogan 1963, 49) and borers (Lehane 1983) are present in this period but they are not diagnostic and can be found in the Later Neolithic and Bronze Age.
Later Neolithic Technologies and Typologies In the Later Neolithic there appears to have been a move away from elongated flake and blade production (Edmonds 1995) towards plain flake industries (Ballin 2003d). The existence of many regional ways of life in the Irish Neolithic (Cooney 2000c, Bamforth and Woodman 2004) would suggest that lithic production may have been quite varied depending on local conditions. In the northeast, Windy Ridge produced large, hard hammer flakes and very few blades (Woodman et al. 1991/2) while in the east evidence of bipolar working in this period has been found (Ballin 2003c, 2003a). Ballin (2003a) 15
argues that bipolar working begins to be prevalent in this period (at least in some areas) and continues into the Bronze Age. Projectile Points In the later Neolithic the variety of arrowhead types increases, leaf-shaped arrowheads were still being produced (Warren Forthcoming-a)but new lozenge and kite-shaped points appear along with polished javelin heads (Woodman 1994). Hollow based arrowheads also appear to be late in date, they occur in association with later sites such as Newgrange, Lyles Hill and Ross Island (Waddell 2000, 18). Hollow-based arrowheads are notable for their almost exclusively Irish provenance, Green (1980, 141) found only one from a British context. Woodman (1994) dates ‘transverse arrowheads’ to c. 4,700 BP at the earliest and suggests that the derivative lop-sided form are almost certainly late, although their identification as projectiles is not certain (Waddell 2000). Scrapers The hollow-scraper is a late occurrence in the Neolithic (Woodman 1994, Nelis 2003) and is a largely Irish innovation (for exceptions see Edmonds 1995, 40). The hollow scraper is not to be confused with artefacts with concave retouch (referred to in this study as concave scrapers). Hollow scrapers were produced using a specific production method and have a distinct morphology (see Woodman et al. 1991/2). Convex scrapers were also made and used in the Later Neolithic but they become cruder and tend not to be produced on blades or narrow flakes (Edmonds 1995, 96). Plano-Convex Knives Plano-convex knives continued in use in the Late Neolithic although they do not take on a diagnostic form in this period. Others Late Neolithic assemblages contain a similar suite of non-diagnostic artefacts to that of the Early Neolithic. Ballin (2003a) suggests that denticulated pieces are generally later in date.
16
Bronze Age Technology Primary Technology In the Bronze Age methods of production are similar to those in the Late Neolithic, simple flake industries continue as does the use of bipolar technology (Woodman 1987, Ballin 2003b, 2003d). In the Early Bronze Age knowledge of controlled percussion techniques continues but the Late Bronze Age is notable for the absence of retouched implements (Ballin 2003d) Projectile Points Barbed-and-tanged arrowheads are generally thought of as being broadly Bronze Age in date (Collins 1957, 1963, Green 1980, Green and Zvelebil 1990, Warren Forthcominga). These are a complex form of arrowhead, difficult to manufacture which may have been indicative of new priorities in lithic production in this period (Edmonds 1995, 141). Scrapers The use of scrapers continues in the Bronze Age, the use of small thumbnail scrapers in some numbers is not unusual and they are often interpreted as being diagnostic of the period (Eogan 1963, Lehane 1983, Ballin 2003a, 2003b) although they have also been found in Neolithic contexts (Warren Forthcoming-a). Bamforth and Woodman (2004) explain their small size as the result of multiple phases of resharpening Plano-Convex Knives Plano-convex knives are seen as becoming more squat by the Bronze Age (Green and Zvelebil 1990) but as they seem to have been used right from the start of the Early Neolithic they can not be seen as diagnostic of the Bronze Age.
17
Part Two
18
Chapter Five
The Pebble Survey
Introduction As part of the analysis of the chipped stone surface collection from Lambay a beach pebble survey of the island’s accessible beaches was carried out. There is no major source of accessible flint in the vicinity of Lambay. Small erratic flint can be found on some beaches along the east coast of Dublin (Stacpoole 1962, Keeling and Keeley 1994, 7) and from glacial till (Hartnett and Eogan 1964, Hoare 1975, Ballin 2003c). Casual observation before the survey was carried out indicated that the supply of flint on the island was concentrated on a few beaches to the west of the island. It was hoped that the survey would give a context for use of flint on the island, allowing, through comparison with the chipped stone assemblage, some insight into the movement of raw materials around the island as well as perhaps providing evidence for the importation of flint from elsewhere. Lambay’s insular nature meant that it was ideal for such a survey, offering a naturally bounded study area.
The analysis of the survey results is based on the premise that geological conditions today, particularly with respect to the occurrence and replenishment of beach flint, are not dissimilar to those that prehistoric people faced. This issue has been considered elsewhere (Marshall 2000b, 75), and it seems reasonable to suggest that conditions are broadly similar on Lambay. It is unlikely that flint has been regularly collected from Lambay’s beaches for at least four thousand years, it is not clear if this has had a large effect on the beach’s flint resources. It may be that this respite has resulted in a build up of a substantial number of large flint pebbles, in contrast to the prevailing situation in prehistory. It may also be the case that particularly bulky pebbles were exhausted totally in prehistory and are rarer now than then. The replenishment of beaches is a subject not yet fully understood.
The design of the survey was derived from that carried out by the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project (Marshall 2000a, 2000b). Resource constraints meant that some 19
modification and prioritisation was required. Time limits meant no return visits could be undertaken to study the issue of replenishment and the necessity of transport by sea, meant that the transportation of heavy loads of pebbles to the mainland was avoided.
Despite these restrictions the survey yielded valuable information about where prehistoric inhabitants and/or visitors to the island could source what was an essential, and it seems quite rare raw material. Comparison with the chipped stone surface collection also yielded important evidence (see Chapter Seven).
Methodology The basic units of the survey were a number of transects, laid out in a subjective manner in order to cover a representative sample of the accessible beaches on the island. Most of the beaches on the island do not have names so each beach surveyed was assigned a number and is referred to by this number throughout (see Map 6). Approximately two thirds of the island, east of a line between Carnoon Bay and Broad Bay has virtually no easily accessible beaches (the exception is Carrickdorrish). For this reason the transects are concentrated on the west of the island. At the base of some of the cliffs to the east of this line are a number of pebble beaches, for example at Bishop’s Bay (Plate 3.). These are and would have been accessible by boat and ideally future study on the island should include a survey of them in order to give a complete picture of flint availability on Lambay.
The transects were laid out from the high tide line to the low tide line, or to the extent of the pebble surface where it did not extend to the low tide mark or was obscured by seaweed. They were arranged as two parallel lines, two metres apart, aiming to cover an accurate representation of the different layers and types of pebble present. Generally this meant the shortest line to the sea (e.g. Plates 4, 5 and 6).
Once laid out, every transect was thoroughly walked and every visible piece of flint was collected (Plate 7). A survey sheet (Plate 8) for each transect was then filled in. The survey sheets were designed to prioritise data types that could be recorded efficiently in the field. The data recorded included: •
The date, the transect number and the name of the beach,
•
The time at which the transect was walked and how long it took, 20
•
The length of the transect,
•
The weather conditions,
•
The grid reference of the starting point of the right hand line of the transect (when looking towards the sea). This point was measured using a handheld GPS (Global Positioning System) unit. The orientation, to the nearest cardinal point, of the line of the transect from that point (measured with a compass)
•
The number of pebbles, their size and their angularity was recorded on a simple to use table (Plate 8).
It was decided when designing the survey sheets to group the pebbles into size categories that could be easily recorded using a guide sheet (Plate 2). This meant pebbles could be sorted and recorded quickly in the field. All pebbles with maximum dimensions smaller than or equal to 40cm were grouped together as pebbles below this size are unlikely to have been used as anything other than bipolar cores (Marshall 2000a, 84). All material above 10cm in maximum dimension were classified together as it was expected that pebbles of this size were extremely rare and could be individually measured and recorded in the notes section.
Photographs were taken from the top and bottom of almost every transect (e.g. Plates 5 and 6). A photographic record of almost all the pebble assemblages was also taken (e.g. Plate 10). These were taken in the field at the time of survey; thus bypassing the need to transport large quantities of stone off the island to be recorded.
Results The raw data collected from the survey is presented in Tables 1-3 (Appendix 1). Map 6 illustrates the locations of the individual transects and their lengths. A brief description of each beach and its results can be found in Appendix 2.
376 pebbles were collected in total. 337 or 90% of the pebbles measured below 4cm in maximum dimension and are therefore considered unusable except for bipolar working. The overall distribution between beaches of all flint pebbles collected corresponds quite well with that of the ‘usable’ flint (see Chart 1). Beach 2 produced by far the most pebbles at 145 or 39% of the entire assemblage, while Beach 4 produced the second largest amount at 77 pebbles, or 21% of the assemblage. With the ‘unusable’ element of the assemblage stripped out, the picture changes slightly (see Chart 2); Beach 2 remains 21
the largest source of flint while Beach 4 becomes much less significant. The large amount of small flint pebbles (see Plate 10) at Beach 4 probably derives from the surrounding high till cliffs. This phenomenon is also likely to account for the high numbers of small pebbles at Beach 6, Beach 9 and Beach 1. Chart 3 illustrates the abundance of finds on each beach per m2. This changes the picture slightly. In terms of overall flint finds Beach 4 is the most abundant with 0.84 pebbles per m2. Beach 3 is the next most abundant beach while Beach 11, comes in third. All of the flint from Beach 11 is very small; this is probably due to the small average size of pebbles on a very short pebbled area (Plate 11). When the abundance of relatively large or ‘usable’ flint is looked at in this way a very clear trend appears. Three beaches, 1-3 are the most abundant sources of large flint. These beaches, together with Beach 6 the next most abundant area, together make up the western side of the island.
It is important to note that the largest pebbles found during the survey did not exceed 8cm in maximum dimension. Larger pebbles seem to be extremely rare on the island and even those measuring 6cm to 8cm are very restricted in their location being concentrated on the western side of the island, south of the harbour.
The results of the survey serve to confirm casual observations about the likely sources of usable flint pebbles. The southern half of the western edge of the island is clearly the most abundant and best quality source of flint. Beach 2 has one of the highest rates of ‘usable’ finds per m2 and also has the largest surface area of any of the beaches. It is apparent from the quantities of ‘usable’ pebbles collected that flint is by no means an abundant source on the island, indeed it is quite rare. Marshall (2000a, 87) has demonstrated that with even sporadic collection of the larger pebbles from a beach the availability of large usable pebbles would significantly decrease.
Conclusion It is notable that the best source of flint pebbles lies in close proximity to the best arable land on the island, as well as the main landing area. This is also the area of the island with the longest settlement history, probably dating back to the Neolithic or Bronze Age (Macalister 1929) and possibly earlier (see Chapter Seven) This may have had important implications for how prehistoric people managed their procurement of flint 22
for the manufacture of tools. Where did people work the pebbles after they were collected? Did they produce artefacts on the spot or did they carry pebble cores with them to be worked when needed? Some insight into the answers to these questions will be gained through the analysis of the struck flint assemblage.
It remains to be seen if the eastern beaches, only accessible by boat, hide large supplies of usable flint. This seems unlikely given the large fall off in finds of ‘usable’ flint on non west-facing beaches. Tidal and wave action appear to channel large flint pebbles towards the western side of the island. Flint pebbles are also available on the nearby mainland (see above) although the quality of these compared with Lambay is unknown. The area of mainland adjacent to the island is a prime candidate for further survey of flint availability. If, as seems likely, the island’s beaches were the primary source of flint for its prehistoric users then this may have had important repercussions for how people utilised the resource. Depending on how much flint was available on the mainland people may have visited Lambay to procure raw materials or visa versa. The scarcity of flint may have led to the exhaustion of cores or the widespread use of the bipolar technique (Odell 2000, 294). These are questions which may be answered through the analysis of the struck flint assemblage.
23
Chapter Six
The Lithic Analysis: Methodology
Introduction Analysis of the surface collection from Lambay required a tailored approach which took account of the nature of the evidence, its strengths and its shortcomings. This chapter will detail how the lithic material was analysed; summarising the methods of collection, the criteria and methodology of analysis, the integration of spatial analysis in a GIS, as well as the assumptions, biases and general overall quality and resolution of the data produced.
A variety of approaches were used to make sense of the surface collection, these include the analysis of individual artefacts and the entering of raw data into a computer database, the aggregation of finds into ‘assemblages’ and finally the interpretation of these assemblages through the use of statistical analysis and maps created through a GIS integrated with the database.
Data Collection and Quality The collection analysed consisted of two separate assemblages (see Map 7). The main part of the assemblage analysed (493 artefacts) was collected between the years 1992 and 2005, as a by-product of annual fieldwork by Gabriel Cooney, investigating the production of polished stone axe-heads on Lambay (see Chapter Two). A smaller part of the assemblage (156 artefacts) was collected by Beatrice Kelly on occasional visits to the island over an unknown period of time, as casual finds on walks and also in repeated visits to locations known to produce high numbers of finds. These two collections are henceforth referred to as Collection 1 and Collection 2 respectively.
Both assemblages owe there existence not only to the collectors but to the erosion of the ground surface on the island in numerous areas. Erosion on the island is caused by several factors. Coastal erosion has led to a number of raised beach/midden sections 24
being exposed particularly at Beach 7 and Beach 3, and the movement of cattle around the island leads to broken ground at gates, tracks, watering holes and sheltered spots. Possibly the most significant cause of erosion is the island’s 15-20,000 strong rabbit population (Gabriel Cooney pers. comm.). Rabbits were originally introduced to Lambay by the Anglo-Normans. The current rabbit population was introduced by accident in the eighties, following the wiping out of the previous population by myxomatosis in the early twentieth century, their excavations have led to significant soil disturbance on almost all areas of the island, especially on slopes (see Chapter Eight for further discussion).
The method of collection for each of the assemblages is important in assessing the quality of the data they provide. Both assemblages were collected during walks around the island which would have covered the majority of its surface although some areas would certainly have been walked more frequently then others. Areas where the ground was broken or sections were exposed were specifically surveyed for artefacts and areas known to produce a lot of flint were specifically revisited. Repeated survey has been noted as being very important in reducing bias in surface collections (Shott 1995).
Finds from Collection 1 were bagged and recorded in the field. Artefacts from particular findspots were bagged together and the location described on the bag, or plotted on an A4 size field map of the island, or both. The accuracy of the plots would have varied depending on the proximity of the findspot to mapped features. In the last two years some of the locations co-ordinates were also recorded using a handheld GPS. A large proportion of the artefacts recorded during this survey could be located with some confidence in the GIS, while some could be assigned to much less specific locations (see GIS section below). The collection methods for Collection 2 are not as well known, some finds were numbered and their location was recorded in a notebook. None of these finds were plotted on field maps. The spatial information for Collection 2 was therefore less reliable than that for Collection 1.
Database Design The database was designed within Microsoft Access 2003. The design of the database took into account the limitations of the assemblage. The context in which the finds were collected meant that direct associations between artefacts could at best be seen as 25
probable. Lack of stratigraphic context meant that chronology was very difficult to establish, for this reason the identification of diagnostic artefact types was extremely important. Also of importance was the identification of generalised technological characteristics of different sites, such as core types, the use of the bipolar technique, the size of artefacts or the production of blades or flakes, which could indicate at least a broad chronological range (see Chapter Seven). An attempt was made to examine variability between assemblages through the recording of stages of production, burning, retouch and implement types present at each site. The condition of artefacts in terms of abrasion, rolling, freshness and breakage was recorded in an attempt to identify artefacts that were likely to be in-situ or at least close to where they were originally deposited.
A complete list of the fields recorded in the database and the methods of recording are included in Table 4 (Appendix 1). The database was largely based on the structure of the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project’s database (Finlayson et al. 2000) and the work of the Rúm project (Wickham-Jones 1990). These templates were simplified and modified in consultation with Dr. Graeme Warren.
GIS Methodology The creation of ‘Assemblages’ A GIS (Geographical Information System) was created in order to easily produce a wide variety of maps from the data entered into the database but this was not as easy as it first seemed. Analyses of surface collections in the past have run into a major problem when attempting to define ‘sites’ to be plotted onto maps (see Schofield 1991c). ‘Sites’ have been defined as dense clusters of artefacts occurring against a low density ‘background’ (Schofield 1991b, 4). Difficulties arise in defining how many artefacts are needed for a site to be ‘high density’ and how to identify the spatial limits of sites. A concern with ‘sites’ can also lead to ignorance of the wider landscape. In this analysis an attempt was made to avoid the pitfalls of earlier work, ideally artefacts would have been plotted individually avoiding the problems inherent in assigning artefacts to sites (see Holdaway et al. 1998). Unfortunately, the spatial information available for the collection was not sufficiently accurate to allow this approach so a new technique was required.
26
It was decided to group artefacts according to the spatial information available for them, where artefacts were found in the same spot in different years they were included in one assemblage and the assemblage was given a number (see Appendix Three). If only one artefact was found in any one spot then this would also be termed an assemblage and assigned a number. A way was needed to illustrate the varying accuracy of the locational information for different assemblages, for this reason each assemblage was assigned a confidence level between 1 and 7. These levels give an idea of how well known the find location of each artefact is and how likely it is that artefacts in particular assemblages are associated. The criteria for assigning artefacts to each level are given in Table 5 (Appendix One).
Association is at best assumed to be spatial and not
chronological or stratigraphical. The problems inherent in studying surface collections have been called the ‘ploughzone paradox’; there is a great deal of evidence but it lacks context from which chronology and associations can be discerned (Steinberg 1996). The ‘ploughzone paradox’ also holds true for the Lambay collections, though artefacts in the collection may not always be from the ploughzone. The association of artefacts in all assemblages, including those with large numbers of artefacts from small areas, must neccesarily be treated with some suspicion. The creation of maps Maps were created using ArcGIS 9.1. The basic building block of the maps created within the GIS was a scanned image of the 1937 O.S. 6” map for Lambay which was rectified to the Irish national grid. The image was rectified using mapped points taken with a GPS accurate to the nearest centimetre. This level of accuracy could not be replicated on the scanned image. The map is probably accurate to within a few metres (it has not been possible to test this), this is sufficient considering both the scale at which the maps for the analysis are drawn and the accuracy of the original spatial information recorded in the field. It is important to point out that the grid references assigned to each artefact in the database are very precise and imply a level of accuracy which is not present in the data.
Next, individual maps were customised by linking tables generated within the database to the GIS. This made the display of multiple aspects of the data collected very easy. Other layers of information could also be added easily such as aerial photographs and other map images. The GIS maps also served another purpose. They were very useful timesaving devices during interpretation. Individual assemblages could be queried 27
easily on screen giving instant access to the information contained in the database through the mapped points.
Individual maps were created by integrating the database with the GIS. Each artefact was assigned GPS co-ordinates according to their assigned site. In this way maps could be created based on any criteria required, for example where blades were found or where primary, secondary or tertiary finds were located. The power of the GIS lies in its speed of use and its accuracy, although its accuracy is of course wholly dependant on the accuracy of its source data.
Summary The analysis required that customised methodologies be developed for the unique assemblage being analysed. The methodologies utilised modern software packages as well as individual analysis of artefacts to create the best data possible with the time and resources available.
28
Chapter Seven
The Lithic Analysis: Results
Introduction The analysis of the collection was carried out using the methodologies outlined in Chapter 6. Manipulation of the database within Access enabled the relatively easy production of tables and charts illustrating the results of the analysis. This chapter will present the outcome of the analysis, initially presenting the results from the assemblage as a whole, then the two collections, and finally the results from a number of the larger assemblages. Observations about, and comparisons between the assemblages will be given throughout this chapter and further interpretation may be found in Chapters Eight and Nine.
The analysis set out to ask and attempt to answer basic but useful questions. These questions were asked at different scales within the collection, the analysis of individual assemblages was kept to a select few which are well recorded and have produced larger than average numbers of finds. With a total of 119 spatially distinct areas of collection or ‘assemblages’ identified (see Appendix Three); the focus on a few is justifiable.
The Total Assemblage The total assemblage after the removal of all artefacts identified as natural amounted to 649 pieces. Table 6 shows the composition of the assemblage in terms of primary technology, cores, and secondary retouched artefacts. Raw Materials The total assemblage is dominated by flint (96.3%, 625). This is not unexpected as the island has relatively abundant and constantly replenished sources of (see Chapter Five). Quartz and quartzite are the next most abundant raw materials, constituting just 2.3% (15 artefacts) of the assemblage. Only definitely worked quartz artefacts were recorded and it is likely that actual quartz use is under-represented in surface assemblages (Hodgers 1994, 242). Despite this it seems clear that people specifically used quartz on 29
the island in prehistory despite the presence of usable flint, this may have been for practical or possibly other reasons (see Darvill 2002). The remaining 2.4% of the assemblage is made up of indeterminate materials (7), conglomerate (1) which can be found at Broad Bay (Plate 1) near the north-western tip of the island, and pitchstone (1). The single find of pitchstone on the island is very important in terms of Lambay’s connections with the wider world in prehistory. This link will be discussed further in Chapter Nine.
The size of the artefacts in the assemblage (Chart 4) is of interest considering the results of the pebble survey. As discussed in Chapter Five, the pebble survey results suggested that the availability of pebbles between 6cm and 8cm in maximum dimension was extremely limited and that pebbles larger than 8cm did not occur. The data from the total assemblage largely bares this out. The vast majority of artefacts fall with in a size range smaller than 60mm with very few between 60mm and 80 mm. The size of cores conforms to this model although the size at which they become ‘unusable’ seems slightly lower than was predicted, nearer 30mm than 40mm. Only two artefacts fall outside the range suggested by the pebble survey. The smaller of the two C05.1:0233, has a maximum dimension of 84 mm and may be considered an exception to the rule. However, the largest artefact in the assemblage C05.1:0692 (Plate 11), has a maximum dimension of 106mm and is a secondary flake off what was likely to have been an even bigger core. This flake, like the single pitchstone find from Lambay is suggestive of wider contacts and will be discussed further in Chapter Nine. Condition of the Material As could be expected from a surface collection, a large proportion of the finds had evidence of abrasion or rolling (Chart 5). Much of the rolled material originated from beaches and the abrasion of a large percentage of artefacts can probably be explained through exposure, trampling and burrowing in many cases. Perhaps surprisingly, over half the assemblage can be classified as fresh. This may be due to the frequency of survey and the fact that many of the artefacts may have only been recently disturbed by the huge explosion of rabbit numbers (see Chapter Six). Also, rabbit burrow excavation, would not be expected to cause much damage to the artefacts. It was noted during analysis, though not recorded, that there was a noticeably high incidence of edge damage within the assemblage, this may be due to previous ploughing activity on the island (see Chapter Eight). 30
After stripping cores, pebbles, chunks and indeterminate artefacts from the assemblage 35.4% (323) were classified as broken and 64.6% (177) as not broken. A high incidence of breakage is to be expected in a surface collection due to the trampling of artefacts on the surface by animals. Chart 6 shows the proportion of breakage for regular flakes, irregular flakes and blades. A high percentage of blades (59.3%) are classified as broken, a smaller percentage of regular flakes are broken (37.9%) and a very small percentage of irregular flakes are broken (15.7%). The differences in proportions of breakage can probably be explained by artefact morphology. Blades are the least robust artefact class, being thin and long and are most likely to break, regular flakes are not as fragile and irregular flakes are often very robust. It is probable that the proportions of breakage can be explained by post-depositional processes.
Chart 7 shows the proportions of burnt material in terms of regular flakes, irregular flakes and blades. The average amount of burnt material for these three categories is 5.6% (26 artefacts). The average for the whole assemblage is 6.8% (44 artefacts). This low level of burning seems to be the norm for all three artefact types, although blades at 8.5% (5 artefacts) are slightly above the average. These figures give a good indication of what level of burning to expect when individual assemblages are examined (below). Dating of the Assemblage Twelve artefacts were identified in the analysis which could possibly be assigned to specific chronological periods (Table 7, Map 8). These artefacts span much of prehistory from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. The dates assigned to the artefacts are in some cases (for example the Early Mesolithic blade cores) extremely tentative and they could also be assigned to other periods. Table 7 details those artefacts which have been dated; question marks indicate that the interpretation is not definite. The individual diagnostic artefacts and their location in the landscape will be discussed in greater depth in Chapter Eight. The total assemblage is clearly multi-period and so an attempt to date it through its technological make up would be flawed, this technique will be employed in the analysis of the individual assemblages. Primary Technology Chart 8 illustrates the cortical proportions present on regular flakes, irregular flakes and blades. The proportions are as would be expected; regular flakes and blades generally are not primary, they are largely tertiary with a large proportion of secondary cortex. 31
This indicates they were not produced in the initial stages of core reduction. Irregular flakes were produced throughout the production process and so are fairly evenly spread between the three categories: primary, secondary and tertiary. This picture of production presents a good background which can be used to evaluate individual assemblages.
