2014: The mainly Late Mesolithic quartz assemblage from Shieldaig, Wester Ross, Highland –...

of 23

The mainly Late Mesolithic quartz assemblage from Shieldaig,

Wester Ross, Highland – ‘acceptable’ quartz and ‘excellent’ quartz

Torben Bjarke Ballin

LITHIC RESEARCH, Stirlingshire

Honorary Research Fellow, University of Bradford

This report was produced in 2001 as part of my project ‘Quartz Technology in Scottish Prehistory ’

(Ballin 2008b). Realistically speaking, I do not expect to be able (in these post Credit Crunch times) to

secure funding for the publication of this site and its assemblage, and I therefore thought that it would be

most sensible to make the report on the site’s lithics freely available to colleagues interested in the various

aspects of the lithics of the Scottish West. The present document is the report on the collection’s quartz

component, and it is my intention to update and subsequently upload the collection’s flint and bloodstone

component soon.

INTRODUCTION

The Shieldaig site was situated by the Shieldaig–Kenmore road at Loch Torridon in Wester

Ross. As nearby gravel extraction and road construction threatened to undermine the site, a

small excavation was carried out in 1973 by Dr Michael Walker, then at the Department of

Anatomy, University of Edinburgh. The settlement had already been affected by the activities

in the area, and there was little hope of recovering an intact assemblage. The aim of the

excavation was therefore limited to retrieving the remaining in situ material before total

destruction of the site.

The purpose of this report is to characterize the quartz assemblage, with special reference

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

attempt is made to date the quartz assemblage and discuss its affiliation. The excavation of

Shieldaig was carried out with reference to site stratigraphy and trenches (Walker 1973, 2), but

the absence of a standard grid system makes it impossible to separate the Palaeolithic,

Mesolithic and Neolithic finds (see dating section, below) horizontally, or to define activity

areas by distribution analysis.

This evaluation arose from a study co-funded by Historic Scotland, the National

Museums of Scotland, and the Russel Trust, which included examination of the quartz

artefacts from Shieldaig as part of a pilot project looking at quartz use in prehistoric Scotland

(Ballin 2008b). The evaluation is based upon a detailed catalogue of all the lithic artefacts from

Shieldaig (an Access database), and the artefacts in this paper are referenced by their number in

this catalogue (CAT no.). The catalogue is an archive document, copies of which are available

on request from the Archaeology Department, National Museums of Scotland.

RAW MATERIAL

Raw material terminology

Initial cursory examination of the quartz from Shieldaig demonstrated that the raw material of

the assemblage constituted a more diversified spectrum than most other quartz assemblages. A

part of the quartz material was ‘typical’ or vitreous (‘glassy’) quartz , whereas a large proportion

of 23

of the assemblage was made up of quartz varieties with colours, lustres, structures (e.g.

foliation) and flaking properties uncommon to ‘typical’ quartz. It was therefore decided to first

define the relevant varieties to ensure 1) that the Shieldaig report only dealt with raw materials

covered by the aims of the Quartz Project (cf. project description; Ballin 2008b), and 2) a

consistent raw material classification.

The first part of this process was to determine which raw materials to exclude from the

analysis. Flint, obviously, is not relevant to the Quartz Project. It was decided to exclude the

Shieldaig bloodstone finds as well, as this raw material forms part of the general flint-chert-

chalcedony continuum (cf. discussion in Ballin 2014b). The remaining artefacts are covered by

the concept of quartz sensu largo. Based on a number of geological attributes and different

flaking properties the quartz assemblage was subdivided into the following categories: quartz

A, quartz B, quartzite, and ‘other raw materials’. As shown in Table 1, quartz A and quartz B

make up the majority of the assemblage (c. 99%). The four raw materials were defined in the

following manner (cf. Pellant 1992):

Quartz A: White or translucent mineral or silica (SiO2) – this quartz variety forms a

continuum from opaque white milky quartz to transparent/translucent rock crystal; only a few

pieces of rock crystal are transparent/translucent throughout, whereas many are

transparent/translucent in areas (i.e. most of the piece, some areas of the piece, or there are

traces of transparency/translucency). The lustre is clearly vitreous and banding is uncommon

(apart from pieces with fine quartz and rock crystal appearing as lenses in quartz B). In this

report milky quartz and rock crystal are treated as one raw material labelled ‘quartz A’.

Quartz B: Though closely related, quartz A and quartz B differ on many accounts.

Contrary to quartz A, quartz B may have any colour, but it is primarily white, grey, light brown,

red or green; the lustre is ‘greasy’, and the surfaces may appear slightly grainy (‘saccharoidal’) or

‘frosted’; it is frequently banded or contains stretched lenses of very fine quartz A or rock

crystal. The two quartz varieties also have different flaking properties (see technology section).

Quartzite: Metamorphic rock formed by transformation (pressure and heat) of sandstone.

This quartzite is only slightly altered, and the quartz grains are visible with the naked eye or at

low magnification. The colours vary, but in this assemblage the quartzite artefacts are white,

grey or light brown; as quartzite consists of grains of ‘typical’ quartz, its lustre is vitreous; it

may be banded (Johnstone & Mykura 1989, 42).

Other quartz raw materials: Pieces not conforming to the above definitions. Two pieces were

defined as smokey quartz, and only their colour (black) separates them from quartz A. Other

pieces (four) belong to various siliceous groups that could not be defined more accurately.

Although most of the artefacts in the Shieldaig quartz assemblage are easily assigned to

one or the other of the above raw material categories, there are numerous hybrids. This fact

suggests that the four raw material groups form a geological continuum. An attribute analysis

of 100 flakes in quartz A and 100 flakes in quartz B (Table 8) demonstrates that most of the

quartz derives from veins in the local bedrock; the presence of abraded surfaces on a small

number of flakes in quartz A shows that some quartz was collected at a pebble source. The

fact that in the entire assemblage only one artefact in rock crystal (out of many hundreds) had

a remaining crystal facet on its dorsal side, suggests that rock crystal was only occasionally

collected in crystal form.

of 23

Raw material composition of the assemblage

As shown in Table 1, the major part of the assemblage is quartz A and quartz B – quartzite and

other raw materials make up less than 1% each; quartz A and quartz B are represented as 47%

and 52% of the assemblage, respectively. The percentage distribution of the debitage is

identical to the distribution of the entire assemblage.

Table 1. Quartz assemblage: percentages of raw materials.

