2014: A mainly later Neolithic flint assemblage from Antrim Civic Offices, Antrim town, Co. Antrim, NI

Page 1 of 10

A mainly later Neolithic flint assemblage from

Antrim Civic Offices, Antrim town, Co. Antrim, NI

Torben Bjarke Ballin

LITHIC RESEARCH, Stirlingshire

Honorary Research Fellow, University of Bradford

The present report was commissioned by Archaeological Development Services Ltd. (ADS), a commercial archaeological

unit working out of Dublin, Kells and Belfast. Over a period of three years (2005-07) I produced a number of lithics re-

ports for ADS, including the present report on the lithic finds from Antrim Civic Offices. In the wake of the ‘credit

crunch’, ADS was closed, and over the last few years I have attempted to ‘track down’ people from ADS, hoping to come

to an agreement regarding publication of these reports, or – if publication had been abandoned – upload to Academia of

the original reports, to avoid information getting lost. I have not been able to get in touch with any former ADS staff, with

emails usually ‘bouncing’, and in several cases I found out that people I had worked with/who had excavated the sites had

moved on and left the archaeological profession. I therefore contacted a number of people within Irish archaeology, and it

was suggested to me that after five years – if no attempt had been made to begin moving a project towards publication – I

could freely do what I wanted to with the report. In the present case, 10 years have passed since the production of the report,

and I subsequently decided to upload it, in the hope that my Irish colleagues may find it interesting/useful.

INTRODUCTION

In 2005, Archaeological Development Services Ltd. carried out excavations at the Antrim Civic

Offices development, Co. Antrim. The site is located on the northern outskirts of Antrim town,

adjacent to the present council offices at Stiles Way, and it consists of an area of flat land, c.

205m E-W x 125m N-S. Prior to topsoil stripping, the site had been in agricultural use.

The monitoring work resulted in the discovery of a large ditched enclosure within the

northern half of the development, and a smaller E-shaped foundation trench within the south-

ern part of the development. Analysis of pottery sherds from the fills of the enclosure ditches

indicates a date between the 6th–9th centuries A.D. The date of the E-shaped structure is un-

known, but it is expected to be of an historical date.

From the site of the Antrim Civic Offices, a small assemblage of flint (25 pieces) and stone

artefacts (two pieces) was recovered. Most of these finds were retrieved from the inner and out-

er ditches of the enclosure, but a small number were encountered during the examination of

spreads, postholes and pits. However, all lithic and stone artefacts are likely to be residual pieces

mixed into later features in connection with the deliberate or natural backfilling of these.

The purpose of the present report is to characterize the lithic assemblage, with special ref-

erence to raw-materials, typological composition and technology. From this characterization, an

attempt is made to date the flint assemblage and discuss its affinities. The evaluation of the lithic

assemblage is based upon a detailed catalogue of all the lithic finds from the site of the Antrim

Civic Offices, and the artefacts in this report are referred to by their number (CAT no.) in the

catalogue.

THE ASSEMBLAGE

From the excavations at Antrim Civic Offices, 25 lithic artefacts and two stone implements were

recovered. They are listed in Table 1.

Page 2 of 10

Table 1. General artefact list.

Debitage

Flakes 7

Indeterminate pieces 2

Total debitage 9

Cores

Discoidal cores 1

Total cores 1

Tools

Stone axeheads 1

Short end-scrapers 2

Side-scrapers 2

End-/side-scrapers 1

Indeterminate scrapers 1

Piercers 1

Combined tools 2

Pieces with edge-retouch 6

Hammerstones 1

Total tools 17

TOTAL 27

The definitions of the main lithic categories are as follows:

Chips: All flakes and indeterminate pieces the greatest dimension (GD) of which is 10mm.

Flakes: All lithic artefacts with one identifiable ventral (positive or convex) surface, GD > 10mm and L <

2W (L = length; W = width).

Indeterminate pieces: Lithic artefacts which cannot be unequivocally identified as either flakes or cores. Gen-

erally the problem of identification is due to irregular breaks, frost-shattering or fire-crazing. Chunks

are larger indeterminate pieces, and in, for example, the case of quartz, the problem of identification

usually originates from a piece flaking along natural planes of weakness rather than flaking in the

usual conchoidal way.

Blades and microblades: Flakes where L 2W. In the case of blades W > 8mm, in the case of microblades W

8mm.

