Dissertation Research Design - University of York design: student xxx 3 1 Research question This...

12
Research Design IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR BARBED POINT MANUFACTURING AT STAR CARR? Student examination number: xxx

Transcript of Dissertation Research Design - University of York design: student xxx 3 1 Research question This...

Research Design

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR BARBED POINT MANUFACTURING AT

STAR CARR?

Student examination number: xxx

Research design: student xxx 2

Contents

1 Research question .................................................................................................. 3

2 Objectives .............................................................................................................. 3

3 Rationale ................................................................................................................ 3

4 Methods.................................................................................................................. 4

4.1 Methods in relation to objectives ................................................................... 4

4.2 Practical constraints ....................................................................................... 5

5 Structure of the dissertation ................................................................................... 5

6 Timetable ............................................................................................................... 6

7 Literature review .................................................................................................... 7

7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 7

7.2 A background to antlerworking at Star Carr .................................................. 7

7.3 Summary ........................................................................................................ 9

8 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 10

8.1 Already read ................................................................................................. 10

8.2 To be read .................................................................................................... 12

Research design: student xxx 3

1 Research question

This dissertation will focus on the 192 barbed antler points discovered at the North

Yorkshire site of Star Carr, and attempt to answer a specific question: Is there

evidence for barbed point manufacture at Star Carr?

2 Objectives

1. To review the existing literature on antler materials found at Star Carr, and the

role that antler working has played at the site in general terms

2. To develop a method of production for producing experimental barbed points

in order to identify diagnostic debitage

3. To determine whether there is any evidence for debitage at Star Carr

4. To synthesise the findings and to place them within the context of

interpretations of the site

3 Rationale

Star Carr is an early Mesolithic site in East Yorkshire. Located five miles south of

modern day Scarborough, the site was situated on the shore of Lake Flixton in the

Mesolithic period, an ancient glacial lake. Originally excavated by Grahame Clark

(1954) between 1949 and 1951, the site yielded an unprecedented assemblage of bone

and antler artefacts. Due to the excellent preservation of these rare and ancient

objects, and the approach taken by Clark, Star Carr has held a special place in the

study of the British Mesolithic and has become world renowned in archaeology

(Conneller 2003, 81; Lane and Schadla-Hall 2004).

However, there has been a considerable focus on ecology and economy which has

meant that other approaches to the Star Carr data have been neglected. The barbed

points have been mentioned in recent years alongside the red deer antler frontlets in

the context of ritual deposition (e.g. Bevan 2003, 36-40; Conneller 2004, 45-48), yet

they are seldom studied in their own right. For instance, little is known about their

manufacture: the only significant contribution to this topic is Jacobi‟s (1978, 318-321)

note that there is a lack of working debitage and lack of removed splinters suggesting

manufacture elsewhere, but this has not been explored further.

In sum, this is a site of international importance, with an incredibly rare assemblage of

organic artefacts. The barbed points account for about 97% of barbed points ever

found in this country (Milner 2007), and yet very little is known about them. This

dissertation aims to address this gap by investigating manufacturing processes and

specifically to determine whether or not these artefacts were actually made at the site.

This will result in a better understanding of barbed point technologies and will place

this data into the wider context of what people were doing at this site.

Research design: student xxx 4

4 Methods

4.1 Methods in relation to objectives

In order to carry out a literature review (objective 1) on antler materials I have already

accumulated a bibliography on Star Carr as well as also more general literature (see

bibliography). However, there are some articles which need to be accessed and I will

be using inter-library loans for this.

Using the literature, I will develop a method of production for use in some barbed

point manufacturing experiments. I am also aiming to visit Cambridge Museum in

order to examine some of the barbed points first hand, rather than relying on the

diagrams in books. From this research I hope to be able to experiment in the making

of antler barbed points. The objective of these experiments will be to identify the

diagnostic debitage of these processes. I have started taking some measurements of

antler from the site and data I have found in my literature search so far and I have

been recording these in excel (figure 1). I have also been experimenting in how to turn

this data into graphs (figure 2).

In order to achieve my third objective, these characteristics will be looked for at a

high resolution in new material from Star Carr, by taking soil samples on-site, floating

them and then sorting through the dried soil samples taken from the 2007 season of

excavations. This could identify potentially diagnostic pieces of antler and give an

insight into the types of manufacturing processes, if any, that were being carried out at

Star Carr.