Quartz A Quartz B Quartzite Others Total

Debitage 98.4 96.7 86.2 100.0 97.4

Cores 0.9 1.6 3.5

1.3

Tools 0.7 1.7 10.3

1.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

As shown in Table 1, the general composition of the two main quartz categories differ

somewhat. Quartz A has slightly more debitage than quartz B, whereas there is almost twice as

many cores and almost three times as many tools in quartz B as there is in quartz A. This is

probably mainly due to quartz A and quartz B having different flaking properties and therefore

being reduced in different ways (see technology section). Quartz A has a tendency to splinter

or disintegrate, whereas quartz B has excellent flaking properties, and as a consequence,

production based on quartz A leaves much more, and smaller, debitage per core or produced

blank than production based on quartz B; this fact is supported by Table 4. The tendency is

further strengthened by different approaches to knapping in quartz A and quartz B, with

quartz A more frequently being knapped in bipolar technique (see technology section) which

tends to result in more debris than the application of platform technique.

The fact that more tools are in quartz B may be explained by preferential selection. Due

to the superior flaking properties of this raw material, it was selected for tool manufacture in

preference to quartz A. Quartz B flakes in a more controlled fashion than quartz A, and even

though knapping of quartz A probably resulted in sharper edges than quartz B, it was easier to

form delicate tools, such as microliths, in this material (tool ratios: quartz A 0.7, quartz B 1.7).

Of other raw materials only quartzite found some use: one conical core, two microliths,

and one notched piece are in this material. The reason for the limited use of quartzite at

Shieldaig may be its grainy structure – the edges of thin artefacts tend to crumble. It should be

borne in mind that it is almost impossible to distinguish between the West of Scotland basal

quartzite and fine-grained quartz. These two types of raw material are almost visually identical,

but they were formed differently – quartzite through metamorphic processes and fine-grained

quartz by the solidification of hydrothermal fluids (cf. Luedke 1992, 17-36; Johnstone &

Mykura 1989). It is quite possible that some of the pieces defined in the present report as

being quartzite are actually fine-grained quartz.

THE ASSEMBLAGE

From the excavation of Shieldaig the following quartz artefacts were identified1:

1 83 unworked pieces (gravel to pebble size) are not included.

of 23

Table 2. Quartz assemblage: general artefact list.


Debitage

Chips 918 513 1,431

Flakes 1,273 1,784 22 4 3,083

Blades 9 36 2 47

Microblades 13 18 31

Indeterminate pieces 81 164 1 2 248

Core preparation flakes 1 8 9

Total debitage 2,295 2,523 25 6 4,849

Cores

Single-platform cores (incl. conical) 4 6 1 11

Opposed-platform cores 1 2 3

Discoidal cores 2 2

Irregular cores 13 13

Bipolar cores 14 17 31

Core rough-outs 1 1 2

Collected crystals 2 2

Total cores 22 41 1 64

Tools

Microliths 5 12 2 19

Fragments of microliths or backed bladelets 1 3 4

Microburins 1 1

Scrapers 4 14 18

Borers 1 3 4

Pieces w truncations 3 3

Tanged implements 1 1

Pieces w notch(es) 1 1 2

Pieces w invasive retouch 1 1

Pieces w edge-retouch 4 5 9

Hammerstones 1 1

Total tools 16 44 3 63

TOTAL 2,333 2,608 29 6 4,976

The definitions of the main lithic categories are as follows:

Chips: All flakes and indeterminate pieces the greatest dimension (GD) of which is 10mm. Flakes: All lithic artefacts with one identifiable ventral (positive/convex) surface, GD > 10mm and L <

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

Indeterminate pieces: Lithic artefacts which cannot be unequivocally identified as either flakes or cores. Generally the problem of identification is due to irregular breaks, frost-shattering or fire-crazing. Chunks are larger indeterminate pieces, and in, for example, the case of quartz, the problem of identification usually originates from a piece flaking along natural planes of weakness rather than flaking in the usual conchoidal way.

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

8mm. In Southern Scandinavia microblades are defined as pieces narrower than 10mm, in Norway

as pieces narrower than 8mm; this difference is due to different raw-material situations, and the

of 23

blades of Norway are generally much smaller than in Southern Scandinavia. As the blades in Scotland

have similar sizes to the Norwegian blades, I recommend adopting the 8mm definition (cf. Wickham-

Jones 1990, 73).

Cores: Artefacts with only dorsal (negative/concave) surfaces – if three or more flakes have been detached, the piece is a core, if fewer than three flakes have been detached, the piece is a split pebble.

Tools: Artefacts with secondary retouch (modification).

Other relevant definitions are:

Normal retouch: Retouch, initiated from the ventral face (covering the dorsal face).

Inverse retouch: Retouch initiated from the dorsal face (covering the ventral face).

Propellar retouch: Retouch which is normal on one lateral edge and inverse on the other.

Base/tip: The term ‘base’ has occasionally been used as synonymous with ‘proximal end’. In the present

paper ‘base’ is used in connection with the characterization of microliths, and the term defines the end

opposite the tip. Thus, the base of a microlith may be proximal as well as distal.

Fig. 1. Flakes and blades in quartz.

Debitage

A total of 4,849 pieces of debitage was recovered during the excavation at Shieldaig: 2,295 are in

quartz A, 2,523 are quartz B, 25 are quartzite and 6 are ‘other raw materials’ (Fig. 1).

TABLE 3 (distribution of debitage) – at the end of the report

The occurence of debitage types within the four raw material categories varies significantly, as

illustrated in Table 4. The chip ratio is largely determined by the properties of the raw material.

The difference between the chip ratios of quartz A and quartz B is due to the fact that quartz B

has excellent flaking properties (conchoidal fracture), whereas quartz A tends to flake more

irregularly or, in some cases, splinter or disintegrate. The low chip ratios of quartzite and the

category ‘other raw materials’ are probably primarily results of the small sizes of the populations

(29 pieces and six pieces), resulting in random statistical fluctuations, although it is likely that

of 23

quartzite chips may have disintegrated completely due to the loose structure of the raw material.

The different flake ratios were generally caused by the fluctuating chip ratios.

Table 4. Quartz assemblage: percentages of debitage categories.


Chips 40.0 20.4

29.6

Flakes 55.5 71.0 88.0 66.7 63.7

Blades 0.4 1.4 8.0 1.0

Microblades 0.6 0.7 0.6

Indet. pieces 3.5 6.5 4.0 33.3 5.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

The high ratio of indeterminate pieces in the category ‘other raw materials’ represents random

statistical fluctuation due to the small sample size (six pieces). The ratio is twice as high in the

quartz B category as in the categories quartzite and quartz A, which may be explained by

different raw material properties. Quartz B tends to be intersected by planes of weakness (fault

planes), whereas quartz A and quartzite does not have this problem. The Shieldaig quartz A is

very homogeneous and pure.