Cores: Artefacts with only dorsal (negative or concave) surfaces – if three or more flakes have been de-

tached, the piece is a core, if fewer than three flakes have been detached, the piece is a split or flaked

pebble.

Tools: Artefacts with secondary retouch (modification).

Raw material – types, condition and sources

Apart from one small axehead in porcellanite (CAT 26) and a porcellanite axehead re-used as a

hammerstone (CAT 27), all lithic artefacts are in flint. The vast majority (24 pieces) are in fine-

grained grey to light-brown chalk flint, whereas one piece (CAT 16) is in a slightly coarser form

of flint. The colours of the chalk flint include greyish-brown, cream and yellow-orange nuances,

with most pieces being marbled. The most common impurities are chalk balls and small fossils.

A proportion of the finds has a light-blue to white patination (cortication sensu Shepherd 1972).

Though some pieces have abraded cortex, that of most lithic artefacts is relatively soft.

Page 3 of 10

Table 2. Reduction sequence.

Number Per cent

Primary pieces 5 20

Secondary pieces 14 56

Tertiary pieces 6 24

TOTAL 25 100

As indicated by the author in previous reports (Ballin 2005b; 2005d), the degree of cortex-cover

(‘reduction sequence’) is of great value to the identification of the main flint source (chalk flint vs

pebble flint) (Table 2). In total, 76% of all flint artefacts from the present site have some degree

of cortex and 24% of the finds have none. In comparison, approximately 50% of the flints from

the Whitepark Road site in Co. Antrim (based on chalk flint) have surviving cortex, whereas c.

90% of the flints at the Rathdown site in Co. Wicklow (based on small flint pebbles; Ballin

2005c) have cortex. As the present assemblage is clearly based on chalk flint, its high number of

cortical pieces, not least primary pieces (20%), is most likely due to technological preferences,

such as less careful decortication and acceptance of lower grade blanks. The latter is supported

by the fact that four (CAT 1, 14-16) of the site’s 15 flint tools (27%) are based on thermal flakes.

Although several pieces have relatively soft cortex, their cortex is not decidedly powdery,

suggesting that either most of the flint was obtained from the glacial till, rather than from prima-

ry sources along the coast, or from primary pockets west of Lough Neagh (Woodland 1979), or

the fresh cortex has been slightly abraded by centuries in upper, agriculturally affected soil layers.

However, at Whitepark Road (Ballin 2005d) the use of flint from the local till, or from superfi-

cial layers in the chalk immediately below the till, was suggested by the presence of a large num-

ber of frost-weakened pieces, which is not the case at this site. Most likely the major part of the

flint was acquired from primary sources, with clearly abraded pieces and thermal flakes repre-

senting local procurement.

CAT 16 is of the slightly coarser orange-brown variety of flint usually associated with

Northern Irish inland sites, for example from the till around Lough Neagh (cf. Creighton 1974;

Ballin 2003; 2005a). This type of flint has abraded cortex, and instead of the vitreous lustre of

the chalk flint, this form is characterised by a waxy, chalcedonic lustre. Only three pieces of flint

are fire-crazed.

The porcellanite used to manufacture the polished axehead (CAT 26) and the axe-

head/hammerstone (CAT 27) probably came from outcrops at Tievebulliagh, Co. Antrim, or

from sources on Rathlin Island (Jope 1952; Sheridan 1986; Meighan et al. 1993; Cooney & Man-

dal 1998), although it cannot be ruled out that it may have been acquired from the less substan-

tial outcrop at Portrush (Meighan et al. 1993).

Debitage

In total, nine pieces of debitage were recovered from the site, namely seven flakes (78%), and

two indeterminate pieces (22%). No chips and unmodified blades were recovered, and the as-

semblage does not include any preparation flakes (crested pieces or core tablets). The low chip

ratio probably reflects the fact that consistent sieving was not undertaken during the excavation.

As demonstrated in Ballin (1999), the chip ratio of sieved assemblages usually varies between c.

30% and 55%.

However, this small group of debitage does not give an accurate picture of the site’s blank

production, as the tool blanks include seven flakes (47%), three blades (20%), one indeterminate

Page 4 of 10

piece (6%), and four thermal flakes (27%). All definable flakes and blades were detached by the

application of hard percussion.

