دانلود کتاب Classification of Lithic Artefacts from the British Late Glacial and Holocene Periods

فهرست مطالب :

Cover
Title Page
Copyright page
Contents Page
List of Figures
Acknowledgements
Preface
Classification and characterisation of lithic artefacts
The background to and aims of the present volume
Chronology
Table 1. Basic chronological schema for Britain’s early prehistory (cal BC). The dates for Scotland are mainly based on dates from the various Scottish research framework (ScARF) panel reports (Saville & Wickham-Jones 2012; Brophy & Sheridan 2012; Downes
Figure 1: Hierarchical classification system (classification ‘tree’) covering British lithic types; it is possible to continuously and indefinitely subdivide the tree. The purpose of this figure is to illustrate the key principle behind hierarchical class
Figure 2: Descriptive database form (Ballin 2017c).
Figure 1: Hierarchical classification system (classification ‘tree’) covering British lithic types; it is possible to continuously and indefinitely subdivide the tree. The purpose of this figure is to illustrate the key principle behind hierarchical class
Basic descriptive terminology
The main elements of flakes and blades
Main percussion techniques and technological attributes
Figure 4: Four refitted orange-segment flakes and bipolar cores from the Norwegian site Lundevågen 21, SW Norway: 1) Refitted and 2) ‘exploded’ view (Ballin 1999; photo: Torben B. Ballin).
Figure 3: The main elements of flakes and blades – terminology and orientation (Ballin et al. 2017, Plate 11; artist: Marion O’Neil).
Percussion angle
Reduction sequence
Type of retouch
Figure 5: The elements of a bipolar orange-segment flake; the thick line indicates cortex.
Angle of retouch
Delineation of retouch
Figure 6: Metrically defined debitage categories (microblades as suggested for Scottish assemblages).
Morphology of retouch
Orientation of retouch
Figure 2: Descriptive database form (Ballin 2017c).
Figure 3: The main elements of flakes and blades – terminology and orientation (Ballin et al. 2017, Plate 11; artist: Marion O’Neil).
Figure 4: Four refitted orange-segment flakes and bipolar cores from the Norwegian site Lundevågen 21, SW Norway: 1) Refitted and 2) ‘exploded’ view (Ballin 1999; photo: Torben B. Ballin).
Figure 5: The elements of a bipolar orange-segment flake; the thick line indicates cortex.
Figure 6: Metrically defined debitage categories (microblades as suggested for Scottish assemblages).
The typology of lithic debitage, cores and tools
Debitage
Core preparation flakes
Figure 7: Crested pieces: 1) A bilaterally crested piece – GD= 93mm; and 2-3) unilaterally crested pieces - GD = 17-28mm, all from Milltimber Zone 4, Aberdeenshire (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.72, 2.86; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology
Figure 8: Platform rejuvenation flakes: 1) A full platform rejuvenation flake from Milltimber Zone 4, Aberdeenshire – GD = 52mm (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.87; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology Ltd.); and 2) a partial platform rejuvena
Cores
Figure 9: A raw quartz pebble (No. 0) and split quartz pebbles (Nos 1-8) from RUX6, North Uist, Western Isles (Ballin 2018b: Figure 5.16).
Figure 10: A selection of split pebbles of quartz from RUX6, North Uist, Western Isles (Ballin 2018b: Figure 5.14; photo: Beverley Ballin Smith).
Figure 11: Two en éperon blades from Howburn, South Lanarkshire – GD = 29-31mm (Ballin et al. 2018, Plate 1; artist: Marion O’Neil).
Figure 12: Core rough-outs: 1) A specimen from Garthdee Road, Aberdeen – GD = 30mm (Ballin 2014b, Illus 16; artist: Jan Dunbar; courtesy of Murray Archaeological Services Ltd.); and 2) one from Standingstones, Aberdeenshire – GD = 36mm (Ballin 2019e, Ill
Figure 13: Single-platform cores: 1) Broad (pyramidal) conical core (quartz) from Barabhas, Lewis - GD = 62mm (Ballin 2018b: Figure 30; photo: Beverley Ballin Smith); and 2) slender (bullet-shaped) conical core from Colinhill, South Lanarkshire – GD = 29
Figure 14: A selection of typical Late Mesolithic conical single-platform cores from Milltimber Zone 5, Aberdeenshire (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.77; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology Ltd.). The upper two cores display scars from short
Figure 15: Handle-cores: 1) Well-defined handle-core from Nørholm, Denmark – GD 92mm (Ballin 2016a: Figure 12; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw); and 2) a less sophisticated Scottish handle-core from Garthdee Road, Aberdeen – GD = 39mm (Ballin 2014b, Illus 18; ar
Figure 16: Opposed-platform cores: 1) Large Hamburgian opposed-platform core from Howburn, South Lanarkshire – GD = 40mm (Ballin et al. 2018, Plate 4; artist: Hazel Martingell); and 2-4) three small Late Mesolithic opposed-platform cores from Nethermills
Figure 17: Core with two platforms at an angle from Garthdee Road, Aberdeen – GD = 44mm (Ballin 2014b, Illus 18; artist: Jan Dunbar; courtesy of Murray Archaeological Services Ltd.).
Figure 18: Irregular core from Kilmelfort Cave, Highland – GD = 24mm (Saville & Ballin 2009, Illus 3; artist: Marion O’Neil).
Figure 19: Plain discoidal core from Carnoustie, Angus – GD = 45mm (Ballin forthcoming a; artist: Jordan Barbour; courtesy of GUARD Archaeology Ltd.).