Compared with the original museum catalogue, the Shieldaig assemblage of this report has

very few indeterminate pieces (in the museum catalogue labelled ‘waste lumps’, ‘indeterminate

fragments’ and ‘non-flake lumps’). This fact is due to the rigorous classification principles of this

report, resulting in a large amount of ‘lumpy’ or ‘chunky’ bipolar material being classified as

flakes. Bipolar material was classified as flakes if it had the ventral and terminal attributes

associated with bipolar flakes (Ballin 1999a, 18) – the classification was not based on whether the

individual pieces appeared more or less ‘chunky’ or had any similarity to typical ‘thin’ platform

flakes.

Fig. 2. Preparation flakes – four crested pieces, and one platform rejuvenation flake.

The blade ratios of quartzite and ‘other raw materials’ represent random statistical fluctuations,

whereas the ratios of quartz A and quartz B illustrate true differences. The ‘blades’ in quartz A

are generally oblong bipolar spalls (‘metric’ blades rather than ‘qualitative’ blades); some of the

blades in quartz B are bipolar spalls as well, but amongst the pieces in quartz B there are some

of 23

‘proper’ platform blades with parallel lateral sides and arrises, and regular dorsal and ventral

faces. The blanks of the quartz B microliths from Shieldaig prove that some production of

microblades took place, but the general composition of the debitage group demonstrates that the

aim of the quartz production was the manufacture of flakes.

There are nine core preparation flakes (Fig. 2), of which eight are crested flakes (one in

quartz A and seven in quartz B; average dimensions: 35 x 17 x 10mm) and one is a platform

rejuvenation flake (quartz B; 28 x 20 x 8mm). Four of the crested flakes are unilateral, and four

are bilateral2. The platform rejuvenation flake [CAT 142] has no trimming or abrasion of the

platform-edge.

Cores

Sixty-four cores were found at Shieldaig: 11 single-platform cores (of which five are conical),

three opposed platform cores, two discoidal cores, 13 irregular cores, 31 bipolar cores, two core

rough-outs, and two collected quartz crystals. Twenty-two cores are in quartz A, 41 are in quartz

B and one is in quartzite; generally, all core types are represented in quartz A as well as quartz B,

but discoidal cores and irregular cores are exclusively in quartz B.

TABLE 5 (distribution of cores) – at the end of the report

Eleven single-platform cores were found (Figs 3-4), of which five have a regular conical shape

(conical cores), whereas six are less regular. The conical cores (av. dim.: 22 x 22 x 18mm) form a

relatively homogeneous group, and apart from one very long and pointed core [CAT 58], they

are small and squat. In general, they are knapped along half to three-quarters of the

circumference with oval platforms; one conical core has a faceted platform [CAT 107], but

usually the platforms are plain; two [CAT 53, 141] have trimmed platform-edges. Two of these

cores have almost right-angled flaking angles, whereas the remaining three have acute flaking

angles. Two cores are in quartz A, two are in quartz B, and one is in quartzite [CAT 141].

Fig. 3. Platform cores: three conical/sub-conical cores, and two opposed platform cores. No 5 was worked from one direction on one face, and from the opposite direction on the other face.

2 A unilateral crested flake has had the crest formed by removing small flakes to one side of the crest, whereas a bilateral

crested flake has had the crest formed by removing small flakes to either side of the crest (Ballin 1996, 10).

of 23

The remaining single-platform cores (av. dim.: 31 x 30 x 21mm) have a more ad hoc appearance. Two

cores [CAT 147, 151] are large (GD c. 46mm), and two [63, 176] are small and squat (GD c.

20mm). In general, the single-platform cores are only knapped along one-quarter to half of the

circumference; all platforms are plain and angular; and four [CAT 57, 61, 63, 176] have trimmed

platform-edges. Two of the single-platform cores have one [CAT 61] or two [CAT 151]

remaining crests. Two are in quartz A, and four in quartz B.

Fig. 4. The length:width of all intact single-platform cores.

During the excavation, three opposed-platform cores were recovered (av. dim.: 26 x 20 x 15mm).

Two [CAT 154, 172] are typical sub-cylindrical cores with one flaking-front and an unused ‘back-

side’; one [CAT 121] is atypical, with one face having been knapped from one platform, and the

other face (the ‘reverse’) having been knapped from the opposed platform. All platforms are

knapped along approximately half of the circumference; one core [CAT 163] has a slightly

faceted platform, otherwise all platforms are plain; CAT 154 and 163 have had one or both

platform-edges trimmed. CAT 163 has two diagonally positioned unilateral crests, and CAT 121

has, at the centre of one flaking front, the remains of a bilateral crest. One opposed-platform

core is in quartz A, and two in quartz B.

y = 0.9573x + 1.5852 R² = 0.2686

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40

Le

ng

th, m

m

Width, mm

of 23

Fig. 5. Platform cores: one discoidal core, and one irregular (multi-directional) core.

Two discoidal cores were retrieved at Shieldaig (Fig. 5), one small (30 x 29 x 19mm) and one large

(61 x 56 x 35mm) (for discussion of discoidal cores, see Ballin 2008a). They are both fairly thick

and in quartz B. Thirteen irregular cores (Fig. 5) were found (av. dim.: 43 x 35 x 26mm). They form

a heterogeneous group, and although some [e.g. CAT 79, 108, 146, 152] have relatively regular

shapes (they are roughly ‘cubic’), due to their having been knapped from three platforms, others

have completely random shapes. The randomly shaped irregular cores owe their morphology to

either completely unstructured knapping [e.g. CAT 139, 149, 177] or the fact that they were

abandoned after a short stage of casual ‘test-knapping’ [CAT 178, 179]. All irregular cores are in

quartz B.

Fig. 6. Bipolar cores.

With 31 specimens the bipolar cores are the dominant core type of the assemblage (Figs 6-7). They

are generally quite small (av. dim.: 25 x 18 x 12mm), but some larger pieces are present. The GD

(terminal to terminal) of the group varies between 55mm and 10mm. The bipolar cores appear in

a number of different shapes, such as elongated pieces [e.g. CAT 105, 112], thin rectangular

pieces [e.g. CAT 119, 161], and ‘chubby’ pieces [e.g. CAT 80, 86]. A number of bipolar cores

clearly owe their shape to their point-of-departure, as they represent the final reduction of

exhausted platform cores [CAT 81, 128, 129, 148]; they all have either one or two remaining

crests or a platform, or both. Fourteen bipolar cores are in quartz A, and 17 in quartz B.

of 23

Fig. 7. The length:width of all intact bipolar cores.