Cores

Only one core (CAT 13) was recovered from the site. It was defined as a discoidal core, but the

group of discoidal cores is broad, encompassing some sophisticated types, as well as plainer

forms. The sophisticated types include Levallois-like cores (Ballin forthcoming) and regular flat

specimens from which flakes were detached systematically from alternating faces (Wickham-

Jones 1990, 58). CAT 13 is a medium-sized (45 x 43 x 21mm), plain discoidal core, with an ap-

proximately discoidal shape, but based on a relatively unsystematic operational schema. It has

some similarity to simpler, expediently made Levallois-like cores, but it was not prepared in the

delicate manner so characteristic of those cores.

Tools

During the archaeological investigation of the site, 17 tools were retrieved. With six pieces

(35%), scrapers dominate the formal tools, although simple edge-retouched pieces are equally

prolific (also six pieces). Other tool forms include one piercer, two combined tools (both pierc-

er-scrapers), one polished stone axehead, and one hammerstone on an abandoned polished

stone axehead.

The 17 tools correspond to a tool ratio of 63%, which is an extremely high figure. As illus-

trated in Fig. 1 (based on information in Ballin 1999), the tool ratio of sieved assemblages rarely

exceeds 4%, unless the site is a specialized camp where little or no knapping took place. The

debitage and the core indicate that some primary production took place at this location, and the

high tool ratio is probably best explained by the lack of consistent sieving (the resulting lower

number of chips would automatically cause the tool ratio to rise).

Fig. 1. Tool ratios of a number of sieved and unsieved assemblages from Norwegian Mesolithic and Neolithic settlement

sites; Antrim Civic Offices, Co. Antrim, has been inserted for comparison.

Page 5 of 10

Polished stone axeheads: Only one polished stone axehead was recovered from the site of the An-

trim Civic Offices (CAT 26). As the shape of a stone axehead is defined by a large number of

attributes, the piece was characterized (Table 3) according to the detailed guidelines put forward

by Museum Inspector Poul Otto Nielsen (the National Museum of Denmark) in his discussion

of the Danish thick-butted axeheads (Fig. 2) (Nielsen 1977, 10-11).

Fig 2. The nine primary proportions of a Neolithic axe (Nielsen 1977, 11).

Table 3. The primary, secondary and tertiary proportions of CAT 26 (following Nielsen’s descriptive system).

Primary proportions

1 Length 98.6mm

2 Width of butt (measured 2 cm from the end) 32.5mm

3 Thickness of butt (measured 2 cm from the end) 17.3mm

4 Greatest thickness 25.6mm

5 Distance from butt to greatest thickness 64.9mm

6 Width of lateral sides at the point of greatest thickness 8.6 / 9.4mm

7 Width of edge 50.9mm

8 Curvature of the edge (radius of the circle defined by the curved edge) 102.2mm

9 Angle of the lateral sides 22

Secondary proportions

10 Butt index (the thickness of the butt in percent of the width of the butt) 53.2%

11 Distance from butt to greatest thickness in percent of length 65.8%

Tertiary proportions

12 The difference between greatest thickness and width of lateral sides in percent of greatest

thickness (this ratio describes how arched the broadsides are) 64.8%

Size-wise, CAT 26 belongs to Jope’s ‘normal’ porcellanite axeheads (80 < L < 200mm; Jope

1952, 41; Sheridan 1986, 23), and morphologically it corresponds to his Fig. 6.19B. Originally, it

was probably all-over polished, but it has had its edge re-sharpened by retouch of both faces,

carried out from the edge. Although Nielsen’s system presents a very precise and quantified pic-

Page 6 of 10

ture of the axehead, that of Cooney & Mandal (1998) may present a more intuitively compre-

hensible picture (Table 4).

Table 4: Description of CAT 26 according to Cooney & Mandal (1998):

Face shape – FS03 (straight splayed sides)

Cross-section category – CS11 (narrow oval, flat sides)

Edge shape – ES02 (gently curved; symmetrical)

Profile category – P03 (symmetrical; medium)

Blade profile category – BP09 (Symmetrical; J-1/2)

Butt shape – hybrid between BU04 (flat; flat) and BU09 (rounded; flat)

Each face consists of three discrete facets, running from but to edge

Scrapers: The six scrapers include two short end-scrapers, two side-scrapers, one end-/side-

scraper, and one indeterminate scraper.