The significance of the overall findings will then be discussed, both in terms of their

bearing on past interpretations of the site, and their relation to the current debate

regarding the nature of preservation conditions at Star Carr.

Figure 1: Excel spreadsheet in progress

Research design: student xxx 5

Figure 2: graph of measurements found so far

4.2 Practical constraints

In order to carry out my experiments I will need to visit the Cambridge Museum

collection. It will be necessary to contact the curator soon in order to make an

appointment and the visit will be a cost that I will have to incur.

In terms of the experiments, I have not got any antler to work on as yet, but I have

been in touch with Dr Steve Ashby who is going to pass on some contact details of

parks which may be able to provide some. In addition, Steve is going to give some

advice on antler working once these have been obtained.

The floatation material will be excavated this summer and I have been assured by the

project director that I will be able to sort through material from several locations on

site.

Overall, I cannot foresee any practical constraints with my project design.

5 Structure of the dissertation

I intend to mirror the chapters onto the objectives where possible:

Chapter 1: Introduction (c. 500 words)

1.1 research question and objectives

1.2 rationale and background to the study

1.3 summary of methods

1.4 structure of the dissertation)

Research design: student xxx 6

Chapter 2: literature review of Star Carr with a focus on antler working and the

barbed points (c. 3000 words)

Chapter 3: experimental barbed point manufacture (c. 2500 words)

3.1 previous work carried out

3.2 methods and experiments

3.3 results

Chapter 4: Examination of debitage from the site (c. 1000 words)

4.1 floatation and samples

4.2 results

Chapter 5: Discussion, putting the results into the context of the wider interpretations

(2000 words)

Chapter 6: Conclusion, with ideas for future work (c. 1000 words)

6 Timetable

June: meet with supervisor to discuss work over summer and research design

July: work on literature review and try to complete first draft (chapter 2)

Try to obtain antler over summer (need to contact park)

Get in touch with Cambridge museum

August: Excavate at Star Carr- all month

September: holiday, first 2 weeks

Visit Cambridge Museum (week 3)

Write up characteristics of barbed points (week 4)

October: start Special Topic- give myself 3 days a week on ST and 2 days on

dissertation

Week 1 of Oct, send supervisor literature review and arrange meeting

for mid October

Start work on experiments with barbed points (reliant on having antler)

November: Work on flot samples in lab, hopefully finish by December

Start writing up experiments and results in chapters 3 and 4 and aim to

finish by end of term

December: Finish all practical work and chapters 3 and 4

Revise for ST exam

January: Send supervisor chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 in draft and arrange a meeting or

week 4 of term

Assessed seminars – start term working on AS 1 day a week and

dissertation 4 days a week until week 4

Work on discussion chapter (chapter 5) until week 4, have meeting

with supervisor about chapters 1-4 and then submit chapter 5 and

arrange a meeting for week 7 or 8

February Move to 4 days a week AS and 1 day on dissertation, mainly working

on figures and redrafting

March : Have meeting with supervisor about chapter 5, discuss chapter 6

Easter: Edit, rewrites, images, proof reading etc (1 week holiday over Easter,

about 2 weeks dissertation and 2 weeks preparing for AS)

April: hand in

Research design: student xxx 7

7 Literature review

7.1 Introduction

Star Carr has been the centre for much of the academic discussion on Mesolithic life

in Britain, as has been noted and commented upon by Lane and Schadla-Hall (2004).

In the course of this discussion, antlerworking has been touched upon as a periphery

to debates over seasonality and length of occupation, hunting methods, ritual beliefs,

the relationships between humans and animals and the “type” of site that Star Carr

falls in to. These various comments need to be compiled and reviewed in order to

asses the outstanding questions surrounding antlerworking and barbed point

manufacture in particular, at Star Carr.