Two core rough-outs (one in quartz A and one in quartz B) are very similar in principle: they both

have two opposed (untrimmed) platforms and two diagonally positioned crests. However, one

[CAT 76] is very large (92 x 79 x 58mm), and one [CAT 184] is relatively small (47 x 51 x

27mm). The large rough-out has two coarse bilateral crests, and the small has two unilateral

crests. Most of one crest has been detached from the smaller core, probably in an attempt to

initiate production of the first flake series. The attempt was not successful, as a plane of

weakness caused the crest to detach in an uncontrolled manner, and the core was subsequently

abandoned. Two quartz crystals were recovered, but one [CAT 66] is too small to have been of

any relevance to the prehistoric knappers (10 x 8 x 5mm), and the other [CAT 65] is unused (29

x 21 x 14mm). The small crystal is heavily rolled and may be a simple piece of ‘gravel’ without

any archaeological significance, whereas the larger crystal may represent collected raw material;

both are surface finds.

Tools

The assemblage includes 63 tools: 23 microliths, one microburin, 18 scrapers, four borers, three

pieces with truncations, one tanged implement, two notched pieces, nine pieces with edge-

retouch, one piece with invasive retouch, and one hammerstone. Sixteen tools are in quartz A, 44

are quartz B, and three are quartzite. The general tool ratio is 1.2%; for quartz A it is 0.7%, and

for quartz B it is 1.7%, that is, almost three times the ratio for quartz A. The general ratio is

relatively low, but in this case the typology of the quartz assemblage corresponds well with that

of the Shieldaig flint assemblage to which it must form a complementary part; based on cursory

examination, it is the author’s impression that the tool ratio of the flint assemblage is

y = 0.7133x + 11.53 R² = 0.7874

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40

Le

ng

th, m

m

Width, mm

of 23

considerably higher than that of the quartz assemblage, which will raise the tool ratio for the site

as a functional whole. The fact that the tool ratio for quartz A is considerably lower than that for

quartz B is probably due to quartz B having been selected for tool manufacture in preference to

quartz A.

TABLE 6 (distribution of tools) – at the end of the report

Table 7 illustrates the general composition of the tool category. Obviously, this table illustrates

activities carried out at the site (to the extent that morphological types correspond to functions),

but Scandinavian research (Ballin 1999b) has also shown that the general composition of the

tools may have some diagnostic value (see dating section). Only formal tool types are included in

Table 7, and for example pieces with notches and edge-retouch have been excluded, as they are

often fragments of other tool types, as well as microburins which are waste products from the

production of microliths.

Table 7. Quartz assemblage: general composition of the tool group.

Main tool types No. %

Microliths/microlith-related pieces 23 48

Scrapers 18 38

Borers 4 8

Burins 0 0

Truncated pieces 3 6

Total 48 100

Microliths: To allow comparison of the Shieldaig microliths with those of other sites it is

necessary first to define what is meant by the term ‘microlith’. In the archaeological literature, the

term microlith is defined in a number of different ways, adding some confusion to the discussion

of the category and its dating. In the present report, ‘microlith’ is defined as in the analyst’s

previous reports on early prehistoric assemblages (eg, Ballin 2013 [Nethermills rep]):

Microliths are small lithic implements manufactured to form part of composite tools, either as tips or as

edges/barbs, and which conform to a restricted number of well-known forms, which have had their (usually)

proximal ends removed (Clark 1934, 55). This definition secures the microlith as a diagnostic (pre Neolithic)

type.

The following microlith types were recovered from the site (Fig. 8): Isosceles triangles (two

pieces), scalene triangles (three pieces), crescents (five pieces), needle points (six pieces), and

edge-blunted pieces (three pieces) (in older literature referred to as lanceolates; cf. Butler 2005).

Edge-blunted pieces (or lanceolates) are defined as microliths corresponding to Clark’s types B

and C, that is, microliths with one side completely blunted or microliths with one side blunted

combined with basal retouch (in the original museum catalogue these microliths are referred to

as ‘rods’). For definitions of the remaining microlith types see Butler’s (2005) presentation of the

various microlith schemas.

of 23

Fig. 8. Microliths: ten geometric microliths, and one microburin.

Isosceles triangles: Two isosceles triangles [CAT 133, 160] from the site are so small that they may

best be described as ‘micro’ triangles (av. dim.: 8 x 3 x 2mm). CAT 133 is a proper triangle with a

well-developed angle, whereas CAT 160 has a poorly defined angle and appears to be a hybrid

between an isosceles triangle and a crescent. Both microliths are fully retouched on all three

sides. CAT 133 is in quartz A, and CAT 160 is in quartz B.

Scalene triangles: The specific forms of the three scalene triangles [CAT 169, 181, 185] (av.

dim.: 14 x 4 x 2mm) differ somewhat: CAT 181 and 185 have distinctly scalene outlines, with

one leg of the triangle being markedly longer than the other leg; the two legs of CAT 169 are of

different lengths, but not quite as distinctly. It is fully retouched on all three sides, whereas only

the legs of CAT 181 and 185 are retouched. The end with the shortest leg is proximal on CAT

169 and distal on CAT 181. CAT 169 is in quartz B, and CAT 181 and 185 are in quartzite.

Crescents: Five crescents [CAT 51, 94, 134, 170, 172] were recovered (av. dim.: 12 x 4 x

2mm), one [CAT 170] of which is relatively symmetrical, with the remaining four being

asymmetrical. Some are morphologically related to the triangular microliths, and some are, via

their basal retouch, related to the edge-blunted pieces. The attribute separating edge-blunted

pieces and crescents with basal retouch is the convexity of the fully retouched lateral side: on

crescents the convexity of this side is fully developed, on edge-blunted pieces the fully retouched

side is straight to slightly convex.

CAT 134 has one fully retouched convex side and one unretouched straight side; CAT 170

has both the convex and the straight side fully retouched; CAT 51 and 94 have the convex sides

fully retouched, supplemented by basal retouch on the straight side; and CAT 172 has the

convex side fully retouched, whereas the other side has been broken off. Only in one instance

[CAT 94] was it possible to determine at which end the tip is; in this case the tip is proximal.

CAT 134 and 172 are in quartz A, the remaining crescents are in quartz B.