Short end-scrapers: The two short end-scrapers (CAT 11, 17) are of almost the same gen-

eral dimensions (av. dim.: 45 x 31 x 12mm), and they are both based on oval to teardrop-shaped

hard-hammer flakes. CAT 11 is on a primary flake, and CAT 17 on a secondary flake. Where

CAT 11 has full blunting of both lateral sides, as a continuation of the convex, steep working-

edge, the only modification of CAT 17 is its convex, steep scraper-edge. Both working-edges

have slight overhangs, suggesting that the pieces are used, possibly resharpened, implements.

Side-scrapers: The two members (CAT 4, 15) of this category are as different as pieces can

possibly be, and still belong to the same morphological type. The blank of CAT 4 is the medial-

distal fragment of an indeterminate blade of good quality (53 x 22 x 7mm), whereas CAT 15 is

based on a chunky thermal flake (76 x 51 x 29mm). The blade-based side-scraper has one

straight working-edge, with that of CAT 17 curving gently. Both scraper-edges are characterised

by distinctly overhanging areas, and their almost crushed appearance suggests that they may have

been used for scraping hard materials.

End-/side-scrapers: One end-/side-scraper was recovered from the location (CAT 1). It is

based on a medium-sized thermal flake (42 x 34 x 14mm), and it has one straight working-edge

at one end, and one slightly convex edge along one lateral side. Both scraper-edges are some-

what uneven and steep, and the piece has clearly been used.

Indeterminate scrapers: This category includes one piece (CAT 9). It is the proximal frag-

ment of a hard-hammer flake, and along its proximal left shoulder part of a convex scraper-edge

survives. The working edge is inverse and steep. Due to the missing distal end, it is not possible

to define the piece more precisely.

Piercers: The site’s solitary piercer (CAT 16) is an exceedingly simple and expedient speci-

men. It is based on a relatively large thermal flake (57 x 32 x 24mm), and the tip was formed by

minimal retouch of two of the blank’s pointed end’s three merging edges. Sporadic edge-

alterations may represent either attempts at blunting the edges of the piece or secondary plough

impact. This tool is the only artefact in Northern Irish ‘inland flint’ (see raw material section,

above).

Combined tools: The assemblage includes two combined tools (CAT 18, 25), both of which

are piercer-scrapers. CAT 18 is the medial-distal fragment of a plain, probably hard-hammer

flake, which has had one lateral side transformed into a straight, steep-edged scraper-edge. The

other lateral side displays a much finer retouch, which at the distal end merges with the opposed

Page 7 of 10

scraper-edge to form an acutely pointed piercer-tip. The scraper-edge has the same rough ap-

pearance as the site’s two side-scrapers, suggesting that this piece was also used to work hard

materials.

The blank of CAT 25 differs from all other unmodified and modified blanks in this assem-

blage. It is based on a well-executed, stout hard-hammer blade (a Bann blade: 75 x 32 x 12mm),

and it is probably much older than the site’s remaining lithic finds (see dating section, below;

also Woodman & Andersen 1990). Most likely, this is a re-functioned butt-trimmed piece. The

two lateral sides are fully modified, probably representing two opposed, straight, steep scraper-

edges. At some stage, the distal end broke off, and a piercer-tip was formed by creating two large

adjacent single-removal notches, one of which displays additional fine retouch.

Pieces with edge-retouch: This tool group comprises six pieces. They differ considerably in size

(GD of intact pieces 15-29mm; av. dim.: 23 x 15 x 7mm) and shape. One piece is based on an

indeterminate blade, three pieces on hard-hammer or indeterminate flakes, one piece on a ther-

mal flake, and one on an indeterminate piece. This tool group probably includes artefacts, and

fragments of artefacts, with different functions.

Hammerstones: Only one hammerstone was recovered (CAT 27) from the excavation. It is

based on an abandoned porcellanite stone axehead with all-over polished surfaces. The parent

axe was a much larger specimen (80 x 52 x 34mm) than the intact porcellanite axehead described

above (CAT 26). It has so faint lateral facets that the cross-section of the piece is best described

as oval (CS05/06 in Cooney and Mandal’s classification system; 1998). When the working-edge

broke off, the edges of the central break was blunted to form a handle, and the butt was used as

the working-end of the emerging hammerstone. After a period of use, battering applied the butt

with a rounded appearance, and, finally, most of one face was detached, rendering the hammer-

stone useless.