Figure 20: Kombewa core/’flaked flake’ from Hoxne Lower, Suffolk – GD = 110mm (Ashton et al. 1991: Figure 5; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw). Hoxne is a Lower Palaeolithic location – this figure has been used as few drawings exist of these simple cores from
Figure 21: Bifacial discoidal core from Raunds, Northamptonshire – GD = 30mm (Ballin 2011c: Figure SS3.48; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw).
Figure 22: Discoidal core of Glen Luce Type: 1) Schematic illustration of a discoidal core of Glen Luce Type; and 2) a specimen from Biggar, South Lanarkshire – GD = 35mm (Ballin 2009: Figure 15; artist: Sandra Kelly).
Figure 23: The operational schema of the Late Acheulean / Mousterian Levalloisian (Roe 1981: Figure 3:9): I. Basic shaping of nodule; II. preparation of domed dorsal surface; III. preparation of faceted striking platform on core; IV. the flake and the str
Figure 25: Levallois-like core from Stoneyhill Farm, Aberdeenshire (Ballin 2011a: Figure 2.12; photo: Beverley Ballin Smith).
Figure 24: Levallois-like cores: 1) A specimen from Wester Clerkhill, Aberdeenshire – GD = 63mm (Cameron & Ballin 2018: Figure 11; artist: Jan Dunbar); and 2-3) two from Wester Hatton, Aberdeenshire – GD = 33-40mm (Ballin 2019d, Illus 6.43D; artist: Leean
Figure 26: Probably Mesolithic bipolar cores from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – GD = 13-32mm (Wickham-Jones et al. 2017, Illus 11; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy of Caroline Wickham-Jones).
Figure 27: Probably Early Bronze Age bipolar cores from Freshwater West, Pembrokeshire – GD = 30-41mm (David 2017: Figure 11; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figure 28: Hamburgian shouldered and tanged points: 1) An Early Hamburgian shouldered point (‘Classic Hamburgian’ or Meiendorf point) from Bjerlev in central Jutland, Denmark – GD 43mm (Holm & Rieck 1992: Figure 8; artist: Jørgen Holm; courtesy of Jørgen
Formal tools
Arrowheads
Tanged arrowheads
Curve-, angle-, and straight-backed points
Figure 29: Ahrensburgian tanged points: 1) A specimen from Balevullin, Tiree (Ballin & Saville 2003: Figure 3/after Morrison & Bonsall 1989: Figure 3; artist: Marion O’Neil); and 2) one from Shieldaig, Loch Torridon, Highland (Ballin & Saville 2003: Figur
Figure 30: Single-edged tanged points: 1) The single-edged point from Brodgar, Orkney (Ballin & Bjerck 2016: Figure 4; artist: Marion O’Neil) – the ventral chipping at the tip may represent impact damage; and 2) for comparison, a similar Fosna-Hensbacka p
Figure 31: Creswellian backed points from Hoyle’s Mouth, Pembrokeshire – GD = 36-60mm (David 2007: Figure 2.20; artist: A. David; courtesy Andrew David).
Leaf-shaped arrowheads
Chisel-shaped and oblique arrowheads
Figure 32: Federmesser points: 1-4) Typical Federmesser points from Nanna’s Cave and Potter’s Cave, Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire, and King Arthur’s Cave, Herefordshire – GD = 15-45mm (David 2007: Figures 2.12, 2.13, 2.14; artist: Andrew David; courtesy
Figure 33: Green’s (1980: Figures 26-29) size (1-4) and shape (A-C) categories (re-drawn by the author). These types are based on Principal Components Analysis. It was chosen to select drop-shaped examples for this illustration, but the types shown here a
Figure 34: Leaf-shaped arrowheads: 1-5) Drop-shaped, double-pointed, and kite-shaped leaf-shaped points from Elgin Museum in Moray – GD = 20-35mm (Ballin 2014c, Figure 1; photo: Leanne Demay); and 6) ogival point from Auchategan in Argyll – GD = 31mm (B
Figure 35: Clark’s 10 main PTD forms. Types E and F have been rotated to bring their orientation into line with present consensus on their likely hafting form. Re-drawn by the author (Ballin 2011b, Plate 1) from Clark (1934c, Figures 1-2).
Barbed-and-tanged arrowheads
Figure 36: PTDs from sites near Overhowden Henge, Scottish Borders (Ballin 2011b, Figures 4-5; photo: Joyce Smith; courtesy of National Museums Scotland): 1) Chisel-shaped arrowheads; and 2) oblique arrowheads.
Figure 37: ‘Long-tailed obliques’: 1) A specimen from Santon Warren, Norfolk; and 2) one from Marden Henge, Wiltshire (Bishop et al. 2011; photo: Jim Leary; courtesy of Barry Bishop).
Figure 38: Green’s (1980: Figures 44-46) barbed-and-tanged arrowhead typology (redrawn by the author).
Figure 39: ‘Fancy’ barbed-and-tanged arrowheads: 1) Conygar point from Rudstone in Yorkshire; 2) Green Low point from Lambourn Down in Berkshire; and 3) Kilmarnock point from Aberdeenshire (Evans 1897: Figures 318, 319, and 326; artist: J. Swain) – GD
Figure 42: Seriation of BAT sub-types in relation to pottery styles (Ballin 2016b, Illus 17.10; based on information in Green 1980).
