209
The Everyday Chipped Stone Technologies of the Irish Bronze Age: A Broader Regional Perspective By Maria O' Hare Proof copy © 2013
The Everyday Chipped Stone Technologies
of the
Irish Bronze Age:
A Broader Regional Perspective
By
Maria O' Hare
Proof copy
© 2013
ii
Table of Contents
Summary …..…………………….…………….......................................................10
Introduction - Metal vs. Stone ……………..……………....…….……....……...........13
Chapter One - Methodology ……………………………….............……................23
Chapter Two – Chronological presentation of directly analysed and
indirect assessment of domestic technology throughout the earlier metal
era (c. 2400 – 1800 BC) …….......................................................…….....…...........43
Chapter Three – Chronological presentation of directly analysed and
indirect assessment of domestic technology throughout the
later metal era (c. 1606 – 800/600 BC) ………..........................................……......80
Chapter Four – Review of lithic technology Primary & Secondary categories
combined and the persistence of everday tools throughout the Bronze Age ......145
Chapter Five – The impact of metallurg upon Domestic Lithic Technology:
A Broader Regional Perspective .........................................................................162
Conclusion - Stone vs. Metal ……………..………………………......................…...182
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................................199
iii
List of Illustrations
Figure 1: Distribution of Irish Bronze Age lithic technology from the Beaker period to the end of the Vase Tradition c. 2400 – 1800 BC (Earlier metal era = EME) left compared with lithic technology from sites relating to the post-Vase Tradition inclusive of Middle and Late Bronze Age sites c. 1800 – 600 BC (Developed Bronze Age = DBA) right………...............................................................................................................……..30 Figure 2: Bar chart representing frequency of lithic quantities according to earlier and later phases of the Bronze Age…….............................................................................................................................................…31 Figure 3: Bar chart representing frequency of lithics by context type according to the broad Bronze Age division…………................................................................................................................................................32
Figure 4; Pie chart representing percentages of contexts for lithics within each phase of the Bronze Age including general Bronze Age contexts.............................................................................................................................................................32 .. Figure 5: Stages of knapping strategy via bipolar reduction suggested by the cores recovered from a Bronze Age settlement in Sweden (Knarrström 2001, fig. 51)………..……………......................................………...…35 Figure 6: A range of bipolar–on-anvil chert flakes and cores, some refitted, showing 90° impacts from Turtle Rock, Australia (right) (after Knight 1991, fig. 13..............................................................................................37 Figure 7: Bipolar reduction strategy and suggested production of segments as cutting tools as presented by Knarrström (2001, fig.95)…................................………………..…….………………….................….……...…..40 Figure 8: Bipolar flake pieces exhibiting polish from use (after Knarrström 2001, fig. 100)………..….…..….41 Figure 9: Chert bipolar core from Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare dating to the Beaker/Early Bronze Age period……................................................................................................................................................44
Figure 10: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare………………............................................................................................................................…....…....45 Figure 11: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Farmstead 2, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare……………............................................................................................................................….........…..46 Figure 12: Bar chart showing dimensions for combined bipolar pieces from the Farmsteads at Roughan Hill, Co. Clare………...............................................................................................................................................48 Figure 13: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare dating to the Beaker/Early Bronze Age period.......………...………………................................…........…...…49 Figure 14: A detail of good quality chert sub-circular scraper from Roughan Hill, Farmstead 1 Co. Clare………….................................................................................................................................…...……...50
iv
Figure 15: Drawing of a selection of chert sub-circular (thumbnail) scrapers from Roughan Hill, Farmstead 1, Co. Clare…….................................................................................................................…......….50
Figure 16: Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare, pointed tools made of chert with visible polish on the pointed ends. …….............................................................................................................................…..…................................51 Figure 17: Pointed bipolar core after several reduction episodes from Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare. An ‘awl’ type tool ............................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 18: One of two chert hollow based arrowheads from the Beaker farmstead settlement 1 Roughan Hill, Co. Clare (No. 95E061, 156 courtesy of Jones University of Galway)………….......................….….................52 Figure 19: Possible roughout distal portion of a stone axe made of mudstone found unstratified within Farmstead 1 at Roughan Hill, Co. Clare (top and bottom right). A polished stone axe with missing distal portion found in Midden at Roughan Hill, Farmstead 1, Co. Clare.....................................…...………….......................52 Figure 20: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Farmstead 2, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare……………................................................................................................................................…..……....53 Figure 21: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Leedaun 1, Co. Mayo.............................55 Figure 22: Bar chart showing the dimensional frequency of bipolar pieces from the Leedaun, I, Co. Mayo...................................................................................................................................................................56 Figure 23: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Leedaun I, Co. Mayo .…..…..............57 Figure 24: Vase Tradition chert sub-circular (thumbnail) chert scrapers from the Midden site at Ballyconneely (False Bay DL1, Co. Galway).......……………………….......…………………....…….........................……..........59 Figure 25: Ballyconneely (DL1 False Bay) Co. Galway chert hollow based arrowhead……........….……........59 Figure 26: Beaker flint sub-circular scrapers from Ross Island, Co. Kerry (after Crone courtesy of the Ulster Museum, Belfast)……………………………………………………………………………………............................62 Figure 27: Flint hollow based arrowhead from Ross Island, Co. Kerry (No. 92E0081: 330) (after Crone courtesy of the Ulster Museum, Belfast)…………..……………………………………………...........................................,.62 Figure 28: Barbed and tanged with broken tang classified as Green Low by Dillon (1997, 251) from Beaker concentration [E] (after Dillon 1997 fig. 54, 8472)..............................................................................................65 Figure 29: Timbers from Corlea 6 with stone blade cuts (above) and timbers cut using metal blades (below) (after O’ Sullivan 1996, figs. 409 and 433)……….......................................................................…..….68 Figure 30: Pie chart showing Primary technology components within Leedaun II, Co. Mayo..........................82 Figure 31: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Leedaun II, Co. Mayo ................................83 Figure 32: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Leedaun II, Co. Mayo ……...............84
v
Figure 33: Portion of a polished stone axe from Leedaun Area II, Co. Mayo. 83 …………..............…............85 Figure 34: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Corrstown, Co. Derry.....................…....87 Figure 35: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Corrstown, Co. Derry….……......……….....88 Figure 36: Range of flint bipolar-on-anvil flakes and cores, which would have been suitable for use without further modification for boring, scraping and cutting tasks from Corrstown, Co. D...............................….….....89 Figure 37: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Corrstown, Co. Derry……….........….90 Figure 38: (MBA) flint scrapers: rough well-flaked scraper (top left); crude cortical scraper (top right); neat sub-circular scraper (below) from Corrstown, Co. Derry……………….....................…............................90 Figure 39: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Ballyarnet, Co. Derry..................….......92 Figure 40: Selection of a diverse range of lithic pieces recovered from Ballyarnet, Co. Derr................…..….94 Figure 41: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Lugg, Co. Dublin…..............……….....….96 Figure 42: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Lugg, Co. Dublin. ………...….....................97 Figure 43: Pie Chart showing Secondary technology components from Lugg, Co. Dublin …………….....…...98 Figure 44: Pie Chart showing Primary lithic components from Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh. ……............…101 Figure 45: Typical flint (patinated) bipolar pointed core from Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh.............…,….......102 Figure 46: Random selection of a range of flint bipolar (mainly pointed) cores and bipolar flakes from Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh. ..........................................................................................................................102 Figure 47: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh. …....…,..….103 Figure 48: Bar chart showing Secondary technology components from Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh.…........................................................................................................................................................104 Figure 49: Late Bronze Age flint scrapers: (top two) neat sub-circular scrapers, (second from top) fairly crude scraper,(bottom) neat sub-circular scraper from Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh...........................,................…105 Figure 50: A bipolar flake from the Late Bronze Age hillfort at *Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh. ……................105 Figure 51: Selection of pointed flint bipolar cores/flakes that would have been perfectly suitable to cutting, boring and piercing task from Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh. ……............................................………….......…105 Figure 52: Selection of primary technology from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Split pebble (top left); quartered pebble/bipolar core (top right); bipolar flake (bottom)......................................................................………......108 Figure 53: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow ………..……...,,109 Figure 54: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow ..………...........…....110 Figure 55: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow.......................111 Figure 56: Fairly neat sub-circular flint scraper from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow………...............................,…......111
vi
Figure 57: A finely produced platform blade possibly dating to the Neolithic period, which was unstratified within the Rathgall. Co. Wicklow site; although potentially employed within the Later Bronze Age period as a tool………………………............................................................................................................................,........112 Figure 58: Large flint scrapers from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone. Retouched ad hoc scraper (top and another crude scraper without retouch with scalloped edges forming scraping edge (below)……………..................,,,,,..,.,....114 Figure 59: Selection of large flint ad hoc scrapers from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone …………………….......….......114 Figure 60: Range of significantly earlier lithic type-fossils found associated with typical Bronze Age lithics from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone .........……….................................................................…………………….............…....115 Figure 61: Extrapolated hollow based arrowhead from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone............................…………,.,.,115 Figure 62: Three polished stone axes from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone……………………………..............…….....116 ... Figure 63: Pie Chart showing Primary technology components from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim ……….....…..…118 Figure 64: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim ………............…....119
Figure 65: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim ………..…... 120 Figure 66: Quartered flint nodule creating a bipolar pointed core (top) and more splintered pointed bipolar pieces with sharp point (below) from an upland settlement dating to the Late Bronze Age with underlying possible EBA features from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim….......................................................................................121 Figure 67: Sub-circular flint scraper retaining cortex (outer chalk layer) of pebble type flint from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim …....................................................................................................................................................122 Figure 68: Broken hollow based flint arrowhead from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim……..........................................122 Figure 69: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny……...........123 Figure 70: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny……...............124 Figure 71: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny ….…....125 Figure 72: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone......,............126 Figure 73: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Lough Eskragh assemblage, Co. Tyrone …………...............................................................................................................................................,….….…127 Figure 74: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone ........….128 , Figure 75: Broken porcellanite polished stone axe (1) from Meadowlands, Co. Down, (after Pollock and Waterman 1964, fig.13,1)..................................................................................................................................138 Figure 76: Cordoned Urn Tradition (MBA) sub-circular flint scrapers from Meadowlands, Co. Down, (after Pollock and Waterman 1964, fig.13, 3 & 4)…......................................................................,,......,,,,,,,,,,............138
vii
Figure 77: A Sutton type C, barbed and tanged arrowhead (no. 228) associated with a Cordoned Urn sherd (no. 214) from Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath, (after Bradley 1991, fig. 4, no. 228)…..............................,,,.........141 Figure 78: Pie charts showing proportions of combined tools compared to the combined primary technology from Beaker and Early Bronze Age assemblages mainly obtained from directly analysed assemblages augmented by extrapolation of existing lithic reports. ‘Tool’ dominated assemblages not included…..............157 Figure 79: Pie charts showing proportions of combined tools compared to the combined primary technology from either Middle Bronze Age sites and/or mid to Late Bronze Age sites mainly obtained from directly analysed assemblages augmented by extrapolation of existing lithic reports. ‘Tool’ dominated assemblages not included..........................................................,,,,,,...................................................................................…158 Figure 80: Pie charts showing proportions of combined tools compared to the combined primary technology from specifically dated Late Bronze Age sites mainly obtained from directly analysed assemblages augmented by extrapolation of existing lithic reports. ‘Tool’ dominated assemblages not included. ...............................…159 Figure 81: Schematic showing diverse role of stone during the Neolithic …....................................................194 Figure 82: Schematic showing Bronze Age domestic role of stone …............................................................194 Figure 83: Proposed schematic of the entirely distinct spheres of metalworking and chipped stone technology throughout the Irish Bronze Age based upon the relative complexity/accessibility of one material over another ...........................................................................................................................................................................212
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Relative chronology developed to assess lithic technology throughout the first age of
metallurgy in Ireland ......................…..........................................……………………...............…..…25
Table 2: Primary technology categories identified within analysed assemblages dating from the earliest
until the latest phases of the Bronze Age. Tool dominated assemblages not inc.....................................145
Table 3 Secondary technology proportions within analysed assemblages ranging from the Beaker to the
Dowris
period.........................................................................................................................................................154
Table 4: Conservative percentages of scraper populations and their lithic material calculated against total
assemblages size >100 lithic pieces. The earlier assemblages (below) later assemblages (above) indicating
that there is no decline detected through time............................................................................ .........…155
ix
10
Summary
The main focus of this present publication is to explore the overall
characteristics and continued functionality of household lithic technology
throughout the Irish Bronze Age (c. 2400 – 800/600 BC), in relation to
metalworking traditions. This study will also review and discuss the results in
the contexts of similar research which has emerged more recently from a broad
range of other regions.
The topic of chipped stone technology, as employed within the first age of
metallurgy, was prompted in the first place, due to the lack of research of this
topic in Ireland. Other regions also lack this type of research. The shortfall in our
understanding of the Irish Bronze Age chipped stone technologies was finally
addressed in a doctoral study undertaken by the present writer (completed in
2005).
During and after the completion of the doctoral research, it became apparent
that the main characteristics of lithic collections, particularly relating to domestic
contexts in Ireland, seem to mirror those, as alluded to by Healy (2000) where she
highlights the surprising similarity of later prehistoric use of lithic material
dating to the later prehistoric/metal era from several Continental regions ranging
from Poland to Scandinavia, the Near Eastern areas such as: the Levant and
Jordan as well as Britain (ibid).
The further investigation of Healy’s recognition of such a widespread
phenomenon led directly to this current publication, which will present the main
patterns of lithic use and its continued functionality within domestic/secular
contexts from the earliest until the latest phases of the Irish Bronze Age. This
draws upon the main data established within the original doctoral study, which
has been amended and updated for the purposes of aligning this research with
that from other regions. Although, these studies are not numerous, they are
suffice to expand upon Healy’s original (2000) observations regarding the
widespread similarity of later prehistoric lithic industries of the metal era, and to
attempt to understand what the relationship of domestic lithic technology was to
the contemporaneous metal industries.
11
Furthermore, the integration of other studies into the Irish research, has
helped to explain some of the mechanisms – why and how the chipped stone
technologies came to survive and function, albeit in a typically much
degenerated form, throughout the entire Bronze Age period, where it could be
established within their respective regions. Furthermore, this degeneration of the
lithics industries seems to only occur within domestic/secular contexts, as
running concurrently with these industries is a very different phenomena
occurring in lithic technology within non-secular contexts.
In other words: not all aspects of lithic technologies of the metal era are
informally produced. In fact, the findings from the earlier doctoral study of Irish
Bronze Age lithic industries show that there were two main technologies
discernible: one being individual artefacts, frequently associated with funerary,
hoard and ritual contexts, which were typically well crafted stone objects and
their period of association turned out to correspond to the period c. 1800 – 1400
BC, indicative of a late renaissance at the height of the Irish Bronze Age. The
other technology is entirely different and represents the bulk of lithics assessed
within the doctoral study. These are essentially ad hoc, expedient, locally sourced
and were derived predominantly from within domestic settlements.
These two technologies tell very different stories regarding the role of lithic
technology in relation to the contemporaneous metalworking industries of the
time. These diverging stone technologies has been the subject of Högberg’s (2004
and 2009) studies with reference to Late Bronze Age and Iron Age lithic
technologies employed within parts of Scandinavian. This divergence of the
stone industries could be described as a type of polarisation, or a ‘widening gap’
as observed by Healy (2004, 184) in relation to this common phenomenon of
distinct lithic technologies identified within a number of regions dating to the
later prehistoric metal era. The more specialised stone technologies could be said
to be, en-par with the metal technologies as suggested by Healy (ibid), while, the
domestic chipped stone technology seems entirely removed from the
contemporaneous metal industries of the day, which is strongly indicated by the
results of the earlier doctoral research by the present writer and will form part of
the discussion within this present study.
Although the broader issues of all aspects of the lithic industries within the
Bronze Age in Ireland are important, and it is hoped that the more crafted
12
technologies will be the specific topic of a future publication, it is the nature and
continued functionality in relation to contemporaneous metalworking traditions,
and the ultimate role that household lithic technologies played within and
throughout the Bronze Age period that is now the particular focus of this current
investigation.
13
Introduction: Metal vs. Stone
Healy describes the lithic industries of the metal using era from Poland to
Scandinavia and from the Southern Jordan to Britain as: ‘almost universal expedient
industries made on locally available materials’ (2004, 184). The Irish domestic
industries of the Bronze Age find many parallels with those industries indicated by
Healy (2000) and have further explored this line of investigation to add several
others to this ever expanding corpus of research. Within Ireland, the results from
the doctoral study clearly indicated fully functioning domestic stone technologies
and equally expedient to those established for domestic contexts from many other
regions as identified within the available literature dealing with chipped stone
technology throughout and within various phases of the first age of metallurgy. The
mainstay technology beyond the typical array of scrapers, the occasional stone
arrowhead and/or polished stone axe was that of fairly ad hoc and opportunistic
pieces employed as perfectly functional cutting, sawing and piercing tools.
The nature of the Irish and indeed, many of the lithic industries found dating to
the metal era is that it is typically quite distinct from the lithic technology employed
within earlier contexts. This therefore, has caused a number of problems regarding
our traditional classification/recording/analysis systems which we typically apply
to lithic technology of the prehistoric periods and this in turn has caused much of
the Bronze Age associated lithics misunderstood and become quite invisible within
the archaeological record.
This has often resulted in bolstering the idea that once metal was introduced: this
sounded the death knell for the traditional lithic industries. This is actually not the
case and it is hoped that this present study will address some of our misconceptions
regarding the fate of one industry over another. However, several mechanisms are
offered within this publication which will hopefully help to explain how and why
these industries remained entirely remote from the contemporaneous metal
industries and indeed, how and why the metal industries never appear to play a
significant role, if any, within the domestic industries of the day.
As noted in the summary, historically in Ireland, the amount of attention given
to lithic technology within the Bronze Age has been quite sparse, although a few
attempts have been made without much success, such as Woodman and Scannell’s
14
(1993) study in the southwest of Ireland. Although most scholars working in this
field of study have acknowledged the difficulties involved in dealing with such
material, they also highlight the paucity of research and importance of such a topic.
For instance, the crudity of many of these later prehistoric industries may also have
contributed somewhat to the neglect of this line of research. These issues have been
highlighted by most of the handful of scholars who have addressed in their research
the nature of lithic technology within the metal era (Ford et al 1984; Edmonds 1995;
Knarrström 2001; Humphrey and Young 2003 and Högberg 2004). The crude nature
of the lithic material of the Bronze Age period has presumably also inhibited its
study as it is not the most illustrious of pursuits.
Flint from the Bronze Age and Iron Age is not an appealing material. Elusive and
apparently without structure, it captures the interest of few (Högberg 2004, 229).
It also looks like the recognition of functional industries of the developed metal
era is further bolstered by our presumption that these industries would have been
automatically replaced by metal forms once suitable tools of metal became available.
This has been highlighted by other scholars such as Rosen and described as a
presumed linear rise and fall pattern of one material over another (1996), and a
‘taken-for-granted assumption that many endorse but few have examined’ as noted
by Högberg (2009, 267).
However, irrespective of how crude this material may be: it still requires our
understanding as concluded by Ford et al (1984) conclude in their seminal study
dealing with lithic technology of the metal era within Britain:
If this rather unpleasant material cannot win our affection, it still needs our understanding
(Ford et al 1984, 167).
Continued functionality of Bronze Age lithic industries – a historical perspective:
Ford et al (1984) attempted to track the changes in assemblage variability from
the later Neolithic until the later Bronze Age by assessing the mean number of tool-
class types throughout this time-frame. And although they identified a drastic
decline between the non-metal and metal using era, suggesting that this ‘may result
from the increasing production of bronze tools’ (1984, 167, table 3), they also note
that this explanation could not account for adequately for all the tool classes or
15
indeed, other aspects of the flint industry which they investigated. For instance, they
found that they had found abundant industries, particularly during the later stages
of the Bronze Age and remark upon its ‘remarkable crudity’ (1984, 167).
Just over a decade after Ford et al’s seminal paper, another British study was
published by Edmonds (1995) where, he details the socio-economic aspects of later
prehistoric flint-working. Edmonds’ research encompasses much of the Bronze Age
period. His evaluations go some way to begin understanding the remarkably crude,
but seemingly functional later prehistoric material that Ford et al highlight in their
research.
Beyond these British studies and a few observations by Runnels (1982) and
Torrence (1979) highlighting aspects of functional stone industries within sites
corresponding to the metal era of the historic and prehistoric period within Greece
respectively, it is only in more recent years, particularly during the turn of the new
millennium, that several researchers from a wide range of other regions began to
demonstrate long surviving, and again: fairly crude, lithic technologies dating to the
later prehistoric metal era.
However, not everyone would agree that lithic technology (functional) survives
beyond the Middle Bronze Age. For example, Humphrey and Young point out that
the Middle Bronze Age is the ‘last chronological period in British prehistory when
most researchers feel comfortable with the idea of regular flint utilisation’ (2003, 83-
4). This is resistance is clearly seen within studies by Saville (1981) and more
recently by Butler (2005 and 2006).
Edmonds’ highlights this assumption in the following statement:
For the most part, archaeologists have tended to assume that the disappearance of many
formal stone tools in the Middle Bronze Age is a reflection of the spread of metal. Unlike the
Early Bronze Age, later metalwork assemblages contain a wider variety of artefacts, many of
which would have been suitable for a number of practical tasks (Edmonds 1995, 187).
Butler holds to this view as he points out that: ‘The quantity of metalwork
circulating during the middle and late Bronze Age had greatly increased, and there
was a wider range of metal tools that were available to replace the existing flint and
16
stone tools’ (2005, 179). Cooney suggests a similar replacement of the Irish industries
towards the latter phases of the Bronze Age as the cause of the final collapse of the
lithic industries (1999, 210-211).
It should be noted however, that within Ford et al’s (1984) pioneering study,
Later Bronze Age lithic material is noted. They indicate that although this was fairly
crude, that they did not rule out as functional, but rather suggested it required more
‘understanding’ (1984, 167). Furthermore, they offer a very important observation
regarding this same material in the fact that they recognise that some of the lack of
formal flint pieces at these later sites and the correspondingly crude material might
indicate that formal tools were ‘off-set’ to some extent by less formal types (Ibid).
Although Edmonds’ does not specifically deal with post-Middle Bronze Age
lithic technology within British sites, he does offer clues to the continued
functionality within Middle Bronze Age contexts that might suggest a continuation
into the Late Bronze Age period within Britain in the following description of
activity around an old flint mine during the Middle Bronze Age period in Britain:
… Many of the most basic tools and unmodified flakes that were made and
used at this time would have been well suited to most of the activities that
characterised life in and around contemporary settlements (Edmonds 1995,
187).
Mc Claren has recently highlighted the range of site from southeast Britain
dating to the Late Bronze Age and extending into the Early Iron Age which shows a
range of lithic tools and debitage that have simply become thoroughly informal
(2011). Other British studies dealing with Iron Age domestic lithic technology by
Young and Humphrey (1999); Humphrey and Young (2003) and Humphrey (2004),
a continued importance of stone technology is proposed, where Humphrey stresses
the continued functionality of domestically produced ad hoc lithic technologies in
the later prehistoric period and concludes that although these items have become
less recognisable, they also remain ‘entirely functional and utilitarian’ (2004, 244-
245).
A similar longevity of functional lithic tools has also been identified within
Scandinavian industries within a major study by Knarrström (2001) who has
assessed the lithic technologies within later prehistoric collections by employing
research tools such as: use/micro-wear analysis. Knarrström has convincingly
17
demonstrated the continued survival of functional, albeit crude, tools throughout
the Bronze Age and beyond and states: ‘Many of the metal age flints have been
modified and may, both unmodified and modified, display microscopic traces of
use’ (Knarrström 2001, 140) and demonstrates that ‘flint tools continued to function
well beyond the period after the introduction of bronze or iron’ (Knarrström 2001,
9).
Similarly, Högberg’s assessment of the Late Bronze Age household technologies
also within the Scandinavian region found that: the unmodified flake is usually not
regarded as a tool as these are traditionally classified as waste from the
manufacturing process and if only formal tools are recorded: then these typically
account for a fairly miniscule proportion of assemblages (2009, 234). Indeed, these
simple ad hoc household technologies has been highlighted by Högberg with
reference to technologies described from fairly late contexts from other parts of
Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany and France and specifically highlights the
commonality as seen within the British later prehistoric material described by
Humphreys in her two-thousand and four publication (2009).
Another example of ad hoc industries relating to the Late Bronze Age period can
be seen in Migal’s (2004) overview lithic study of the Central/Eastern European
industries with particular reference to Poland. Migal outlines the domestic use of
flint within this region which has been established as spanning the full extent of the
Bronze Age, although the earlier technologies were much more standardised, by the
later period, and notes a marked increase towards simple-flaked industries and poor
flintworking and an increase in the use and exploitation of existing flint mines in
some regions during the Late Bronze Age period (2004).
Essentially, in the few studies which have examined closely the nature of lithic
use beyond the Bronze Age period, these have also been shown to continue
functionally within the domestic sphere. For example, although fairly atypical and
standardised technology compared to most other later prehistoric domestic
industries noted thus far, the evidence recovered by Hartenberger and Runnels
(2001) in their detailed assessment of the Lerna site in Greece, can also be added to
this expanding corpus of evidence for the long surviving domestic industries of the
Bronze Age.
18
It was long an axiom of archaeology that flintnapping and stone-tool use gradually faded
away when bronze tools and edged weapons were added to the material culture of the
Aegean world after the end of the Neolithic, but the nearly 12,000 lithics from Bronze
Age Lerna demonstrate clearly the continuing importance of stone tools in this period
(Hartenberger and Runnels 2001, 280).
It is also worth noting the fairly late survival of stone tools is also noted within
other parts of the world beyond Europe, such as strata observed by Rosen within
Egyptian and other Near/Middle Eastern regions:
The fact that metallurgy and chipped stone technology overlap for more than three
millennia is sufficient reason to re-examine the assumed roles of metal tools in ancient
societies. The claim, in hindsight, of “superiority” of early metallurgy over flint tools is
simply untenable, and the long process of metal-stone replacement is neither obvious,
preordained, nor simple (1997, 11-12).
Interestingly, within the Levant region, in-depth studies were carried out by
Rosen (1996; 1997) who highlights the presence of fairly ad hoc technologies, like
many of the other later prehistoric assemblages, including the Irish material. Rosen’s
research within the Levant, extends well into the Bronze Age and beyond and has
shown a continuation of these same ad hoc industries, although he was unable to
identify at what point these industries ceased to function due to stratigraphic issues,
he does suggest a decline sometime between the end of the Early Bronze Age and
before the Iron Age period for these industries within the Levant region (1997 - my
italics).
It seems that where studies are available that has dealt with the nature and
functionality of lithic industries of the metal era, and has been able to specifically
assess post-Middle Bronze Age industries, that there is clear evidence of continued
functionality. This ties in well with the findings from the Irish study. This evidence
strongly indicates household lithic technologies continue unimpeded and remain
entirely functional irrespective of the availability or, suitability of circulating metal
replacements.
Therefore, as most of these industries are at the same time quite crude (leaving
aside the fully-functioning Late Bronze Age industries and atypical standardised
19
technologies established within the Lerna settlement in Greece as outlined by
Hartenberger and Runnels (2001), and are actually quite expedient, perhaps then it
is the crudity of this later prehistoric industries, that is blurring the recognition of
continued functionality of later prehistoric industries, rather than the lack of
evidence.
Causes & mechanisms to explain the nature & continued importance of lithics in the metal-era
The complexity of metal vs. stone working and motivations should be considered
when reviewing the nature of domestic industries compared to other aspects of
Bronze Age society. Indications of a pre-metallurgical decline within some domestic
industries, including Ireland should also be taken into account. Furthermore, several
studies, including the Irish research, clearly shows that once metal was introduced
that it had little or no impact upon the functionality of traditional lithic technologies
and indeed, this marginal impact seems to have continued throughout the first age
of metallurgy where it was, or could be, investigated in any detail.
Explanations for this unexpected survival of domestic lithic industries have been
sought within this present assessment and it seems that Edmonds’ (1995) less direct
replacement hypothesis is applicable. For instance, Edmonds provides an alternative
mechanism to explain the survival and continued functionality domestic stone
industries well into the Middle Bronze Age in Britain, suggesting that many of the
traditional social dimensions of stone were now fulfilled by metal (1995). And
perhaps Ford et al’s proposition that formal lithic tools may have been ‘off-set’ to
some extent by less formal types (1984, 167) would begin to fit the evidence
emerging from the available studies that have dealt with lithic technology within the
domestic sphere of the metal era.
The aim of this present publication is therefore to bring up-to-date the state of
play regarding recent research dealing with domestic lithic technology in the first
age of metallurgy from a pan-European perspective. To establish a criterion to aid
the identification in the field of functional lithic forms to begin making sense of the
true role of domestic tool technology in relation to metal forms throughout the
Bronze Age. It is also hoped that this assessment of the domestic lithic traditions of
the Irish Bronze Age will act as a springboard to stimulate debate, further research,
inform and basically disseminate the important aspects of essentially a new area of
prehistoric archaeological research.
20
The structure and format of the study
Chapter one presents the methodology of collecting and assessing data and
chronological framework employed within the original Irish study of the lithics of
the Bronze Age (O’Hare 2005). It outlines some of the contextual and dating issues
surrounding the recording of lithic technology from domestic contexts from the
Beaker period until the end of the Bronze Age. A broad dating scheme is presented
and a brief summary is outlined for the main frequency distribution of Irish lithic
material associated with a two-fold simplistic division of Earlier Metal Era and the
Developed Bronze Age period that was employed for domestic material. This is due to
fact that the finer chronological resolution employed in the earlier study was more
applicable to funerary/hoard type contexts and not suitable for the broader review
of domestic contexts – the focus of this present study.
The settlements reviewed in this study often span several centuries and therefore
the traditional Bronze Age divisions that we tend to employ in relation to
metalworking traditions, are not as relevant within this study. The main frequency
distributions from the earlier study which includes the non-domestic contexts are
summarised within this chapter. Chapter one will outline the main characteristics
and explanations of the stone tool technology found within domestic contexts in
Ireland in order to follow the presentation of the case studies directly analysed and
main patterns of lithic-use identified from written sources in chapter’s two to four.
Chapter two presents the evidence from both directly analysed lithic collections
and those from written sources from sites all over Ireland and spanning the Beaker
period until the Early Bronze Age period, from c. 2400 to 1800 BC. It should be
pointed out that many lithic collections were identified within this study that belong
to the Beaker/Bronze Age period, but are not included directly within this part of
the assessment due to the fact that they could not be refined within a particular
phase of the new metal era.
Only well dated and chronologically refined collections from domestic contexts
are included, although one particularly large collection which directly analysed as
part of the study spanned both the Beaker and the traditional Early Bronze Age
period. However, by reviewing assemblages from the written record relating to
discrete Beaker contexts, it was possible to establish the nature of collections from
the earliest stages of the new metal era.
21
There were a number of discrete Early Bronze Age collections reviewed that
were directly analysed by the present writer as well as discrete post-Beaker
assemblages described within written sources, which in combination and through
time, proved quite informative in building up a clear picture of the nature of earlier
metal-era domestic assemblages which could be compared to the later phases of the
Bronze Age. This is the focus of the following chapter.
This chapter commences with the directly analysed lithics outlining the
summary of the main patterns found dealing firstly with primary technology
(reduction material and raw material use) followed by secondary technology (the
creation and use of tools). The remainder of this chapter deals with information
regarding primary and secondary lithic technology from written sources and will
present an overview discussion of the main characteristics of lithic technology of the
earlier metal era.
Chapter three runs chronologically from the post-1800 BC era until the Late
Bronze Age and presents evidence in a similar layout to the earlier phases in chapter
two in that directly analysed assemblages are presented first, followed by the
assessment of contemporary assemblages from written sources. Again, like the
earlier period, a number of large collections spanned particular timeframes within
the Bronze Age. For example, some assemblages either date between the Middle and
Late Bronze Age period, or the dates from these sites could not be specified within
these respective timeframes, a number of collections fall into the broader category of
the Developed Bronze Age in this section.
Interestingly, however, the greater number of sites and collections belong to the
post-Early Bronze Age period and there were a few specifically Late Bronze Age
collections that could be assessed to establish the continuity of forms and quantities
through to the latest stages of the Bronze Age in Ireland. The overview technology
of the later stages of the Irish Bronze Age will be included in the following chapter
dealing with the main patterns of lithic use throughout the first age of metallurgy.
Chapter four will review all of the main lithic patterns of raw material use,
reduction strategies, production of formal and informal tools throughout the Irish
Bronze Age, commencing in the Late Neolithic period and summarise the overall
findings that clearly suggest a continuation of functional everyday tool class
categories throughout the Irish Bronze Age period, with reference to other regions
where applicable and within the framework of metal technology.
22
Chapter five takes an overview of the broader patterns of lithic technology
identified within other regions and discusses these in relation to the overall impact
of metal upon the industries. It highlights the similarity and differences between
different regions at different phases of the Bronze Age and Late Neolithic periods. It
argues for a continuation of industries well into the Late Bronze Age period based
upon evidence from the Irish analysis and evidence emerging from so many diverse
regions of a similar survival of essentially ad hoc industries. These will be discussed
in relation to the evidence for the use of metal tools and other aspects of the metal
industry which might inhibit the uptake of this new material for everyday use
within domestic settlements.
The conclusion will attempt to answer some of these issues raised within the
survey. It will do this by reviewing the main findings of the relationship between
metal and traditional domestic industries within a wider regional context. It will
explore the possible causes of survival of functional industries in relation to a fully
developed metal industry. This section will outline the possible theoretical and
practical evidential findings that seem to explain the relationship between metal and
stone and the actual role of stone within the domestic sphere during and throughout
the Bronze Age period.
Explanations as to how this material became so degenerate in most instances, yet
remained entirely functional will be presented in diagrammatic form to aid this
interpretation. This is based essentially upon Edmonds’ proposal in relation to the
metaphorical replacement/displacement or the erosion of stone by the metal
industry, and is employed as a means to explain the fate of the lithic industry during
the Bronze Age in relation to the new, exotic material of metal. This mechanism
would seem to accommodate the commonality of patterns of domestic lithic use and
its long survival identified within Ireland and found within so many different
regions.
23
Chapter One - Methodology The identification of lithic collections belonging to the Bronze Age
A preliminary investigation as part of the earlier doctoral research into lithic
technology within the Irish Bronze Age was undertaken initially to test the
feasibility of such a topic of research. The initial findings indicated an abundant
quantity of contexts and material that required investigation. Furthermore, more
lithic material was being unearthed, particularly dating to the Bronze Age period,
due to developer-led excavations, making available new material that could be
investigated and assessed against the older archived collections. The chronology of
the Bronze Age and therefore phases within the expanse of time, were becoming
more resolved with the increasing range of radiocarbon dates and re-sequencing/re-
evaluations of materials such as pottery.
For instance, as we employ metal typology to establish the technology of this
period, and as direct associations between lithics, and indeed any other material,
and metalwork is so rare within the Bronze Age, it was initially very difficult to
relate these to the traditional metalworking phases and main currency of metal
types. In order to attempt a temporal association between stone and metal, an
alternative chronological framework needed to be established. As pottery is
generally ubiquitous within sites relating to the Bronze Age period in association
with lithic material, ceramic typology therefore seemed to be the best approach to
establishing a relative chronology for lithic technology. Other means of dating such
as C14 dates were also employed where possible.
The catalogue information is included within appendices of the PhD copy
entitled The Bronze Age Lithics of Ireland (O’ Hare 2005) held at Queen’s
University, Belfast, Archaeology & Palaeoecology Department. All of the
context/sites relating to Bronze Age technology both directly and indirectly
assessed were included in the catalogue and range from a few to a several thousand
pieces relating to almost 300 different sites within Ireland. The sites/contexts
containing lithic material relate to all the main phases dating from the Beaker (Early
Bronze Age) period until the Dowris (Late Bronze Age).
24
The analysis of accessible lithic material When it came to actually recording directly Irish Beaker-only sites and their
related lithic technology, a number of accessibility and stratigraphic issues were
encountered at the early stages of this research. Most of these were overcome and
clear datable sites were established for the purposes of this research. In the early
stages of the doctoral study, in order to establish the characteristic nature, if any
between the pre-metal and metal era lithic assemblages, Several discrete Final
Neolithic collections were examined at a cursory level by the present writer (these
are not included directly within the database material relating to the Beaker/Bronze
Age period) It was found that indeed the Final Neolithic material was highly distinct
from Beaker lithic technology, both in terms of raw material procurement/reduction
strategies and in terms of formal type tools and weapons. Therefore, a fairly
informative datum point was set by which to assess all succeeding assemblages after
the Final/Late Neolithic period. This creates fairly accurate temporal indicator for
otherwise difficult to date sites in terms of lithic markers and at the same time raises
the question as to why the lithic technology should be so distinct between these two
periods, which perhaps be a fruitful topic of research at some later stage.
All assemblages that could be identified from the written record and by any
other means that could be dated to the Beaker period and the subsequent phases of
the Bronze Age were placed within the catalogue of Bronze Age lithics outlined
above. Where possible, the actual lithic material relating to these datable sites were
recorded and analysed directly by the present writer. These collections were
typically located and sourced from within museum and university, from the stores
of contract archaeologists and government bodies and any other location where it
was at all possible to access the actual lithic assemblages and pieces.
These analysed lithics constitute the content of the lithic database c. 16,000 lithic
pieces. They range from single artefact to thousands of pieces of debitage within a
single collection. The detailed database for this primary material can be accessed
within appendices of the PhD copy (The Bronze Age Lithics of Ireland by Maria B.
O’ Hare 2005) held at Queen’s University, Belfast, and Archaeology & Palaeoecology
Department.
Building a relative lithic chronology for the Irish Bronze Age Before discussing how these lithic items and assemblages were distributed
across time, and context, the main relative-chronology of the Irish Bronze Age as
25
employed within the lithic study will be reviewed. Table 1 is mainly based on
ceramic traditions and corresponding to the main traditional tertiary divisions and
Waddell’s (1998) scheme of chronological phases within the Irish Bronze Age.
The Relative Chronology employed for lithic technology of the Irish
Beaker/Bronze Age
Table 1: Relative chronology developed to assess lithic technology throughout the first age of metallurgy in Ireland
Main Ceramic type
Approx. Date range BC for pottery
Irish metalworking phases based on Waddell (1998 tables 3 and 4)
Traditional metalworking division B
roa
d
div
isio
n
Beaker (Early) (mainly domestic) Beaker (Insular)
2400 - 2250 2250 - 2150
Knocknagur (2400 – 2200 BC) (Ross Island type copper mines)
Beaker
Ear
lier
Met
al E
ra
(E
ME
)
Bowls (funerary only) 2175 - 1925 Killaha (2200 – 2000 BC)
Early Bronze Age
Vase (domestic & funerary) Encrusted Urns (funerary only) Vase Urns (funerary only)
2025 – 1800 2000 – 1800 2000 - 1775
Ballyvally (2000 – 1600BC)
Collared Urns (funerary only)
1850 – 1700
Dev
elop
ed B
ron
ze A
ge
(DB
A)
Cordoned Urns (funerary & domestic)) Cordoned Urns (Domestic) … …Plain Coarse Wares (Domestic & funerary)…
1700 – 1500 -1500 …
Derryniggin (1600 - 1500 BC) (Mount Gabriel type copper mines)
Killymaddy (1500 – 1350 BC) Bishopsland (1350 – 1000 BC)
Middle Bronze Age
…Coarse Ware (domestic & funerary
… 1000 – 600
Roscommon (1000 – 900 BC)
Late Bronze Age
26
By achieving a finer-resolution of the Irish Bronze Age the lithic material can
now be assessed more meaningfully in relation to metalworking types by employing
a ceramic typo-chronology. This finer chronology was more applicable to original
Irish Bronze Age lithic study which included non-secular contexts. For the
discussion of the domestic lithic material, a broader chronology has been employed
here. It is divided into the EME (Earlier Metal Era) DBA (Developed Bronze Age -
inclusive of the Middle and Late Bronze Age) and where known: the Late Bronze
Age (LBA).
The chronological framework employed within this study is mostly based upon
Brindley’s (2007) scheme focusing on the chrono-typological sequence of the Early
Bronze Age ceramic traditions. Prior to this being available, Brindley’s (1995)
broader sequence dating from the Beaker to the Late Bronze Age in Ireland was a
very useful starting point for the original Bronze Age lithic study (O’Hare 2005).
Brindley’s (1995) study places both the Beaker and Bowl Tradition within the
same phase as a result of her assessment of radiocarbon date ranges for vessels of
the earlier metal era in Ireland. She places the Beaker and Bowls within the
Introductory Phase corresponding to c. 2400 to c. 1950 BC (1995). Furthermore, Case
has indicated that some Insular Beaker types (later phase) overlap with the Irish
Bowl Tradition (1995). Table 1 shows that according to Brindley’s more recent and
refined scheme that the Bowl Tradition commencing at around 2175 BC would
certainly overlap with the Insular Beakers sequence recorded by Case (1995).
In Brindley’s later (2007) assessment of the chrono-typological sequence of the
ceramic traditions of Ireland commencing with the post Beaker ceramics, she deals
specifically with the Earlier Bronze Age ceramic traditions known as the Food
Vessels. These include the Bowl Tradition dating to just before 2175 BC and see their
main currency of use up to c.1925 BC and the slightly overlapping Vase Tradition,
commencing at around 2025 BC (Table 1). The Bowl and Vase Tradition are quite
separate traditions where this present research did not find a single overlapping
association within the same contexts between these vessels (O’Hare 2005).
As this present study takes the format of identifying the collective contextual
range of tools and weapons available within secure contexts of a domestic nature
and the first age of metallurgy in Ireland is marked by quite a number of Beaker
settlement sites and the Bowls do not appear to be part of domestic contexts in
Ireland and therefore, the present writer defines the Earlier Metal Era assemblages
27
as relating to the Beaker and domestic ceramic traditions dating from around 2025
BC to the beginning of the Cordoned Urn Tradition known from both funerary and
domestic contexts.
Just to review the ceramic chronology within the finer timeframe, for example
the burials and related lithic material of the broader Vase Tradition, includes
Encrusted Urns, Pygmy Cups and Vase Urns refined within the broad date range of
2025 – 1775 BC by Brindley (2007) (Table 1), which are exclusive to funerary
contexts, whereas, the basic Vase vessel also found in graves is a type also
commonly associated with domestic material of the same era.
Another later vessel known as the Collared Urn is never associated with
domestic contexts and seems to be associated exclusively with funerary contexts.