7.2 A background to antlerworking at Star Carr

Antlerworking at Star Carr was first discussed by Clark and Thompson (1953) in a

paper on the groove and splinter technique, and its use during the Upper Palaeolithic

and Mesolithic in Europe. This uses red deer antler beams recovered from Star Carr to

illustrate the way in which splinters of antler were removed from beams by the

scoring of two parallel grooves along the length of the antler, and “then forcing out

the intervening portions” (Clark and Thompson 1953, 148). Clark refers to

experimental work carried out by himself and analogies with the way Eskimo antler

workers remove splinters from reindeer beams to confirm this as a method of splinter

removal practiced at Star Carr. He then goes on to show other instances of the groove

and splinter technique at Upper Palaeolithic sites in central France and Southern

Spain, on both reindeer and red deer antler (ibid 49-58). Clark concludes that the style

of antlerworking carried out at Star Carr represents a much older technology, which

originated in mainland Europe and has been applied to different species of deer.

Clark laid out the first interpretation of the role of antlerworking at Star Carr in his

monograph on the site (1954). He describes antler working as one of the most

archaeologically visible handicraft activities, which as a whole made up a significant

proportion of life at Star Carr. He suggests that handicrafts were not the result of

specialised individuals, based on the spatial distribution of their tools in the form of

flint burins, products (in the form of antler artifacts) and his belief that the working

debris represented the actions of three or four adults (Clark 1954, 21-25). As to why

the working of antler could not have been carried out by children is not expanded

upon. Clark does postulate on the uses of the products of antlerworking (barbed points

(ibid 123-128), antler frontlets (ibid 168-175), worked tines (ibid 136, 155), elk antler

mattocks (ibid 157-158), but the actual role of working antler itself is not remarked

upon, other than the description provided in the analytical reports, which shall be

reviewed further in Chapter 3.

Jacobi (1978) also touched on the role of antlerworking at Star Carr when discussing

Mesolithic settlement patterns more generally in the North of England. “It was the

working of skins, and more importantly, antlers, which occupied the group at Star

Carr,” (Jacobi 1978, 315-16). He examines the age at which deer were being hunted

and killed, and concludes that they were being specifically targeted when their antlers

had developed past a certain point (regardless of age), and that unshed antlers would

have been of most use for barbed point manufacture if the deer was killed away from

Research design: student xxx 8

the growing months of summer, when a soft “velvet” covering makes their working

problematic (ibid 317-18). Although not stated explicitly by Jacobi, this implies a

very detailed knowledge of the properties of red deer antler. When hunting,

Mesolithic people were not simply selecting prey which would be easiest to catch, or

even provide the most meat. They were also factoring in the quality and workable

nature of the antlers. This demonstrates how antlerworking was actually prevalent in

many aspects of Mesolithic life that archaeologists have treated as discrete domains:

that of technology and industry, and that of subsistence.

Jacobi‟s other major point in his discussion of antlerworking at Star Carr is the lack of

evidence for barbed point finishing work. He notes that only four unworked splinters

were identified by Clark, adding another two in his own re-examination of the Star

Carr material. He also notes a total lack of half-made points, splinters in the initial

stages of grinding down, and any trace of the tiny “lozenges to be expected as a by-

product of the notching out of the barbs” (ibid 318). This leads Jacobi to question

whether or not the full barbed point manufacturing process is represented at Star Carr,

and whether point finishing occurred here at all. In suggesting that finishing occurred

elsewhere, Jacobi puts forward a two-phase manufacturing process, with splinters

being removed from beams at Star Carr but being finished at another location in the

landscape.

Mike Pitts (1979) has also discussed the role of antlerworking at Star Carr, ascribing

the lakeside location of the site to a heavy focus on both antler and hideworking (ibid

32-37). The primary function of this interpretation is to ascribe the site a summer

occupation period, based on the optimum temperatures for the fermentation of hides

in Lake Flixton during the summer months (ibid 36). He also cites the fact that antler

can be softened by soaking in water, claiming that the Star Carr assemblage actually

represents a specific industrial complex based around the lakeside for functional

reasons, and not a whole settlement site (Pitts 1979, 32). He attributes the

archaeological signature of Star Carr to that of waste disposal, from a settlement

located on the drier ground nearby, but unexcavated by Clark (ibid 34). So according

to Pitts, antlerworking and barbed point manufacture was a central activity at Star

Carr, and marked it out from other places in Northern Europe where bone barbed

points were the norm (ibid 34). Yet in Pitt‟s interpretation, antlerworking and barbed

point manufacture never become more than functional, economic activities, simply

“an industrial zone” (ibid 33). Further to this, Pitts makes no distinction between the

types of antlerworking that were being carried out at Star Carr. Barbed point

manufacture is undistinguished from frontlet working, tine working or mattock

manufacture. Pitt‟s paper also fails to address the lack of barbed point finishing debris

at Star Carr and the idea of a two-phase manufacturing process which have been

highlighted by Jacobi (1978).