Figure 43: Hollow-based arrowhead from Stackpole, Pembrokeshire – GD = 34mm (David 1990: Figure 39; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figures 40-41: A selection of barbed and tanged arrowheads: 40) Common Sutton Type points from Elgin Museum in Moray – GD = 18-30mm (Ballin 2014c, Figure 2; photo: Leanne Demay); and 41) barbed-and-tanged arrowhead blanks, half-finished broken pieces, and
Figure 44: The production of microlith preforms by the application of microburin technique (Ballin 2017 b, Figure 7). The approach furthest right is referred to as the lamelle a cran approach; if the microburin facet of the distal part was not modified b
Microliths and microlith-related pieces
Figure 45: Microlith preforms: 1-9) Specimens from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – GD = 15-39mm (notched microblades and lamelles a cran; Wickham-Jones et al. 2017, Illus 12; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy of Caroline Wickham-Jones); and 10-11) from Mi
Figure 46: Obliquely blunted points from Donich Park, Argyll & Bute – GD = 14-19mm (Ballin & Ellis 2019: Figure 8; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw).
Figure 47: Isosceles triangles from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – 9.6-23mm (Wickham-Jones et al. 2017, Illus 13; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy of Caroline Wickham-Jones). Notice the isosceles micro-triangle furthest to the right, which may be Late M
Figure 48: Trapezoid microliths from Lussa Bay, Jura, Highland – GD = 23-33mm (Mercer 1970: Figure 6; redrawn by the author).
Crescents
Figure 49: Scalene triangles: 1-4) large, broad scalene triangles from Nab Head I, Pembrokeshire – GD = c. 30mm (David 2007: Figure 4.5; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David.); 5-9) small, narrow scalene triangles from Prestatyn, Clwyd – GD = 14
Figure 50: Chronological sequence of triangular microliths in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany (Ballin forthcoming b, Figure 27), with No. 1 dating to what in Britain is referred to as the Early Mesolithic, No. 2 to the early part of the Late Mes
Figure 51: Early and early Late Mesolithic microlith assemblages from Duvensee Moor in Schleswig-Holstein (Duvensee 9, 8, 1, 6 and 13) (Ballin & Ellis 2019: Figures 15a-b). They were sequenced by Bokelman (1999: Figure 7) on the basis of the lithic mater
Figure 52: Crescents: 1-3) Specimens from Milltimber Zone 5, Aberdeenshire – GD = 22-28mm (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.81; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology Ltd. – some analysts may refer to the piece furthest to the right as a ‘convex-
Figure 53: Edge-blunted microliths: 1-2) Specimens from Dunragit, Site 19, Dumfries & Galloway – GD = 25-26mm (Ballin forthcoming b; artist: Jordan Barbour; courtesy of GUARD Archaeology Ltd.); and 3-6) from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – GD = 22-24mm
Figure 54: Quadrilateral microliths from North Carn, Jura, Highland – GD = 13-21mm (Mercer 1972: Figure 5; redrawn by the author).
Figure 55: Basally modified microliths: 1-8) Horsham points – GD = 20-30mm (David & Kowalski 2019; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David); and 9-14) Honey Hill points – GD = 20-28mm (Saville 1981b, Figure 1; artist: Alan Saville; courtesy Alan Sa
Figure 56: 1-9) Micro petit tranchets from White Gill, Yorkshire (Radley 1969: Figure 4; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw); and 10—15) Penpant, Pembrokeshire (David 2020: Figure 7; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figure 58: Backed and truncated bladelets: 1-3) Three backed bladelets from St Catherine’s Bridge, Pembrokeshire – GD = 12-16mm (David & Painter 2014: Figure 8; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David); and 4) one obliquely blunted bladelet from N
Figure 57: Zonhoven points from Zonhoven-Molenheide, Belgium – GD = 16-36mm (Vermeersch 2013: Figures 52, 53; artist: Gunther Noens; courtesy of Pierre Vermeersch).
Scrapers
Figure 59: Four proximal and one distal microburins from Milltimber Zone 5, Aberdeenshire – GD = 8-18mm (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.81; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology Ltd.).
Figure 60: Scraper-edge angles – LUP blade-scrapers and short end-scrapers from Howburn compared to Middle Bronze Age short end-scrapers from Bayanne, Yell (Ballin et al. 2018: Figure 23).
Figure 61: Thumbnail-scrapers: 1-5) Typical Early Bronze Age thumbnail-scrapers from Elgin Museum, Moray; L = c. 15-20mm (Ballin 2014c, Figure 3; photo: Leanne Demay); and 6-8) from Freshwater West, Pembrokeshire – GD = 16-19mm (David 2017: Figure 11; art
Figure 62: Typical thumbnail-sized scrapers from Mesolithic contexts: 1) A specimen from Early Mesolithic An Corran, Highland; GD = 25mm (Saville et al. 2012, Illus 32; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy Alan Saville/Annette Carruthers); and 2) one from Earl
Figure 63: Discoidal scrapers: 1) Possibly LUP discoidal scraper from Kilmelfort Cave, Highland – GD = 20mm (Saville & Ballin 2009, Illus 8; artist: Marion O’Neil); and 2) EBA discoidal thumbnail-scraper from Bryn-y-Mor, Pembrokeshire – GD = 19mm (David
Figure 64: A selection of Hamburgian short end-scrapers and blade-scrapers from Howburn, South Lanarkshire – GD = 21-46mm (Ballin et al. 2018, Plates 9 and 11; artist: Marion O’Neil); note that the blanks of the blade-scrapers are Levallois-like blades.
Figure 65: A selection of Mesolithic short end-scrapers and blade-scrapers from Nab Head, Site I, Pembrokeshire – GD = 21-47mm (David 2007: Figure 4.7; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figure 66: A selection of scrapers from North Carnaby Temple Site 9, Carnaby Top Site 12 and Flamborough Site 3, Yorkshire – GD = 26-74mm (Manby 1974: Figures 10, 24 and 31; artist: T.G. Manby; courtesy of T.G. Manby.