This vessel form is dated to the period c. 1850 – 1700/1670 BC and the end of this
traditions appears to overlap slightly with the beginning of the main currency of the
Cordoned Urns c. 1700 – 1500 BC (see Brindley 2007, fig. 153) (Table 1). The
Cordoned Urns are associated with both domestic and funerary contexts and I have
placed these into the post-Earlier Metal Era timeframe for the following reasons.
I have referred to the sites relating to this tradition and corresponding dates as
the Developed Bronze Age which includes the coarser forms of this ceramic
tradition and the Coarse Ware pottery and dates commonly found within domestic
sites spanning the Middle and often into the traditional Late Bronze Age period as
well. For example, recently, a range of domestic sites emerging with associated
Cordoned Urn pottery which, appear to have a significantly longer currency than
the funerary pottery of the same type assessed by Brindley (2007). Roche and
Grogan’s recognition of Middle Bronze Age plain domestic ware (Coarse Ware type
pottery) derived from the Cordoned Urn tradition (2012) (Table 1) has helped
greatly in filling out the Middle Bronze Age domestic sites a little within this study,
which originally were assigned by the present writer to the Late Bronze Age period.
Broadly speaking, the Later Irish Bronze Age in general has only in relatively
recent times become less opaque as the ceramic sequence has been become
chronologically more clearly defined. For example, since the re-evaluations of the
Lough Gur Coarse Ware ceramic tradition carried out by Kelly (1978) and in more
recent years by Cleary (1993, 1995), where, these have been significant in finally
resolving at least one of the enigmatic issues within Irish prehistoric studies; placing
this ceramic tradition in the Southwest firmly within the latter part of the Bronze
28
Age.
As this particular Coarse Ware pottery has become more clearly defined, it has
meant that the dating of sites to the later phases of the Irish Bronze Age throughout
Ireland, coupled by an increasing range of radiocarbon dates from new and earlier
excavations, has led to a significantly greater number of sites dating to the mid to
Later Bronze Age being identified. This significantly greater number of sites,
particularly as a result of developer-led excavations from the late nineteen-eighties
onwards has been noted by Doody (1993).
The lithic technology associated with Late Bronze Age activity could not have
been assessed in any meaningful manner without such evaluations/re-evaluations
of Irish Late Bronze Age material. The clarity of the Later Bronze Age contexts
within Ireland is highlighted by Brindley in the following:
The contribution of radiocarbon to the Later Bronze Age is different to that of the Early
Bronze Age. Until the advent of this dating technique, the Later Bronze Age consisted
almost entirely of metal types. Large parts of the country seemed to be wastelands on the
various distribution maps which were a main source of evidence of the period (1995, 11).
As the particular focus of the Irish Bronze Age lithic industries deals mainly
with domestic lithic assemblages, and as explained above, these contexts broadly fall
into two main divisions of the Irish Beaker/Bronze Age period. This was an
adequate bi-part division in order to assess the main differences, if any, between a
time when beyond the metal axe, most tools of metal were not available to replace
the traditional lithic industries and a time when metal tools first became available
that had the potential to replace the traditional chipped-stone technologies within
domestic settlements.
A summary of distribution and frequency of lithic pieces and assemblages from all contexts through time
The chronology relevant to domestic collections therefore falls into Earlier Metal
Era assemblages – EME (inclusive of the Beaker and Early Bronze Age); the second
division is the DBA (Developed Bronze Age) (commencing with the post-Vase
tradition and dated to c. 1700 BC, or two centuries before the traditional
Metalworking phase of the Middle Bronze Age. The Developed Bronze Age
encompasses the Traditional Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age periods.
29
Where possible sites have been subdivided into their traditional phases where the
dating evidence will allow.
The two distribution maps (Figure 1) shows all of the Bronze Age lithic contexts
that could be assigned to a particular phase of the Bronze Age and were employed
in the overall assessment of lithic technology. These sites and contexts are included
in the catalogue along with the General Bronze Age material that was definitely of
the metal era, but could not be more meaningfully refined chronologically to include
directly in the lithic assessment, but are never-the-less, important in quantitative
terms.
The large assemblages refer to collections of several thousand lithic pieces, the
medium assemblages correspond to lithic quantities from several hundred to a
thousand pieces; and small assemblages represent fewer than 100 pieces. Finally, the
single or a few items typically refer to lithics from within grave deposits which are
usually quite informative in terms of their temporal and contextual affiliations.
As noted above, only sites that can be assigned to a particular phase of the
Bronze Age have been included in the maps, and the sites not included are listed in
the comprehensive catalogue as: General Bronze Age (GBA), which could not be
assessed directly in relation to time, and may perhaps be useful for future research
when clearer dates become available for these sites. The Bronze Age lithic types and
assemblages that could be placed within phases of the Bronze Age have been
distributed according to two main divisions of the Irish Bronze Age for the purposes
of this fairly broad review of the overall findings from the original Irish Bronze Age
investigation of lithic distribution and dating.
30
Simplified distribution of lithic technology by size found within various
contexts which could be dated to either the earlier or later phases of the first
age of metallurgy within Ireland
Figure 1: Distribution of Irish Bronze Age lithic technology from the Beaker period to the end of the
Vase Tradition c. 2400 – 1800 BC (Earlier metal era = EME) left compared with lithic technology from
sites relating to the post-Vase Tradition inclusive of Middle and Late Bronze Age sites c. 1800 – 600
BC (Developed Bronze Age = DBA) right.
As noted in the chronology discussion, this broad two-part division is due to the
fact that some quite large assemblages span the Beaker period to the Vase Tradition
and other assemblages belong to the period just prior to and inclusive of the
traditional Middle Bronze Age and a few collections span the Middle and Late
Bronze Age. Therefore, where it could be established, most assemblages either fall
into the EME (Earlier metal era) or DBA (Developed Bronze Age). This device is
adequate for the overview assessment of mainly domestic (some quite large)
assemblages relating to the Irish Bronze Age. The distribution maps (Figure 1) show
a fairly dense distribution of various sized assemblages spanning the entire Bronze
Age period.
31
Figure 2: Bar chart representing frequency of lithic quantities according to
earlier and later phases of the Bronze Age.
Bearing in mind that these are only Bronze Age collections that could be placed
within specific phases of the Bronze Age, Figure 2 demonstrates that the small
assemblages (typically containing several to one hundred lithic pieces) are the most
dominant type and particularly within the period post-1800/1700 BC, although the
large assemblages are fairly sparse within both the earlier and later phases of the
Bronze Age. The medium-sized assemblages are dominant within both the early and
later phases of the Bronze Age; these typically constitute several hundred to a
thousand lithics.
Furthermore, as this survey will show, the actual quantity of lithic material
found within domestic/secular contexts is positively abundant and does not
decrease through time. Indeed, there were much more domestic assemblages
containing often very large quantities of lithic material (interestingly worked in a
very similar manner to the earlier assemblages) dating to the latter stages of the Irish
Bronze Age period than the earlier stages, inclusive of the Beaker period.
Figure 3 highlights the predominance of the non-secular material in the Earlier
Metal Era (EME) compared to the Developed Bronze Age (DBA); conversely, the
Developed Bronze Age assemblages relating to secular contexts are almost doubled
within this later period. It should be pointed out that although the DBA period
spans a greater period of time compared to the EME that most of the later
assemblages in reality relate to the Middle/Late Bronze Age (c 1500 - 1000 BC)
which is a comparable timeframe for the earlier lithic assemblages.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
EM
EDBA
Phases and assemblage size
Large
Medium
Small
32
Figure 3: Bar chart representing frequency of lithics by context type according to the broad
Bronze Age division.
N=370 contexts
Figure 4; Pie chart representing percentages of contexts for lithics within each phase of the
Bronze Age including general Bronze Age contexts.
Figure 4 presents the frequency Bronze Age lithic contexts, including the
collections that could not be placed within a specific phase which, may belong to
either the Early Metal Era or the Developed Bronze Age, or straddle this convenient
demarcation. These are important to bear in mind and may become useful when
better dating for these sites becomes available. They are important collections also as
the GBA (General Bronze Age) sites account for 15 per cent of the total 370 contexts
(Figure 4).
Furthermore, Figure 4 also shows an unexpectedly high percentage, almost half
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
EME DBA
secular
non-secular
Phases for Lithic assemblages
15%
37%
48% GBA
EME
DBA
33
of the total contexts containing lithics relating to the Irish Beaker/Bronze Age
corresponding to the latter part of the new metal era.
In conclusion to this section reviewing the general chronology and distribution
established in the earlier study, Figure 4 strongly indicates that assemblages dating
from the earliest until the latest phases of the new age of metallurgy in Ireland do
not decrease quantitatively through time. The following section will now review the
main tool class categories as found within domestic (secular) contexts only so as to
explain the evaluation of these lithic collections through time outlined further on.
Explaining the main patterns of lithic use in the Irish Bronze Age
Apart from stone arrowheads and more abundant scraper forms, the Irish
Beaker/Bronze Age assemblages would look sparse indeed, if the less recognisable
tool forms and reduction strategies were not first understood. As the Irish domestic
lithic assemblages are dominated in most instances by these less informal tools and
previously unrecognised lithic reduction strategy, it is essential to outline the nature
of these assemblages before proceeding with the actual presentation of the analysed
collections, augmented by written sources.
The nature of reduction of large quantities of lithic material found throughout
settlements of the Irish Bronze Age period, and most important in terms of its
relationship to metal, the tools, beyond more obvious scrapers, the occasional
arrowhead or polished stone axe, produced via the atypical reduction strategy did
not generally conform to our traditional classification of tools. Essentially, the
Bronze Age industries from the earliest phases of metallurgy (the Beaker period) in
Ireland are ad hoc and require an entirely new approach to identification,
classification and interpretation
For instance, the reduction strategy identified within the Irish assemblages did
not resemble the expected reduction technique employed within most prehistoric
assemblages which we as archaeologists and lithic specialists refer to as platform
reduction. The nature of the Irish Bronze Age material did not show the normal
characteristics of blades/flakes being detached from a platform, indeed, the Irish
material found very little evidence of blade technology and certainly a notable
absence of platforms. The occasional presence of amorphous type cores (where
several detachments will be made from fairly random platform surfaces) within
34
these industries are also typically indicative of expedient and a more opportunistic
approach to lithic reduction.
The Bronze Age literature pertaining to lithic technology was sparse but some
indications were made of reduction material referred to as bipolar reduced, scalar
technology or simply split-pebble and not infrequently described as containing a
high incidence of broken, fragmentary, chunks and chipped material. It eventually
became apparent that all these terms may be describing the same thing and with
some support from scholars working on Irish Bronze lithic material, it became clear
that a single term would be best applied to the evidence emerging, so bipolar
reduction as a technology that would best describe the Irish Bronze Age reduction
strategy was applied.
Furthermore, support for this premise comes from the work of Knarrström who
describes bipolar reduction strategy as one of the most expedient forms of reduction
which characterises the Bronze Age Scandinavian settlement technologies (2001).
Basically, this non-conforming lithic reduction material had to be assessed within
some framework of classification in order to make meaningful interpretations of the
data. This study employed this term although this also had its difficulties as not all
scholars agree with the details of this strategy.
As Shott points out ‘there are nearly as many definitions of bipolar reduction as
there are bipolar objects’ (1989, 2), which leaves many issues still unresolved in
attempting to describe such typically crude technologies. However, I have employed
an amalgamation of research into bipolar material by several scholars such as:
Kobayashi (1975); Crabtree (1982); Cotterell and Kamminga (1987); Ahler (1989);
Shott (1989); Knight (1991); Kuijt et al (1995); Knarrström (2001) and Shott and
Sillitoe (2005) and combined these with personal observations of a wide range of
essentially bipolar assemblages from all over Ireland to gain a clearer insight into the
technologies employed.
Basically, this fairly randomly fractured lithic material, once it is organised into
some semblance of type and a consistent methodology applied, the technology does
become somewhat clearer and most importantly, from the point of view of this
particular study, it strongly indicates a consistent lithic strategy throughout the Irish
Bronze Age period which cannot be dismissed as random. Furthermore, it also
shows that the size of previously bewildering lithic assemblages of the Irish Bronze
Age is en-power with Neolithic assemblages.
35
It is not, for example, entirely satisfactory that we continuously try to apply the
technological techniques and systems of recording that we employ for pre-
metallurgical assemblages to those of the Bronze Age and even beyond. It is in many
cases, particularly when it comes to recording the reduction strategy, almost
impossible to make the bipolar reduction strategy fit into the existing platform
reduction and debitage systems of recording. It is like trying to fit a square peg into
a round hole.
For instance, a distinction between platform and bipolar cores is highlighted by
Knight who notes that: ‘A core has flakes struck off it, and one is usually left with
debitage and a core. The anvil (bipolar) technique, on the other hand, usually
produces more than one bipolar piece’ (1991, 61). The term bipolar core, even
though it is not technically a core in the conventional sense, has also been employed
throughout this text for consistency and in some instances would better be described
as chunks or blocky material in the case of chert and quartz and split, quartered or
segmented pebbles in the case of (erratic) glacial flint.
Essentially the bipolar technique involves resting a nodule or block on an anvil
(hard stone) and hitting it from above at about 90° producing ‘relatively
uncontrolled flake removals’ (Knight 1991, 57). Figure 5 demonstrates the basic
stages of knapping employing bipolar reduction. This is fundamentally different to
the platform technique where the parent nodule is the core and flakes or blades are
deliberately detached from the core.
Figure 5: Stages of knapping strategy via bipolar reduction suggested by the cores recovered
from a Bronze Age settlement in Sweden (Knarrström 2001, fig. 51).
36
Other technology that is found within bipolar assemblages is that of pieces with
platform struck attributes, although according to Kuijt et al., these can occur
sporadically within otherwise bipolar industries (1995). Some of the Irish
assemblages had a more expedient form of platform type technology such as
amorphous cores (arbitrary platforms and flake removals) or a combination of a
previously anvilled (bipolar) core that had an opportunistic flake removed at <90°
employing a flat platform. These are important to recognize, although essentially
these pieces made up a fairly minimal component compared to the overall use of
bipolar, hard hammer, direct percussion employing an anvil.
The main morphology of bipolar cores seems to be formed by repeatedly placing
previously produced cores on an anvil, so, depending upon how many episodes of
reduction, where bipolar cores are placed back on the anvil stone and hit from above
at 90˚, the result produces increasingly thinner bipolar cores which typically exhibit
pointed ends (end placed on the anvil stone) and an opposing flattish (lipped)
platform surface.
Bipolar cores from Irish Bronze Age sites often showed pointed forms and
opposite flattish platforms indicate that these have been anvilled several times.
Essentially this is similar to hard hammer, direct percussion. This bipolar cores often
are simply pieces or chunks of material and typically do not display the classic flake
detachments from opposing sides that would be perhaps expected with the bipolar
reduction method; often these pieces (bipolar cores) do not appear to be worked
until they are more closely inspected.
Frequently there are clues to their significance in showing at least one face that
has a bulbous surface indicative of being split from a larger piece. Sometimes the
more elongated bipolar cores are remarkably consistent forms and their morphology
remains consistent irrespective of whether they are of chalk flint, small pebble type
flint, chert or quartz. Experimental work has shown that the latter material appears
to demand bipolar reduction as it does not fracture predictably like flint or chert.
When these bipolar technologies are viewed collectively rather than
individually; they often begin to show a previously unrecognised morphological
conformity. Other characteristics of some bipolar cores when assessed over several
hundred to thousands of pieces begin to show signs that pieces that have gone
through several episodes of bipolar reduction on the same core piece that there is
sometimes a type of lateral twist present. This appears to have been caused by the
37
energy of the simultaneous impact from the downward percussion and the upward
impact of the anvil converging in the central part of the piece.
Bipolar technology pieces cannot be orientated in the same manner as
conventional platform technology in order to take measurements, for instance: from
the proximal and distal ends. Therefore, bipolar pieces have been measured within
this study at 10mm intervals for their greatest dimensions. Although this was a
crude method of measurement, the results of overall sizes of bipolar material
(bipolar cores and bipolar flakes) showed remarkably conservative patterns.
Bipolar cores are simply chunkier and tend to have several faces, whereas flakes
have usually two main faces and are typically thinner. Scalar flake was previously
employed in the original study and is listed as such within the databases relating to
the Irish material but will be listed within this study as bipolar flakes to avoid
unnecessary confusion. Bipolar flakes are more flake-like product of the bipolar
process generally thinner (more reduced) than bipolar cores.
The bipolar flakes sometimes possess edges suitable for use as tools as noted
above. Some bipolar flakes show an irregular upper dorsal and could be described
as splayed. Bipolar flakes tend to have fairly irregular upper dorsal faces, if any at
all, and butts (platforms) are typically missing. They do not exhibit typical bulbs of
percussion or other attributes seen on platform produced flakes (Figure 6). The
bipolar process by its very nature does not typically produce blade technology
(presumably this requires total control over the process)
Figure 6: A range of bipolar–on-anvil chert flakes and cores, some refitted, showing 90°
impacts from Turtle Rock, Australia (right) (after Knight 1991, fig. 13).
38
1. Bipolar cores/chunks = lithic pieces with more than two main surfaces
which show clear signs of being fractured in any manner (measured at
greatest dimensions at 10mm intervals starting at <20mm upwards).
2. Bipolar flakes/flattish pieces = lithic pieces with two main faces/surfaces
which show clear signs of being fractured in any manner (measured at
greatest dimensions at 10mm intervals starting at <20mm upwards).
3. Micro-debitage = any bipolar piece or fragment that is less than 10mm in
its greatest dimensions.
An assumption was made in the original Irish lithic Bronze Age study that if the
range, proportion and quantity of ad hoc tools are similar within assemblages dating
from the Beaker, Early and Middle Bronze Age period are seen within the Late
Bronze Age then: it will be assumed that metal did not play a significant role within
domestic economies. This is based upon the premise that metal tools beyond the axe
were not in circulation until the Late Bronze Age period which would have been
suitable to replace domestically produced lithic tools. This was indeed accepted as a
result of the study which will be outlined further on. This present paper then sought
to explore in more detail the possible causes of this result and look more closely at
the overall relationship between the role of metal and the role of stone throughout
the Bronze Age period. These issues will be discussed in the conclusion after all the
results of the direct analysis and what could be gleaned from the literature are
presented.
Fundamental to the approach made in the study of the Irish Bronze Age lithic
technologies regarding the bipolar reduction strategy and the resultant tools was the
assumption that if, as Högberg draws attention to the fact that unmodified flakes are
traditionally classified as waste and not typically viewed as tools per se (2009).
Indeed, the same can be said of most regions, including Ireland, in this assumption.
An assumption was developed within the original study that a pattern would
emerge to suggest that a certain proportion of used bipolar cores and flakes would
have to form the basis of the tool-kit along with more obvious flaked and retouched
pieces such as scrapers and the occasional arrowhead or formal tool and that these
proportions would be seen throughout the Bronze Age, and certainly should be seen
within the Beaker and Early and perhaps Middle Bronze Age domestic collections as
there was not at that time a suitable replacement in metal for the bulk of domestic
39
everyday tools.
By extrapolation of the nature of unmodified lithic forms functioning as tools
emerging such as within Scandinavia to the Irish bipolar assemblages, combined
with experimental work carried out by the present writer and, simply by observing
the patterns within Irish Bronze Age assemblages, also suggests that bipolar pieces
with appropriate edges and tips were used for a wide range of tasks, which earlier
industries carried out using more formal, recognisable and therefore more easily
classifiable tools that are much better recorded within the archaeological record than
their more expedient counterparts.
It was not possible given the sheer volume of material that was assessed in a
very broad manner within the original Irish Bronze Age lithic study to carry out use-
wear analysis on these Irish Bronze Age assemblages, although it would certainly be
a useful line of research for the future. Furthermore, as identified by Shott and
Sillitoe, many of the bipolar flakes were simply used briefly and rapidly discarded,
after selection for various tasks and were not always available for use-wear analysis
(2005).
Some pieces were classified as used not simply because of polish on areas on
pieces that could not have been caused by natural agents, but also certain pieces
with and without polish simply looked like tools; they handled like tools and they
were assumed to be tools. Common sense prevailed in that the quantitative nature
of this present survey did not allow for micro-wear analysis of these pieces and
indeed ethnographic evidence has also suggested that these bipolar produced non-
modified pieces were often used and discarded very rapidly and would frequently
prove very difficult under use-wear analysis to detect.
In relation to the type of tools produced via the bipolar reduction process, the
fundamental difference between platform and bipolar reduction technique is that the
platform core types exhibit evidence of careful planning in terms of a preconceived
outcome, whereas the bipolar reduction technique, based upon ethnographic
evidence, indicates that after bipolar reduction the broken pieces are simply chosen
for suitability to the task, as highlighted by Knight (1991). This is further supported
by the ethnographic evidence of bipolar industries as demonstrated by Shott and
Sillitoe who point out that frequently flakes which then become used, are selected
from the debris from core reduction, and that the flakes are ‘both more diverse and
better controlled than is typical of most ethnographic accounts’ (2005, 654).
40
The term used (bipolar cores and flakes) as defined by Shott and Sillitoe (2001)
has been employed within the Irish study, rather than utilised as this latter
terminology is one typically employed by conventional methods of recording to
imply use over time as seen by obvious striations and denticulate (coarse flaking) on
a piece. The definition of a used bipolar flake employed in this study is based upon
Shott and Sillitoe’s (2005) observation which are summarised as follows:
1. Curation life of used flakes does not have the same meaning as retouched
flakes.
2. Used flakes are briefly employed and immediately discarded.
3. The class of tool (the used flake) is multifunctional and are employed for
sawing, boring, planning, engraving, drilling, shredding and cutting;
although typically each individual piece is restricted for its short use-life
to one material and one task.
Figure 7 demonstrates the simple process of splitting a pebble (bipolar
reduction) to create a workable tool employed without further modification and
Figure 8 presents several flakes (bipolar produced) with polish indicative of use
(represented by dots).
Figure 7: Bipolar reduction strategy and suggested production of segments as cutting tools as
presented by Knarrström (2001, fig. 95).
41
Figure 8: Bipolar flake pieces exhibiting polish from use (after Knarrström 2001, fig. 100).
The original data employed the term utilised for pieces found to have been used.
This was identified on the basis of looking for evidence of polish (sometimes quite
slight and subtle) by using suitable magnification. Often the subtle signs of polish
resulting from use were seen on the concave, hooked, tipped, straight or convex
edges/ends of the lithic pieces. In other words, the fact that most of the polish could
not have got onto these edges and ends without being used would strongly suggest
that this polish could not have occurred under natural conditions.
It has been argued that based upon the results of the Irish Bronze Age lithic
study the specific technology employed within the Irish industries from the
beginning until the end is that of bipolar-on-anvil reduction strategy. This is also
known as a direct hammer and simple technology, sometimes by simply splitting
pebbles. The resultant tools of this technology are fairly ad hoc and are more often
than not unmodified in the technical sense of the word and seem to have been
selected due to their suitability as tools from the debris and employed for various
tasks without applying further modification in most cases. This is based upon
observations from other Bronze Age lithic studies and ethnographic evidence of the
bipolar strategy and its use-wear analysis based upon Knight (1991), Shott and
Sillitoe (2005) and Knarrström’s (2001) observations then, the Irish tool-kit of the
metal era did not look anywhere near as sparse as the British tool-kit of the same
period.
Unfortunately, it is not so easy to classify these used pieces into sub-categories of
awls/borer tools, or blades/knives, saws etc as was perhaps a simpler task in the
42
pre-metallurgical era, but the important point is that at least it is an attempt to
establish the potential for a wide range of multi-functional used tools, albeit fairly
unconventional implements. These used implements seem to have been employed
continuously within Bronze Age domestic sites and the fact that they don’t fit into
our classification systems doesn’t mean that these ad hoc tools are not important; a
point made by Edmonds who stresses the continued importance and fairly common
association of highly opportunistic functional tools associated with domestic activity
of the Middle Bronze Age period in Britain (1995).
The Bronze Age communities certainly didn’t make it easy for us as
archaeologists to understand their day-to-day strategies and activities; perhaps we
need to stop trying to push a square peg into a fairly small round hole and simply
employ common sense. Observation, hands-on experimentation and intra-inter-site
strategies across many assemblages and pieces, as the present writer has applied, is
the only reasonable way to approach this technology. In many instances it has been
necessary to find entirely new strategies to attempt to begin to understand this
bewildering array of ad hoc lithic material. In some cases, conventional lithic
recording systems were simply abandoned in favour of an entirely different
measuring stick.
It is hoped that the methodology outlined above will aid the interpretation of the
Bronze Age assemblages presented in the following chapter that have been in most
cases, directly analysed by the present writer, and are employed to outline the
nature and overall patterns of lithic technology from the Beaker period until the Late
Bronze Age period from a wide range of regions throughout Ireland.
1 Bipolar Tool (used) pieces with more than two main surfaces which show
clear signs of being fractured in any manner (measured at greatest
dimensions at 10mm intervals starting at <20mm upwards); A. polish in area
or surface that cannot have occurred under natural conditions; B. Obvious
wear from use at a point/and or edge that would strongly suggest use as a
tool; C. Morphologically suitable to be employed as cutting/flaking/borer
type tool and can be easily handled with a sturdy grip to employ as a tool.
Some tools had all three criteria or combination of one or two.
43
Chapter Two - Chronological presentation of directly
analysed and indirect assessment of domestic technology
throughout the earlier metal era (c. 2400 – 1800 up to 1600
BC)
This first case study is followed by several other studies where a direct analysis
of lithic material was carried out by the present writer. These are all from domestic
non-secular contexts dating to the post-Beaker period. After the direct analysis
review, the written sources will be surveyed in relation to the main patterns of lithic
technology established within the directly analysed collections. And it should be
said, that the written sources dealing specifically with Beaker lithic technology,
turned out to be quite informative and confirm many of the patterns established for
the directly analysed Beaker, and now extended Early Bronze Age settlement under
review below.
Roughan Hill, Co. Clare (upland Beaker – EBA farmsteads) Several publications relate to this site: Jones (1996, 1998, 2003 and forthcoming),
Jones and Gilmer (1999) as well as lithic analysis updated (O’Hare 2009). Although
this collection contained a large quantity of chert lithic material and belongs to the
Beaker period, this collection also spans the entire Early Bronze Age period, which
became apparent during the post-analysis stage of the entire lithic collection. This
means that this large collection relating to several sites within the area spans a
greater period of the earlier metal era than would have been desired for the purpose
of this study. However, when compared directly with the discrete Beaker collections
from the literature, the parallels were clear and show a temporally diagnostic
technology which can be clearly defined from the Late Neolithic assemblages, thus,
giving a clear insight into domestic lithic technology during the first age of
metallurgy. The information relating to Beaker collections already recorded in the
literature will be outlined further on in this section relating to the period c. 2400 to
1800 BC.
This lithic collection relates to the Beaker and Early Bronze Age period and is
situated at Roughan Hill on the Burren in County Clare, Settlements 1, 2, 5 and 7
(Jones forthcoming and O’Hare 2009). The lithic material recovered Roughan Hill,
Co. Clare was associated with domestic industries relating to the Beaker period;
Early Bronze Age period. In Ireland, this spans several hundred years.
44
The results of the lithic analysis of 5,590 mainly chert lithic pieces, deemed
archaeologically significant, were recovered from four main sites excavated as part
of research on the Burren in County Clare and the bulk of the material was
associated in particular with two main areas referred to as Farmstead 1 and
Farmstead 2. There is no metalworking evidence indicated within these sites.
Farmstead 1 and 2, Roughan Hill, Co Clare - Primary (reduction
technology)
Figure 9 illustrates a typical pointed bipolar (chert) core from Roughan Hill.
Figure 10 presents the proportional frequency of primary reduction technology from
the main collection from Farmstead 1. From the total of 4510 pieces, 3417 relate to
primary technology (76 per cent). The reduction assemblage is essentially made up
of non-platform produced material that has obviously been broken and would best
be described as broken chunks and flake-like pieces, a reduction technology that
would find its closest parallels with Bipolar-on-anvil technique. The reduction
assemblage is almost exclusively made up of bipolar reduced material.
Figure 9: Chert bipolar core from Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare dating to the Beaker/Early
Bronze Age period.
Over a third are bipolar cores, a similar proportion are scalar flakes and under
third represented by micro-debitage pieces which can be a bi-product of either
platform of bipolar technology, but given the predominance of bipolar pieces, these
are assumed to be the result of the latter reduction strategy.
45
Figure 10: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, Co.
Clare.
Figure 11 presents the proportional frequency of primary reduction technology
from Farmstead 2. From the total of 1048 lithic pieces, 992 pieces represent primary
technology (94 per cent). This assemblage has a predominance of bipolar cores
representing jut under a quarter of primary assemblage and 14 per cent are bipolar
flakes. Although, like the collection from Farmstead 1, the primary technology is
essentially bipolar, the primary technology shows a significantly high frequency of
micro-debitage pieces representing almost two thirds of the primary material form
Farmstead 2.
35%
34%
28%
3%
Proportional frequency of primary (reduction) technology
(chert) from Farmstead 1 (Beaker/EBA) (n=3417)
Bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
46
Figure 11: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Farmstead 2, Roughan Hill, Co.
Clare.
The high concentration of micro-debitage is fairly unusual within these bipolar
assemblages compared to other collections. However, irrespective of this variation,
the essential point is that these assemblages are bipolar productions and the paucity
of platform produced material within these assemblages is worth noting at this
point. This paucity of platform produced material compared to bipolar reduced
lithics was also the case for the significantly smaller collections from Farmstead 5
and 7 and the lithic scatter material.
Platform produced pieces were entirely lacking from Farmstead 2 and the
platform technology from the larger collection from Farmstead 1 accounted for 1.4
per cent of the primary reduction assemblage which included a small percentage of
platform blades (0.08 per cent). The remaining primary reduction pieces from the
Roughan Hill site from various contexts are represented by a very small percentage
of platform pieces. Analysis of the distribution of bipolar types throughout all of the
stratified and unstratified contexts within Farmstead 1 showed that there was no
significant variation of types of technology within these features.
There was, no significant variation between the lithics derived from secure
contexts and those from the topsoil. Therefore, it would seem that this lithic
21%
14%
65%
Proportional frequency of primary (reduction) technology from (chert) Farmstead 2 (Beaker/EBA) (n=992)
Bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
47
reduction material is representative of a fairly conservative technological approach
to lithic reduction spanning several centuries. And the similar range of lithic
material within both secure and unstratified contexts would suggest a fairly
undisturbed assemblage.
Overall dimensional attributes of bipolar pieces from Roughan Hill
Measurements were taken for all the bipolar reduced pieces from Roughan Hill,
although these are quite crude intervals, this is due to the fact that bipolar pieces
cannot be orientated in the same manner as conventionally produced platform
types. Thus, broad dimensional measurements were taken along the greatest length
of the bipolar pieces. These were at 10mm intervals for all the bipolar cores and
scalar flakes from Roughan Hill.
The dimensional attributes and overall morphology of the primary reduction
material in the form of bipolar cores and scalar flakes, albeit a crude system of
measuring, for most of the assemblages within the study, as will be seen as the
survey unfolds. The whole population of bipolar cores and scalar flakes from all the
sites at Roughan Hill were combined and measured. This was because no
dimensional variation was established between sites or context for either the
primary reduction or the secondary technology at Roughan Hill, Co. Clare. Figure 12
shows that bipolar flakes have a high frequency of pieces <20mm, and bipolar cores
also tend to exhibit the dimensions of <20mm, although some bipolar cores are
larger at <30mm and a few are <40mm.
Bipolar flakes tend to converge on dimensions of <20mm. These are typically
smaller and thinner than bipolar cores. There was no dimensional variation
established between the bipolar produced pieces from Farmstead 1 and 2 or any of
the other bipolar types recovered from the contexts within these settlements or the
other sites and lithic concentrations from Roughan Hill. This dimensional pattern is
that typically scalar flakes occupy the smaller dimensions and bipolar cores the
slightly larger dimensions. This is due to the fact that typically bipolar cores are
larger than the flakes.
However, the dimensional pattern where bipolar cores and bipolar flakes tend to
cluster together into idealised dimensions depending upon material constraints. The
chert material tends to be similar proportionally to other assemblages of flint and
even large nodular type, although within these latter assemblages the overall sizes
are larger, but the bipolar flakes and bipolar cores still cluster into fairly restricted
48
dimensions. This is seen even when extremely different sized assemblages are
compared.
Figure 12: Bar chart showing dimensions of bipolar pieces from the Farmsteads at Roughan Hill, Co.
Clare collection
Farmstead I and 2, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare - Secondary (tool) technology
Secondary technology (tool-classes)
The results of the secondary technology in the form of tools from Roughan Hill
show that out of 5,590 mainly chert lithic pieces most of these were derived from
Farmstead 1 (80 per cent) and Farmstead 2 (18 per cent). It was observed within the
Roughan Hill collection that many of the technically unmodified pieces such as
bipolar cores are naturally pointed after several reduction sequences and borne out
by experimental work employing non-archaeological chert from the Burren.
It looks like these bipolar pieces were selected and used for boring, piecing,
scraping and cutting tasks. These would have been perfectly suitable as tools
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Combined bipolar dimensions from the Roughan Hill collection (Beaker/EBA) (chert)
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
49
without being technically modified as seen in the typical sharp edge that these
pieces would have and frequently the opposing edge would have a naturally thicker
scalloped edge resulting from the reduction sequence (see Figure 9).
Therefore, the best interpretation for the significantly high incidence of utilised
bipolar pieces from the assemblage at Farmstead 1, and indeed the relatively high
concentration from the settlement at Farmstead 2 is exactly this extrapolation of the
ethnographic evidence that appears to be intrinsically linked to the nature of bipolar
reduction. Farmstead 1 produced a total of 4510 lithic pieces. From this total, 1074
lithics could be identified as tools (secondary technology) accounting for almost a
quarter of the entire collection from Farmstead 1. Figure 13 presents the proportional
frequency of these tool-class categories.
Figure 13: Bar chart showing Secondary technology components from Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill,
Co. Clare dating to the Beaker/Early Bronze Age period.
Farmstead 1 revealed a range of formal scrapers of the sub-circular variety. These
as expected from the available literature are distinctive and morphological
standardised types of this period. These make up 16 per cent of the total tool-
16%
4%
80%
Proportional frequency of secondary (tools) technology from Farmstead 1 (Beaker/EBA) (n=1074)
ad hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used pieces
50
category (Figure 13). Beyond these distinctive scraper types, a number of pieces
were retouched (deliberately modified) and some were quite formal (Figures 14-15).
The secondary assemblage is dominated by used pieces, made up of bipolar cores
and bipolar flake types. Combined the used pieces make up over 80 per cent of the
entire secondary technology from Farmstead 1 (Figure 13). The bipolar core-type
tools appear to be mainly pointed types. This category makes up the vast majority of
the utilised tools (almost 70 per cent) and bipolar flakes (used), with mainly sharp
edges, account for 12 per cent. Based upon the morphology and evidence of use,
these bipolar pieces, appear to have been employed for a range of cutting/sawing
and boring/piercing tasks (Figures 16-17).
Figure 14: A detail of good quality chert sub-circular scraper from Roughan Hill, Farmstead 1 Co. Clare.
Figure 15: Drawing of a selection of chert sub-circular (thumbnail) scrapers from Roughan Hill, Farmstead
1, Co. Clare.
51
Figure 16: Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, Co. Clare, pointed tools made of chert with visible polish on
the pointed ends.
Figure 17: Pointed bipolar core after several reduction episodes from Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, Co.
Clare. An ‘awl’ type tool.
The secondary tool-class category within the Farmstead 1 site contained a few
formal types. These are not listed in the overall tool-class pie-chart as these are
numerically low. The numerically low artefacts consist of two well-made chert
hollow based arrowheads (Figure 18), which are certainly not without parallel from
other assemblages of the earlier metalworking era, as will be borne out as the survey
unfolds. Moreover, the present writer proposes, based upon a detailed examination
of potential Neolithic associations for this arrowhead form, that there are no
convincing pre-Beaker contexts for the hollow based arrowhead in Ireland, thus,
making these fairly good chronological indicators alongside the barbed and tanged
arrowheads; a form that are widely accepted as being of the Beaker/Bronze Age
period.
52
Figure 18: One of two chert hollow based arrowheads from the Beaker farmstead settlement 1
Roughan Hill, Co. Clare (No. 95E061, 156 courtesy of Jones University of Galway).
The other formal stone tools recovered from Roughan Hill, are the portions of
two axes and the possible manufacturing flakes (Figure 19). These are fairly common
artefacts found in small numbers in association with Beaker/Bronze Age domestic
activity. Again, this will be shown as the survey unfolds.
Figure 19: Possible roughout distal portion of a stone axe made of mudstone found unstratified within
Farmstead 1 at Roughan Hill, Co. Clare (top and bottom right). A polished stone axe with missing
distal portion found in Midden at Roughan Hill, Farmstead 1, Co. Clare.
Farmstead 2 revealed a total of 1048 lithic pieces. Fifty-six lithics could be
identified as secondary (tools). The tools from this later settlement only account for
just over 5 per cent of the total technology in proportion to the primary bipolar
reduction assemblage. However, when the secondary tool-class is taken in isolation
within Farmstead 2, the proportion of tool-types within this category shows that: the
used category accounts for just over half of the total secondary technology from this
site whereas, the more formal tools, mainly in the form of sub-circular scrapers,
makes up most of the remaining half of the tool-class category (Figure 20). There
53
were only a few retouched bipolar pieces within the secondary technology from
Farmstead 2 and no arrowheads or coarse stone tools were recovered from this
context.
Figure 20: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Farmstead 2, Roughan Hill,
Co. Clare.
Regarding the more formal tools, the scraper from all the areas within Roughan
Hill had a combined scraper population of 4.17 per cent which were fairly
standardised types both in terms of morphology and dimensions. A total population
of 188 chert scrapers were included in this analysis and a total population of 201
sub-circular scrapers were recovered throughout the various contexts from this site
where 175 were distributed throughout most of the lithic-rich contexts within
Farmstead 1. Farmstead 2 also produced a relatively high frequency of the same
type scrapers totalling 26 in all.
46%
2%
52%
Proportional frequency of secondary (tools) technology from Farmstead 2 (Beaker/EBA) (n=56)
ad hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used pieces
54
Leedaun I, Co. Mayo settlement (2121-1750 BC settlement) This directly analysed collection is like the Roughan Hill, County Clare
assemblages, chert based. There are many parallels, particularly regarding the use of
bipolar technology and an indication of the use of bipolar produced pieces that were
suitable as tools both with and without, further modification. This is a much smaller
assemblage compared to those from *Roughan Hill, but never-the-less quite
informative particularly regarding the more expedient, opportunistic approach to
lithic reduction as seen within the first case study from the Beaker and broadly
contemporaneous Early Bronze Age activity on the Burren in County Clare.
The Leedaun I, site, Co. Mayo (Walsh 1999; Gillespie 1999; lithics report
Anderson 2000) is chert dominated. As some fragmentary prehistoric pottery was
identified as Bronze Age (Gillespie per. comm.) and a radiocarbon date range for this
site was 2121-1750 Cal BC, it seems reasonable to suggest that this site is in part
contemporaneous with the *Roughan Hill settlements. These dates correspond
closest to the broader domestic Vase Tradition.
This chert-based industry assessed by the present writer was derived from a total
of 263 pieces previously analysed from Leedaun, Co. Mayo by Anderson (2000). For
the purposes of this study, c. 100 lithic pieces were analysed by the present writer
from secure contexts in order to answer particular research questions that had
emerged from the fist analysis of the Roughan Hill assemblage.
Primary technology distribution
From the total of 100 directly analysed pieces from Leedaun the primary
technology 86.3 per cent of the total. The technology from Leedaun is as follows:
Bipolar cores represent 41 per cent of the total, followed by bipolar flakes making up
32 per cent and remaining 27 per cent is represented by micro-debitage (Figure 21).
These proportions for bipolar cores, scalar flakes and micro-debitage pieces are
almost identical to those recorded from Roughan Hill, Farmstead 1, Co, Clare which
included a significantly larger chert assemblage of a few thousand pieces.
55
Figure 21: Pie chart showing primary technology components from Leedaun 1, Co. Mayo.
Dimensional distribution of the bipolar technology
The dimensional attributes and overall morphology of the primary reduction
material in the form of bipolar cores and bipolar flakes remains quite conservative
between this small chert collection and the significantly larger assemblage from
Roughan Hill, Co. Clare. Figure 22 shows very similar dimensional attributes from
the bipolar pieces within the Leedaun collection where scalar flakes and bipolar
cores have a higher frequency of <20mm and the bipolar flakes occupy the smaller
dimensions and a small quantity of bipolar cores have preferred dimensions of
<30mm, some <40mm, which is a direct reflection of the dimensional attributes and
indeed morphology of the bipolar produced pieces from Roughan Hill, Co. Clare.
41%
32%
27%
Proportional frequency of primary (reduction) technoloy (chert) from Leedaun 1 (2121-1750 l BC
(n= 84)
Bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
56
Figure 22: Bar chart showing the dimensional frequency of bipolar cores and bipolar flakes from the
Leedaun, I, Co. Mayo
Secondary technology (tools)
Figure 23 is a pie chart showing a range of ad hoc categorie, mainly flaked pieces,
along with fairly standardised sub-circular scraper forms from Leedaun I, Co. Mayo.
The main secondary tool-class categories compare well with the scrapers from the
Beaker/Early Bronze Age settlements within Farmstead 1 and 2, Roughan Hill, Co.
Clare, although the bipolar produced ad hoc pieces are unusual, due to the presence
of flaking. This is fairly atypical of most Bronze Age assemblages, which will
become clear as the survey unfolds,
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Leedaun I, bipolar dimensions (chert)
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
57
Figure 23: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Leedaun I, Co. Mayo.
Figure 23 includes a number of scraper forms akin to those from Roughan Hill.
There were four chert sub-circular scrapers derived from secure contexts recorded
within this study from the original population of 11. Although there were a fairly
significant proportion of used pieces in the form of bipolar types as seen within both
the settlements at Roughan Hill, these are a minimal component within the Leedaun
I, tool category. The main component of the secondary technology within Leedaun I,
are basically modified/flaked and non-classifiable pieces, accounting for two thirds
of the total secondary technology.
The comparison of the two contemporary farmsteads from Roughan Hill is
important in demonstrating quite different approaches to tool-production. For
example, the tool-class categories are quite different where although both had very
few ad hoc scrapers, the population of sub-circular scrapers accounts for almost half
the tool-class category from Farmstead 2 whereas at Farmstead 1, these only account
for 16 per cent and the used category from this settlement makes up most of the
remaining tool-classes and this category accounts for over half the Farmstead 2 tool
assemblage.
11%
17%
67%
5%
Proportion of secondary (tools) technology from Leedaun I, (2121-1750 BC) (n=20)
ad hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used pieces
58
The Farmstead 1 collection was compared with the Farmstead 2 types and it was
demonstrated that these showed remarkably similar dimensional attributes and
morphology and this can be seen within other collections such as Leedaun I, Co.