Cores represent 7.7% (50 artefacts) of the assemblage. A wide variety of core types were identified, most likely representing the wide variety of techniques used to manufacture chipped stone tools on Lambay throughout prehistory. It is worth noting the predominance of platform cores, making up 68.0% of the cores found (34), and single platform cores in particular which represent 58.0% (29). The presence of bipolar cores (6, 0.9%) is unsurprising considering the use of beach pebbles as a raw material although it must be noted that these pebbles could also be used as uni-facial platform cores. The distribution of cores on the island (Map 9) shows a significant concentration to the west, particularly at the south-western point, near the best area for flint collection identified in Chapter Five. However, there is a significant concentration of cores to the east of Knockbane in the upland area of the island, in the vicinity of Assemblage 10. This concentration is particularly interesting and will be discussed further in Chapter Eight. Secondary Technology Retouched artefacts represent 10.2% (66 artefacts) of the total assemblage, 11.0% when cores are excluded from the assemblage. Another 2.7% (16 artefacts) of the assemblage is characterised as indeterminate, and may possibly be retouched. This is a very high proportion, excavated and sieved assemblages could be expected to have c. 3.8% retouched artefacts (Ballin 2003a), although 20% of a ploughzone assemblage collected and excavated nearby in Malahide was identified as retouched (Keeling and Keeley 1994). The high level of retouch in the Lambay assemblage is probably in part due to problems with edge damage which can look like retouch, but it may also indicate that the assemblage represents a high degree of tool use on the island as opposed to manufacture. The various classes of tool present are listed in Table 6. Retouched flakes make up by far the biggest single category with various types of scraper being the next most prolific artefact types. The tools can tell us little when looked at in bulk, their value as interpretive tools becomes apparent when their distribution is mapped or they are considered in terms of the assemblages they come from.
32
Comparison of the Two Main Assemblages As has been noted above, the artefact collection is made up of two separately collected assemblages. Collection 1 makes up 76.0% (493 artefacts) of the total assemblage and was collected and recorded systematically over a fourteen year period. Collection 2 makes up the other 24% (154 artefacts) of the total assemblage. It was collected in a more casual fashion and less is known about the methods of collection (see Chapter Six). Since the two collections were combined into one for the analysis it was decided to check how comparable they were. It was hoped that this might show up any biases in either of the collections which could be born in mind when interpreting the results of the analysis. Map 7 shows the spatial extent of the two collections, there does not appear to be any significant difference between the two collections and the collections even share a number of findspots.
The range of artefacts from each assemblage can be seen in Tables 8 and 9. The range of artefacts are broadly similar, Collection 2 does have a smaller variety of retouched artefacts and cores but this is to be expected given the significantly smaller number of finds. The assemblages show some differences in terms of the level of burning (Chart 9). 12.2% (25 artefacts) of the material in Collection 2 is burnt, compared with 5.1% (19 artefacts) for Collection 1 and an average of 6.8% (44 artefacts). It is not clear what the reason for this disparity is; it may be due to chance, taphonomic processes, or the product of different collectors. In terms of the percentage of retouched artefacts the two collections are very similar. 11.3% (51) of artefacts in Collection 1 were retouched, 10.2% (15) in Collection 2 and 11.0% (66) over all.
Charts 10 and 11 detail the cortical proportions present on regular flakes, irregular flakes and blades in each collection. The results are remarkably similar and correlate well with the overall picture (Chart 8). Essentially, the two assemblages seem to present a consistent picture of the overall character of prehistoric chipped stone on Lambay, the existence of two separately collected and unrelated assemblages acts as an excellent control, ultimately suggesting that as far as can be expected from a surface collection, the total assemblage is a good reflection of the character of prehistoric chipped stone tool technology on Lambay.
33
Four Large Assemblages This section aims to characterise and compare the four biggest ‘assemblages’ or collection areas on the island (see Table 10 for a frequency distribution table of the number of artefacts in the assemblages and Table 11 for a full list of the number of artefacts in each assemblage). Maps 10 and 11 illustrate their location on the island while Maps 12 and 13 illustrate their relative size compared to other assemblages on the island. Tables 12-15 detail the composition of each assemblage. Assemblage 10 Assemblage 10 accounts for 19.0% (123 artefacts) of the total assemblage. The area has been much more productive then any other place on the island, yielding five times as many artefacts as the next most productive location. The assemblage was collected from a small terrace on a slope running downhill towards the northeast of the island; finds were collected from the area over a number of years. The finds were all found eroding out of a cattle scratch/rabbit burrow a few metres across (Plates 13 and 14).
All of the artefacts in Assemblage 10 are flint. The condition of the flint is very fresh (70.7%), with only 26.0% of artefacts abraded and 3.3% rolled. There is a significantly higher percentage of fresh artefacts than is the average for the total assemblage (57.4%). 61.3% (57 artefacts) of the blades and flakes are broken, with 38.7% (36 artefacts) not broken. This compares with an overall average of 32.4% (151) of flakes and blades broken and 67.6% (466) not broken. This is a significant difference; the high degree of breakage is probably due to the use of the area by cattle as a place to congregate. It is also possible that the high level of breakage reflects prehistoric activity but the evidence is not clear. Eighteen artefacts (14.6%) from the assemblage show signs of burning; three blades, six chunks, five flakes and one indeterminate piece, the blades and flakes are all broken with one exception. The burning probably took place in prehistory but it is difficult to say much more about these artefacts.
The assemblage has a high proportion of blades (13.82%, 17 artefacts), regular flakes (41.46%, 51 artefacts) and artefacts identified as blades/flakes, which are regular flakes that are blade like (5.69%, 7 artefacts). It also has a very high proportion of tertiary material (Chart 12). This may suggest that a lot of material was being brought to the site from other areas having already been worked. The high proportion of flakes and blades suggests their deliberate production on site or their being brought specifically to the site. 34
The high proportion of blades compared with flakes (Chart 13) may suggest that a particular type of activity was taking place in the area. It may also indicate the assemblage dates to the Early Neolithic when assemblages are known to have had an emphasis on blades and narrow flakes (see Chapter Four). Only six cores were identified in the assemblage, one a bipolar core, four single platform cores and an irregular core (see Chapter Eight for further discussion of cores in this area). These represent 4.88% of the assemblage, smaller than the 8% average. The size of the cores when compared with the blades and flakes in the assemblage can be seen in Chart 16. The size of unbroken artefacts in the assemblage ranges from about 15mm to about 60mm. The largest platform core fits into the highest of these categories with a maximum dimension of 60mm; the bipolar core is predictably smaller with a maximum dimension of 32mm. The most unusual core is also one of the biggest at 59mm in length. This is a struck conglomerate pebble, this type of conglomerate is only available (in pebble form) at Broad Bay and its use in this upland context is very interesting. Cursory examination of the material suggests it is not easily knapped and would not provide very sharp flakes. The reasons for its use may lie beyond the functional. The high proportion of regular flakes and blades in this assemblage was most likely manufactured using a platform technology rather than bipolar.
The site has a slightly lower proportion of retouched artefacts (8.13%) than the average (10.2%) although the difference is not significant. The artefacts include six retouched flakes, two retouched blades and two scrapers. It is very possible that these and the numerous other regular flakes and blades were used in this location before being deposited in prehistory.
Assemblage 11 Assemblage 11 is the next largest site with 26 artefacts representing 4.0% of the total assemblage. The site is unusual in that 25 of the 26 artefacts collected were collected in one visit and despite repeated visits in subsequent year’s only one more artefact was collected. The 25 artefacts found in one visit were all noted to have been ‘definitely in situ’ and from the same spot. In other words, they were in the process of being eroded out of the ground when collected and had not moved around on the surface. It is unclear from the field notes how spread out the finds were, but it is still very likely that these twenty five artefacts are associated with one another. 35
Chart 20 shows the numbers of regular flakes, irregular flakes and blades as well as their stages of production. The assemblage has an unusually high proportion of tertiary material, similar to assemblage 10 but very different to assemblages 24 and 43, and the over all picture (see Chart 12). The assemblage is also overwhelmingly fresh suggesting it was collected soon after it was exposed (Chart 14). Seven of the artefacts in the assemblage are broken including the single primary irregular flake, two secondary irregular flakes, the single blade (tertiary) and two tertiary regular flakes. The fact that all of these artefacts were ‘in situ’ and were probably not exposed for very long suggests this breakage may be prehistoric but this does not necessarily suggest it was deliberate. The size of the artefacts is also unusual (Chart 17). All of the artefacts bar one (a chunk 32mm in maximum dimension) measure under 30mm, and a large proportion measure between 10mm and 20mm.
Only one of the flakes was retouched and there are no diagnostic artefacts. This makes dating of the assemblage more difficult. The character of the assemblage is also difficult to interpret chronologically. The extremely small size of the artefacts in the assemblage suggest it definitely isn’t Late Mesolithic. The assemblage may be Neolithic or Bronze Age but the size of the artefacts also suggests the possibility of an Early Mesolithic date. Assemblage 24 The location of assemblage 24 is very interesting. It coincides with the harbour area, where prehistoric artefacts including flint javelin heads, scrapers, plano-convex knives, porphyry axe-heads, Neolithic pottery and saddle querns were discovered in the early twentieth century (Macalister 1929, see Chapter Two). The assemblage dealt with here fits in with the material found earlier although the small number of artefacts combined with the lack of non-retouched material in the old assemblage prevents a detailed comparison (see Herity 1982).
Eighteen out of the nineteen artefacts in the assemblage are flint with one manufactured from an indeterminate material. The material in the assemblage is mainly fresh (78.9%) with some rolled (15.8%) and abraded (5.3%) material. The rolled material is to be expected considering the proximity of the sea to the area, the overall picture of the assemblages condition compares fairly well with the average (see Chart 14). There is a 36
much higher percentage of primary material (22.2%) in this assemblage than in the previous two discussed, suggesting more manufacturing was being performed in this area. One single platform core was found in the area. One bipolar flake was also found suggesting varied methods of production. The size of the artefacts is generally below 40mm (Chart 18), fairly small compared to the average (Chart 4). The regular flakes in the assemblage vary between primary, secondary and tertiary, as do the irregular flakes (Chart 21). There is only one tertiary blade.
Only two retouched artefacts were identified (retouched flakes), these are not diagnostic and can not be used to date the assemblage. The evidence from the earlier lithics and other finds found in the area would support a Neolithic date and the assemblage does not disagree with this. Assemblage 43 The finds from Assemblage 43 were collected near the southern coast of the island, about 1km from the nearest good source of flint (Beach 2). None of the artefacts in the assemblage were classified as rolled, 35.3% (6) were classified as abraded and 64.7% (11) fresh. Apart from the lack of rolled material this is not much different from the average condition of the total assemblage (Chart 14). Seven (41.2%) of the artefacts are broken while one artefact, the only chunk in the assemblage is burnt. The majority of the material from the site is secondary (13 artefacts) with a few primary artefacts (4). The material in the assemblage varies in size from about 25mm to just over 50mm (Chart 19). The ratio of regular flakes, irregular flakes and blades is shown in Chart 22, this shows an even number of regular and irregular flakes, one blade and one irregular flake.
Assemblage 43 has an unusually high proportion of retouched artefacts (17.6%) including a Late Mesolithic butt-trimmed flake (see Chart 15, Plate 15) and two scrapers. Its other unusual attribute is the absence of any tertiary material. The two scrapers are not diagnostic but they are most likely to be Neolithic or Bronze Age in date. The character of the assemblage does not give any particular clues as to the date. The site does have a higher proportion of abraded material than the three sites talked about above (see Chart 14), coming close to the average for the total assemblage. This would suggest that unlike the other sites the assemblage contains material that has
37
moved around and been mixed to some extent. It seems plausible to suggest that this assemblage represents a mixed, multi-period assemblage.
38
Part Three
39
Chapter Eight
An All-Island View
Introduction This chapter discusses the spatial and chronological results of the analysis. It is intended in this chapter to discuss the results of the analysis spatially and chronologically. The maps and database created for the analysis allow detailed discussion and interpretation of the data within the context of the island landscape. Discussion of the evidence in the context of the wider world will follow in Chapter Nine. This is an artificial segmentation of the evidence and the interpretation (Broodbank 2000) but one which seems logical and practical.
The Nature of the Data: Effects on the Interpretation Data from ‘open sites’ has an inherent suite of problems relating to stratigraphy, definition and chronology (see Chapter Six). Other issues relate to taphonomic processes including cultivation and erosion. These have been looked at particularly in terms of ploughed soils and it is clear that aggregations of materials found on the surface can not be simply equated with deposition in prehistory (Allen 1991). However, it is likely that at a large, whole-island scale, measured in thousands of metres, that patterns in the distribution of artefacts will be identifiable (Holdaway et al. 1998, 2). The situation on Lambay is different from that pertaining to most analyses of surface artefact scatters. These are usually surveys of artefacts from fresh ploughsoil (e.g. Cooney 1990b, Green and Zvelebil 1990, Peterson 1990, Schofield 1991a, e.g. Guinan 1992a, Hodgers 1994). Very little work has been done on the taphonomic processes acting upon the Lambay Assemblages. This means that very little is known of the biases that these processes may have introduced to the study. This section provides a brief description of the taphonomic processes acting on the Lambay assemblage and some of their possible effects.
40
None of the artefacts studied in this analysis are from freshly ploughed contexts. A substantial number of the artefacts collected on Lambay come from once-ploughed areas but these are not currently under tillage. Indeed many of the areas of the island which have produced finds may never have been ploughed at all (see below). It is not known to what extent the island was ploughed in prehistory but there is clear evidence that the island was under tillage in the medieval period. Findspot 95F23 (Assemblage 20) produced a medieval plough pebble. These were found by O’Kelly (1976) in association with medieval ridge and furrow around Newgrange and were subsequently securely dated to thirteenth century contexts (Brady 1988). The small excavation of the footprint of the windmill installed on the island in 2001 revealed evidence for ploughing using a horse drawn metal plough, in the form of scrapes on a rock under the soil (Cooney and Byrnes 2001, 4). The evidence for ploughing on the island is, as might be expected, concentrated in the western half of the island in the main area of soil coverage (see Map 3). Ploughing much of the eastern upland areas of the island would not have been easy, although the improved nature of the upland field to the east of Knockbane may indicate it was used for ploughing recently. It is important to recognise the ploughed context of some areas of the island as artefacts from these areas may have seen extensive disturbance and mixing. It is also important to recognise that ploughing does not completely destroy or homogenise the archaeological record, patterns of association still exist (Steinberg 1996, 368).
The island was heavily cultivated in the eighteenth and nineteenth century and the evidence for this can be found all over the island in the remains of field boundaries and cultivation ridges. This intensive activity was providing a living for 100 people in 1805 (Cooney 1993, 27). The cultivation ridges are the result of spade cultivation, although no detailed research has been done, it is thought likely that this method of farming would have resulted in the movement of artefacts both laterally and down slope. Spade cultivation could certainly destroy archaeological features as was discovered during excavations on the Neolithic axe quarry and production site (e.g. Cooney 1998b). Despite the localised effect of cultivation it is likely that broader patterns in the archaeological record may still be recognised.
Another significant factor acting on the Lambay assemblage is erosion. It has already been noted (Chapter Six) that rabbits, cattle and coastal erosion are the main forces acting on the island. The biggest single contributors by far are the rabbits. Very little 41
research has gone into the biases involved in archaeological excavations led by rabbits (although see Barclay 1994) so for this reason a few observations about the habits of Lambay rabbits will be given. The best conditions for rabbits consist of areas of light sandy soil with few rocks (Harting 1986, 60). Only the western shore of Lambay, where there is a thin north-south band of sandy raised beach material (see Maps 3 and 17 ) offers this sort of environment. This can be seen particularly in the area within the two harbour walls where there is a profusion of rabbit burrows. There is an absence of burrows along Beach 2, probably due to the stony nature of the soil. At the tip of the point this changes and there are numerous rabbit excavations running on, above and a little back from the shoreline from here to Bishop’s Bay. There are numerous burrows along the shore at Beach 1, while the coast of Scotch Point, where the soil appears thinner and rockier, boasts few. The northern and eastern coastlines of the island are higher and rockier, and support sporadic rabbit activity. The interior of the island exhibits a large amount of rabbit activity. In the upland eastern portion of the island burrows are spread randomly wherever soil cover is thick enough and the soil not too rocky. Fields used for grazing cattle have only very slight visible rabbit activity. In general, burrows cover the whole island, with very dense concentrations in the harbour area and along the southern shore between the tip of The Point and Bishop’s Bay.
Coastal erosion has exposed sections of raised beach material at Beaches 1, 3 and 7, all of which have produced artefacts (Assemblages 25, 9, 65, 67 and 68). Cattle erosion was not a big factor in the collection of the total assemblage (although it did play a significant role in the area of Assemblage 10, see Plate 14). Churned up cattle tracks occur only in a few places and were not important findspots; a few finds were found in areas of broken ground at field gates (e.g. Assemblage 71), around the cattle sheds (e.g. Assemblages 99 and 70), and at a seasonal watering spot to the east of Knockbane (Assemblage 86).
It is not clear to what extent the taphonomic processes described above have influenced the distribution of finds across Lambay. Certainly it seems that wherever erosion is occurring artefacts have been found. The concentration of rabbit burrows on slopes, especially around the western and southern coast, has probably at least contributed to higher densities of finds in these areas. The lack of burrows and other forms of erosion over most of the western lowland area has led to blank spots on the distribution map (Maps 10 and 12), but at gates and other areas where erosion has occurred artefacts have 42
been picked up. This suggests that the real distribution of artefacts in this area is widespread. This is supported by the excavation undertaken in the Windmill field which showed flint artefacts in test pits and (15) flints occurring fairly evenly along a cable trench 300m long (Cooney and Byrnes 2001). This ‘background’ level of finds is probably the result of heavy ploughing in the area in the 1950s (Cooney and Byrnes 2001, 7). It must be noted that ‘background’ distributions can also be caused by midden spreading (Hodgers 1994, 252).
The upland, eastern area of the island has a random distribution of findspots and a few blank areas. The random finds probably reflect the distribution of rabbit burrows and for obvious reasons only occur in areas with soil cover. Three eastern areas have a noticeably low level of finds: Heath Hill, Thorn Chase Valley and the area north of a line between Assemblage 10 and Assemblage 90. These ‘blank’ areas have significant areas of soil cover and access to fresh water (at Raven’s well and the stream emptying into Freshwater Bay) so it seems unlikely they would not have been used in prehistory. The absence of many finds may possibly be explained by a lack of deposition in prehistory, a lack of modern erosion, differential visibility due to vegetation (see Bevan and Conolly 2002-2004, 127) or a tendency not to collect in these areas (this may well be the reason for the lack of finds, these areas are the least used areas on the island). The low level of finds in these areas may also be partly explained by their distance from the sources of flint, density can be related to areas where access to supply zones is available (Schofield 1991b, 4). It seems logical to expect a generalised fall off in deposition of flint the farther away from the source an area is (Assemblage 10 is a notable exception to this trend).
It is not clear what effect taphonomic processes have had at the level of individual artefacts. Rabbits certainly move artefacts out of burrows and the tendency of rabbit burrows to be located on slopes may indicate that downs-slope movement is important. In coastal areas the effect of down-slope movement on the analysis is likely to have been limited. If artefacts moved far down-slope, they would be classed as beach finds.
Spatial Analysis: Chronology The diagnostic artefacts found in the analysis have been discussed in Chapter Seven and are detailed in Table 9 and Map 8; dates for a number of assemblages were also 43
discussed. In this section the chronological data from the analysis will be discussed in its spatial context. There is a danger in interpreting the data through maps, of presenting snap-shot images of prehistoric activity in different periods (Gillings 2000, 108) so it is important to stress the non-static nature of the landscape in prehistory and that the discussion here gives a only a minute, preliminary view of Lambay’s prehistory.
Evidence of the use of chipped stone tools on the island in the Early Mesolithic is very slight. The two possible Early Mesolithic cores found (Plates 16 and 17) certainly conform to the type of small conical blade cores known to be indicative of this period (Costa et al. 2005). The absence of diagnostic microliths or micro-burins from the artefacts analysed makes the dating tentative. The average length of unbroken blades from the total assemblage is 35mm, this compares with an average of 43mm at Mt. Sandel (Woodman 1985, 34). This suggests that collection methods did not result in a bias against the collection of small diagnostic microliths and that there is a real absence. The occurrence of the cores to the south of the island in the till cliffs above Bishop’s Bay and Carnoon Bay indicate very little except that it is possible that during the Early Mesolithic people discarded cores in these areas. The finds are significant in being the first, even tentative, evidence for Early Meosolithic use of Lambay.
There is clear evidence in find C05.1:0199 (Plate 15) of Late Mesolithic activity on the island. This is the first definite evidence of human activity in this period identified on the island. The artefact is a butt-trimmed flake, (see Chapter Four), most closely resembling Woodman’s type A; tanged flakes. These were identified as being one of the earliest forms of butt-trimmed flakes found at Newferry (Woodman 1978, 82-87). Another possible butt-trimmed flake (C05.7:0472) was identified during analysis (Plate 18). This is a broken piece which can be tentatively identified as a distally trimmed form with a broader, less heavily trimmed butt. This may indicate it is later than C05.1:0199. Unfortunately no reliable spatial information was recorded for this artefact. Further possible evidence of activity on the island during this period comes from a number of classic uni-planar cores found along the southern coast of the point (Plates 19, 20 and 21). It is difficult to say if the clustering of the cores in this small area indicates anything important. One of the cores (C05.1:0022) was found eroded on the beach and so it cannot be said for certain that it has not moved somewhat since it was disturbed, its fresh condition suggests it has not moved far. Still, at the very least the potential for this area of the island being used to knap flint on more than one occasion 44
during the Late Mesolithic must be noted. It is interesting to note that while extremely sketchy, the little evidence that was found from this period conforms with the model of Later Mesolithic people producing tools at or near the source of raw material and transporting finished implements and blanks to other sites (Costa et al. 2005, 28).
The Neolithic presence on Lambay is well known (see Chapter 2). The Neolithic artefacts identified in this analysis (Plates 22, 23 and 24) expand the area of the island known to have been used during this period. Unfortunately, there are problems with three out of the four artefacts in terms of either dating or their context. The irregular core found near the chapel (C05.1:0150) is only tentatively Neolithic and could possibly belong to another period. The leaf-shaped arrowhead (C05.1:0322, Plate 23) is definitely Neolithic but its context is not secure. The findspot of the end scraper (C05.1:0551, Plate 24) is only described as ‘the Point’ and could be from anywhere on this spur of land. One artefact has a secure (for a surface collection) context and solid date; this is the formal Early Neolithic convex scraper from Thorn Chase Valley (C05.1:0457, Plate 22). This scraper is quite an isolated find; the other finds seem to come from the area of the island with the highest density of artefacts (the southwest: see Map 13). Many of the assemblages from this area could fit easily into a Neolithic/Bronze Age technological range (e.g. Assemblage 24; see Chapter Seven) and the high density of artefacts in this area may indicate widespread activity in this area of the island over a long period of time, quite possibly indicative of permanent or semipermanent settlement. The thumbnail scraper (C05.1:0331, Plate 25) found above Talbot’s Bay fits broadly into this pattern. It may indicate chipped stone working in the Bronze Age although it may also date to an earlier period (see Chapter Four). Further evidence for the Neolithic presence on the island comes from Assemblage 10 in the eastern uplands (see Chapter Seven), while most of the material spread across the island would fit into a broadly Neolithic or Bronze Age timeframe, indicating widespread activity across the island in these periods.
