Research Design IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR BARBED POINT MANUFACTURING AT STAR CARR? Student examination number: xxx
Research Design
IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR BARBED POINT MANUFACTURING AT
STAR CARR?
Student examination number: xxx
Research design: student xxx 2
Contents
1 Research question .................................................................................................. 3
2 Objectives .............................................................................................................. 3
3 Rationale ................................................................................................................ 3
4 Methods.................................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Methods in relation to objectives ................................................................... 4
4.2 Practical constraints ....................................................................................... 5
5 Structure of the dissertation ................................................................................... 5
6 Timetable ............................................................................................................... 6
7 Literature review .................................................................................................... 7
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 7
7.2 A background to antlerworking at Star Carr .................................................. 7
7.3 Summary ........................................................................................................ 9
8 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 10
8.1 Already read ................................................................................................. 10
8.2 To be read .................................................................................................... 12
Research design: student xxx 3
1 Research question
This dissertation will focus on the 192 barbed antler points discovered at the North
Yorkshire site of Star Carr, and attempt to answer a specific question: Is there
evidence for barbed point manufacture at Star Carr?
2 Objectives
1. To review the existing literature on antler materials found at Star Carr, and the
role that antler working has played at the site in general terms
2. To develop a method of production for producing experimental barbed points
in order to identify diagnostic debitage
3. To determine whether there is any evidence for debitage at Star Carr
4. To synthesise the findings and to place them within the context of
interpretations of the site
3 Rationale
Star Carr is an early Mesolithic site in East Yorkshire. Located five miles south of
modern day Scarborough, the site was situated on the shore of Lake Flixton in the
Mesolithic period, an ancient glacial lake. Originally excavated by Grahame Clark
(1954) between 1949 and 1951, the site yielded an unprecedented assemblage of bone
and antler artefacts. Due to the excellent preservation of these rare and ancient
objects, and the approach taken by Clark, Star Carr has held a special place in the
study of the British Mesolithic and has become world renowned in archaeology
(Conneller 2003, 81; Lane and Schadla-Hall 2004).
However, there has been a considerable focus on ecology and economy which has
meant that other approaches to the Star Carr data have been neglected. The barbed
points have been mentioned in recent years alongside the red deer antler frontlets in
the context of ritual deposition (e.g. Bevan 2003, 36-40; Conneller 2004, 45-48), yet
they are seldom studied in their own right. For instance, little is known about their
manufacture: the only significant contribution to this topic is Jacobi‟s (1978, 318-321)
note that there is a lack of working debitage and lack of removed splinters suggesting
manufacture elsewhere, but this has not been explored further.
In sum, this is a site of international importance, with an incredibly rare assemblage of
organic artefacts. The barbed points account for about 97% of barbed points ever
found in this country (Milner 2007), and yet very little is known about them. This
dissertation aims to address this gap by investigating manufacturing processes and
specifically to determine whether or not these artefacts were actually made at the site.
This will result in a better understanding of barbed point technologies and will place
this data into the wider context of what people were doing at this site.
Research design: student xxx 4
4 Methods
4.1 Methods in relation to objectives
In order to carry out a literature review (objective 1) on antler materials I have already
accumulated a bibliography on Star Carr as well as also more general literature (see
bibliography). However, there are some articles which need to be accessed and I will
be using inter-library loans for this.
Using the literature, I will develop a method of production for use in some barbed
point manufacturing experiments. I am also aiming to visit Cambridge Museum in
order to examine some of the barbed points first hand, rather than relying on the
diagrams in books. From this research I hope to be able to experiment in the making
of antler barbed points. The objective of these experiments will be to identify the
diagnostic debitage of these processes. I have started taking some measurements of
antler from the site and data I have found in my literature search so far and I have
been recording these in excel (figure 1). I have also been experimenting in how to turn
this data into graphs (figure 2).
In order to achieve my third objective, these characteristics will be looked for at a
high resolution in new material from Star Carr, by taking soil samples on-site, floating
them and then sorting through the dried soil samples taken from the 2007 season of
excavations. This could identify potentially diagnostic pieces of antler and give an
insight into the types of manufacturing processes, if any, that were being carried out at
Star Carr.