Mayo outlined above and certainly indicated alongside formal type scrapers and a
range of arrowhead types identified within the direct assessment thus far as
indicated in the literature pertaining to the earlier phases of metallurgy which will
be reviewed in the following chapter. The directly analysed collection also of chert
pieces from Ballyconneelly, Co. Galway sees where there clear parallels as seen in
the distinctive scrapers akin to those from Roughan Hill are clearly indicated.
Ballyconneely (DL1 False Bay) Co. Galway (Early Bronze Age Midden site)
This small collection of mostly finished and obvious looking artefacts of chert
was recovered from a rescue excavation of this coastal location (McCormick et al
1996). Some pottery sherds were recovered along with a small collection of chert
artefacts (information courtesy of McCormick on behalf of Queen’s University
Belfast, Department of Archaeology and Palaeoecology). These probably date the
collection to the period just prior to 2000 BC and as late as 1800 BC based upon the
sherds being of the Vase Tradition. This small lithic collection was recorded directly
by the present writer.
Out of 17 pieces 13 were chert sub-circular types including two blanks. There
were multiple small rounded scrapers which made up most of the assemblage akin
to the formal lithic types found within Roughan Hill, Co. Clare.
The main artefact is in the form of neat chert sub-circular scrapers and these are
directly comparable both in terms of morphology and metrical attributes to many of
the sub-circular types from the scraper types from both settlements at Roughan Hill,
Co. Clare. The dimensions are very similar to the chert scrapers from the
Beaker/Early Bronze Age site and reflect the similar morphology of Beaker and
Early Bronze Age scrapers in general (Figure 24). This tool dominated assemblage
also contained a finely flaked chert hollow based arrowhead (Figure 25). The hollow
based arrowhead is of the same class as that from Roughan Hill, but it has a more
pronounced hollow area.
59
Figure 24: Vase Tradition chert sub-circular (thumbnail) chert scrapers from the Midden site at
Ballyconneely (False Bay DL1, Co. Galway).
Figure 25: Ballyconneely (DL1 False Bay) Co. Galway chert hollow based arrowhead.
An explanation of the main technology employed from the earliest phases of the Irish metal era.
As this survey continues to outline the nature of Beaker and Early Bronze Age
domestic lithic assemblages as seen from the direct analysis and written sources,
which will be reviewed further on, it will become clear that the technology of the use
of highly localised lithic resources, the production of tools via the bipolar reduction
technique and the use of unmodified suitable pieces along with the general paucity
of platform reduction technology identified within the Roughan Hill assemblages
are mirrored within most other Beaker and Bronze Age collections. There are slight
variations between the more formal tools of scrapers, arrowheads etc, otherwise
these assemblages remain almost identical in their approach to lithic reduction and
production of tool forms.
It is therefore important to see the assemblages just outlined from Roughan Hill,
60
Co. Clare and Leedaun I, Co. Mayo, both employing chert that the patterns of lithic
procurement and use are broadly similar to contemporaneous assemblages noted in
the literature and the many other directly analysed examples of domestic
assemblages dating to the Middle and Late Bronze Age period which are presented
in the following chapter. Essentially, bipolar reduction, the use of localised lithic
material whether it be quartz, chert or flint, or a combination thereof, is the mainstay
technology employed at these sites. The problem is that beyond more recognisable
scraper forms, most of the tools are so informal, that they require close inspection in
order to truly assess their merit as usable/functional tools. It is important to bear in
mind that this is the period when, apart from the metal axe, most other tools of
metal would not be suitable at this early stage in the Bronze Age to replace in any
significant manner the everyday domestic stone technology. Therefore, in order for
households to continue to function, they must have relied upon stone to create
usable day-to-day tools.
Supporting evidence from the written record - Beaker assemblages
The evidence presented below from the written record, which generally supports
the evidence assessed this far within the directly analysed assemblages of the Beaker
and Early Bronze Age show comparable scraper forms, arrowheads, stone axes and
in some cases recycled material, as well as evidence for bipolar reduction (non-
platform) assemblages, the use of localised lithic resources and the general clues to
similar expedient use of bipolar material for tools.
The important factor when reading these reports is to note the fairly minimal
presence of platform reduction indicated even if bipolar reduced material is not
explicitly stated, that based upon the direct assessment of bipolar dominated
assemblages and the resultant tools (used implements) found within Irish domestic
collections dating from the Beaker, Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age
period, that the documented lithic collections dating to the new metal era should
also contain fairly similar lithic technologies. In some most instances, scalar
technology/split pebble reduction and/or a high incidence of chunks and broken
pieces are noted within reports; this will be seen further on within this survey.
Occasionally bipolar reduction is explicitly noted and these sites combined with
the other terms and descriptions indicating bipolar reduction therefore suggest that
it is also highly probable that these collections indicated within the literature contain
more tool forms than previously recognised. If these bipolar tools were recorded
alongside the range of scrapers, occasional arrowhead and/or stone axes which are
61
frequently identified within these same assemblages; this would therefore begin to
fill out the overall tool class categories within these sites; and would presumably
begin to reflect the similar array of functional, albeit fairly unconventional, tools
established within the direct analysis of Beaker/Bronze Age domestic collections
detailed above within the direct analysis.
The literature combined with the direct analysis of assemblages dating from the
period c. 2400- 1800 BC clearly shows the commonality of hollow based arrowheads
within early contexts of the new metal era and the fact that no certain stratigraphic
association of hollow based arrowheads could be made within pre-metallurgical
contexts for this projectile (O’Hare 2005) lends good support for them being a
Beaker/Bronze Age diagnostic helping to resolve some of the stratigraphic problems
indicated within some sites. Furthermore, when taken in combination: barbed and
tangs, hollow based arrowheads, sub-circular type scrapers (domed) and evidence
of ad hoc tools and/or bipolar/split pebble technology, along with a general
absence of conventional platform reduction: the lithic assemblages speak for
themselves i.e. they are most likely Beaker/Bronze Age in date.
Sites names prefaced by ‘*’ refer to the collections which have been directly
analysed by the present writer as above. These sites will be included below to draw
parallels with the lithic technology recorded in written sources.
Ross Island, Co. Kerry (Beaker copper mine with some domestic
activity)
A very small lithic collection was recovered from the domestic activity associated
with a copper mine at Ross Island, Co. Kerry (O’Brien 1992, 1993, 1994 and 2004;
lithics: McCartan 1999). Although this very small lithic collection is associated with a
copper mine, there was no actual evidence of metal tool production. This is the case
with all of the other Beaker domestic collections which will be reviewed below,
where instead – lithic material is the only indication of tool production at these sites.
Overall, the lack of conventional platform reduction at this site is worth noting
and the fact that bipolar technique is indicated indirectly when described by
McCartan as a ‘scalar’ type (1999, 2), which is an interchangeable term often
employed in the context of Irish lithic studies to describe bipolar technology, lends
further support to the common occurrence of this fairly arbitrary technology
identified within non-secular collections of the earlier metal era.
62
Other more obvious technology commonly seen within earlier metal era contexts
is also associated with this site. For example, distinctive sub-circular type scrapers
were recovered (Figure 26) along with a hollow-based arrowhead. As can be seen
from the direct assessment of Beaker and Early Bronze Age lithic collections, these
formal lithic types are fairly common within this period. For example, on a small
scale, the Ross Island collection reflects the mainstay technology established from
the direct analysis of *Farmstead 1, Roughan Hill, on the Burren, Co. Clare.
Figure 26: Beaker flint sub-circular scrapers from Ross Island, Co. Kerry (after Crone courtesy of the
Ulster Museum, Belfast).
Figure 27: Flint hollow based arrowhead from Ross Island, Co. Kerry (No. 92E0081: 330) (after
Crone courtesy of the Ulster Museum, Belfast).
McCartan (1999) notes that from 18 pieces and there were three definite flint
scrapers and one possible scraper fragment; these are sub-circular types, which
mirror the morphology of the chert scrapers from *Roughan Hill in being
characterised by steep, abrupt and semi-abrupt flaking. Moreover, these compare
very well both metrically as well as morphologically with the Beaker scrapers from
Ross Island where their average was 17x19x4.6mm (N=3), which when compared
with the much larger sample of chert scrapers with a mean of 16x16x6mm (N=188)
63
from *Roughan Hill, Co. Clare, is remarkably similar.
These morphologically and dimensionally distinctive scrapers are in evidence
within the Irish record for the Beaker period, although not from funerary contexts.
Other Beaker sites show evidence of both bipolar/split pebble reduction and often
scraper forms approximating rounded types along with the occasional arrowhead.
There were two chert hollow based arrowheads (Nos. 95E061, 156 and 157) found
associated with this farmstead. The Ross Island hollow based arrowhead is of flint
(Figure 27) and the Roughan Hill arrowheads are of chert, number 156 from
Roughan Hill compares very well with the Ross Island specimen and the Ross Island
arrowhead was accompanied by very similar sub-circular scrapers to those
described above.
Ballynagilly, Co. Tyrone (Beaker domestic activity)
ApSimon also highlights the presence of the predominance of small convex
scrapers within the Bell Beaker assemblage from Ballynagilly, Co. Tyrone, (1976, 22,
27). This site also revealed several Beaker type barbed and tanged arrowheads from
sites G, L, and M, according to Green’s catalogue (1980). Green also notes the
presence of three hollow-based arrowheads associated with the rusticated Beakers
from sites G (Green 1980, 405, nos. 455 and 455/1). Again these arrowhead forms are
reflected in many other Beaker sites along with the typical array of sub-circular type
scrapers. There is no other information regarding the site from the literature that
would aid the interpretation of the other material of which there was much, but
presumably, if this collection could be accessed directly at some point: it would most
certainly turn out to reflect the directly analysed assemblages and descriptions given
in the literature regarding the more expedient lithic technology.
Knowth Concentrations A – E, Co, Meath (Beaker domestic activity)
For instance, another Beaker site: the Beaker concentrations (Eogan 1984; Eogan
and Roche 1997; lithics by Dillon 1997) are noted as showing a high frequency of
fragmentary pieces, chunks and non-descript unmodified pieces and the most
pertinent aspect of these concentrations appears to be the lack of platform reduction
material (Eogan 1984, 271). Regarding one of the Beaker concentrations within
Knowth, Eogan states that ‘Two-thirds of the assemblage consists of waste material,
mainly small pieces and scrap… No definite cores have survived’ (ibid) and the
assemblage from Concentration [C] is described by Eogan as: the flint ‘was of poor
quality and derived chiefly from pebbles’ (1984, 271).
64
These descriptions seems to imply the use of bipolar/split-pebble reduction and
the absence of platform technology, which would correlate very closely with the
findings from the directly analyzed lithic material of a similar period as outlined
above. Further support of the bipolar reduction method being employed rather than
platform reduction is given by Dillon regarding Beaker Concentration [E], where
some lithic material is clearly indicated as being reduced via bipolar technology and
the largest group within the overall assemblage were unutilised flakes and
fragments (1997, 254), which typically another feature of Beaker/Bronze Age
assemblages as borne out in the direct assessments. However, Dillon does note the
presence of a handful of platform cores (nos. 7936-9) from this same concentration
(1997, 238); although this is still a marginal component compared to the otherwise
seemingly bipolar reduced material.
In relation to the more expedient tools there is further support given in the
observations by Dillon regarding these same concentrations at the Knowth Beaker
concentrations as discussed above in the context of the seeming use of bipolar
reduction and a paucity of platform technology within these sites, Dillon points out
that: ‘Suitable flakes appear to have been selected and slightly modified to suit a
particular function’ (1997, 241).
Other tool types from these concentrations where a number of utilised flakes
with some split pebbles and a ‘considerable variety in the unworked pieces: some
are tiny fragments while others are crude lumps’ were recovered (Eogan 1984, 248).
This certainly begins to reflect the expedient nature of the essentially bipolar
reduced domestic assemblages and the production of ad hoc tools identified within
the directly analysed lithic assemblages dating to the broader Beaker/Early Bronze
Age period described thus far.
The descriptions given above of the Beaker lithic technology from the Knowth
site, certainly is highly suggestive of essentially bipolar produced technology,
although, as noted earlier, as this reduction technology is so poorly understood and
the resultant material being employed is so very often not even recognised as
functional, this means that this technology is typically not explicitly described as
bipolar within written sources and the importance of the assemblages’ functionality
is therefore overlooked.
In terms of more obvious tool form, scrapers of the Grooved Ware period
(Final/Late Neolithic) in Ireland show a distinctive pattern between the Neolithic
65
and Bronze Age convex scrapers discussed thus far. For instance, Dillon makes a
distinction between the Neolithic scrapers and those from the Beaker concentrations
within the same general site at Knowth, Co. Meath, in the following: ‘Scrapers are
common but large examples, which are typical in Grooved Ware contexts, do not
occur’ (1997, 254).
Information gleaned from Eogan’s scraper dimensions from various sites dating
from different periods around the Boyne Valley appear to parallel the studies in
Britain. Although this dimensional information is illustrated in Eogan (1984, Table
B), he does not advocate any significant dimensional variability between the various
scraper populations from these different periods. He includes scraper dimensions
for the Neolithic sites from Townleyhall, Co. Louth (Middle Neolithic), and Knowth,
Co. Meath (General Neolithic), along with the mainly Beaker material from Site C
also from Knowth. The graphs on closer inspection seem to indicate that the Beaker
scrapers are not only smaller and thicker than the Neolithic scrapers, but that they
appear to have more restricted dimensions compared to the wider variation of
dimensions for the Neolithic types.
Most of the Knowth Beaker group had lengths of 30mm or less, whereas, the
majority of lengths for the Middle Neolithic site at Townleyhall and the Knowth
Neolithic group are greater than this. Another diagram in Eogan (1984, Table C)
shows the scraper dimensions for the predominantly Beaker concentrations A-D.
Again, the scrapers from the Beaker concentrations from Knowth appear to have a
much greater tendency towards smaller and thicker dimensions with a more
restricted range and therefore greater standardisation. They are generally as broad
as they are long approaching a length/breadth ratio of 1:1. Eogan’s diagrams at least
have shed some light on this aspect of the study for some of the Irish material.
Again, Dillon’s observations regarding the scrapers from the Beaker
concentrations at Knowth, where she states: ‘Scrapers are common but large
examples, which are typical in Grooved Ware contexts, do not occur’ (1997, 254),
highlights the distinctive scrapers forms of the Beaker period. Dillon specifically
describes and highlights the distinctive character of the predominant round scrapers
or ‘thumbnail’ scraper within the Beaker contexts from the Knowth site (1997, 228).
Some of these same type scrapers are described and illustrated by Dillon (1997, 166-
169, fig. 33) and these, in turn are seen within the survey of broadly
contemporaneous lithic collections that are reviewed above.
66
Figure 28: Barbed and tanged with broken tang classified as Green Low by Dillon (1997, 251) from
Beaker concentration [E] (after Dillon 1997 fig. 54, 8472).
It is also worth reiterating the evidence for ad hoc technology and hints of
bipolar reduction seen within the Knowth site and the fact that other more formal
technology found within the Beaker concentrations are also reflecting in most of the
sites reviewed thus far. The lithics report and site report in general for Knowth,
Beaker concentrations highlight the presence of two early type barbed and tanged
arrowheads and within Beaker concentration [A], a fine hollow-based arrowhead
was recovered (see Eogan 1984, fig. 87, no. 1064). The Beaker concentrations [E] and
[C] at Knowth, Co. Meath, contained two flint-barbed and tanged types; one barbed
and tanged is classified as a Green Low by Dillon (1997, 251) according to Green’s
scheme (1980, 123, fig. 46) (Figure 28), the other looks like a Sutton b (Eogan 1984,
fig. 99, No. 1707) employing Green’s scheme (1980, fig. 45).
Ballingoola, Co. Limerick (Beaker context with poor stratigraphy)
Some tentative evidence of axe manufacturing relating to contemporaneous
Beaker sites can be seen at Ballingoola, Co. Limerick where, several stone axe
fragments possibly indicative of manufacture but uncertain (Mac Dermott 1949).
Once again the stratigraphy was problematic at this site, however, one important
point regarding the survival in several sites throughout the Bronze Age period in
Ireland of polished stone axes is that these should be viewed in the context of their
proportion within any settlement material of the prehistoric period; i.e., they
typically only account for a small proportion within otherwise large collections of
every day lithic production. Several stone axes and paraphernalia for stone axe
production have been identified within other sites dating to the Beaker period,
although these are non-domestic and may represent ritual deposits (O’Hare 2005).
67
Also found within the Beaker settlement site at Ballingoola, Co. Limerick, were
two barbed and tanged arrowheads, which Green classifies as Sutton types (1980).
No scrapers are noted but this assemblage. The *Roughan Hill collection dating to
between the Beaker and Early Bronze Age period contained some evidence of axe
manufacturing and/or the use of stone axes along with two hollow-based
arrowheads commonly associated with Beaker type barbed and tanged arrowheads.
Grange, Co. Limerick (possible Beaker domestic activity within a stone
circle)
This Beaker domestic assemblage did not contain any arrowheads, although a
number of split-pebble scrapers are noted which are essentially the same as sub-
circular types as is the case from the Grange stone circle, Co. Limerick, (Ó Ríordáin
1951, fig. 3, nos. 1 and 2) showed that within the stone circle, the interior of this may
represent domestic activity where there was a relatively discrete Beaker
concentration associated with a flint and chert lithic assemblage and judging by the
excavation report: this appears to have a significant portion of sub-circular scraper
types.
Corlea 6, Co. Longford (Beaker trackway)
A clear example of the direct association between the use of stone axes alongside
metal blades datable to the Beaker period can be seen at Corlea 6, Co. Longford. This
trackway showed evidence of being worked by metal axes as well as stone blades, as
O’Sullivan draws attention to the fact that some of the wood ‘have short, concave
facets, in which the wood is more crushed than cut… these worked ends are quite
similar to those of the Neolithic trackways, indicating that at least a few stone axes
were used’ (1996, 314).
Therefore, metal would certainly have a technological advantage in terms of
usage at this time. For example, support for this argument may be seen in Ireland’s
earliest evidence to-date of the use of metal axes found at Corlea 6, Co. Longford,
where the wood was dendro-dated to c. 2259 BC as noted by O’Sullivan (1996, 312,
fig. 441). It does therefore appear that the advent of the metal axe is contemporary
with the largest trackway yet built in the Irish bogs. O’Sullivan also notes that it ‘is
likely that metal axes made large tree-felling a less arduous task’ (1996, 341). Figure
29 illustrates the distinct difference between wood worked by a stone blade
compared to that of metal.
68
Figure 29: Timbers from Corlea 6 with stone blade cuts (above) and timbers cut using metal blades
(below) (after O’ Sullivan 1996, figs. 409 and 433).
Dalkey, Co. Dublin (Beaker middens)
The report from the Beaker site at Dalkey, Co. Dublin, illustrates a number of
arrowhead types of both the barbed and tanged and hollow-based variety
(Liversage 1968: fig. 24, no. 673), and again the main scraper forms appear to be
rounded types. As highlighted above, the present writer encountered problems
when it came to recording the assemblage directly for the purpose of the original
Irish Bronze Age lithic study.
Broomfield/ Ballyboghil, site A, Co. Dublin (Beaker site)
Other discrete Beaker collections are described in the literature that appears to be
also describing bipolar technology. Another Beaker collection from Broomfield/
Ballyboghil, site A, Co. Dublin, is described as producing scrapers made from split-
pebbles (O’Brien 1988). As noted above, split-pebble reduction is essentially the
same as bipolar technology. No information regarding more formal lithic types has
69
been noted in the report.
Cloghers II, Co. Kerry (Beaker site)
Further evidence of expedient technology and specifically that of bipolar
reduction is noted for the Beaker assemblage (Licence No. 00E0065: Kiely 2000; 2002:
lithics report by Finlay 2001a). This Beaker habitation assemblage was fairly small
and flint based. It was dominated by unmodified flint flake debitage in the form of
flakes and chunks and Finlay indicates the fact that there were no cores identified.
She also explicitly suggests bipolar technique was employed as evidenced on some
flakes and chunks (2001a).
Potentially fruitful assemblages for future research
Newgrange, Co. Meath (Irish Grooved Ware – Late Neolithic & Beaker
material mixed)
One site that appears at first glance to show a continuity between the Late
Neolithic and Beaker period is known as Newgrange, Co. Meath (O’Kelly et al 1983)
where, an abundance of lithic material was recovered associated with Late Neolithic
Grooved Wares and Beaker Wares of the earlier metal in the vicinity of a well
known passage tomb of the pre-Grooved Ware era.
However, a number of points regarding this site can be made which would tend
to militate against the material spanning the Neolithic/Beaker boundary For
instance, a reassessment of the stratigraphy within the Newgrange site lends good
support to suggest two distinctive phases and functions for this site as outlined by
Eogan and Roche (1999). They reconsider the chronology of Grooved Ware in
relation to Beaker at the Newgrange complex and state:
…it is proposed here that the Grooved Ware assemblage at Newgrange, as at Knowth,
post-dates the passage tomb activity and pre-dates the Beaker complex, Grooved Ware
being contemporary with the large pit circle and an early phase of the extensive
habitation layer, and Beaker pottery being contemporary with a later habitation phase
and possibly with the stone circle (1999, 105).
Potentially, therefore, by applying the system of recording lithics as outlined
above to the Newgrange lithic collection as a whole, these technologies could be
identified within their respective phases of Final Neolithic and Beaker. For instance,
70
there are clear examples of non-Neolithic arrowhead forms at Newgrange, which are
more akin to lithic forms found within Beaker/Early Bronze Age collections, such as
those indicated and illustrated by: O’Kelly and Shell 1979; O’Kelly et al 1983; Lehane
1983 and Sweetman 1985 and 1987) . Some of these are classified by Green as early
types of barbed and tanged and hollow-based arrowheads (1980, 98, fig. 22, no. E56:
89), which are clearly associated with other Beaker/Early Bronze Age assemblages
surveyed above.
Conversely, the arrowhead forms more typically associated with Grooved Ware
assemblages of the transverse variety (illustrated by Lehan 1983) are quite distinct
from Beaker/Early Bronze Age forms. Furthermore, scrapers are also highly distinct
between the Final Neolithic and Beaker/Early Bronze Age period as highlighted in
Woodman and Scannell’s observation of these forms found within Newgrange, state
that: ‘many of the scrapers were larger than the classic small invasively retouched
scrapers which are usually considered typical of the Bronze Age’ (1993, 55).
If the Newgrange lithic collection could be re-examined in the light of the
emerging evidence for distinctive formal tools/weapons and the more expedient
(used) tools and bipolar/split-pebble reduction techniques, that seem to be
employed almost exclusively, within domestic collections of the new metal era and
these could be separated from the platform technology, then some sense and
separation may be possible with these lithic technologies within their respective
prehistoric phases.
Lough Gur, Co. Limerick (Mixed Neolithic/Beaker and Bronze Age
material)
Another important Irish site may have contributed to the notion of continuity
between Neolithic and Beaker material can be seen within the region of Lough Gur,
Co. Limerick. As the excavation by Ó Ríordáin (1954) and reassessment of the
complex array of sites by Grogan and Eogan (1987) clearly shows: there is also a
fairly large amount of Neolithic material seemingly intermixed with Beaker Wares
and pottery spanning the entire Bronze Age period.
Excavations and re-evaluations and assessments of abundant material from
Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, (Ó Ríordáin 1954; Grogan and Eogan 1987; lithics:
Woodman and Scannell 1993) indicates a significant array of Beaker/Bronze Age
pottery and other material associated with many of the multiple sites from this
regions, but unfortunately, although there are high concentrations in some areas of
71
these sites of Beaker/Bronze Age pottery, Woodman and Scannell (1993) found the
separation of the lithic material difficult to say the least (1993).
Interestingly, however, several hollow-based arrowheads, Beaker type barbed
and tanged types and sub-circular scrapers are illustrated as occurring together at
several sites with Beaker ceramic concentrations around Lough Gur, Co. Limerick,
(Ó Ríordáin 1954 and Grogan and Eogan 1987, 312; fig. 4 nos. 192-198 and Scannell
1992). Also, judging by the site reports and re-evaluations (Ó Ríordáin 1954; Grogan
and Eogan 1987).
Furthermore, Woodman and Scannell have also identified a tentative correlation
between the higher frequency of bipolar technology described as split-pebble/scalar
technology within some sites containing a predominance of Bronze Age ceramics
(1993, 43, table 6:3). This combined with the association of distinctive Bronze Age
type stone scrapers (domed/sub-circular) and arrowhead forms (hollow based and
barbed and tanged types) tend to indicate some distinct non-Neolithic artefacts that
are more akin to those established by the present writer as associated with
Beaker/Bronze Age forms from less problematic contexts, may lend support to the
idea that although, the separation of Neolithic stone technology from Bronze Age
forms within the Lough Gur sites is highly problematic as indicated by Woodman
and Scannell (1993), it is possible that these lithics could now be re-evaluated in the
light of a better defined typology for Beaker/Bronze Age lithics as a result of this
present study.
Supporting evidence from the written record – Early Bronze Age assemblages
Coolroe/Claremorris region, Co. Mayo (fulachta fiadh – Early Bronze
Age and possibly later)
The *Leedaun I, Co. Mayo dating to the Early Bronze Age period which
produced a small bipolar dominated chert assemblage, within the same region
several other chert assemblages were recovered (Information courtesy of Gillespie
and Walsh on behalf of Mayo County Council; lithics by Finlay 1998; 1999; 2000b
and 2000c). These sites around the Coolroe/Claremorris region, Co. Mayo, are
described by the lithic specialist as chert-based, bipolar produced assemblages and
in keeping with the general Bronze Age dates assigned to the other sites in the area
72
(Finlay 2000b; 2000c). As most of the lithic material seems to be derived from
fulachta fiadh type contexts, these are potentially important for future investigation
as they may relate to the latter phase of this period now under review, if not later
than that period as indicated in the date ranges for these type of features (see
Brindley et al 1989/1990 for date range of these sites in Ireland).
Stepaside, Co. Dublin (Early Bronze Age site)
Although the literature is limited regarding such Early Bronze Age settlements,
this does not mean that the evidence is lacking as the direct analysis of domestic
collections from this period has shown and domestic evidence from the end of the
period onwards is quite prolific in Ireland, indicating either an increase in
population and activity or that the lithic material from this period was simply more
readily available than the earlier era. There is more detailed evidence which has
emerged from within the literature that conforms to much of the directly analyzed
assemblages thus far reviewed from a fairly large lithic collection from Stepaside.
(Reid 1998 and Finlay 1998), (Information was courtesy of Reid on behalf of Valerie
Keeley Ltd., Lithics report by N. Finlay 1998a).
This Early Bronze Age collection was mainly from the topsoil, but fairly
homogenous and associated with a roundhouse structure with a radiocarbon date of
2140-1950 BC (Reid 1998). The Stepaside assemblage is described as: dominated by
debitage in the form of bipolar/split pebble reduction and out of the mainly flint
pieces with some chert totally 369 (Finlay 1998a). This Early Bronze Age collection
contained several scrapers, although the specific form is not noted. A hollow-based
arrowhead (97E467:1:1) was also recovered. The report would therefore indicate that
the primary technology accounted for 80 per cent of the total assemblage. This is
more akin to the *Roughan Hill (Farmstead 1) proportion of primary (bipolar
reduction) material to finished tools (secondary technology) and in terms of the
hollow-based arrowhead along with presumably sub-circular type scrapers reflect
the more formal artefacts found at Roughan Hill, Co. Clare.
Glendhu, Co, Down (Early Bronze Age coastal collection intermixed
with significantly earlier industry)
Another seeming contemporary assemblage of the broader Vase Tradition
consists of a large flint collection relating in part to the Vase Tradition commencing
at around 2000 BC which was recovered from Glendhu, Co. Down. This is a coastal
collection intermixed with significantly earlier industry and much disturbed
collection, although overall split-pebble flint technology is clearly indicated as a
73
sizable component of this collection. Unfortunately as this collection was very mixed
with significantly earlier industry and much disturbed collection (Woodman 1985),
it could not be analysed directly as part of this study, but there are similarities with
other collections that were recorded directly, although personal observation of some
of the material indicated a quantity of split-pebble pieces approximating scrapers,
i.e. rounded types.
Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim (possibly Early Bronze Age)
Within a habitation layer of another coastal site within the sand dunes of
Whitepark Bay, Co. Antrim, a flint hollow-based arrowhead was recovered (Find
description in Anon., 1928, 188). This appears to be associated with sherds of vase
type pottery (ApSimon 1969) and the arrowhead is also catalogued as of that
tradition by Green (1980, 397, no. 429/11) and reflects a similar contexts and
arrowhead form from the potentially contemporaneous chert collection from.
*Ballyconneely (DL1 False Bay), Co. Galway, analyzed directly by the present writer.
Rathbane South, Co. Limerick (Early Bronze Age fulacht fiadh)
Another hollow-based arrowhead, also of chert and is quite triangular in form
with a very shallow base was derived from excavations at Rathbane South, Co.
Limerick, (O’ Donovan 2000, 200-201). This arrowhead was associated with fulachta
fiadh material and a C14 date was obtained c. 2145-2040 BC (O’ Donovan IAPA
conference 2002).
Overview of technology dating from the Beaker to the Early Bronze Age period from the written record and direct analysis
The direct analysis of chert lithic collections from the settlements from *Roughan
Hill on the Burren spanning the Beaker into the Early Bronze Age period, and the
Leedaun, I, Co. Mayo chert based collection dating to the Early Bronze Age period,
demonstrate the use of bipolar reduction technique from the earliest stages of the
metal era. Furthermore, these collections employ highly localised lithic material and
produced a great deal of bipolar pieces which seemed to have been employed for
various tasks, irrespective of whether they were employed simply as they were
without much modification as seen within the *Roughan Hill assemblages or
predominantly flaked bipolar reduced pieces as seen within the *Leedaun I
assemblage.
74
Moreover, platform technology seems almost obsolete at these early sites dating
to the beginning of the first age of metallurgy. This is important to bear in mind as
the domestic assemblages at this time would be expected to continue in their
traditional procurement, reduction and use of stone technology, given the limited
range of available metal tools suitable to replace these at this time.
Therefore, the abundant lithic material, which is often described as fragmentary,
sometimes referred to more explicitly bipolar reduced and as the direct assessment
has shown: the Beaker and Early Bronze Age domestic assemblages employ, for
whatever reason, bipolar reduction to create usable lithic pieces along with more
formal scraper types, the occasional well manufactured and distinctive arrowheads
of Beaker/Early Bronze Age forms as also reflected within the *Roughan Hill
assemblage from *Farmstead ,I and the scrapers from *Farmstead II, and the scraper
dominated assemblage and the arrowhead from *Ballyconneely, Co. Galway, which
may represent a dislocated collection of tools, rather than an in-situ habitation area.
As noted above, the *Leedaun collection showed a different approach to the use
of tools produced via the bipolar process in showing more basically flaked forms
than those from *Roughan Hill; although both collections are essentially bipolar
produced and expedient and are very different to earlier (pre-metallurgical)
collections. There was a number of rounded type scrapers recovered from within the
*Leedaun assemblage, which were cruder than those from *Roughan Hill, otherwise
the results from the direct analysis are supported by the information that can be
gleaned from other domestic collections identified within the study both from
written and direct assessment from the earliest until the latest phases of the Irish
Bronze Age.
Furthermore, the early assemblages of the new metal era serve to demonstrate
that Irish domestic lithic technology is highly expedient from the very start of the
new metal era. This is further supported by the Beaker and Early Bronze Age sites
showing similar technologies, a lack of platform reduction technologies and
descriptions that strongly point to similar bipolar reduction.
The fact that several assemblages, particularly dating to the Beaker period as
indicated in the literature clearly show bipolar/split pebble reduction technologies
must also have associated ad hoc (bipolar) use tools which have not been recognised
due to the difficulties outlined earlier. By applying the criteria applied in this study
of the handling, use marks on working edge where natural agencies could not have
75
caused these and the morphology of a piece to identify a tool could be employed.
Within some of the literature such as from the Knowth, Co. Meath, excavations of
the Beaker concentrations, there are strong hints of such technology akin to that
established from the direct examination of Beaker and Early Bronze Age
assemblages.
The burial record from the earliest part of the Bronze Age proper within Ireland
demonstrates the use of highly localised lithic material; bipolar reduction, rounded
type scrapers and a number of formal, highly crafted objects of flint not found
within domestic sites. However, arrowheads of the Bronze Age variety are not
deliberately deposited within graves at this time.
The interesting part of the funerary assemblages was being able to assess bipolar
technology employed on other lithic material, besides chert. Essentially quartz
demands bipolar reduction as it does not conchoidal fracture like flint, chert and
obsidian (the latter material is not a nature resource in Ireland). The flint material
was essentially the same in its fracture patterns to that of the chert from the early
domestic assemblages, except that it typically exhibited larger overall dimensions
compared to chert. The bipolar assemblages from the post-Early Bronze Age period
assessed below confirm this pattern as the flint assemblages exhibited similar
dimensions to the bipolar flint assemblages from burials of the earlier period.
Formal, well flaked rounded scrapers also form part of the funerary goods
during the Early Bronze Age period, although rounded, but more ad hoc scraper
forms are also known from funerary contexts. Regarding the more recognisable
tools, such as the hollow-based arrowheads and the scrapers from *Roughan Hill,
which in the case of the scrapers are sub-circular forms, and typically exhibited
fairly similar attributes such as very steep retouch in the form of negative scars on
the dorsal, domed convex part of the piece.
Overall, the *Roughan Hill scrapers are fairly standardised types both in terms of
morphology and dimensions and conform to the Beaker flint types from Ross Island,
Co. Kerry, and the hollow-based arrowhead from the same site. These formal items
are in turn seen within the Early Bronze Age period such as those identified within
the *Ballyconneely, Co. Galway, midden collection directly assessed by the writer
and in turn reflect formal aspects of assemblages recorded within the literature of
the Early Bronze Age period.
76
The other main formal lithic type, although a lot less prolific compared to
scrapers, is the arrowhead. Within Beaker contexts hollow-based arrowheads are as
frequent, if not more so than certain sub-classes of barbed and tanged arrowheads.
Neither of these arrowhead forms has convincing pre-metallurgical associations in
the context of Ireland (O’Hare 2005). The barbed and tanged arrowheads (early
types according to Green’s scheme 1980) do not appear to be a feature of post-Beaker
domestic assemblages, where instead: hollow-based forms are quite frequent. As it
will be seen in the discussion of later assemblages which follows, arrowheads of all
varieties of barbed and tanged forms and hollow-based types seem to occur fairly
regularly within settlements, but not in the same regularity as the Beaker and Early
Bronze Age period.
The main artefact is in the form of neat chert sub-circular scrapers, which appear
to be specific to the Beaker/Bronze Age toolkit and are quite distinct to pre-
metallurgical scraper forms. These Beaker/Early Bronze Age forms are directly
comparable both in terms of morphology and metrical attributes to many of the sub-
circular types from the scraper types from the settlements dating to the Beaker and
Early Bronze Age at *Roughan Hill, Co. Clare and in turn the Ross Island, Co Kerry
Beaker scrapers. The dimensions are also very similar to the chert scrapers from
*Roughan Hill and reflect the similar morphology as well as the morphology and
dimensions identified within the chert scraper dominated assemblage from the
Early Bronze Age midden site at *Ballyconneely, Co. Galway.
The general descriptions and illustrations given within the literature regarding
several Beaker collections again appear to match the morphology of the sub-circular
type scrapers noted above. For instance, even though some sites dating particularly
to the Beaker period were problematic for a number of reasons, most of these
collections do note and often illustrate more formal lithic pieces, such as seen within
a number of sites with a predominance of Beaker pottery from the Lough Gur
region, which showed frequent association of typical rounded scrapers and
characteristic arrowhead forms of the earlier metal era as identified within lithic
reports and from the direct assessment of lithic material dating to this period.
Regarding the above assessment and indeed, the in depth study of all lithic
forms from burials, hoards, ritual deposits and domestic contexts from the earlier
doctoral study (O’ Hare 2005), it can be stated that: no arrowheads of Bronze Age
types were associated with burials of the Bowl or the later Vase Tradition instead,
arrowheads in this period appear to have a purely domestic association. It should be
77
said that sub-circular and crude type scrapers which are distinct within the domestic
collections of the new metal era are also present in fairly high numbers within
funerary contexts, although these are not specifically included in this present
assessment due to the focus of this study, they will hopefully be dealt with in more
detail in a future publication. Both sub-circular scrapers and certain distinctive stone
arrowheads continue to be associated with the period commencing around 2000 BC
within domestic contexts which will be seen below.
The main difference between the formal tools within the Beaker and Early
Bronze Age period seems to be the presence of both hollow-based arrowheads and
certain forms of barbed and tanged arrowheads within the Beaker settlements and
the exclusive use of hollow-based arrowheads within the Early Bronze Age
settlements as indicated from the direct analysis and written sources. Basically, these
scrapers characterise the main scraper type-fossil of the Beaker and Earlier Bronze
Age in Ireland which is demonstrated above. Furthermore, rounded and sub-
circular type scrapers are not generally a feature of Neolithic assemblages and are
therefore distinct within the Irish Beaker/Bronze Age period as the rest of this
survey will demonstrate. In addition to the more formal type scrapers, the two
arrowheads (hollow-based types) found within *Roughan Hill at Farmstead I, is not
known from secure contexts within the Neolithic period (O’Hare 2005) and therefore
is fairly characteristic of Beaker/Bronze Age technology.
As the *Roughan Hill collections span the Beaker and Early Bronze Age period, it
was not possible to refine these contexts employing lithic diagnostics as the lithic
technology in the form of bipolar/split-pebble reduction, the use of ad hoc (informal
tools); rounded scrapers and the occasional arrowhead in the form of hollow-based
and/or barbed and tanged varieties is common within most Irish assemblages of the
Beaker and Early Bronze Age period. It is only the presence of certain types of
barbed and tanged arrowheads within early assemblages which would indicate a
Beaker date rather than an Early Bronze Age date.
For example, hollow-based arrowhead forms along with certain sub-classes of
barbed and tanged arrowheads are a clear feature of Beaker assemblages along with
sub-circular type scrapers as the review of Beaker material from written sources will
show further on. However, barbed and tanged arrowheads have not been identified
in direct association with the post-Beaker assemblages of the Early Bronze Age
period whereas, hollow-based arrowheads are fairly common and again found
associated with rounded type scrapers akin to those from Roughan Hill. This will be
78
seen within the review of Early Bronze Age collections both identified within the
direct analysis below and the written sources outlined further on.
In other words, the hollow-based arrowhead is common within Beaker contexts
in Ireland and found frequently with early forms of barbed and tanged arrowheads
and typically rounded, sub-circular type scrapers. However, during the Early
Bronze Age period, the barbed and tanged arrowhead is notable for its absence
within the post-Beaker domestic assemblages, but the hollow-based arrowhead is
clearly a common feature of Early Bronze Age domestic assemblages.
The polished stone axe may or may not belong to the Beaker period of the
*Roughan Hill settlement, although parallels for the use of the stone axe alongside
metal types have been found at Corlea, Co. Longford, Beaker trackway; the
association of polished stone axes with Beaker ritual material is fairly frequent. The
burial record for the Bowl Tradition period, overlapping and later than the Insular
Beakers, has at least two associated polished stone axes and the evidence for
domestic stone axes of the following period – the Vase Tradition (c. 2000 to 1900 BC)
or sites with related dates is marginal. It would seem likely that the polished stone
axes and portions found at *Roughan Hill, Co. Clare, in association with mainly
Beaker ceramics is also of that date and perhaps lends further support to the mixed
stratigraphy of the polished stone axe fragments found associated with mainly
Beaker pottery from Lough Gur, Co. Limerick.
Regarding the use of highly localised lithic materials, bipolar technology, the
paucity of conventional platform technology and blade and formal flake forms.
Along with the production of ad hoc tools and paucity of formally flaked and
retouched pieces, the evidence is clear from the directly analyzed assemblages. This
is further supported by the descriptions given within the literature relating to Beaker
and Early Bronze Age collections. The unchanging expedient technology is clearly
seen throughout the remainder of the Irish Bronze Age period which is reviewed
below.
The actual sites which were accessed directly dating to the post-1800 BC
commencing at c. 1606 BC were much more prolific than the earlier period and less
problematic in terms of stratigraphy. These will be reviewing in the following
chapter. It will be seen that after this assessment, that the scraper forms shift
towards more expedient types; but remain quantitatively similar proportionately
within assemblages. Formal tools still exist in small numbers such as arrowheads
79
and polished stone items and axes, along with re-used items from earlier times.
Otherwise, these domestic assemblages remain fairly conservative from the earliest
until the latest phases of the Bronze Age period.
80
Chapter Three - Chronological presentation of
directly analysed and indirect assessment of domestic
technology throughout the later metal era (c. 1606 –
800/600 BC)
It is important to bear in mind that within the original lithic study of the Irish
Bronze Age, a marked standardisation and rise in lithic craft specialisation was
detected within the period now under review; although these were typically from
funerary, ritual and hoard type contexts. Interestingly, the domestic settlement sites
of the Developed Bronze Age (the end of the traditional Early Bronze Age into the
Middle Bronze Age period), are only marginally more expedient, ad hoc and
thoroughly opportunistic than their earlier domestic counterparts. This is discernible
within a single implement class, namely: the scrapers. The scraper appears to
become more robust and crude within the later industries compared to the more
standardised and neat scraper forms reviewed above belonging to the earlier
industries. As the survey includes mostly Middle and Late Bronze Age
assemblages, this is perhaps somewhat surprising at a time when metalworking
traditions are much more sophisticated and widespread than they were within the
earlier phases of the Bronze Age.
This chapter will take a similar format to the previous review of earlier contexts
for lithic technology, commencing with directly analysed lithic assemblages,
followed by information from written sources from which to make meaningful
comparisons. It is worth noting that this later time-frame actually has a greater
number of lithic collections and greater quantities of lithic material, from both
directly analysed and written sources, than the previous phases just reviewed. This
is presumably due to the fact that the latter phases of the Bronze Age have less
stratigraphic and chronological issues than the earlier phases of the new metal era.
This is attributable to the greater number of excavations carried out as a result of
developer-led archaeology in more recent years and partly to do with the
availability of more refined chronologies that have filled out the historical blanks
within the Irish Later Bronze Age.