In Andresen et al.‟s (1981) reassessment of Star Carr, the issue of antlerworking

arises again. As with Jacobi and Pitts, it is in the context of seasonal site occupation

that antlerworking is discussed, but inadvertently, it has some interesting implications.

They note that the people of Star Carr utilized the hardest, most compact antler for

barbed point manufacture (ibid 33). This implies a detailed knowledge of the

technical and mechanical properties of antler, and the way in which these change

throughout the year.

Research design: student xxx 9

Andresen et al. (1981) also reinforce Jacobi‟s comments on the lack of evidence for

barbed point finishing at Star Carr, going further than questioning full manufacture

on-site to suggest that “it seems likely that point manufacture took place elsewhere”

(ibid 39). Interestingly, they also propose that the Star Carr assemblage could be the

result of “a very high rate of manufacturing success, coupled with a very low rate of

recovery of small manufacturing debris” (ibid).

Another interesting aspect of antlerworking which Andresen et al. comment on is that

the distribution of point lengths is mirrored in the lengths of grooves cut into the red

deer antler beams, a proxy indicator of the initial blank splinter length before finishing

into a barbed point. They also note that the lengths of the splinter scars present on the

worked beams, whilst similarly distributed, are noticeably longer than that of the

finished barbed points (ibid). This would suggest that a substantial amount of antler

was being removed from the length of the splinter during the finishing process.

In their conclusion, Andresen et al. also refer to Binford‟s (1978) observed “boredom

reducers”, that is activities carried out by game herders at waiting posts before a

major herd drive. Although they are not explicit in linking this interpretation to Star

Carr, it is implied that craftworking activities such as barbed point manufacture may

be indicative of an analogous situation.

More recently, Lynne Bevan (2003) has focussed her discussion of symbolism and

animal interaction around the red deer frontlets recovered from Star Carr. However,

she does touch on some interesting issues involving the choices the people of Star

Carr may have made when making barbed points from antler. She highlights the

regenerative nature of antlers, with their growth-shed-regrowth cycles, describing

them as “instruments of transformation” (Bevan 2003, 36). Bevan also discusses the

preference for red deer antler in manufacturing barbed points, when other types of

antler were available. The comparison is drawn between the one material used for

barbed points, and the use of both elk bone and antler in making mattock heads. She

then questions whether it was the “essence” of the red deer stag that was important for

barbed point manufacture. This question is furthered when the specific attention that

seems to have been paid to the heads of red deer stags at Star Carr is noted, with the

working of frontlets (ibid). Bevan also uses the fact that many of the worked antler

beams were unshed, and therefore seemingly being worked immediately following the

stag‟s death, in order to incorporate the “essence” into the barbed point before it wore

off (ibid). This argument appears weaker, however, when the worked, shed beams are

considered.

7.3 Summary

To summarise, reinterpretations of Star Carr have often touched on antlerworking,

and its strong presence in the archaeological record at the site. Antler material has

been studied extensively to gain insights into hunting practices and settlement patterns

in the north of England. Although not directly related to the manufacture of barbed

points, this is important as it shows the way in which antlerworking as a practice

actually crosses the traditional hunting/technology/settlement spheres studied in

Mesolithic archaeology. The potential to fashion objects from antler must have been

prevalent in the minds of Mesolithic people whilst they hunted (in the case of shed

beams) or intentionally collected and brought to Star Carr at specific times in the year

Research design: student xxx 10

(in the case of shed beams). This illustrates that the practice of “antlerworking”

actually extends further than the moment at which a flint tool as applied to an antler

beam. It is an on-going, cyclical process, which prevails in many different aspects of

Mesolithic life.