Spatial Analysis: Density “to suggest that high density represents the location of a specific site implies first, that everything in the site is chronologically distinct from everything outside it, and second that the background noise is in some way different in terms of the type of behaviour it represented. This need not be the case” (Clark and Schofield 1991, 93) 45
It has already been noted above that the data from the collection has limitations. It is important to bear these in mind when considering the evidence of density across the island. In the previous chapter, four of the largest assemblages were subjected to statistical analysis. Other assemblages from the island were much smaller and not conducive to statistical analysis (see Tables 10 and 11). This section attempts to look at broader patterns across the island, with a focus on areas with large numbers of assemblages and artefacts. This is done with reference to Maps 13 and 14.
Map 12 shows a varied density of finds across the landscape, from very high numbers of artefacts to blank areas with no finds (already discussed above). Assemblages are located throughout most of the island although in many areas these assemblages represent only one or two artefacts. There are two very important patterns in the material. The first is a concentration of artefacts along the coastline from just north of the harbour to the Black Point field. The second is the concentration of artefacts at Assemblage 10 (discussed in Chapter Seven) and the assemblages around it, this will be considered below. The first pattern may be due in some part to the concentration of rabbit burrows on slopes along the coastline in this area. This phenomenon can certainly explain the general high frequency of artefacts but a number of specific areas along this stretch of coastline seem particularly dense and require further discussion.
As discussed above (Chapter Two) the harbour area has been known for some time to have been used during prehistory and the artefacts from this analysis found in the area are likely to belong to a broad Neolithic/Bronze Age horizon. The artefacts all originate from a sandy area at the eastern end of the harbour wall. This may be the remains of raised beach material (see Map 3), although it is likely to have been disturbed during the building of the harbour. Immediately north of the harbour wall the ground surface drops and there is an area of modern dump material, only c.100 metres northwards does the evidence for a raised beach reappear. It is in this area that artefacts were collected from Assemblages 25, 62 and 59. It appears that the raised beach material holds prehistoric evidence. The evidence for this is further substantiated in other areas.
Assemblage 9 lies to the west of the White House garden (Map 11) and is made up of material collected, in-situ, from an eroding section of raised beach/midden material (Plate 26). Finds include two scrapers, an irregular core and regular and irregular flakes. 46
Further south along the shore a possible prehistoric skeleton is eroding out of the coastline near Assemblage 95 and artefact C05.1:0060 was found eroding out of the section near this skeleton. These coastal finds are part of a local area of dense finds indicated by a circle in Maps 11 and 13. Other finds come from the area of the chapel (Assemblages 16, 17, 76 and 119), the White House garden (Assemblage 23 and 64), rabbit burrows (Assemblages 77 and 117), a field gate (Assemblage 118) and beach finds (Assemblages 8 and 102). It is not clear if the density of artefacts in this area is due to differential erosion, but the large number of artefacts eroding out of the coastline, combined with a smaller number inland and a possible prehistoric burial, suggest an archaeologically significant area.
The next point with a significant density along the coast is conveniently called ‘the Point� (see Map 5). There are no finds along the coast of Beach 2 south of Assemblage 96. This is due to the nature of the shoreline which is a storm beach with no eroding sections (see Plates 5 and 6). At the very tip of the Point there is a small beach with an eroding section of raised beach between Assemblages 65 and 68. This area has produced a very high density of finds. Finds from the beach (Assemblage 7) include cores, one uni-planar (see discussion of chronology above), and a side scraper. Assemblage 65 includes two cores, six regular flakes and a blade, Assemblage 67 has no less than five cores while Assemblage 68 has nine regular flakes, a blade and a possibly Late Mesolithic core. The assemblages were not analysed in Chapter Seven because separately they are quite small but together they point to an important area. Associations between the artefacts are of course not well understood but there does seem to be an indication of production taking place using uni-planar cores. There are also a large number of regular flakes; this may indicate they were being used in this area. The nature of the data precludes further interpretation but this small area of raised beach does seem to preserve a good number of prehistoric artefacts of possibly Late Mesolithic date.
The area of the Black Point Field has also produced Mesolithic material (Map 8). This area was, unlike the western area of the island, not expected to show a large density of artefacts. In retrospect it can be seen from the literature that this area’s productive nature was well flagged (Seymour 1896, Mitchell 1946, see Chapter Two). The finds from this area are a mix of primary, secondary and tertiary items with a preponderance of the first two categories. Working of cores in this area is interesting as it indicates the 47
transport of cores to the area from beaches to the west. It is also interesting to note that this area is one of very few on the island with running water in the form of a stream. In the vicinity of Assemblages 47 and 48 there are a number of low mounds, artefacts have been found there in the past (Seymour 1896). These mounds are not man-made (Gabriel Cooney pers. comm.) but it is interesting that there is a cluster of artefacts in this area.
These areas of high density are likely to have been important in prehistory, the harbour area and much of the western shore may have been important as safe landing places close to the mainland. The area south of the White House is in an area close to the sea, sheltered, in sight of the mainland and with access to the best land on the island and flint rich beaches, an area that has been favoured for settlement through multiple phases of history (see Chapter Two). The tip of the Point is less likely to have been a place for settlement; it is exposed and very close to the sea. It is close to flint resources and this may be why a large number of cores have been found there (see Map 9). It is not as easy to see why the Black Point Field saw a lot of activity in prehistory, the access to water may have been important, the natural knolls may also have been important to prehistoric people. One explanation for the high densities of artefacts in these areas may be found in the idea of ‘land cunning’ (Roberts 1987, cited in, Schofield 1991a, 118, Hodgers 1994, 258). This suggests that settlements will tend to occur and re-occur in particularly valuable places in the landscape, that value may be assigned according to both economic and non-economic attributes (for example proximity to ancestral graves or a particular view). This may hold true in terms of non-settlement activity too.
The concentration of artefacts at Assemblage 10 and in its vicinity requires separate consideration. The assemblage seems to be Neolithic, possibly Early Neolithic (see Chapter Seven). Its location on the island is unusual, bucking the trend whereby most artefacts are found in the western lowlands, near the best sources of flint. The strikingly large numbers of finds from the area is partly a product of repeated visits and significant and persistent erosion in the area, but despite this it is clear that this is a significant site, it accounts for almost one fifth of the total assemblage from the island. Finds collected in a ploughzone survey are thought to represent between 2% and 5% of the total artefact population in the ploughsoil at any one time (Shott 1995). While similar information is not available for the context in which Assemblage 10 was collected it is likely that the artefacts collected are representatives of a much larger subsurface assemblage. Other assemblages from the area around Assemblage 10 (Assemblages 86, 87 and 88) seem to 48
indicate production around this significant site, they consist of cores (bipolar and single platform), chunks (chunks are thought to indicate primary production, see Steinberg 1996, 377), irregular flakes and one split pebble. Map 9 shows the distribution of cores across the island and there is a clear concentration in the area of Assemblage 10. This is a very interesting trend; clearly people were deliberately collecting raw materials from the coast and transporting them to one of the highest areas on the island to be worked. Magnetometry survey in 2005 has revealed evidence of a possible enclosure or structure on the site of Assemblage 10 (Gabriel Cooney pers. comm.) and it seems likely that at some stage this locale was the site of a settlement or activity area which resulted in the deposition of significant numbers of artefacts. The place of these finds in the landscape of the island is very interesting. The area is orientated to the northeast, away from Knockbane, the axe production factory and the western lowlands. It seems to be orientated towards the sea, the bird-filled cliffs and possibly towards Carrickdorish the only potential landing area to the east of the island. This short discussion of the locale has merely flagged it as an important and interesting place on the island; further interpretation must await further study.
Conclusion Interpretation of surface artefact scatters is tricky at the best of times and for this reason this discussion has been peppered with caveats and qualifications. A few broad points have certainly emerged though. Lambay saw extensive activity during prehistory and this activity extended throughout the island and from perhaps as early as the eight millennium BC. The patterning of the lithic material found most likely owes something to taphonomic processes, collection strategies and the nuances of rabbit and cattle preferences and management but it is also likely that some of the patterning is due to the actions of prehistoric inhabitants of the island. There is a clear trend whereby most worked flint is found near the beach sources, there are also clear exceptions to this rule where people were deliberately using and producing flint in other places on the island. Evidence from the excavation of the Eagles’s Nest axe factory, where a sealed Neolithic knapping context and a large number of knapped flint was found in association with monumental activity and the production of high status and socially important ground stone axes (Cooney 1997) suggests that simple economic ideas about procurement and use will not sufficiently explain the preliminary patterns emerging from this analysis.
49
Chapter Nine
The Wider Context
Introduction Chapter Eight discussed Lambay as a landscape on its own, a separate world with its own patterns of use and disuse. This is only part of the story. Lambay in prehistory was emphatically not an isolated place. Its insular nature obviously creates a separation in one sense, but all of the archaeological evidence from the island shows people were in contact with the outside world, using similar technologies, materials and lifeways. These connections would have required knowledge of the sea and the technology to traverse it. The extent of contact is likely to have shifted through time with people using the island for different purposes and to different extents (Broodbank 2000). The evidence discussed up to now has provided indications, in the form of the chipped stone technologies found on the island, of underlying similarities and therefore contacts, between the island and its larger neighbourhood throughout prehistory. This chapter can only give a few snapshots of the ways in which people using the island were interacting with the wider world. It provides a context for the findings thus far, considering how and why people were attracted to the island and summarising the known evidence for contemporary activity in the vicinity of the Island in prehistory. It also deals with the small amount of evidence found that can give us a definite, if minute, confirmation of prehistoric people’s deliberate interaction with their not-so-near neighbours.
Seafaring Before discussing the evidence for the island’s broader connections it is important to discuss the methods by which those links would have been forged and perpetuated and also the reasons for those links. Seafaring would have been extremely important to the inhabitants of Lambay, knowledge of the sea, the weather, the tides and the seasons would have been very important. Knowledge of how to construct seagoing craft would also have been very significant, as would the materials and tools to make them and the places to land them. 50
An important question to consider is why did people visit Lambay and if people lived on the island, why did they need to leave it? Even the short 4 km sea journey to the island may have been quite daunting in small sea craft (Pollard 2000, 147) Various reasons have been put forward as to why prehistoric people would have visited or settled on islands, one significant draw may have been the marine resources that can be found on and around islands (McCartan 2000). Lambay is regularly visited by seals and it has a huge seabird population; the birds nest on the high cliffs to the east of the island. It has also been argued that islands were natural stop off points in a world were travel by water was the most efficient form, and travel by land was very difficult (Pollard 2000, 150). The ‘separate’ nature of Lambay may also have been attractive. Lambay may have been a place apart, a safe location or refuge, alternatively it could possibly have been seen as a place of exile (as it was in later times during its use as a prison; see Chapter 2). Human curiosity may also have been a major factor in drawing people to the island. If people settled on the island there would have been a need for regular contact with other areas, it has already been noted that in the beginning of the nineteenth century Lambay Island was being extensively cultivated and supported a population of c. 100 people. It is unlikely that the island supported a larger population than this in prehistory. It has been estimated (Schulting 2003, 437) that approximately 500 people are required to maintain a biologically viable population, clearly even if the island was permanently settled there would be a pressing need to maintain relations with off-island populations.
Boats were the means by which these relations would have been maintained. Very little direct archaeological evidence for boats in prehistory has been found in Ireland, this is almost certainly due to problems of preservation (Breen and Forsythe 2004). Indirect evidence, including that presented in this study, makes it clear that boats were made and used throughout prehistory. In the Mesolithic period direct evidence of water going craft is limited to dugout canoes, however the technology to build skin covered boats did exist by this time (McGrail 1987, 187). If, as seems likely, skin covered boats were used for sea crossings in the Mesolithic then the availability of seals on Lambay may have made the island important, as the lack of red deer in Ireland would have made seal skin the best available material for boat building (Breen and Forsythe 2004, 30). Further indirect support for seagoing craft in the Mesolithic comes from evidence for off-shore fishing by some coastal communities in this period (Woodman et al. 1999), this may 51
also have been practiced off Lambay. Further support for the existence of substantial sea craft can be found in the Neolithic. Livestock was introduced to the mainland (and possibly Lambay) using fairly substantial sea-going vessels in the early part and throughout the rest of the Neolithic there was regular contacts between communities throughout the British Isles and beyond (Sheridan 2004). Direct evidence for boats in this period is also limited to log boats although some do come from marine rather than riverine contexts (Breen and Forsythe 2004, 33-34). In the Bronze Age direct evidence for boats becomes more concrete. The evidence comes from Britain in the form of excavated planked boats and possible evidence of a hide boat from a Scottish Early Bronze Age cemetery (Breen and Forsythe 2004, 35), evidence from Ireland in this period continues to be limited to logboats.
Clearly seafaring would have been an important part of the lives of people who visited or lived on Lambay in prehistory. Navigation in this period would have been instinctive (McGrail 1987), any journeys over long distances would have required skill and knowledge; knowledge of the weather, the character of the sea, the seasons and the tides and even still this would not have been without danger (Cooney 2004). Landing places may also have been very important at times on the island. Almost all of the safe landing areas occur to the west of the island, except one. Small boats could have landed at Carrickdorrish in reasonable weather conditions; this may have been an important harbour for boats travelling from the north or the east. The importance of the view of islands from the sea has been noted elsewhere (Broodbank 2000) and Lambay is likely to have been a well known landmark to travellers from many different places, especially in the Neolithic (see Cooney 2004).
Lambay in Context It is important in analysing the evidence from Lambay to recognise its context within the prehistoric world. As has been stated already, Lambay was connected to areas beyond its shores. These connections would have varied depending on distance, time and other factors, factors which are difficult to identify through the archaeological lense. This section will summarise the known evidence for peoples’ activities around Lambay through the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age, hopefully giving some clues as to the character of the wider world with which inhabitants or visitors to Lambay would have been familiar. 52
The Mesolithic period has clear evidence for widespread activity on islands in Ireland (e.g. Mitchell 1956, Liversage 1968, McCartan 2000)and elsewhere (e.g. Mithen 2000, McCartan 2003). Lambay was one of a series of Islands clustered around the coast of Dublin including Ireland’s Eye, Dalkey and Howth (see Map 1). Modern Howth Head is not an island due to falling sea levels, however it was recorded as an island as late as the Iron Age (Cooney 1990a). Excavations at both Dalkey and Sutton (on Howth) have produced evidence of significant Late Mesolithic activity in the form of middens (Mitchell 1956, Liversage 1968). On the mainland, fish traps have been found dating to between 6100 and 5720 cal. BC in estuarine muds from the River Liffey (McQuade 2005) and Bann flakes are known from Dun Laoghaire, Rathfarnham and Loughlinstown (Corlett 1999, 10). Clearly, in the Late Mesolithic at least, there was a lot of activity in the area around Lambay, the relatively ephemeral evidence from Lambay fits in with current models of the Late Mesolithic which envisage ephemeral, single use sites being created by highly mobile hunter-gatherers in mainly coastal, riverine and lacustrine contexts (Woodman 2000, 243).
Dalkey and Sutton both produced evidence for continued use in the Neolithic; however, evidence from the mainland in the Neolithic is quite different. Two Neolithic sites have been excavated near Malahide, an area to the southwest of Lambay (see Map 15). The first, at Feltrim Hill (Hartnett and Eogan 1964) produced 30 leaf-shaped arrowheads as well as 81 thumbnail scrapers suggesting it may have been in use in the Bronze Age as well (see Chapter Four) Very close to Feltrim Hill a dense cluster of artefacts revealed by ploughing was excavated in 1983 (Keeling and Keeley 1994). This assemblage was mainly from the ploughzone, but a pit containing material interpreted as the remains of a knapping floor, including flint, charcoal, bone fragments, hammerstones, part of a polished stone axehead and a quantity of periwinkle shells was excavated and dated to the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age (Keeling and Keeley 1994, 3). This pit deposit is reminiscent of some of the deposits at the Eagles Nest on Lambay (Cooney 1998b) as well as the periwinkle filled skull on Dalkey (Liversage 1968) and some Neolithic pit deposits in Britain (Edmonds 1995, 42-45).
The area around Malahide had been noted for its abundance of prehistoric artefacts by Stacpoole (1962) who also collected artefacts from a long swathe of the North Dublin coastline (see Map 15). Guinan (1992a) analysed Stacpoole’s unsystematic surface 53
collection, as well as a small systematic collection of his own. He demonstrated the intensity of early prehistoric settlement in the area, interpreting the collections as evidence of sedentary Neolithic activity with the possibility of a Bronze Age element at a time when Lambay was also being used, possibly by the same populations (Guinan 1992a, 119). One major difference between the assemblage analysed by Guinan and this analysis was the dominance of bipolar working in the former.
In recent years a number of prehistoric chipped stone assemblages in the Dublin area have been uncovered during motorway construction projects (Ballin 2003b, 2003a, 2003d, 2003c). The date range of these assemblages spans the Early Neolithic, Early Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age. They are a good random sample, suggesting the potential for more sites from this time period in the area of county Dublin.
The Neolithic and Bronze Age evidence suggests more sedentary settlement on the mainland near Lambay with continued use of off shore islands including Lambay. Lambay may well have been an important area in these periods. In the Neolithic the stone axe factory is likely to have been a special and symbolic place and the axes produced in the quarry are likely to have been recognised as Lambay axes. The site on Feltrim Hill was intervisible with Lambay as well as Ireland’s Eye, Dalkey, Howth, the Dublin and Wicklow Mountains and the Mourne Mountains. That inhabitants of Lambay and Feltrim Hill were aware of each other, and had contact with each other is very likely considering the find of an andesite axehead on Feltrim Hill (Hartnett and Eogan 1964, 17). People were conscious of their surroundings and Lambay is likely to have been important to people as a landmark, an axe production site and in other ways that can only be guessed at. If people lived on the island in this period (as is likely) then the people who created the sites discussed in this section would have been their neighbours, they would have known them, talked to them, married them and probably fought with them. In a study such as this, where stone artefacts are the main point of discussion it is sometimes important to emphasise the social context in which people lived and produced their chipped stone tools.
Long Distance Connections Throughout this chapter the connected nature of Lambay in prehistory has been emphasised and the ability of prehistoric people to make those connections over large 54
distances has been hinted at. This section will deal with the evidence for those distant and possibly sporadic connections. As early as 1940 Childe recognised that the Irish Sea was a natural highway; “the natural centre of a province whose several parts it unites rather than divides” (Childe 1940, 6 cited in Cooney 2003). As discussed above there is persuasive indirect evidence from as early as the Mesolithic for people’s ability to traverse the sea. In the Neolithic there is evidence for widespread contacts between Ireland, Britain and the continent on many different levels (Sheridan 2004) and the Bronze Age requirement for tin and copper would have stimulated Irish Sea trade even further (Breen and Forsythe 2004, 34). Direct evidence for long distance connections on Lambay come from just two artefacts but serves to re-enforce the theme of this chapter; Lambay’s important role in the wider prehistoric world.
Artefact C05.1:0318 (Plate 27) is a small piece of pitchstone. Pitchstone is a type of volcanic glass related to obsidian, its main known source is the island of Arran in western Scotland . It is also known to occur in County Antrim but this source is of very poor quality (Mann 1918). Work on the pitchstone finds at Ballygalley (Simpson 1995, Simpson and Meighan 1999) have indicated strongly that aphyric pitchstone (as opposed to porphyritic pitchstone) was imported into Ireland during the Neolithic from Arran. The pitchstone found on Lambay is classic Arran pitchstone (Graeme Warren pers. comm.) suggesting that the inhabitants of Lambay were engaging in direct or indirect trade with the island of Arran 375 kilometres away. Simpson’s (1995) distribution map of pitchstone in Northern Ireland (Map 16) suggests that pitchstone was a rare material in Ireland. He proposed (1995, 35) that pitchstone was imported for use in surgery. Pitchstone may also have been important aesthetically and symbolically, Warren (Forthcoming-b) has noted that in Scotland pitchstone found far from Arran is of a high quality and may have had symbolic significance. Movement of pitchstone from Arran probably began in the Early Neolithic and is known in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age also (Warren Forthcoming-b). It is interesting that pitchstone was found on Rathlin Island, also the location of an axe quarry and a known exporter in the Neolithic.
C05.1:0692 (Plate 12) has been discussed before in Chapter Seven. It is a very large, secondary retouched flake found to the west of Knockbane on a slope (Assemblage 13, see Map 10). In itself it does not seem significant, but in terms of the Lambay assemblage it seems alien. It is very likely that either the flake or more likely the large 55
core from which this was struck was imported to Lambay in prehistory. The closest and most likely source would be the flint deposits in Antrim. It is possible that the pitchstone discussed above was also imported from this area, after first being brought from Scotland. Hodgers (1994, 244) notes that large flint may have been imported in a similar fashion to Louth in prehistory as do Hartnett and Eogan (1964, 6) in relation to Feltrim Hill. The possibility that the flake was struck from a highly unusual, large flint boulder found on or near the island remains, but this is unlikely considering the results of the pebble survey (Chapter Five).
The two artefacts discussed in this section offer a small view into the wide trade and exchange network present in prehistory. The evidence fits in with other evidence from the island in the form of Neolithic polished axeheads and the later Iron Age RomanoBritish artefacts found by Macalister (see Chapter Two). Lambay seems to have been in a good location for trade, and at different times in prehistory, its inhabitants appear to have purposefully engaged with the outside world, exporting local artefacts, acquiring exotic materials and using them for their own purposes.
Conclusion This chapter has clearly demonstrated that Lambay was not an isolated, lonely place in prehistory. The people who visited and inhabited the island throughout prehistory were living in a populated and dynamic local world and had contacts with and knowledge of a much wider area. The extent of contacts and their nature probably fluctuated throughout prehistory but it is unlikely that at any stage Lambay existed as a truly isolated landscape. Though an island, the gap with the mainland and other areas was bridged by knowledge, journeys, shared material culture and lifeways.
56
Part Four
57
Chapter Ten
Conclusions The main challenge of this study was to take a few boxes of random artefacts, casually collected in the course of various activities on Lambay and use them to fill in some of the picture of what people were doing on the island in prehistory. Lambay offered a self contained study area, with natural boundaries that presented an ideal subject for a project of this size. The analysis was not undertaken in isolation, the challenge was to produce a methodology and initial interpretation that could be integrated into the wider research being undertaken on the island. Recent research on the island has focused on quarrying and ground stone axe production at the Eagle’s Nest site. This study was aimed at providing a complimentary but different view, looking at the material from a landscape perspective, attempting to understand the materials in the context of the whole island rather than focusing on a single site, and attempting to look at the extent of activity on the island through time. In order to achieve the aims of the analysis a research methodology needed to be created with all of the objectives in mind, tailored to the nuances of the unique context that is Lambay Island.
The nature of the collections from Lambay provided some unique problems to be overcome through the methodology. The literature presented no examples of analyses of surface collections from self-contained environments that were excavated/eroded in such an unusual way, or recorded with such relative accuracy, so a customised methodology was required. Three main techniques were used to interrogate the material. A pebble survey, based on work already done in Scotland, was carried out in an attempt to answer questions about raw material availability and use. An artefact by artefact analysis was undertaken in order to allow statistical, chronological and spatial investigation of the material and a Geographical Information System was created to allow simple interpretation and presentation of the results.
The Results At the start of the study four key research questions were posed, the results of the analysis go some to way to answering all four of these. Through the pebble survey and 58
the individual artefact analysis a general picture of raw material use on Lambay in prehistory has emerged. People seem to have used local raw materials for producing their chipped stone tools in prehistory. The vast majority of the artefacts recovered were made using flint beach pebbles although other materials such as quartz, conglomerate and pitchstone were also worked at points in prehistory. The pebble survey results show that the western coast of the island is likely to have been the primary source of flint while a size comparison with the collected artefacts suggests that exotic, off-island flint was probably very rarely used.
It was hoped that the study would provide some clues as to when Lambay was in use in prehistory, the results of the analysis have been very useful in this regard. The possibility of an Early Mesolithic presence on the island has been tentatively suggested while identification of one definite and another possible butt-trimmed flake, along with a number of uni-plane cores has given the first evidence of Late Mesolithic activity on the island. Clear evidence for Early Neolithic activity on the island has also been found, particularly interesting is the possible Early Neolithic assemblage identified as a possible settlement site (Assemblage 10). The majority of the material from the island seems to fit into a broadly Neolithic/Bronze Age zone, indicating significant activity and possibly permanent or regular settlement on the island in these periods.