81
Directly analysed lithic collections of the Developed Bronze Age
Leedaun II, Co. Mayo (Settlement 1606 – 1400 BC) Leedaun II, Co. Mayo (Information courtesy of Walsh & Gillespie and
corresponds to reports by Walsh 1999; Gillespie 1999; lithics report Anderson 2000)
is a domestic site that produced a radiocarbon date range spanning the Derryniggin
and Killymaddy metalworking periods, which straddle the end of the Early and
beginning of the traditional Middle Bronze Age periods. This site is an adjacent
settlement to *Leedaun I, Co. Mayo (Early Bronze Age), discussed in the previous
chapter. The later collection from Leedaun II produced fairly similar proportions of
primary reduction components to others assemblages throughout the Bronze Age
period. The following analysis consists of a small chert assemblage of c. 100 analysed
pieces from secure contexts from an original of c. 300.
Primary technology
The Leedaun, area II the primary assemblage was like the earlier and adjacent
site, *Leedaun I, Co. Mayo, dominated by chert which is relatively abundant in the
local environs of this region of Mayo. There was no metalworking at this site. The
primary lithic assemblage accounts for 83 per cent of the total out of the 101 pieces
from sealed contexts within the site. Out of the total primary pieces of 82, 63 per cent
accounts for bipolar flakes, a mere 11 per cent bipolar cores and 26 per cent micro-
debitage. This was the main variation between these two chert assemblages derived
from the same raw material resource.
The earlier site had a much more proportioned range of primary technology in
the form of bipolar cores, bipolar flakes and micro-debitage. The later site was
dominated by bipolar flakes making up around two-thirds of the primary
assemblage (Figure 30). This assemblage of the developed Bronze Age is more flake-
like than the earlier assemblage from the adjacent site.
82
Figure 30: Pie chart showing Primary lithic components within Leedaun II, Co. Mayo
Dimensions for primary technology
The preferred size for bipolar cores from the earlier site at *Leedaun I, employing
the same raw material was between <20 and <30mm, which is comparable to the
dimensions for bipolar cores and bipolar flakes at Area II, the later site (Figure 31).
The bipolar flakes from both sites, again showed a dimensional preference of
<20mm for chert bipolar flakes; although the bipolar cores are rather sparse within
the later assemblage compared to the earlier collection. These dimensions for
bipolar pieces are akin to the chert bipolar pieces from *Roughan Hill, Co. Clare,
dating to both the Beaker and Early Bronze Age period.
11%
63%
26%
Composition of primary (reduction) technology (chert) from Leedaun, II, (1606-1400 BC) (n=82)
bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
83
Figure 31: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Leedaun II, Co. Mayo
Secondary technology (tools)
The chert lithic material from Leedaun II, Co. Mayo, produced a smaller
assemblage derived from the sealed area compared to *Leedaun I. What is
interesting is that the secondary technology from the later site at Leedaun II
(corresponding to the end of the traditional Early Bronze Age and early part of the
traditional Middle Bronze Age) is that there is a higher ratio of secondary
technology from Leedaun II, at 17 per cent compared to the tool category at the
earlier site.
There is also a significantly lower incidence of bipolar cores at the later site (Area
II) compared to the earlier site which may be accounted for by the higher incidence
of utilised pieces seen within Leedaun II, compared to the earlier site (Area I). At
area II, the bipolar cores appear to have been utilised more frequently, thereby,
becoming part of the informal tool category, whereas at the earlier site they had a
tendency to remain as debitage as part of the bipolar reduction process (Figure 32).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Leedaun, II bipolar dimensions (chert)
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
84
Figure 32: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Leedaun II, Co. Mayo
Furthermore, there is a similarly high incidence of utilised pieces from the later
Leedaun site which are closer in type to the expedient tool forms derived from
*Roughan Hill than the expedient roughly flaked types from the earlier
neighbouring site at *Leedaun I. The nature of the primary technology is essentially
similar within all the collections, however, the proportion and type of secondary
technology is quite variable within these collections; although all appear to indicate
a range of essentially expedient tools along with more formal scraper types and the
occasional arrowhead and coarse stone axes.
Within the scraper category from the Developed Bronze Age period, there is a
shift towards more expedient forms, although proportionally, scrapers remain a
quantitatively significant component of the overall tool-class category. This pattern
of more ad hoc scrapers compared to sub-circular forms is fully borne out within the
Later Bronze Age domestic assemblages, although again, there is no overall decrease
in the scraper populations per se.
A portion of a polished stone axe made of mudstone (Figure 33) were associated
with a large fully bipolar chert lithic assemblage came from Leedaun II, Co. Mayo
35%
6%
18%
41%
Composition of secondary (tools) technology from Leedaun II (1606-1400 BC) (n=17)
ad hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used
85
dating to c. 1600-1400 BC.
Figure 33: Portion of a polished stone axe from Leedaun Area II, Co. Mayo.
Corrstown, Co. Derry (C14 dates centre around 1500 BC – MBA)
This large flint collection was originally analysed by the present writer for
inclusion in the doctoral study. Since that time, additional dating information has
come to light for the Corrstown site as a whole and shows that the main use of the
site centres around the Middle Bronze Age period and the subsequently updated
lithic analysis is now published (O’Hare 2012).
There was evidence of some stone moulds for the production of metal
tools/weaponry (Grogan 2012) but as most sites of the later period that do have
such moulds which is seen in a number of later settlements, these invariably are not
accompanied by actual tools to work and produce metal objects. The domestic
settlement was associated with a plain version of the Cordoned Urn Tradition which
is emerging as a Middle Bronze Age ceramic type according to Roche and Grogan’s
(2012) reassessment of this type of pottery from the Corrstown site.
This is one of the largest collections analysed within this survey that relates to
the post-Vase Tradition period. The dates for this site correspond closest with the
beginning of the traditional Middle Bronze Age period, the Killymaddy. The range
of radiocarbon dates were derived mainly from the substantial dwellings in
evidence at the site, indicative of a large settlement. The spread of lithic material was
found partly above this settlement material and partly associated with many of the
structures. As this appeared to be a homogenous assemblage distributed between
the stratified and unstratified levels, it was interpreted as essentially belonging to
the main activity of the Middle Bronze Age settlement.
86
This is the first flint assemblage (nodular chalk type) assessed thus far within a
domestic context, it was interesting to see that it is also bipolar reduced, like the
chert counterparts discussed above relating to the Beaker and Early Bronze Age
period. This large collection from Corrstown, Co. Derry, constituting over 11, 000
pieces of mainly fresh nodular and fairly poor quality flint abundant within this
near-coastal region of the north-east of the island.
The archaeological lithic material constituted c. 2/3 of an estimated total for the
entire Corrstown lithic collection. The actual analysed pieces constitute 11,362 pieces
and the results are outlined below. It is mainly large nodular fresh cortical type and
many pieces had large inclusions. However, some of the lithic material is beach
pebble type flint. The primary reduction technology is again bipolar dominated. The
collection is dominated substantially by primary reduction pieces which account for
10,590 pieces out of a total of 11,237, representing 93.2 per cent of the assemblage as
a whole. The composition of the primary technology is as follows: over half the
primary assemblage (55.1 per cent) from Corrstown was made up of bipolar cores
(5881).
There was a fairly high frequency of bipolar flakes accounting for over a third of
the primary technology. The micro-debitage is fairly minimal representing 3 per
cent. The blade technology is represented by 22 pieces and is described as such
based upon L/B ratio of 2:1 and this makes up a small portion of the overall
platform struck category dominated by flakes and there were no less than 52
amorphous cores, which are fairly expedient platform types. Most of these expedient
platform cores had a single or few deliberate flake removals, indicating a fairly
wasteful approach to raw material. The combined platform technology from
Corrstown accounts for (7 per cent) (see Figure 34).
87
Figure 34: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Corrstown, Co. Derry
The remaining primary assemblage was made up of miscellaneous types,
fragments and broken pieces which are not listed above. As highlighted at the
beginning of this survey, blade technology within essentially bipolar dominated
assemblages is notable by its absence and/or paucity within assemblages of the
metalworking era and indeed the generally low incidence of conventionally
platform production pieces, although these occur ‘sporadically’ within essentially
bipolar industries as noted by Kuijt et al (1995, 119), this is still a fairly high
percentage of platform pieces compared to most of the assemblages assessed so far.
It may be that these were picked up within the environs of this site and perhaps
even employed as rare material along within the fairly abundant large nodular flint
from the environs and within the site.
Dimensions for bipolar pieces
Figure 35 shows the dimensional ranges in 10mm intervals for bipolar cores and
scalar flakes showing the highest frequency of <30mm for bipolar flakes and <40mm
for bipolar cores, although the larger dimensions of between <50 and <60mm is
fairly large for the bipolar cores from Corrstown. It may be that the availability of
fresh large nodular flint from this area may account for these significantly larger
bipolar pieces from this site compared to most of the flint bipolar assemblages
55% 35%
3%
7%
Composition of primary (reduction) technology (nodular flint) from Corrstown (MBA)
(n=10,590)
bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
88
discussed thus far. However, the typical overall distribution of smaller scalar flakes
and larger bipolar cores within fairly restricted dimensional ranges is still reflective
of other bipolar assemblages from the earliest Bronze Age until the later period.
Figure 35: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Corrstown, Co. Derry.
Secondary technology
The secondary technology from Corrstown fell sharply when the full analysis of
the sample (representing around two thirds of the estimate total) were fully
assessed. The final analysis showed that tools as such inclusive of scrapers, ad hoc
types, a handful of formal sub-circular scrapers and a dominance of bipolar cores
and flakes that could only be established as used based upon polish and
morphology of pieces that would have been used as tools. Many more bipolar cores
and flakes may have been used in the industry but could not be included in the tool
category and were assigned instead to the primary (reduction) category. These
pieces may have been used only once and would not show polish etc and rapidly
discarded as the flint material (close to natural outcrops) of chalk flint was abundant
within this region and therefore perhaps a more wasteful approach to lithic use is in
evidence within this assemblage.
The secondary (tool) category, where it could be established accounts for c. 6 per
cent. The Corrstown material, like most of the other contemporaneous lithic
assemblages and those from the earliest metalworking era, present a high
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Corrstown bipolar dimensions (nodular flint)
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
89
proportion of the secondary technology in the form of utilised pieces, characterised
by bipolar flakes and cores with naturally pointed, scalloped and or sharp cutting
edges as a result of the knapping process via bipolar reduction. These characteristic
pieces from most of the assemblages throughout the Irish Bronze Age would have
been presumably employed (as they were) in various tasks of cutting, scraping and
boring (Figure 36).
Figure 36: Range of flint bipolar-on-anvil flakes and cores, which would have been suitable for use
without further modification for boring, scraping and cutting tasks from Corrstown, Co. Derry.
The Corrstown material, like the majority of other contemporaneous lithic
assemblages present a high proportion of the secondary technology is represented
by used pieces (Figure 37). The scraper population is relatively large, however, only
a few of these could be described as sub-circular (perfunctory) types and the
remainder are very roughly flaked or heavily used types, often employing the
natural scraping edge of a piece.
90
Figure 37: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Corrstown, Co. Derry
The ad hoc scrapers from Corrstown show dimensions of between 30 and 40mm,
which is exactly the preferred size of bipolar/scalar pieces from the site and in turn
reflect similar dimensional ranges to other contemporaneous flint assemblages. The
vast majority of tool types from Corrstown, well over half the secondary category,
are used pieces. The significant proportion (almost a third) are scrapers, mainly ad-
hoc types where the more formal sub-circular scraper types account for a mere 1 per
cent of the total secondary assemblage. There were a relatively significant
proportion of flaked pieces (12 per cent).
Figure 38: (MBA) flint scrapers: rough well-flaked scraper (top left); crude cortical scraper (top right);
neat sub-circular scraper (below) from Corrstown, Co. Derry.
Proportion secondary (tools) technology from
Corrstown (MBA) (n=690)
57%
12%
1%
30%
ad hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used
91
The combined scraper population from Corrstown is relatively large, however,
only a few of these could be described as sub-circular (perfunctory) types and the
remainder are very roughly flaked or heavily utilised types. Often these latter forms
employ/exploit the natural scraping edge of a piece (Figure 38). The Corrstown ad
hoc scrapers show dimensions of between 30 and 40mm, which is exactly the
preferred size of bipolar pieces from the site and in turn reflects similar dimensional
ranges to other contemporaneous flint assemblages.
The vast majority of tool types from Corrstown, well over half the secondary
category, are used pieces. The significant proportion, (almost a third) are scrapers,
mainly ad hoc types where the more formal sub-circular scraper types account for a
mere 1 per cent of the total secondary assemblage. There were a relatively significant
proportion of flaked pieces (12 per cent) found within the Corrstown lithic collection
and the emerging pattern of assemblages contained less standardised scrapers
compared to neat sub-circular types can be seen to be emerging as a feature of the
later assemblages as reflected within the small chert assemblage from *Leedaun II,
Co. Mayo.
Axes and a palstave were associated a complete miniature axe, five large axe
fragments and a small flake with Structure 37 and the five fragments were
unstratified and derived from topsoil. The assessment of the Corrstown axes
although generally broken and fragmentary, indicate very little evidence of actual
use (Grogan 2012). Other broken portions of axes and a macehead found within the
Middle Bronze Age settlement which are represented material within broadly
contemporaneous burials of the period (O’Hare 2005).
Ballyarnet, Co. Derry (lakeside Cordoned Urn site MBA)
Another directly analysed lithic assemblage of the broader Middle Bronze Age
period is from Ballyarnet lakeside settlement associated with the Cordoned Urn
Tradition (Courtesy of O’ Néill; lithic analysis O’Hare 2000). Most of the pieces were
derived from the clearance trench (topsoil layer) and some pottery sherds, metal
working debris along with modern finds were also recovered from the exploratory
excavation. As the lithics from the modern horizon exhibit similar characteristics to
those from sealed contexts, this assemblage was treated as broadly
contemporaneous. It should also be noted that some of the blade marks identified on
timbers recovered from the site show clear evidence of being worked by metal
blades (O’ Néill per. comm.).
92
This assemblage of only 22 pieces was derived from a lakeside settlement
associated with Cordoned Urn material. Although small, the assemblage can be
directly paralleled with similar lithic types from contemporaneous and slightly
earlier contexts. This had a fairly small mixed assemblage of mainly flint
supplemented by quartz. However, apart from a few flint bipolar cores, some of
which were used, most of the primary reduction material was of quartz.
Primary technology (reduction strategy)
There were two fragments (technology not discernible) and from the known
primary technology from Ballyarnet consisted of two bipolar cores, one bipolar flake
and four platform (broken) pieces including a blade. There were a few more bipolar
cores which may have been used and are classified under secondary (tool)
technology. There was no micro-debitage pieces recovered (Figure 39). The platform
primary technology within this small collection may represent material collected
from earlier industries as this region within the County is known for Neolithic
activity and this is a fairly common practice seen within some other Bronze Age sites
particularly of this later period. The re-use of earlier type-fossils is not uncommon in
this period which will be seen as the survey continues.
Figure 39: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Ballyarnet, Co. Derry.
Composition of primary (reduction) technology
(pebble flint + quartz) from Ballyarnet (MBA) (n=8)
29%
14%
0%
57%
bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
93
Leaving aside the unusually high incidence of platform technology within this
fairly small collection, the bipolar aspect of the primary technology from Ballyarnet
reflects, albeit on a smaller scale as this was only an exploratory excavation, the
components of bipolar reduced primary assemblage from broadly contemporaneous
collections and earlier collections. The dimensions for the bipolar material are fairly
similar to chert bipolar dimensions discussed thus far in having a frequency of
between 20 and 30mm for their greatest size.
The primary technology accounts of half the lithic pieces, which is typically more
predominant within other Bronze Age assemblages; although the small size of the
Ballyarnet assemblage should be considered in this context. As noted earlier in
relation to quartz, this demands bipolar reduction rather than platform reduction.
Judging by a number of site reports from this region in general, it seems that quartz
is freely available and employed in a number of industries of the earlier periods
from this County (O’Hare 2005).
Secondary technology (tools)
The secondary technology from Ballyarnet is quite high at c. 50 per cent out of
the total collection of just over 20 pieces. Five lithic tools are represented by pointed
type bipolar pieces and an ad hoc type scraper which reflects on a smaller scale the
expedient type tools from contemporary and earlier collections. However, the
number of retouched tools from this exploratory excavation was fairly high and
includes two sub-circular scrapers, a well-flaked knife and a concave scraper (a
Middle Neolithic type-fossil), and it is therefore possible that the latter two
implements are recycled objects from earlier times (Figure 40).
94
Figure 40: Selection of a diverse range of lithic pieces recovered from Ballyarnet, Co. Derry including
an earlier type-fossil (top left); contemporaneous Bronze Age types such as a very neat sub-circular
scraper (top right)s and an arrowhead. More expedient tools can be seen in the lower right of the
illustration comprising of crude sub-circular type scrapers and some typical pointed bipolar reduction
material made on flint and quartz
An enlarged barbed and tanged arrowhead known as a Ballyclare type
employing Green’s (1980) scheme, was found within a sealed secure and datable
context (O’Hare 2002) from C.103, a timber palisade and sealed by C. 102 (Figure 40).
The position of this arrowhead at the very base of this palisade seems to suggest the
deliberate deposition of this important and impressive lithic piece. The arrowhead
may have been placed as a special deposit found within a structural trench and
perhaps represents a ritual foundation burial in this context. This arrowhead type
appears to be a new introduction in this phase of the Bronze Age and is well attested
in burial, hoard and ritual contexts of this period (O’Hare 2005).
Lugg, Co. Dublin (sanctuary and settlement – MBA/LBA).
Lugg, Co. Dublin, (Kilbride-Jones 1950) was originally believed to be Iron Age
but now believed to date to latter part of the Bronze Age. This is based upon the
associated with Coarse Ware ceramics found at pre-Iron Age sites around Ireland as
highlighted by Raftery (1981). This ceramic tradition may also date specifically to the
Middle Bronze Age period as more sites of this period are emerging that contain
similar Coarse Ware forms (See discussion by Roche and Grogan 2012).
Judging from the original excavation report, it appears to be quite an extensive
95
settlement described, as a village as it was associated with a defined area with
several huts, while the nature of another area led the excavator, Kilbride-Jones to
refer to this as a sanctuary (1950). Although it was difficult to separate this
assemblage in terms of possible functional variation between the secular and non-
secular aspects of the site, never-the-less, the two main areas within the Lugg site
appear to be contemporaneous and the majority of lithic material does appear to
have been derived from just outside the hut areas, suggestive of domestic activity in
the main.
Out of these 541 flint pieces, the secondary technology accounted for c. 11 per
cent of the total and the remaining 89 per cent was primary reduction material. The
flint material was fairly poor and appears to be glacially derived.
Primary assemblage composition
The primary material consisted of bipolar cores (64 per cent), bipolar flakes (29
per cent), only 6 per cent were micro-debitage and 1 per cent could not be
categorised. Many of the lithic pieces were burnt. There were no conventionally
struck pieces or blades (Figure 41), and the proportions for primary technology in
the form of bipolar cores and bipolar flakes is very similar to these primary
proportions within the *Corrstown lithic assemblage
96
Figure 41: Pie chart showing Primary lithic components from Lugg, Co. Dublin.
Dimensions of primary technology
The bipolar pieces ranged from between <20mm and <40mm for bipolar cores
with a slightly higher preference for bipolar cores of <20mm. The rest were well
distributed over the <30mm and <40mm dimensions. The preferred bipolar flake
range was <20mm, which is quite small compared to the greater dimensional range
of the bipolar cores (Figure 42).
These dimensional ranges were only marginally larger than similar bipolar
reduced assemblages employing chert as seen within *Roughan Hill, Co. Clare; the
two *Leedaun sites in County Mayo dating from the earlier phases of metallurgy
However, the overall dimensions for bipolar reduced flint from Lugg is noticeably
smaller when compared to the large nodular flint dimensions for bipolar pieces
identified within the potentially contemporaneous Middle Bronze Age collection
from *Corrstown, Co. Derry, outlined above. Although, it seems that Corrstown
may be quite exceptional within this study in general, as it is one of very few
assemblages that employed nodular (fresh) flint from near source.
64%
29%
6%
Proportion of primary (reduction) technology (flint) from Lugg (n=541)
bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
97
Figure 42: Bar chart showing bipolar dimensions from Lugg, Co. Dublin.
The secondary technology
The secondary technology within the Lugg assemblage accounts for 11 per cent
of the total and apart from the porcellanite polished stone axe derived generally
from the main horizon of the site, there were flint pebble scrapers akin to other
rounded type scrapers found from several other Bronze Age collections. The
polished stone axe is of interest as a portion of a polished stone axe was found at the
broadly contemporaneous sites of *Leedaun, II, Co. Mayo, as was the case within the
Middle Bronze Age site at *Corrstown, Co. Derry. It will be seen as this survey
unfolds that polished stone axes are relatively common within Middle and Late
Bronze Age domestic contexts, as is the case within the funerary, ritual and hoard
contexts of the developed Bronze Age.
The overall technology from Lugg consisted of the typical array of scrapers,
predominantly ad hoc types along with a much lesser component of sub-circular
type scrapers (Figure 43). Again the predominant ad hoc scraper types is reflected in
this later collection; a pattern seen to be emerging within the *Leedaun II, Co. Mayo,
and *Corrstown, Co. Derry assemblages and seen within later assemblages.
Figure 43 shows the typical high proportion of the used category compared to
other components and in particular, the secondary technology components
correspond quite closely with the proportion of secondary categories from the
Middle Bronze Age site at *Corrstown, Co. Derry, and reflect other secondary
proportions identified from the Beaker, Early and Middle Bronze Age collections,
0
50
100
150
Dimensional frequencies of bipolar pieces (flint) from Lugg
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
98
where the used category is typically the most dominant tool component within these
assemblages.
Indeed, some of the earlier assemblages such as from the Farmsteads within
*Roughan Hill, Co. Clare, dating to the Beaker and Early Bronze Age have more
significant proportions of utilised pieces. The main variation is that the earlier sites
tend to have similar scraper proportions within overall secondary assemblages; it is
that the more formal scraper predominate the earlier collections and conversely, ad
hoc types tend to dominate the scraper category within the later period.
Figure 43: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Lugg, Co. Dublin
Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh, (hillfort – activity commencing c. 1100
BC)
Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh, (Mallory 1988; Mallory 1991; Mallory 1995;
Mallory & Warner 1988; Mallory & O’Neill 1991 and Mallory et al 1996); is a hillfort
was built and occupied around 1100 BC (Mallory and McNeill 1991), indicating that
the main occupation commenced towards the end of the Bishopsland Phase – the
26%
1%
4%
69%
Composition of secondary (tools) technology from Lugg MBA/LBA (n=61)
ad hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used
99
developed Middle Bronze Age 1350-1200/1200 – 1000 BC.
The ad hoc nature of the lithic assemblage as a whole is like so many other
collections discussed thus far, is seen within both the primary and secondary
technology employed at the site. This crude, but nevertheless functional, lithic
industry within Haughey’s Fort was originally recognised by the excavator prior to
the lithic analysis by the writer and described in the following terms:
It is probable that flint tools were contemporary with the Later Bronze Age occupation of
Haughey’s Fort and were on occasion utilized for simple tasks in an otherwise bronze
industry which had long since seen the collapse of a sophisticated flint knapping (Mallory
1988, 19).
A sample of around 600, mainly flint pieces, was selected out from a large lithic
collection for analysis associated with this site. Other finds from the site included an
abundance of Coarse Ware sherds and metalwork relating directly or indirectly to
tool production is not in evidence from this site. However, there were minute
fragments of metal and a gold stud along with bronze objects, such as a sunflower
pin, three rings and a fragment of a possible bracelet as reviewed by Waddell, who
suggests that these may be indicative of fine metalworking on the site (1998, 217).
These objects, although important, do not indicate the manufacture or use
metalworking tools.
Interestingly, there is some supporting evidence for the use of flint at this site as
seen in the cut marks on pig bones noted by McCormick in the following:
Some of the cut marks at Haughey’s Fort are too fine to have been made with a bronze knife.
One cut mark, on a pig’s pelvis, was only 0.1 mm at the open end of the incision. It seems
likely that this was made with a freshly struck flint flake (1988, 25).
The present writer attempted to assess the use of metal blades at this site by
reviewing a detailed study on a large number of very well preserved worked
timbers by Neill (1996). Unfortunately, the cut marks on these timbers were not
particularly informative regarding the tool types used. Interestingly, like a number
of mid to later Bronze Age sites, there was a stone axe recovered, but this was not
found in-situ. It is of porcellanite (a volcanic rock known mainly from the north-east
of Ireland) and is highly.
100
The total of just over 600 archaeological lithic pieces were analysed from
Haughey’s Fort, randomly selected from a much larger collection of a couple of
thousand pieces, some of which were natural background flint. Most of the lithic
collection was derived from within datable features and horizons directly relating to
the main occupation of the hillfort. Many of the flints were burnt and derived from
pits associated with the overall occupation of the site.
The flint material was in the main very poor river-rolled/glacial pebble flint. A
small percentage (0.2 per cent) was made up of quartz. Glacial flint is freely
available within the surrounding area. The overall characteristics of the flint was
fairly patinated, polished and heavily abraded small naturally fractured flint. This
assemblage confirms once again the general use of fairly poor lithic material and the
use of what is closest to hand. However, like most other industries of the Bronze
Age in general, the Haughey’s Fort collection is predominantly bipolar reduced.
Primary technology composition
Figure 44 shows the proportion of primary technology components from
Haughey’s Fort, which accounts for 85 per cent of the total analysed sample of over
600 pieces. Out of the known population of primary technology (480 pieces), the
categories are as follows: 160 bipolar cores (30%); 164 bipolar flakes (45%); 66 pieces
of micro-debitage (18%) and the platform reduced category includes 21 flakes with
platform attributes (4.3 per cent) and, along with a range of amorphous and various
platform type cores, 18 in all and two blades (0.5 per cent) accounting for 7 per cent
of the total primary technology from Haughey’s Fort .
101
Figure 44: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh.
The fairly high incidence of micro-debitage may be due to sieving at this site. The
bipolar cores and bipolar flakes make up the greatest percentage within any primary
assemblage of the Bronze Age, thus far outlined and Haughey’s Fort is no exception
and reflects most of the assemblages of this period from domestic contexts which
will be seen below. The fairly high proportion of platform technology (7 per cent)
compared to other primary technologies (bipolar) directly reflects the proportion
from within the Middle Bronze Age assemblage from *Corrstown, Co. Derry.
The fairly high quantity of bipolar flakes compared to bipolar cores within
Haughey’s Fort is comparable to the similarly high incidence of bipolar flakes to
bipolar cores found within the chert assemblage of the Middle Bronze period from
*Leedaun, II, Co. Mayo. Otherwise, most primary reduction (bipolar assemblages)
tends to have a predominance of bipolar cores over bipolar flakes as seen in the
earlier directly analysed assemblages.
Composition of primary (reduction) technology (flint)
from Haughey's Fort (c. 1100 BC) (n=414)
30%
45%
18%
7%
bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
102
Figure 45 shows typical bipolar core from Haughey’s Fort, which conforms
morphologically and to some extent dimensionally with its chert and flint
counterparts from domestic contexts of the earliest metalworking era. Figure 46
shows a selection of bipolar (anvil) cores, mainly pointed and some bipolar flakes
from this site are morphologically similar to bipolar cores found within other
primary reduction assemblages identified directly from the earliest until the latest
phases of the Bronze Age.
Figure 45: Typical flint (patinated) bipolar pointed core from Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh.
Figure 46: Random selection of a range of flint bipolar (mainly pointed) cores and bipolar flakes
from Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh.
Dimensions for primary technology
Figure 47 shows the bipolar cores from Haughey’s Fort had an upper limit of
<70mm, indicating that at least some sizable nodules were employed in the
industry. The preferred size for these cores had a higher frequency of between
<30mm to <40mm with most being <30mm. The Haughey’s Fort bipolar flakes show
a fairly high frequency within the <20mm range. These smaller spread of
dimensions for bipolar flakes compared to bipolar cores is typical within most
103
bipolar lithic assemblages whether made from chert or flint.
The dimensions from the bipolar pieces within the Haughey’s Fort collection
reflects other non-chert assemblages from Bronze Age contexts and particularly
reflected within the mid to Late Bronze Age *Lugg, Co. Dublin, flint assemblage.
The only exception to this pattern seen within flint dimensions for bipolar pieces can
be seen within the Middle Bronze Age site at *Corrstown, Co. Derry, where, the raw
material is typically much larger as it is derived from fresh (nodular) flint sources
compared to riverine/glacial flint employed in the Haughey’s Fort assemblage.
Figure 47: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh.
Secondary technology
Figure 48 shows the distribution of the main secondary (tools) category found
within the Haughey’s Fort assemblage of flint. Interestingly this pie chart is very
similar to that from the Middle Bronze Age site at *Leedaun II, Co. Mayo, which
employed chert. Within Haughey’s Fort secondary technology distribution, the
‘used’ category (37 per cent) was fairly substantial as seen within most other Bronze
Age assemblages; although in this case, this category is less than the combined
scraper category. The greatest density of tools are scrapers accounting for over half
of the total tool (secondary) assemblage made neat sub-circular scrapers (18 per
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Haughey's Fort, bipolar dimensions (flint)
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
104
cent), and rough scrapers (35 per cent), although the scrapers from Haughey’s Fort
show the same predominance of ad hoc scrapers over neat sub-circular types as seen
within most other later assemblages of the Bronze Age (Figure 48).
This density of scrapers dominating the tool-class category compared to the
typically more prolific utilised types found in all the period discussed thus far, finds
its closest parallel with the *Roughan Hill, Co. Clare, tool classes from Farmstead 2
relating to the Beaker/Early Bronze Age period.
Figure 48: Bar chart showing Secondary technology components from Haughey’s Fort, Co.
Armagh.
The main variation between the scrapers of the earlier and later period would
appear to be the predominance of sub-circular type scrapers from earlier sites
compared to the dominance of expedient scraper types from earlier sites. This shift
was discernible within one particular assemblage dating to the phase just prior to
the Later Bronze Age from *Leedaun II, Co. Mayo. And most of these Later Bronze
Age assemblages reflect this predominance of ad hoc scrapers. The Haughey’s Fort
35%
18% 10%
37%
Composition of secondary (tools) technology from Haughey's Fort (c. 1100BC) (n=51)
ad-hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used pieces
105
scrapers ranged from c. 22 to 44mm for length with an average breadth of c. 30mm,
which is broadly reflected within other contemporaneous scraper assemblage.
Figure 49 presents a range of fairly ad hoc scraper types from Haughey’s Fort, Co.
Armagh.
Figure 49: Coarse Ware Tradition (LBA) flint scrapers: (top two) neat sub-circular scrapers, (second
from top) fairly crude scraper, (bottom) neat sub-circular scraper from Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh.
Figure 50: A bipolar flake from the Late Bronze Age hillfort at *Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh.
106
Figure 51: Selection of pointed flint bipolar cores/flakes that would have been perfectly suitable to
cutting, boring and piercing task from Haughey’s Fort, Co Armagh.
Figures 50-51 illustrate the more bipolar type flakes and pointed bipolar pieces
that would have been perhaps employed for many of the tasks such as piercing and
cutting required within this site. The other important category from Haughey’s Fort
is the flaked pieces, which although quite minimal compared to the scrapers or used
pieces categories, perhaps reflects the importance of deliberately modified pieces
which made up a significant proportion in relation to utilised pieces at the
*Leedaun, I, Co. Mayo, site dating to the period 2000 – 1800 BC. However,
Haughey’s Fort, like most assemblages even dating to the Beaker period has a
significant proportion of used pieces as is clearly seen within most assemblages
directly analyzed thus far.
Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, (Hillfort - Late Bronze Age)
Rathgall site, Co. Wicklow, (Raftery 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975-76) and updated
information online (Raftery 2003). Another Late Bronze Age hillfort has a small
mainly flint assemblage associated. This site is known as Rathgall, and although it
has multi-period activity, the radiocarbon determinations place the main activity
principally towards the latter stages of the Bronze Age with radiocarbon date ranges
of 1200-900 BC, with most of the activity centring on c. 1100 BC, making the lithic
collections of this site and *Haughey’s Fort broadly contemporaneous. Augmenting
the dates is the array of Later Bronze Age Coarse Wares distributed within various
concentrations. It should be noted however, that there are two main zones of
different activity identified within the Rathgall site: one industrial/domestic and the
other were of a ritual/funerary nature.
Unlike most sites discussed thus far, Rathgall is rich in metal finds and
fragmentary moulds for the production of metal, although there was some evidence
at the Middle Bronze Age site within *Corrstown, Co. Derry, of some portions of
107
moulds for the making of metal tools/weaponry and like Rathgall moulds and other
paraphernalia relating to metalworking, there was a lack of associated metalworking
tools, moulds for the production of everyday working metal tools and other
paraphernalia that we would normally associated with this type of production; a
point previously made regarding these metal industrial sites in Ireland in general as
highlighted by Waddell (1998).
In the case of the Rathgall this industrial activity is ubiquitous throughout the
site and indeed several other highly crafted products are also known from the site.
The material recovered was objects of bronze, gold and glass, along with lignite and
at least three discrete zones of metalworking were established within the site. More
than 2500 fragments were recovered indicative of the casting of swords, spearheads,
chapes, axeheads and palstaves, pins, and a possible sickle. Apart from the
axes/palstave mould fragments, the other types represent weaponry or ornaments.
Furthermore, some of this material may relate to ritual activity rather than
utilitarian tasks as within the southern area of the site a number of pits, many
containing rubbish and Coarse Ware pottery, seemed to be associated with
ritual/burials as one pit in particular may have been a male burial associated with a
bronze chisel, a spearhead and a fragmentary sword blade that had been cut at each
end. The bronze chisel would of course be a useful tool, but in this context it
appears to have other meanings attached to it. Similarly, the weaponry from this
context would appear to indicate ritual activity.
Taking the Rathgall lithic collection as a whole and potentially domestic
assemblage, the assessment as follows conforms broadly to those assessed from
clearly secular only sites and within much better contexts to the lithics derived from
Rathgall, although the results were quite similar to other lithic assemblages and the
evidence for metal tools in place of these tools is lacking from this site. The Rathgall
lithic assemblage consists of 111, mainly flint pieces, all of which were recorded as
recovered from the site. The contexts for this lithic collection were less than ideal.
Primary assemblage composition
The primary technology from Rathgall accounts for 81 per cent of the total
assemblage in relation to secondary technology. The flint material was constructed
from relatively poor quality material which would appear to be derived from glacial
till in the environs of the site. The primary assemblage was essentially bipolar
produced, which also includes the process of splitting pebbles. This seems the most
108
direct and expedient manner to produce workable pieces. This proportion of
primary technology to secondary technology reflects the proportions found within
Figure 52 shows a selection of split-pebble produced material from Rathgall, as
noted earlier – essentially this is bipolar reduction. Again, like the earlier periods,
this strategy appears to be a remarkably standardised technique in metrical and
morphological terms.
Figure 52: Selection of primary technology from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. Split pebble (top left);
quartered pebble/bipolar core (top right); scalar flake (bottom).
The bipolar cores from Rathgall account for (42 per cent) of the total primary
assemblage and the proportion of bipolar flakes was higher at 51 per cent
accounting for over half the primary assemblage, and micro-debitage pieces
accounted for a mere 1 per cent (Figure 53). The high proportion of bipolar cores and
scalar flakes are reflected within most Bronze Age sites, although there was very
little in the way of micro-debitage recovered from Rathgall, which seems variable
within these assemblages, although this may be accounted for by the nature of
recovery. The platform technology proportion (6 per cent) is not unlike the
proportion from *Haughey’s Fort. The platform category is made up of blades and
other conventionally struck flakes from Rathgall.
109
Figure 53: Pie chart illustrating percentages of primary technology types within Rathgall, Co. Wicklow
assemblage.
Dimensions for primary technology
The bipolar cores showed a tendency towards larger sizes compared to bipolar
flakes; which again is seen within most of the domestic assemblages reviewed thus
far. The upper limit is <50mm presumably reflecting the small size of the pebble-
type flint employed (Figure 54). This begins to imply an optimum size for flakes
employed within these domestic industries and the bipolar cores tend to have an
optimum size, although where raw material will allow; these tend to expand to the
upper dimensional ranges. Again the dimensions for bipolar pieces show the usual
pattern for glacial type flint of preferred lengths of <20mm for bipolar flakes and
<30mm for bipolar cores; although scalar flakes also have a fairly high incidence of
dimensions approximating <30mm.
42%
51%
1%
6%
Proportions of primary (reduction) technology (flint) from Rathgall (MBA-LBA)(n=90)
bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
110
Figure 54: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow.
Secondary technology
The secondary technology from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow accounts for 19 per cent
of the total assemblage. The proportion for secondary technology is more in keeping
with the high proportion of tools to reduction material established for the chert
assemblage from *Leedaun, II from Co. Mayo, dating to the Middle Bronze Age and
from the earlier site at *Roughan Hill, Co. Clare dating from the Beaker to the Early
Bronze Age period. Figure 55 shows that almost half the tool-category is made up of
ad hoc scrapers and sub-circular neater type scrapers account for a quarter of the
entire tool-category. Again the main pattern clearly emerging at this point is that:
although scrapers obviously remain quantitatively significant at this time, the formal
sub-circular types are declining at the expense of ad hoc scrapers, where in earlier
industries it was the other way round.
The combined scraper population from Rathgall represents almost three-quarters
of the entire secondary tool-class category (Figure 55) and is broadly reflective of the
high density of scrapers compared to used and flaked pieces seen within the Late
Bronze Age assemblage from *Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh, although within the
Rathgall tool-class category, the used category is smaller than most other
assemblages representing less than 20 per cent of the total tools from this site which
is fairly atypical of other assemblages which are more often dominated by used
bipolar pieces.
0
5
10
15
20
Dimensional frequency of bipolar technology (flint) from Rathgall
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
111
Figure 55: Pie chart showing percentages of the main secondary technology types from Rathgall,
Co. Wicklow
Figure 56: Fairly neat sub-circular flint scraper from Rathgall, Co. Wicklow.
There were several sub-circular and rough scraper types from Rathgall (Figure
56) more akin to the predominantly neater sub-circular scrapers found within earlier
assemblages. There was also a few very well executed lithics from Rathgall (Figure
57) which are the product of platform technology and would be more typically
associated with significantly earlier prehistoric traditions and again these may
represent the re-use or recycling which is a feature of these otherwise expedient
Bronze Age industries.
50%
25%
6%
19%
Proportion of secondary (tools) technology from Rathgall (LBA) (n=16)
ad hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used pieces
112
.
Figure 57: A finely produced platform blade possibly dating to the Neolithic period, which was
unstratified within the Rathgall. Co. Wicklow site; although potentially employed within the Later
Bronze Age period as a tool.
There was also a broken chert barbed and tanged arrowhead derived from the
Rathgall site but again, this was without a secure context. However, it of a Bronze
Age type and does reflect the pattern of arrowheads being derived from
contemporaneous settlements from more secure contexts which will be reviewed
further on. Furthermore, as will be seen as this assessment unfolds: the re-use of
significantly earlier type-fossils is a fairly common component within later
prehistoric lithic assemblages. The important point about the Rathgall assemblage is
that it reflects the mainstay lithic technology identified within other much better
associated lithic material from the same period.
Killymoon, Co. Tyrone (dates centring around 1100 and 600 BC - LBA).
Killymoon is metal rich and indicates much smelting and other metal production
activity (Hurl 1995, Hurl et al 1995 online, and Hurl 1999). It is therefore similar to
*Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, discussed above. However, again as seems to be the case
with *Rathgall, the Killymoon sites do not seem to represent domestic sites per se,
but rather may be viewed as metal-working sites with domestic activity. Like the
*Rathgall site, Killymoon did not produce evidence for the manufacturing of every-
day tools of metal and this may perhaps support this distinction between domestic
settlements and metalworking sites with domestic activity. Either way, these sites all
still seem to have associated lithic technology that may have been employed for
particular domestic tasks.
Several radiocarbon date ranges were obtained corresponding to the broader
phases identified within the site. These ranged from the Middle to Late Bronze Age
period although the main activity from which the stone implements were derived
113
was associated mainly with Phase 4. The main features were burnt mounds, hearths
and dumps, grains, pots, lots of saddle querns, spindle whorls, rubbing stones and
stone hammers. The lack of living structures is quite puzzling as noted by the
excavator (Hurl online), even though there were quite a few finds we would
normally associate with domestic activity such as the grains, saddle querns, spindle
whorls, rubbing stones, hammers and Coarse Ware pots and other lithic material
including stone axes. This may lend some further support to the idea of this being a
bronze-working workshop area with some evidence of domestic activity rather than
an actual settlement.
Again, the Killymoon site is akin to the hillfort at *Rathgall, Co. Wicklow,
outlined above in terms of a good deal of domestic related artefacts with no
evidence of actual house structures and had a similarly rich array of metal and metal
related artefacts, but lacking evidence of the full range of industrial activity one
would normally expect associated with industrial metalworking. The Killymoon
sites produced several clay mould fragments, one for a ring-pin and two gold objects
including a dress-fastener along with metal slag.
There were also a few pieces of partial and complete lignite bracelets. A bronze
socketed axe (SF-10016) was also recovered from the site, the first direct evidence
found within the survey of an actual metal axe. There was also several spindle
whorls, which would be the most likely indicators of a replacement of stone axes
and stone scrapers by other methods of fabric production. However, this site also
revealed quite a few flint scrapers along with three polished stone axes, which seem
to be well used.
Killymoon is unusual for this period in that the lithic collection is tool dominated
and shows virtually no bipolar reduction or platform primary reduction material.
There were no micro-debitage pieces, a single (columnar) bipolar core and two
bipolar flakes; instead out of the 85, about half were of flint artefacts dating to the
Bronze Age along with some significantly earlier artefacts and the remaining half of
the lithic assemblage was represented by coarse stone items. There was a single
quartz flake that appeared to be utilised and a number of other flint portions of
flakes (non-platform types) that may have been employed in the industry.
114
Figure 58: Large flint scrapers from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone. Retouched ad hoc scraper (top and
another crude scraper without retouch with scalloped edges forming scraping edge (below).
Out of the 44 pieces of flint, 10 were scrapers; one was a split pebble type and
four were sub-circular types, along with fairly ad hoc rough scrapers (Figures 58-59).
The remaining flint artefacts indicate recycling as seen by the presence of two leaf-
shaped flakes; one may be a Bann flake typical of the Later Mesolithic traditions, two
single uni-platformed cores and a well-made flint knife (Figure 60), along with
several other portions of blades and flakes that could not be interpreted specifically
as tools or debitage.
Figure 59: Selection of large flint ad hoc scrapers from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone
115
Figure 60: Range of significantly earlier lithic type-fossils found associated with typical Bronze Age
lithics from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone
Recycling behaviour is clearly in evidence as seen by the presence of two well-
made platformed produced partial blades, two leaf-shaped flakes, two single uni-
platformed cores and a well-made flint knife from Killymoon, perhaps reflecting the
earlier type-fossil found at *Rathgall, Co. Wicklow. There was evidence of possible
re-used earlier lithic types within the Middle Bronze Age period as seen at
*Ballyarnet, Co. Derry, (MBA - Cordoned Urn site).