Needle points: Six needle points [CAT 98, 157, 158, 159, 168, 171] were found on the site (av.

dim.: 12 x 3 x 2mm). One is double-pointed [CAT 168], the other needle points only have one

tip. The two retouched lateral sides of the points are straight to slightly convex. Generally, the tip

is proximal, but the tip of CAT 158 is distal. The tips of CAT 157 and 158 are slightly abraded,

suggesting that they may have been used as borers; this is supported by a ventral facet on the tip

of CAT 157 caused by a rotating movement. CAT 159 is in quartz A, the remaining needle

points are in quartz B. Today, needle points are generally referred to as meches de foret and

interpreted as small drill bits (Jacobi 1980).

Edge-blunted pieces (lanceolate microliths): The assemblage includes three edge-blunted microliths

[CAT 97, 114, 135], characterized by having one lateral side fully retouched (av. dim.: 13 x 4 x

of 23

2mm). The other lateral side of CAT 114 and 135 is unretouched; CAT 97 has some basal

retouch covering approximately one third of the other side. The fully retouched sides are

generally straight to slightly convex. One tip has broken off and cannot be defined

(proximal/distal), but the tip of CAT 97 is probably distal, and the tip of CAT 114 probably

proximal. CAT 97 is in quartz A, and CAT 114 and 135 are in quartz B.

In general, the blanks for microliths were microblades, but two crescents were made on

small flakes [CAT 51, 134]. In most cases it was not possible to determine in which technique

the blanks were manufactured: one blank [CAT 172] is certainly bipolar, and CAT 135 was

probably made in platform technique. However, considering the composition of the core group,

and the fact that no platform cores in quartz A and quartz B show regular microblade scars, it is

likely that in most cases the blanks were manufactured on bipolar cores. As most of the microlith

blanks have relatively irregular lateral sides and arrisses it is probably more correct to call them

‘microblade-like flakes’ or spalls. None of the Shieldaig microliths in quartz A and B has a proper

microburin facet at the tip.

Fragments of microliths or backed bladelets: This category includes four pieces [CAT 99, 136, 137,

186], all of which are medial or end-fragments of possible microliths or backed bladelets (av.

dim.: 7 x 3 x 2mm). CAT 99 has both lateral sides retouched, and CAT 136, 137, and 186 only

have one side retouched. CAT 136 is in quartz A, the other three pieces in quartz B.

Microburins: Only one microburin in quartz B [CAT 96] was found at Shieldaig (10 x 8 x

2mm). It is the proximal end of a microblade, snapped in a lateral notch. No microburin facet

was formed when the proximal end was removed.

Fig. 9. Tools: one tanged implement, three end-scrapers, one side-scraper, two borers, and one piece with an oblique concave truncation (?knife).

Scrapers: Eighteen scrapers were recovered (Fig. 9), of which 10 are short end-scrapers, two are

double-scrapers, five are side-scrapers, and one is an atypical scraper. Four scrapers (one end-

scraper, two side-scrapers, and the atypical scraper) are in quartz A, and 14 are in quartz B. The

short end-scrapers form a heterogeneous group (av. dim.: 28 x 26 x 13mm), varying greatly in size

(GD 14 - 50mm) and morphology. Most of the end-scrapers are quite thick, but two are thin

[CAT 52, 175]; the scraper-edges are generally convex and steep, but in one case [CAT 64] it is

of 23

straight and relatively acute. Several of the end-scrapers have some edge-damage [CAT 109, 116,

144], or they show macroscopic use-wear in the shape of overhangs [CAT 60, 102]. Some

scraper-edges are uneven or denticulated [CAT 60, 109, 165], which may, to some degree, be due

to use or repairs. Five of the end-scrapers are on flakes, and five are on indeterminate pieces.

Double-scrapers: One [CAT 127] of the two double-scrapers is large (51 x 32 x 31mm), and

one [CAT 166] is of small to medium size (32 x 26 x 9mm). The large double-scraper is ‘twisted’

as it has a slightly uneven scraper-edge at either end, but retouched from different faces. The

small double-scraper has an edge at one end, and an edge at the corner of the other end; the two

edges are retouched from the same face. The scraper-edges of both scrapers are convex, and

both scrapers are on indeterminate pieces.

Side-scrapers: The five side-scrapers form an even more heterogeneous group than the end-

scrapers (av. dim.: 36 x 30 x 18mm) – no two side-scrapers are alike. Like the end-scrapers, they

differ in size (GD 17 - 62mm) as well as morphology. The two most regular side-scrapers [CAT

73, 88] are both on flakes, whereas the other three are on large chunks [CAT 111, 126] and a

bipolar core [CAT 82]; the latter three side-scrapers have relatively uneven edges, and half of the

edge of CAT 111 has broken off. The scraper-edge of CAT 82 is convex, but all other scraper-

edges in this scraper category are straight to slightly convex. The atypical scraper [CAT 162] is on a

plate-shaped indeterminate piece (56 x 46 x 17mm). It has broken diagonally and it now appears

as two conjoining pieces. It has an uneven, slightly concave scraper-edge with prominent

overhang from use or re-sharpening.

Borers: The four borers from Shieldaig are all fairly dissimilar (Fig. 9). CAT 85 (35 x 32 x

16mm) is on an indeterminate piece and has a tip formed by retouching two notches next to

each other on an edge; on another edge it has a denticulated retouch which may be either

blunting (protective) retouch or a supplementary scraper-edge. CAT 74 (47 x 42 x 28mm) is on a

large indeterminate piece and has a tip formed by crudely retouching a corner. CAT 180 (31 x 28

x 15mm) is on a flake with its tip made by simple retouch of the pointed corner of a break; one

lateral side of the tip has broken off. And CAT 56 (18 x 13 x 8mm) is on a flake and has had a

tip formed by retouching a notch next to a break – at first sight it looks like a small core, but the

‘platform’ is a break, and the apparent ‘trimming’ is retouch associated with the almost right-

angled borer-tip and a possible burin-edge at the other side of the break. CAT 74 is in quartz A,

the other borers are all quartz B.

Truncated pieces: The assemblage contains three truncated pieces on flakes (Fig. 9). CAT 118

is a flake with a straight truncation (25 x 22 x 5mm); the truncation is short (c. 7mm) and joins

the retouched right lateral side at a bend. CAT 122 is a flake with a concave truncation (16 x 11 x

3mm); it is a broken-off end, but it is not certain whether the retouched end is proximal or distal.

CAT 117 is an indeterminate piece with a concave truncation (30 x 22 x 11mm). All three pieces

are in quartz B, and, as they have sharp edges opposite the retouched areas, they are probably

small knives.