The significance of the overall findings will then be discussed, both in terms of their
bearing on past interpretations of the site, and their relation to the current debate
regarding the nature of preservation conditions at Star Carr.
Figure 1: Excel spreadsheet in progress
Research design: student xxx 5
Figure 2: graph of measurements found so far
4.2 Practical constraints
In order to carry out my experiments I will need to visit the Cambridge Museum
collection. It will be necessary to contact the curator soon in order to make an
appointment and the visit will be a cost that I will have to incur.
In terms of the experiments, I have not got any antler to work on as yet, but I have
been in touch with Dr Steve Ashby who is going to pass on some contact details of
parks which may be able to provide some. In addition, Steve is going to give some
advice on antler working once these have been obtained.
The floatation material will be excavated this summer and I have been assured by the
project director that I will be able to sort through material from several locations on
site.
Overall, I cannot foresee any practical constraints with my project design.
5 Structure of the dissertation
I intend to mirror the chapters onto the objectives where possible:
Chapter 1: Introduction (c. 500 words)
1.1 research question and objectives
1.2 rationale and background to the study
1.3 summary of methods
1.4 structure of the dissertation)
Research design: student xxx 6
Chapter 2: literature review of Star Carr with a focus on antler working and the
barbed points (c. 3000 words)
Chapter 3: experimental barbed point manufacture (c. 2500 words)
3.1 previous work carried out
3.2 methods and experiments
3.3 results
Chapter 4: Examination of debitage from the site (c. 1000 words)
4.1 floatation and samples
4.2 results
Chapter 5: Discussion, putting the results into the context of the wider interpretations
(2000 words)
Chapter 6: Conclusion, with ideas for future work (c. 1000 words)
6 Timetable
June: meet with supervisor to discuss work over summer and research design
July: work on literature review and try to complete first draft (chapter 2)
Try to obtain antler over summer (need to contact park)
Get in touch with Cambridge museum
August: Excavate at Star Carr- all month
September: holiday, first 2 weeks
Visit Cambridge Museum (week 3)
Write up characteristics of barbed points (week 4)
October: start Special Topic- give myself 3 days a week on ST and 2 days on
dissertation
Week 1 of Oct, send supervisor literature review and arrange meeting
for mid October
Start work on experiments with barbed points (reliant on having antler)
November: Work on flot samples in lab, hopefully finish by December
Start writing up experiments and results in chapters 3 and 4 and aim to
finish by end of term
December: Finish all practical work and chapters 3 and 4
Revise for ST exam
January: Send supervisor chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 in draft and arrange a meeting or
week 4 of term
Assessed seminars – start term working on AS 1 day a week and
dissertation 4 days a week until week 4
Work on discussion chapter (chapter 5) until week 4, have meeting
with supervisor about chapters 1-4 and then submit chapter 5 and
arrange a meeting for week 7 or 8
February Move to 4 days a week AS and 1 day on dissertation, mainly working
on figures and redrafting
March : Have meeting with supervisor about chapter 5, discuss chapter 6
Easter: Edit, rewrites, images, proof reading etc (1 week holiday over Easter,
about 2 weeks dissertation and 2 weeks preparing for AS)
April: hand in
Research design: student xxx 7
7 Literature review
7.1 Introduction
Star Carr has been the centre for much of the academic discussion on Mesolithic life
in Britain, as has been noted and commented upon by Lane and Schadla-Hall (2004).
In the course of this discussion, antlerworking has been touched upon as a periphery
to debates over seasonality and length of occupation, hunting methods, ritual beliefs,
the relationships between humans and animals and the “type” of site that Star Carr
falls in to. These various comments need to be compiled and reviewed in order to
asses the outstanding questions surrounding antlerworking and barbed point
manufacture in particular, at Star Carr.
7.2 A background to antlerworking at Star Carr
Antlerworking at Star Carr was first discussed by Clark and Thompson (1953) in a
paper on the groove and splinter technique, and its use during the Upper Palaeolithic
and Mesolithic in Europe. This uses red deer antler beams recovered from Star Carr to
illustrate the way in which splinters of antler were removed from beams by the
scoring of two parallel grooves along the length of the antler, and “then forcing out
the intervening portions” (Clark and Thompson 1953, 148). Clark refers to
experimental work carried out by himself and analogies with the way Eskimo antler
workers remove splinters from reindeer beams to confirm this as a method of splinter
removal practiced at Star Carr. He then goes on to show other instances of the groove
and splinter technique at Upper Palaeolithic sites in central France and Southern
Spain, on both reindeer and red deer antler (ibid 49-58). Clark concludes that the style
of antlerworking carried out at Star Carr represents a much older technology, which
originated in mainland Europe and has been applied to different species of deer.