The excellent results in terms of identifying chronological indicators on the island have allowed some preliminary identification of patterns of use of chipped stone across the island in different periods. Mesolithic evidence is slim; pointing to more ephemeral, possibly sporadic or seasonal use of the island, the Point has been identified as one possible manufacturing area in this period. The western and south-western coastlines appear to have been persistently used throughout the Neolithic and Bronze Age, resulting in an area of artefact abundance. In the Early Neolithic the upland area of the island appears to have been very important, cores found in this locale may date to this period or to the Later Neolithic or Bronze Age, whatever their date they show an unusual pattern of deposition in an area far away from the sources of raw material.
The final question posed asked what could be discovered regarding Lambay’s wider landscape and its connections with the world beyond its shores. The results have shown an island situated in a connected landscape throughout prehistory, archaeological evidence from the local region shows that people using Lambay were not alone in any 59
period and were clearly in contact with a larger cultural milieu. Direct evidence for more long distance contact was also identified in the form of exotic pitchstone and large imported flint.
Prospects for the future The results of the study have been surprisingly positive and have filled out the picture of prehistoric activity on Lambay, providing a baseline with which past and future work can be compared. The potential for future work on the island is enormous. A pebble survey of the nearby mainland coastline could give a context for the flint found on Lambay, giving an idea of the differences in the quality of flint, and possibly signalling an incentive to visit Lambay from the mainland for superior raw materials or visa versa. A pebble survey of the more inaccessible beaches on the island would also be useful in confirming or refuting the hypothesis that they contain very little usable flint. In terms of the island itself the study has identified a number of potential areas for future study. Eroding areas of raised beach at the Point and west of the White House are prime candidates for excavation before they are destroyed by the sea. The locale around Assemblage 10 also has huge potential for further study whether through excavation, geophysics or further survey. More general questions raised by the study include what was the nature of Mesolithic use of the island, when was the island first permanently settled and what activities took place on the island at different times in prehistory?
To conclude, this study has succeeded in addressing the research questions set out in Chapter One, using customised methodologies to examine the archaeological material and provide a meaningful baseline in terms of results and methods on which future research can build.
60
Part Five
61
Appendix One
Tables
62
Table 1. Number and size of flint collected from each pebble survey transect. Beach
Transect
≤ 4cm
≤ 6cm
≤ 8cm
≤10cm
≥ 10cm
Total Flint
Beach 2
1*
33
6
1
0
0
40
Flint per 2 m 1.25
Beach 7
2
1
1
0
0
0
2
0.09
Beach 3
3
17
0
0
0
0
17
0.44
Beach 1
4
11
0
0
0
0
11
0.27
Beach 1
5
9
1
0
0
0
10
0.25
Beach 2
6(1)*
33
5
1
0
0
39
0.92
Beach 8
7
1
0
0
0
0
1
0.02
Beach 8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Beach 9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Beach 9
10
2
1
0
0
0
3
0.12
Beach 10
11
1
0
0
0
0
1
0.07
Beach 12
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Beach 4
13
58
2
0
0
0
60
1.60
Beach 4
14
17
0
0
0
0
17
0.31
Beach 5
15
13
0
0
0
0
13
0.26
Beach 2
16
42
4
1
0
0
47
0.87
Beach 7
17*
5
3
0
0
0
8
0.16
Beach 7
18(17)*
14
0
0
0
0
14
0.23
Beach 2
19
17
0
2
0
0
19
0.26
Beach 10
20
12
1
0
0
0
13
0.16
Beach 11
21
11
0
0
0
0
11
0.47
Beach 1
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Beach 6
23
19
1
0
0
0
20
0.54
Beach 6
24
2
1
0
0
0
3
0.10
Beach 9
25
15
1
0
0
0
16
0.24
Beach 9
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Beach 3
27
4
6
1
0
0
11
0.44
337
33
6
0
0
376
Totals
*These transects were completed in two sections due to tides. The first section is indicated in brackets.
63
Table 2. Angularity data collected as part of the pebble survey. Beach
Transect
Beach 2
1*
Beach 7
2
Beach 3
3
Beach 1
4
Beach 1
5
Beach 2
6(1)*
Beach 8
7
Beach 8
8
Beach 9
9
Beach 9
10
Beach 10
11
Beach 12
12
Beach 4 Beach 4
13 14
Beach 5
15
Beach 2
16
Beach 7
17*
Beach 7
18(17)*
Beach 2
19
Beach 10
20
Beach 11
21
Beach 1 Beach 6
22 23
Beach 6
24
Beach 9
25
Beach 9 Beach 3 Total
26 27
Very Angular 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 21% 8 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 33% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 18% 3 8% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 5% 1 15% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 16
5
13%
12
30%
Sub Rounded 20% 8
6
15%
Well rounded 23% 9
0
0%
1
50%
1
50%
0
0%
0
0%
4
24%
3
18%
6
35%
3
18%
1
6%
0
0%
3
27%
4
36%
3
27%
1
9%
2
20%
6
60%
1
10%
1
10%
0
0%
7
18%
7
18%
8
21%
5
13%
4
10%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
67%
0
0%
0
0%
1
100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
6
10%
12
20%
23
38%
19
32%
0
0%
1
6%
4
24%
2
12%
5
29%
2
12%
2
15%
4
31%
2
15%
3
23%
1
8%
17
36%
12
26%
15
32%
2
4%
1
2%
3
38%
4
50%
1
13%
0
0%
0
0%
3
21%
5
36%
4
29%
2
14%
0
0%
6
32%
5
26%
3
16%
3
16%
1
5%
4
31%
3
23%
2
15%
2
15%
0
0%
0
0%
4
36%
5
45%
1
9%
1
9%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
6
30%
6
30%
4
20%
3
15%
1
5%
0
0%
1
33%
2
67%
0
0%
0
0%
2
13%
6
38%
4
25%
4
25%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
2
18%
3
27%
5
45%
0
0%
1
9%
Angular
Sub-angular
71
101
102
Rounded
63
23
*These transects were completed in two surveys due to tides. The first survey is indicated in brackets
64
Table 3. Other data recorded as part of the pebble survey. Transect
Date
Time Started
Time Finished
Time Taken
Easting
Northing
Orientation of transect
1* 25/04/2005 12:07 12:27 20 330633 250733 W 2 25/04/2005 13:24 13:31 7 330509 250591 SW 3 25/04/2005 15:25 15:34 9 330749 250840 W 4 25/04/2005 16:30 16:39 9 330777 251181 NW 5 25/04/2005 17:45 17:56 11 330899 251407 W 6(1)* 25/04/2005 18:56 19:10 14 330633 250733 W 7 26/04/2005 09:47 09:53 6 330786 250594 S 8 26/04/2005 10:36 10:41 5 330737 250590 S 9 26/04/2005 11:28 11:32 4 331006 250350 S 10 26/04/2005 12:03 12:07 4 330950 250406 S 11 26/04/2005 13:02 13:05 3 330636 250531 S 12 26/04/2005 15:20 15:24 4 331221 250252 SW 13 26/04/2005 16:01 16:11 10 331217 250298 SW 14 26/04/2005 16:50 17:01 11 331190 250327 SW 15 27/04/2005 09:29 09:37 8 331651 250916 E 16 27/04/2005 10:52 11:06 14 330586 250684 NW 17* 27/04/2005 13:03 13:14 11 330496 250598 W 18(17)* 27/04/2005 16:32 16:47 15 330476 250588 W 19 27/04/2005 17:48 18:00 12 330540 250632 S 20 27/04/2005 18:49 18:57 8 330561 250555 S 21 27/04/2005 18:53 18:58 5 330694 250793 NW 22 28/04/2005 09:50 10:00 10 33082 25130 W 23 28/04/2005 10:26 10:36 10 33089 25142 W 24 28/04/2005 17:51 17:55 4 33088 25155 W 25 28/04/2005 19:09 19:19 10 33089 25046 SW 26 28/04/2005 19:44 19:46 2 33092 25042 W 27 29/04/2005 09:10 09:17 7 33092 25042 W *These transects were completed in two sections due to tides. The first section is indicated in brackets.
65
Length of Transect 16m 11.5m 19.3m 20.3m 19.7m 21.3m 25m 21m 20.3m 12.9m 6.8m 11m 18.8m 27.1m 25m 27m 25.2m 31m 37m 40m 11.6m 19.3m 18.5m 15.7m 33m 17m 12.4m
Area Covered 32m² 23m² 38.6m² 40.6m² 39.4m² 42.6m² 50m² 42m² 40.6m² 25.8m² 13.6m² 22m² 37.6m² 54.2m² 50m² 54m² 50.4m² 62m² 74m² 80m² 23.2m² 38.6m² 37m² 31.4m² 66m² 34m² 24.8m²
Table 4. Guide to and definitions of terms used in the record fields in the database. (after Wickham-Jones 1990, Finlayson et al. 2000). Database Field
Description
Identification number
This consisted of the individual accession number of each artefact.
Easting and Northing
This initially consisted of the national grid co-ordinates where they were recorded by the handheld GPS. All co-ordinates were revised according to assemblage number after grid references were assigned using the GIS.
Altitude
This was entered where it had been recorded using GPS. Due to the non-availability of spot height data in the GIS this information was not used in the interpretation.
Location Confidence
See Table 5
Site Description
This field consisted of the site description recorded in the field where one was available.
Site Identification
For the main assemblage all findspots where given an alphanumeric identification code which contained information about the date collected and the findspot number, for example: M05F1, M= march, 05= year, F1= Findspot number 1. For the Kelly assemblage artefacts were given an individual number or labelled with the date collected:
Assemblage Number
Artefacts with spatial information were given an assemblage number (see Appendix Two) which was entered in this field.
Quantity
This field recorded the number of artefacts assigned to the individual accession number. This was 1, except where a number of chips were recorded from one findspot and were recorded in bulk.
Raw Material
This field recorded the raw material of the artefact(s).
Colour
This field recorded the colour of the raw material. Where there was a high degree of patination or burning but the original colour of the flint could still be seen, the original colour was recorded.
Cortex
Primary – “artefacts with cortex platforms and cortex over the dorsal surface. Secondary – “artifacts with flake platforms but some cortex over the dorsal surface. Tertiary – “artifacts with no surviving cortex surfaces” (Wickham-Jones 1990, 58).
Fresh
An artefact that has no evidence of abrasion or rolling.
Abraded
An artefact with evidence of having been abraded.
Patinated
An artefact with any evidence of patination (patination was only recorded on flint).
Burnt
An artefact with any evidence of burning (burning was only recorded on flint).
Rolled
An artefact with evidence of having been rolled.
Broken
An artefact either missing termination or platform or with any other significant evidence of breakage.
Blank
Artefacts were subdivided into one of eight blank categories: Flake: A deliberate removal with some or all of the characteristics of a flake e.g. A platform, ventral surface, bulb of percussion or erailleur scar. Not a blade. Blade: Long thin removals with parallel sides and regular edges. Deliberately knapped using a blade reduction technology. Blade/Flake: Broken removals which may be either flakes or blades. Also applied to flakes which are blade-like. Chunk: Removals showing none of the characteristics of blades or flakes. Chip: Any removal under 10mm in size. Core: A lump of raw material from which removals have been struck. Pebble: Lumps of raw material with one or two unsystematic removals or modifications. Natural: An unmodified lump of raw material.
66
Sub-Blank
Irregular: Applies to flakes. Flakes with no regular edge, includes all chips Regular: Applies to flakes and blades. A removal with 10mm or more of regular acute edge. All blades are regular by definition. Bipolar: A flake or core with evidence of the use of the bipolar technique. Indeterminate: Applies to flakes. Flakes which have been damaged in such a way as to make it impossible to tell if they were originally regular or irregular Single Platform Core: A core from which all removals have been struck from a single platform. Dual Platform Core: A core from which removals have been struck from two opposed platforms. Irregular Core: A core from which removals have been struck in an irregular fashion. Split Pebble: A pebble that has been split, usually implies the use of the bipolar technique. Uni-planar core: A single platform core extensively worked on one plane.
Retouch
Yes: Artefact has evidence of deliberate retouch No: Artefact has no evidence of deliberate retouch Indeterminate: Artefact may possibly be deliberately retouched but cannot be certain. N/A: Artefact is a chip or a core
Name
Name of the artefact according to wider typology discussed in chapter 4. Artefacts that could not be fitted into a typological slot were classified as ‘retouched blade’, ‘retouched flake’ or ‘unclassified retouched tool’.
Dimensions
Artefact dimensions were recorded to the nearest millimetre in the order length, width, and thickness. For blades and flakes: Length was measured along the line of percussion (cf. Holdaway and Stern 2004). Width was measured across the widest part of the artefact, at 90 degrees to the length on the same plane. The measurement of thickness was taken from the ventral surface to the highest point of the dorsal surface along a line perpendicular to both length and width. Where the line of percussion was not discernible the artefact was measured in the same way as a chunk. Cores: If the core had one platform or opposing platforms then it was measured perpendicular to the main (most used) platform. If core was irregular, then it was measured in the same way as a chunk. Chunks: Chunks were first measured along their maximum dimension (length). The maximum dimension at 90 degrees to the length on the same plane was then recorded (width), followed by the maximum thickness on a perpendicular plane to the width (Thickness). Chips: Length, width and thickness were entered as zero.
Date
The estimated date of artefact.
Date of analysis
The date each artefact was analysed.
Illustrate
This field was used to mark particularly interesting artefacts for illustration.
Other notes
Any specific details of interest not recorded in the standard fields were recorded in this field.
Catalogue number
This field contained an auto-number relating to the database.
67
Table 5. Criteria used to assign confidence levels to assemblages. Confidence Level
Criteria
1
Finds likely to be associated with each other. Location certain. Located using handheld GPS to specific grid co-ordinates or can be located to within a few metres on the map.
2
Finds likely to be associated with each other. Location not entirely certain. Plotted on a field map but not close to landmarks.
3
Finds possibly associated with each other. Located to a specific locale. A central grid coordinate has been set for the locale. Finds may not have come from this exact spot but from no more than tens of metres away.
4
Finds unlikely to be associated with each other. Located to a general area on the island (For example a field or a hill slope). A central grid co-ordinate has been set for finds from this area but it is not known where exactly they were picked up.
5
Finds unlikely to be associated with each other. Located to a specific area of a beach, fresh finds. These finds are likely to have been eroded from the shoreline nearby.
6
Re-deposited material. For example finds located to a beach and very rolled or finds from paths which have been renewed with material from beaches.
7
No spatial information
Table 7. Diagnostic Artefacts. Name
Estimated Date
Assemblage
Identification Number
Blade Core
Early Mesolithic?
51
C05.1:0456
Blade Core
Early Mesolithic?
63
C05.1:0540
Uni-facial core
Late Mesolithic?
68
C05.1:0174
Uni-facial core
Late Mesolithic?
7
C05.1:0022
Uni-facial core
Late Mesolithic?
66
C05.1:0192
Butt-Trimmed Flake
Late Mesolithic
43
C05.1:0199
Possible Butt-Trimmed Flake
Late Mesolithic?
None
C05.1:0472
Irregular Core
Early Neolithic
17
C05.1:0150
End Scraper
Early Neolithic?
36
C05.1:0457
End Scraper
Early Neolithic
114
C05.1:0551
Leaf-shaped Arrowhead
Neolithic
102
C05.1:0322
Thumbnail Scraper
Early Bronze Age
103
C05.1:0331
68
Table 6. The Total Collection.
Table 8. Collection 1. Primary*
Primary* Regular Flake
208
32.0%
Regular Flake
156
24.0%
Irregular Flake
146
22.5%
Irregular Flake
114
17.6%
Bipolar Flake
3
0.5%
Bipolar Flake
2
0.3%
Indeterminate Flake
11
1.7%
Indeterminate Flake
7
1.1%
Chunk
74
11.4%
Chunk
55
11.2%
Blade
50
7.7%
Blade
37
7.5%
Blade/Flake
17
2.6%
Blade/Flake
10
2.0%
Chip
10
1.5%
Chip
8
1.6%
Pebble
7
1.1%
Pebble
7
1.4%
Indeterminate
7
1.1%
Cores
41
8.3%
442
89.7%
Cores
50
7.7%
Total
Total
583
89.8%
Cores
Cores
Bipolar Core
6
1.2%
Bipolar Core
6
0.9%
Dual Platform Core
1
0.2%
Dual Platform Core
1
0.2%
Irregular Core
9
1.8%
1
0.2%
Irregular Core
10
1.5%
Irregular platform core
Irregular platform core
1
0.2%
Single Platform Core
21
4.3%
3
0.6%
41
8.3%
Butt-Trimmed Flake
2
0.4%
0.3%
Convex Scraper
7
1.4%
1
0.2%
Single Platform Core
29
4.5%
Uni-facial core
Uni-facial core
3
0.5%
Total
Total
50
7.7%
Retouched
Retouched Butt-Trimmed Flake
2
Convex Scraper
8
1.2%
End Scraper
End Scraper
2
0.3%
Concave Scraper
1
0.2%
4
0.8%
Concave Scraper
1
0.2%
Irregular Scraper
Irregular Scraper
4
0.6%
Leaf shaped Arrowhead
1
0.2%
1
0.2%
Leaf shaped Arrowhead
1
0.2%
Notched Flake
Notched Flake
1
0.2%
Retouched Blade
3
0.6%
0.6%
Retouched Flake
24
4.9%
4
0.8%
Retouched Blade
4
Retouched Flake
30
4.6%
Scraper
Scraper
7
1.1%
Serrated Blade
1
0.2%
1
0.2%
Serrated Blade
1
0.2%
side scraper
Side scraper
3
0.5%
Thumbnail Scraper
1
0.2%
51
10.3%
493
100%
Thumbnail Scraper
1
0.2%
Total
Unclassified retouched tool
1
0.2%
Assemblage Total
Total
66
10.2%
*Includes artefacts where retouch was indeterminate
Assemblage Total
649
100%
*Includes artefacts where retouch was indeterminate
69
Table 9. Collection 2.
Table 10. Frequency Distribution
Primary* Regular Flake
52
8.0%
Irregular Flake
32
4.9%
Bipolar Flake
1
0.2%
Indeterminate Flake
4
0.6%
Blade
13
8.3%
Blade/Flake
7
4.5%
Chip
2
1.3%
Chunk
19
12.2%
Indeterminate
2
1.3%
Cores
9
5.8%
Total
132
84.6%
1
Frequency
1
43
2
17
3
11
4
11
5
8
9
8
7
5
6
3
8
3
13
3
10
1
11
1
0.6%
14
1
17
1
19
1
Cores Irregular Core
No. of Artefacts
Single Platform Core
8
5.1%
Total
9
5.8%
Retouched Convex Scraper
1
0.6%
End Scraper
1
0.6%
Retouched Blade
1
0.6%
Retouched Flake
6
3.8%
Scraper
3
1.9%
side scraper
2
1.3%
Unclassified retouched tool
1
0.6%
Total
15
9.6%
Assemblage Total
147
100%
*Includes artefacts where retouch was indeterminate
70
26
1
123
1
Table 11. The number of finds in each assemblage. Assemblage
No. of
Assemblage
No. of
Assemblage
No. of
No.
Finds
No.
Finds
No.
Finds
1
3
41
4
81
1
2
1
42
7
82
9
3
9
43
17
83
1
4
1
44
9
84
2
5
1
45
6
85
2
6
2
46
3
86
8
7
4
47
7
87
4
8
4
48
9
88
4
9
13
49
8
89
1
10
123
50
1
90
1
11
26
51
3
91
1
12
3
52
1
92
1
13
5
53
1
93
2
14
7
54
3
94
1
15
4
55
3
95
5
16
5
56
6
96
1
17
9
57
5
97
9
18
1
58
1
98
11
19
5
59
1
99
5
20
7
60
1
100
1
21
1
61
4
101
1
22
1
62
3
102
5
23
3
63
7
103
3
24
19
64
1
104
2
25
6
65
13
105
1
26
2
66
1
106
1
27
1
67
9
107
2
28
2
68
14
108
2
29
2
69
2
109
1
30
5
70
2
110
2
31
10
71
1
111
2
32
3
72
1
112
1
33
13
73
2
113
4
34
4
74
1
114
4
35
1
75
2
115
1
36
1
76
2
116
1
37
1
77
4
117
1
38
1
78
1
118
1
39
9
79
1
119
1
40
8
80
3
71
Table 12. Assemblage 10.
Table 3. Assemblage 11.
Primary*
Primary*
Regular Flakes
51
41.46%
Regular Flakes
Irregular Flakes
12
9.76%
Indeterminate Flakes
3
2.44%
Blade
17
10
38.50%
Irregular Flakes
8
30.80%
Blades
1
3.80%
13.82%
Chip
1
3.80%
Blade/Flake
7
5.69%
Chunk Indeterminate
14
11.38%
Chunk Total
4 25
15.40% 96.20%
2
1.63%
Cores
Chip
1
0.81%
Cores
6
4.88%
Total
113
91.87%
Retouched Retouched Flake
1
3.80%
1
0.81%
Total
1
3.80%
Assemblage Total 26 *Includes artefacts where retouch was indeterminate
Total Cores Bipolar Core Single Platform Core Irregular Core Total Retouched
4
3.25%
1
0.81%
6
4.88%
1
0.81%
1
0.81%
6
4.88%
2
1.63%
Total
10
8.13%
Assemblage Total
123
100%
Convex Scraper Scraper Retouched Flake Retouched Blade
None
100%
*Includes artefacts where retouch was indeterminate
Table 14. Assemblage 24.
Table 15. Assemblage 43.
Primary* Regular Flake
9
47.4%
Primary* Regular Flakes
4
4.0%
6
35.3%
Irregular Flake
3
15.8%
Irregular Flakes
Bipolar Flake
1
5.3%
Indeterminate Flakes
1
5.9%
Blade
2
10.5%
Blades
2
11.8%
Chunk
1
5.3%
Cores
1
5.3%
Chunk
1
5.9%
Total
17
89.6%
Total
14
82.4%
Cores
Cores Single Platform Core
1
5.3%
Total
1
5.3%
2
10.5%
Total
None
Retouched
Retouched Retouched Flake Total
2
10.5%
Assemblage Total
19
100%
*Includes artefacts where retouch was indeterminate
Butt-trimmed Flake
1
5.9%
Scraper
1
5.9%
Side scraper
1
5.9%
Total
3
17.6%
Assemblage Total
17
100%
*Includes artefacts where retouch was indeterminate
72
Appendix Two
Pebble Survey Beaches
73
Beach 1. Transect: 4, 5, 22 This area lies south of Scotch Point promontory fort and north of the harbour. It contains two relatively large pebbled areas interspersed with areas of local exposed solid geology with small pebbled areas. The pebbles collected here were very small and not of great quality. Beach 2. Transects: 1, 6, 16, 19 This beach stretches from the south-western corner of the island north to Beach 11. It is a storm beach with marked stepping (Plate 5) and the largest pebble area of any of the island’s beaches. In many places the beach lacks any solid geology to break the force of the waves. This beach yielded the most flint in all of the different size categories found, it is also the beach with the largest area of pebbles. Beach 3. Transects: 3, 27 This area lies between the southern harbour wall and just north of Beach 11. The eroding section of raised beach/midden at the top of Transect 3 (Plate 26) has produced some struck flint finds. This area produced the second largest amount of usable flint. This area has a greater amount of intertidal solid geology than Beach 2 but the pebble area seems similar in character, unlike that of Beach 1. Beach 4. Transects: 13, 14 This is a sheltered bay facing south-west and surrounded by substantial cliffs. It is the least accessible beach surveyed, being accessible only at low tides from the adjacent Beach 12. A substantial amount of small flint fragments were found on this beach, but only two over 40cm in maximum size. Despite the large quantities, this flint was of a very poor quality; the two larger pebbles were only barely over the 4cm threshold and were probably not workable. Beach 5. Transect: 15 This is a sheltered bay, bounded by cliffs and facing east (Plate 1). The pebble material on this beach is dominated by local conglomerates and no flint pebbles were recovered in the area.