Tanged implements: This artefact in quartz B [CAT 101] (34 x 21 x 5mm) has a tang formed at

one end by retouching a concave area in either side (Fig. 9); the retouch is of the so-called

‘propellar’ type (i.e. one edge retouched from the dorsal face, the other from the ventral). One

lateral side of the flake is sharp and possibly used, and the other blunt side is probably the

platform remnant of the blank. The tool may be an atypical tanged point, but it is more likely to

be a small knife with a hafting device.

Various retouched pieces: Two notched pieces were retrieved from the site. CAT 93 (42 x 20 x

6mm) is a quartzite blade with a large notch (chord c. 10mm) in the proximal left side, and CAT

95 (12 x 11 x 2mm) is the broken-off proximal end of a quartz B flake or blade with a notch

of 23

(chord c. 7mm) in the left side. In these two cases, the purpose of the notches may be to facilitate

strapping the blades into wooden hafts. CAT 164 is a robust flake with invasive retouch in quartz A

(37 x 30 x 18mm). It has the entire ventral face covered by invasive retouch from the two lateral

sides; it may be a rough-out for a leaf-shaped point. Pieces with edge-retouch (av. dim.: 26 x 20 x

9mm) include four flakes in quartz A and five in quartz B. The retouched areas of these pieces

are usually straight, but CAT 68, the largest specimen (GD: 46mm), has an extensive concave

retouch. Generally, it is impossible to say what function(s) the individual tools had, but two small

retouched flakes (CAT 70 and 123) have a sharp edge opposite the retouched area and may be

cutting implements.

Hammerstones: CAT 77 (50 x 49 x 29mm) is an angular hammerstone in quartz A. It has one

battered edge, probably from hammering, and one battered or pitted surface, probably from use

as an anvil in connection with bipolar production. At one end it has what appears to be a

platform, but it is not certain whether the artefact represents an attempt to use a hammerstone as

a core, or whether the item is a core used as a hammerstone.

TECHNOLOGY

As discussed in the raw material section of this paper, the Shieldaig quartz A, quartz B and

quartzite form part of a continuum of closely related raw materials. They are probably all local

raw materials, and quartz A and B were collected at a vein source. As shown in Table 8, very few

pieces (6 %) have contact surfaces (from contact between bedrock matrix and vein), suggesting

that either: 1) the exploited veins were quite thick, or 2) the raw material was roughly prepared

and ‘decorticated’ elsewhere. One flake in quartz A has an abraded surface (cortex), proving that

vein quartz was supplemented by some quartz pebbles.

Table 8. Quartz assemblage: Attribute analysis of 100 flakes in quartz A and 100 flakes in quartz B with definable

proximal ends. Percentages in brackets are flakes with trimming of the platform-edge.

Flakes, quartz A Flakes, quartz B All flakes

With vein contact surfaces 5% 7% 6%

With abraded pebble surfaces 1% 0% <1%

Knapped in unspecified platform technique 35% 27% 31%

Knapped applying hard percussion 24% 48% 36%

Knapped applying soft percussion 0% 7% 4%

Total, platform technique 59%(8%) 82%(7%) 70%

Knapped in bipolar technique 41% 18% 30%

With crystal facets 1% 0% <1%

At Shieldaig, the primary production is mainly based on platform technique (70 % of all flakes),

with some blanks having been detached by the application of bipolar technique (30 % of all

flakes). There are, however, great differences between reduction in quartz A and quartz B,

probably as a result of the different flaking properties of the two raw materials: eighty-two

percent of all flakes in quartz B were detached in platform technique, whereas only 59 % of all

flakes in quartz A were detached in this fashion; seven percent of the flakes in quartz B were

knapped in soft percussion, with no indication of soft percussion amongst the flakes in quartz A.

The conclusion is, that not only does quartz B have excellent flaking properties, compared to

quartz A – it is also possible to reduce this raw material applying less force than the force

of 23

necessary to reduce quartz A. Although some ‘proper’ blades and microblades were

manufactured in quartz B, the Shieldaig quartz assemblage as a whole clearly represents a an

industry which focused mainly on flake production.

The general operational schema for both quartz A and quartz B was as follows:

The raw material was generally quarried, mainly at veins in the local bedrock. There are no

really large bipolar cores, and only a few large bipolar flakes, suggesting that ‘quartering’ of

quarried blocks by the application of bipolar technique was not common, or it took place at

the quarry (for discussion of quartz quarrying, see Ballin 2004 [SAIR])

As most of the raw material derives from veins, decortication was not necessary, and the

next step of this operational schema was the preparation of cores; this is testified by the

presence of core rough-outs as well as crested flakes in quartz A and quartz B

Flake production commenced, and to adjust the platform-edges during production, they

were regularly trimmed (seven to eight percent of all flakes in quartz A and B show

trimming)

Between the individual flake series the (?quartz B) cores were adjusted by rejuvenating the

platforms (one platform rejuvenation flake in quartz B)

If the raw material of a core was flawless, it was possible to exhaust the core completely,

and a small platform core would be discarded; if, on the other hand, a platform core had to

be abandoned at an earlier stage due to flawed flaking (e.g. too many and too deep hinge

fractures), the core would be reduced completely by the application of bipolar technique

(this fact is demonstrated by bipolar cores with platform remnants and surviving [parts of]

crests)

The attributes of flakes in quartzite and rock crystal (the latter raw material classified, catalogued

and stored as ‘quartz A’) suggest that the approach to reducing these raw materials was similar to

the approach to reduce quartz A and quartz B. Two (unused) rock crystals were found at the site,

and as only one flake of rock crystal with a dorsal crystal facet was observed in the assemblage, it

is most likely that this raw material was generally collected at veins ithe form of ‘blocks’ rather

than in crystal form. The quartzite was probably collected at outcrops of suitable quartzite

bedrock (cf. presentation of the ‘Torridonian complex’ in Johnstone and Mykura 1989, 32-41).

DISTRIBUTION

As stated in the introduction of this paper, the excavation methodology (lack of a standard grid

system) does not allow detailed distribution analysis. It is, however, possible to analyse the

distribution of the quartz assemblage with reference to trenches and stratigraphy (Tables 3, 5 and

6). Unfortunately, there are no apparent trends. Trench III only contains 33 pieces of debitage

and no cores or tools; within Trenches I and II, the different core and tool types are evenly

distributed across all layers and spits. The only detail of some interest is the fact that the artefact

classified as a piece with invasive retouch was recovered from layer 4, that is, in a layer

containing some microliths and below other microlith-yielding layers.