Figure 61: Extrapolated hollow based arrowhead from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone
The presence of a portion of a hollow based arrowhead (Figure 61) also
recovered from the Killymoon site is worth noting as this is a Bronze Age arrowhead
type and these forms along with various barbed and tanged types are fairly common
within domestic sites as will be discussed further on and reflects the recovery of
another broken Bronze Age arrowhead type found within the *Rathgall, Co.
Wicklow, collection discussed above.
There were three stone axes recovered from Killymoon (Figure 62) and although
116
it is likely such axes were manufactured at a much earlier time, that these may have
been employed within the industry as the contemporaneous use/presence of
polished stone axes is well attested within this point in the Bronze Age and is a
fairly common item associated with traditions dating to the end of the Early into the
Middle Bronze Age and Cordoned Urn burials (O’Hare 2005).
The Middle and Late Bronze Age domestic contexts sees a continuance of stone
axes as seen in the axe portions from the Middle Bronze Age site at *Corrstown, Co.
Derry; from the Mid to Late Bronze Age site at *Lugg, Co. Dublin, *Leedaun II, Co.
Mayo, site and possibly the porcellanite axe recovered from the Late Bronze Age
hillfort at *Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh, although, this was unstratified. The
information relating to sites dating to the Mid to Late Bronze Age period which will
be outlined further on shows that polished stone axes are a common feature within
later assemblages of the later phases of the Bronze Age.
Other late contexts for polished stone axes are clearly seen within other late
contexts assessed by the present writer and can also be seen within the literature
pertaining to Bronze Age lithics which will be outlined further on. These begin to
support the possibility that even though stone axes such as those from Killymoon
may not represent contemporaneously manufactured tools: that this does not mean
that they were not contemporaneously employed for general tasks required.
Figure 62: Three polished stone axes from Killymoon, Co. Tyrone.
117
Ballyutoag (McIlwhans), Co. Antrim, (Late Bronze Age Upland
enclosure with house structure)
Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim is an upland site described as an enclosed hut circle with
possible evidence of Early Bronze Age activity, although essentially Yates assigned
most of the activity to the later Bronze Age period, based upon a radiocarbon
sample which was less than ideal and may not reflect the actual date of the site
(Yates, per. comm.). However, over this area was a substantial round house structure
and based upon architectural parallels dates this to the Middle/Late Bronze Age
period suggested within a re-evaluation of the original excavation by Philip
Macdonald (QUB).
It is suggested that Yates’ original assessment placing much of the settlement
activity within the Late Bronze Age was essentially correct (Macdonald per. comm.).
The lithic assemblage of several hundred pieces were analysed, 139 pieces selected
randomly from a larger collection. Some of these were quite large nodular type flint
with fairly large inclusions suggesting a local source within this region of County
Antrim, while other flint pieces were glacial type pebble flint. The primary
technology accounts for 71 per cent of the total known assemblage. From the total
primary assemblage, bipolar cores and bipolar flakes have the same proportions at
37 per cent each of the total primary category. Micro-debitage was quite low in
frequency at 4 per cent.
This relatively proportioned ratio of bipolar flakes to bipolar cores is quite
common among Bronze Age assemblages, although not a predictable pattern. There
was a much higher incidence of conventionally struck pieces from Ballyutoag within
an otherwise bipolar reduced primary assemblage; suggestive of an industry that
may have in part employed Neolithic type material. The platform pieces, which are
mainly flakes account for almost a quarter of the primary lithic assemblage (Figure
63) where a sizable proportion of this (2.4 per cent) was made up of blades.
118
Figure 63: Pie Chart showing Primary technology components from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim
Eighty-four pieces could be identified as primary technology and almost a
quarter of this category is made up of platform reduced pieces as noted above. The
secondary technology accounts for 24 pieces and the remaining technology could
not be classified as either primary or secondary technology which may have
obscured the results. Basically, when the primary technology is compared with
secondary technology, a comparatively high proportion of the assemblage is
represented by secondary – tool – technology accounting for 23 per cent of the total,
almost a quarter, which is unusually high. However, apart from the fairly high
incidence of platform technology in relation to bipolar reduced material and the
fairly high proportion of tools to reduced material, otherwise, the Ballyutoag
collection is predominantly bipolar reduced and broadly reflects this mainstay
technology found from so many other Bronze Age domestic sites.
Dimensions for primary technology
The dimensions for the Ballyutoag bipolar cores was between <20mm and
36%
36%
4%
24%
Proportion of primary (reduction) technology (flint) from Ballyutoag (MBA/LBA - some EBA) (n=84)
bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
119
<60mm, with a preferred length of <30mm and <40mm. The distribution of bipolar
flakes from Ballyutoag was <20mm to <30mm (Figure 64); these are quite typical
dimensions established from all the other flint-based bipolar reduced assemblages.
The upper range for bipolar cores in particular is higher than most assemblages
discussed thus far with the exception of the Middle Bronze Age *Corrstown
industry, Co. Derry.
This latter industry employed fresh nodular flint and it seems that Ballyutoag
employed at least some nodular type flint which may have been derived from
known outcrops within this region of Co. Antrim. Presumably therefore, the larger
type raw material produces allows for slightly larger bipolar cores and scalar flakes,
but overall these industries irrespective of the raw material seems to show an
optimum range (preference) for bipolar pieces where bipolar flakes generally tend to
occupy the slightly smaller dimensional range compared to the slighter larger
bipolar cores.
Figure 64: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim
Secondary technology
The pattern of a sizable proportion of ad hoc scrapers compared to more formal
sub-circular types can again be seen in the Ballyutoag assemblage, although the sub-
circular category is quite sizable (Figure 65). The combined scraper category
accounts for almost 60 per cent of the total tool-classes, where just over 20 per cent
are sub-circular types (Figure 65). There were no flaked pieces, but the used bipolar
0
5
10
15
20
Dimentional frequency of bipolar technology (flint) from Ballyutoag
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
120
category, as is typical within most of these assemblages from the earliest Bronze
Age, is fairly large accounting for over 40 per cent (Figure 65) of the total tool-class.
Almost two-thirds of the scrapers are these are quite typical dimensions established
from all the other flint-based bipolar reduced assemblages.
Figure 65: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim
Figure 66 (top) shows split/quartered nodule of flint (bipolar core) after several
episodes of reduction eventually form a natural point than can be employed along
with the naturally rough or serrated edges of the pieces. Figure 66 (bottom) also
shows a similar point that may have been employed as a piercing type tool but this
is classed as a bipolar flake due to only having a single flat face (ventral) and
opposite (dorsal) negative scars remaining. The important thing to note is that,
excepting the Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim, assemblage, which may be a mixed
assemblage, perhaps employing lithic material that would have likely been available
in the flint-rich region dating to earlier times, most of these assemblages show a
paucity or marginal component of platform technology compared to the mainstay
38%
21%
41%
Proportion of secondary (tools) technology from Ballyutoag (MBA/LBA with some EBA) (n=24)
ad hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used pieces
121
bipolar reduced material. This would be is comparable to the Middle Bronze Age
(small assemblage) from *Ballyarnet, Co. Derry, which also seems to have evidence
of pre-existing Neolithic activity in the locality.
Figure 66: Quartered flint nodule creating a bipolar pointed core (top) and more splintered
pointed bipolar pieces with sharp point (below) from an upland settlement dating to the Late
Bronze Age with underlying possible EBA features from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim
One of the sub-circular scrapers (Figure 67) from Ballyutoag is of interest as it
shows how small pebble flint was quartered and opportunistically flaked to form a
usable scraper with minimal flaking and where the cortex remains where the flake
removals were not required. Contrasting with the mainly expedient technology from
Ballyutoag was the broken flint hollow based arrowhead (Figure 68).
These Bronze Age type arrowheads including barbed and tanged forms are fairly
common within other Middle Bronze Age collections as also seem to be a feature of
Late Bronze Age assemblages as seen in within the *Killymoon, Co. Tyrone and
*Rathgall, Co. Kilkenny, assemblages outlined above. Bronze Age arrowheads are
obviously fairly common within Beaker/Early Bronze Age assemblages as outlined
earlier, although as will be seen in the review of Middle and Late Bronze Age
material from the literature, arrowheads of hollow based and barbed and tanged
form remain important within many assemblages.
122
Figure 67: Sub-circular flint scraper retaining cortex (outer chalk layer) of pebble type flint from
Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim
Figure 68: Broken hollow based flint arrowhead from Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim
Freestown Hill, Coolgrange, Co. Kilkenny (Late Bronze Age hillfort)
Freestown Hill, Co. Kilkenny (Bersu was the excavator of this site during the
1940s and early fifties, report completed by Raftery 1969) is a hillfort which seems to
have been superimposed upon and thus disturbing an earlier Bronze Age cairn.
Originally, Freestone Hill was believed to be Iron Age; however, based upon
parallels with the Coarse Ware pots from other sites such as: Rathgall and an old
radiocarbon sample indicating a period c. 910-550 BC it now looks like the later
occupation of this site dates to the Late Bronze Age (Raftery 1995).
Although it was difficult to separate the earlier Bronze Age funerary activity
from the Late Bronze Age domestic activity, nevertheless, assuming that the cairn
lithics would be in-situ associated with sealed burials; it is more than likely that the
general spread of lithics recorded by the writer belongs to the later domestic
horizon.
The use of highly localised material in the form of mainly flint, some chert and
small amount of quartz is in evidence from this site. The direct analysis which is
presented below compares in terms of use of highly localised material from all of the
sites discussed so far; all of which were derived from localised lithic sources. The
primary lithic technology is made up of 26 bipolar cores, 11 bipolar flakes and two
blades (Figure 69). The bipolar cores are mainly small split pebble type and the
123
remaining few pieces were large quartz lumps.
From only a total of 56 lithics that were recorded by the present writer, Over 70
Per cent are primary technology, which is quite a low proportion for this technology
in relation to secondary technology pieces; and is not dissimilar to the fairly low
proportion of primary technology to secondary technology seen within *Ballyutoag,
Co. Antrim; *Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, and the earlier assemblage from *Roughan Hill,
Co. Clare.
Figure 69: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny
The dimensional ranges for bipolar cores are similar again to other chert and
pebble flint type bipolar assemblages in terms of dimensional preference for scalar
flakes and bipolar cores of between <20 but main centring on dimensions of <30mm,
although this is a fairly small collection with a mixed material of pebble flint, chert
and quartz, the bipolar cores and scalar flake dimensions follow the broad
dimensions for other assemblages made from glacial flint (Figure 70).
67%
28%
5%
Proportion of primary (reduction) technology (flint) from Freestown Hill (LBA) (n=39)
bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
124
Figure 70: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny.
Secondary technology
The secondary proportions that could be established from the original
population of 56 lithics represent from Freestone hill 18 Per cent of the total. The
largest class of implement, the used bipolar pieces make up half of the tools class
category (Figure 71). The ad hoc scrapers account for 40 Per cent with no sub-
circular types which is more common within these later assemblages and the
remaining 10 Per cent is made up of flaked pieces (Figure 71).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
<20m
m
<30m
m
<40m
m
<50m
m
Dimensional frequency of bipolar technology
(flint) from Freestone Hill
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
125
Figure 71: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny
Lough Eskragh Site B, B1 and B2, Co. Tyrone (Late Bronze Age
Crannóg)
Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone, (Collins and Seaby 1960, Williams 1978) dates
broadly to the Late Bronze Age period based upon material finds and radiocarbon
determinations. This site is a Crannóg excavated in the 1950s and again in the 1970s.
Overall, the finds included: sword moulds, crucibles, socketed axe moulds, anvils,
wooden vessels resembling Coarse Ware pots and a radiocarbon date range of c.
800-700 BC. A fairly small assemblage, of 31 lithic pieces, was analysed from
reasonably secure contexts, some other flints were natural. Site A (earlier
excavation), revealed a polished stone axe associated with some burnt flints. The
later excavation revealed a number of lithics on the lake-shore including two Late
Neolithic type-fossils and some more flint, quartzite lumps and gneiss material,
although these were horizontally associated across Sites B, B1 and B2.
40%
10%
50%
Proportion of secondary (tools) technology flint from Freestone Hill (LBA) (n=10)
ad hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used pieces
126
Primary technology
The 31 lithics are fairly poor quality pieces, several of which were patinated,
some burnt. Three pieces were quartz lumps and some other material that could not
be assigned to any particular category. Out of the total number of pieces that could
be recognised as primary technology, 19 pieces account for 61 Per cent of the total
collection. Bearing in mind the small quantity of lithic material, the results of the
primary technology still shows a predominance of bipolar technology and although
there were no platform primary pieces, there was a platform blade with retouch .
Furthermore, although this category is sparse at Lough Eskragh, there were a
number of earlier type-fossils as seen within other assemblages. Several of the
bipolar cores may have been employed as tools, although their burnt, patinated and
overall poor quality condition did not allow for the positive identification of use;
although it was noted that most bipolar cores were pointed. The primary technology
was comprised of 8 bipolar cores (41 Per cent); six bipolar flakes (32 Per cent), two
pieces of micro-debitage (11 Per cent) and three were platform types representing 16
Per cent of the total primary technology (Figure 72).
Figure 72: Pie chart showing Primary technology components from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone.
Bipolar dimensions
41%
32%
11%
16%
Proportion of primary (reduction) technology (flint) from Lough Eskragh (LBA-Dowris) (n=19)
bipolar cores
bipolar flakes
micro-debitage
platform
127
Figure 73 shows that bipolar cores and bipolar flakes have a preference for
dimensions of <40mm which is slightly unusual as most assemblage indicate that
scalar flakes tend to occupy the lower dimensions compared to bipolar cores.
Furthermore, the overall size of the flint bipolar pieces from Lough Eskragh is
slightly larger than most other flint bipolar pieces with and begins to approximate
the preferred dimensions for bipolar pieces found within the Middle Bronze Age site
at *Corrstown, Co. Derry, and the Mid to Late Bronze Age site at *Ballyutoag, Co.
Antrim, employing more nodular type flint.
Figure 73: Bar chart showing dimensions for bipolar pieces from Lough Eskragh
assemblage, Co. Tyrone
Secondary technology
There were 10 items associated from Site A that are discernible as tools. These
tools represent a high proportion of tools to the remaining assemblage at just over 30
Per cent, but this is a very small collection and is both unusual and reflective of
other industries of the same general era. For instance, although Lough Eskragh, Co.
Tyrone presented no scrapers of any type, it was dominated by utilised bipolar
pieces representing eight pieces which accounts for 80 Per cent of the total tool
collection (Figure 74). The remaining tool class from Lough Eskragh was a flint well-
produced knife made employing a platform core and the other was an otherwise
unworked lump of flint with retouch. These flaked pieces represent 20 Per cent of
total tool category (Figure 74).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Dimensional frequency of bipolar technology (flint) from Lough Eskragh
bipolar flakes
bipolar cores
128
Figure 74: Pie chart showing Secondary technology components from Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone
A polished stone axe, not included in the assessment of the chipped stone
technology was also found within Site A. There are a few other lithics worth noting
which were found during the later excavation of this site two ptd’s (A Later
Neolithic asymmetric type arrowhead found in Ireland). Again the stone axe has
been highlighted within several other Middle Bronze Age contexts and Late Bronze
Age sites as the three found at *Killymoon, Co. Tyrone; *Lugg, Co. Dublin; and the
unstratified stone axe from *Haughey’s Fort, Co. Armagh Late Bronze Age hillfort
and the more clearly associated stone axes seen within the mid to Late Bronze Age
village at *Corrstown, Co. Derry, and is seen clearly within this later period within
the literature.
Significantly earlier lithic type-fossils noted from a similar timeframe above and
particularly the Neolithic types found within mid to later Bronze Age sites at
*Killymoon, Co. Tyrone and *Rathgall, Co. Wicklow may all indicate possible re-
use/recycling of earlier lithic tools within much later industries and again this is a
pattern emerging within the later assemblages as seen within the literature which
20%
80%
Proportion of secondary (tools) technology from Lough Eskragh (LBA - Dowris) (n=10)
ad-hoc scrapers
sub-circular scrapers
flaked pieces
used pieces
129
will be outlined presently.
Carrigillihy, Co. Cork, (c. 1510-1220 and 1130-850 BC)
At first glance it would appear that an oval house and enclosure associated with
Coarse Ware and the re-dating of old charcoal sample produced mid to Late Bronze
Age dates, was purely domestic, however, the Carrigillihy, Co. Cork, (O’ Kelly 1951
and 1989) house was directly associated with a very small lithic assemblage found
within a pit in the interior of the house which turned out to be fairly typical platform
flakes which would be more at home in the Neolithic period. Furthermore, although
a bronze awl was found in the entrance way, which may be spatially significant
perhaps indicating some ritual deposit. As this item is much older than the actual
date of the house, and was therefore originally believed to be Early Bronze Age, on
the basis of the Coarse Ware (Lough Gur Class II) pottery found at the site it is now
generally accepted as belonging to the latter part of the Bronze Age (see Cleary 1993,
1995 and 2003).
There was also a fragment of a bronze socketed axe recovered (unstratified) from
Carrigillihy and, interestingly, this reflects a similar find from *Killymoon, Co.
Tyrone, noted above. The portion of the bronze axe would support the Later Bronze
Age date of the site. This is confirmed by the radiocarbon dates from the site
confirms this from the dating of old samples of charcoal, c. 1510-1220 and 1130-850
BC, this site is now firmly placed in the latter part of the Bronze Age (O’Kelly 1989).
The very small flint assemblage from this fairly confusing context may represent
a ritual deposit within the interior pit of the house/structure. Therefore, although it
is a very different technology to most other Bronze Age lithic technologies discussed
thus far; nevertheless, it may represent some symbolic reference or ancestral link.
The important aspect of this small collection from Carrigillihy is that it demonstrates
that when lithic technologies are sought within and throughout the Bronze Age
period; these are invariably found and depending upon the nature of the contexts;
sometimes these represent ritual activity rather than domestic activity and this
theme is seen in a number of other contexts particularly relating to the later phases
within the Bronze Age which will be seen below.
130
Ballinderry, No. 2, Co. Offaly (Crannóg – Late Bronze Age)
A crannog with Dowris type material at Ballinderry No. 2, Co. Offaly (Hencken
1942] in the form of bronze working, awls, rings, flesh hooks, a sunflower pin,
socketed knife, amber beads and bone work, also produced lithic material, although
again this is an extremely small collection, nevertheless this assemblage proved
quite informative. Other than the socketed knife, the other metal finds would not
have been very useful as everyday tools. However, the small flint assemblage is
quite interesting and consists of only five flints: an amorphous core, a burnt blade
and no fewer than three pieces that represent secondary technology in the form of
two utilised flakes (platform types) and a flaked blade-like flint.
The burnt blade and the socketed metal knife may have some significance as
ritually deposited as it seems unlikely that other metal pieces in the form of
ornaments and weaponry would be just dropped or left behind at these sites and
perhaps the lithics, which are often burnt, are also part of this ritual activity. The
bone tools are also of interest at this time and are known from other broadly
contemporaneous collections. This small assemblage is again platform dominated
and may reflect recycled or more likely: ritually deposited objects. The nature of the
lithic material is reminiscent of that discussed above in relation to the *Carrigillihy
assemblage which may also represent a ritual/ancestral deposit within an otherwise
Bronze Age context. This practice is fairly common at this late stage in the Bronze
Age as seen in the funerary record of this time (O’Hare 2005).
Bay Farm III, Co. Antrim (Late Bronze Age coastal settlement and re-
use of Late Mesolithic industry)
Another unusual type of lithic assemblage of the Late Bronze Age period can be
seen at Bay Farm III, Co. Antrim, (Courtesy of Mallory QUB) and it is noted that:
‘Amidst the evidence for Early Bronze Age burials at Bay Farm III near Carnlough,
Co. Antrim, there was also evidence for Late Bronze Age settlement on this rather
exposed stretch of the coast’ (Mallory and Mc Neill 1991).
The Bay Farm III associated flint assemblage was relatively large and was
assessed as part of the Bronze Age study. The collection was not much different to
any other classic Late Mesolithic heavy, blade and fully patinated industry
commonly found in this region. Given its Late Bronze Age context, it could very
well represent a convenient, ready-made flint resource for the people inhabiting this
locality some five millennia after the artefacts were made. As indicated above in a
131
number of cases and seen within some of the lithic collections from written sources
reviewed below, the re-use of earlier type-fossils or indeed entire assemblages made
in antiquity compared to their secondary use within later Bronze Age sites is not
uncommon.
Post Early Bronze Age assemblages (Mid to Late Bronze Age) from the written record
Most lithic collections dating to the latter stages of the Bronze Age, listed below
and drawn from the written record, generally reflect the mainstay technology
associated with Bronze Age sites in being predominantly bipolar reduced, fairly ad
hoc and certainly a number of more formal and therefore recognisable artefacts are
noted in these reports which, support such types established directly by examination
of later Bronze Age assemblages reviewed earlier.
There were a number of lithic collections associated with Middle and Late
Bronze Age radiocarbon dates and/or ceramics which is not included below as the
information within site reports was too vague, and/or the collections were not
available for analysis at the time of the doctoral study of Irish Bronze Age lithic
technology. However, hopefully the above assessment of actual datable lithic
collections analysed by the present writer has demonstrated that the bewildering
array of lithic material found at these sites can be understood once it is fully and
openly investigated.
Within written accounts, like those relating to the earlier phases of the Bronze
Age, these tend to focus on formal and consequently more recognisable technology
and tools. However, it should be said that the written information relating to this
latter part of the Bronze Age were marginally more informative, particularly
regarding the more expedient technology and these in turn give good support to the
patterns of lithic use identified within the direct analysis of assemblages of the post-
1800 BC era.
The patterns of expediency identified within the earlier assemblages continue
throughout the first age of metallurgy and it should be borne in mind that a good
deal of obviously Bronze Age lithic collections could not be included directly within
this present survey as their particular affiliations to specific phases of the new metal
era could not be specified. Therefore, presumably these patterns of lithic technology
132
should be seen within other General Bronze Age assemblages that have not been
outlined here.
As can be seen from the above direct analysis of several diverse and sometimes
fairly large assemblages dating to the Developed Bronze Age, there is no shortage of
lithic technology from sites of the Middle or Late Bronze Age period. The directly
analysed collections of the later prehistoric period are more prolific than the earlier
phases of the first age of metallurgy due to the fact that there were less stratigraphic
issues for the later collections and as noted before: the amount of sites emerging as
part of the developer led excavations have revealed a great deal more activity of the
Developed Bronze Age than previously recognised; aided greatly by the re-
evaluation of the ceramic sequence for this later period. The main patterns of lithic
technology as could be established from the written record are listed below running
according to the main types of technology found.
Ballydown, Co. Antrim (LBA coastal site)
A close correspondence between a directly assessed assemblages and the written
record, followed up by direct contact with the excavator (Crothers pers. Comm.), can
be seen between*Bay Farm III, Co. Antrim and a similar assemblage from the
contemporary site at Ballydown in the same County. The Ballydown assemblage is
fairly large and was derived from a Late Bronze Age contexts found to be
overlapping and adjacent to a Late Mesolithic area (Moore 2002). Again like the *Bay
Farm III lithic collection, this was characteristic of Late Mesolithic forms.
Furthermore, the re-use of some of the material from this earlier industry is strongly
suggested within the Bronze Age horizon of Ballydown which can be seen in the
post-patination flaking of many pieces (Moore, per. comm.).
It is perhaps worth reiterating the re-use of comparatively ancient artefacts found
within much later Bronze Age sites as recorded by the writer. Sites such as:
*Killymoon, Co. Tyrone, where a form of a possible Bann flake and perhaps the
platform core is also of this period were recovered along with more typical Bronze
Age lithic forms. In particular, the evidence for re-use of earlier type-fossils as seen
in the presence of significantly earlier artefacts and tools created thousands of years
earlier, has certainly has muddied the waters of classification.
Cullyhanna, Co. Armagh (Lakeside settlement MBA)
Another case in point where earlier type-fossils are found within otherwise later
Bronze Age contexts can be seen at a lakeside settlement at Cullyhanna, Co. Armagh
133
(Hodges 1958) with dendro-dating (Hillam 1976) approximating to the Middle
Bronze Age period. There were a few lithics associated with this site, which had
some possible Bronze Age forms, although the others were a mix of much earlier
type-fossils. These included strike-a-lights associated with a hollow scraper - a
Middle/Late Neolithic type-fossil and blade core also indicative of a much earlier
period than the Middle Bronze Age date of this site. Re-use of earlier lithic artefacts
is indicated in other written reports from mid to Late Bronze Age sites. However,
the main thrust of this technology tends to reflect the predominant ad hoc, bipolar
reduced and bipolar produced tools seen within most of the domestic sites of all
phases of the Bronze Age assessed directly by the present writer. The following sites
proved quite informative and supportive of the directly analysed lithic material of
the Developed Bronze Age.
Lough Enagh site 1, Co. Derry, (Crannóg site relating to the LBA)
Often detective work is required in order to decipher the evidence for bipolar
technology embedded within the lithic reports relating to Bronze Age sites
containing lithics. This can be seen within the report for Lough Enagh site 1, Co.
Derry, crannog (Davies 1941). The pottery is described as Iron Age, and many of the
earliest excavated sites with Coarse Ware were often considered to be of the latest
prehistoric period, but now becoming clearly recognised as belonging to the latter
stages of the Bronze Age.
The excavator describes the associated lithic material: ‘There was also found near
the surface several flakes of flint from pebble and from nodules, both burnt and
unburnt; their rough trimming is characteristic of the iron-age, while some are
battered as if used for heavy woodworking. There are probably two rounded
scrapers. One is much burnt; the other (no. 3, fig. 3) is probably struck from a pebble
…’ (Davies 1941, 92). Davis also notes a looped bronze spearhead which was found
near the site but not from excavation. Therefore, scrapers struck from pebbles and
the general characteristics of the crude material noted by Davis would seem to
indicate technologies to those clearly established for other Bronze Age collections as
assessed by the present writer.
Cloghers, Co. Tyrone, (Hillfort - Dowris LBA)
Another case in point regarding the possibility of bipolar reduction within a late
context can also be seen at a hillfort at Cloghers, Co. Tyrone. This hillfort dates to the
Late Bronze Age with associated Coarse Ware and radiocarbon date ranges of c. 900-
800 BC, this relatively large flint assemblage and was characterised by seemingly re-
134
used borers/awls made into strike-a-lights (Warner, per. comm.). Interestingly, in
retrospect, now having learned more about bipolar technology, these so-called
strike-a-lights, awls and borers could just as easily be used bipolar cores.
Belderg Beg 7, Co. Mayo (MBA-LBA possible round house structure)
A Late Bronze site indicates some important associated lithics, but only scrapers
are noted and not their types. The site at Belderg Beg 7, Co. Mayo (Caulfield 1978)
may relate to the round house at Belderg Beg 6, along with saddle querns and
possible evidence for tillage.
The date ranges for these sites are broadly Later Bronze Age. The charcoal spread
from Belderg Beg 7 was associated with flints in the form of several scrapers which
had a radiocarbon date ranges from c. 1400-1100 BC (Caulfield 1978 and Woodman
1992). Unfortunately no other information is forthcoming regarding the type of
scraper recovered from this context, but they would presumably be of Bronze Age
type. The following site has much clearer information regarding the full range of
lithic technology.
Chancellorsland, Site A, Co. Tipperary, (Middle Bronze Age enclosure)
For instance, a detailed lithics report was available regarding the overall
technology from an enclosed site dating to the Middle Bronze Age period at
Chancellorsland Site A, Co. Tipperary (Doody 1993a, 1994, 1995, 1995a, 1996, 1996a)
(Information courtesy of Martin Doody of Discovery Programme and specialist lithic
report by Finlay and Woodman 2001), updated information online: Doody (2003),
proved quite informative regarding most aspects of lithic technology already
identified from the direct analysis.
This enclosure of a slightly earlier phase in the Bronze Age has parallels with
both the directly analysed material and some of the technologies indicated in the
literature above as seen above. Site A, is a double ditched enclosure where a number
of features were excavated relating to domestic activity representing at least two
phases although both appear to correspond to a broadly Middle Bronze Age date
with radiocarbon determinations concentrating around 1500-1400 BC. It is important
to point out that although there is no evidence of metal processing or related
paraphernalia at this site for the production of metal tools, there is evidence for the
use metal blades on some wood at this site.
The main pottery associated with this site is Coarse Ware distributed throughout
135
the site along with finds included Coarse Ware type pottery, flint, chert, struck
crystal quartz. The assemblage contained 506 mainly chert pieces recovered from the
site and a fairly detailed analysis of the collection was carried out by Finlay and
Woodman (2001). The lithics from Chancellorland lithic collection is also fairly
homogenous. The primary technology would appear judging by the assessment of
the report to represent 93 per cent which is a fairly high proportion of primary
technology component found within the *Corrstown, Co. Derry, assemblage dating
to the Middle Bronze Age period as directly analysed by the present writer and
presented earlier. However, saying that, the unmodified technology is not recorded
within the lithic report.
The primary technology from Chancellorsland are described as dominated by
chunks and flakes and there was also a suggestion of reused pieces and several
burnt pieces were noted, associated with a small element of conventional core
material, but most importantly, the cores were mainly bipolar types and several
exhibit characteristics that might suggest use. The tools are represented by 35
modified pieces which include 17 scrapers, mainly invasive steeply flaked rounded
types, along with one possibly re-used piece as seen in the post-patinated flaking.
Some of the tools from this site indicated the re-use or the ‘re-working of earlier
pieces’ as noted by Finlay and Woodman (2001, 3). As seen above, the re-use of
earlier lithic material and existing tools manufactured in much earlier times is not
unusual. For example, the tool kit from Chancellorsland also included tools that
were more typically associated with the Middle/Late Neolithic period in Ireland,
namely a concave/hollow scraper and a leaf-shaped arrowhead, typical of perhaps
the earlier Neolithic period. It is worth pointing out that a concave scraper was also
found at a broadly contemporaneous site at *Ballyarnet, Co. Derry as outlined in the
direct analysis section of this chapter.
The collection from Chancellorsland, Site A, Co. Tipperary contained fairly
standardised sub-circular scrapers, and these were fairly common within a number
of the assemblages analysed directly by the writer and particularly those from the
earlier phases of the Bronze Age where standardised forms were more predominant
than the crude scraper forms commonly found to dominate the Late Bronze Age
assemblages. Another interesting feature of the Chancellorsland collection is the fact
that no less than five typical Bronze Age arrowhead – tanged forms, were recovered.
Again, although arrowheads of the Bronze Age varieties are not uncommon within
post-Early Bronze Age domestic contexts, this quantity on one site is fairly unusual
136
at this late period, certainly within secular a secular context at this time. Two of the
arrowheads are noted as being the smaller barbed and tanged types (92E128: 1458
and 1340). In addition to the tanged forms, there was also a leaf-shaped arrowhead
type, which again, reflects the fairly common occurrence of earlier tools/weaponry
found sporadically amongst otherwise ad hoc, bipolar reduced and bipolar type
tools typical within most Bronze Age domestic contexts.
Another aspect of the Chancellorsland site that is worth noting is that, although
there was direct evidence for the use of metal tools or their manufacture within this
site, as is the case with so many of the lithic-rich domestic contexts discussed thus
far, there was some indirect evidence from Chancellorsland for the use of metal
blades being employed. The Middle Bronze Age site at *Ballyarnet, Co. Derry also
revealed evidence of cut marks made by metal blades as did the timbers from the
Mount Gabriel copper mining site broadly dating to the end of the Early Bronze Age
through to the Middle Bronze Age period. This is outlined below.
Mount Gabriel, Co. Cork, (Copper mine spanning the end of the Late
Early and beginning of Middle Bronze Age)
At a copper mine which saw its main use from c. 1700 – 1500 BC at Mount
Gabriel, Co. Cork, O’Brien has identified cut marks made with metal blades.
However, there was also some blade marks consistent with stone blades and both
forms of cut marks were seen on several pieces of wood-fuel directly associated with
contemporaneous use of the mines (O’Brien 2003). The important aspect to consider
in the evidence for polished stone axes within these later contexts is that these may
have been manufactured during earlier times; although this does not militate against
their functionality within these later contexts, at least in conjunction with metal axes
and/or palstaves.
Knocknalappa, Co. Clare, (Mid to Late Bronze Age Crannóg site)
The three polished stone axes from *Killymoon, Co. Tyrone, dating to the mid to
Late Bronze Age period are worth noting at this point and the polished stone axe
from Knocknalappa, Co. Clare, (Raftery 1942, Grogan et al 1999). This site was
generally associated with Coarse Ware pottery and the radiocarbon determinations
returned a Middle Bronze Age date range 1400-1300 BC (see Grogan et al 1999).
However, some of the metalwork from this site suggested dates towards the latter
part of the Late Bronze Age period as seen in the finds such as Class 4 sword and
bronze gouge.
137
It seems unlikely that items like these would be simply left behind and perhaps it
may make more sense to view these items as possible ritual deposits so commonly
seen in this time period adjacent or within watery contexts. A number of lithics
recovered may have been associated with some of the Middle or even Late Bronze
Age activity, although these were too fragmentary to assess and had fairly poor
contexts, although the stone axe was associated with the above material and may
represent a ritual deposit which is not uncommon within non-secular contexts of
this time (O’Hare 2005).
The presence of stone axes within late contexts can be seen at another Crannóg
site assessed directly by the present writer and outlined in terms of bipolar
reduction in the earlier section of this chapter can be seen at *Lough Eskragh Site B,
B1 and B2, Co. Tyrone, dating broadly to the Late Bronze Age period based upon
material finds and radiocarbon determinations and the *Lugg, Co. Dublin, polished
stone axe derived from a mid to Late Bronze Age context should be also be added to
this expanding corpus of stone axes of the later prehistoric period. It is also of
interest that a portion of a polished stone axe made of mudstone were associated
with a large fully bipolar chert lithic assemblage came from *Leedaun, Area II, Co.
Mayo, dating to c. 1600-1400 BC and the Middle Bronze Age stone axes including a
miniature form from *Corrstown, Co. Derry.
Another late context for polished stone axes can be seen within the mid to Late
Bronze Age site at *Killymoon, Co. Tyrone, where three were recovered and seem to
have been well used and within a Crannóg site with radiocarbon determinations
dating to the Middle Bronze Age period, although Late Bronze Age metalwork was
also recovered from Knocknalappa, Co. Clare, (Raftery 1942, Grogan et. al 1999). The
Crannóg site at *Lough Eskragh Site B, B1 and B2, Co. Tyrone, also contained a
polished stone axe which broadly dates to the Late Bronze Age period and another
mid to Late Bronze Age site at *Lugg, Co. Dublin, revealed a polished stone axe.
More examples can be found throughout the following assessment of Middle and
Late Bronze Age sites, which strongly suggests that stone axes, even if they were
manufactured in earlier times, seem to remain an important part of the domestic
toolkit within the latter part of the Bronze Age.
Meadowlands, Co. Down (MBA round houses)
Further evidence for stone axes remaining a part of the overall lithic tool-kit
within domestic sites of the Developed Bronze Age can be seen at Meadowlands,
Co. Down, as recorded by Pollock and Waterman (1964). This site had round house
138
structures and is surprisingly similar in its assemblage composition and ratio
although again quite a small assemblage and here a fine porcellanite axe (Figure 75)
was also found along with a few sub-circular scrapers.
Figure 75: Broken porcellanite polished stone axe (1) from Meadowlands, Co. Down, (after Pollock
and Waterman 1964, fig. 13, 1)
Within the Middle Bronze Age period particularly in association with Cordoned
Urn type pottery, rounded scrapers and arrowheads continue to form an important
part of the tool-kit. As seen again from the Middle Bronze Age site at Meadowlands,
Co. Down, (Pollock and Waterman 1964), although only the more formal tools are
noted, but these are of interest as they reflect some of the more formal aspects of
other Bronze Age collections. This domestic site revealed an end scraper and blade-
type scraper, which may be Neolithic types and only two sub-circular scrapers
which are particular comparable to those from many other Bronze Age types (Figure
76). Some of these items are fairly similar to those recovered from the contemporary
site at *Ballyarnet, Co. Derry, discussed in the direct analysis section earlier.
Figure 76: Cordoned Urn Tradition (MBA) sub-circular flint scrapers from Meadowlands, Co. Down,
(after Pollock and Waterman 1964, fig.13, 3 & 4).
Sheepland, Co. Down, (MBA)
Another porcellanite axe was recovered from a site within the same region as
Meadowland at Sheepland, Co. Down, were sherds of the same Cordoned Urn
pottery type were recovered from a much-disturbed area (Waterman 1975).
139
Harristown, Co. Louth, (Fulacht fiadh post-Early Bronze Age)
Fulachta fiadh or burnt mound features are a particularly fruitful site type of this
general period as for example, Brindley et al (1989-1990) show their main currency
of use from around 1800 BC and extends into the Late Bronze Age, as also noted by
Waddell (1998). Furthermore, the amount of artefacts recovered from these site as
noted by O’Néill (2000) is greater than generally recognised.
For example, a fulacht fiadh at Harristown, Co. Louth, (Duffy 1999; Finlay 2002a)
produced numerous flints along with several sherds of Bronze Age pottery and a part
of a polished stone macehead (Duffy 1999). The stone mace head is totally in
keeping with the Developed Bronze Age period, post Early Bronze Age scheme as
employed in this present study, if it is not of a type associated with the Passage
Tomb tradition of the Neolithic period. For instance, these objects are fairly
commonly associated with special deposits such as funerary/ritual contexts from
this period onwards in Ireland (O’ Hare 2005). The dating of specialised stone
objects will hopefully be a topic of a future publication. However, in summary,
maceheads in the context of the metal era are not known in Ireland associated with
Beaker, Bowl or even Vase Traditions, but instead are a later introduction towards
the latter part of the Early Bronze Age in association with Collared Urns, then
Cordoned Urns with date ranges from c. 1750 – 1500 BC.
Coolroe/Claremorris, Co. Mayo (fulachta fiadh sites possibly dating to
the Developed Bronze Age)
As indicated in the previous chapter relating to Beaker/Early Bronze Age
contexts, a number of fulachta fiadh type sites were identified during excavations by
Mayo County Council around the Coolroe/Claremorris region which had fairly
abundant chert assemblages associated with these structures (Information courtesy
of Gillespie and Walsh on behalf of Mayo County Council). As the lithic reports by
Finlay (1998; 1999; 2000b and 2000c) strongly suggests a Bronze Age date for these
finds, these may prove useful to follow up in the future in terms of the technology
established for broadly contemporaneous collections within this present study.
Fahee South, Co. Clare, (fulacht fiadh – Middle Bronze Age)
Another site of this type can be seen at Fahee South, Co. Clare with a radiocarbon
determination of c. 1340-1450 BC (Brindley et al 1989/1990) obtained from this
fulacht fiadh. Lithic material was also identified within the feature which according
to Cherry who notes that the excavator of the site, listed finds of amber bead
fragments, two flint scrapers along with two barbed and tanged arrowheads, one of
140
flint the other of chert (1990, 49-50).
Braganstown, Co. Louth (Fulacht Fiadh – Developed Bronze Age)
Another case in point of lithic material being associated with Bronze Age
fulachta fiadh features can be seen at Braganstown, Co. Louth. This site revealed
quite a concentration of flint items within the feature (O’Drisceoil 1999; Finlay
2000a). There were some 33 flint artefacts, including a characteristic Bronze Age
barbed and tanged arrowhead was also found with a few rounded scrapers as noted
in O’Drisceoil’s report (1999). There was also an earlier type-fossil as seen in a
number of Bronze Age contexts noted above. This is a leaf-shaped arrowhead which
would be typically associated with significantly earlier traditions in the Neolithic. It
is perhaps reminiscent of the leaf-shaped type found amongst the otherwise Bronze
Age arrowhead types from other contexts as for example the Middle Bronze Age
enclosure from Chancellorsland A, Co. Tipperary outlined above in relation to the
five tanged forms and the single leaf-shaped (Neolithic) arrowhead type.
Drumwhinny, Co. Fermanagh, (late Early to Middle Bronze Age lake
side find)
Supporting the continued importance of Bronze Age arrowheads at this late
point in the Bronze Age can be seen in the case of the Drumwhinny, Co. Fermanagh,
bow made from yew. This bow was recovered from a bog produced AMS dates of
3220+/-70 BP, (OxA-2426) (Glover 1979; Hedges et al. 1991) and would calibrate to
1680-1326 BC (Waddell 1998). The fact that the bow indicates contemporary archery
is quite significant and strongly indicates the continued importance of archery even
at this late point in the Irish Bronze Age. Other broadly contemporary domestic sites
show evidence of arrowheads within lithic collections which may lend further
support to this premise.
Moynagh Lough (lake side finds)
At Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath, a possible flake of an axe head was recovered
associated with Cordoned Urn pottery with a radiocarbon date centring on 1500 BC
(Bradley 1991, 1996 and 1997). There was also a barbed and tanged arrowhead that
would fit Green’s scheme of a Sutton c type (Figure 77).
141
Figure 77: A Sutton type C, barbed and tanged arrowhead (no. 228) associated with a Cordoned Urn
sherd (no. 214) from Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath, (after Bradley 1991, fig. 4, no. 228)
The Bronze Age type arrowheads found within the mid to Late Bronze Age sites
from *Killymoon, Co. Tyrone, *Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, or *Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim,
should be considered in this present survey. There were several instances of
arrowheads associated with Bronze Age funerary contexts which form part of
another publication (O’Hare 2005), although simply by identifying the domestic
contexts for arrowheads throughout the Bronze Age period shows that like earlier
periods of prehistory that these typically make up a minimal component within
assemblages, but within the metal era their occurrence does not seem to decline until
after the Late Bronze Age period. Even within the later phases of the Bronze Age,
where it could be established, arrowheads still are occasionally found.
Balgatheran 1, Co. Louth (mid to later Bronze Age site)
Parallels between the Middle and Later Bronze Age assemblages directly
analysed can be drawn with another site at Balgatheran 1, Co. Louth, excavated by
Chapple (2000) on behalf of Valerie Keeley Ltd., and lithics report by N. Finlay
2000). This may be a habitation or even a ritual site and contained mainly features in
the form of pits and postholes. The ceramic report by Brindley (Chapple, per.
comm.) places this tradition within the mid to Late Bronze Age period – Coarse
Ware tradition.
The assemblage consists of 716 flint pieces, supplemented by chert. This
assemblage seems to be, essentially, a bipolar industry consisting of 83 per cent for
primary technology and reflects the same proportion as the *Leedaun II, Co. Mayo,
assemblage relating to the Developed Bronze Age; the mid to Late Bronze Age
collections from *Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, and the Beaker/Early Bronze Age
142
collection from *Roughan Hill, Co. Clare recorded by the writer.