74
Beach 6. Transects: 23, 24 This area consists of small areas of pebbles amongst a large amount of exposed solid geology to the west and north of Scotch Point. Very little flint was found in this area. The pebbles found were generally very small. Beach 7. Transects: 2, 17, 18 This area consists of the beach at the very south-western tip of the island This area of the island generated a surprisingly big proportion of larger, usable pebbles, its rate of finds per m2 is similar to beach 6 and reflects the fall of in flint away from Beaches 1, 2 and 3. Beach 8. Transect: 7, 8 This is a sheltered bay facing south. It produced practically no flint despite having a large pebbled area. Beach 9. Transect: 9, 10, 25, 26 This refers to the area of inlets and pebble areas between Carnoon Bay and Talbot’s Bay. This area had erratic occurrences of flint pebbles with a surprising proportion of usable flint pebbles for the small amount of unusable material. Beach 10. Transects: 11, 20 Beach 10 consists of a collection of small coves and inlets to the east of Beach 7 and west of Beach 8. This area of the island produced some usable flint but less than beaches to the west. Transect 11, a short, isolated cove dominated by local solid geology revealed almost no flint. Beach 11. Transect: 21 This is a small sheltered area of pebbles within but separate from the Wallaby Bay area. It produced a small amount of unusable small flint pebbles. Beach 12. Transect: 12 This is a small cove situated to the southeast of Beach 4. It is dominated by local outcrops of exposed solid geology and produced no flint. It was necessary to pass this beach to get to Beach 4.
75
Beach 13. This is the only easily accessible beach to the east of the Island. It is small in size and for this reason was surveyed in its entirety. It is dominated by local stones and produced no flint.
76
Appendix Three
List of Assemblages
77
Assemblage 1: E: 330759, N: 251245. Confidence: 6, 00F7, 00F18 Beach 1: Beach north of harbour. Assemblage 2: E 330557, N 250682. Confidence: 6, 94F12 Beach 2: Storm Beach Assemblage 3: E 330745, N 250925. Confidence: 6, A05F12, J99F11, J99F7, 95F17, 95.3 Beach 3: Beach below Whitehouse, south of harbour Assemblage 4: E 331188, N 250297. Confidence: 6, A03F10 Beach 4: Carnoon Beach Assemblage 5: E 330974, N 251442. Confidence: 5, J99F8 Beach 5: Broad Bay Assemblage 6: E 330862, N 251567. Confidence: 6, 94F2 Beach 6: Beach west of Scotch Point Assemblage 7: E 330455, N 250566. Confidence: 5, M05F9c, M02F5 Beach 7: Small beach just south of the point Assemblage 8: E 330733, N 250847. Confidence: 5, A05T3 Beach directly below White House steps. Assemblage 9: E 330743, N 250843. Confidence 1, A05F2, M05F7, J02R1, J02R2, J02R3, J99F4 From raised beach section to west of the White House garden and north of the wall running down the beach. Assemblage 10: E 332007, N 251175. Confidence 1, M05F16, A05F17, A05F18, 04F3, J02F5, A03F3, 96F1, Primrose Valley From a rabbit burrow/cattle scrape on a terrace facing northeast. Assemblage 11: E 331037, N 251199. Confidence 1, 96F, A03F7 Quarry field. Assemblage 12: E 331027, N 251334. Confidence: 0, 95F10 Quarry field. Assemblage 13: E 331451, N 251002. Confidence 3, A05F13 92F10, 98F1 Path uphill, west of Knockbane. Assemblage 14: E 330765, N 250574. Confidence 5, 01F1, 94F13, 99.36, 99.37, 99.38, 99.39 Beach 8. Talbot’s Bay. Assemblage 15: E 330781, N 251049. Confidence 3, A05F1, A05F11, 01F5 Around the boathouse.
78
Assemblage 16 E 330806, N 250773. Confidence 3, 95F28, October 2004 The chapel graveyard. Assemblage 17: E 330807, N 250793. Confidence 2, J03F1, J03F3 Surface of path immediately north of the chapel perimeter. Assemblage 18: E 330583, N 250574. Confidence 2. 95F20 The Point: inland, in field. Assemblage 19: E 330804, N 250912. Confidence 3, A05F15, A05F14, 94F24. Flowerbed and path just to the north of the Whitehouse. Assemblage 20: E 330980, N 251039. Confidence 1, 95F23a, 95F23b Rock outcrop west of boathouse. Assemblage 21: E 330982, N 250755. Confidence 1, 95F19 Moated Site. Assemblage 22: E 331226, N 251418. Confidence 1, 04F12 Gouge Point promontory fort. Assemblage 23: E 330763, N 250842. Confidence 1, M05F5 White House Garden. Assemblage 24: E 330763, N 251136. Confidence 1, M05F1, M05F2, A05F16), 01F7, 00F1, 97F2, 93F1, 93F2, 92F8, 92F9a. NE Harbour. Assemblage 25: E 330800, N 251230. Confidence 2, J02F4, 00F2, 94F3, A03F17 Raised beach north of harbour. Assemblage 26: E 330950, N 251433. Confidence 2, J99F12 Bank overlooking Broad Bay. Assemblage 27: E 330978, N 251426. Confidence 1, 95F11 Bank overlooking Broad Bay, to the south. Assemblage 28: E 331104, N 250750. Confidence 6, 96F4 Kitchen Garden. Assemblage 29: E 330731, N 250596. Confidence 2, J99F3 Above Talbot’s Bay. Assemblage 30: E 330684, N 250538. Confidence 1, 00F15, M05F10 To west above Talbot’s Bay. Assemblage 31: E 330830, N 250500. Confidence 1, A05F10, 92F23 To east above Talbot Bay. Assemblage 32: E 330757, 250595. Confidence 1, A05F3, 94F15 Above Talbot’s Bay. 79
Assemblage 33: E 330771, N 250590. Confidence 2, 95F6, 00F8 Above Talbot’s Bay. Assemblage 34: E 331313, N 250009. Confidence 1, 96F14 West edge of Boat Hole. Assemblage 35: E 331532, N 250407. Confidence 1, 94F9 Path south of Walton’s Cottage. Assemblage 36: E 331772, 250269. Confidence 2, 94F8 Thorn Chase Valley. Assemblage 37: E 331881, N 250133. Confidence 2, 94F21 Thorn Chase Valley, East. Assemblage 38: E 331757, N 250324. Confidence 2, 96F8 Thorn Chase Valley, North. Assemblage 39: E 332047, N 250524. Confidence 2, 96F6, 92F11, 99.33 Ravens Well. Assemblage 40: E 332167, 251151. Confidence 3, A05F5, 96F23, A05F6, 96F5 East of Assemblage 10. Assemblage 41: E 331668, 251047. Confidence 1, 96F26, M05F3, 97.21, 97.22 Knockbane: from mound material, almost all from the east face Assemblage 42 E 331189, N 250751. Confidence 3, 95F13, M02F1 Near water resevoir, bank above Assemblage 43: E 331347, N 250112. Confidence 1, 04F13, 04F10, J02F2a, J02F2b, 99.29, 00.19 Black point gate and just to the east. Assemblage 44: E 332207, N 251056. Confidence 3, 1997.1, 97.2, 97.3, 96.12, December 2002 Tinian Hill: the NE slope (overlooking Bell rock). Assemblage 45: E 331603, N 250526. Confidence 4, 01F8, 96F16, 96 F17, 96.17, 96.19 Ravens Rock Assemblage 46: E 331049, N 250466. Confidence 4, 95F27, M05F13 From 'knolly area' to the east of Carnoon sheds and SW of kitchen garden. Assemblage 47: E 331298, N 250256. Confidence 1, J02F1a, J02F1b, 04F11 Stream east of Carnoon Bay, at bridge. Assemblage 48: E 331291, N 250225. Confidence 2, 92F6, 96F12, 95F4 Knoll in field east of Carnoon Bay, near stream. 80
Assemblage 49: E 331963, N 250870. Confidence 3, M05F4, J99F13, 95F30, 04F2 Finds from broken ground north of Cairn 2. Assemblage 50: E 331649, N 250029. Confidence 1, J02F3 East end of Bishop’s Bay. Assemblage 51: E 331611, N 250054. Confidence 2, 96 F19, 94F7 South facing slope of Bishop’s Bay. Assemblage 52: E 331518, N 250019. Confidence 2, 00F11 South facing slope of Bishop’s Bay. Assemblage 53: E 331440, N 250049. Confidence 1, 96F15 Field north of Bishop’s Bay. Assemblage 54: E 331217, N 250283. Confidence 1, 92F5a, 92F5b East side of Carnoon Bay. Assemblage 55: E 331186, N 250328. Confidence 3, 96F11, A05F4, 92F7 Cliff above Carnoon Bay. Assemblage 56: E 331058, N 250310. Confidence 4, 96F10, 95F3, 95F16 Top of Cliff to the West of Carnoon Bay. Assemblage 57: E 330928, N 250404. Confidence 2, 00F9, 95F2 On shoreline between Talbot’s Bay and Carnoon Bay. Assemblage 58: E 330900, N 250440. Confidence 2, M05F11 On shoreline between Talbot’s Bay and Carnoon Bay. Assemblage 59: E 330814, N 251283. Confidence 2, 00F10 On shoreline of Beach 1. Assemblage 60: E 330885, N 251366. Confidence 2, 00F3 On shoreline of Beach 1. Assemblage 61: E 331559, 250027. Confidence 4, 96.3, 96.4, 96.5, 96.2 Bishops Bay. Assemblage 62: E 330805, N 251257. Confidence 4, 96.6, 94.2, 95.1 N of harbour. Assemblage 63: E 331201, N 250322. Confidence 4, 00.8, 00.9, 00.10, 99.35, 99.34, December 2002 Cliffs above Carnoon Bay. Assemblage 64: E 330794, N 250865. Confidence 4, 1999.30 White house Garden. Assemblage 65: E 330477, N 250589. Confidence 1, 00F5 81
The very tip of The Point. Assemblage 66: E 330619, N 250531. Confidence 1, M02F3 Just south of windsock mound. Assemblage 67: E 330500, N 250573. Confidence 1, M05F9a, M05F9b, M05F9d, 94F6, 04F7, A03F12 Shore of Beach 7. Assemblage 68: E 330529, N 250547. Confidence 2, M02F4, 94F10, 00F16, 00F17, A03F18 Shore of Beach 7. Assemblage 69 (61): E 330948, 250667. Confidence 3, 95F12 Track between cattle shed and castle wall, along field boundary. Assemblage 70 (62): E 330813, N 250632. Confidence 1, 04F4 Broken ground to west of wooden cattle shed. Assemblage 71 (63): E 330829, 250652. Confidence 2, M02F6 Near gate into field on The Point. Assemblage 72 (64): E 331547, N 250668. Confidence 1, 97F1 Beside track to the west of Raven’s Rock. Assemblage 73 (65): E 331388, N 250445. Confidence 3, 04F8, 04F9 In field to the north of the watercourse and west of Raven’s Rock. Assemblage 74 (66): E 331553, N 250833. Confidence 2, 92F9b Trinity well valley. Assemblage 75 (67): E 330838, N 250874. Confidence 2, 04F5, 00.20 Trough beside Cottage Garden Assemblage 76: E 330827, N 250778. Confidence 1, J03F2 On surface of path just east of chapel perimeter fence. Assemblage 77: E 330731, N 250800. Confidence 2, 00F13, A03F8 Rabbit burrow west of the chapel Assemblage 78: E 331861, N 250494. Confidence 2, A03F15 Ravens well valley. Assemblage 79: E 332809, N 251323. Confidence 2, A03F16 Near Carrickdorrish. Assemblage 80: E 331147, N 250946. Confidence 6, 01F2, 01F4, 94F26 Track heading west beside the castle. Assemblage 81: E 330975, N 251018. Confidence 1, 01F11 Gate into quarry field. 82
Assemblage 82: E 331229, N 250249. Confidence 3, 01F9 Mound above Carnoon Bay. Assemblage 83: E 332375, N 250232. Confidence 2, 01F10 Above Kiln Point. Assemblage 84: E 331651, N 250915. Confidence 1, A05F7 Top of Ravens well valley. Assemblage 85: E 331432, N 250903. Confidence 1, 95F24, 94F5 North of Trinity Well. Assemblage 86: E 331937, N 251017. Confidence 2, M05F14, 96F3 Watering spot in field east of Knockbane. Assemblage 87: E 331887, N 251112. Confidence 2, M05F15, J02F6 South west of Assemblage 10. Assemblage 88: E 331987, N 251139. Confidence 2, 96F2, A03F4 Track to the south of Assemblage 10. Assemblage 89: E 332696, N 251057. Confidence 1, 96F20 South of Pilot Rock. Assemblage 90: E 332403, N 251123. Confidence 1, 96F25 West of Flint Rock. Assemblage 91: E 332312, N 250923. Confidence 1, 96F24 South-west of Bell Rock. Assemblage 92: E 332555, N 251071. Confidence 1, 96F21 Se side of Flint Rock. Assemblage 93: E 331640, N 250707. Confidence 1, 95F14 South of Raven’s Rock. Assemblage 94: E 331650, N 250732. Confidence 2, 00F14 East of Eagle’s Nest. Assemblage 95: E 330698, N 250804. Confidence 3, M05F8, 00F12, A05F8, From short section of eroding shore south of Whitehouse. Assemblage 96: E 330620, N 250736. Confidence 2, M02F2 Shore south of Whitehouse. Assemblage 97: E 330664, N 250776. Confidence 3, 97F5, J99F5 Shoreline west of the chapel.
83
Assemblage 98: E 332028, N 251040 Confidence 4, 00F19 Volcano Crater. East of Crater. Assemblage 99: E 330830, N 250620. Confidence 2, 95F18 In front of Cattle shed. Assemblage 100: E 330883, N 250787. Confidence 4, 01F3 West of the moated site. Assemblage 101: E 330786, N 251012. Confidence 2, J99F9 East end of the south pier of the harbour. Assemblage 102: E 330669, N 250814. Confidence 5, J99F10 From beach and shore west of the chapel and south of the Whitehouse steps. Assemblage 103: E 330811, N 250579. Confidence 3, J99F14, 92F2 The east side of Talbot’s Bay, beyond the wall. Assemblage 104: E 330923, N 251218. Confidence 4, J99F6 Quarry Field. Assemblage 105: E 330823, N 250538. Confidence 2, 95F1 East of Talbot’s Bay Assemblage 106: E 330953, N 250364. Confidence 2, M05F12 On shoreline between Carnoon Bay and Talbot’s Bay. Assemblage 107: E 331304, N 250166. Confidence 4, 97.24, March 2002 Seal Hole valley. Assemblage 108: E 330821, N 250852. Confidence 3, 99.31, 99.32 The old sheep dip. Assemblage 109: E 332741, N 251211. Confidence 4, 96.7 Pilots hill. Assemblage 110: E 331520, N 250611. Confidence 4, 96.9, October 2004 Harpers. Assemblage 111: E 331539, N 250455. Confidence 4, 96.20, 99.25 Waltons. Assemblage 112: E 331722, N 250355. Confidence 4, 00.21 Path above Thorn Chase Valley. Assemblage 113: E 332144, N 250869. Confidence 4, 96.15, 99.28, 00.4, 00.6 Tinian Hill. Assemblage 114: E 330630, N 250626. Confidence 4, 94.1, December 2004 The Point.
84
Assemblage 115: E 330904, N 250515. Confidence 4, May 2005 End of the runway towards Carnoon. Assemblage 116: E 331978, N 250293. Confidence 4, March 2002 Heath Hill. Assemblage 117: E 330753, N 250819. Confidence 2, 92F1b Northwest of the chapel, south of the Whitehouse. Assemblage 118: E 330728, N 250756. Confidence 2, 97F3 Outcrop to the west of the chapel. Assemblage 119: E 330804, N 250755. Confidence 1, J03F3 On surface of path just south of chapel perimeter fence.
85
Appendix Four
The Database
86
A.N.
K/C
Findspot L.C.
I.D. No.
Cortex
Fresh Abr. Pat. Burnt Rolled Broken
Blank
Sub-Blank
Retouch
Name Core-Flake
L
W
T
Raw. Mat.
Q.
1C
00F7
6
C05.1:0269
N
N
N
N
Y
N Core
Irregular Core
N/A
1C
00F18
6
C05.1:0679
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
1C
00F18
6
C05.1:0680
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes No
51
18
9 Flint
1
Irregular
No
40
35
15 Flint
1
Scraper
39
36
30 Flint
1
60
36
19 Flint
1
34
37
17 Flint
1
2C
94F12
6
C05.1:0463
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Blade
3C
A05F12
6
C05.1:0070
Prim.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
3C
A05F12
6
C05.1:0072
Prim.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
30
22
12 Flint
1
3C
95F17
6
C05.1:0426
Prim.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
39
36
15 Flint
1
N
N
N
N
Y
N Core
Irregular Core
N/A
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
3C
J99F7
6
C05.1:0313
3C
J99F7
6
C05.1:0314
3C
J99F7
6
C05.1:0315
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Pebble
Split Pebble
No
3C
J99F7
6
C05.1:0316
Sec.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
3C
J99F11
6
C05.1:0326
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
3K
95.3
6
C05.1:0555
Prim.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
4C
A03F10
5
C05.1:0181
Prim.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
5C
J99F8
5
C05.1:0317
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
6C
94F2
6
C05.1:0451
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Prim.
Core-Flake
45
37
25 Flint
1
40
35
16 Flint
1
33
25
13 Flint
1
41
29
14 Flint
1
No
15
18
5 Flint
1
Irregular
No
31
30
12 Flint
1
Irregular
No
51
24
22 Flint
1
No
28
18
15 Flint
1
No
26
34
9 Flint
1
Regular
Convex Scraper
6C
94F2
6
C05.1:0452
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
34
26
14 Flint
1
7C
M05F9c
5
C05.1:0022
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Uni-facial core
N/A
Core-Flake
46
57
22 Flint
1
7C
M05F9c
5
C05.1:0023
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Flake
42
50
22 Flint
1
7C
M05F9c
5
C05.1:0024
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
33
26
9 Flint
1
7C
M02F5
5
C05.1:0194
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
side scraper
26
31
10 Flint
1
8C
A05T3
5
C05.1:0096
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
Indet.
20
17
6 Flint
1
8C
A05T3
5
C05.1:0097
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
15
11
5 Flint
1
8C
A05T3
5
C05.1:0098
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
11
23
6 Flint
1
8C
A05T3
5
C05.1:0099
Sec.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
30
23
10 Flint
1
9C
A05F2
1
C05.1:0050
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
38
20
8 Flint
1
Yes
Convex Scraper
9C
M05F7
1
C05.1:0015
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Chip
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
9C
M05F7
1
C05.1:0016
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Chunk
No
43
20
18 Flint
1
9C
M05F7
1
C05.1:0017
9C
J02R1
1
C05.1:0222
9C
J02R1
1
C05.1:0223
9C
J02R2
1
C05.1:0224
9C
J02R2
2
C05.1:0225
Tert.
Sec.
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
Y
N
N
N
N
N Pebble
No Irregular Core
N/A
Core-Flake
31
19
5 Flint
1
38
50
50 Flint
1
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
46
23
N
Y
N
N
N
N Pebble
Tested pebble
No
65
58
31 Ind
1
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
49
28
12 Flint
1
Retouched Flake
8 Flint
1
9C
J02R3
2
C05.1:0227
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
14
19
2 Flint
1
9C
J02R3
2
C05.1:0228
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
25
26
5 Flint
1
9C
J02R3
2
C05.1:0229
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Ind
Yes
25
34
10 Flint
1
Scraper
9C
J99F4
1
C05.1:0303
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Pebble
Split Pebble
No
44
26
21 Flint
1
9C
J99F4
1
C05.1:0304
Prim.
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
20
24
10 Ind
1
10 C
A05F17
1
C05.1:0082
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
N Chunk
No
27
17
15 Flint
1
10 C
A05F17
1
C05.1:0083
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
25
16
7 Flint
1
10 C
A05F17
1
C05.1:0084
Tert.
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y Blade
No
29
19
0 Flint
1
10 C
A05F17
1
C05.1:0085
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
41
20
8 Flint
1
10 C
A05F17
1
C05.1:0086
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
36
28
10 Flint
1
10 C
A05F17
1
C05.1:0087
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
31
35
7 Flint
1
10 C
A05F17
1
C05.1:0088
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
39
34
9 Flint
1
10 C
A05F17
1
C05.1:0089
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
27
36
6 Flint
1
10 C
A05F18
1
C05.1:0090
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
44
31
12 Flint
1
10 C
A05F18
1
C05.1:0091
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
13
12
2 Flint
1
10 C
A05F18
1
C05.1:0092
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
41
25
6 Flint
1
10 C
A05F18
1
C05.1:0093
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
18
22
4 Flint
1
10 C
A05F18
1
C05.1:0094
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
22
14
3 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0102
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
13
10
3 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0103
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
34
39
10 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0104
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
28
32
9 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0105
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
23
16
9 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0106
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
28
17
5 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0107
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
18
12
4 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0108
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
22
13
2 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0109
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
31
11
8 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0110
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
23
17
6 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0111
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
37
28
7 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0112
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
23
23
7 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0113
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
Retouched Flake
23
21
5 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0114
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Bipolar Core
N/A
Core-Flake
32
19
6 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0115
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
17
16
3 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0116
Tert.
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
24
22
3 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0117
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
51
41
13 Flint
1
10 C
04F3
1
C05.1:0118
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
28
25
10 Flint
1
10 C
M05F16
1
C05.1:0040
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
40
23
7 Flint
1
10 C
M05F16
1
C05.1:0041
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Ind
No
23
17
3 Flint
1
10 C
M05F16
1
C05.1:0042
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
14
13
4 Flint
1
10 C
M05F16
1
C05.1:0043
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Blade
No
27
12
5 Flint
1
10 C
M05F16
1
C05.1:0044
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
Yes
24
28
6 Flint
1
10 C
M05F16
1
C05.1:0045
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
15
19
4 Flint
1
Convex Scraper
10 C
M05F16
1
C05.1:0046
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
30
18
6 Flint
1
10 C
M05F16
1
C05.1:0047
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
No
22
19
5 Flint
1
10 C
M05F16
1
C05.1:0048
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
No
19
11
6 Flint
1
Ind
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0158
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0159
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0160
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0161
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
Yes
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0162
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0163
Tert.
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Blade
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0164
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Regular
Core-Flake
49
46
18 Flint
1
51
29
10 Flint
1
Retouched Flake
42
30
7 Flint
1
Retouched Blade
32
30
6 Flint
1
No
26
26
5 Flint
1
No
21
29
6 Flint
1
No
27
16
5 Flint
1
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0165
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
20
17
4 Flint
1
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0166
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
18
14
5 Flint
1
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0167
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0168
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No Yes
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0169
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
Retouched Flake
29
19
5 Flint
1
20
19
5 Flint
1
16
14
2 Flint
1
10 C
A03F3
1
C05.1:0170
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
20
13
3 Flint
1
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0208
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
23
24
15 Flint
1
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0209
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
29
48
10 Flint
1
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0210
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
36
22
17 Flint
1
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0211
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
33
31
15 Flint
1
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0212
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
20
22
5 Flint
1
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0213
Tert.
N
N
N
N
Y
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0214
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0215
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
Regular
Indet.
Notched Flake
N Flake
Irregular
No
17
11
4 Flint
1
Y Flake
Regular
No
20
17
3 Flint
1
N
N Flake
Regular
No
29
16
5 Flint
1
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0216
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
No
17
21
4 Flint
1
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0217
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
17
17
4 Flint
1
10 C
J02F5
1
C05.1:0218
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
21
22
5 Flint
1
10 C
96F1
1
C05.1:0339
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
35
20
16 Flint
1
10 C
96F1
1
C05.1:0340
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chip
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
10 C
96F1
1
C05.1:0341
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
25
16
4 Flint
1
10 K
99.50
6
C05.1:0521
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Flake
44
44
34 Flint
1
34
38
30 Flint
1
Core-Flake
49
60
45 Quartzite
1
10 K
99.51
6
C05.1:0522
10 K
99.49
6
C05.1:0523
Sec.
N
Y
N
Y
N
N Chunk
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
10 K
00.2
6
C05.1:0537
Sec.
10 K
00.17
6
C05.1:0543
10 K
00.1
6
C05.1:0549
10 K
00.11
6
10 K
00.13
6
No
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
43
30
9 Flint
1
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
50
46
12 Flint
1
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Ind
No
29
21
9 Flint
1
C05.1:0556
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
40
25
4 Flint
1
C05.1:0558
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
36
21
12 Flint
1
10 K
00.14
6
C05.1:0559
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
10 K
00.15
6
C05.1:0560
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Flake
Regular
No
10 K
00.18
6
C05.1:0562
N
N
N
N
Y
N Core
Irregular Core
N/A
10 K
99.52
6
C05.1:0568
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
10 K
99.53
6
C05.1:0569
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
10 K
99.54
6
C05.1:0570
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
10 K
99.55
6
C05.1:0571
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
10 K
99.56
6
C05.1:0572
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
10 K
99.57
6
C05.1:0573
Sec.