This stratification can only be explained in two ways, namely 1) either the piece is not a

rough-out for a leaf-shaped arrowhead as assumed, or 2) the stratigraphy of Shieldaig is highly

dubious. The fact that diagnostic flint artefacts, such as an Ahrensburgian point (Upper

Palaeolithic; cf. Ballin & Saville 2003), several microliths (Mesolithic) and two leaf-shaped points

of 23

(Neolithic) were found together on the surface of the site suggests some degree of re-deposition,

which may have taken place in connection with the gravel extraction and road construction

(Walker 1973, 1).

DATING

Based on diagnostic artefacts, artefact size and general composition of the tool group it is

possible to date the bulk of the quartz assemblage to the Mesolithic period.

Only one artefact type in quartz is strictly Mesolithic, namely the microlith. Nineteen

microliths were found at Shieldaig, and the minute sizes of the microliths as well as their general

typology suggest a later Mesolithic date (Ballin 2013 [Nethermills rep]). The microlith assemblage

from Shieldaig includes small isosceles and scalene triangles, crescents, needle points, and edge-

blunted pieces, and compares well with local sites such as Gleann Mor, Islay (Finlayson &

Mithen 1997). This site has been 14C-dated to 6220-5720 cal BC (Beta-32238) on charcoal

associated with a dense microlithic assemblage. Usually, large isosceles triangles are perceived as

early (for example those from An Corran on Skye and those from Donich Park, Argyll; Saville et

al. 2012; Ballin 2012), but the small sizes of the triangles at Shieldaig, combined with the fact that

they form a morphological continuum with symmetrical crescents, suggests that they do not

belong to the same early phase. The small single-platform and conical cores from Shieldaig are

less diagnostic, but they are types commonly found in Mesolithic contexts.

A single flake with invasive dorsal retouch may be a rough-out for a leaf-shaped point, and

suggests a degree of Neolithic intrusion. The flint assemblage from Shieldaig contains numerous

small microliths, two leaf-shaped arrowheads and an Ahrensburgian point, confirming the

presence of some earlier and later components in this largely Mesolithic collection.

The basic quartz technology at Shieldaig does not differ from the technology at, for

example, late sites such as Bayanne (Ballin 2014a) – it is not diagnostic. Some blades and

microblades were manufactured at Shieldaig, but they are few, and the technology as a whole is a

flake technology. Although blanks and tools are somewhat smaller at Shieldaig compared to

Bayanne, the two operational schemas generally correspond well with each other. The only

significant technological difference is the use of soft percussion at Shieldaig in connection with

the reduction of quartz B

Two 14C-dates from Shieldaig are irrelevant in connection with the dating of the site’s main

Mesolithic component. Both dates are Neolithic – Bronze Age (3050-2000 cal BC and 3600-800

cal BC; HAR 157; HAR 163), and they have relatively large standard deviations (120 and 525).

CONCLUSION

A total of 4,976 artefacts in quartz were recovered during the excavation of the site. Most of

these pieces are in quartz A and quartz B in roughly equal proportions, with less than one

percent being quartzite and other raw materials; a large (unquantified) part of the material in

quartz A is rock crystal, although probably not procured in crystal form. The quartzite is most

likely from local bedrock, whereas almost all the quartz was quarried at a (probably local) vein

source.

Approximately one third of the debitage is chips, and two-thirds flakes. There are

considerable differences between the composition of the debitage in quartz A and quartz B,

which can be explained by different flaking properties and selection processes. There are several

of 23

core preparation flakes in the assemblage, mainly in quartz B. The core group is dominated by

bipolar cores (c. half of all cores), irregular cores and single-platform cores; other core types

present are opposed-platform cores and discoidal cores. Two core rough-outs (one in quartz A

and one in quartz B) are excellent examples of how cores were prepared at Shieldaig.

The tool category is relatively varied and dominated by microliths and scrapers (c. one third

of all tools each). The two dominant tool types were supplemented by one microburin, and a few

borers, truncated pieces, pieces with various retouch and a hammerstone. A tanged implement is

most probably a small knife, and a piece with invasive retouch may be a rough-out for a leaf-

shaped arrowhead. The microlith assemblage contains small isosceles and scalene triangles,

crescents, needle points, and edge-blunted pieces.

The main bulk of the raw material was obtained from local veins; the technology is a flake

technology based on platform technique (some soft and some hard percussion) supplemented by

bipolar technique to exhaust cores completely; and cores were carefully prepared before

(cresting) and during (trimming) production. The production at Shieldaig aimed at the

manufacture of relatively small flakes in comparison, although a small number of proper

microblades were also produced.

The quartz assemblage contains some diagnostic material, primarily microliths, suggesting

that the larger part of the finds belong to the Mesolithic period. The microlith sub-types allow

this date to be narrowed down to the later Mesolithic, and comparison with the microliths from

Gleann Mor, Islay, suggests a date in the region of 6220-5720 cal BC. A flake with invasive

retouch is possibly evidence of the intrusion of Neolithic material. This corresponds well with

the flint assemblage from Shieldaig, as it contains the same types of microliths and two Neolithic

leaf-shaped points. In addition, the flint assemblage contains a typical Ahrensburgian point,

testifying to the site also having been visited before the Mesolithic occupation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would very much like to thank the Russell Trust, National Museums Scotland, and Historic

Scotland for supporting this work, which was carried out as part of my Quartz Project. I would

also like to thank National Museums Scotland for granting me access to the assemblage, as well

as Senior Curator Alan Saville, National Museums Scotland, for his support and comments.

of 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ballin, TB. 1996: Klassifikationssystem for Stenartefakter (Classification of Lithic and Stone Artefacts).

Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Varia 36. Oslo.

Ballin, T.B. 1999a: Bipolar Cores in Southern Norway - Classification, Chronology and Geograp-

hy. Lithics 20, 1999, 13-22.

Ballin, T.B. 1999b: Kronologiske og Regionale Forhold i Sydnorsk Stenalder. En Analyse med Udgangspunkt

i Bopladserne ved Lundevågen (Farsundprosjektet). Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. Aarhus

University. Århus.

Ballin, T.B. 2004: The worked quartz vein at Cnoc Dubh, Isle of Lewis, Western Isles.

Presentation and discussion of a small prehistoric quarry. Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports

(SAIR) 11.

[http://www.sair.org.uk/sair11].

Ballin, T.B. 2008a: The lithic assemblage from the Kingfisher Industrial Estate, Aberdeen. Unpublished

report.

Ballin, T.B. 2008b: Quartz Technology in Scottish Prehistory. Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports

(SAIR) 26 (2008).

[http://www.sair.org.uk/sair26].