In terms of antlerworking as an industrial process, Pitts was an early proponent of the

importance and centrality of antlerworking in life at Star Carr. Although this early

interpretation was based on a purely industrial level, recent interpretations of

depositional practices have stressed the connection between worked red deer antler

artefacts and Star Carr. These, again, have touched upon antlerworking indirectly, but

have mainly been concerned with intentional deposition and its potential symbolic

significance. Yet there seems to be a lack of engagement with some key issues

regarding the Star Carr assemblage. The question over the actual finishing of barbed

points at the site, although acknowledged by many, is not really dealt with by any of

the authors. Depositional studies do not, and cannot, tie in the actual production of

barbed points at the site to the deer/human relationships being played out through

material culture. Clearly, a more detailed study of antlerworking at Star Carr is

needed, in order to answer these questions and assess their impact on other

interpretations.

8 Bibliography

8.1 Already read

Andresen, J, Byrd, B, Elson M, McGuire, R, Mendoza, R, Staski, E and White, P

(1981) „The deer hunters: Star Carr reconsidered‟ World Archaeology 13 (1) 31-

46.

Bevan, L (2003) „Stag nights and horny men: Antler symbolism and interaction

with the animal world during the mesolithic‟ in L Bevan and J Moore (eds)

Peopling the Mesolithic in a Northern Environment, 35-44. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Binford, L (1978) „Dimensional analysis of behaviour and site structure: learning

from an Eskimo hunting stand‟ American Antiquity 43 330-361.

Caulfield, S (1978) „Star Carr – an alternative view‟ Irish Archaeological

Research Forum, 5 15-22.

Chatterton, R (2003) „Star Carr Reanalysed‟ in L Bevan and J Moore (eds)

Peopling the Mesolithic in a Northern Environment, 69-80. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Clark, J (1954) Excavations at Star Carr: An early Mesolithic site at Seamer near

Scarborough, Yorkshire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, J (1972) Star Carr: a Case Study in Bioarchaeology. Addison-Wesley

module in Anthropology 10.

Clark, J and Thompson, M (1953) „The groove and splinter technique of working

antler in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe‟. Proceedings of the Prehistoric

Society 19 (1) 148-160.

Fraser, F and King, J (1954) „Faunal Remains‟ in J Clark (ed) Excavations at Star

Carr: An early Mesolithic site at Seamer near Scarborough, Yorkshire, 70-96.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Griffits, J and Bonsall, C (2001) „Experimantal Determination of the Function of

Antler and Bone „Bevel-Ended Tools‟ from Prehistoric Shell Middens in Western

Research design: student xxx 11

Scotland‟ in A Chayke and L Bartosiewicz (eds) Crafting Bone: skeletal

technologies through time and space. Proceedings of the 2nd

meeting of the

(ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group, Budapest, 31st August-5

th Spetember 1999.

Oxford: Archaeopress.

Jacobi, R (1978) „Northern England in the eighth millennium bc: an essay‟ in P

Mellars (ed) The early postglacial settlement of Northern Europe, 295-332.

London: Duckworth.

Laurie, E (2007)

Legge, A and Rowley-Conwy, P (1998) Star Carr Revistited: A Re-analysis of the

large mammals. London: Centre for Extra-Mural Studies, Birkbeck College.

MacGregor, A (1984) Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn: the technology of skeletal

materials since the Roman period. London: Croom Helm.

Mellars, P and Dark, P (eds) Star Carr in context: new archaeological and

palaeological investigations at the Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, North

Yorkshire. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute.

Milner, N (2003) „Pitfalls and Problems in Analysing and Interpreting the

Seasonality of Faunal Remains‟ Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 16 (1)

50-65.

Milner, N (2005) „Can Seasonality studies be used to identify sedentism in the

past?‟ in D Bailey, A Whittle and V Cummings (eds) (un)settling the Neolithic,

32-37. Oxford: Oxbow.

Pitts, M (1979) „Hides and antlers: a new look at the gatherer-hunter site at Star

Carr, North Yorkshire, England‟ World Archaeology, 11 (1) 32-42.

Pollard, J (2000) „Ancestral Places in the Mesolithic landscape‟, Archaeological

Review from Cambridge 17 (1) 123-138.

Rowley-Conwy, P (1998) „Faunal Remains and Antler Artefacts‟ in P Mellars and

P Dark (eds) Star Carr in context: new archaeological and palaeological

investigations at the Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire, 99-107.

Cambridge: MacDonald Institute.

Lane, P and Schadla-Hall, R (2004) „The many ages of Star Carr: do 'cites' make

'sites'?‟ in A Barnard (ed.) Hunter-gatherers in History, 145-162. Oxford:

Archaeology and Anthropology.