TECHNOLOGY

The assemblage probably includes two chronological elements, namely 1) CAT 25, dating to the

Late Mesolithic period, and 2) the remainder of the assemblage, probably dating to the later Ne-

olithic period (see dating section, below). CAT 25 represents a blade industry, focusing on the

production of stout flakes and blades by the application of hard percussion. This particular in-

dustry, well-known for its butt-trimmed pieces, has on occasion been described as the ‘Bann’ or

‘Larnian’ industry of Northern Ireland. For more details of this industry, see Woodman & An-

dersen (1990).

The numerically small size of the main assemblage prevents detailed characterisation of the

operational schema responsible for this material. The following points are, nevertheless, clear:

Flint was probably procured from coastal as well as inland sources; porcellanite, or more

probably porcellanite axehead rough-outs (cf. Mallory 1990), were imported from the

north-east

The industry combines the production of regular elongated flakes and blades

The main percussion technique is hard percussion – the present assemblage includes no

soft-hammer blanks or bipolar pieces

Core preparation was minimal

Thermal flakes were collected in relatively large numbers to be used as tool blanks

Page 8 of 10

DATING

The lithic finds are clearly residual to the features and contexts from which they were recovered,

and they are only datable by typo-technological comparison. The assemblage includes few diag-

nostic types, the most important ones being the site’s re-functioned butt-trimmed piece (CAT

16), and its two stone tools (CAT 26-27). The former is a highly diagnostic specimen stating un-

equivocally that the site was visited in the Late Mesolithic period (c. 5500-4500 bc: Woodman

1986, 12). In her paper on porcellanite artefacts, Sheridan (1986, 27) suggests a date for the use

of porcellanite axeheads between c. 3800-2500 BC, embracing the Early and later Neolithic peri-

ods.

The production of relatively delicate hard-hammer flakes (distinctly different to the robust

Late Mesolithic Bann blades, which were also produced by hard percussion) is characteristic of

the later part of the Neolithic period, with blade production as such being abandoned at some

stage during the later Neolithic period (Ballin forthcoming]). The discoidal core (CAT 13) (But-

ler 2005, 157; Ballin forthcoming), and the relatively large well-executed end-scrapers (CAT 11,

17) (cf. Eogan 1963) are also characteristic elements of later Neolithic assemblages.

Combined, these chronological indicators suggest a date of the main bulk of the assemblage

of the later Neolithic period. At this moment in time, no Northern Irish later Neolithic assem-

blages have been characterised and published in detail, and it is therefore not possible to con-

clude whether the seemingly uncritical selection of tool blanks (for example including 20%

thermal flakes), as witnessed at the present location, is a general characteristic of the region’s lat-

er Neolithic industries, or typical of one or more of those.

SUMMARY

From the site of the Antrim Civic Offices, a total of 25 lithic artefacts were recovered, supple-

mented by two stone implements. The main bulk of the assemblage is in fine-grained chalk flint,

with one piece being in slightly coarser ‘inland’ flint, and the two stone tools are in porcellanite.

The chalk flint is thought to derive largely from primary sources on the coast and, to a minor

degree, from the glacial till. The coarse-grained flint probably represents a local resource, and the

porcellanite was imported from the north-eastern part of the region.

The three main artefact categories – debitage, cores and tools – make up approximately

33%, 4%, and 63%, respectively. In total, nine pieces of debitage were retrieved, with flakes

amounting to 78% of the debitage, and indeterminate pieces 22%. No chips, blades or prepara-

tion flakes were found. However, the tool blanks prove that some blades were produced at the

site, and thermal flakes were also used as tool blanks. All blanks were detached by the applica-

tion of hard percussion. The site’s only core is an irregular discoidal specimen.

The tool category comprises 17 pieces, most of which are scrapers (six pieces or 35%) or

simple edge-retouched pieces (also 35%). Other tool types include one polished stone axehead,

one plain piercer, two piercer-scrapers (one of which is a re-functioned butt-trimmed flake), and

one hammerstone. Two scrapers are well-executed short end-scrapers, three are side-scrapers or

end-/side-scrapers, and one scraper fragment could not be defined more precisely.

In technological terms, the bulk of the assemblage is characterised by the parallel produc-

tion of elongated flakes and regular, relatively thin blades. The main percussion technique was

hard percussion, and core preparation was basic. The most distinctive technological element may

be the inclusion of 20% thermal flakes as tool blanks. An intrusive, re-functioned butt-trimmed

Page 9 of 10

piece (a piercer-scraper) represents a well-controlled blade technology based on the application

of hard percussion.