Figure 67: A selection of Early Bronze Age short end-scrapers from Freshwater West, Pembrokeshire – GD = 16-30mm (David 2017: Figure 11; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David); most of these scrapers appear to be based on bipolar flakes or abando
Figure 68: Double-scrapers: 1) A specimen from Howburn, South Lanarkshire – GD = 39mm (Ballin et al. 2018, Plate 10; artist: Marion O’Neil); and 2) one from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – GD = 25mm (Wickham-Jones et al. 2017, Illus 14; artist: Marion O
Figure 69: Side-scraper from An Corran, Skye – GD = 50mm (Saville et al. 2012, Illus 32; artist: Marion O’Neil).
Piercing implements
Figure 70: The formal distinction between end- and side-scrapers. The dots mark the position of the bulb-of-percussion.
Figure 71: Northern Irish hollow scraper – GD = 38mm (Evans 1897: Figure 226A; artist: J. Swain).
Figure 72: Flake- or blade-based plain piercers: 1) Flake-based piercer from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – GD = 29mm (Wickham-Jones et al. 2017, Illus 15; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy of Caroline Wickham-Jones); 2) short blade-based piercer from Mi
Figure 73: Robust piercer from Barabhas (Elliott Collection), Isle of Lewis, Western Isles (Ballin 2018a, Illus. 58; photo: Beverley Ballin Smith).
Figure 74: Spurred implement from Raunds, Northamptonshire – GD = 36mm (Ballin 2011c, Figure SS3.56; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw).
Figure 75: Examples of Zinken: 1-3) Classic NW European double-Zinken from Jels, southern Jutland, Denmark – GD = 57-66mm (Holm & Rieck 1992: Figure 24; artist: Jørgen Holm; courtesy of Jørgen Holm); and 4-5) slender forms recovered at Howburn, South Lana
Figure 76: Robust Hamburgian single-bec from Howburn, South Lanarkshire – GD = 36mm, and robust Hamburgian double-bec from the same site – GD = 41mm (Ballin et al. 2018, Plate 14; artist: Hazel Martingell); note the finely faceted platform remnant of the
Knives
Figure 77: Delicate Mesolithic becs from Llanunwas, Pembrokeshire – GD = 17-27mm (David 2007: Figure 7.7; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figure 78: The bow drill has a spatially and temporally extensive distribution. It was used for a variety of purposes, from making fire to drilling holes in hard materials (wood, antler, bone, amber, stone, etc.). This photo shows the hunter Miteq at Cape
Figure 79: Mèches de foret (sensu stricto), as defined by Jacobi (1980) and David (2007), from Nab Head I, Pembrokeshire – GD = 2.2-4.4mm (David 2007: Figure 4.8; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figure 80: Mèches de foret (sensu lato): 1) Double-pointed drill-bit (‘needle-point’) from Shieldaig, Highland – GD = 16mm (Saville 2004: Figure 10.2; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy of Alan Saville/Annette Carruthers); and 2-6) a series of drill-bits fro
Figure 81: Backed knives: 1) A specimen of flint from Wester Clerkhill, Aberdeenshire – GD = 36mm (Cameron & Ballin 2018: Figure 16; artist: Jan Dunbar); and 2) a specimen of carnelian from Freeland Farm, Fife – GD = 31mm (Nicol & Ballin 2019; artist: Le
Figure 82: Truncations: 1) A piece with an oblique truncation from Garthdee Road, Aberdeen – GD = 22mm (Ballin 2014b, Illus 19; artist: Jan Dunbar; courtesy of Murray Archaeological Services Ltd.); 2) a piece with an oblique truncation from Cutty Bridge,
Figure 83: ‘End-tools’ from Cutty Bridge, Pembrokeshire – GD = 28-33mm (David & Painter 2014; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figure 84: Scale-flaked and plano-convex knives: 1-2) Scale-flaked knives from Low Caythorpe, Yorkshire – GD = 58mm (Manby 1974: Figure 28; artist: T.G. Manby; courtesy of T.G. Manby); and Dunragit Site 8, Dumfries & Galloway – GD = 38mm (Ballin forthcomi
Figure 85: Laurel leaves: 1) A specimen from Hurst Fen, Suffolk – GD = 86mm (Clark 1960: Figure 14; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw); and 2) one from Stoneyhill Farm, Aberdeenshire – GD = 77mm (Suddaby & Ballin 2010, Illus 15; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courte
Figure 86: The foliate knife from the Skilmafilly cremation cemetery in Aberdeenshire – GD = 79mm (Ballin 2012a, Illus 14; artist: Alan Braby; courtesy of CFA Archaeology Ltd.).
Figure 87: Comparison between the Skilmafilly knife and other foliate knives from the British Early Bronze Age.
Figure 88: Curved knives of quartz from Scord of Brouster, Shetland (Ballin 2005b, Illus 14; photo: Beverley Ballin Smith). The scorched surfaces of some of these pieces suggest that the blanks may have been heat-treated to allow the detachment of long an
Figure 89: Clark’s main types of discoidal knives (Clark 1932b, Figures 2, 3, 6, 7) (redrawn by the author); the examples are all partially or completely (Form IV) polished.
Figure 90: A selection of discoidal knives from North Dale, Callis Wold, Newark and Arbor Low, all Yorkshire – GD = 66-92mm (Manby 1974: Figure 34; artist: T.G. Manby; courtesy of T.G. Manby).