Clark laid out the first interpretation of the role of antlerworking at Star Carr in his
monograph on the site (1954). He describes antler working as one of the most
archaeologically visible handicraft activities, which as a whole made up a significant
proportion of life at Star Carr. He suggests that handicrafts were not the result of
specialised individuals, based on the spatial distribution of their tools in the form of
flint burins, products (in the form of antler artifacts) and his belief that the working
debris represented the actions of three or four adults (Clark 1954, 21-25). As to why
the working of antler could not have been carried out by children is not expanded
upon. Clark does postulate on the uses of the products of antlerworking (barbed points
(ibid 123-128), antler frontlets (ibid 168-175), worked tines (ibid 136, 155), elk antler
mattocks (ibid 157-158), but the actual role of working antler itself is not remarked
upon, other than the description provided in the analytical reports, which shall be
reviewed further in Chapter 3.
Jacobi (1978) also touched on the role of antlerworking at Star Carr when discussing
Mesolithic settlement patterns more generally in the North of England. “It was the
working of skins, and more importantly, antlers, which occupied the group at Star
Carr,” (Jacobi 1978, 315-16). He examines the age at which deer were being hunted
and killed, and concludes that they were being specifically targeted when their antlers
had developed past a certain point (regardless of age), and that unshed antlers would
have been of most use for barbed point manufacture if the deer was killed away from
Research design: student xxx 8
the growing months of summer, when a soft “velvet” covering makes their working
problematic (ibid 317-18). Although not stated explicitly by Jacobi, this implies a
very detailed knowledge of the properties of red deer antler. When hunting,
Mesolithic people were not simply selecting prey which would be easiest to catch, or
even provide the most meat. They were also factoring in the quality and workable
nature of the antlers. This demonstrates how antlerworking was actually prevalent in
many aspects of Mesolithic life that archaeologists have treated as discrete domains:
that of technology and industry, and that of subsistence.
Jacobi‟s other major point in his discussion of antlerworking at Star Carr is the lack of
evidence for barbed point finishing work. He notes that only four unworked splinters
were identified by Clark, adding another two in his own re-examination of the Star
Carr material. He also notes a total lack of half-made points, splinters in the initial
stages of grinding down, and any trace of the tiny “lozenges to be expected as a by-
product of the notching out of the barbs” (ibid 318). This leads Jacobi to question
whether or not the full barbed point manufacturing process is represented at Star Carr,
and whether point finishing occurred here at all. In suggesting that finishing occurred
elsewhere, Jacobi puts forward a two-phase manufacturing process, with splinters
being removed from beams at Star Carr but being finished at another location in the
landscape.
Mike Pitts (1979) has also discussed the role of antlerworking at Star Carr, ascribing
the lakeside location of the site to a heavy focus on both antler and hideworking (ibid
32-37). The primary function of this interpretation is to ascribe the site a summer
occupation period, based on the optimum temperatures for the fermentation of hides
in Lake Flixton during the summer months (ibid 36). He also cites the fact that antler
can be softened by soaking in water, claiming that the Star Carr assemblage actually
represents a specific industrial complex based around the lakeside for functional
reasons, and not a whole settlement site (Pitts 1979, 32). He attributes the
archaeological signature of Star Carr to that of waste disposal, from a settlement
located on the drier ground nearby, but unexcavated by Clark (ibid 34). So according
to Pitts, antlerworking and barbed point manufacture was a central activity at Star
Carr, and marked it out from other places in Northern Europe where bone barbed
points were the norm (ibid 34). Yet in Pitt‟s interpretation, antlerworking and barbed
point manufacture never become more than functional, economic activities, simply
“an industrial zone” (ibid 33). Further to this, Pitts makes no distinction between the
types of antlerworking that were being carried out at Star Carr. Barbed point
manufacture is undistinguished from frontlet working, tine working or mattock
manufacture. Pitt‟s paper also fails to address the lack of barbed point finishing debris
at Star Carr and the idea of a two-phase manufacturing process which have been
highlighted by Jacobi (1978).