Y
N
N
Y
10 K
99.58
6
C05.1:0574
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
10 K
99.59
6
C05.1:0575
Tert.
Y
N
N
10 K
99.60
6
C05.1:0576
Tert.
Y
N
10 K
99.61
6
C05.1:0577
Tert.
Y
N
10 K
99.40
6
C05.1:0578
Tert.
N
Y
Retouched Flake
30
30
5 Flint
1
27
17
9 Flint
1
59
43
39
22
3 Flint
1
No
54
29
9 Flint
1
Y Blade
No
40
22
7 Flint
1
Y Blade
No
17
19
7 Flint
1
N Chunk
No
21
17
16 Flint
1
N
N Chunk
No
27
24
12 Flint
1
N
N Chunk
No
24
13
5 Flint
1
Y
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
33
18
8 Flint
1
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
16
21
5 Flint
1
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
24
19
3 Flint
1
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
14
13
9 Quartz
1
Core-Flake
32 Conglomerate
1
10 K
99.41
6
C05.1:0579
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
17
16
6 Flint
1
10 K
99.42
6
C05.1:0580
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
16
19
5 Flint
1
10 K
99.43
6
C05.1:0581
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
13
14
4 Flint
1
10 K
99.44
6
C05.1:0582
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Ind
No
15
16
3 Flint
1
10 K
99.45
6
C05.1:0583
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
16
10
3 Flint
1
10 K
99.46
6
C05.1:0584
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
42
32
6 Flint
1
10 K
99.48
6
C05.1:0586
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
45
42
19 Flint
1
10 K
Mar-05
6
C05.1:0600
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Ind
Regular
No
17
15
4 Flint
1
10 K
Mar-05
6
C05.1:0601
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
No
36
15
3 Flint
1
10 K
Mar-05
6
C05.1:0602
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
37
27
9 Flint
1
35
26
5 Flint
1
20
23
8 Flint
1
32
23
7 Flint
1
13
19
2 Flint
1
10 K
Mar-02
6
C05.1:0604
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Ind
Yes
10 K
Mar-02
6
C05.1:0605
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
10 K
Mar-02
6
C05.1:0606
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Indet.
10 K
Mar-02
6
C05.1:0607
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
Scraper
Retouched Flake
Hollow Scraper
10 K
Mar-02
6
C05.1:0608
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
Yes
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0611
Sec.
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Regular
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0612
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0613
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Blade
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0614
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0615
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0616
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0617
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Retouched Blade
61
33
10 Flint
1
No
51
47
12 Flint
1
No
35
26
6 Flint
1
No
29
17
5 Flint
1
Regular
No
18
17
3 Flint
1
Y Flake
Regular
No
25
17
4 Flint
1
Y Flake
Regular
No
21
32
6 Flint
1
Regular
No
31
21
10 Quartz
1
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0618
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
24
14
6 Flint
1
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0619
Sec.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Chunk
No
25
21
9 Flint
1
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0620
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
No
16
28
4 Flint
1
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0621
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
14
26
3 Flint
1
10 K
Dec-04
6
C05.1:0622
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Chunk
No
23
14
8 Flint
1
10 K
Sep-02
6
C05.1:0630
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
Yes
28
29
11 Flint
1
10 K
Sep-02
6
C05.1:0631
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
39
26
11 Quartz
1
10 K
Sep-02
6
C05.1:0632
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
21
32
7 Flint
1
10 K
Sep-02
6
C05.1:0633
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
30
24
6 Flint
1
10 K
Sep-02
6
C05.1:0634
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
30
32
20 Flint
1
10 K
Sep-02
6
C05.1:0635
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
19
33
11 Flint
1
10 K
Sep-02
6
C05.1:0636
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
31
21
6 Flint
1
10 K
Sep-02
6
C05.1:0637
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
20
13
5 Flint
1
11 C
A03F7
1
C05.1:0177
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0352
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0353
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0354
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0355
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0356
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0357
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
Regular
Retouched Flake
Core-Flake
30
29
10 Flint
1
28
33
10 Flint
1
No
21
25
5 Flint
1
N Chunk
No
25
32
15 Flint
1
N Chunk
No
22
17
11 Flint
1
N
N Chunk
No
27
15
10 Flint
1
N
Y Flake
No
24
15
6 Flint
1
Irregular
Retouched Flake
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0358
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0359
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0360
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0361
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0362
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
19
21
3 Flint
1
Indet.
16
16
4 Flint
1
Irregular
No
15
13
4 Flint
1
Irregular
No
16
15
5 Flint
1
Regular
No
15
18
4 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0363
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
14
13
5 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0364
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
15
14
3 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0365
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
17
12
6 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0366
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
20
10
6 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0367
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0368
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
15
7
4 Flint
1
Regular
Indet.
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0369
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0370
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chip
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0371
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
20
16
3 Flint
1
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
No
16
9
1 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0372
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
14
10
2 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0373
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
17
9
2 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0374
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
18
10
3 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0375
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
13
7
3 Flint
1
11 C
96F9
1
C05.1:0376
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
25
22
8 Flint
1
12 C
95F10
2
C05.1:0415
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
24
20
6 Flint
1
12 C
95F10
2
C05.1:0416
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
18
16
3 Flint
1
12 C
95F10
2
C05.1:0417
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
15
9
4 Flint
1
13 C
A05F13
3
C05.1:0073
Prim.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Chunk
No
35
18
13 Flint
1
13 C
A05F13
3
C05.1:0074
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Chunk
No
39
30
22 Flint
1
13 C
92F10
1
C05.1:0494
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
No
20
11
5 Flint
1
13 C
92F10
1
C05.1:0495
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
22
22
5 Flint
1
13 C
98F1
3
C05.1:0692
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
##
56
25 Flint
1
14 C
01F1
5
C05.1:0230
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
31
26
7 Flint
1
Irregular
Convex Scraper
14 C
01F1
5
C05.1:0231
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
14
17
5 Flint
1
14 C
94F13
5
C05.1:0464
Sec.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Regular
No
36
34
16 Flint
1
14 K
99.36
5
C05.1:0564
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
39
26
12 Flint
1
14 K
99.37
5
C05.1:0565
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Blade
No
51
22
5 Flint
1
14 K
99.38
5
C05.1:0566
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
33
22
14 Flint
1
14 K
99.39
5
C05.1:0567
Sec.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Bipolar
No
41
36
17 Flint
1
15 C
A05F11
3
C05.1:0068
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
22
12
4 Flint
1
15 C
A05F11
3
C05.1:0069
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chip
0
0
0 Flint
1
15 C
01F5
3
C05.1:0235
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
33
22
8 Flint
1
15 C
A05F1
3
C05.1:0049
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
37
28
18 Flint
1
16 C
95F28
2
C05.1:0445
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
38
33
12 Flint
1
16 C
95F28
2
C05.1:0446
Tert.
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
29
23
5 Flint
1
16 C
95F28
2
C05.1:0447
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
49
48
12 Flint
1
16 C
95F28
2
C05.1:0448
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
44
29
13 Flint
1
16 K
Oct-04
3
C05.1:0629
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
Yes
17 C
J03F1
2
C05.1:0146
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
17 C
J03F1
2
C05.1:0147
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
17 C
J03F1
2
C05.1:0148
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
17 C
J03F1
2
C05.1:0149
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
17 C
J03F1
2
C05.1:0150
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Irregular Core
N/A
17 C
J03F1
2
C05.1:0151
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
17 C
J03F1
2
C05.1:0152
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Bipolar Core
N/A
17 C
J03F3
3
C05.1:0156
Tert.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
17 C
J03F3
3
C05.1:0157
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Indet.
18 C
95F20
2
C05.1:0434
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
19 C
A05F14
1
C05.1:0075
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
19 C
A05F14
1
C05.1:0076
Prim.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Regular
19 C
A05F14
1
C05.1:0077
Tert.
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
Indet.
Convex Scraper
Retouched Flake
Core-Flake
Core-Flake
33
23
8 Flint
1
19
13
6 Flint
1
37
15
6 Flint
1
13
18
5 Flint
1
17
10
6 Flint
1
19
19
15 Flint
1
34
25
8 Flint
1
40
30
14 Flint
1
19
12
9 Flint
1
Scraper
40
25
10 Flint
1
Retouched Flake
48
29
6 Flint
1
36
25
10 Flint
1
No
33
27
14 Flint
1
No
23
20
6 Flint
1
19 C
A05F15
1
C05.1:0078
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
38
37
16 Flint
1
19 C
94F24
2
C05.1:0469
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
22
30
11 Flint
1
20 C
95F23a
1
C05.1:0436
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
23
16
11 Flint
1
20 C
95F23a
1
C05.1:0437
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
19
9
2 Flint
1
20 C
95F23a
1
C05.1:0438
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
18
10
4 Flint
1
20 C
95F23a
1
C05.1:0439
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
15
8
2 Flint
1
20 C
95F23a
1
C05.1:0439
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
15
12
3 Flint
1
20 C
95F23a
1
C05.1:0441
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
14
14
5 Flint
1
20 C
95F23b
1
C05.1:0442
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
32
21
8 Flint
1
21 C
95F19
1
C05.1:0433
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
26
20
7 Flint
1
22 C
04F12
1
C05.1:0138
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
25
33
9 Flint
1
23 C
M05F5
1
C05.1:0012
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Bipolar
No
39
20
13 Flint
1
23 C
M05F5
1
C05.1:0013
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
24
11
9 Flint
1
23 C
M05F5
1
C05.1:0014
Sec.
N
N
N
N
Y
Y Flake
Ind
No
37
27
9 Flint
1
24 C
A05F16
1
C05.1:0079
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
24 C
A05F16
1
C05.1:0080
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
24 C
A05F16
1
C05.1:0081
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Bipolar
24 C
M05F1
1
C05.1:0001
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
24 C
M05F1
1
C05.1:0002
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
24 C
M05F1
1
C05.1:0003
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
24 C
M05F1
1
C05.1:0004
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
24 C
M05F1
1
C05.1:0005
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
22
18
6 Flint
1
24 C
M05F2
1
C05.1:0006
Tert.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
20
24
9 Flint
1
24 C
01F7
3
C05.1:0236
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Indet.
36
19
7 Flint
1
25
22
6 Flint
1
28
22
6 Flint
1
No
23
19
9 Flint
1
No
40
35
6 Flint
1
No
43
21
13 Flint
1
No
40
23
7 Flint
1
No
34
32
10 Flint
1
Retouched Flake
Serrated Flake
24 C
00F1
1
C05.1:0249
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
29
23
5 Flint
1
24 C
00F1
1
C05.1:0250
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
32
33
11 Flint
1
24 C
97F2
1
C05.1:0335
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
29
40
22 Flint
1
24 C
92F8
1
C05.1:0489
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
32
16
9 Flint
1
Sec.
No
Core-Flake
24 C
92F8
1
C05.1:0490
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
24 C
92F9a
1
C05.1:0491
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
Retouched Flake
17
17
5 Flint
1
44
26
10 Flint
1
24 C
92F9a
1
C05.1:0492
Sec.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
39
25
14 Ind
1
24 C
93F1
1
C05.1:0693
Sec.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
40
31
14 Flint
1
24 C
93F2
1
C05.1:0694
Sec.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
22
21
6 Flint
1
25 C
A03F17
2
C05.1:0188
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
38
45
39 Flint
1
25 C
J02F4
2
C05.1:0207
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Pebble
Split Pebble
No
49
45
27 Flint
1
25 C
00F2
2
C05.1:0252
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
12
10
3 Flint
1
25 C
00F2
2
C05.1:0253
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
17
14
7 Flint
1
25 C
00F2
2
C05.1:0254
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
20
17
8 Flint
1
25 C
94F3
2
C05.1:0453
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
27
22
15 Flint
1
Core-Flake
26 C
J99F12
2
C05.1:0327
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
19
36
26 Flint
1
26 C
J99F12
2
C05.1:0328
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
17
20
10 Flint
1
27 C
95F11
1
C05.1:0418
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
35
23
18 Flint
1
28 C
96F4
0
C05.1:0345
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
28 C
96F4
0
C05.1:0346
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
29 C
J99F3
2
C05.1:0300
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
29 C
J99F3
2
C05.1:0301
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
30 C
M05F10
1
C05.1:0026
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
30 C
M05F10
1
C05.1:0027
Prim.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Ind
30 C
M05F10
1
C05.1:0028
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Ind
30 C
00F15
2
C05.1:0291
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
30 C
00F15
2
C05.1:0292
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
31 C
A05F10
1
C05.1:0062
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
31 C
A05F10
1
C05.1:0063
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Blade
31 C
A05F10
1
C05.1:0064
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
31 C
A05F10
1
C05.1:0065
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Chunk
31 C
A05F10
1
C05.1:0066
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
Core-Flake
Indet.
22
49
21 Flint
1
No
31
21
11 Flint
1
Irregular
No
38
26
13 Flint
1
Irregular
Yes
23
32
5 Flint
1
No
28
52
26 Flint
1
No
29
20
13 Flint
1
No
18
9
8 Flint
1
Irregular
No
30
26
9 Flint
1
Regular
No
17
18
17 Flint
1
Regular
No
23
17
4 Flint
1
No
25
9
3 Flint
1
Ind
No
34
36
5 Flint
1
No
33
23
14 Flint
1
No
17
11
3 Flint
1
Regular
Irregular Scraper
31 C
92F3
1
C05.1:0475
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
20
23
11 Flint
1
31 C
92F3
1
C05.1:0476
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Indet.
38
44
7 Flint
1
31 C
92F3
1
C05.1:0477
Prim.
N
Y
N
Y
N
N Flake
Irregular
31 C
92F3
1
C05.1:0478
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Ind
No
41
29
17 Flint
1
No
13
15
3 Flint
1
31 C
92F3
1
C05.1:0479
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Bipolar Core
N/A
28
42
32 Flint
1
Retouched Flake
Core-Flake
32 C
A05F3
1
C05.1:0051
Prim.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Ind
No
46
41
24 Flint
1
32 C
94F15
1
C05.1:0466
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
49
25
11 Flint
1
32 C
94F15
1
C05.1:0467
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Blade/Flake
Ind
No
21
13
0 Flint
1
33 C
95F6
2
C05.1:0406
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
28
20
5 Flint
1
33 C
95F6
2
C05.1:0407
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Blade
No
15
22
5 Flint
1
33 C
95F6
2
C05.1:0408
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
24
18
6 Flint
1
33 C
95F6
2
C05.1:0409
Sec.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Flake
Regular
No
46
25
7 Flint
1
33 C
95F6
2
C05.1:0410
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
39
30
9 Flint
1
33 C
95F6
2
C05.1:0411
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
44
42
38 Flint
1
33 C
00F8
2
C05.1:0271
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
22
22
4 Flint
1
33 C
00F8
2
C05.1:0272
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
15
9
6 Flint
1
33 C
00F8
2
C05.1:0273
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
18
13
3 Flint
1
33 C
00F8
2
C05.1:0274
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
25
13
5 Flint
1
33 C
00F8
2
C05.1:0275
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
18
21
4 Flint
1
33 C
00F8
2
C05.1:0276
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
18
9
5 Flint
1
33 C
00F8
2
C05.1:0277
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
23
21
12 Flint
1
Core-Flake
34 C
96F14
1
C05.1:0382
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
23
37
12 Flint
1
34 C
96F14
1
C05.1:0383
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
37
24
11 Flint
1
34 C
96F14
1
C05.1:0384
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
13
11
4 Flint
1
34 C
96F14
1
C05.1:0385
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
35 C
94F9
1
C05.1:0458
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Chunk
36 C
94F8
2
C05.1:0457
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
37 C
94F21
2
C05.1:0468
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
No
20
28
6 Flint
1
No
24
18
20 Flint
1
49
37
11 Flint
1
23
13
18 Flint
1
Convex Scraper
38 C
96F8
2
C05.1:0351
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
39 C
96F6
2
C05.1:0350
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
Irregular
No
19
15
8 Flint
1
No
24
14
7 Flint
1
39 C
92F11a
2
C05.1:0496
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
34
20
13 Flint
1
39 C
92F11a
2
C05.1:0497
Tert.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
33
15
10 Flint
1
39 C
92F11a
2
C05.1:0498
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
20
21
12 Flint
1
39 C
92F11b
2
C05.1:0499
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
36
30
17 Flint
1
39 C
92F11c
2
C05.1:0500
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
27
26
7 Flint
1
39 C
92F11d
2
C05.1:0501
Sec.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
27
17
7 Flint
1
39 C
92F11e
2
C05.1:0502
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
39 K
99.33
1
C05.1:0509
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
40 C
A05F5
3
C05.1:0053
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Blade
40 C
A05F5
3
C05.1:0054
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
40 C
A05F6
3
C05.1:0055
Prim.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
No
40 C
A05F6
3
C05.1:0056
Sec.
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
No
40 C
96F5
3
C05.1:0347
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
No
26
14
5 Flint
1
40 C
96F5
3
C05.1:0348
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Chunk
No
21
10
7 Flint
1
40 C
96F5
3
C05.1:0349
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
22
17
12 Flint
1
40 C
96F23
3
C05.1:0394
Tert.
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
26
21
7 Flint
1
41 C
M05F3
1
C05.1:0007
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
30
21
7 Flint
1
41 C
96F26
1
C05.1:0398
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
16
20
5 Flint
1
41 K
97.22
1
C05.1:0514
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
29
22
18 Flint
1
41 K
97.21
1
C05.1:0518
Sec.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Chunk
37
26
18 Flint
1
42 C
04F14
3
C05.1:0142
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Irregular platform core
N/A
Core-Flake
50
63
24 Flint
1
42 C
04F14
3
C05.1:0143
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Irregular Core
N/A
Core-Flake
38
45
26 Flint
1
Scraper
No Regular
Regular
Yes
Scraper
Retouched Flake
No
13
10
5 Flint
1
45
35
16 Flint
1
33
20
8 Flint
1
41
30
9 Flint
1
20
16
7 Flint
1
23
17
11 Flint
1
42 C
04F14
3
C05.1:0144
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
Retouched Flake
24
25
7 Flint
1
42 C
04F14
3
C05.1:0145
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
Retouched Flake
17
15
4 Flint
1
42 C
M02F1
3
C05.1:0190
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Flake
26
39
21 Flint
1
42 C
95F13
3
C05.1:0421
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
18
22
7 Flint
1
Sec.
42 C
95F13
3
C05.1:0422
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
25
26
15 Flint
1
43 C
04F6
1
C05.1:0123
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
24
32
7 Flint
1
43 C
04F6
1
C05.1:0123
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
42
31
13 Flint
1
43 C
04F6
1
C05.1:0124
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
39
38
11 Flint
1
43 C
04F10
1
C05.1:0131
Prim.
N
Y
N
Y
N
N Chunk
No
34
25
13 Flint
1
43 C
04F13
1
C05.1:0139
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
No
15
25
4 Flint
1
43 C
04F13
1
C05.1:0140
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
28
17
8 Flint
1
43 C
04F13
1
C05.1:0141
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
Scraper
52
52
12 Flint
1
43 C
J02F2a
1
C05.1:0199
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
Butt-Trimmed Flake
52
30
8 Flint
1
43 C
J02F2b
1
C05.1:0200
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
26
17
6 Flint
1
43 C
J02F2b
1
C05.1:0201
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
31
26
9 Flint
1
43 C
J02F2b
1
C05.1:0202
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
27
18
9 Flint
1
43 C
J02F2b
1
C05.1:0203
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Ind
No
33
20
9 Flint
1
43 C
J02F2b
1
C05.1:0204
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
31
17
11 Flint
1
43 K
99.29
1
C05.1:0512
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
43 K
00.19
1
C05.1:0541
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
43 K
Sep-02
1
C05.1:0638
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Ind
Yes
43 K
Sep-02
1
C05.1:0639
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
Regular
No
44
34
9 Flint
1
No
27
18
11 Flint
1
33
31
12 Flint
1
25
30
12 Flint
1
side scraper
44 K
1997.1
3
C05.1:0507
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
45
31
4 Flint
1
44 K
97.2
3
C05.1:0516
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
40
25
11 Flint
1
44 K
97.3
3
C05.1:0517
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
32
22
10 Flint
1
44 K
96.12
3
C05.1:0534
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
46
37
17 Flint
1
44 K
Dec-02
3
C05.1:0641
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
42
23
6 Flint
1
44 K
Dec-02
3
C05.1:0642
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
No
17
13
7 Flint
1
44 K
Dec-02
3
C05.1:0643
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
20
15
9 Quartz
1
44 K
Dec-02
3
C05.1:0644
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
18
21
5 Flint
1
44 K
Dec-02
3
C05.1:0645
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
28
18
14 Flint
1
45 C
01F8
4
C05.1:0237
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
23
26
10 Flint
1
side scraper
Retouched Flake
45 C
96F16
4
C05.1:0387
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
45 C
96F17
4
C05.1:0388
Sec.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
Yes Irregular
No
Retouched Blade
38
26
5 Flint
1
18
12
7 Flint
1
45 C
96F17
1
C05.1:0389
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
21
16
12 Flint
1
45 K
96.17
4
C05.1:0528
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
58
32
30 Flint
1
45 K
96.19
4
C05.1:0658
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
30
26
9 Flint
1
46 C
04F1
4
C05.1:0100
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
41
26
9 Flint
1
46 C
M05F13
4
C05.1:0031
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
12
11
2 Flint
1
46 C
95F27
4
C05.1:0444
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Blade
No
43
22
12 Flint
1
47 C
04F11
1
C05.1:0133
Sec.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Blade/Flake
Regular
No
47 C
04F11
1
C05.1:0134
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
47 C
04F11
1
C05.1:0135
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
47 C
04F11
1
C05.1:0136
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
47 C
04F11
1
C05.1:0137
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y Blade
47 C
J02F1a
1
C05.1:0196
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Core
Irregular Core
N/A
47 C
J02F1b
1
C05.1:0198
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Ind
Ind
48 C
95F4
2
C05.1:0405
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
48 C
96F12
2
C05.1:0379
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Blade
48 C
96F12
2
C05.1:0380
Prim.
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Flake
48 C
96F12
2
C05.1:0381
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
48 C
92F6
2
C05.1:0483
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
48 C
92F6
2
C05.1:0484
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
48 C
92F6
2
C05.1:0485
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
48 C
92F6
2
C05.1:0486
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
48 C
92F6
2
C05.1:0487
Tert.
N
N
N
Y
49 C
04F2
3
C05.1:0101
Tert.
Y
N
N
49 C
M05F4
3
C05.1:0008
Sec.
Y
N
N
49 C
M05F4
3
C05.1:0009
Tert.
Y
N
49 C
M05F4
3
C05.1:0010
Tert.
Y
N
39
25
12 Flint
1
31
23
9 Flint
1
No
25
15
4 Flint
1
No
22
13
3 Flint
1
No
32
17
4 Flint
1
43
36
21 Flint
1
No
42
24
19 Quartz
1
No
34
16
10 Flint
1
No
22
11
3 Flint
1
No
19
15
7 Flint
1
N Chunk
No
34
31
18 Flint
1
N Blade
No
53
18
9 Flint
1
Irregular
No
27
36
12 Flint
1
N Flake
Irregular
No
20
12
2 Flint
1
N Flake
Irregular
No
20
15
4 Flint
1
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
35
23
11 Flint
1
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
38
26
8 Flint
1
N
N
N Blade
No
59
24
14 Flint
1
N
N
N
N Chip
No
0
0
0 Flint
2
N
N
N
Y Flake
No
14
18
4 Flint
1
Irregular
Regular
Retouched Flake
Core-Flake
49 C
M05F4
3
C05.1:0011
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
17
18
4 Flint
1
49 C
J99F13
3
C05.1:0329
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
37
27
10 Flint
1
49 C
95F30
3
C05.1:0450
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
34
23
9 Flint
1
50 C
J02F3
1
C05.1:0205
Tert.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Blade
No
24
11
4 Flint
1
51 C
96F19
2
C05.1:0390
Tert.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Blade
No
27
9
3 Flint
1
Tert.
51 C
96F19
2
C05.1:0391
51 C
94F7
2
C05.1:0456
52 C
00F11
2
C05.1:0286
Sec. Tert.