Figure 91. Three polished-edge knives from Charleston, Yorkshire (Type 1) – GD = 84mm; Linton Mires, Yorkshire (Type 2) – GD = 82mm; and Aldro Barrow, Yorkshire (Type 3) – GD = 106mm (Manby 1974: Figure 36; artist: T.G. Manby; courtesy of T.G. Manby).
Other bifacial cutting implements
Figure 92: Bruised blades: 1-3) Specimens from Gatehampton Farm, Oxfordshire – GD = 150-170mm (Barton 1998, Figure 21.1; artist: Jeff Wallis; courtesy of Nick Barton); and 4) bruised flake from Sproughton, near Ipswich, Suffolk – GD = 143mm (Barton 1986;
Figure 93: Skaill knives from Skaill Bay, Mainland, Orkney (Clarke 2015, Illus 6; photo: Woody Musgrove; courtesy of Ann Clarke).
Figure 94: Bifacial crescent-shaped sickle from Fimber, Yorkshire – GD = 172mm (Evans 1897: Figure 268); artist: J. Swain).
Figure 95: Grimes’ (1932) four main dagger types; re-drawn by the author from Grimes (1932) and Field (1984).
Figure 96: Frieman’s six dagger types; re-drawn by the author from Frieman (2014).
Figure 97: Daggers: 1) dagger of Frieman’s Type C from Lambourn Down, Berkshire – GD = 170mm (Evans 1897: Figure 264; artist: J. Swain); 2) dagger of Frieman’s Type D from Burnt Fen, Norfolk – GD = 168mm (Evans 1897: Figure 266; artist: J. Swain); and 3)
Burins
Figure 98: Burins: 1) Burin on a break from Howburn, S. Lanarkshire – GD = 34mm (Ballin et al. 2018, 14; artist: Marion O’Neil); 2) dihedral burin from Hoyle’s Mouth, Pembrokeshire – GD = 41mm (David 2007: Figure 2.19; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of An
Figure 100: Burin spalls: 1-2) Specimens from Kilmelfort Cave, Highland – GD = 23-27mm (Saville & Ballin 2009, Illus 10; artist: Marion O’Neil); and 3) overpassed burin spall from Nanna’s Cave, Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire – GD = 31mm (David 2007: Figure
Figure 99: Selected burins from Cwm Bach I, Pembrokeshire – GD = 35-46mm (David 2007: Figure 7.14; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Fire-making implements
Figure 101: Burin on overpassed truncated ‘burin spall’ from Lunanhead, Angus – GD = 41mm (Ballin forthcoming c; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw): 1) Burin/burin spall; and 2) schema showing how this piece was formed.
Figure 102: Strike-a-light from the Yorkshire Wolds – GD = 77mm (Evans 1897: Figure 346; artist: J. Swain).
Figure 103: Fire-flints: 1) Fire-flint on thermal flake; and 2) shaped fire-flint from a later Neolithic site at Townparks, Antrim town, Northern Ireland – GD = 65mm and 56mm, respectively (Ballin 2005a, Figures 8-9; artist: Alexandra Speir; courtesy of
Figure 104: The descriptive terminology of gunflints. A British blade-based gunflint is used as an example (Ballin 2012b, Figure 1; artist: Torben Bjarke Ballin).
Figure 105: Early flake-based gunflints (gun-spalls). Upper (1) and lower (2) faces of gunflints from the British ship The Invincible (wrecked 1758) – GD = 42mm (Gartley & Ballin 2015: Figure 5; photo: Beverley Ballin Smith).
Polished-edge implements
Figures 106-107: Blade-based gunflints: 1) British later blade-based gunflints, manufactured in Brandon, Suffolk; and 2) French later blade-based gunflints, manufactured in the Meusnes area, central France; (Ballin 2013: Figures 2-3; photos: Beverley Bal
Figure 108: Rod from the flint mines at Den of Boddam, Aberdeenshire – GD = 89mm (Saville 2011: Figure 14; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy of Alan Saville/Annette Carruthers).
Figure 109: Later Neolithic polished-edge implement from East Reservoir Site 3, Yorkshire – GD = 46mm (Manby 1974: Figure 7; artist: T.G. Manby; courtesy of T.G. Manby.
Rods (LN and BA)
Pieces with one or more notches
Figure 110: Two probably Mesolithic polished-edge implements from Milltimber Zone 5, Aberdeenshire – GD = 36-37mm (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.89; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology Ltd.).
Figure 111: Notched pieces: 1) a piece with opposed proximal (hafting?) notches from Woodend Loch, North Lanarkshire – GD = 57mm (Davidson et al. 1949: Figure 3; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw); and 2-5) specimens from Cutty Bridge, Pembrokeshire – GD = 38-
Figure 112: Serrated pieces: 1) Specimen from Carnoustie, Angus – GD = 44mm (Ballin forthcoming a; artist: Jordan Barbour; courtesy of GUARD Archaeology Ltd.); and 2-3) from Flamborough, Yorkshire – GD = 50-66mm (Manby 1974: Figure 31; artist: T.G. Manby
Figure 113: Denticulated and nosed pieces: 1-6) Denticulated pieces from Llanunwas, Pembrokeshire (GD = 30-38mm); and 7) a nosed piece from Penpant, Pembrokeshire (GD = 31mm) (David 2007: Figure 7.8 and David 2020: Figure 8; artist: Andrew David; courtesy
Combined tools
Flint axeheads
Figure 114: Examples of combi-tools from the Hamburgian site Howburn, South Lanarkshire – GD = 31-46mm (Ballin et al. 2018, Plate 16; artist: Hazel Martingell): Two scraper/burins (1-2); one scraper/Zinken (3); one scraper/bec (4); and one scraper/polish
Figure 115: Transversely sharpened core axeheads: 1) Specimen from Oving near Chichester, West Sussex – GD = 168mm (Evans 1897: Figure 15; artist: J. Swain); 2) from Newport, Pembrokeshire – GD = 124mm (David & Walker 2004: Figure 17.8; artist: Hazel Mart
Figure 116: Axe-sharpening flakes: 1) Specimen from Daylight Rock, Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire – GD = 36mm (David 2007: Figure 3.8; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David); and 2) from Nab Head I, Pembrokeshire – GD = 37mm (David 2007: Figure 4.1
Figure 117: Flake axehead from Thetford, Norfolk – GD = 94mm (Evans 1897: Figure 14; artist: J. Swain).