In Andresen et al.‟s (1981) reassessment of Star Carr, the issue of antlerworking
arises again. As with Jacobi and Pitts, it is in the context of seasonal site occupation
that antlerworking is discussed, but inadvertently, it has some interesting implications.
They note that the people of Star Carr utilized the hardest, most compact antler for
barbed point manufacture (ibid 33). This implies a detailed knowledge of the
technical and mechanical properties of antler, and the way in which these change
throughout the year.
Research design: student xxx 9
Andresen et al. (1981) also reinforce Jacobi‟s comments on the lack of evidence for
barbed point finishing at Star Carr, going further than questioning full manufacture
on-site to suggest that “it seems likely that point manufacture took place elsewhere”
(ibid 39). Interestingly, they also propose that the Star Carr assemblage could be the
result of “a very high rate of manufacturing success, coupled with a very low rate of
recovery of small manufacturing debris” (ibid).
Another interesting aspect of antlerworking which Andresen et al. comment on is that
the distribution of point lengths is mirrored in the lengths of grooves cut into the red
deer antler beams, a proxy indicator of the initial blank splinter length before finishing
into a barbed point. They also note that the lengths of the splinter scars present on the
worked beams, whilst similarly distributed, are noticeably longer than that of the
finished barbed points (ibid). This would suggest that a substantial amount of antler
was being removed from the length of the splinter during the finishing process.
In their conclusion, Andresen et al. also refer to Binford‟s (1978) observed “boredom
reducers”, that is activities carried out by game herders at waiting posts before a
major herd drive. Although they are not explicit in linking this interpretation to Star
Carr, it is implied that craftworking activities such as barbed point manufacture may
be indicative of an analogous situation.
More recently, Lynne Bevan (2003) has focussed her discussion of symbolism and
animal interaction around the red deer frontlets recovered from Star Carr. However,
she does touch on some interesting issues involving the choices the people of Star
Carr may have made when making barbed points from antler. She highlights the
regenerative nature of antlers, with their growth-shed-regrowth cycles, describing
them as “instruments of transformation” (Bevan 2003, 36). Bevan also discusses the
preference for red deer antler in manufacturing barbed points, when other types of
antler were available. The comparison is drawn between the one material used for
barbed points, and the use of both elk bone and antler in making mattock heads. She
then questions whether it was the “essence” of the red deer stag that was important for
barbed point manufacture. This question is furthered when the specific attention that
seems to have been paid to the heads of red deer stags at Star Carr is noted, with the
working of frontlets (ibid). Bevan also uses the fact that many of the worked antler
beams were unshed, and therefore seemingly being worked immediately following the
stag‟s death, in order to incorporate the “essence” into the barbed point before it wore
off (ibid). This argument appears weaker, however, when the worked, shed beams are
considered.
7.3 Summary
To summarise, reinterpretations of Star Carr have often touched on antlerworking,
and its strong presence in the archaeological record at the site. Antler material has
been studied extensively to gain insights into hunting practices and settlement patterns
in the north of England. Although not directly related to the manufacture of barbed
points, this is important as it shows the way in which antlerworking as a practice
actually crosses the traditional hunting/technology/settlement spheres studied in
Mesolithic archaeology. The potential to fashion objects from antler must have been
prevalent in the minds of Mesolithic people whilst they hunted (in the case of shed
beams) or intentionally collected and brought to Star Carr at specific times in the year
Research design: student xxx 10
(in the case of shed beams). This illustrates that the practice of “antlerworking”
actually extends further than the moment at which a flint tool as applied to an antler
beam. It is an on-going, cyclical process, which prevails in many different aspects of
Mesolithic life.