The re-worked butt-trimmed piece is clearly Late Mesolithic, and it is thought to represent

the collection’s only early prehistoric element. The remainder of the assemblage, such as the

relatively delicate hard-hammer blades, the well-executed comparatively large end-scrapers, the

discoidal core, and the two porcellanite implements are, combined, consistent with a later Neo-

lithic date.

Page 10 of 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ballin, T.B. 1999: Kronologiske og Regionale Forhold i Sydnorsk Stenalder. En analyse med udgangspunkt i

bopladserne ved Lundevågen (Farsundprosjektet). Unpublished PhD dissertation. Institute of Prehis-

toric Archaeology, Aarhus University.

Ballin, T.B. 2003: The lithic artefact assemblage. In B. Ballin Smith: The Excavation of Two

Bronze Age Roundhouses at Townparks, Antrim Town. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 62, 16-44.

Ballin, T.B. 2005a: Lithic artefacts and pottery from Townparks, Antrim town. Ulster Journal of Ar-

chaeology 64, 12-25.

Ballin, T.B. 2005b: North-West Pipeline, Co. Londonderry/Co. Antrim, NI. The lithic assemblage. Un-

published report.

Ballin, T.B. 2005c: Rathdown, Rathdown Upper, Greystones, Co. Wicklow, Ireland. The lithic assemblage.

Unpublished report.

Ballin, T.B. 2005d: Whitepark Road, Ballycastle, Co. Antrim, NI. The lithic assemblage. Unpublished re-

port.

Ballin, T.B. 2011a: The British Late Neolithic ‘Levalloisian’, and other operational schemas from

the later prehistoric period. A discussion based on finds from the Stoneyhill Project, Aber-

deenshire. To be submitted to Proceedings of Conference held by the British Neolithic Studies Group

2004.

Ballin, T.B. 2011b: Overhowden and Airhouse, Scottish Borders. Characterization and interpretation of two spec-

tacular lithic assemblages from sites near the Overhowden Henge. British Archaeological Reports British

Series 539. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Butler, C. 2005: Prehistoric Flintwork. Stroud: Tempus.

Cooney, G., & Mandal, S. 1998: The Irish Stone Axe Project, Monograph I. Bray: Wordwell Ltd.

Creighton, J.R. 1974. A Study of the Later Pleistocene Geomorphology of North Central Ulster. Unpublished

Ph.D. thesis, Queens University Belfast.

Eogan, G. 1963: A Neolithic Habitation-Site and Megalithic Tomb in Townleyhall Townland, Co.

Louth. Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland XCIII, 37-81.

Jope, E.M. 1952: Porcellanite axes from factories in north-east Ireland: Tievebulliagh and Rathlin.

Ulster Journal of Archaeology 15, 31-55.

Mallory, J.P. 1990: Trial excavations at Tievebulliagh, Co. Antrim. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 53,

15-27.

Meighan, I., Jamison, D.D., Logue, P.J.C., Mallory, J.P., & Simpson, D.D.A. 1993: Trace element

and isotopic provenancing of North Antrim porcellanites: Portrush - Tievebulliagh - Brockley

(Rathlin Island). Ulster Journal of Archaeology 56, 25-30.

Nielsen, P.O. 1977: De tyknakkede flintøksers kronologi. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og

Historie 1977, 5-71.

Shepherd, W. 1972: Flint: its origin, properties and uses. London: Faber and Faber.

Sheridan, A. 1986: Porcellanite artifacts: a new survey. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 49, 19-32.

Wickham-Jones, C.R. 1990: Rhum. Mesolithic and Later Sites at Kinloch. Excavations 1984-86. Society of

Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series 7. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

Woodland, A.W. 1979: Geological Map of the United Kingdom North (North of National Grid Line 500 km

N). 3rd edition. Southampton: Institute of Geological Sciences

Woodman, P.C. 1986: Problems in the colonisation of Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 49, 7-17.

Woodman, P.C., & Andersen, E. 1990: The Irish Later Mesolithic: a Partial Picture. In P.M. Ver-

meersch, & P. van Peer (Eds.): Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at the fourth

international symposium 'The Mesolithic in Europe', Leuven 1990, 377-387. Leuven: Leuven Univer-

sity Press.