Figure 118: Portland pick – GD = 134mm (Palmer 1977, p26; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw).
Figure 119: Seven flint/stone axehead clusters derived from k-means clustering of principal components scores for 818 specimens, plotted on the first two components. The ellipses enclose the majority of points for each cluster, and the drawings are hypoth
Figure 120: Typology of Yorkshire flint axeheads (Manby 1979: Figure 2; artist: T.G. Manby; courtesy of T.G. Manby).
Figure 121: A selection of common types of earlier Neolithic flint axeheads: 1) Earlier Neolithic ovate axehead from Reach Fen, Cambridgeshire – GD = 148mm (Evans 1897: Figure 23; artist: J. Swain); 2) earlier Neolithic ovate axehead from Santon Downham,
Figure 122: Later Neolithic ‘waisted’ axeheads: 1); Seamer axehead from Potter Brompton, Yorkshire – GD = 174mm (Manby 1979: Figure 5; artist: T.G. Manby; courtesy of T.G. Manby); and 2) Duggleby adzehead from York – GD = 166mm (Manby 1974: Figure 42; ar
Figure 123: Outlines of a selection of less common types of Neolithic flint axeheads: 1) Axehead with straight, tapering lateral sides – GD = 190mm; 2) axehead with straight, tapering lateral sides and a rounded butt – GD = 146mm; and 3) elongated ovate a
Figures 124-125: Polished Crudwell-Smerrick and Single Grave Culture axeheads. The piece to the left is a Crudwell-Smerrick axehead from Hayscastle, Pembrokeshire, resembling some Scandinavian thin-butted axeheads from the Funnel Beaker Culture – GD = 230
Figure 126: Chisels from Yorkshire – GD = c. 120mm (Manby 1979: Figure 5; artist: T.G. Manby; courtesy of T.G. Manby).
Figure 127: Tribrach from the Isle of Wight – GD = 158mm (Evans 1897: Figure 25A; artist: J. Swain).
Pieces with other retouch
Tools used to produce the lithic assemblages (see Inizan et al. 1992)
Figure 128: Tools used to produce the lithic assemblages: 1) ‘Classic’ hammerstone of quartz from Kilmelfort Cave, Highland (Saville & Ballin 2009, Illus 13; artist: Marion O’Neil); 2) hammerstone/anvil of felsite from the North Roe quarry complex, Shetla
Tribrachs
Figure 7: Crested pieces: 1) A bilaterally crested piece – GD= 93mm; and 2-3) unilaterally crested pieces - GD = 17-28mm, all from Milltimber Zone 4, Aberdeenshire (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.72, 2.86; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology
Figure 8: Platform rejuvenation flakes: 1) A full platform rejuvenation flake from Milltimber Zone 4, Aberdeenshire – GD = 52mm (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.87; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology Ltd.); and 2) a partial platform rejuvena
Figure 10: A selection of split pebbles of quartz from RUX6, North Uist, Western Isles (Ballin 2018b: Figure 5.14; photo: Beverley Ballin Smith).
Figure 9: A raw quartz pebble (No. 0) and split quartz pebbles (Nos 1-8) from RUX6, North Uist, Western Isles (Ballin 2018b: Figure 5.16).
Figure 11: Two en éperon blades from Howburn, South Lanarkshire – GD = 29-31mm (Ballin et al. 2018, Plate 1; artist: Marion O’Neil).
Figure 12: Core rough-outs: 1) A specimen from Garthdee Road, Aberdeen – GD = 30mm (Ballin 2014b, Illus 16; artist: Jan Dunbar; courtesy of Murray Archaeological Services Ltd.); and 2) one from Standingstones, Aberdeenshire – GD = 36mm (Ballin 2019e, Ill
Figure 13: Single-platform cores: 1) Broad (pyramidal) conical core (quartz) from Barabhas, Lewis - GD = 62mm (Ballin 2018b: Figure 30; photo: Beverley Ballin Smith); and 2) slender (bullet-shaped) conical core from Colinhill, South Lanarkshire – GD = 29
Figure 14: A selection of typical Late Mesolithic conical single-platform cores from Milltimber Zone 5, Aberdeenshire (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.77; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology Ltd.). The upper two cores display scars from short
Figure 15: handle-cores: 1) Well-defined handle-core from Nørholm, Denmark – GD 92mm (Ballin 2016a: Figure 12; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw); and 2) a less sophisticated Scottish handle-core from Garthdee Road, Aberdeen – GD = 39mm (Ballin 2014b, Illus 18; ar
Figure 16: Opposed-platform cores: 1) Large Hamburgian opposed-platform core from Howburn, South Lanarkshire – GD = 40mm (Ballin et al. 2018, Plate 4; artist: Hazel Martingell); and 2-4) three small Late Mesolithic opposed-platform cores from Nethermills
Figure 17: Core with two platforms at an angle from Garthdee Road, Aberdeen – GD = 44mm (Ballin 2014b, Illus 18; artist: Jan Dunbar; courtesy of Murray Archaeological Services Ltd.).