In terms of antlerworking as an industrial process, Pitts was an early proponent of the
importance and centrality of antlerworking in life at Star Carr. Although this early
interpretation was based on a purely industrial level, recent interpretations of
depositional practices have stressed the connection between worked red deer antler
artefacts and Star Carr. These, again, have touched upon antlerworking indirectly, but
have mainly been concerned with intentional deposition and its potential symbolic
significance. Yet there seems to be a lack of engagement with some key issues
regarding the Star Carr assemblage. The question over the actual finishing of barbed
points at the site, although acknowledged by many, is not really dealt with by any of
the authors. Depositional studies do not, and cannot, tie in the actual production of
barbed points at the site to the deer/human relationships being played out through
material culture. Clearly, a more detailed study of antlerworking at Star Carr is
needed, in order to answer these questions and assess their impact on other
interpretations.
8 Bibliography
8.1 Already read
Andresen, J, Byrd, B, Elson M, McGuire, R, Mendoza, R, Staski, E and White, P
(1981) „The deer hunters: Star Carr reconsidered‟ World Archaeology 13 (1) 31-
46.
Bevan, L (2003) „Stag nights and horny men: Antler symbolism and interaction
with the animal world during the mesolithic‟ in L Bevan and J Moore (eds)
Peopling the Mesolithic in a Northern Environment, 35-44. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Binford, L (1978) „Dimensional analysis of behaviour and site structure: learning
from an Eskimo hunting stand‟ American Antiquity 43 330-361.
Caulfield, S (1978) „Star Carr – an alternative view‟ Irish Archaeological
Research Forum, 5 15-22.
Chatterton, R (2003) „Star Carr Reanalysed‟ in L Bevan and J Moore (eds)
Peopling the Mesolithic in a Northern Environment, 69-80. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Clark, J (1954) Excavations at Star Carr: An early Mesolithic site at Seamer near
Scarborough, Yorkshire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, J (1972) Star Carr: a Case Study in Bioarchaeology. Addison-Wesley
module in Anthropology 10.
Clark, J and Thompson, M (1953) „The groove and splinter technique of working
antler in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe‟. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 19 (1) 148-160.
Fraser, F and King, J (1954) „Faunal Remains‟ in J Clark (ed) Excavations at Star
Carr: An early Mesolithic site at Seamer near Scarborough, Yorkshire, 70-96.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffits, J and Bonsall, C (2001) „Experimantal Determination of the Function of
Antler and Bone „Bevel-Ended Tools‟ from Prehistoric Shell Middens in Western
Research design: student xxx 11
Scotland‟ in A Chayke and L Bartosiewicz (eds) Crafting Bone: skeletal
technologies through time and space. Proceedings of the 2nd
meeting of the
(ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31st August-5
th Spetember 1999.
Oxford: Archaeopress.
Jacobi, R (1978) „Northern England in the eighth millennium bc: an essay‟ in P
Mellars (ed) The early postglacial settlement of Northern Europe, 295-332.
London: Duckworth.
Laurie, E (2007)
Legge, A and Rowley-Conwy, P (1998) Star Carr Revistited: A Re-analysis of the
large mammals. London: Centre for Extra-Mural Studies, Birkbeck College.
MacGregor, A (1984) Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: the technology of skeletal
materials since the Roman period. London: Croom Helm.
Mellars, P and Dark, P (eds) Star Carr in context: new archaeological and
palaeological investigations at the Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, North
Yorkshire. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute.
Milner, N (2003) „Pitfalls and Problems in Analysing and Interpreting the
Seasonality of Faunal Remains‟ Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 16 (1)
50-65.
Milner, N (2005) „Can Seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in the
past?‟ in D Bailey, A Whittle and V Cummings (eds) (un)settling the Neolithic,
32-37. Oxford: Oxbow.
Pitts, M (1979) „Hides and antlers: a new look at the gatherer-hunter site at Star
Carr, North Yorkshire, England‟ World Archaeology, 11 (1) 32-42.
Pollard, J (2000) „Ancestral Places in the Mesolithic landscape‟, Archaeological
Review from Cambridge 17 (1) 123-138.
Rowley-Conwy, P (1998) „Faunal Remains and Antler Artefacts‟ in P Mellars and
P Dark (eds) Star Carr in context: new archaeological and palaeological
investigations at the Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire, 99-107.
Cambridge: MacDonald Institute.
Lane, P and Schadla-Hall, R (2004) „The many ages of Star Carr: do 'cites' make
'sites'?‟ in A Barnard (ed.) Hunter-gatherers in History, 145-162. Oxford:
Archaeology and Anthropology.