53 C
96F15
1
C05.1:0386
54 C
92F5a
1
C05.1:0480
54 C
92F5a
1
C05.1:0481
54 C
92F5b
1
55 C
A05F4
3
55 C
96F11
3
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Blade
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
Irregular Core
N/A
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Blade
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
C05.1:0482
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
C05.1:0052
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Ind
C05.1:0378
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
No Core-Blade
Indet.
Irregular
Irregular
13
12
5 Flint
1
53
30
26 Flint
1
32
27
15 Flint
1
33
26
10 Flint
1
41
37
27 Flint
1
No
36
16
16 Flint
1
No
34
26
14 Flint
1
No
44
24
17 Flint
1
No
42
32
20 Flint
1
Core-Flake
55 C
92F7
3
C05.1:0488
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
14
13
3 Flint
1
56 C
95F3
4
C05.1:0401
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
23
27
8 Flint
1
56 C
95F3
4
C05.1:0402
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
34
26
13 Flint
1
56 C
95F3
4
C05.1:0403
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
38
29
9 Flint
1
56 C
95F3
4
C05.1:0404
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
28
26
15 Flint
1
56 C
95F16
4
C05.1:0425
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
35
29
10 Flint
1
56 C
96F10
4
C05.1:0377
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
53
31
12 Flint
1
57 C
00F9
2
C05.1:0279
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
12
24
4 Flint
1
57 C
00F9
2
C05.1:0280
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
Yes
Retouched Blade
11
12
4 Flint
1
57 C
00F9
2
C05.1:0281
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
18
9
4 Flint
1
57 C
00F9
2
C05.1:0283
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
33
19
9 Flint
1
57 C
95F2
2
C05.1:0400
Tert.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
28
17
8 Flint
1
58 C
M05F11
2
C05.1:0029
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
22
19
5 Flint
1
59 C
00F10
2
C05.1:0285
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
26
14
6 Flint
1
End Scraper
60 C
00F3
2
C05.1:0268
Prim.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Chunk
61 K
96.3
4
C05.1:0524
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
61 K
96.4
4
C05.1:0525
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
61 K
96.5
4
C05.1:0526
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
61 K
96.2
4
C05.1:0546
Sec.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Chunk
62 K
96.6
4
C05.1:0547
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Flake
62 K
94.2
4
C05.1:0552
Prim.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
62 K
95.2
4
C05.1:0554
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
63 K
99.35
4
C05.1:0519
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
63 K
99.34
4
C05.1:0520
Y
N
N
N
N
63 K
00.8
4
C05.1:0538
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
Tert.
63 K
00.9
4
C05.1:0539
63 K
00.10
4
C05.1:0540
63 K
Dec-02
4
C05.1:0626
No
23
16
14 Ind
1
Regular
No
48
39
15 Flint
1
N Flake
Regular
No
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
49
36
15 Flint
1
51
37
18 Flint
1
No
56
28
27 Flint
1
Irregular
No
36
43
14 Flint
1
Irregular
No
34
28
11 Flint
1
Irregular
No
34
24
10 Flint
1
Y Flake
Irregular
No
51
43
12 Flint
1
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
44
51
26 Flint
1
23
20
11 Flint
1
Retouched Flake
Core-Flake
No
N
Y
N
N
N
N Blade
Yes
Unclassified retouched tool
36
21
5 Flint
1
N
N
N
N
Y
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Blade
37
25
20 Flint
1
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
36
25
7 Flint
1
63 K
Dec-02
4
C05.1:0627
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
N Blade
No
45
22
5 Flint
1
64 K
1999.30
4
C05.1:0548
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0255
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
35
31
12 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0256
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
42
36
17 Flint
1
Prim.
Core-Flake
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0257
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
33
31
29 Quartz
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0258
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
Core-Flake
48
33
10 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0259
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
35
20
4 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0260
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
30
21
7 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0261
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
22
15
7 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0262
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
Yes
31
27
9 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0263
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
19
10
5 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0264
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
19
4
5 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0265
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
5
10
3 Flint
1
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0266
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
9
12
2 Flint
1
Retouched Flake
65 C
00F5
1
C05.1:0267
66 C
M02F3
1
C05.1:0192
67 C
04F7
1
67 C
04F7
1
67 C
04F7
1
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Uni-facial core
N/A
C05.1:0125
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
C05.1:0126
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
C05.1:0127
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
67 C
04F7
1
C05.1:0128
67 C
M05F9a
1
C05.1:0020
67 C
M05F9b
1
C05.1:0021
Sec.
Prim.
Sec.
No
22
25
6 Flint
1
Core-Flake
44
60
16 Flint
1
N/A
Core-Flake
17
30
16 Flint
1
N/A
Core-Flake
41
45
32 Flint
1
N/A
Core-Flake and Blade
38
39
19 Flint
1
43
36
16 Flint
1
Core-Flake
41
40
25 Flint
1
36
34
11 Flint
1
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Dual Platform Core
N/A
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
67 C
M05F9d
1
C05.1:0025
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Blade
No
52
27
6 Flint
1
67 C
A03F12
1
C05.1:0184
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Regular
No
34
30
10 Flint
1
67 C
94F6
1
C05.1:0455
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Flake
32
33
25 Flint
1
Core-Flake
60
74
32 Flint
1
40
17
9 Flint
1
38
19
7 Flint
1
68 C
A03F6
2
C05.1:0174
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Uni-facial core
N/A
68 C
A03F6
1
C05.1:0175
Sec.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Blade/Flake
Ind
No
68 C
A03F18
2
C05.1:0189
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
Indet.
Serrated Knife
68 C
M02F4
1
C05.1:0193
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
15
4
2 Flint
1
68 C
00F16
2
C05.1:0293
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
27
31
8 Flint
1
68 C
00F17
2
C05.1:0294
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
25
23
5 Flint
1
68 C
00F17
2
C05.1:0295
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
21
18
6 Flint
1
68 C
00F17
2
C05.1:0296
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
14
16
4 Flint
1
68 C
00F17
2
C05.1:0297
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
11
8
1 Flint
1
68 C
00F17
2
C05.1:0298
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
16
13
5 Flint
1
68 C
94F10
2
C05.1:0459
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
24
22
7 Flint
1
68 C
94F10
2
C05.1:0460
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
17
23
6 Flint
1
68 C
94F10
2
C05.1:0461
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
29
28
9 Flint
1
68 C
94F10
2
C05.1:0462
Tert.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Chunk
No
20
17
5 Flint
1
69 C
95F12
3
C05.1:0419
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
24
15
3 Flint
1
69 C
95F12
3
C05.1:0420
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
No
14
17
6 Flint
1
70 C
04F4
1
C05.1:0119
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Chunk
No
29
23
14 Flint
1
Irregular
Retouched Flake
70 C
04F4
1
C05.1:0120
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Indet.
44
27
14 Flint
1
71 C
M02F6
2
C05.1:0195
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
No
48
43
11 Flint
1
72 C
97F1
1
C05.1:0334
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
43
25
9 Flint
1
73 C
04F8
3
C05.1:0129
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Blade
No
3
10
5 Flint
1
73 C
04F9
3
C05.1:0130
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Pebble
Split Pebble
No
34
26
15 Flint
1
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Flake
30
28
18 Flint
1
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
Retouched Flake
28
22
7 Flint
1
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Flake
37
57
31 Flint
1
38
30
21 Flint
1
Convex Scraper
50
46
21 Flint
1
57
38
21 Flint
1
74 C
92F9b
2
C05.1:0493
75 C
04F5
2
C05.1:0121
75 K
00.20
2
C05.1:0544
76 C
J03F2
1
C05.1:0153
Sec.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Chunk
76 C
J03F2
1
C05.1:0154
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
77 C
A03F8
2
C05.1:0178
Prim.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
77 C
A03F8
2
C05.1:0179
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
22
23
7 Flint
1
77 C
A03F8
2
C05.1:0180
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
30
24
18 Flint
1
77 C
00F13
2
C05.1:0289
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
21
19
6 Flint
1
No
Convex Scraper
78 C
A03F15
2
C05.1:0186
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
No
24
23
8 Flint
1
79 C
A03F16
2
C05.1:0187
Tert.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
15
14
8 Flint
1
80 C
01F2
6
C05.1:0232
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
Retouched Flake
30
24
9 Flint
1
80 C
01F4
3
C05.1:0234
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Flake
21
35
25 Flint
1
80 C
94F26
6
C05.1:0471
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
Irregular Scraper
28
25
6 Flint
1
81 C
01F11
1
C05.1:0248
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Pebble
Irregular Core
N/A
Core-Flake
32
29
12 Flint
1
82 C
01F9
3
C05.1:0238
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
28
22
5 Flint
1
82 C
01F9
3
C05.1:0239
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
29
22
8 Flint
1
82 C
01F9
3
C05.1:0240
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
22
11
5 Flint
1
82 C
01F9
3
C05.1:0241
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
13
11
3 Flint
1
82 C
01F9
3
C05.1:0242
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
22
14
3 Flint
1
82 C
01F9
3
C05.1:0243
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
Indet.
Retouched Blade
19
19
18 Flint
1
82 C
01F9
3
C05.1:0244
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
N Flake
Regular
No
15
13
3 Ind
1
82 C
01F9
3
C05.1:0245
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
20
17
6 Flint
1
82 C
01F9
3
C05.1:0246
83 C
01F10
2
C05.1:0247
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Core
Irregular Core
N/A
Core-Blade
16
11
6 Flint
1
22
32
28 Flint
1
84 C
A05F7
1
C05.1:0057
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Chunk
No
32
28
22 Flint
1
84 C
A05F7
1
C05.1:0059
Prim.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Chunk
No
33
28
18 Flint
1
85 C
95F24
1
C05.1:0443
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
22
15
7 Flint
1
85 C
94F5
1
C05.1:0454
Y
N
N
N
N
N Pebble
No
48
33
29 Flint
1
86 C
M05F14
2
C05.1:0032
Sec.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Chunk
No
18
16
8 Flint
1
86 C
M05F14
2
C05.1:0033
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
No
20
19
19 Flint
1
Split Pebble
86 C
M05F14
2
C05.1:0034
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
21
13
9 Flint
1
86 C
M05F14
2
C05.1:0035
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
15
17
8 Quartz
1
86 C
M05F14
2
C05.1:0036
N
N
N
N
Y
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
37
26
23 Flint
1
86 C
M05F14
2
C05.1:0037
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
37
30
26 Quartz
1
86 C
96F3
2
C05.1:0343
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Pebble
Split Pebble
No
31
23
19 Flint
1
86 C
96F3
2
C05.1:0344
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
24
29
9 Flint
1
Tert.
Yes
Retouched Blade
21
22
5 Flint
1
Bipolar Core
N/A
Core-Flake
27
18
12 Flint
1
36
34
19 Flint
1 1
87 C
M05F15
1
C05.1:0038
87 C
M05F15
1
C05.1:0039
87 C
J02F6
2
C05.1:0219
87 C
J02F6
2
88 C
A03F4
88 C
A03F4
88 C
A03F4
Core-Flake
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Core
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
C05.1:0220
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Flake
39
46
24 Flint
2
C05.1:0171
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
Core-Flake
44
53
31 Flint
1
2
C05.1:0172
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Core
Bipolar Core
N/A
Core-Flake
21
34
15 Flint
1
2
C05.1:0173
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
30
23
13 Flint
1
Tert.
Prim.
Indet.
No
88 C
96F2
2
C05.1:0342
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
89 C
96F20
1
C05.1:0392
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
20
21
8 Flint
1
90 C
96F25
1
C05.1:0397
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
40
51
12 Flint
1
91 C
96F24
1
C05.1:0395
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
71
62
31 Flint
1
92 C
96F21
1
C05.1:0393
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
16
18
6 Flint
1
93 C
95F14
1
C05.1:0423
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
25
28
7 Flint
1
93 C
95F14
1
C05.1:0424
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
No
29
13
11 Flint
1
94 C
00F14
2
C05.1:0290
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
29
38
13 Flint
1
95 C
A05F8
3
C05.1:0060
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
51
30
14 Flint
1
95 C
A05F9
3
C05.1:0061
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
19
24
17 Flint
1
95 C
M05F8
2
C05.1:0018
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
18
19
3 Flint
1
95 C
00F12
3
C05.1:0287
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
Yes
Notched Flake
44
39
12 Flint
1
95 C
00F12
3
C05.1:0288
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Indet.
14
11
4 Flint
1
96 C
M02F2
2
C05.1:0191
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
Irregular Scraper
38
35
22 Flint
1
97 C
J99F5
3
C05.1:0305
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
25
17
5 Flint
1
97 C
J99F5
3
C05.1:0306
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
22
19
14 Flint
1
97 C
J99F5
3
C05.1:0307
Prim.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
28
19
12 Flint
1
97 C
J99F5
3
C05.1:0308
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
20
28
5 Flint
1
Retouched Flake
97 C
J99F5
3
C05.1:0309
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
19
17
4 Flint
1
97 C
J99F5
3
C05.1:0310
Tert.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
16
9
3 Flint
1
97 C
J99F5
3
C05.1:0311
Tert.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Chip
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
97 C
J99F5
3
C05.1:0312
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
19
17
10 Flint
1
97 C
97F5
3
C05.1:0338
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
21
28
9 Flint
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0681
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
22
18
5 Flint
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0682
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
24
22
15 Flint
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0683
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
No
23
22
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0684
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
19
24
13 Ind
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0685
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
26
20
17 Flint
1
Regular
Retouched Flake
7 Quartz
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0686
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
15
12
3 Flint
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0687
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
37
19
8 Flint
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0688
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chip
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0689
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
16
22
7 Flint
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0690
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
29
29
9 Flint
1
98 C
00F19
4
C05.1:0691
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
15
15
4 Flint
1
99 C
95F18
2
C05.1:0428
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
35
24
11 Flint
1
99 C
95F18
2
C05.1:0429
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y Blade
No
30
19
6 Flint
1
99 C
95F18
2
C05.1:0430
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
35
18
8 Flint
1
99 C
95F18
2
C05.1:0431
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
99 C
95F18
2
C05.1:0432
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
32
29
10 Flint
1
N Flake
Regular
No
34
23
8 Flint
1
100 C
01F3
4
C05.1:0233
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
84
59
19 Flint
1
101 C
J99F9
2
C05.1:0318
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Irregular
Yes
102 C
J99F10
5
C05.1:0319
Tert.
N
N
N
N
Y
Y Flake
Irregular
Yes
Retouched Flake
19
20
8 Pitchstone
1
Retouched Flake
36
27
9 Flint
1
102 C
J99F10
5
C05.1:0320
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
Concave Scraper
24
26
9 Flint
1
102 C
J99F10
5
C05.1:0321
Sec.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Ind
No
102 C
J99F10
5
C05.1:0322
Tert.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Regular
Yes
31
18
7 Flint
1
Leaf shaped Arrowhead
31
23
8 Flint
1
102 C
J99F10
5
C05.1:0323
Sec.
N
Y
N
Y
N
N Chunk
26
29
16 Ind
1
103 C
J99F14
3
C05.1:0330
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
103 C
J99F14
3
C05.1:0331
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
Irregular Scraper
36
27
15 Flint
1
Thumbnail Scraper
21
20
5 Flint
1
103 C
92F2
3
C05.1:0474
Prim.
N
Y
N
Y
N
N Chunk
45
33
31 Flint
1
13
14
7 Flint
1
23
23
9 Flint
1
28
19
3 Flint
1
40
62
40 Flint
1
No
No
104 C
J99F6
4
C05.1:0332
Y
N
N
N
N
N Core
Bipolar Core
N/A
104 C
J99F6
4
C05.1:0333
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
105 C
95F1
2
C05.1:0399
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
106 C
M05F12
2
C05.1:0030
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
107 K
97.24
4
C05.1:0508
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
26
18
4 Flint
1
107 K
Mar-02
4
C05.1:0609
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
75
39
16 Flint
1
108 K
99.31
3
C05.1:0510
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
21
25
11 Flint
1
No
Core-Flake
Retouched Flake
108 K
99.32
3
C05.1:0511
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
27
21
9 Flint
1
109 K
96.7
4
C05.1:0530
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
26
17
9 Quartzite
1
110 K
96.9
4
C05.1:0531
Prim.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
34
32
17 Flint
110 K
Oct-04
4
C05.1:0628
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
38
26
12 Flint
1
111 K
96.20
4
C05.1:0536
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
31
20
3 Flint
1
111 K
99.25
4
C05.1:0655
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
24
21
19 Flint
1
112 K
00.21
4
C05.1:0542
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Chunk
No
52
30
17 Flint
1
1
113 K
96.15
4
C05.1:0545
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
113 K
99.28
4
C05.1:0563
Sec.
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Chunk
113 K
00.4
4
C05.1:0588
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
113 K
00.6
4
C05.1:0590
Sec.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Blade
114 C
97F4
4
C05.1:0337
N
Y
N
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
114 K
94.1
4
C05.1:0551
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
114 K
Dec-04
4
C05.1:0624
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y Flake
114 K
Dec-04
4
C05.1:0625
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Prim.
115 K
May 05
4
C05.1:0603
116 K
Mar 02
4
C05.1:0610
117 C
92F1b
2
C05.1:0473
Sec.
118 C
97F3
3
C05.1:0336
Sec.
119 C
J03F3
1
C05.1:0155
95F9
7
C05.1:0414
C
Sec.
Regular
No
47
43
25 Flint
1
39
23
5 Flint
1
No
22
18
5 Quartzite
1
No
46
20
5 Flint
1
Yes Irregular
Scraper
N/A
Core-Blade
22
38
25 Flint
1
Regular
Yes
End Scraper
43
25
4 Flint
1
Irregular
No
18
14
7 Flint
1
N Flake
Irregular
No
29
20
6 Flint
1
35
34
13 Flint
1
30
65
42 Flint
1
22
21
6 Flint
1
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
N
Y
N
N
N
N Chunk
Core-Flake
Core-Flake
No Yes
Serrated Blade
21
15
8 Flint
1
48
50
19 Flint
1
24
24
9 Flint
1
52
33
9 Flint
1
22
11
4 Flint
1
52
30
6 Flint
1
C
95F29
7
C05.1:0449
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Blade
C
94F25
7
C05.1:0470
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
C
92F1a
7
C05.1:0472
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
Yes
C
92F12
7
C05.1:0503
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
23
25
10 Flint
1
Butt-Trimmed Flake
C
92F12
7
C05.1:0504
Sec.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
48
31
11 Flint
1
C
92F12
7
C05.1:0505
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Indet.
52
20
5 Flint
1
K
97.9
7
C05.1:0506
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
26
31
11 Flint
1
14 Quartzite
1
K
97.19
7
C05.1:0514
Prim.
N
N
N
N
Y
N Flake
Irregular
No
21
26
K
96.1
7
C05.1:0529
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
33
26
6 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0535
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
29
26
15 Quartz
1
K
95.1
7
C05.1:0553
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
Yes
31
29
11 Flint
1
K
97.10
7
C05.1:0592
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
Retouched Flake
51
41
12 Flint
1
K
97.11
7
C05.1:0593
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
44
39
8 Flint
1
K
97.12
7
C05.1:0594
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
45
36
5 Flint
1
K
97.13
7
C05.1:0595
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
23
25
4 Flint
1
K
97.14
7
C05.1:0596
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
25
31
6 Flint
1
K
97.15
7
C05.1:0597
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
21
16
3 Flint
1
K
97.16
7
C05.1:0598
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
29
21
3 Flint
1
K
Dec-02
7
C05.1:0640
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
Yes
32
32
13 Flint
1
Retouched Flake
K
Dec-02
7
C05.1:0647
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Ind
No
25
28
8 Flint
1
K
Dec-02
7
C05.1:0648
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
35
20
3 Flint
1
K
Dec-02
7
C05.1:0649
Tert.
N
Y
Y
N
N
N Chunk
No
31
32
24 Flint
1
K
Dec-02
7
C05.1:0650
Tert.
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y Blade
No
35
20
6 Flint
1
K
Dec-02
7
C05.1:0651
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
18
24
5 Flint
1
K
Dec-02
7
C05.1:0652
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Blade/Flake
Ind
No
21
21
7 Flint
1
K
Dec-02
7
C05.1:0653
Prim.
N
Y
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
19
13
8 Flint
1
K
95.4
7
C05.1:0657
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Regular
No
35
15
4 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0659
N
N
Y
N
Y
N Core
Single Platform Core
N/A
39
41
27 Flint
1
Core-Blade
K
None
7
C05.1:0660
Prim.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Flake
Irregular
No
22
30
15 Quartz
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0661
Tert.
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y Blade/Flake
Ind
No
17
10
4 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0662
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
35
41
3 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0663
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chunk
No
40
29
13 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0664
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
31
25
4 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0665
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
49
34
5 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0666
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
16
30
2 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0667
Sec.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
18
25
2 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0669
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chip
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0670
Sec.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
29
31
7 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0671
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Blade
No
29
14
3 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0672
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Flake
Ind
No
20
13
4 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0673
Tert.
N
Y
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
14
24
6 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0674
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
Y Flake
Regular
No
16
19
3 Flint
1
K
None
7
C05.1:0675
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
N Chunk
K
None
7
C05.1:0676
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Flake
K
None
7
C05.1:0677
Tert.
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y Flake
K
None
7
C05.1:0678
Tert.
Y
N
N
N
N
N Chip
No
15
13
4 Flint
1
Ind
No
16
11
3 Flint
1
Regular
No
7
12
2 Flint
1
No
0
0
0 Flint
1
Abbreviations: A.N. = Assemblage Number, K/C = Kelly/Cooney Collection, L..C. = Location Confidence, Abr. = Abraded, Pat. = Patinated, L, W, T = Length, Width, Thickness.
Appendix Five
Metadata
111
General Metadata Software: Hardware: Purpose of dataset Description Language Spatial and temporal coverage
Dataset Collated by Date Projection System Co-ordinate System
Dell Optiplex GX240, Intel ® Pentium 4 CPU 1.6 GHz Part of MA in Landscape Archaeology Thesis submitted 2nd August 2005 1937 Ordinance Survey 6” Map, digitised data and aerial photograph English Lambay Island, Co. Dublin. Depicts data covering the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age Brian Dolan July 2005 Irish Transverse Mercator Irish National Grid
Data type specific Metadata Name Source of Data Method of Original Data Capture Purpose of Original Dataset Date of Capture File Type(s) Scale and Resolution Additional Processing Data Quality Data ownership/rights
OS 6” Map Ordinance Survey Ireland Scanned in from OS 6” paper map Unknown Unknown Raster File (TIF format) 6” to one mile, 720dpi Rectified to Irish National Grid Reasonable accuracy, c.10 metres Ordinance Survey Ireland
Name Source of Data Method of Original Data Capture Purpose of Original Dataset Date of Capture File Type(s) Scale and Resolution Additional Processing Data Quality Data ownership/rights
Aerial Photograph Unknown Aerial photography Unknown Unknown Raster File (JPEG format) 1200dpi Rectified to Irish National Grid Reasonable accuracy, c.10 metres Unknown
112
Name Method and Source of Data Purpose of Dataset Date of Capture File Type(s) Scale and Resolution Data Quality Data ownership/rights Database fields/coding
Digitised Data Generated from Access database using XY data To represent the data entered in the Access database spatially July 2005 Point Files 1200dpi Varies Brian Dolan Microsoft Access table linking the locations to their identifiers
113
References Allen, M. J. (1991) Analysing the landscape: a geographical approach to archaeological problems. In Schofield, A. J. (Ed.) Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 4. Anderson, E. & Johnson, G. (1993) A refitting and usewear analysis of a later Mesolithic flint assemblage from Bay Farm, Co. Antrim. Archaeomaterials, 7, 83-100. Ballin, T. B. (2003a) The lithic assemblage from Carrickmines Great, SEM Site 5962, Co. Dublin, Ireland. Unpublished Report. Ballin, T. B. (2003b) The lithic assemblage from Carrickmines Great, SEM Site 63m, Co. Dublin, Ireland. Unpublished Report. Ballin, T. B. (2003c) The lithic assemblage from Coldwinters (Site 5), Lusk, Co. Dublin, Ireland. Unpublished Report. Ballin, T. B. (2003d) The lithic assemblage from Laughanstown, SEM Site 78, Co. Dublin, Ireland. Unpublished Report. Bamforth, D. B. & Woodman, P. C. (2004) Tool hoards and Neolithic use of the landscape in north-eastern Ireland. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 23, 21-44. Barclay, G. (1994) Earthwork erosion in eastern Scotland. In Berry, A. & Brown, I. (Eds.) Erosion on Archaeological Earthworks: Its Prevention, Control and Repair. Clwyd Archaeology Service 25-28. Baring, C. (1907) Historical Notes on Lambay. Irish Naturalists Journal, 16, 17-19. Bevan, A. & Conolly, J. (2002-2004) GIS, archaeological survey, and landscape archaeology on the island of Kythera, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology, 29, 123-138. Brady, N. D. K. (1988) The plough pebbles of Ireland. Tools and Tillage, 6, 47-60.