Figure 18: Irregular core from Kilmelfort Cave, Highland – GD = 24mm (Saville & Ballin 2009, Illus 3; artist: Marion O’Neil).
Figure 19: Plain discoidal core from Carnoustie, Angus – GD = 45mm (Ballin forthcoming a; artist: Jordan Barbour; courtesy of GUARD Archaeology Ltd.).
Figure 20: Kombewa core/’flaked flake’ from Hoxne Lower, Suffolk – GD = 110mm (Ashton et al. 1991: Figure 5; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw). Hoxne is a Lower Palaeolithic location – this figure has been used as few drawings exist of these simple cores from
Figure 21: Bifacial discoidal core from Raunds, Northamptonshire – GD = 30mm (Ballin 2011c: Figure SS3.48; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw).
Figure 22: Discoidal core of Glen Luce Type: 1) Schematic illustration of a discoidal core of Glen Luce Type; and 2) a specimen from Biggar, South Lanarkshire – GD = 35mm (Ballin 2009: Figure 15; artist: Sandra Kelly).
Figure 23: The operational schema of the Late Acheulean / Mousterian Levalloisian (Roe 1981: Figure 3:9): I. Basic shaping of nodule; II. preparation of domed dorsal surface; III. preparation of faceted striking platform on core; IV. the flake and the str
Figure 25: Levallois-like core from Stoneyhill Farm, Aberdeenshire (Ballin 2011a: Figure 2.12; photo: Beverley Ballin Smith).
Figure 24: Levallois-like cores: 1) A specimen from Wester Clerkhill, Aberdeenshire – GD = 63mm (Cameron & Ballin 2018: Figure 11; artist: Jan Dunbar); and 2-3) two from Wester Hatton, Aberdeenshire – GD = 33-40mm (Ballin 2019d, Illus 6.43D; artist: Leean
Figure 26: Probably Mesolithic bipolar cores from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – GD = 13-32mm (Wickham-Jones et al. 2017, Illus 11; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy of Caroline Wickham-Jones).
Figure 27: Probably Early Bronze Age bipolar cores from Freshwater West, Pembrokeshire – GD = 30-41mm (David 2017: Figure 11; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figure 28: Hamburgian shouldered and tanged points: 1) An Early Hamburgian shouldered point (‘Classic Hamburgian’ or Meiendorf point) from Bjerlev in central Jutland, Denmark – GD 43mm (Holm & Rieck 1992: Figure 8; artist: Jørgen Holm; courtesy of Jørgen
Figure 29: Ahrensburgian tanged points: 1) A specimen from Balevullin, Tiree (Ballin & Saville 2003: Figure 3/after Morrison & Bonsall 1989: Figure 3; artist: Marion O’Neil); and 2) one from Shieldaig, Loch Torridon, Highland (Ballin & Saville 2003: Figur
Figure 30: Single-edged tanged points: 1) The single-edged point from Brodgar, Orkney (Ballin & Bjerck 2016: Figure 4; artist: Marion O’Neil) – the ventral chipping at the tip may represent impact damage; and 2) for comparison, a similar Fosna-Hensbacka p
Figure 31: Creswellian backed points from Hoyle’s Mouth, Pembrokeshire – GD = 36-60mm (David 2007: Figure 2.20; artist: A. David; courtesy Andrew David).
Figure 32: Federmesser points: 1-4) Typical Federmesser points from Nanna’s Cave and Potter’s Cave, Caldey Island, Pembrokeshire, and King Arthur’s Cave, Herefordshire – GD = 15-45mm (David 2007: Figures 2.12, 2.13, 2.14; artist: Andrew David; courtesy
Figure 33: Green’s (1980: Figures 26-29) size (1-4) and shape (A-C) categories (re-drawn by the author). These types are based on Principal Components Analysis. It was chosen to select drop-shaped examples for this illustration, but the types shown here a
Figure 34: Leaf-shaped arrowheads: 1-5) Drop-shaped, double-pointed, and kite-shaped leaf-shaped points from Elgin Museum in Moray – GD = 20-35mm (Ballin 2014c, Figure 1; photo: Leanne Demay); and 6) ogival point from Auchategan in Argyll – GD = 31mm (B
Figure 35: Clark’s 10 main PTD forms. Types E and F have been rotated to bring their orientation into line with present consensus on their likely hafting form. Re-drawn by the author (Ballin 2011b, Plate 1) from Clark (1934c, Figures 1-2).
Figure 36: PTDs from sites near Overhowden Henge, Scottish Borders (Ballin 2011b, Figures 4-5; photo: Joyce Smith; courtesy of National Museums Scotland): 1) Chisel-shaped arrowheads; and 2) oblique arrowheads.
Figure 37: ‘Long-tailed obliques’: 1) A specimen from Santon Warren, Norfolk; and 2) one from Marden Henge, Wiltshire (Bishop et al. 2011; photo: Jim Leary; courtesy of Barry Bishop).
Figure 38: Green’s (1980: Figures 44-46) barbed-and-tanged arrowhead typology (redrawn by the author).
Figure 39: ‘Fancy’ barbed-and-tanged arrowheads: 1) Conygar point from Rudstone in Yorkshire; 2) Green Low point from Lambourn Down in Berkshire; and 3) Kilmarnock point from Aberdeenshire (Evans 1897: Figures 318, 319, and 326; artist: J. Swain) – GD
Figure 42: Seriation of BAT sub-types in relation to pottery styles (Ballin 2016b, Illus 17.10; based on information in Green 1980).