The Balgatheran assemblage is fully bipolar and was broken down into a small
debitage flakes, chunks, bipolar cores and flakes. Although it is not possible to
discern whether these are scalar flakes, the dimensions are given. The bipolar cores
from Balgatheran 1, ranged from 28 to 38mm with an average of 29mm, the flakes
averaged 21.5mm (Finlay 2000). Again, these dimensions are reflective of the flint
dimensions of other bipolar pieces from all the periods discussed thus far employing
chert material and some smaller pebble flint material.
There are only some scrapers noted for the Balgatheran 1, Co. Louth, (Finlay
2000) some of chert and many of these conformed to disc (sub-circular) types. There
is not a great deal noted for the secondary technology in this collection except to say
that it is again dominated by scrapers, some of chert and many of these conformed
to disc (sub-circular) types. At most Late Bronze Age sites assessed directly by the
present writer, a fairly marginal quantity of neat sub-circular scrapers can be found
compared to the more expedient forms; although within some Middle Bronze Age
neat scrapers predominate.
Knockadoon Hill, Co. Limerick, (MBA-LBA)
This site at Knockadoon Hill (Cleary 1995a) was associated with both ceramics
(Coarse Ware) and the radiocarbon dates (1513-1418/902-805 Cal. BC), placing its
main use from the Middle and Late Bronze Age period. This was a fairly small
assemblage made up of flint, chert and quartz, some projectiles, sub-circular type
scrapers, blades and flakes and bipolar technology was present as indicated in
Anderson’s report (1995). Some projectiles as also indicated in Anderson’s lithic
report (1995).
Lough Gur later activity and the Late Bronze Age Enclosure, Co.
Limerick
Another site within the Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, region described as a Late
Bronze Age enclosure (Cleary 2003) revealed a number of lithics, although Cleary
indicates a small element of earlier activity at this site (2003), a good deal of the
material was from a distinct layer associated with Coarse Wares (Cleary 2003).
Furthermore, the radiocarbon date range for the main activity at the site, occupation
layer (F2), corresponds to between c. 1410-1262 BC (Cleary 2003). The excavator
points out the metalworking from the site is minimal with no real evidence of metal
production and the lithics in general indicate ‘on-site production [sic] …locally
143
available’ (Cleary 2003, 143).
She also notes the presence of several polished stone axe fragments, mainly
greenstone were recovered from a feature described as the living floor associated
with Feature 2 (Cleary 2003, fig. 16) and this of interest here, as Cleary also
highlights the presence of a polished stone axe recovered from a nearby Late Bronze
Age area within the Lough Gur site (2003).
The lithic analysis of the chipped stone technology from the Bronze Age
Enclosure was carried out by Anderson, and the report indicates the use of locally
available lithic material. From the total of 84 identifiably lithics from mainly within
the enclosure associated with a living floor – a chert layer, flint accounted for 40 per
cent, glacially derived around the site and available chert a similar proportion which
is ‘abundant in the bedrock’ (Anderson 2003, 167). Anderson describes the overall
assemblage as ‘very fragmentary, dominated by small broken fragments and chips’
(2003, 167).
Perhaps the fact that Anderson clearly highlights the use of bipolar technique on
a number of pieces along with the surprising lack of platform cores from the site
considering evidence of platform technique (2003) suggests to me that the chert layer
and the fragmentary nature of the overall assemblage may represent the full extent
of the overall collection, previously not recognised. Even the modified pieces in the
form of four scrapers, one is described as ‘anvil’ by Anderson i.e. bipolar produced
scraper and another of this type is a modified flake was either flaked or utilised
(Anderson 2003, 168-169). This begins to indicate a similar technology within this
site that has been established from the direct analysis and an understanding that tool
some time a much greater dataset to eventually understand.
This collection perhaps begins to shed some light upon the various other sites
around the Lough Gur, Co. Limerick region which could not be included directly
here due to stratigraphic issues. However, as noted earlier within the discussion of
potential Beaker and Early Bronze Age lithic material from several of these sites,
there is also good evidence to suggest much later activity towards the latter stages of
the Bronze Age within some of the Lough Gur sites. This is based upon the fairly
high concentrations of Coarse Ware pottery as seen within the excavations report
and (Ó Ríordáin 1954), the re-evaluation of reports by Grogan and Eogan (1987) and
the re-evaluations and assessments of abundant ceramics found throughout many of
the Lough Gur sites by Cleary (1995 and 1995).
144
Furthermore, although the informal lithics relating to this later time-frame would
be difficult to establish, unlike the earlier phases where characteristic scrapers and
arrowhead forms appear to be related to Beaker/Early Bronze Age activity, the
overall indication of fairly expedient lithic technology, perhaps even bipolar
reduction and the use of more localised lithic material employed in the later
industries, post Neolithic, is discernible within several sites as indicated within
Woodman and Scannell’s (1993) lithic study of much of the Lough Gur lithic
collections.
Note on the lithic technology of the Developed Bronze Age It should be noted that several important lithic collections dating to the latter
stages of the Bronze Age have not been included above as the information
pertaining to the lithic technology was too minimal to include here. However, these
may prove fruitful for further investigation in the future in the light of this present
study. As a detailed overview of the main lithic patterns identified within the
assemblages from both written sources and direct analysis of the latter stages of the
Bronze Age is dealt with in the following chapter, which reviews lithic technology
through time, there is no need to re-state these patterns here. The following chapter
will now deal with the general features of pre-metallurgical lithic technology to
provide a datum to begin understanding the possible trends of expediency that are
fully established within domestic collections of the earliest metal era, which continue
right through to the Late Bronze Age period within the household in Ireland. The
chapter that follows will also review the general paucity of evidence for the
production of metal tools within Bronze Age domestic sites as well as the clear
evidence for the continued functionality of everyday stone tools throughout the new
age of metal.
145
Chapter Four - Review of lithic technology: Primary
and secondary categories combined and the persistence of everyday tools throughout the Irish Bronze Age
Summary of Primary Reduction Components from directly
analysed domestic collections
Table 2: Primary technology categories identified within analysed assemblages dating from the
earliest until the latest phases of the Bronze Age. Tool dominated assemblages not included.
The directly analysed collections show that micro-debitage is typically present
although limited to the recovery techniques. Micro-debitage pieces are actually on
closer inspection smaller fragments of bipolar pieces, but are too small to classify
otherwise (Table 2).
Site
Co
un
ty
Perio
d
Ma
terial
(loca
lised)
Bip
ola
r C
ores %
Bip
ola
r F
lak
es %
Micro
- D
ebita
ge %
Pla
tform
T
echn
olo
gy
%
Roughan Hill FS1 Clare Beaker/EBA chert 35 34 28 3
Roughan Hill FS2 Clare Beaker/EBA chert 21 14 65 0
Leedaun I Mayo EBA chert
41 32 27 0
Leedaun II Mayo MBA chert
11 63 26 0
Corrstown
Derry MBA Flint (nodular) 55 35 3 7
Ballyarnet Derry MBA Mixed quartz/ pebble flint
Lugg Dublin MBA/LBA flint 64 30 6 0
Ballyutoag Antrim MBA/LBA? flint 36 36 4 24
Rathgall Wicklow LBA Flint 42 51 1 6
Lough Eskragh Tyrone LBA Flint (?nodular) 41 32 11 16
Haughey’s Fort Armagh LBA flint 30 45 18 7
Freestone Hill Kilkenny LBA Flint (localised) 67 28 0 5
146
Raw material usage and reduction strategy:
Made on locally available lithic material – quality is not important & earlier
lithic artefacts are occasionally exploited as a source of stone.
Marginal component of conventional platform technology, some of which
may have emerged unintentionally via the bipolar reduction sequence.
Bipolar technology is the almost exclusive reduction strategy employed; this
is irrespective of the raw material employed.
Bipolar-on-anvil technique produces a large quantity of chunks and
fragments classifiable as: Bipolar cores (chunks and pointed pieces with several
faces); Bipolar flakes (very irregular flake-like material with mainly two faces) and
micro-debitage (<20mm).
Bipolar cores and flakes make up the majority of most primary (reduction)
assemblages compared to micro-debitage and other primary lithic components.
Bipolar cores and flakes can be measured using 10mm intervals for their
greatest length and produce fairly conservative bell-shaped distribution of sizes; the
raw material employed will constrain the overall size of these objects.
Primary reduction assemblages typically represent between 75 and 93 per
cent of the total lithic collections. This proportion does not change in time
throughout the Bronze Age period.
The primary lithic patterns seen at sites dating from the Beaker period until the
Dowris (LBA) although limited by the amount of assemblages that could be accessed
directly, show a clear pattern of the predominance of bipolar pieces in the form of
bipolar cores and bipolar flakes which dominate most assemblages (Table 2). The
important pattern is that most of the above collections are bipolar dominated
assemblages rather than platform reduced. And the couple of incidence of a fairly
high incidence of platform technology within otherwise bipolar produced
assemblages still shows that platform reduction was a lesser component compared
to bipolar reduction.
The two sites at *Ballyutoag, Co. Antrim, and the *Ballyarnet collection, Co.
147
Derry, both dating to the latter stages of the Bronze Age may show an atypical
component of platform reduction (Table 3) as these sites were also within the
vicinity of sites where Neolithic activity has been recorded and may have employed
some of this earlier lithic material. Neolithic assemblages in Ireland seem to be
almost always reduced via platform technique irrespective of the size of the
available or procured flint material or chert. Chert, like flint can be reduced via
platform or bipolar reduction but quartz cannot be reduced employing traditional
platform technique.
The predominantly bipolar reduced Beaker/Bronze Age assemblages within
Ireland are a temporal marker for later prehistoric assemblages when combined with
other features of these collections even if other datable material is not associated.
The only problem is that this in itself cannot be used to refine the dates within the
broader metalworking era; although these features should be enough to at least
separate these assemblages from the earlier periods and, we hope, make the
recognition of such technology a little easier in the field. The only metrical variation
of such bipolar material found within the survey was that chert tends to exhibit
smaller dimensions than even pebble type flint and cortical flint assemblages tend to
show the greatest overall dimensions. Either way, the bipolar tools produced from
this process share similar dimensions to the primary (reduction) material.
As localised lithic resources is one of the characteristics of later prehistoric
industries within Ireland and several other regions as indicated within the existing
literature, the earlier, domestic collections of the pre-metallurgical era can typically
be identified on the basis of some effort to employ suitable lithic material, even
exploiting far away sources and ignoring more locally available lithic material in
order to produce tools to a predictable pattern of production demanding a well
established formula and application of traditionally learned skill. On the other hand,
post-Neolithic technologies within Ireland will employ any available lithic resource,
even existing tools from significantly earlier industries; will produce tools as
expediently as possible or simply select suitable pieces from the bipolar debris to
employ as they are without further modification for whatever task is required; thus
making the classification of such seemingly random tool production fairly difficult
for archaeologists applying traditional recording strategies to such material.
Another key component seen within earlier industries which is lacking within
later prehistoric sites is blade technology. Blades and knives in general are lacking
from the Irish Beaker/Bronze Age industries, but their absence does not mean that
148
cutting implements were no longer important; indeed, many of the bipolar pieces
(particularly the flakes) would have had suitable sharp cutting edges that would
have functioned exactly like the more formal and recognisable knives and blades
seen in earlier industries. Table 4 shows this paucity of blade technology.
Expedient production of tools via the bipolar strategy and recycling
Occasionally, bipolar reduction is explicitly noted and these sites combined with
the other terms and descriptions indicating bipolar reduction therefore, suggest that
it is also highly probable that these collections indicated within the literature contain
more tool forms than previously recognised. If these bipolar tools were recorded
alongside the range of scrapers, occasional arrowhead and/or stone axes which are
frequently identified within these same assemblages; this would therefore begin to
fill out the overall tool class categories within these sites; and would presumably
begin to reflect the similar array of functional, albeit fairly unconventional, tools
established within the direct analysis of Beaker/Early Bronze Age domestic
collections and indeed the later industries as well.
Once the new metal age began, the overriding pattern of the directly analysed
lithic assemblages from the earliest until the latest phases of the Bronze Age was that
these were bipolar dominated and correspondingly: platform technology was a
marginal component in most cases within these collections. Within the Beaker
period and to some extent where it could be established from the literature, parallels
between the directly analysed lithic assemblages can be found particularly regarding
arrowhead forms, sub-circular type scrapers; although as would be expected, the
information regarding the fairly misunderstood method of reduction: bipolar
strategy, is indicated but not always explicit.
The overarching theme of most of the lithic assemblages from the earliest until
the latest phases of the Irish Bronze Age is one of expediency. As the assessment
shows: these industries are essentially bipolar reduced rather than platform
reduced; they employ easily accessible raw material and produce tools in the main
as and when required for a range of different tasks. Therefore the persistence, where
it could be established, of lithic technologies, albeit in most cases highly expedient,
must have an explanation. The most plausible being that as Högberg notes: ‘the use
of tools in settlement site technology in the Late Bronze Age was mostly based on
informal tools, that is, tools that archaeologists do not perceive as tools according to
their established typologies’ (2009, 240). And this idea of informal tools replacing
formal types rather than tools per se becoming redundant is indicated within the
149
work of Ford et al where they suggest that: formal lithics were ‘off-set’ to some
extent by less formal types (1984, 167).
If only scraper forms, along with a handful of other formal tools are being
recorded from later prehistoric contexts; then, the domestic industries are going to
look sparse indeed. Furthermore, the paucity of traditional more recognisable tools
that we would normally associate with pre-metallurgical societies has frequently led
to the assumption that these industries must have been essentially replaced by ever
evolving metal forms. However, when the more expedient technologies are
understood, recorded and classified within a relevant system, then the overall
domestic technologies begin to show that these provided for most if not all the
domestic requirements of the Bronze Age communities.
Axes, arrowheads and some aspects of retouched pieces make up a marginal
component within Bronze Age assemblages from the beginning until the end of the
new metal era as seen within the directly analyzed collections. These pieces are the
more obvious types highlighted within the Irish literature relating to Beaker and
Bronze Age collection due to their clearer visibility within the archaeological record
compared to more expedient (mainstay) technology. These more formal tools,
beyond the scrapers; typically only make up a marginal component within
otherwise bipolar reduced assemblages employing recycled/reused lithic tools but
mainly used bipolar forms selected out of the bipolar debris; a thoroughly
opportunistic strategy, which nevertheless still seems to provide for most if not all
the necessary tools required by Bronze Age society within the domestic setting.
The direct analysis supported by the literature suggests that primary lithic
patterns seen at sites dating from the Beaker period until the Dowris (LBA) although
limited by the amount of assemblages that could be accessed directly, show a clear
pattern of the predominance of bipolar pieces in the form of bipolar cores and
bipolar flakes which dominate most assemblages. The information derived from
written sources strongly supports the findings from the directly analysed collections
even if these are sometimes not explicit in their descriptions due to the difficulties
inherent in recording such previously unrecognised technologies. However, what is
clear from the written record is that localised lithic material is employed; an
expedient reduction technology is used to create (presumably) workable lithic
pieces, why else would so much lithic material be found within Beaker and Bronze
Age sites?
150
The Irish study simply employed the most rudimentary approach to such
material where the tools looked like tools and obviously were derived from the
bipolar reduction process. It seems reasonable that these workable edges and natural
points would not have been logically picked up and employed for whatever task
was to hand which is supported by the ethnographic evidence for such bipolar
industries and further supported by the research carried out by Knarrström where
the bipolar industries within the later prehistoric and historic period in Scandinavia
demonstrate a wide range of uses for technically unmodified pieces (2001).
The Bronze Age industries from the earliest point in Ireland show a range of
unmodified flakes and bipolar pieces which are classified as used a term employed
by Shott and Sillitoe (2005) to make the distinction between the term utilised which
has a different meaning in lithic studies of the prehistoric period. Based upon
supporting use-wear studies of such assemblages, ethnographic evidence and
simply observations and experimentation of bipolar reduction by the present writer.
Much of the findings from the Irish study are directly supported by the evidence
emerging from other studies as based upon ethnographic evidence and the use wear
studies carried out by Knarrström within the later prehistoric and historic domestic
industries in Sweden (2001).
For instance, seemingly linked to the bipolar reduction process is based upon
ethnographic evidence, which indicates that after bipolar reduction the broken
pieces are simply chosen for suitability to the task, as noted by Knight (1991).
Basically, bipolar technique is very different to the preconceived intention involved
in planning a tool from the platform reduction method. The more opportunistic
approach to lithic reduction and production of tools is fundamentally distinct from
the prehistoric industries within Ireland before the metal era.
Other scholars have indicated similar patterns of use as seen within the
ethnographic record as demonstrated within Shott and Sillitoe’s examination of
bipolar assemblages employing use-wear analysis of historic bipolar industries.
They show that a diverse range of flakes, which they highlight were more controlled
than is generally acknowledged in most accounts, were ‘used’ on a wide range of
material (2005). Furthermore, these scholars, also point out that the bipolar flakes
were selected out from the bipolar debris as noted by Knight (1991) and Shott and
Sillitoe also point out that the suitable bipolar pieces were often used briefly and
then discarded (2005). The ethnographic evidence directly reflects the main
characteristics of the Irish domestic lithic industries from the Beaker period
151
onwards.
Just to reiterate Shott and Sillitoe’s (2005) main findings regarding used flakes,
produced via the bipolar technique in the following: 1. Curation life of used flakes
does not have the same meaning as retouched flakes, 2. the used flakes are briefly
used and immediately discarded; 3. The class of tool (the used flake) is
multifunctional and are employed for sawing, boring, planning, engraving, drilling,
shredding and cutting; although typically each individual piece is restricted for its
short use-life to one material and one task.
Therefore, the relatively high proportion of used bipolar pieces within the Irish
Bronze Age assemblages, which can be seen from the earliest phases of the metal era
until the end, should perhaps be viewed as providing perfectly functional objects of
stone for a range of tasks such as: boring, planning, drilling, shredding, scraping and
general cutting.
The important point is that the remarkable similarity of proportions of bipolar
material to secondary material which is typically dominated by used pieces;
although scrapers are fairly important within most domestic assemblages are more
easily recognisable than their opportunistically employed counterparts. Blade
technology is fairly rare within Bronze Age industries compared to earlier
assemblages, although many of the edges produced via the bipolar reduction
sequence would have produced more blade-like pieces suitable as cutting tools.
Occasionally retouched pieces exist and within some assemblages, basically
modified/simply flaked pieces are a significant component rather than used bipolar
pieces. These tools, although not so easily interpreted or classifiable according to our
present established systems, based upon the Irish study, these ad hoc tools are
classifiable once they are understood and a consistent methodology is applied.
These tools probably were employed in tasks involving cutting, sawing, boring,
scraping and piercing. These tools (used and basically modified) along with
scrapers, some arrowheads and the occasional stone axe would have presumably
provided for all the basic requirements of these communities at a domestic level.
Because we cannot place these particular tools into their functional category based
upon morphology does not mean that they were not employed in a range of diverse
tasks as borne out by use-wear analysis of bipolar technologies relating to historic
and prehistoric industries.
152
Another feature of the survey as assessed directly by the writer, from written
sources and by direct information from excavators, Bronze Age sites, particularly
those dating to the latter part of the new metal era, employed existing lithic tools
and materials dating to significantly earlier prehistoric phases. Sometimes these sites
employed the entire existing lithic assemblage manufactured in earlier times, but,
more often re-cycled/re-used tools were incorporated into existing bipolar reduced
lithic assemblages dating to the Bronze Age. These should be considered as
important components of assemblages of the Developed Bronze Age period and
should be included as legitimate tools within the overall tool-class categories from
these sites.
Tool production criteria for main types:
The bipolar process appears to be intrinsically linked to the arbitrary
production of a range of suitable objects that were selected as functional tools either
to be employed as they were or further modified to perform a particular function.
Made on locally available lithic material.
Paucity of evidence of conventional platform technology in the production of
tools: bipolar-on-anvil technique produces sometimes after several episodes of
reduction; bipolar cores and bipolar flakes which are selected from the debris as
suitable tools to be employed as they had suitable working points, edges and
surfaces or further flaked to create a more workable tool.
Bipolar core and flake tools (utilised/flaked/slightly modified) along with
scrapers make up the majority of most secondary (tool) assemblages.
Bipolar core and bipolar flake tools along with scrapers can be measured
using 10mm intervals for their greatest length and produce fairly conservative bell-
shaped distribution of sizes; the raw material employed will constrain the overall
size of these objects.
These broad dimensions reflect a similar distribution of dimensions to the
primary reduction bipolar cores and flakes.
Secondary technology (tools) typically represents between 25 per cent – 7 per
cent when assessed against the primary (reduction) category.
153
Range of scrapers (rounded/sub-circular types) which are standardised
approx. 1:1 Length and breadth dimensions which are predominant within earlier
assemblages of the metal era. Some of these appear to have been made employing
platform technique and the more formal types show quite controlled retouch
techniques and contrast with the main techniques employed
Range of scrapers (ad hoc) typically more predominant within later industries
of the metal era.
Scrapers remain significantly proportional within tool-kits throughout the
Bronze Age.
Certain sub-classes of distinctive Bronze Age arrowheads have different
cultural affinities with particular phases or context throughout the Bronze Age
period; some span much of the Bronze Age period. Some earlier arrowheads of the
Neolithic period make up a minimal component within overall tool-kits of the
Bronze Age, perhaps indicative of recycling/re-use.
Marginal, but nevertheless important persistence of stone axes within all
phases of the Beaker/Bronze Age period. Many may have been made in the
Neolithic, but are still form an important component within domestic Bronze Age
tool-kits.
A few assemblages show the use of earlier lithic tools/weapons within
otherwise bipolar/ad hoc industries particularly within the Middle Bronze Age
period; although by the Late Bronze Age period; some domestic lithic assemblages
are dominated by earlier lithic forms and should be included within the overall tool-
class categories.
154
Bronze Age main tool categories throughout the Irish Bronze Age from the
directly analysed domestic sites Secondary Technology - tools
Table 3 Secondary technology proportions within analysed assemblages ranging from the Beaker to
the Dowris period
Table 3 shows the main tool classes found within domestic sites directly analysed
by the writer and dating from the Beaker period until the Dowris. The presence of
arrowheads, distinctive Beaker/Bronze Age forms are not listed in the table as they
are typically numerically low within assemblages in this period and indeed within
the Neolithic period in Ireland. The stone axe and the occasional re-used formal
lithic tool/weapon found within Bronze Age sites are also numerically low within
assemblages in general and not listed above. What is important is that the
proportion of tools in general remains intact and quantitatively significant
throughout the entire Bronze Age period (Table 3). Table 3 also clearly demonstrates
that scrapers of the cruder variety become more predominant in the latter part of the
Bronze Age, but otherwise, these remain quantitatively the same throughout the
entire Bronze Age period.
These tools which, based upon ethnographic evidence and detailed observations
by the present writer, strongly suggest that used and simply flaked tools were
employed for a diverse range of every-day tasks. The tools (mainly bipolar reduced)
used/flaked pieces along with the scraper populations, make up the bulk of most
assemblages assessed within this present survey dating from the Beaker period until
the latest phases of the Bronze Age.
Site County Period Material (localised)
Used %
Sub-circular scrapers
%
Ad hoc scrapers
%
Flaked %
Roughan Hill FS1 Clare Beaker/EBA chert 81 16 0 3
Roughan Hill FS2 Clare Beaker/EBA chert 52 46 0 2
Leedaun 1 Mayo EBA chert
6 17 11 66
Leedaun II Mayo MBA chert
41 6 35 18
Corrstown
Derry MBA Flint (nodular) 57 1 30 12
Lugg Derry Mid/LBA flint 67 2 26 5
Ballyutoag Antrim MBA/LBA? flint 41 21 38 0
Rathgall Kildare MBA/LBA Flint 19 25 50 6
Lough Eskreagh Tyrone LBA flint 89 0 0 11
Haughey’s Fort Armagh LBA flint 37 18 35 10
Freestone Hill Kilkenny MBA/LBA flint 50 0 40 10
155
The Irish study did not find a decrease in the scraper category throughout the
Bronze Age period, even if they did become more degenerate through time. The
Irish scraper populations when assessed within large lithic assemblages (>100
pieces) showed that scrapers make up 3-4 per cent of the total assemblage from
domestic sites.
This pattern of certain tools remaining quantitatively consistent can be clearly
seen within the scraper category. This category is important in numerical terms.
Several scraper assemblages were large enough to test this and Table 4 shows that
although, scrapers change through time within the Irish Bronze Age, they do not
decrease in quantitative terms. The population for scrapers within overall
assemblages containing more than 100 lithic pieces established that this remains
consistent at c. 3 to just over 4 per cent for almost all scraper assemblages
throughout the Bronze Age. Basically, the sub-circular types predominate in the
earlier phases of the Irish Bronze Age whereas: the ad hoc scrapers predominate in
the later period.
Table 4: Scraper population proportions within overall assemblages >100 pieces
throughout the Irish Bronze Age
Site County Period Material %
Ballyutoag Antrim LBA/?EBA flint 3.0
Haughey’s Fort Armagh LBA flint 4.3
Corrstown (1st analysis) Derry MBA flint 3.7
Corrstown (2nd
analysis) Derry MBA flint 2.3
Lugg Dublin MBA/LBA flint 4.5
Balgatheran Louth MBA/LBA flint 3.0
Chancellorsland Tipperary MBA chert/
flint 3.3
Leedaun II Mayo MBA chert
4.5
Leedaun I Mayo EBA chert
4.2
Roughan Hill 2 Clare Beaker/EBA chert 4.2
Table 4: Conservative percentages of scraper populations and their lithic material calculated against total
assemblages size >100 lithic pieces. The earlier assemblages (below) later assemblages (above) indicating that
there is no decline detected through time
156
Combined secondary (tools) and primary (reduction) technology through time
Figures 78-80 illustrate the combined tool-class categories in relation to reduction
(primary) technology through time. There is no decrease in tool production and
there is nothing within these assemblages to suggest that tools became less
important at any point during the Bronze Age. This is particularly clear from the
high frequency of lithic-rich sites dating to the Middle and Late Bronze Age period
established within this study. The secondary categories are typically made up of
scrapers: sub-circular types being predominant within the early phases of
metallurgy: the ad hoc scrapers being predominant within the later phases.
Otherwise, the relative proportion of secondary technology (tools) dominated by ad
hoc, opportunistic bipolar produced tools makeup the mainstay technology from the
Beaker period until the Dowris within many sites. Furthermore, there is a greater
diversity of lithic use within the later collections as seen in the fact that several
industries, particularly dating to the Late Bronze Age period, employ to varying
degrees, existing lithic forms and material from much earlier times. These industries
are not included within the diagrams below.
157
Beaker/Early Bronze Age lithic assemblages tool categories to reduction
categories compared
Figure 78: Pie charts showing proportions of combined tools compared to the combined primary
technology from Beaker and Early Bronze Age assemblages mainly obtained from directly analysed
assemblages augmented by extrapolation of existing lithic reports. ‘Tool’ dominated assemblages not
included.
79%
21%
*Roughan Hill, Co. Clare, Farmsteads 1, 2, 5 and 7 combined
(Beaker/EBA) (n=5,590)
primary technology
secondary technology
87%
13%
*Leedaun I, Co. Mayo EBA (n=214) from stratified lithics
primary technology
secondary technology
90%
10%
Knowth, Co. Meath Beaker concentrations A-E
(several thousand lithics) extrapolated from report
primary technology
secondary technology
158
Middle to Late Bronze Age lithic assemblages tool categories to reduction
categories compared
Figure 79: Pie charts showing proportions of combined tools compared to the combined primary
technology from either Middle Bronze Age sites and/or mid to Late Bronze Age sites mainly obtained
from directly analysed assemblages augmented by extrapolation of existing lithic reports. ‘Tool’
dominated assemblages not included.
81%
19%
*Leedaun, II, Co. Mayo MBA (n=103) stratified lithics only
primary technology
secondary technology
93%
7%
Chancelorsland, Site A, Co. Tipperary
MBA (n=506) extrapolated from lithic report
primary technology
secondary technology
94%
6%
*Corrstown, Co. Derry MBA (n=7326) sample c. 2/3 of
total
primary technology
secondary technology
89%
11%
*Lugg, Co. Dublin MBA/LBA (n=541)
primary technology
secondary technology
83%
17%
Balgatheran I, Co. Louth MBA/LBA (n=716) extrapolated from report
primary technology
secondary technology
71%
29%
*Ballyutoag (McIlwhans), Co. Antrim EBA +MBA/LBA (n=139)
sample
primary technology
secondary technology
159
Late Bronze Age lithic assemblages tool categories to reduction categories compared
Figure 80: Pie charts showing proportions of combined tools compared to the combined primary technology from
specifically dated Late Bronze Age sites mainly obtained from directly analysed assemblages augmented by
extrapolation of existing lithic reports. ‘Tool’ dominated assemblages not included.
81%
19%
*Rathgall, Co. Wicklow LBA (n=111)
primary technology
secondary technology 90%
10%
*Haughey's Fort, Co. Armagh LBA (n=600)
primary technology
secondary technology
73%
27%
*Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny LBA
(n=56)
primary technology
secondary technology
87%
13%
*Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone LBA
(n-31)
primary technology
secondary technology
84%
16%
Lough Gur enclosure LBA (n=56 exclusive of coarse stone) extrapolated from report
primary technology
secondary technology
160
As the secondary tool class proportions do not decrease through time, this
strongly suggests that these same tools continued to function, even within Late
Bronze Age contexts in much the same way as they did within the earlier
assemblages: i.e. tools do not decline at any point in the Irish Bronze Age. The
proportion of tool populations in relation to reduction material varies somewhat,
but not significantly and this does not reflect changes through time but rather
variations within the assemblages (Figures 78-80). This proportion of tool
assemblages in relation to reduction assemblages ranges from c. 7 per cent to 25 per
cent for the majority of collections, but most average at between 10 to 20 per cent. In
other words: there was no decrease of secondary (tools) technology in relation to
primary (reduction) technology through time.
Summary of combined formal and informal tool categories & reduction material
through time
If one is only assessing the formal tool types; then the overall tool kit of the
Bronze Age would look meagre indeed. However, the formal lithics are important in
terms of indicating particular aspects of Bronze Age lithic technologies beyond the
mainstay ad hoc tools for everyday use. For example, by mapping the frequency of
arrowhead forms and polished stone objects and axes; this would suggest that these
items remained important, but a marginal components within many Bronze Age
contexts. These should perhaps be viewed in the context of the introduction of a new
enlarged barbed and tanged arrowhead type along with the enlarged mace-heads at
the end of the Early Bronze Age into the Middle Bronze Age period in Ireland. These
are frequently found within non-secular contexts of the period (O’Hare 2005). In
addition to these, other fine well made flint knives increase in both size and skill
around this period also and are exclusive to funerary contexts (ibid). These more
specialised lithic forms are typically set apart from the domestic sphere and stand in
stark contrast to the mainstay lithic technology seen within other spheres of Bronze
Age society which have been addressed above.
Essentially, within the domestic sphere throughout the Irish Bronze Age period
most tools remain quantitatively, in proportion to their overall assemblage size and
reduction material, similar. Scrapers for example remain a significant component
throughout the entire Bronze Age period, and although they do make up a
significant proportion of the tool-class category within settlements of the Bronze
Age, they should be viewed alongside the other typically predominant tool class,
namely informal, bipolar produced utilitarian items. Scrapers were expected to
161
remain intact due to not having alternative forms in metal. However, it is an
important indicator that hide working remained important in Ireland, although
there is some evidence of other methods of working fabric such as stone spindle
whorls etc, the persistence of scrapers within the Irish Bronze Age strongly suggests
that hide processing continued to remain important.
As for arrowheads, these, like the scrapers, do not have metal equivalents, at
least not at this time within Ireland or seemingly Britain. The survival of stone
arrowheads within domestic contexts until a fairly late point in the Bronze Age
would suggest that at least some stone arrowheads were still being used, perhaps
for hunting, as the weaponry of metal of highly evolved forms seems to point to a
very different means of warfare and it seems as though archery employed in general
warfare and local skirmishes may have finally died out by the Late Bronze Age
period.
Leaving aside the occasional presence of stone axes and arrowheads, the
mainstay tool classes of the Irish Bronze Age period are the scrapers as noted above
and the bipolar produced multi-functional tools. The bulk of tool types are actually
the used pieces which, as reviewed above, are intimately related to the bipolar
reduction process, in that they are selected for suitability rather than manufactured
to a pre-conceived template as seen in earlier prehistoric assemblages. This leaves us
with the problem of identification and classification of actual tools in the
conventional manner.
Overall, within Irish Bronze Age assemblages, a significant proportion of tools
are opportunistically produced used bipolar pieces which are typically made up of
obviously used bipolar cores (pointed in many cases) and some flake-like (bipolar
flakes) with sharp and/or scalloped functional edges. These appear to have been
employed for a range of tasks.
Formal tools are typically represented by recycled pieces, some dating to a much
earlier prehistoric period and frequently found with contemporaneously produced
arrowhead forms, although as noted above, some of these may be recycled in the
later period. Occasionally, entire Bronze Age assemblages will be dominated by the
re-use of significantly earlier tools which have been further modified or simply used
as they are.
Basically, with Irish Bronze Age stone tools and seemingly this is the case for
162
most other regions, for the most part: the conventions we employ as archaeologists
must be abandoned and other approaches employed. It is suggested that
observation according to criterion such as: Morphology of a piece must be applied
(does it look like a tool that may have been used for piercing, scraping, cutting etc?);
Does it exhibit use marks consistent with working edge of piece that could not have
occurred by natural agencies?; Does it handle like a tool?
And finally, when the entire assemblage of both reduction material (mainly
bipolar) and tools (secondary technology) are assessed proportionately, does the
secondary technology look like it is declining (shrinking) over time and within the
Late Bronze Age period, which could indicate the impact of metal replacements at
some level? If the answer is no, as established in this present survey, then it can
safely be assumed that metal did not impact upon traditional lithic domestic
technology and it continued on regardless of what was circulating in the rest of
Bronze Age society.
163
Chapter Five – The Impact of Metalwork upon Domestic
Lithic Technology: A Broader Regional Perspective Variation between chipped stone technologies of the Late Neolithic and
the new metal era
In looking for the catalyst for the deterioration so clearly seen in the techniques
employed within the earliest Irish assemblages of the Beaker/Early Bronze Age, an
obvious candidate would be the introduction of metal. However, this may not
actually be the stimulator of change. For instance, the Irish study assessed the
literature and directly examined a number of assemblages belonging to the
Final/Late Neolithic period. It was observed that: although, the main characteristics
of this pre-metallurgical lithic technology is highly distinct from the earliest lithic
assemblages of the new metal era, some lithic collections dating to the end of the
Neolithic period in Ireland have shown a clear deterioration in their flaking
techniques, a move towards more localised use of materials and some hints of a
more expedient form of reduction, thus, reflecting the main characteristics of the
earliest domestic assemblages of the new metal age.
Interestingly, within Britain there is also evidence of a decline occurring within
pre-metallurgical domestic lithic assemblages. This can also be seen in the trend
towards the use of localised lithic resources and the more expedient use of
essentially platform technology (see Edmonds 1995, 82, 95, 96 and Butler 2005, 155,
158; 2006). Butler highlights these changes as seen within the Later Neolithic
chipped stone industries as significant due to the fact that these shifts occur prior to
the introduction of metal tools. He proposes that other factors may have been
driving these changes (2006) and that social changes may have triggered this shift, as
registered within lithic technologies, and perhaps reflect a move towards a more
sedentary lifestyle (2005, 158).
As the lithic tool classes of the Late Neolithic period in Ireland are significantly
more restricted compared to Britain for the same period, therefore, Ireland does not
see any significant dropping out of major tool classes as the new metal era arises;
unlike, Britain, where Ford et al note a ‘drastic decline’ (1984, 167, table 3) between
the non-metal and metal-using era, Conversely, some Late Neolithic domestic lithic
assemblages within Scandinavian show that ‘In the Neolithic period, we find a
drastic reduction in the morphologically recognisable toolkit’ (Knarrström 2001,
139).
164
Furthermore, Rosen (1996; 1997) and Moloney (2004) both highlight the decline,
again prior to the introduction of metal, of certain tool types within the Ancient near
East. Moloney states: ‘the decline in specialised flint tools had been ongoing since
the end of the Neolithic’ (2004, 257).
Therefore, the fact that a sharp decline of certain tool-class categories within the
Bronze Age compared to the Neolithic identified by Ford et al (1984) within their
British study, is not seen within other regions calls into question the assumption that
the introduction of metal was the direct cause of the decline of the flintworking
industry in Britain as advocated by Butler (2005; 2006). Butler states: ‘As more tools
such as awls, saws and sickles were made from copper-alloy during the Bronze Age
so further flint tools were made redundant’ (2005, 187). This may be true for one
item in particular: the metal axe, but it is difficult to see how it would apply to
Ireland, as the Irish Late/Final Neolithic assemblages do not contain awls, saws or
sickles. Otherwise, scrapers, arrowheads and the occasional stone axe are as
prevalent in the Late Neolithic as they are in the Beaker/Bronze Age within Ireland.
And as for other items that are comparable between Britain and Ireland during
the Late/Final Neolithic, knives are confined to burials of the Earlier Bronze Age
and the blades/knives found within pre-metallurgical context are simply more
recognisable than their domestic Bronze Age counterparts. The same is true of
formally shaped flakes with retouch produced as a result of platform reduction
technology. Whereas, within the metal era, blades/knives and flakes are seen as
suitable non-descript pieces with usable edges produced via bipolar reduction.
These main tool-classes are seen from the earliest stages of metallurgy when
metal tools beyond the axe would not have been available to replace the traditional
lithic forms. If these ad hoc tools were not recognised as functional because they do
not conform to our traditional classification systems, then the Bronze Age domestic
tool-kit would look sparse indeed and would be easily attributable to the concurrent
rise of metallurgy. The expediency of reduction techniques and the production of
usable tools, a trend that may have occurred prior to the introduction of metal in
some regions, is a common theme within most other regions beyond Ireland.
Expediency and continuity of Early Bronze Age collections
Knarrström’s (2001) descriptions of the earliest domestic industries of the new
metal era in Scandinavia are very closely aligned with what has been observed
within the contemporaneous domestic collections within the Irish study. The main
165
difference being that, Knarrström highlights the similarity between the limited range
of formal tools, more ad hoc forms and a fully expedient reduction technique, i.e.
bipolar reduction as characterising the pre-metallurgical domestic lithic technologies
within Scandinavian industries (2001). Knarrström has demonstrated via
functional/use-wear analysis that a wide range of different materials were used and
functions performed using essentially ad hoc tools which been produced essentially
by employing bipolar reduction strategies (2001).
Furthermore, both Rosen and Moloney outline highly expedient domestic
technologies within the Early Bronze Age period of the Levantine and Southern
Jordanian regions (1996, 1997 and 2004). Moreover, these scholars highlight the fact
that irrespective of how ad hoc these industries had become, they still provided for
the everyday requirements of these communities. For example, Rosen describes the
Levantine Early Bronze Age industries as characterised by ‘expediency’ (1997, 110)
and also points out that the ad hoc tools still provided for a range of everyday tasks
at these settlements (1997) and similarly, Moloney outlines the highly expedient
nature of the technologies within settlements around the Southern Jordanian region
and also stresses the continued functionality of these ad hoc industries (2004,).
The Levantine, Southern Jordanian and specifically, the Scandinavian techniques
employed to produce perfectly usable tools within domestic setting of the earliest
metal-using era, mirrors the evidence that has emerged independently from Ireland
for the same technological period. Furthermore, there are aspects of the British
assemblages which also reflect these patterns. For instance, Edmonds (1995) outlines
the main characteristics of Early Bronze Age settlement lithic technology in terms of
the use localised lithic material. He describes the deterioration of platform reduction
methods, and the ad hoc tools which were produced and rapidly discarded and,
although formal tools still existed, these, along with a range of ad hoc tools, would
have continued to provide for the every-day domestic activities required (1995).
Also in Butler’s study, he emphasises the expedient and beginning of ad hoc
industries and use of localised lithic sources during the British Early Bronze Age
period (2005).
However, not all industries show this same decline as Hartenberger and Runnels
have established, based upon standardisation, efficiency, error, and that the earlier
Bronze Age flintnapping specialists were more skilled than those of the Neolithic
(2001, 262). Another region that shows a fairly standardised industry between the
Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age can be seen within the eastern/central
166
European regions as outlined by Migal (2004) who notes that the Early Bronze Age
was a time when bifacial tools were predominant and flintworking by specialist
knappers producing crafted lithic pieces and these were circulated on a regional
scale (2004). And certainly within Ireland, Britain and Scandinavia, not all lithic
forms are becoming expedient. Indeed there are some exquisitely crafted stone
artefacts such as arrowheads and knives dating to this period. However, these more
specialised items tend to relate to the funerary/ritual sphere and are not typically
associated with domestic contexts of the Bronze Age period as seen within the
earlier Irish doctoral study (O’Hare 2005).
Continuing industries of the post-Early Bronze Age period
Having established that for the most part the main characteristics of domestic
industries of the earliest metal era from Ireland to Scandinavia and from Britain to
Southern Jordan are essentially expedient, ad hoc and functional, it is worth bearing
in mind that this expediency which emerged in some regions even prior to the
introduction of metal, does not cause the tools to become obsolete. They simply have
become less formal, while in other regions such as Greece and central-eastern
Europe, more formal lithics continued to be manufactured, which also resulted in a
continuation of lithic forms during the earlier stages of metallurgy.
In most regions, although the metal axe seems to have superseded stone axes
during the earlier stages (e.g. Edmonds 1995; Rosen 1996 and 1997; Knarrström 2001
and Moloney 2004), this does not seem to be the case for most other stone tool forms.
Indeed, the circulation of metal seems to have impacted very little on the continued
production and use of stone during the earliest stages of metallurgy.
As noted above, highly expedient Scandinavian domestic industries are seen
from the earliest until the latest phases of the Bronze Age and beyond as
demonstrated by functional/use-wear analysis of several collections that show use
on a variety of different materials and were employed for many required tasks
throughout the Bronze Age period and beyond in this region (Knarrström 2001). As
with the Irish industries, the Scandinavian domestic lithic technologies remained
functional throughout the Bronze Age period, regardless of their expediency.
Moloney’s (2004) research of the Southern Jordanian industries did not extend
beyond the Early Bronze Age period and therefore it is difficult to assess the
changing nature and possible viability of these industries into the latter part of the
Bronze Age. Rosen’s study on the other hand, dealing with the Levantine industries,
167
extends beyond the Early Bronze Age period, although, there were a number of
stratigraphic issues encountered within the lithic study as indicated by Rosen (1997).