Ballin, T.B. 2012: Donich Park, Lochgoilhead, Argyll. Lithics from a small Early Mesolithic retooling station

and a Neolithic pit cluster. Unpublished report.

Ballin, T.B. 2013: The lithic assemblage from Nethermills Farm, Banchory, Aberdeenshire. Unpublished

report.

Ballin, T.B. 2014a: Excavations at Bayanne, Yell, Shetland – the Quartz Assemblage. In H.

Moore & G. Wilson: Ebbing Shores. Survey and Excavation of Coastal Archaeology in Shetland 1995-

2008. Archaeology report 8, 138-144. Edinburgh: Historic Scotland.

Ballin, T.B. 2014b: The provenance of some Scottish lithic raw materials – identification,

terminology and interpretation. Stonechat 1, 4-7.

[http://implementpetrology.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-03-stonechat.pdf]

Ballin, T.B. & Saville, A. 2003: An Ahrensburgian-type tanged point from Shieldaig, Wester

Ross, Scotland, and its implications. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 22(2), 2003, 115-131.

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

Clark, J.G.D. 1934: The Classification of a Microlithic Culture: the Tardenoisian of Horsham.

The Archaeological Journal XC, 1933, 52-77.

Finlayson, B. & Mithen, S. 1997: The Microwear and Morphology of Microliths from Gleann

Mor. In H. Knecht (ed.): Projectile Technology, 107-129. New York.

Jacobi, R.M. 1980: The Early Holocene Settlements of Wales. In J.A. Taylor (ed.) Culture and

Environment in Prehistoric Wales. Selected Essays, British Archaeological Reports British Series 76,

131-206. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Johnstone, G.S., & Mykura, W. 1989: The Northern Highlands of Scotland. British Geological Survey.

British Regional Geology. Fourth edition. London.

Luedke, B.E. 1992: An Archaeologist's Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7.

Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California.

Pellant, C. 1992: Rocks and Minerals. The visual guide to over 500 rock and mineral specimens from around

the world. Eyewitness Handbooks. London: Dorling Kindersley.

Saville, A., Hardy, K., Miket, R., & Ballin, T.B. 2012: An Corran, Staffin, Skye: A Rockshelter

with Mesolithic and Later Occupation. Scottish Archaeological Internet Reports (SAIR) 51. [http://www.sair.org.uk/sair51]

Walker, M. 1973: Archaeological Excavation of a Microlithic Assemblage at Shieldaig, Wester Ross, Scotland.

24/iii/73 – 6/iv/73 : Preliminary Report.

http://implementpetrology.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014-03-stonechat.pdf

of 23

TABLES 3, 5 and 6

Table 3. Quartz assemblage: distribution of debitage by trenches, layers and spits. Surface I / 1+2 I / 3 / A I / 3 / B I / 4 I / Ext. II III Total Chips: Quartz A 92 120 142 306 157 50 40 11 918

Quartz B 39 44 88 137 129 40 27 9 513

Total 131 164 230 443 286 90 67 20 1,431

Flakes: Quartz A 322 91 228 351 143 114 20 4 1,273

Quartz B 556 123 269 364 238 185 46 3 1,784

Quartzite 15 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 22

Others 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4

Total 894 214 502 717 381 301 67 7 3,083

Indeterminable pieces: Quartz A 23 4 19 17 8 4 4 2 81

Quartz B 60 13 29 30 12 10 7 3 164

Quartzite 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Others 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Total 85 18 48 47 20 14 11 5 248

Blades: Quartz A 4 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 9

Quartz B 18 1 2 3 8 3 0 1 36

Quartzite 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Total 24 3 2 6 8 3 0 1 47

Microblades: Quartz A 10 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 13

Quartz B 9 2 1 4 2 0 0 0 18

Total 19 2 1 4 5 0 0 0 31

Core preparation flakes:

Crested flakes, quartz A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Crested flakes, quartz B 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 7

Platform rejuvenation flakes, quartz B 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Total 2 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 9

TOTAL 1,155 403 785 1,220 700 408 145 33 4,849

Table 5. Quartz assemblage: distribution of cores by trenches, layers and spits.

Surface I / 1+2 I / 3 / A I / 3 / B I / 4 I / Ext. II Total

Conical cores: Quartz A 2 1 3

Quartz B 1 1

Quartzite 1 1

Single-platform cores: Quartz A 2 2

Quartz B 1 2 1 4

Opposed-platform cores: Quartz A 1 1

Quartz B 1 1 2

Discoidal cores Quartz B 2 2

Irregular cores Quartz B 4 1 5 3 13

Bipolar cores: Quartz A 7 2 3 1 1 14

Quartz B 5 3 2 3 1 2 1 17

Core rough-outs: Quartz A 1 1

Quartz B 1 1

Quartz crystals 2 2

TOTAL 25 7 6 15 3 6 2 64

Table 6. Quartz assemblage: distribution of tools by trenches, layers and spits.

Surface I / 1+2 I / 3 / A I / 3 / B I / 4 I / Ext. II Total

Isosceles triangles: Quartz A 1 1 Quartz B 1 1 Scalene triangles: Quartz B 1 1 Quartzite 1 1 2 Crescents: Quartz A 1 1 2 Quartz B 1 1 1 3 Needle points: Quartz A 1 1

Quartz B 1 2 2 5 Edge-blunted pieces: Quartz A 1 1 Quartz B 1 1 2 Fragments of microliths or bladelets Quartz A 1 1 Quartz B 1 1 1 3 Microburins Quartz B 1 1 Short end-scrapers: Quartz A 1 1 Quartz B 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 Double-scrapers Quartz B 1 1 2 Side-scrapers: Quartz A 1 1 2 Quartz B 2 1 3 Other scrapers Quartz A 1 1 Borers: Quartz A 1 1 Quartz B 2 1 3 Pieces w straight truncations Quartz B 1 1 Pieces w oblique truncations Quartz B 1 1 Pieces w concave truncations Quartz B 1 1 Tanged implements Quartz B 1 1 Pieces w notch(es): Quartz B 1 1 Quartzite 1 1 Pieces w edge-retouch: Quartz A 2 2 4 Quartz B 2 1 1 1 5

Pieces w invasive retouch Quartz B 1 1 Hammerstones Quartz A 1 1 TOTAL 18 11 12 5 8 7 2 63

2014: The mainly Late Mesolithic quartz assemblage from Shieldaig, Wester Ross, Highland –...

Documents

Transcript of 2014: The mainly Late Mesolithic quartz assemblage from Shieldaig, Wester Ross, Highland –...