Figure 43: Hollow-based arrowhead from Stackpole, Pembrokeshire – GD = 34mm (David 1990: Figure 39; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figure 44: The production of microlith preforms by the application of microburin technique (Ballin 2017 b, Figure 7). The approach furthest right is referred to as the lamelle a cran approach; if the microburin facet of the distal part was not modified b
Figure 45: Microlith preforms: 1-9) Specimens from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – GD = 15-39mm (notched microblades and lamelles a cran; Wickham-Jones et al. 2017, Illus 12; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy of Caroline Wickham-Jones); and 10-11) from Mi
Figure 46: Obliquely blunted points from Donich Park, Argyll & Bute – GD = 14-19mm (Ballin & Ellis 2019: Figure 8; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw).
Figure 47: Isosceles triangles from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – 9.6-23mm (Wickham-Jones et al. 2017, Illus 13; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy of Caroline Wickham-Jones). Notice the isosceles micro-triangle furthest to the right, which may be Late M
Figure 48: Trapezoid microliths from Lussa Bay, Jura, Highland – GD = 23-33mm (Mercer 1970: Figure 6; redrawn by the author).
Figure 49: Scalene triangles: 1-4) large, broad scalene triangles from Nab Head I, Pembrokeshire – GD = c. 30mm (David 2007: Figure 4.5; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David.); 5-9) small, narrow scalene triangles from Prestatyn, Clwyd – GD = 14
Figure 50: Chronological sequence of triangular microliths in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany (Ballin forthcoming b, Figure 27), with No. 1 dating to what in Britain is referred to as the Early Mesolithic, No. 2 to the early part of the Late Mes
Figure 51: Early and early Late Mesolithic microlith assemblages from Duvensee Moor in Schleswig-Holstein (Duvensee 9, 8, 1, 6 and 13) (Ballin & Ellis 2019: Figures 15a-b). They were sequenced by Bokelman (1999: Figure 7) on the basis of the lithic mater
Figure 52: Crescents: 1-3) Specimens from Milltimber Zone 5, Aberdeenshire – GD = 22-28mm (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.81; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology Ltd. – some analysts may refer to the piece furthest to the right as a ‘convex-
Figure 53: Edge-blunted microliths: 1-2) Specimens from Dunragit, Site 19, Dumfries & Galloway – GD = 25-26mm (Ballin forthcoming b; artist: Jordan Barbour; courtesy of GUARD Archaeology Ltd.); and 3-6) from Nethermills Farm, Aberdeenshire – GD = 22-24mm
Figure 54: Quadrilateral microliths from North Carn, Jura, Highland – GD = 13-21mm (Mercer 1972: Figure 5; redrawn by the author).
Figure 55: Basally modified microliths: 1-8) Horsham points – GD = 20-30mm (David & Kowalski 2019; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David); and 9-14) Honey Hill points – GD = 20-28mm (Saville 1981b, Figure 1; artist: Alan Saville; courtesy Alan Sa
Figure 56: 1-9) Micro petit tranchets from White Gill, Yorkshire (Radley 1969: Figure 4; redrawn by Leeanne Whitelaw); and 10—15) Penpant, Pembrokeshire (David 2020: Figure 7; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David).
Figure 58: Backed and truncated bladelets: 1-3) Three backed bladelets from St Catherine’s Bridge, Pembrokeshire – GD = 12-16mm (David & Painter 2014: Figure 8; artist: Andrew David; courtesy of Andrew David); and 4) one obliquely blunted bladelet from N
Figure 57: Zonhoven points from Zonhoven-Molenheide, Belgium – GD = 16-36mm (Vermeersch 2013: Figures 52, 53; artist: Gunther Noens; courtesy of Pierre Vermeersch).
Figure 59: Four proximal and one distal microburins from Milltimber Zone 5, Aberdeenshire – GD = 8-18mm (Ballin 2019c, Illus 2.81; artist: Leeanne Whitelaw; courtesy of Headland Archaeology Ltd.).
Figure 60: Scraper-edge angles – LUP blade-scrapers and short end-scrapers from Howburn compared to Middle Bronze Age short end-scrapers from Bayanne, Yell (Ballin et al. 2018: Figure 23).
Figure 61: Thumbnail-scrapers: 1-5) Typical Early Bronze Age thumbnail-scrapers from Elgin Museum, Moray; L = c. 15-20mm (Ballin 2014c, Figure 3; photo: Leanne Demay); and 6-8) from Freshwater West, Pembrokeshire – GD = 16-19mm (David 2017: Figure 11; art
Figure 62: Typical thumbnail-sized scrapers from Mesolithic contexts: 1) A specimen from Early Mesolithic An Corran, Highland; GD = 25mm (Saville et al. 2012, Illus 32; artist: Marion O’Neil; courtesy Alan Saville/Annette Carruthers); and 2) one from Earl
Figure 63: Discoidal scrapers: 1) Possibly LUP discoidal scraper from Kilmelfort Cave, Highland – GD = 20mm (Saville & Ballin 2009, Illus 8; artist: Marion O’Neil); and 2) EBA discoidal thumbnail-scraper from Bryn-y-Mor, Pembrokeshire – GD = 19mm (David
Figure 64: A selection of Hamburgian short end-scrapers and blade-scrapers from Howburn, South Lanarkshire – GD = 21-46mm (Ballin et al. 2018, Plates 9 and 11; artist: Marion O’Neil); note that the blanks of the blade-scrapers are Levallois-like blades.
Bibliography
Back cover