114
Breen, C. & Forsythe, W. (2004) Boats and Shipwrecks of Ireland. Stroud, Tempus. Broodbank, C. (2000) An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Buick, G. R. (1895) Irish flint arrowheads. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 25, 41-63. Childe, V. G. (1940) Prehistoric Cmmunities of the British Isles. London, Chambers. Clark, J. G. D. (1932) The date of the plano-convex flint knife in England and Wales. Antiquaries Journal, 12, 158-162. Clark, R. H. & Schofield, A. J. (1991) By experiment and calibration: an integrated approach to archaeology of the ploughsoil. In Schofield, A. J. (Ed.) Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 4, 93-105. Collins, A. E. P. (1952) Excavations in the sandhills at Dundrum, Co. Down, 1950-51. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 15, 2-26. Collins, A. E. P. (1957) Excavations at two standing stones in Co. Down. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 20, 37-42. Collins, A. E. P. (1959) Further investigations in the Dundrum sandhills. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 22, 5-20. Collins, A. E. P. (1963) Two large barbed and tanged points from Co. Londonderry. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 26, 41-42. Collins, A. E. P. (1966) Barnes Lower court cairn, Co. Tyrone. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 29, 43-75. Collins, A. E. P. (1978) Excavations on Ballygalley Hill, County Antrim. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 41, 15-32. Collins, A. E. P. (1981) The flint javelin heads of Ireland. In ร 'Corrรกin, D. (Ed.) Irish Antiquity: Essays and Studies Presented to Professor M.J. O'Kelly. Dublin, Four Courts Press, 111-133.
115
Cooney, G. (1990a) Dublin's Islands. Archaeology Ireland, 4, 7-9. Cooney, G. (1990b) The Mount Oriel Project: an introduction. Journal of the County Louth Archaeological And Historical Society, 22, 125-133. Cooney, G. (1993) Lambay: an island on the horizon. Archaeology Ireland, 7, 24-28. Cooney, G. (1995) The Point, Lambay Island. www.excavations.ie. Cooney, G. (1997) Lambay Island. www.excavations.ie. Cooney, G. (1998a) Breaking stones, making places. In Gibson, A. & Simpson, D. D. A. (Eds.) Prehistoric Ritual and Religion. Stroud, Tempus. Cooney, G. (1998b) Lambay island. In Bennett, I. (Ed.) Excavations 1997. Dublin, Wordwell, 57-58. Cooney, G. (2000a) Lambay island. In Bennett, I. (Ed.) Excavations 1998. Dublin, Wordwell, 62-64. Cooney, G. (2000b) Lambay island. In Bennett, I. (Ed.) Excavations 1999. Dublin, Wordwell, 88. Cooney, G. (2000c) Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London and New York, Routledge. Cooney, G. (2003) Introduction: seeing land from the sea. World Archaeology, 35, 323-328. Cooney, G. (2004) Neolithic worlds; islands in the Irish sea. In Cummings, V. & Fowler, C. (Eds.) The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford, Oxbow, 145-159. Cooney, G. (Forthcoming) The role of islands in defining identity and regionality during the Neolithic: the Dublin coastal group. In Barclay, G. & Brophy, K. (Eds.) Regional Diversity in the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland. Oxford, Oxbow. Cooney, G. & Byrnes, E. (2001) Archaeological Test Excavation and Monitoring on Lambay Island, Co. Dublin. Dublin, Department of Archaeology, UCD. 116
Corlett, C. (1999) Antiquities of Old Rathdown Bray, Wordwell. Costa, L. J., Sternke, F. & Woodman, P. (2001) The analysis of a lithic assemblage from eleven Ballyboes, County Donegal. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 60, 18. Costa, L. J., Sternke, F. & Woodman, P. C. (2005) Microlith to macrolith: the reasons behind the transformation of production in the Irish Mesolithic. Antiquity, 79, 19-33. Darvill, T. (2002) White on blonde: quartz pebbles and the use of quartz at Neolithic monuments in the Isle of Man and beyond. In Jones, A. & MacGregor, G. (Eds.) Colouring the Past: The Significance of Colour in Archaeological Research. Oxford, Berg, 73-92. Edmonds, M. (1995) Stone Tools And Society: Working Stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain. London and New York, Routledge. Eogan, G. (1963) A neolithic habitation-site and megalithic tomb in Townleyhall townland, Co. Louth. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 93, 37-81. Finlayson, B., Finlay, N. & Mithen, S. (2000) The cataloguing and analysis of the lithic assemblages. In Mithen, S. (Ed.) Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98. Cambridge, McDonald Institute Institute for Archaeological Research, 61-72. Flanagan, L. (1970) A flint hoard from Ballyclare, Co. Antrim. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 33, 15-22. Gillings, M. (2000) The utility of the GIS approach in the collection, management, storage and analysis of surface survey data. In Bintliff, J., Kuna, M. & Venclovรก, N. (Eds.) The Future of Surface Artefact Survey in Europe. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 105-120. Green, H. S. (1980) The flint arrowheads of the British Isles : a detailed study of material from England and Wales with comparanda from Scotland and Ireland. Oxford, BAR British Series, 75. 117
Green, S. W. & Zvelebil, M. (1990) The Mesolithic Colonization and Agricultural Transition of South-east Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 56, 57-88. Guinan, B. P. (1992a) Ploughzone Archaeology in North Dublin: The Evidence from a Lithic Collection and Fieldwalking Survey, Volume 1. Unpublished MA thesis. Archaeology Department, Dublin, U.C.D. Guinan, B. P. (1992b) Ploughzone Archaeology in North Dublin: The Evidence from a Lithic Collection and Fieldwalking Survey, Volume 2. Unpublished MA thesis. Archaeology Department, Dublin, U.C.D. Harting, J. E. (1986) The Rabbit. Southampton, Ashford Press Publishing. Hartnett, P. J. & Eogan, G. (1964) Feltrim Hill, Co. Dublin; A Neolithic and Early Christian Site. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 94, 1-37. Healy, F. (1994) Typology: the maker's or the analyst's? In Ashton, N. & David, A. (Eds.) Stories in Stone. Cambridge, Lithic Studies Society, 179-181. Herity, M. J. (1982) Irish decorated Neolithic pottery. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 82c, 247-404. Herity, M. J. (1987) The finds from Irish court tombs. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 87c, 103-281. Hoare, P. G. (1975) The Pattern of Glaciation of County Dublin. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 75b, 207-224. Hodgers, D. (1973) A report on surface finds from County Louth. Journal of the County Louth Archaeological And Historical Society, 18, 46-59. Hodgers, D. (1975) A report on further surface finds from County Louth. Journal of the County Louth Archaeological And Historical Society, 18, 198-210. Hodgers, D. (1979) A third collection of surface finds from County Louth. Journal of the County Louth Archaeological And Historical Society, 19, 227-237.
118
Hodgers, D. (1994) The Salterstown surface collection project. Journal of the County Louth Archaeological And Historical Society, 23, 240-268. Holdaway, S. & Stern, N. (2004) A Record in Stone: The Study of Australia's Flaked Stone Artefacts. Melbourne, Museum Victoria. Holdaway, S., et al. (1998) New approaches to open site spatial archaeology in Sturt National Park, New South Wales, Australia. Archaeology in Oceania, 33, 119. Keeling, D. & Keeley, V. (1994) Excavation of a flint scatter on Paddy's Hill (Robswalls), Malahide, County Dublin. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 94c, 1-23. Knowles, W. J. (1877) On the classification of arrow heads. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 6, 482-484. Knowles, W. J. (1898) Irish flint scrapers. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 8, 367-391. Knowles, W. J. (1903) Irish flint arrow- and spear-heads. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 33, 44-56. Knowles, W. J. (1912) Prehistoric stone implements from the river Bann and Lough Neagh. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 30, 195-222. Lehane, D. (1983) The flint work. In O'Kelly, M., Cleary, R. & Lehane, D. (Eds.) Newgrange, Co. Meath, Ireland: The Late Neolithic/Beaker Period Settlement. Oxford, BAR International Series, 118-167. Liversage, G. D. (1960) A neolithic site at Townleyhall Co. Louth. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 90, 49-60. Liversage, G. D. (1968) Excavations at Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin, 1956-1959. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 66c, 53-233. Macalister, R. A. S. (1929) On some antiquities discovered upon Lambay island. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 38c, 240-246.
119
Maclain, D. (1995) Sedimentology. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Mahr, A. (1937) New aspects and problems in Irish prehistory: presidential address for 1937. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 3, 262-436. Mann, L. (1918) The Prehistoric and Early Use of Pitchstone. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 140-149. Marshall, G. (2000a) The distribution and character of flint beach pebbles on Islay as a source for Mesolithic chipped stone artefact production. In Mithen, S. (Ed.) Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 79-90. Marshall, G. (2000b) The distribution of beach pebble flint in western Scotland with reference to raw material use during the Mesolithic. In Mithen, S. (Ed.) Hunter-gatherer Landscape Archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 75-77. McCartan, S. B. (2000) The utilization of island environments in the Irish mesolithic: agendas for Rathlin Island. In Desmond, A., Johnson, G., McCarthy, M. & Twohig, E. S. (Eds.) New Agendas in Irish Prehistory. Bray, Wordwell, 15-30. McCartan, S. B. (2003) Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in the Isle of Man: adaptions to an island environment? In Larsson, L., Kindgren, H., Knutsson, K., Loeffler, D. & Ă…kerlund, A. (Eds.) Mesolithic on the move: papers presented at the 6th International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000. Oxford, Oxbow, 331-339. McGrail, S. (1987) Ancient Boats in North-West Europe. The Archaeology of Water Transport. London, Longman. McQuade, M. (2005) North Wall Quay. Archaeology Ireland, 19, 6. Mitchell, G. F. (1946) Notebook.
120
Mitchell, G. F. (1956) An early kitchen midden at Sutton, Co. Dublin. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 86, 1-26. Mithen, S. (Ed.) (2000) Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98, Cambridge, McDonald Institute Institute for Archaeological Research. Movius, H. L. (1942) The Irish Stone Age: Its Chronology, Development and Relationships. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Nelis, E. (2003) Donegore Hill and Lyles Hill. Neolithic enclosed sites in Co. Antrim: the lithic assemblages. In Armit, I., Murphy, E., Nelis, E. L. & Simpson, D. D. A. (Eds.) Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain. Oxford, Oxbow, 203-217. O'Floinn, R. (1991) Lambay Island. www.excavations.ie. O'Kelly, M. J. (1976) Plough pebbles from the Boyne Valley. In Ă“'DanachaĂr, C. (Ed.) Folk and Farm: essays in honour of A. T. Lucas. Dublin, Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 165-176. O'Riordain, S. P. (1954) Lough Gur excavations: Neolithic and Bronze Age houses on Knockadoon. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 56c, 297-459. Odell, G. H. (2000) Stone tool research at the end of the millenium: procurement and technology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 8, 269-331. Odell, G. H. (2001) Stone tool research at the end of the millenium: classification, function, and behaviour. Journal of Archaeological Research, 9, 45-100. Peterson, J. D. (1990) From Foraging to Food Production in South-east Ireland: Some Lithic Evidence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 56, 89-99. Pollard, T. (2000) Risga and the mesolithic occupation of Scottish islands. In Pollard, T. & Morrison, A. (Eds.) The Early Prehistory of Scotland. Leicester, Leicester University Press, 143-152. Roberts, B. K. (1987) The Making of the English Village: a Study in Historical Geography. Singapore, Longman. 121
Rynne, E. (1976) The La Tène and Roman Finds from Lambay, Co. Dublin: a reassessment. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 76c, 231-244. Schofield, A. J. (1991a) Artefact distributions as activity areas: examples from southeast Hampshire. In Schofield, A. J. (Ed.) Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 4, 117-128. Schofield, A. J. (1991b) Interpreting artefact scatters: an introduction. In Schofield, A. J. (Ed.) Interpreting Artefact Scatters: contributions to ploughzone archaeology. Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 4, 3-8. Schofield, A. J. (Ed.) (1991c) Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology, Oxford, Oxbow Monograph 4. Schulting, R. (2003) The marrying kind: evidence for a patrilocal postmarital residence pattern in the Mesolithic of Southern Brittany. In Larsson, L., Kindgren, H., Knutsson, K., Loeffler, D. & Åkerlund, A. (Eds.) Mesolithic on the Move. Papers presented at the Sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000 Oxford, Oxbow, 431-441. Seymour, H. J. (1896) Excursions of Dublin Naturalists Field Club to Lambay. The Irish Naturalist, 5. Seymour, H. J. (1907) Geology of Lambay. The Irish Naturalist, 16, 3-13. Sheridan, A. (2004) Neolithic connections along and across the Irish Sea. In Cummings, V. & Fowler, C. (Eds.) The Neolithic of the Irish Sea: Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford, Oxbow, 9-19. Shott, M. J. (1995) Reliability of archaeological records on cultivated surfaces: a Michigan case study. Journal of Field Archaeology, 22, 475-490. Simpson, D. & Meighan, I. (1999) Pitchstone – a new trading material in Neolithic Ireland. Archaeology Ireland, 13, 26-30. Simpson, D. D. A. (1995) The Neolithic Settlement Site at Ballygalley, Co. Antrim. In Grogan, E. & Mount, C. (Eds.) Annus archaeologiae : archaeological
122
research 1992 : proceedings of the OIA winter conference 1993 held in University College Dublin 30 January 1993. Dublin, Organisation of Irish Archaeologists, 37-44. Stacpoole, G. C. (1962) The Larnians of County Dublin. Dublin Historical Record, 18, 34-44. Steinberg, J. M. (1996) Ploughzone sampling in Denmark: isolating and interpreting site signatures from disturbed contexts Antiquity, 70, 368-392. Stillman, C. (1994) Lambay, an ancient volcanic island in Ireland. Geology Today, 62, 62-67. Waddell, J. (2000) The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland. Bray, Wordwell. Warren, G. (Forthcoming-a) Ballyglass: Lithics. Warren, G. (Forthcoming-b) Stone tool industries of the Earlier Neolithic in eastern Scotland. Scottish Archaeological Journal. Wickham-Jones, C. R. (1990) Rhum. Mesolithic and Later Sites at Kinloch: Excavations 1984-86. Edinburgh, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series Number 7. Wilde, W. R. (1857) A descriptive catalogue of the antiquities of stone, earthen, and vegetable materials in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy. Dublin, M. H. Gill. Woodman, P. (1967a) A flint hoard from Killybeg. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 30, 8-14. Woodman, P. (1967b) Some implement types from Glenarm. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 30, 3-7. Woodman, P. (1977) Recent Excavations at Newferry. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 43, 155-200. Woodman, P. (1978) The Mesolthic in Ireland: Hunter-Gatherers in an Insular Environment. Oxford, BAR British Series.
123
Woodman, P. (1984) The early prehistory of Munster. Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society, 89, 1-11. Woodman, P. (1985) Excavations at Mt. Sandel 1973-1977. Belfast, Northern Ireland Archaeological Monograph 2. Woodman, P. (1987) The impact of resource availability on lithic industrial traditions in prehistoric Ireland. In Rowley-Conwy, P., Zvelebil, M. & Blankholm, H. P. (Eds.) The Mesolithic in North-West Europe: recent trends. Sheffield, Sheffield University Press, 138-149. Woodman, P. (1992) Excavations at Mad Man's Window, Glenarm, Co. Antrim: problems of flint exploitation in east Antrim. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 58, 77-106. Woodman, P. (1994) Towards a definition of Irish early Neolithic lithic assemblages. In Ashton, N. & David, A. (Eds.) Stories in Stone. Cambridge, Lithic Studies Society, 90-96. Woodman, P. (2003) Pushing back the boundaries. Occasional Papers in Irish Science and Technology Number 27, John Jackson Lecture 2003. Woodman, P. & Anderson, E. (1990) The Irish Later Mesolithic: a Partial Picture. In Vermeersch, P. M. & Van Peer, P. (Eds.) Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Leuven, Leuven University Press. Woodman, P., Anderson, E. & Finlay, N. (1999) Excavations at Ferriter's Cove, 1983-95: last foragers, first farmers in the Dingle Peninsula. Dubliin, Wordwell. Woodman, P., Doggart, R. & Mallory, J. P. (1991/2) Excavations at Windy Ridge, Co. Antrim, 1981-82. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 54-55, 13-35. Woodman, P. & Scannell, Y. (1993) A context for the Lough Gur lithics. In SheeTwohig, E. (Ed.) Past Perceptions. The Prehistoric Archaeology of SouthWest Ireland. Cork, Wordwell, 53-62.
124
Woodman, P. C. (2000) Getting back to basics. In Price, T. D. (Ed.) Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 219-259. Zvelebil, M. & Green, S. W. (1992) Looking at the Stone Age in south-east Ireland. Archaeology Ireland, 6, 20-23.
125
Map 3. Surface geology (after Seymour 1907, Plate 3).
Balbriggan
Barnageeragh Skerries
Lambay Rush
Dublin
Malahide
Townland
Baldoyle Map 15. The spatial extent of the Stacpoole collection (after Guinan 1992b, Fig 7)
Map 16. Distribution of pitchstone in Northern Ireland (after Simpson 1995, 40).
Plate 1. Broad Bay (Beach 5), with tilted sandstone layers visible on the right (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 2. Oblique aerial photograph of the castle and grounds (Photo: Unknown).
Plate 3. Pebble beach at the base of Bishop’s Bay cliffs (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 4. Transect 5, viewed from the north (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 5. Photgraph taken from the bottom of Transect 16, looking east (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 6. Photgraph taken from the top of Transect 16, looking west (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 7. Surveying Transect 27, view from the north (Photo: Gabriel Cooney).
Plate 8. Beach pebble survey form.
Plate 9. Beach pebble survey guide.
Plate 10. The pebble assemblage from Transect 13 (Photo: Brian Dolan)
Plate 11. Transect 21, Beach 11 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 12. Artefact C05.1:0692 (Photo: Brian Dolan)
Plate 13. The terrace on which Assemblage 10 was collected, picture taken facing south (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 14. The area from which Assemblage 10 was collected (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 15. Artefact C05.1:0199 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 16. Artefact C05.1:0540 (photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 17. Artefact C05.1:0456 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 18. Artefact C05.7:0472 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 19. Artefact C05.1:0022 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 20. Artefact C05.1:0174 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 21. Artefact C05.1:0192 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 22. Artefact C05.1:0457 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 23. Artefact C05.1:0322 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 24. Artefact C05.1:0551 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 25. Artefact C05.1: 0331 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 26. An eroding section of raised beach on Beach 3 at the top of Transect 3 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
Plate 27. Artefact C05.1:0318 (Photo: Brian Dolan).
140
120
100
80 < 4cm < 6cm < 8cm 60
40
20
0 Beach 1 Beach 2 Beach 3 Beach 4 Beach 5 Beach 6 Beach 7 Beach 8 Beach 9 Beach 10 Beach 11 Beach 12
Chart 1. Total counts of pebble flint (by size) from all beaches.
16
14
12
10
< 6cm < 8cm
8
6
4
2
0 Beach 1
Beach 2
Beach 3
Beach 4
Beach 5
Beach 6
Beach 7
Chart 2. Total counts of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;usableâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; pebble flint (by size) from all beaches.
Beach 8
Beach 9
Beach 10
Beach 11
Beach 12
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 Flint per m2 'Usable' Flint per m2 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 Beach 1 Beach 2 Beach 3 Beach 4 Beach 5
Chart 3. Pebble flint per m2 on all beaches.
Beach 6 Beach 7 Beach 8 Beach 9 Beach 10 Beach 11 Beach 12
80
70
60
Millimetres
50 Un-Broken Broken Cores
40
30
20
10
0 0
20
40
60 Millimetres
Chart 4. Plot of artefact sizes, the total assemblage.
80
100
120
63, 10%
Fresh Abraded
215, 33% 376, 57%
Rolled
Chart 5. Condition of the total assemblage
100.0% 90.0%
145
80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0%
146
35
Broken 24
40.0%
Not Broken
89
30.0% 27
20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Blades
Regular Flakes
Irregular Flakes
Chart 6. Comparative breakage, the total assemblage.
100.0%
164
22
54
90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% Burnt
50.0%
Not Burnt
40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 5
10.0%
13
8
0.0% Blade
Regular Flake
Irregular Flake
Chart 7. Comparative burning, the total assemblage.
140
127
120 104 100 Regular
80 65
60
Irregular
60
47
40 20
17
16 1
0 Primary
Secondary
Chart 8. Stages of production, the total assemblage
Tertiary
Blade 42
137
100%
468
90%
605
80% 70% 60%
Assemblage 1
50%
Assemblage 2
40%
Total Assemblage
30% 20% 10%
25
44
19
0% Burnt
Unburnt
Chart 9. Comparative burning, Assemblages 1, 2 and total.
120 97
100 75
80
Regular Irregular
54
60
Blade
42
38
40
20
32 15
11 1
0 Primary
Secondary
Chart 10. Stages of production, Assemblage 1
Tertiary
35 29
30
28
25 20
Regular
18
Irregular 15
Blade 11 9
10 5 5
2 0
0 Primary
Secondary
Chart 11. Stages of production, Assemblage 2
Tertiary
10
100%
90%
80% 12 70% 69
60%
15
50% 8
259
10
40%
227 6
35
5
30% 4
112
20% 13 10% 1 0 0% Assemblage 10
Assemblage 11
Chart 12. Inter-site comparison of stages of reduction.
Assemblage 24
Assemblage 43
Total Assemblage
Primary Secondary Tertiary
100%
90%
80%
70% 10
55 60%
12 Blade Regular Flake Irregular Flake
235 50% 6
6
8
40%
172
30% 4 20 20%
14 2
2
59
10% 1 0% Assemblage 10
Assemblage 11
Assemblage 24
Chart 13. Inter-site comparison of stages of blade/flake proportions.
Assemblage 43
Total Assemblage
100%
23
90%
15
80% 87 70%
11 375
60%
Fresh Abraded Rolled
50%
40%
6 215
30%
32
20%
3 3
63
10%
1
4 0
0
0% Assemblage 10
Assemblage 11
Chart 14. Inter-site comparison of assemblage condition.
Assemblage 24
Assemblage 43
Total Assemblage
100% 99
90%
23 516 15
14
80%
70%
60% Retouched Non- Retouched Indeterminate
50%
40%
30%
3
20%
10%
2
10
2 2
1
66 1 17 0
0% Assemblage 10
Assemblage 11
Chart 15. Inter-site comparison of retouch.
Assemblage 24
Assemblage 43
Total Assemblage
70 60
Millimetres
50 Broken
40
Unbroken 30
Cores
20 10 0 0
20
40
60
80
Millimetres
Chart 16. Assemblage 10, artefact size.
35 30
Millimetres
25 20
Broken Not Broken
15 10 5 0 0
5
10
15
20
Millimetres
Chart 17. Assemblage 11, artefact size.
25
30
35
45 40 35 Millimetres
30 Broken
25
Not Broken 20
Cores
15 10 5 0 0
10
20
30
40
50
Millimetres
Chart 18. Assemblage 24, artefact size.
60 50
Millimetres
40 Broken
30
Not Broken
20 10 0 0
10
20
30 Millimetres
Chart 19. Assemblage 43, artefact size.
40
50
60
10 9 9 8 7 6
Regular Flakes
5
Irregular Flakes
5
Blades
4 3 3 2 2 1
1
1 0
0
0
0 Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Chart 20. Assemblage 11 stages of production.
5 4
4
4
3
Primary Secondary 2
2
Tertiary
2 1
1
1
1
1 0
0
0
0
0 Regular Flakes
Irregular Flakes
Bipolar Flake
Chart 21. Assemblage 24, stages of production.
Blades