Legge, A and Rowley-Conwy, P (1988) Star Carr revisited: a re-analysis of the
large mammals. London: Centre for Extra-Mural Studies
Lord, J (1998) „The Methods used to Produce Complete Harpoon‟ in N Ashton, F
Healy and P Petit (eds) Stone Age Archaeology: essays in memory of John Wymer.
193-96. Oxford: Oxbow.
Street, M (1991) „Bedburg-Königshoven: A Pre-Boreal Mesolithic site in Lower
Rhineland (Germany)‟ in N Barton, A Roberts and D Roe (eds) The Late Glacial
in north-west Europe: human adaptation and environmental change at the end of
the Pleistocene. 256-271. London: British Council for Archaeology.
Taylor, B (2007) „Recent excavations at Star Carr, North Yorkshire‟ Mesolithic
Miscellany 18 (2) 12-17.
Warren, G (2006) „Technology‟ in C Conneller and G Warren (eds) Mesolithic
Britain and Ireland. 13-33 Stroud: Tempus
Wheeler, A (1978) „Why Were There No Fish Remains at Star Carr?‟ Journal of
Archaeological Science, 5 85-89.
Wymer, J (1977) Gazetter of Mesolithic sites in England and Wales. London:
Council for British Archaeology, Research Report 20.
Research design: student xxx 12
8.2 To be read
Conneller, C (2001) „Hunter-gatherers in the landscape: Technical economies of
the Vale of Pickering‟ in M Zvelebil and K Frewster (eds.) Ethnoarchaeology and
hunter-gatherers, 1-12. Oxford: Archaeopress
Conneller, C (2003) „Star Carr Recontextualised‟ in L Bevan and J Moore (eds)
Peopling the Mesolithic in a Northern Environment, 81-86. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Conneller, C (2004) „Becoming deer. Corporeal transformations at Star Carr‟
Archaeological Dialogues 11 (1) 37-56.
Conneller, C (2007) „New Excavations at Star Carr‟ Past 56 3-5.
Conneller, C and Schadla-Hall, T (2003) „Beyond Star Carr: The Vale of
Pickering in the 10th
Millenium BP‟ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69 85-
105
David, E (2003) „The contribution of the Technological Study of Bone and Antler
Industry for the definition of the Early Maglemose Culture‟ in L Larrson, H
Kindgern, K Knutsson, D Loeffler and A Akerlund (eds.) Mesolithic on the Move:
Papers presented at the sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in
Europe.486-493. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
David, E (2007) „Technology on Bone and Antler Industries: A Relevant
Methodology for Characterizing Early Post-Glacial Societies (9th
-8th
Millenium
BC)‟ in C Gates St-Pierre and R Walker (eds.) Bone as Tools: Current Methods
and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. 35-50. Oxford: Archaeopress
Dark, P (2000) „Revised „absolute‟ dating of the early Mesolithic site of Star Carr,
North Yorkshire, in the light of changes in the early Holocene tree-ring
chronology‟ Antiquity 74 304-7.
Dark, P (2006) „New Radiocarbon Accelerator Dates On Artefacts From The
Early Mesolithic Site Of Star Carr, North Yorkshire‟ Archaeometry 48 (1) 185-
200.
Dumont, J (1988) A microwear analysis of selected artifact types from the
Mesolithic sites of Star Carr and Mount Sandel. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Finlay, N (2000) „Microliths in the Making‟ in R Young (ed) Mesolithic Lifeways:
current research in Britain and Ireland. 23-31. Leicester: Leicester University
Archaeology Monograph 7.
Fischer, A (ed) (1995) Man and Sea in the Mesolithic, Oxford: Oxbow Books
Fitzroy, R (1839) Narrative of the surveying Voyages of His Majesty’s Ships
Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836. Volume 2.’ London:
Henry Colburn.
Lubbock, J (1865) Prehistoric Times. London: Bell and Daldy
Price, T (1982) „Willow Tales and Dog Smoke‟ Quarterly Review of Archaeology,
3 4-7.
Verhart, L (2000) „The Function of Mesolithic Bone and Antler Points‟
Anthropologie et Prehistoire, 111 114-123