Rosen was however, able to suggest a fairly extended use of ad hoc technology and
indicates that some industries may have survived well beyond the Early Bronze Age
period and concludes that this is ‘sufficient reason to re-examine the assumed roles
of metal tools in ancient societies’ (1997, 11-12).
As discussed above, the British Early Bronze Age industries are fairly expedient
from the earliest stages of metallurgy and aspects of this expediency seems to have
begun in the Late Neolithic period, Edmonds does, however, highlight the increased
expediency of lithic technology during the Middle Bronze Age in the following:
Given the character of the material from Grimes Graves and from other Middle Bronze Age
sites, there is a great temptation to take the absence of structured flaking routines and the
limited range of formal tool and core types as evidence that flint was no longer important.
This may be an unwarranted assumption… [Sic]... Many of the most basic tools and
unmodified flakes that were made and used at this time would have been well suited to most
of the activities that characterised life in and around contemporary settlements (1995, 187).
Most importantly, although Edmonds notes the increased expediency within
Middle Bronze Age assemblages within some parts of Britain, the fact that he also
highlights the continued importance of stone at such a late point, irrespective of its
crudity is significant in relation to this present study. Specifically, Edmonds
describes the nature of reduction employed within some of these Middle Bronze
Age domestic sites within Britain which are characterised by the smashing of
pebbles which were freely available flint in the vicinity of the settlements. These
were simply broken and would have been suitable for use without further
modification and employed for a range of tasks such for scraping, piercing and
cutting (1995). This begins to directly mirror the strategies employed (bipolar)
within the earliest domestic industries of the metal era in both Ireland (O’Hare 2005)
and elsewhere.
Similar use of flint has been described in Herne’s (1991) study of the British
industries of the Middle Bronze Age, which directly reflect technologies outlined by
Edmonds (1995) for the same period within some British sites. Herne highlights the
fact that this highly expedient flint material was employed to produce as many
usable pieces as possible as noted in Humphrey’s (2004) study. Therefore, the use of
localised lithic resources, or in some cases, existing flint-rich resources, the splitting
168
of pebbles (bipolar reduction) and the opportunistic exploitation of pieces produced
via this process to employ as tools for a range of tasks begins to directly mirror the
Irish and Scandinavian industries identified at an earlier point in the new metal era
than the British (split-pebble) technology seen to be emerging within parts of Britain
as late as the Middle Bronze Age period.
Further afield, some of the descriptions give by Migal (2004) regarding the
revival of use of old flint mines within Poland, particularly during the Late Bronze
Age period and the general trends towards poor knapping techniques begins to
reflect the earliest industries within Ireland and Scandinavia and the Middle Bronze
Age industries within Britain as identified by Herne (1991) and Edmonds (1995).
Certainly by the later phases of the Bronze Age period within most regions a
common thread of the use of localised lithic material and a highly expedient
reduction strategy runs through most of these domestic industries as commented
upon by Healy (2000, 2004).
Healy describes the reduction strategy as ‘smash-it-and-see’ (2000, 13) and
directly reflects the characteristic splitting pebbles or simply hitting a piece of stone
with the aim of producing something useful as noted by Edmonds (1995) for British
Middle Bronze Age sites where these tools produced were employed as they were
and remained important and functional at these sites. Many of these descriptions
and observations begin directly reflect the nature of the Irish domestic assemblages
from the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age period.
The Irish evidence of the Bronze Age in terms of the specific technology of
bipolar reduction and resultant tools finds its closest parallels with ethnographic
accounts and in particular with work by Knarrström (2001) in Sweden where direct
contemporary parallels of this technology can be made. However, other Bronze Age
industries of the earliest metal era show a similar expedient approach to lithic
reduction, use of highly localised lithic material and the production and use of
simple expedient tools. Whether these industries represent the same specific
technology of bipolar working which has not been recognised due to the difficulties
surrounding the lack of agreement amongst archaeologists regarding bipolar
technology, or these industries are essentially employing a crude form of platform
reduction, the result is the same: potentially fully functioning domestic technologies
as seen within Ireland from the earliest phases of the Bronze Age until the latest.
In terms of tool production, whether via bipolar/split pebble (smash-it-and-see)
169
reduction which seems fairly common, or a more degenerate form of platform
technology, the continued functionality of essentially expedient tools can be
paralleled within most of these regions. Going back to the British evidence, for
example, other parallels within the British later assemblages (domestic) can been
drawn from the fairly expedient lithic technology and potentially long surviving
functional industries identified within the study carried out by Ford et al (1984).
Although these scholars concentrated upon the more formal lithic types found
within the Later Neolithic, Earlier and Later Bronze Age period, they did assess a
difficult range of fairly abundant lithic technology that they found within their
study, particularly relating to the later prehistoric period – what they termed the
Later Bronze Age, inclusive of the traditional Middle and Late Bronze Age period in
Britain.
Within their survey, Ford et al assessed less formal tools which they attempted to
define. These included retouched, denticulate, notched or serrated into a group
referred to as ‘deliberately modified’ (1984, 165), although, they did omit other
expedient forms such as utilised pieces from their survey, they noted a decrease of
formal tools from the Later Neolithic to the Later Bronze Age periods and
established that there was a corresponding increase in the deliberately modified
pieces found particularly within Later Bronze Age sites (1984); thereby suggestive of
formal tools being replaced by informal tools and not necessarily by metal.
Knarrström’s research also includes post Middle Bronze Age technologies,
inclusive of the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age and historic periods and clearly
demonstrates the continued functionality of these technologies by employing use-
wear analysis to otherwise unrecognisable ad hoc tool forms (2001). Knarrström
notes that these bipolar industries which showed evidence of being both modified
and unmodified would not have been otherwise recognisable as tools if these were
not assessed via use-wear analysis (ibid).
As useful as this type of microscopic analysis had been in demonstrating
empirically the archaeological significance of otherwise seemingly non-descript flint,
the Irish study employed a basic assessment of viewing working edges of a piece
with a simple handheld lens. More often than not, these pieces showed clear
evidence of having been used from the polish and/or striations on the business end
or surface of a piece. The strongest case for continued functionality of the Irish
assemblages seems to be the overall comparison of technology through time and
across sites that are surprisingly similar in their approach to producing usable tools.
170
The results from the Irish assessment of both direct and indirect assessments
correspond fairly closely with another Scandinavian study. For instance, Högberg
established, via use-wear analysis, that unmodified pieces were more prevalent
within Late Bronze Age sites in the region than any other tool type and, when these
were assessed, unmodified flakes turned out to have been employed on many
different materials (2009). He also highlights the predominance of ad hoc tools
within Late Bronze Age settlement sites and, as these are tools not typically
recognised by archaeologists according to ‘established typologies’, (2009, 240), it is
therefore not surprising that such technologies are not classified as viable tools
within late contexts.
Högberg’s descriptions of household economies which, are based extensively
upon simple, informal and mainly unmodified pieces, which were the most
prevalent within the Late Bronze Age settlements, show clear evidence of being
employed for a variety of tasks (2009). The study demonstrates that if these are not
assessed in the proper manner they tend to be assigned to the waste production
category (ibid). Furthermore, Högberg concludes that unmodified flakes were used
on a broad range of materials (ibid) and he found that within the Late Bronze Age
sites assessed that unmodified flakes were the most commonly used flint tool and
were employed on a range of different material (ibid).
Högberg (2009) also highlights the fact that these simple ad hoc household
technologies are beginning to be recognised within other parts of Scandinavia and
other regions of North-western Europe and draws particular parallels with the
British later prehistoric lithic industries described within Humphrey’s research
(2004). Descriptions of the Swedish industries of the Late Bronze Age period by
Högberg as producing simple ad hoc tools used on a daily basis within the
household (2004) supports Humphrey’s observations of British later prehistoric
domestic tool assemblages belonging to the domestic sphere only during the post
Bronze Age period (2004).
The British Late Bronze Age and earliest Iron Age lithic technologies within
eastern Britain, with reference to an increasing body of evidence from other regions,
not listed here, have been dealt with by McLaren (2011). This period into the Iron
Age within Britain has been addressed in some detail by Young and Humphrey
(1999); Humphrey and Young (2003) and Humphrey (2004), where they outline the
criterion established for tool-production from within post-Middle Bronze Age
industries which are equally applicable to Iron Age contexts in Britain and in turn
171
reflect patterns of ad hoc technology to that described within other regions and
broadly reflect the technology from Irish Bronze Age industries. .
Humphrey outlines the criteria for, which can be seen in terms of the use of
highly localised lithic material, the production of irregular flakes and the use of
cores by simple rotation, a decline in knapping skills, non-curation of products,
growth in expedient production of artefacts and a restricted range of recognisable
tool types (2004). The full assessment of the Irish domestic industries can now be
added to this expanding corpus of functioning later prehistoric household industries
running concurrently with thriving metal industries which seems to have played a
marginal role within the domestic realm even within the latest stages of the Bronze
Age period and perhaps beyond.
The vast majority of lithic tools identified within Bronze Age sites seem to be, as
with the Irish evidence, ad hoc forms. Certainly by the Middle Bronze Age period,
the technology described from several domestic sites within Britain, again by
Edmonds (1995) which begins to directly reflect much of the expedient technology
seen within the Irish and Scandinavian research within earlier assemblages and later
assemblages and essentially described by other British scholars such Young and
Humphrey (1999), Humphrey and Young (2003) and Humphrey (2004); Mc Claren
(2011) regarding the British later prehistoric material; described by Migal (2004) in
relation to the Late Bronze Age settlements within Poland and central-eastern
Europe in general.
The main characteristics of the Irish Bronze Age domestic technology are
reflected within other regions dating to a similar period when compared to the
descriptions of similar, simple ad hoc technologies within domestic contexts of the
later prehistoric period indicated in several other lithic studies of the later
prehistoric period from the France, Germany, the Netherlands, Britain and other
areas within Scandinavia as highlighted by Högberg (2009). Furthermore, the
continued standardised industries operating within Lerna (Greece) are evidence of
the survival until the Late Bronze Age of functional domestic technologies.
However, most regions tend to demonstrate simple household technologies and in
some cases these have been seen to survive into the Iron Age and historic period as
outlined in Knarrström’s study (2001). Other regions seem to indicate similarly
functional, albeit ad hoc, technologies such as the technologies outlined by Migal
regarding the renewed activity at existing flint mines and an increased
intensification of flint production during the Late Bronze Age period in eastern
172
Poland, and at the same time, there is a trend towards poor knapping techniques
and fairly simple-flaked industries (2004).
The impact of metallurgy
Furthermore, within the Irish record there is very little in the way of evidence
that metal impacted upon the domestic lithic technologies which is in turn seen
within other regions as seen within Edmonds’ research regarding the British earlier
metalworking era and states: ‘The first appearance of metal was not marked by the
widespread abandonment of stone, and a rich variety of tools continued to be made
and used on a day-to-day basis’ (1995, 154). Other regions also see a similar pattern
within domestic sites such as pointed out by Rosen regarding the Levant region, ‘the
major decline in lithic production and use occurs much before the introduction of
the harder metals (bronze and iron) most appropriate for replacing flint as a raw
material’ (1997, 153). And Moloney states: ‘In the Levant, in general, no sudden
change in lithic assemblages is evident concomitant with the emergence of copper
production’ (2004, 257).
Added to these findings is the fact that not only is the domestic lithic tool-kit
fully functioning from the earliest period of the new metal era until the end, but the
lack of evidence of metal tools or proxy indicators of metal tools within these same
sites is striking where occasionally metal material and/or proxy evidence was
associated with a number of lithic collections that have been interpreted as domestic,
particularly dating to the latter part of the Bronze Age.
On closer inspection of these, the actual range of metal tools that would have
been suitable to employ within the Irish Bronze Age industries where they are
recovered such as the occasional metal axe/palstave or knife or indirect evidence for
the manufacture of such tools is extremely marginal. And at the same time the range
of lithic tools remains essentially functionally and quantitatively unchanged within
the Irish sites. The evidence, when available, in the form of moulds for the
production of metal artefacts, would have produced the occasional palstave, but
mostly weaponry rather than functional metal tools.
Moreover, as the above survey has outlined: when the Irish assemblages are
assessed within sites throughout the Bronze Age, the nature of the few metal finds,
particularly from later contexts, indicate that some of the metal weaponry and/or
tools and ornaments may relate to ritual deposits rather than indicating the remains
of domestic activity. And it seems unlikely that valuable metal objects and
173
ornaments of other materials would have been left behind accidentally.
It should be said that although Butler proposes that the lack of metal finds
typically found within domestic sites of the later prehistoric era, could be accounted
for by the difference in durability and relative value of one material over another
(2006), and this is certainly valid observation regarding secular contexts, it is
however worth noting that in the context of Ireland, Waddell has drawn attention to
the paucity of evidence of metalworking at most sites during the Bronze Age and he
notes that the absence of metalworkers’ tools in the form of anvils, hammers, tongs
which, would have been used to produce and manufacture metal implements,
seems quite puzzling and may indicate some exclusion of such technology (1998,
202).
However, as the Irish survey has shown and the fact that the Early Bronze Age
assemblages are almost as expedient as the later collections, combined with the
continued functionality of tools even if they are more expedient than their Neolithic
counterparts and adding the marginal evidence for metalworking at these sites in
relation to the production of workable metal tools that would have been suitable to
employ domestically and at the same time a range of domestic stone tools are found
and seemingly unchanged throughout the Bronze Age, then it is a logical conclusion
to assume that the domestic industries did not require metal in order to function,
even when at the end of the Bronze Age period a range of suitable tools of metal
were beginning to circulate.
This brings into question the commonly held belief as voiced by Butler regarding
the replacement of traditional domestic lithic technology by a range of suitable
implements of metal towards the latter stages of the Bronze Age (2005). For example,
although Butler has reviewed the main characteristics of Middle to Later Bronze Age
lithic technology from British domestic sites and concluded that the highly restricted
range of formal tools and predominance of crude forms, mainly scrapers and awl
type implements, he does not see these as fully functional forms (2005). However, if
the evidence reviewed above regarding the trends towards less recognisable tools,
which have been demonstrated to be viable and functioning tools, then, perhaps
Butler’s proposition may simply be a case of not recognising tools as such due to
their crudity.
As more studies have emerged from other regions, it seems that Ford et al (1984)
were essentially correct in their observations. For example Britain appears to see
174
fairly ad hoc industries and use of localised lithic material, but certainly around the
Middle Bronze Age these become increasingly more expedient, but not redundant.
The main theme is continued functionality of domestic stone technologies
irrespective of the skill or aesthetics involved in producing such tools. Most regions
demonstrate these functional industries until the Late Bronze Age, if not beyond.
This would militate against Butler’s suggestion that the range of metal tools
available towards the latter stages of the Bronze Age in Britain (which is applicable
to Ireland as suggested by Cooney (1999) would have replaced much of the
traditional ad hoc tools at this time (2005). As proposed above, Ford et al concluded,
particularly regarding the more expedient lithic material they identified belonging
to the Later Bronze Age period within their study that more work would be
required and at the same time they indicated the possibility that formal lithics may
have been somewhat displaced by more expedient – less formal lithics (1984). This
seems to be the best explanation for most of the apparent absence of tools within
many Bronze Age collections as these have simply become less recognisable within
the archaeological record.
Hopefully, this present survey has demonstrated that although there were a
broader range of metal tools circulating towards the latter part of the Bronze Age;
that the actual evidence found within contemporaneous Bronze Age settlements
would strongly indicate that these metal forms were not employed on an everyday
basis within these sites. This can be seen by the essentially unchanging tool-kit
between the Beaker/Early Bronze Age period and the later – Middle and Late
Bronze Age collections. This is demonstrated in Figures 80 to 83 where the
proportion of secondary (tools) to primary (reduction) technology is fairly
consistently proportionate throughout the entire Bronze Age and therefore
indicative that tools remained important throughout the new metal era, irrespective
of the new metal tool forms circulating at the time.
If stone tools had been abandoned in favour of metal forms one would expect
that the overall assemblage numbers would have decreased and/or that the
proportion of tools to reduction material may have declined. Indeed, the opposite is
the case where the survey carried out by the present writer found larger and more
frequent occurrence of domestic lithic collections dating to the latter phases of the
Bronze Age compared to those dating to the Beaker and Earlier Bronze Age period.
If nothing else, one should perhaps consider the fact that why would such abundant
lithic material be found within settlements of the mid to Late Bronze Age, if it was
175
not going to be used in some fashion.
There is no doubt that the main evidence for metalworking during the Early
Bronze Age period from both Britain and Ireland is that of metal axes and their use
in some instances, and the popularity of this implement cannot be under-estimated
at this time. Presumably, its circulation was stimulated by factors such as the
complexity involved in producing stone axe forms, the importance such a tool made
of a new, exotic and pliable material and perhaps most importantly: it superior
cutting edge compared to the blade created on a stone axe form, coupled by this
increased efficiency of metal blades, hafting techniques would have been a massive
advantage over stone axe forms. The evolution and increased efficiency of the metal
blades and the more sophisticated and effective hafting techniques throughout the
Bronze Age period is clearly demonstrated in the archaeological record. Therefore,
the stone axe was certainly a poor Cousin of the metal axe and could be argued as an
obvious replacement of stone by a metal form.
The role of metal
The longevity of Late Bronze Age industries from a wide range of regions, which
appear to remain functional, but in some cases continue beyond the Late Bronze Age
period, support the premise that domestic technology continued to function at an
everyday level and very much outside the realm of metal sourcing, production,
processing and use. Bearing in mind that some industries show a continuity of forms
between the Late Neolithic boundary and the earlier stages of metallurgy, while
others see trends towards expediency or a decline of tools prior to the introduction
of metal or the highly restricted tool-kit within Ireland prior to the introduction of
metallurgy, we can conclude that metal cannot be the direct cause a decline of any
aspect of the lithic industries, other than perhaps impacting upon the continued
production of stone axes. However, it should be remembered that the Late Neolithic
(pre-metal era) has sparse evidence of the production and use of stone axes as well.
Beyond the regional variations of the stone axe, within Ireland, and seemingly
other regions in the main, ad hoc and expedient technologies seem to be the main
feature of the earliest domestic industries of the new metal age. Furthermore, these
expedient, yet functional industries were operating at a time when suitable metal
tools would not have been available to replace these. The clear survival of the Irish
Bronze Age domestic lithic technologies throughout the entire period has been
demonstrated. This evidence shows a clear survival of functional tools within
domestic assemblages irrespective of whether these date to a period when metal
176
tools would not have been suffice to replace these (with the single exception of the
metal axe).
The only discernible shift throughout the new metal era established within Irish
domestic assemblages was the fact that the overall tool-kit became more expedient
in a few minor aspects, such as the shift from neater more standardised scrapers to
more ad hoc scraper forms and the occasional or more significant use of re-used
lithic tools from earlier times within later assemblages. Beyond these shifts: the tool-
kit in quantitative terms of providing lithic tools for a range of day-to-day tasks
within domestic settings which did not decline at any point in the Bronze Age.
The evidence emerging from the Irish study is strongly supported by research of
a similar nature carried out within several distinctive and geographically diverse
regions. The patterns in some cases are surprisingly similar, but the overriding
important factor in all these industries is that where it could be established: the
domestic industries throughout the Bronze Age and even into the later periods are
seen to survive and in some cases thrive, and run concurrently, yet seemingly
separate from, the metal industry. The relationship between these domestic
industries and the broader metal industry will now be reviewed in the light of the
results from the Irish study compared to the trends seen within a number of widely
different regions of a similar technological period.
The presence of fully functioning, albeit crude, industries from the earliest
phases of metal use in Ireland until the latest stages of the Bronze Age, combined
with the marginal evidence for actual metalworking or tools of metal employed in
these same domestic sites strongly supports the notion that metal never actually
impacted or played an important role within these industries throughout the Bronze
Age period in Ireland. That is not to say that metal was not highly important as a
commodity during this time, it just suggests that metal did not play a significant
role, if any, within the domestic, the ordinary, mundane and day-to-day activities of
the Bronze Age communities. The realms of Bronze Age society where metal was
important may have been highly restricted and set-apart from the everyday realms
and performed certain economic, social, status and symbolic functions instead.
This raises the question of the role of stone and metal during the Bronze Age
period and how this may have indirectly caused the deterioration of the skill of
these traditional domestic lithic industries. Patterns of a deterioration of the lithic
industries prior to the introduction of metallurgy as identified within the Irish
177
assemblages and the complexity of one material over another should also be
considered as factors in the cause of deterioration, but not the demise of functional
domestic industries of the Bronze Age. The two distinctive industries of metal and
stone could be viewed as showing a polarisation of technologies and respective
spheres. Essentially, the findings from the Irish study reflect a range of lithic
patterns and a similar longevity of functional lithic (domestic) industries akin to
those identified within several other regions.
Many broad, and in some cases, specific parallels can be drawn between the Irish
Bronze Age industries and the findings and observations established from other
regions. Irrespective of how expedient these industries may have become, they
appear to continue to provide for the everyday needs of the Bronze Age
communities and the established longevity of the Irish industries. It may simply be
that we have not recognised much of this lithic material to-date, due to its crudity as
noted by Ford et al (1984) or simply not been investigated due to our preconceived
notions that these industries would not exist as they were obviously displaced by a
superior material.
However, as the results of the Irish study have shown, this simplistic assumption
of a superior material replacing another does not fit the evidence and several
complex factors, as originally pointed out within Rosen’s (1996; 1997) research
within the Levant. For example, the evidence for a pre-metallurgical decline
emerging within some industries, the fact that the stone industries are much more
simplistic and accessible and do not inherently require a high level of skill to
produce a functional tool compared to the metal industry, and the marginal
evidence for metal tools being employed within domestic sites compared to the solid
evidence of the continuation of the production and use of everyday tools throughout
the new metal era and beyond as seen in several regions where a study dealing with
such late lithic technologies has been carried out in any systematic manner.
These broader issues and the similarity of expedient industries and the evidence
for the longevity of later prehistoric industries in general indicated from other
regions, as outlined above, strongly support the notion that metal did not play an
important role in the day to day tasks of Bronze Age communities. The complexities
involving the pre-metallurgical decline indicated in a number of regions, or the
continuity of lithic forms noted for others, the fact that settlement and economic and,
possibly environmental shifts, within Late Neolithic society which may have been a
precursor in some industries to the highly expedient domestic industries of the
178
earliest metal era in some regions, along with the continued functionality of such
industries, irrespective of how expedient these became or the more standardised
industries showing continuity of forms, all strongly suggest factors other than the
direct causal relationship, the linear assumption that when metal was introduced it
directly caused the decline/deterioration of the traditional lithics industry.
Apart from the unique complexity of manufacturing a stone axe, the overall issue
of complexity of metal compared to flintworking has been highlighted by Scott
(1978, figs. 1 -2), and as highlighted by Rosen (1996) should be considered as an
important factor in inhibiting the general uptake of metallurgy at a domestic level
for everyday use. Edmonds suggests a similar observation regarding the initial
uptake of metalwork, making it relatively inaccessible (1995).
This could be extended well beyond the initial phases of metal-use within the
domestic sphere due to the fact that lithic technology would have continued to be
more preferable to metal given the inherent complexities of metal-extraction and
processing and maybe the motivation would not be there to adopt such a complex
and comparatively inaccessible material such as metal, which would have required a
whole new set of skills to be utilised directly within the domestic sphere, or even to
import such comparatively restricted and or expensive metal tools into the domestic
where perfectly accessible, easily manufactured lithic pieces already existed.
Therefore, as the evidence would suggest, perhaps we may need to consider the
complexity of metal compared to the flintworking as an inhibiting factor in the
widespread domestic uptake of metal as a means to produce everyday workable
tools. Presumably, as the evidence would suggest, the use of familiar, easily
workable and readily available material such as flint would have outweighed the
need to begin accessing/acquiring metal material or products which were likely to
have been fairly expensive, highly restricted and requiring an entirely new skill-set
to employ within traditional domestic contexts. This proposition is strongly
indicated within the results of the Irish study, where continued functionality of
traditional lithic technologies throughout the full extent of the new metal era is
apparent, and is in turn supported by similar findings from several other regions
where a study addressing the role of stone in the metal age has been carried out.
However, within the actual Irish Bronze Age contexts detailed in this study,
when it came to reviewing the frequency of metal axes in association with such
material, practically none were found. Presumably, as some have argued: (E.g.
179
Butler 2005) due to their intrinsic value, they would have been retrieved and/or
recycled. However, the presence of polished stone axes (possibly in most cases re-
used from earlier times) was fairly common throughout the Bronze Age contexts as
seen in the above survey.
Therefore, the strength of evidence from many different regions would strongly
go against Butler’s replacement hypothesis. However, it should be said that
although Butler recognises the presence of later prehistoric industries in Britain, he
also highlights the fact that formal/standardised tools are rare… ‘with most types
simply being made on whatever flakes were to hand’ (2005, 182), and also highlights
the fact that scrapers (the most predominant tool type) along with piercers and
notched pieces as being the only tools remaining during the Later Bronze Age
period, he did not recognise these as fully functional (2005; 2006). Instead he
proposes that the decline of flint was ongoing throughout the Bronze Age period in
Britain and advocates that by the later Bronze Age metal tools may have begun
replacing most of these (2005).
It is hoped that the Irish study where the evidence or even proxy evidence for
metalworking within Irish Bronze Age domestic settlements, combined with the
strength of evidence for fairly unchanging and intact tool-kit from the earliest until
latest phases of the new metal era in Ireland, has demonstrated that stone
technology did not become unimportant: it simply became more crude. The crudity
of this ad hoc and thoroughly opportunistic use and production of functional tools
throughout many regions and indeed throughout the entire Bronze Age period and
beyond as demonstrated in a number of cases, has caused problems in the
recognition of functionality within domestic sites and are therefore often tend to be
overlooked.
Causes of invisibility
Humphrey (2004) suggests that the crudity of such material has frequently led to
this material not being identified, at worst as even existing and at best as being
unrecognised as functional. In Edmonds’ lithic study within Britain, although he
does not specifically address the post-Middle Bronze Age lithic industries, he does
outline the continued functionality of domestic industries during the Middle Bronze
Age period that suggest a continued functionality into the later periods within this
region. Edmonds points out the crude nature of most of the industries of the later
prehistoric period of course presents difficulties in recording and identification
which may have created the belief that these industries were no long employed in
180
everyday tasks.
This aspect has been highlighted within Swedish industries of the historic and
later prehistoric period by Knarrström (2001) and in a related regional study by
Högberg it is noted that these ad hoc tools are simply not recognised as such due to
their simplistic form until otherwise demonstrated employing use-wear analysis
(2004). Regarding the overall expediency of domestic technologies in general, within
Britain, particularly dating to the later prehistoric phases, Ford et al note that this
crude material has often been mistaken for ‘plough damage’ (1984, 157), and are
often ‘resigned to the residual category’ as noted by Humphrey and Young (2003,
87). Rosen’s assessment of Levantine lithic traditions concludes that the evidence
would militate against our widely held belief that one material replaces another in a
linear fashion, which is simply no longer tenable (1996).
Edmonds proposes how these crude technologies may have remained functional
within later prehistoric contexts by explaining how they were no longer imbued with
any status, which had been transferred unto metal, but the tools themselves no
longer requiring aesthetics as Knarrström had pointed out, simply became more
expedient although remained functional, if less recognisable forms. Ford et al also
indicate this in their study when they suggest that the survival of crude technologies
they found in some abundance within their study, and this crude material may have
actually replaced the more formal lithics: rather than being replaced directly in
every case by metal (1984).
One of the main aims of this present assessment is to outline the specific
approach taken in the Irish study is to attempt to explain the specific nature of the
ad hoc technology relevant to this region to demonstrate the viability of this
technology and to provide a starting point for other researchers to begin
recognising, recording and classifying such material. This ad hoc technology is fairly
identifiable in the field once it is understood. It was only be assessing large
quantities of lithic material from a diverse range of sites spanning the entire Irish
Bronze Age period that overall patterns began to emerge.
These technologies correspond in turn to the simple ad hoc household
technologies which are widespread but continue to survive and remain functional as
highlighted by Högberg (2004; 2009), Knarrström (2001) and Humphrey (2004), and
this is argued within this present study of the Irish Bronze Age industries. Indeed,
the evidence emerging from most other regions where a study of the lithic industries
181
has been carried out within Bronze Age contexts have demonstrated a clear survival
of functional domestic lithic technology. However, some regions also show a
predominance of standardised forms such as the continuity of forms,
standardisation and production of predominantly well crafted lithic technologies
from the Late Neolithic to the Late Bronze Age as demonstrated within
Hartenberger and Runnels’ (2001) research within an extensive settlement at Lerna
in Greece, which is interesting in of itself.
The Lerna excavations are but one example within the comparative research that
demonstrates that these lithics could not have been overlooked due to their crudity,
yet indeed, many Aegean archaeologists have done just that as highlighted by
Hartenberger and Runnels (2001), so perhaps, it may be our preconceived notions
that, rather than the lack of evidence for the existence of fully functioning domestic
lithic industries of the latest stages of the Bronze Age, that is responsible for the
neglect of such an important aspect of Bronze Age research.
182
Conclusion
Stone vs. Metal
The aim of this original study carried out by the present writer (O’Hare 2005)
was to attempt to understand lithic technology within all Bronze Age contexts and
establish its relationship to contemporaneous metalworking traditions as prompted
by the earlier research by Ford et al (1984) regarding the same in Britain. As so little
research had been carried out regarding the nature, viability and longevity of the
Irish lithic industries of the new metal era, presumably due to issues of crudity as
encountered by Ford et al (1984) within their study in Britain, making it difficult to
identify or recognise functionality of lithic forms in the first place, this has no doubt
been compounded by the widely held assumption that once metal was introduced it
systematically, and within a relatively rapid succession, replaced most stone
technologies of the Bronze Age.
Irrespective of these difficulties, there was a great need for a study of this type to
be carried out to attempt to fill the gap in our understanding of the true relationship
between metal and lithic technology throughout the Bronze Age period within the
context of Ireland. Fortunately, a deeper exploration of the actual lithic material
established within a preliminary study combined with emerging research from
geographically diverse regions dealing with lithic technology within the new metal
era led the present writer to an assumption that the Irish Bronze Age industries
would be present. These were actively looked for, and indeed were found. And it
turned out that these industries were fully functioning and thriving, even within the
latest stages of the Bronze Age period.
If one presumes something is absent, one does not look for it therefore it is never found
(Woodman 1984, 3)
This formed the focus of this present paper where an attempt to present an
understanding of such material in functional terms, along with Bronze Age specific
lithic forms and general lithic reduction strategies employed within the everyday
domestic sphere during the Bronze Age and its ultimate relationship to metal. The
Irish industries were more numerous than expected, particularly those dating to the
Middle and Late Bronze Age periods. The assemblages identified throughout the
183
Irish Bronze Age and the entire region of Ireland had presumably not been
systematically recorded in the past for three main reasons that are interlinked.
There is a common assumption that industries of the later prehistoric period
would have become obsolete, certainly by around the Middle Bronze Age period,
when suitable metal tools were beginning to replace these industries. This
assumption is further bolstered by the fact that when domestic assemblages of the
Bronze Age were found, these were generally not recognised as significant due to
their crudity and 3, it is only in more recent times, in Ireland, that Middle and Late
Bronze Age contexts, both funerary and domestic, are beginning to become more
specifically dated and being more frequently unearthed as part of the developer-led
excavations, particularly over the past two decades. Prior to this period, the later
assemblages (domestic) of the Bronze Age were few and far between and therefore
we did not have the data to present the broader, quantitative evidence necessary for
a systematic study.
The timing of this study was fortunate in being able to assess this more recent
and newly emerging evidence of post-Early Bronze Age material and combine it
with previously excavated material from what seemed to be one off anomalous
collections of non-descript material. Furthermore, the timing was also fortuitous in
that more recent studies from a range of different regions were beginning to emerge
which strongly indicated that the search for functional Bronze Age lithic industries,
even at the height of metallurgy, was worth pursuing. The availability of a large
number of new sites and the results and analysis of the lithic material recovered,
augmented by the written sources, produced a very clear assessment of the full
extent of the lithics of the Irish Bronze Age. All the objectives and aims and specific
answers to the relevant hypotheses originating in the earlier study (O’Hare 2005)
were met.
The refined chronology employed in this study allowed a more meaningful way
of assessing shifts through time within domestic lithic collections. No decrease in
lithic forms was identified from the earliest until the latest stages of the new metal
era in Ireland. This was achieved by fully investigating the lithic material found
within many Bronze Age contexts across the entire Ireland and spanning the full
expanse of the new metal era. The material was examined in detail, no matter how
crude it seemed at first. Initially it was like trying to fit a square peg into a round
hole, but eventually, it began to make sense when compared across different sites
and patterns of similar technologies emerged.
184
When the ad hoc technology was understood and combined with the more
obvious tool forms such as scrapers and the occasional stone axe and/or arrowhead,
the Bronze Age tool-kit began to look less sparse. Furthermore, there was neither a
shift of tool forms found within domestic tool kits or any decrease identifiable
within the tool assemblage as a whole within domestic assemblages throughout the
entire Bronze Age period. Only scraper forms changed through time in
morphological terms, but not quantitatively. There is a qualitative decline, not a
quantitative decline as indicated within the British study by Ford’s et al (1984).
In addition to this, throughout much of the Bronze Age period, with the single
exception of the metal axe, most metal tools were not available to replace traditional
lithic technologies within the domestic setting. Therefore, the continuity of tools,
some of which never had metal counterparts, such as scrapers and arrowheads in
Britain and Ireland at this time, along with consistent ad hoc forms found
throughout the Beaker/Bronze Age period in Ireland, must indicate that tools made
of stone, irrespective of how expedient these became, provided and continued to
provide for most, if not all, the basic day-to-day domestic tasks throughout the
Bronze Age.
Furthermore, the Irish formal tool-kit between the Late Neolithic and Beaker
(earliest metal era) unlike the British decline shown in the study of Ford et al (1984)
was significantly more restricted in the first place. It is also worth noting that the
trends towards expedient industries in Irish industries occurred prior to the
introduction of metal, which is also the case in Britain and Scandinavia. The crude
nature of the Bronze Age industries is not confined to the latter stages of the metal
era, but can also be seen from the earliest stages in several regions. This would be at
a time when the range of metal tool forms, beyond the axe, was not available to be
employed as an alternative to stone within these domestic contexts. Therefore, the
deterioration of the Bronze Age lithic industries could be described as an aesthetic
decline rather than a decline per se within the actual tool-kit
Basically, if a range of suitable tools of metal were to have replaced these
traditional lithic tools, this would not have occurred much before the latter stages of
the Bronze Age as has been suggested by Butler (2005) and Cooney (1999) as
commonly held opinion as noted by Edmonds (1995), then the Irish domestic
industries should have shown a decline in the tool category within a similarly late
period. The Irish study found no such decrease and strongly suggests that domestic
lithic technology continued to be employed on an everyday basis irrespective of the
185
circulation of a range of suitable replacement tools of metal.
The results of the Irish study shows that from the assessment of directly analysed
lithic collections and supported by information obtained from the available
literature, spanning the Beaker, Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age period, that the
range of tools found within these domestic assemblages would have been more than
sufficient to provide for the everyday requirements of these communities
throughout the entire Bronze Age period. As is the case within most regions where a
lithic study relating to the metal era has been carried out and the issues of the
functionality of such industries has been addressed as much as the archaeology will
allow, the overriding conclusion seems that domestic lithic technology of the new
metal era continued, unimpeded by the new metal technology.
All in all, the impact of metallurgy upon the domestic use and production of
stone seems marginal indeed and it is proposed that this was due to the complexity
of metalworking over stoneworking where the latter would have continued to
survive due to its availability and ease of working. To explain the mechanisms
whereby metal could have been an important aspect of Bronze Age society and
indeed as the record shows – it was – and reconciling this to the survival and
expedient nature of domestic lithic technology running concurrently with the ever
evolving metalwork of the period, perhaps Edmond’s (1995) outline of the indirect
impact that metal had upon domestic lithic technologies is most appropriate.
Edmonds suggests that the new medium of metal began to replace the traditional
role of stone in terms of meaning, metaphors and social aspects, thus causing the
erosion of stone, but not causing it to become functionally obsolete. Knarrström has
proposed a similar replacement of the stone industry by metal in terms of aesthetics
rather than direct replacement of one material over another (2001).
If, on the other hand, these later prehistoric tools (as expedient as they are) are
viewed as replacing formal lithics as suggested by Ford et al as a possible reason for
the survival of crude technologies within the later prehistoric British assemblages
(1984), this could be taken further and would account for the nature, yet continued
functionality of Irish Bronze Age domestic industries without bringing metal into
the equation. The reason why we have not recognised them to-date in any
significant manner is that they are difficult to identify and perhaps also our
perception, or assumption, that the domestic industries were replaced in a linear
fashion by metal has contributed to this neglect of research in this important field of
186
archaeology.
Ford et al addressed this fairly ad hoc material specifically due to obvious
reasons of classification, although they did find a clear increase within the Later
Bronze Age assemblages of basically modified artefacts. Their observations led them
to propose that one explanation of the presence of such crude material from later
prehistoric contexts may be that formal tools were ‘off-set to some extent’ by more
expedient forms (1984, 167), which as noted earlier, seems to be a reasonable
explanation of how and why lithic forms became so degenerate, yet remained
functional without using metal as a cause for this deterioration.
Furthermore, a great deal of typically highly localised lithic material is found at
most Bronze Age sites and indeed, Ireland showed an abundance of stone within
settlements, particularly of the post-Early Bronze Age period. It would not therefore
make sense to have collected in such abundance such material and bring it unto the
site, if it were not going to be employed for something productive such as the
manufacture of tools. Even though many of the tools beyond scrapers, the occasional
stone axe or arrowhead, were not recognisable in the conventional sense of our
existing typologies, this does not mean that they were not employed on an everyday
basis as such.
If more expedient tool forms are understood in terms of the continued
functionality within these later prehistoric domestic sites, as strongly indicated by
the research from Ireland and several other regions, where a detailed study has also
been carried out, perhaps these domestic industries of the Bronze Age would not
look so bewildering or indeed so sparse in terms of functional tools and would begin
to make more sense. Ad hoc, simple and fairly crude lithic pieces were produced as
required and used for a variety of tasks – fulfilling the day-to-day needs of these
communities. These ad hoc tools make up a fairly significant proportion of domestic
assemblages from the beginning until the end of the Irish Bronze Age and therefore
require some explanation.
Högberg’s Late Bronze Age lithic assessment employing use-wear analysis of
Swedish industries (2004, 2009) confirms much of Knarrström’s (2001) findings and
Högberg points out that most of the Late Bronze Age domestic ad hoc tools would
not have been recognised employing ‘traditional classification based on Stone Age
artefacts’ (2004, 234) and similarly, Högberg notes that the unmodified flake is
usually not regarded as a tool as these are traditionally classified as waste from the
187
manufacturing process and if only formal tools are recorded: then these typically
accounts for a fairly miniscule proportion of assemblages (2009).
Other scholars have indicated a similar continued importance of essentially
expedient domestic industries and the problems encountered when attempting to
interpret such industries. Regarding the British later prehistoric industries,
Edmonds points out that ‘because it is difficult to place these expedient forms into
our existing typologies, does not mean that this technology was unimportant and
continued to be employed for everyday tasks’ (1995, 187).
The nature of the material has in turn caused a type of invisibility in the
archaeological record as there is no doubt that this later prehistoric material is
difficult to deal with or even recognise, as Ford et. al note: these assemblages of the
later prehistoric period are often mistaken for ‘plough damage’ or simply
overlooked due to their crudity (1984, 157) and Humphrey and Young make a
similar observation (2003), thus reminding us that the recording, recognition and
classification of such crude lithic material is still a major challenge within this area of
research.
Knarrström draws attention to the tendency for archaeologists to attribute much
of these later prehistoric lithics to the Stone Age period (2001, 153) and a similar
observation has been made by Högberg (2004) regarding the Swedish industries.
The nature of the evidence has no doubt caused much of our Late Bronze Age
assemblages to have gone unrecorded or at best inadequately understood. However,
perhaps, contributing to this misunderstood lithic material is its ‘unappealing’ nature
as described by Högberg which generally is not viewed with any great interest
(2004, 229).
Humphrey and Young make a similar observation and draw attention to the fact
that although this later prehistoric lithic material is obviously present, it is often
consigned to the ‘residual category’ (2003, 87) and Edmonds (1995) highlights the
difficulties in recording and recognition of such crude lithic technologies, although
he also points out that this does not mean that it did not continue to remain
important and functional. Judging by Edmonds’ research particularly of the
continued functionality of Middle Bronze Age domestic lithic technologies and the
fact that he points out that the Late Bronze Age replacement by metal is not a
sufficient interpretation to explain the data (1995) would tend to suggest to support
continued survival of functional, albeit crude, technologies within fairly late
188
contexts in Britain and seen in other regions.
It seems that the ad hoc production of lithic tools commonly seen within
settlements of the later prehistoric period has caused a type of invisibility in the
archaeological record and, in turn, the ‘apparent absence’ of viable lithic tools of the
later prehistoric period has been attributed to the corresponding rise of metalwork.
In effect, a linear rise and fall pattern is presumed as summarised by Rosen (1996,
12), and a perception which is rarely examined as highlighted by Högberg (2009).
Knarrström draws attention to the tendency to assign the later prehistoric lithics to
the Stone Age period (2001) and a similar observation has been made by Högberg
(2004) regarding the Swedish industries. The nature of the evidence has no doubt
caused much of our Late Bronze Age assemblages to have gone unrecorded or at
best inadequately understood.
Therefore, it may be that the crudity of such later prehistoric material that has
caused a considerable neglect of the study or lack of understanding of the true role
of domestic lithic technology within Bronze Age societies. As most regions where a
study of this kind has been carried out shows the survival of functional tools (albeit
ad hoc and simple in most cases) throughout the Bronze Age period and beyond in
cases where post Bronze Age lithic industries have been assessed and that these
domestic industries show expediency emerging during the earliest phases if not
prior to this period, then we may need to revise our understanding of the true role
that metal played within the domestic sphere of the Bronze Age.
No matter how one looks at it, it seems that irrespective of the issues
surrounding metalworking and its survival within domestic settlements, even when
appropriate metal tools were circulating, the fact that the unchanging and continued
presence of fully utilitarian stone material within Bronze Age settlements from the
earliest phases until the latest, strongly supports the notion that traditional lithic
technologies continued to remain important for the day-to-day mundane activities
and needs of these communities, it is simply that they became less recognisable. This
is the conclusion reached within this present study of the Irish Bronze Age
industries and this also reflects the conclusion reached by Humphrey regarding the
Iron Age domestic industries in Britain:
Flint and stone tool production and use may thus gradually have become located solely in the
domestic sphere. The range of different, easily recognisable, tools gradually decreased until
they became entirely functional and utilitarian (2004, 244-245).