Legge, A and Rowley-Conwy, P (1988) Star Carr revisited: a re-analysis of the

large mammals. London: Centre for Extra-Mural Studies

Lord, J (1998) „The Methods used to Produce Complete Harpoon‟ in N Ashton, F

Healy and P Petit (eds) Stone Age Archaeology: essays in memory of John Wymer.

193-96. Oxford: Oxbow.

Street, M (1991) „Bedburg-Königshoven: A Pre-Boreal Mesolithic site in Lower

Rhineland (Germany)‟ in N Barton, A Roberts and D Roe (eds) The Late Glacial

in north-west Europe: human adaptation and environmental change at the end of

the Pleistocene. 256-271. London: British Council for Archaeology.

Taylor, B (2007) „Recent excavations at Star Carr, North Yorkshire‟ Mesolithic

Miscellany 18 (2) 12-17.

Warren, G (2006) „Technology‟ in C Conneller and G Warren (eds) Mesolithic

Britain and Ireland. 13-33 Stroud: Tempus

Wheeler, A (1978) „Why Were There No Fish Remains at Star Carr?‟ Journal of

Archaeological Science, 5 85-89.

Wymer, J (1977) Gazetter of Mesolithic sites in England and Wales. London:

Council for British Archaeology, Research Report 20.

Research design: student xxx 12

8.2 To be read

Conneller, C (2001) „Hunter-gatherers in the landscape: Technical economies of

the Vale of Pickering‟ in M Zvelebil and K Frewster (eds.) Ethnoarchaeology and

hunter-gatherers, 1-12. Oxford: Archaeopress

Conneller, C (2003) „Star Carr Recontextualised‟ in L Bevan and J Moore (eds)

Peopling the Mesolithic in a Northern Environment, 81-86. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Conneller, C (2004) „Becoming deer. Corporeal transformations at Star Carr‟

Archaeological Dialogues 11 (1) 37-56.

Conneller, C (2007) „New Excavations at Star Carr‟ Past 56 3-5.

Conneller, C and Schadla-Hall, T (2003) „Beyond Star Carr: The Vale of

Pickering in the 10th

Millenium BP‟ Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69 85-

105

David, E (2003) „The contribution of the Technological Study of Bone and Antler

Industry for the definition of the Early Maglemose Culture‟ in L Larrson, H

Kindgern, K Knutsson, D Loeffler and A Akerlund (eds.) Mesolithic on the Move:

Papers presented at the sixth International Conference on the Mesolithic in

Europe.486-493. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

David, E (2007) „Technology on Bone and Antler Industries: A Relevant

Methodology for Characterizing Early Post-Glacial Societies (9th

-8th

Millenium

BC)‟ in C Gates St-Pierre and R Walker (eds.) Bone as Tools: Current Methods

and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies. 35-50. Oxford: Archaeopress

Dark, P (2000) „Revised „absolute‟ dating of the early Mesolithic site of Star Carr,

North Yorkshire, in the light of changes in the early Holocene tree-ring

chronology‟ Antiquity 74 304-7.

Dark, P (2006) „New Radiocarbon Accelerator Dates On Artefacts From The

Early Mesolithic Site Of Star Carr, North Yorkshire‟ Archaeometry 48 (1) 185-

200.

Dumont, J (1988) A microwear analysis of selected artifact types from the

Mesolithic sites of Star Carr and Mount Sandel. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Finlay, N (2000) „Microliths in the Making‟ in R Young (ed) Mesolithic Lifeways:

current research in Britain and Ireland. 23-31. Leicester: Leicester University

Archaeology Monograph 7.

Fischer, A (ed) (1995) Man and Sea in the Mesolithic, Oxford: Oxbow Books

Fitzroy, R (1839) Narrative of the surveying Voyages of His Majesty’s Ships

Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836. Volume 2.’ London:

Henry Colburn.

Lubbock, J (1865) Prehistoric Times. London: Bell and Daldy

Price, T (1982) „Willow Tales and Dog Smoke‟ Quarterly Review of Archaeology,

3 4-7.

Verhart, L (2000) „The Function of Mesolithic Bone and Antler Points‟

Anthropologie et Prehistoire, 111 114-123