189
The overarching view that may need to be taken regarding the survival of
functioning industries throughout in the Bronze Age period at a domestic level as
seen within Ireland and supported by research in other regions where a study has
been carried out dealing with later prehistoric technologies, is that when taken on
aggregate, irrespective of the particular technology employed, these industries,
where it has been addressed and could be established, survived and continued to
function. It seems as though they have just become less recognisable as formal lithic
types have been replaced not by metal, but by more expedient lithic forms.
This evidence, taken on aggregate, would go against Butler’s replacement
hypothesis, where he has suggested that these domestic tools may have been
replaced towards the latter part of the Bronze Age by the newly available range of
metal tools (2005). Although Butler recognises the continuation of more expedient
tools within Middle and Late Bronze Age domestic assemblages, he does not see
these as fully functioning showing highly restricted range of formal tools (2005), yet
if formal tools have been replaced by informal types: then, it is not surprising some
have interpreted expedient assemblages as not fully functioning.
Therefore, these issues, combined with the marginal evidence for metalworking
at these sites and considerations of the complexities of metal compared to
stoneworking which would have hindered the uptake of such material within the
domestic sphere, appear to strongly militate against Butler’s (2005) proposition of a
replacement by metal tools towards the latter part of the Bronze Age. It could be
argued that metal did ultimately replace the lithics industry, but in metaphorical,
rather than literal, terms as proposed by Edmonds (1995).
The difficult nature of the Irish material seems to have fairly close
correspondences with the evidence emerging from other lithic studies from Britain
dealing with lithic technology within the metal era and indeed from further afield,
but most importantly from the perspective of this present publication the evidence
strongly suggests a survival of functional domestic industries in Ireland beyond the
Middle Bronze Age period.
The findings from the original Irish assessment of the Bronze Age lithic
industries broadly conform to patterns of lithic technology as established within
studies from the Ancient Near East to Central-Eastern Europe and from
Scandinavian to Britain. Long surviving, simple and ad hoc, household technologies
have been noted by Högberg from France, other parts of Scandinavia, Germany etc,
190
reflecting the almost universal pattern of lithic-use as summarised by Healy (2004,
184). McClaren (2011) has updated this expanding corpus of later prehistoric
chipped stone technology of the metal era found associated with households in
regions as diverse as Southern Greece, Iran, the Netherlands and Palestine. The
standardised and long surviving household industries from Greece (Lerna) should
be added to this expanding corpus of Late Bronze Age industries, along with
similarly crafted industries highlighted within McClaren’s recent (2011) study.
Other scholars from regions spanning Scandinavia to the Levant and from
Greece to Central-Eastern Europe present significant and important, but isolated
lithic studies where possible that strongly support the notion of continued
functionality of domestic lithic technologies at the height of the circulation of
sophisticated metalworking traditions. It is proposed that as the Irish study,
supported by the newly emerging information from a wide range of regions, that the
post-Middle Bronze Age industries were not subsumed by a new range of metal tool
forms simply because they were in circulation for the first time, but instead these
industries continued regardless, making perfectly functional tools as they had
always done within the domestic sphere.
Therefore, the results, supported by the literature and from other studies from a
wide range of regions would tend to militate against Cooney’s proposition (1999)
and Butler’s suggestion that most stone tools by the latter stages of the Bronze Age
were replaced by suitable new metal forms (2005).
Further support for the survival of the domestic lithic industries throughout the
entire Bronze Age period can be seen when reviewing the causes of the persistence
of lithic technologies throughout the Bronze Age in the first place, even when metal
suitable tools were beginning to circulate, there is no good evidence that metal tools
beyond the axe were employed in any systematic manner within domestic sites
throughout the Bronze Age. The complexity of metal over stoneworking should be
considered as a strong motivating factor as an inhibitor of the uptake of metal within
the domestic sphere and the fact that the role of metal in relation to the stone
industry can be explained in terms of the indirect (metaphorical) displacement of
stone by metal and that formal lithics may have been replaced directly not by metal:
but by more expedient lithic forms.
In terms of a metaphorical replacement of one material over another rather than
191
a literal replacement as indicated within Edmond’s (1995) study of the British
prehistoric lithic technologies. Edmonds (1995) refers to the expedient domestic
industries of the Bronze Age in terms of an erosion of stone, which in turn has
caused the lithic industries of the Bronze Age period and general later prehistoric
era to go unrecognised. Edmonds suggests that changing attitudes, shifts in the
social dimensions of stone and to that of metal which caused a transference of
meaning and metaphors to metal away from stone (1995) and similarly Knarrström
(2001) proposes, regarding the Scandinavian lithic domestic assemblages, that the
decline, indicates that it was a shift in the ‘mental attitude’ – a change in the
‘aesthetics’ that caused the lithics of the later periods to become degenerate (2001,
143).
Perhaps a more appropriate description for these Bronze Age industries from
Ireland to Poland, from the Levant to Scandinavia is the ‘collapse of a sophisticated’
industry, a phrase employed by Mallory (1988, 18-19) regarding the crude nature of
a Late Bronze Age assemblage recovered some years ago in the north of Ireland.
This is a more subtle description of such industries as it accommodates the clear
continued functionality and survival of fairly crude industries, as seen in most cases,
even at the height of a sophisticated and flourishing metal industry. Metal may not
have been the direct catalyst for the decline of lithic techniques and production
during the earlier metal era as the Irish domestic lithic assemblages as identified in
this present study which is applicable from the earliest stages of the metal era as the
latest, show that expediency may have evolved to some extent within pre-
metallurgical assemblages.
Apart from the expansion of the new medium of metal in the form of the metal
axe which, may have replaced the function of the stone axe to some extent, the
decline in the Bronze Age domestic industries is not a quantitative one but a
qualitative decline, and as expediency cannot be directly attributed to the
introduction of metal, as it was already in decline prior to the introduction of metal,
and may therefore relate to wider shifts within Neolithic society as proposed by
Butler (2005) and Knarrström (2001) regarding the British and Scandinavian
industries respectively and may be indicative of changes in subsistence/settlement
patterns as indicated by Moloney (2004) and Butler (2005) regarding the Ancient
Near Eastern and British industries.
The nature of the ad hoc tools seen within most regions from the earliest phases
of metallurgy; if not prior to this time, strongly suggest that the replacement of the
192
traditional formal lithic industries (domestic) of the earlier era was not actually by
metal but by more expedient lithic forms. Bronze Age domestic lithic material can be
understood much more clearly if the ad hoc tools and expedient lithic technology is
seen in terms of displacing more standardised/formal tools forms of lithic tools and
technology in most cases, rather than lithic tools per se being directly replaced by
metal.
Despite their continued and widespread use, stone artefacts were no longer caught up in the
maintenance or negotiation of social categories and interests, that role was increasingly taken
on by artefacts of metal… It is this shift of emphasis, rather than any marked change in the
nature of subsistence which may account for the treatment of stone (Edmonds 1995, 187-8).
Edmonds (1995) and Herne (1991) look to social changes in attitude that would
account for the deterioration of the lithic industries towards the latter stages of the
Bronze Age within Britain. And it looks like the formal tool-classes may have
actually been replaced not by metal, but by increasingly ad hoc (less formal) and
consequently, less recognisable chipped stone tool forms. Therefore, the results from
the Irish study combined with those available from other regions do not suggest, a
literal replacement of one material by another, but a qualitative decline, a
deterioration or as Edmonds refers to it: an erosion of stone (1995) rather than a
quantitative decline.
Therefore, if the formal lithic industries were displaced/replaced by informal (ad
hoc) and even recycled tool forms and some formal stone tools/weapons were
eventually displaced due to changes in society rather than directly by metal, then the
role that metal played in this deterioration of the traditional lithic industries may
have been less direct than previously believed. The domestic industries seem to
continue regardless of the range of metal tools, based upon the evidence of the
lithics remaining essentially intact and conservative throughout the entire Irish
Bronze Age within domestic context. This may have occurred due to accessibility
and complexity issues involved with one material compared to another. The
domestic sphere and the craft-production workshops and skill-based technologies
relating to metal and other more exotic items seem to have very little connection in
production terms during the Bronze Age period.
These points have also raised new questions as to the true relationship between
metal and lithic technology within the Bronze Age period. It also brings into
question the actual role that metal played within the domestic sphere of the Bronze
193
Age. We may now need to re-evaluate our understanding of the Bronze Age period
in socio-economic terms and perhaps not focus solely on metalwork as the main
material indicator of the Bronze Age. All in all, it would appear that the simple
linear rise-and-fall model as referred to by McClaren (2011), or what I call the LRM
(Linear-replacement-model) that we tend to apply to the fate of one technology over
another – is wholly inadequate to describe the reality of stoneworking in the Bronze
Age. The aim of the Irish study was to actually test the linear rise and fall pattern,
rather than assume it. I hope this has been achieved.
Figure 81 indicates how some aspects of stoneworking during the Neolithic
period fulfilled roles beyond the everyday secular production of stone, although this
concern with aesthetics must have influenced even the most mundane production of
tools at a domestic level and certainly the skills for manufacturing fine lithic pieces
would have been more widely known and accessible during this time.
194
Main roles of stone during the Neolithic period
Figure 81: Schematic showing diverse role of stone during the Neolithic
Main roles of metal during the Bronze Age period
Figure 82: Schematic showing diverse role of stone during the Neolithic
Exchange
Utilitarian
(most everyday domestic tools are of stone)
Metal
Industry of
the Bronze
Age
Social
negotiations
Symbolic Prestige/power
Exchange
Utilitarian
metaphors
Domestically
produced
Neolithic
Stone
Social
negotiations
Symbolic Prestige/power
195
Main role of domestic use of stone during the Bronze Age
Figure 83: Schematic showing Bronze Age domestic role of stone.
Figure 82 presents how the role of metal functioned during the new metal era
and the rather limited but nevertheless important domestic role that stone played
during this time is seen in Figure 83, has become very limited and basically
utilitarian and demonstrates in very simple terms, how the domestic lithic industries
of the Bronze Age were no longer caught up in the social dimensions of stone as
described by Edmonds (1995, 187-188).
Figure 84 shows the proposed mechanism whereby traditional domestic lithic
industries may have been replaced metaphorically by metal. This creates a
polarisation between the utilitarian stone produced domestically and the crafted
lithics which have diverged in most regions throughout the Bronze Age period and
beyond, a pattern of lithic use during the Bronze Age highlighted by Healy and
referred to as the ‘widening gap’ (2004, 184), while Högberg refers to this divergence
of the stone technologies of the craft and domestic spheres as described as two
distinct technologies and traditions (2004; 2009).
Utilitarian
(
metaphors
Domestically
produced
Bronze Age
stone
196
Polarisation of the metal and domestic lithic industries of the Irish
Bronze Age and seemingly applicable to a number of other regions
Figure 84: Proposed schematic of the entirely distinct spheres of metalworking and chipped stone technology throughout the Irish Bronze Age based upon the relative complexity/accessibility of one material over another
The above assessment simply proposes that the domestic industries of the
Bronze Age were not replaced directly by metal but in more metaphorical terms.
The industries are expedient in most cases, but are almost as expedient at a time
when metal was not circulating to replace these lithic industries. It also proposes
that formal lithic technology became increasingly less formal. The domestic
Metal
industry
Domestic
stone
industry
Main Bronze Age
technologies
Restricted Complex
Expensive Specialised
Accessible Simple Cheap
non-specialised
Aesthetics not inherent in production
Aesthetics inherent in production
Rise of an
inherently
specialised metal
industry
Collapse of a
sophisticated
domestic lithic
industry but not
its functionality
Metaphorical
replacement of
Stone by Metal
197
industries did not decline or disappear in real terms they simply became less clear
within the archaeological record. The role of metal; although increasingly important
in the Bronze Age, was important in many aspects of Bronze Age life, but not
necessarily within the everyday domestic sphere.
Based upon all of the evidence presented here, it would seem that there is some
exclusion associated with metal tool production and use within the domestic realm
and, at the same time, an abundance of evidence for stone tool production and use
within the household economy throughout the Bronze Age period. This reason for
this situation may be due to the complexity involved in producing metal tools
compared to the ease of accessing and working stone material at a domestic level. In
other words, the more complex, highly restricted and relatively expensive material
of metal was reserved for the craft industry as it was worth the investment,
producing multi-functional items, where items were not just utilitarian, but
functioned at several different levels such as being conveyors of status and symbols
of power and wealth.
As for the poor cousin of the metal industry during the Bronze Age – the stone
technologies – the staple household economy, the phrase “if it is not broken, don’t
fix it” comes to mind, as an axiom applicable to what might be described as a make
do and mend economy. An analogy can be seen in the difference between people who
can access high fashion clothes, and the versions of these clothes worn by people
who do not have access to such fineries. The former can purchase/commission
clothes from specialised centres of production.
These centres know that it is worth investing in exotic fabrics of high quality and
they can design their product to be desirable. It is seen that these pieces often make a
statement about the wearer, conveying status and wealth, while the latter typically
produces the clothing as required from easily available and easily processed fabric
and for the sole purpose of covering the body. In either case, the clothes perform the
same basic functions: they cover areas of the body.
One of the main aims of this study was to attempt to place the Irish Bronze Age
lithic industries within a wider regional context in order to stimulate further
research, debate and perhaps the reassessment of many existing Bronze Age lithic
collections. It is hoped that this has been achieved and that this study will assist in
the recognition, recording, classification, analysis and interpretation of the many
other Bronze Age domestic lithic assemblages as yet unearthed, and, most
198
importantly, begin to address the shortfall in our understanding of the day-to-day
life of every day Bronze Age people when they were not out welding weapons and
performing special ceremonies.
While trade and craft production played an important part in the overall structure of
economic life in Bronze Age Europe, for most people most of the time what mattered was
the procurement of food and the production of commodities in the home. Smiths, traders,
even warriors and heroes had to eat and be protected from the elements; and if they did
not produce and process their foodstuffs themselves, others in their homes and villages
must have done (Harding 2000, 124).
199
Bibliography Ahler, S. A. 1989. Experimental Knapping with KRF and Mid-continental Cherts: Overview and Applications, in D. S. Amick and R. P. Mauldin (eds.), Experiments in Lithic Technology, 199-234. BAR International Series, 528. Oxford. Anderson, E. 1995. The Lithic Assemblage, in R. Cleary (ed.), Later Bronze Age Settlement and Prehistoric Burials, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 95C. Appendix V. Anderson, E. 2000. Leedaun/Claremorris Lithics, Area I and II: Lithics Analysis for G. Walsh, Mayo County Council. Anderson, E. 2003. The Lithic Assemblage, in R. M. Cleary (ed.), Enclosed Late Bronze Age Habitation Site and Boundary Wall at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 103C. Appendix IV Anon., 1928. Find description of the arrowhead from Whitepark Bay Co. Antrim, Man 28. ApSimon, A. M. 1969. The Earlier Bronze Age in the North of Ireland, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 32, 28-72. ApSimon, A. M. 1976. Ballynagilly and the Beginning and End of the Irish Neolithic, in S. J. de. Laet (ed.), Acculturation and Continuity in Atlantic Europe mainly during the Neolithic period and the Bronze Age, Proceedings of the IVth Atlantic Colloquium, Dissertationes Archaeologicae Gandensis, 15-30. Ballin, T. B. 2002 Later Bronze Age flint technology: a presentation and discussion of post-barrow debitage from monuments in the Raunds area, Northamptonshire, Lithics 23, 3–28. Bradley, J. 1991. Excavations at Moynagh Lough, County Meath, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 121, 5-26. Bradley, J. 1996. Living at the Water’s Edge, Archaeology Ireland 10, [1], 24-26. Bradley, J. 1997, Archaeological excavations at Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath (1995-1996), Ríocht na Midhe 9 , [3], 50-61. Brindley, A. 1995. Radiocarbon, Chronology and the Bronze Age, in J. Waddell and E. Shee Twohig (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age: Proceedings of the Dublin Conference, April 1995, 4-13. Dublin. Brindley, A 2007. The Dating of Food Vessels & Urns in Ireland: Bronze Age Studies 7, Department of Archaeology National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. Brindley, A. L., Lanting, J. N. and Mook, W. G. 1989/1990. Radiocarbon Dates from Irish Fulachta Fiadh and other Burnt Mounds, The Journal of Irish Archaeology 5, 25-33. Butler, C. 2005. Prehistoric Flintwork. Tempus Butler, C. 2006. Abstract for: Bronze Age Connections: Cultural Contact in Prehistoric Europe, [online], Conference 21-22 October 2006 Dover, Kent, UK. Available from http://www.canterburytrust.co.uk/conference.htm# [Accessed 20th March 2006].
200
Case, H. 1995. Irish Beakers in their European Context, in J. Waddell and E, Shee Twohig (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age: Proceedings of the Dublin Conference, April 1995, 14-29. Dublin. Caulfield, S. 1978. Neolithic Fields: The Irish Evidence, in H. C. Bowen and P. J. Fowler (eds.), Early Land Allotment in the British Isles, 137-143, BAR 48. Chapple, R. 2000. Balgatheran I, Co. Louth, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2000, Wordwell Ltd, Bray, 210-212. Cherry, S. 1990. The Finds from Fulachta Fiadh, in V. Buckley (ed.), Burnt Offerings: International Contributions to Burnt Mound Archaeology, 49-54. Dublin. Clark, J.G.D and Fell, C.I. 1953. The Early Iron Age site at Micklemore Hill, West Harling, Norfolk and its pottery. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1-40. Clark, J.G.D., Higgs, E.S., & Longworth, I. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic site of Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk, 1954, 1957 and 1958, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 26, 202-45 Cleary, R. 1993. The Later Bronze Age at Lough Gur: Filling in the Blanks, in E. S. Twohig and M. Ronayne (eds.), Past Perceptions. The Prehistoric Archaeology of South-West Ireland, 114-120. Cork University Press, Cork. Cleary, R. M. 1995. Irish Later Bronze Age Pottery: A Preliminary Assessment, in A. Lindahl and O, Stilborg (eds.), The Aim of Laboratory Analysis of Ceramics in Archaeology, 77-90. Stockholm. Cleary, R.M. 1995a. Later Bronze Age Settlement and Prehistoric Burials, Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 95C, 1-92. Cleary, R.M. 2003. Enclosed Late Bronze Age Habitation Site and Boundary Wall at Lough Gur, Co. Limerick, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 103C, 97-189. Collins, A. E .P. and Seaby, W .A. 1960. A Crannog at Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 23, 25-37. Cooney, G. 1999. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. Routledge, London. Cooney, G. and Mandal, S. 1998. The Irish Stone Axe Project. Monograph 1. Wordwell, Wicklow, Ireland Cotterell, B. & Kamminga, J. 1987. The Formation of Flakes. American Antiquity 52, [4], 675-708. Crabtree, D. E. 1982. An Introduction to Flint working. Occasional Papers of the Idaho Museum of Natural History 28. Second Edition, Pocahello, Idaho. Cross, S. 1999. Analysis of the Lithic Collection, in H. King (ed.), Excavation on Fourknocks Ridge, Co. Meath, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 99C, Appendix II, 183-187. Davies, O. 1941. Trial Excavation at Lough Enagh, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 4, 88-101. Dillon, F. 1997. Lithic Assemblages from Knowth 2, in G. Eogan and H. Roche Excavations at Knowth 2: Settlement and Ritual Sites of the Fourth and Third Millennia BC. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.
201
Doody, M. G. 1993. Bronze Age Settlement, in E. S. Twohig and M. Ronayne (eds.), Past Perceptions. The Prehistoric Archaeology of South-West Ireland, Cork University Press, Cork, 93-100. Doody, M. 1993a. Chancellorsland, Co. Tipperary, in I Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1992. Wordwell ltd, Bray, 56-57. Doody, M. 1994. Chancellorsland, Co. Tipperary, in I Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1993. Wordwell ltd, Bray, 73-74. Doody, M. 1995. Chancellorsland, Co. Tipperary, in I Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1994. Wordwell ltd, Bray, 80-81. Doody, M. 1995a. Ballyhoura Hills Project. Chancellorsland, Co. Tipperary: Interim report, Discovery Programme Reports: 2, Project results 1993, Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, 13-18. Doody, M. 1996. Chancellorsland, Co. Tipperary, in I Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1995. Wordwell ltd, Bray, 79. Doody, M. G. 1996a. Ballyhoura Hills Project. Chancellorsland, Co. Tipperary: Interim report, Discovery Programme Reports: 4, Project results and Reports 1994, Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, 15-22.
Doody, G. 2003. Chancellorsland, Co. Tipperary, [online] compiled by M.G. O’Donnell in, Significant Unpublished Irish Archaeological Excavations 1930-1997. Unpublished excavations. Available from http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/unpulbished_excavations/section6.html [Accessed 20th November 2010].
Duffy, C. 1999. Harristown, Co. Louth, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1999, Wordwell Ltd, Bray, 218-219. Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone tools and society: Working Stone in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain, Routledge, London. Eogan, G. 1984. Excavations at Knowth I. Dublin. Eogan, G. and Roche, H. 1997. Excavations at Knowth 2. Settlement and Ritual Sites of the Fourth and Third Millennia BC. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. Eogan, G. and Roche, H. 1999. Grooved Ware from Brugh na Bóinne and its wider context, in R. Cleal and A. MacSween (eds.), Grooved Ware in Britain and Ireland. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 3, 98-111. Finlay, N. 1998. Claremorris By-Pass, Co. Mayo (98E0551): Lithics Report: Unpublished report for Mayo County Council (1998). Finlay, N. 1998a. Stepaside, Co. Dublin (97E467): Lithics Report: First Draft. Unpublished report for V.J. Keeley Ltd., (1998). Finlay, N. 1999. Coolroe, Co. Mayo (98E356): Lithics Report: Unpublished report for Mayo County Council (1999). Finlay, N. 2000. Balgatheran I, Co. Louth (00E477): Chipped Stone Lithic Assemblage Report: Unpublished report for V.J. Keeley Ltd., (2000).
202
Finlay, N. 2000a. Braganstown, Co. Louth (97E475): Lithic Assemblage Report: Unpublished report for V.J. Keeley Ltd., (2000). Finlay, N. 2000b. Claremorris By-Pass, Co. Mayo (98E0389): Lithics Report: Unpublished report for Mayo County Council (2000). Finlay, N. 2000c. Coolroe, Co. Mayo (99E35): Lithics Report: Unpublished report for Mayo County Council (2000). Finlay, N. 2000d. Harristown, Co. Louth (99E498): Lithic Assemblage Report: Unpublished report for V.J. Keeley Ltd., (28.7.2000). Finlay, N. 2001. Cloghers I, Co. Kerry (00E0065): Lithic Assemblage Report: Unpublished report for Eachtra Archaeological Projects, (2001). Finlay, N. 2001a. Cloghers II, Co. Kerry (00E0065): Lithic Assemblage Report: Unpublished report for Eachtra Archaeological Projects, (2001). Finlay, N. and Woodman, P. C. 2001, Lithic Assemblage from Chancellorsland, Site A, Co. Tipperary, Unpublished report for M. G. Doody (2001), Appendix III. Ford, S., Bradley, R., Hawkes, J. and Fisher, P. 1984. Flint-working in the Metal Age, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3 [2], 157-173. Gillespie, R. 1999. Leedaun/Claremorris , Co. Mayo, in, I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1999, Wordwell Ltd, Bray, 228. Glover, W. 1979. A Prehistoric Bow Fragment from Drumwhinny Bog, Kesh, Co. Fermanagh, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45, 323-327. 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 Vols. 1&2 (BAR British Series 75), Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Grogan, E. 2012.Material Culture & Environmental Analysis: Stone Artefacts, in, V. Ginn and S. Rathbone (eds.), Corrstown, A Coast Community, Excavations of a Bronze Age Village in Northern Ireland, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 186-194. Grogan, E. and Eogan, G. 1987. Lough Gur Excavations by Seán P. Ó Ríordáin: Further Neolithic and Beaker Habitations on Knockadoon, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 87C, 299-506. Grogan E. O’Sullivan, A, O’Carroll, F and Hagan, I. 1999. Knocknalappa, Co. Clare: a reappraisal. Discovery Programme Reports, 5, 111-123. Harding, A.F. 2000 European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge. Hartenberger and Runnels 2001. The organization of flaked stone production at Bronze Age Lerna, Hesperia 70, 255-283.
203
Healy, F. 2000. Metal using societies of later prehistory, Past: The Newsletter of the prehistoric society, [online], no. 36 (December 2000). Lithics studies in the year 2000 Lithic Studies Society Conference 8-10 Sept 2000, Cardiff. Available from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/past/past36.html#Lithics [Accessed 24th Nov. ‘06]. Healy, F. 2004. After hunter-gatherers – lithics in a crowd scene, in E.A. Walker, F. W-S Healy and F. Healy (eds.), Lithics in Action: Papers from the conference, lithic studies in the year 2000. Lithic studies society occasional paper No. 8,.Oxbow Books, Oxford, 183-184. Herne, A. 1991. The flint assemblage, in, I. Longworth (ed.), Excavations at Grimes Graves, Norfolk, Fasiscule III, British Museum, London, 21-93. Hencken, H. O’N. 1942. Ballinderry Crannog No. 2, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 47C, 1-76. Hillam, J. 1976. The Dating of Cullyhanna Hunting Lodge, Irish Archaeological Forum 3, [1], 17-20. Hodges, H. W. M. 1958. A Hunting Camp at Cullyhanna Lough, near Newtown Hamilton, County Armagh, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 21, 7-13. Högberg, A. 2004. The use of flint during the south Scandinavian Late Bronze Age: two technologies, two traditions, in E.A. Walker, F. W-S Healy and F. Healy (eds.), Lithics in Action: Papers from the conference, lithic studies in the year 2000. Lithic studies society occasional paper No. 8. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 229-242.. Högberg, A. 2009. Lithics in the Scandinavian Late Bronze Age: Sociotechnical change and persistence. BAR (International Series) 1932. Humphreys, J and Young, R. 2003. Flint Use in Later Bronze Age and Iron Age England? Some Criteria for Future Research, in N, Maloney and M.J, Shott (eds.), Lithic Analysis at the Millennium, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 79-89. Humphrey, J. 2004. The use of flint in the British Iron Age: results from some recent research, in, E. A. Walker, F. W-S Healy and F. Healy (eds.), Lithics in Action: Papers from the conference, lithic studies in the year 2000. Lithic studies society occasional paper No. 8. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 243-251 Hurl, D. 1995. Killymoon – New Light on the Bronze Age Archaeology Ireland 9 [4], 24-27. Hurl, D. 1999. More Light on Killymoon, Archaeology Ireland 13 [4], 5. Hurl, D, Nelis, E and Murray, B. 1995. Data structure Report, Killymoon, Co. Tryone [online], available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/CentreforArchaeologicalFieldworkCAF/PDFFileStore/Filetoupload,180996,en.pdf [Accessed 18th December 2011]. Jones, C. 1996. Recent Discoveries on Roughan Hill, County Clare, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 26, 86-107. Jones, C. 1998. The Discovery and Dating of the Prehistoric Landscape of Roughan Hill in Co. Clare. The Journal of Irish Archaeology 9, 27-43.
204
Jones, C. 2003. Neolithic beginnings on Roughan Hill and the Burren, in I. Armit, E. Murphy, E. Nelis and D. Simpson (eds.) Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain, 188-194. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Jones, C. (forthcoming). Jones, C. and Gilmer, A. 1999. Roughan Hill, A Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Landscape Revealed, Archaeology Ireland 13 [1], 30-32. Kelly, E. P. 1978. A reassessment of the dating evidence for Knockadoon Class II pottery, Irish Archaeological Research Forum [5], 23-27. Kiely, J. 2000. Clogher 1 and 2, Tralee, Co. Kerry, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2000, Bray. 142. Kiely, J. 2002. Clogher 1 and 2, Tralee, Co. Kerry (00E0065 and 00E65), Unpublished excavation report for Dúchas (2002). Knarrström, B. 2001. Flint: A Scanian Hardware. National Heritage Board of Sweden, Lund. Knight, J. 1991. Technological Analysis of the Anvil (Bipolar) Technique, Lithic Studies: Looking Backwards – Looking Forwards, Lithic Studies Society Anniversary Conference 2 – 4 April 1993, 57-87. St. Hilda’s College, Oxford. Kobayashi, H. 1975. The Experimental Study of Bipolar Flakes. Lithic Technology Making and Using Stone Tools, in E. Swanson (ed.), World Anthropology, 97-102. Mouton Publishers. The Hague, Paris. Kuijt, I. Prentiss, W. C. and Pokotylo, D. L. 1995. Bipolar Reduction: An Experimental Study of Debitage Variability. Lithic Technology 20 (2), 116-127. Lehane, D. 1980. An Analysis of the Flint -Work from the Late Neolithic/Beaker Period at Newgrange, Co. Meath, Unpublished MA thesis. University College Dublin. Lehane, D. 1983. The Lithic Assemblage, in M. J. O’ Kelly et. al. Newgrange, Co. Meath, Ireland: The Late Neolithic/Beaker Period Settlement. Oxford: BAR. 1983 (International Series) 190, 118-167. Liversage, G. D. 1968. Excavations at Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin, 1956-1959, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 66C, 53-233. Kiely, J. 2000. Clogher 1 and 2, Tralee, Co. Kerry (00E0065 and 00E65), in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2000, 142. Bray. Kiely, J. 2002. Clogher 1 and 2, Tralee, Co. Kerry (00E0065 and 00E65), Unpublished excavation report for Dúchas. Kilbride-Jones, H. E. 1950. The excavation of a Composite Early Iron Age Monument with ‘Henge’ features at Lugg, Co. Dublin, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 53C, 311-332. Kobayashi, H. 1975. The Experimental Study of Bipolar Flakes. Lithic Technology Making and Using Stone Tools, in E. Swanson (ed.), World Anthropology, 97-102.
205
Knarrström, B. 2001. Flint: A Scanian Hardware. National Heritage Board, Archaeological Excavations Department. Sweden. Knight, J. 1991. Technological Analysis of the Anvil (Bipolar) Technique, Lithic Studies: Looking Backwards – Looking Forwards, Lithic Studies Society Anniversary Conference 2 – 4 April 1993, 57-87. St. Hilda’s College, Oxford. Kuijt, I. Prentiss, W. C. and Pokotylo, D. L. 1995. Bipolar Reduction: An Experimental Study of Debitage Variability. Lithic Technology 20 (2), 116-127. Lehane, D. 1980. An Analysis of the Flint -Work from the Late Neolithic/Beaker Period at Newgrange, Co. Meath, Unpublished MA thesis. University College Dublin. Lehane, D. 1983. The Lithic Assemblage, in M. J. O’ Kelly et. al. Newgrange, Co. Meath, Ireland: The Late Neolithic/Beaker Period Settlement. Oxford: BAR. 1983 (International Series) 190, 118-167. Liversage, G. D. 1968. Excavations at Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin, 1956-1959, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 66C, 53-233. Mac Dermott, M. 1949. Two Barrows at Ballingoola II, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 91, 130-145.
Mallory, J. P. 1988. Trial Excavations at Haughey’s Fort, Emania [ 4], 5-20. Mallory, J. P. 1995. Haughey’s Fort and the Navan Complex in the Late Bronze Age, in J. Waddell and E, Shee Twohig (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age: Proceedings of the Dublin Conference, April 1995, 73-86. Dublin. Mallory, J. P. and Warner, R. B. 1988. The date of Haughey’s Fort. Emania, [5], 36-40. Mallory, J. P. and Mc Neill, T. E. 1991. The Archaeology of Ulster, from Colonization to Plantation. The Institute of Irish Studies. Queen’s University of Belfast. Mc Cartan, S. 1999. Lithic Assemblage from Ross Island, Co. Kerry (92E0081), Unpublished Lithics report for W. O’ Brien, University College Galway (1999). Mc Claren, A. P. 2011. “I’ll have a flake to go, please”: Expedient core technology in the Late Bronze (c. 1100-800 Cal BC) and earliest Iron (c.800-600 Cal BC) ages of Eastern England. Lithic Technology Vol. 36, [1], 55-87. Mc Cormick. F. 1988. Animal Bones from Haughey’s Fort, Emania [4], 24-27. Mc. Cormick, F, Gibbons, M, McCormac, F.G and Moore, J. 1996. Bronze Age to Medieval Coastal Shell Middens near Ballyconneelly, Co. Galway, Journal of Irish Archaeology 7, 77-84. Migal, W. 2004. Social Conditions of Flint-working during the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Poland and Eastern-Europe, in E.A. Walker, F. W-S Healy and F. Healy (eds.), Lithics in Action: Papers from the conference, lithic studies in the year 2000. Lithic studies society occasional paper No. 8, 215-228. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
206
Moloney, N. 2004. The Role of Stone Tools in the Early Bronze Age of Southern Jordan: the assemblages of Wadi Faynan 100, in E.A. Walker, F. W-S Healy and F. Healy (eds.), Lithics in Action: Papers from the conference, lithic studies in the year 2000. Lithic studies society occasional paper No. 8, 252-258. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Moore, D. G. 2002. Ballydown, Co. Antrim. Unpublished lithics report for Archaeological Development Services (NI) (2002). Mount, C. 2001. The Collection of Early and Middle Bronze Age material culture in South-east Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 101C, 1-35. Neill, M. 1996. Haughey’s Fort excavations 1991: Analysis of wood remains. Emanian [14], 29-46. O’ Brien, E. 1988. A Find of Beaker Pottery from Broomfield, Ballyboghil, County Dublin, Journal of the Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 118, 118-123. O’ Brien, W. 1992a. Ross Island, Co. Kerry, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1992, Bray, 37. O’Brien, W. 1993a. Ross Island, Co. Kerry, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1992, Bray, 6. O’ Brien. W. 1994. Mount Gabriel. Bronze Age Mining in Ireland. Galway. O’ Brien, W. 1994a. Ross Island, Co. Kerry, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1992, Bray, 47. O’ Brien, W. 1995. Ross Island and the Origins of Irish-British Metallurgy, in J. Waddell and E, Shee Twohig (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age: Proceedings of the Dublin Conference, April 1995, 38-48. Dublin. O’ Brien, W. 1996. Bronze Age Copper Mining in Britain and Ireland. Princes Risborough. O’ Brien. W. 2003. The Bronze Age Copper Mines of the Goleen Area, Co. Cork, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 103C, 13-59. O’ Brien, W. 2004. Ross Island. Mining, metal and society in Early Ireland. Galway University Press, Galway. O’ Donovan, E. 2000. Rathbane South, Co. Limerick, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 2000, Bray, 200-201. O’ Donovan, E. 2002. Rathbane South, Co. Limerick, fulacht fiadh radiocarbon dates, in IAPA Conference paper Spring 2002. Ó Drísceoil, C. 1999. Braganstown, Co. Louth, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1999, Bray, 186. O’ Hare, M. 2002. Lithics Report for Ballyarnet, Co. Derry. Unpublished lithics report 1st Draft for Archaeological Excavation Unit, Queen’s University of Belfast (2002). O’ Hare, M. 2004 Corrstown (nr. Portrush) lithic assemblage, Co. Derry (AE/02/100) Unpublished partial lithics report for Archaeological Consultancy Services (2004). O’ Hare M. 2005. The Bronze Age Lithics of Ireland. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Dept., of Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University, Belfast.
207
O’ Hare, M. 2009. Lithics Report for Roughan Hill, Settlements 1 and 2, Co. Clare (95E061 and 98E0230). Unpublished lithics report 2nd Draft for Carlton Jones, University of Galway. O’Hare, M. 2012.Material Culture & Environmental Analysis: Lithics, In: V. Ginn and S. Rathbone (eds.), Corrstown, A CoastalCommunity, Excavations of a Bronze Age Village in Northern Ireland,. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 156-166. O’ Kelly, M. J. 1951. An Early Bronze Age Ringfort at Carrigillihy, Co. Cork, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 56, 69-86. O’ Kelly, M. J. 1989. Early Ireland. An Introduction to Irish Prehistory. Cambridge. O’ Kelly, M. J., Cleary, R. M. and Lehane, D. 1983. Newgrange, Co. Meath, Ireland: The Late Neolithic/Beaker Period Settlement. BAR, International Series 190. O’ Kelly, M. J. and Shell, C. A. 1979. Stone Objects and a Bronze Axe from Newgrange, Co. Meath, in Ryan (ed.), The Origins of Metallurgy in Atlantic Europe, Proceedings of the Fifth Atlantic Coloquium, 127-144. Ó Néill, J. 2000. Just another Fulachta Fiadh story, Archaeology Ireland 14 [2], 19.
Ó Ríordáin, S. P. 1951. Lough Gur Excavations: The Great Stone Circle (B) in Grange Townland, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 54C, 37-74. Ó Ríordáin, S. P. 1954. Lough Gur Excavations: Neolithic and Bronze Age Houses on knockadoon, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 56C, 297-456. O’ Sullivan, A. 1996. Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age Woodworking Techniques, in B. Raftery (ed), Irish Archaeological Wetland Unit, Trackway Excavations in the Mountdillon Bogs, Co. Longford, 1985-1991, Transactions 3, 291-358. Dublin. Polock, A. and Waterman, D. 1964. A Bronze Age Habitation site at Downpatrick, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 27, 31-58. Raftery, B. 1969. Freestone Hill, Co. Kilkenny: An Iron Age Hillfort and Bronze Age Cairn, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 68C, 1-108. Raftery, B. 1970. The Rathgall Hillfort, Co. Wicklow. Antiquity 44, 51-54. Raftery, B. 1971. Rathgall, Co. Wicklow: 1970 excavations. Antiquity 45, 296-298. Raftery, B. 1973. Rathgall: a Late Bronze Age burial in Ireland, Antiquity 47, 293-295. Raftery, B. 1974. Rathgall, in T. G Delaney (ed.), Excavations 1973, Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland. Association of young Irish archaeologists, 28-29. Belfast. Raftery, B. 1975-76. Rathgall, in T. G Delaney (ed.), Excavations 1975-76. Summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland. Association of young Irish archaeologists, Belfast., 42.
208
Raftery, B, 1995. The Conundrum of Irish Iron Age Pottery, in B. Raftery, V. Megaw and V. Rigby (eds), Sites and Sights of the Iron Age. Essays on Fieldwork and Museum Research presented to Ian Matheson Stead, 149-156. Oxford.
Raftery, B. 1996. Trackway Excavations in the Mountdillon Bogs, Co. Longford, 1985-1991. Irish Archaeological Wetland Unit Transactions 3. Dublin.
Raftery, B. 2003. Rathgall, Co. Wicklow, [online] compiled by M.G. O’Donnell in, Significant Unpublished Irish Archaeological Excavations 1930-1997. Unpublished excavations. Available from http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/unpulbished_excavations/section6.html [Accessed 20th November 2010].
Raftery, J. 1942. Knocknalappa Crannóg, Co. Clare, North Munster Antiquarian Journal 3, 53-72. Reid, C. 1998. Stepaside, Co. Dublin (97E0467), in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1998, 2. Bray. . Roche, H and Grogan, E. 2012. Material Culture & Environmental Analysis: Pottery, In: V. Ginn and S. Rathbone (eds.), Corrstown, A Coast Community, Excavations of a Bronze Age Village in Northern Ireland, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 167-185. Rosen, S. A. 1996. The Decline and Fall of Flint, In: G. Odell (ed.). Stone Tools: theoretical insights into human prehistory, 129- 158, Plenum Press, New York. Rosen, S. A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant, Altamira Press, USA. Runnels, C. 1982. Flaked-stone artefacts in Greece during the historical period. Journal of Field Archaeology [9], 263-273. Saville, A. 1981. Iron Age flint working – fact or fiction? Lithics 2, 6-9. Scannell, M. 1992. The Effect of Resource Availability on the Neolithic/Bronze Age Lithic Traditions in Cork, Kerry & Limerick, unpublished BA thesis. University College Cork. Scott, B. G. 1977. The introductions of non-ferrous technology to Ireland: notes on the transition from stone to non-ferrous metal use, Irish Archaeological Research Forum 4 (2), 7-18. Scott, B. G. 1978. The introductions of non-ferrous and ferrous metal technologies to Ireland: Motives and Mechanisms, in M. Ryan (ed.), The origins of metallurgy in Atlantic Europe: Proceedings of the fifth Atlantic Colloquium, Dublin 30th March to 4th April 1978, 189-204. Shott, M. J. 1989. Bipolar Industries: Ethnographic Evidence and Archaeological Implications, North American Archaeologist 10 (1), 1-24. Shott, M.J. and Sillitoe, P. 2005. Use life and curation in New Guinea experimental used flakes, Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 653-663. Sheridan, A. 1986. Porcellanite Artifacts – A New Survey, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 49, 19-32.
209
Sweetman, D. P. 1985. A Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Pit Circle at Newgrange, Co. Meath, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 85C, 195-221. Sweetman, D. P. 1987. Excavation of a Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Site at Newgrange, Co. Meath, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 87C, 283-298. Torrence, R, 1979. A Technological Approach to Cycladic Blade Industries, In J.L. Davis & J.F. Cherry (eds.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Monograph XIV, 66-86, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Waddell, J. 1998. The Prehistoric Archaeology of Ireland, Galway University Press, Galway. Ireland. Walsh, G. 1999. Leedaun (Site 45), Area 1 and 2, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1999, Appendix 2, Bray, 311-312.. Waterman, D. M. 1975. A Bronze Age Habitation Site at Sheepland, Co. Down, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 38, 85-87. Williams, B. B. 1978. Excavations at Lough Eskragh, Co. Tyrone, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 41, 37-48. Woodman, P. C. 1977. Problems of Identification of Mesolithic Survivals in Ireland, Irish Archaeological Research Forum 4 [2], 17-28. Woodman, P. C. 1984. The Early Prehistory of Munster, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society 89, 1-11. Woodman, P. C. 1985. Excavation at Glendhu, Co. Down, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 48, 31-40. Woodman, P. C. 1987 The impact of resource availability on lithic industrial traditions in prehistoric Ireland, in P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil and H. P. Blankholm (eds.), The Mesolithic of north-east Europe: recent trends. 138-146. University of Sheffield. Woodman, P. C. 1992. Filling in the Spaces in Irish Prehistory, Antiquity 66, 295-314. Woodman, P. C. and Scannell, M. 1993. A Context for the Lough Gur Lithics, in E. Shee Twohig and M. Ronayne (eds.), Past Perceptions: The Prehistoric Archaeology of South-west Ireland 16-24. Cork University Press, Cork. Walsh, G. 1999. Leedaun (Site 45), Area 1 and 2, in I. Bennett (ed.), Excavations 1999, Appendix 2, 311-312. Young, R. and Humphrey, J. 1999. Flint Use in England after the Bronze Age: Time for a re-evaluation? Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 65, 231-242.
