1

Lambay Lithics: The Taphonomy of a Non-PloughzoneSurface Scatter.

Brian Dolan

Surface artefact scatters are an important and abundant archaeologicalresource. Lithic specialists have for a long time recognised, and exploited,the potential of scatters brought to light through ploughing. This paperuses the case study of a surface collection from Lambay Island, Co.Dublin to highlight the potential of surface material affected by a varietyof other taphonomic processes including rabbit and cattle activity, coastalerosion and spade cultivation. The various effects of these processes andthe difficulties they pose for interpretation of the material are discussedand one methodology for dealing with them is detailed. It is concludedthat, despite the problems inherent in the material, non-ploughzonesurface scatters can provide valuable insights into the lives of the peoplewho created them.

INTRODUCTION

The analysis of surface artefact scatters is nothing new to the field of archaeology;some of the earliest antiquarian collections of stone tools consisted of surfacecollected artefacts. In nineteenth century Ireland antiquarian collectors such asKnowles, Gray and Buick amassed large collections, particularly in the north of thecountry (see Woodman 1978, 327-330). More recently, research has focused onmaterial brought to the surface through ploughing and collected through systematic,gridded surveys. Consequently, recent considerations of lithic artefact taphonomyhave focussed on ploughed contexts, in particular the effects of the taphonomicprocesses involved in bringing stone tools to the surface (Schofield 1991a; Dunnelland Simek 1995; Shott 1995; Steinberg 1996). Despite the problems these processespresent, numerous studies (Cooney 1990; Green and Zvelebil 1990; Peterson 1990;Schofield 1991b; Guinan 1992; Hodgers 1994) have considered what this easilyaccessible and collectable material can contribute to our knowledge of the past. Thispaper considers the very different taphonomic processes affecting a small surfaceassemblage of lithics from Lambay Island, Co. Dublin and outlines one methodologyfor dealing with them.

In 2005 detailed analysis of two surface collections from Lambay was undertaken aspart of an MA dissertation in the UCD School of Archaeology. The analysis formedpart of Professor Gabriel Cooney’s wider research program for the island with theaim of determining what could be learned about the landscapes of the prehistoricpeople who created and deposited the collections. Early in the research it becameclear that there was little in the literature either considering or demonstrating how todeal with the distinctive taphonomic processes which brought the Lambay collectionsto light. A new approach was developed, utilizing GIS technology and moretraditional techniques of analysis, in a way that attempted to maximise the potential ofthe unusual data under study.

2

BACKGROUND

Lambay Island, the largest island off the east coast of Ireland, is located 4km off thenorth Dublin coast, east of Rush and north-east of Ireland’s Eye and Howth Head.The modern island is the remnant of a long extinct volcano, which has leftapproximately two thirds of the island as uplands and created the famous Lambayporphyry (Stillman 1994). The island has an area of 250 hectares above the highwater mark and a highest point of 126 metres accentuated by a prehistoric hilltopcairn (Cooney forthcoming, 15). The western third of Lambay is low-lying and boaststhe largest area with substantial soil cover. The rest of the island is generallycharacterised by patchy glacial till punctuated with rocky outcrops (Fig. 1). Parts ofthe western shore are made up of raised beach material including sand, shells, beachshingle, and “traces of midden deposits” (Seymour 1907, 8). The topography ishighly variable and has influenced how people used the island in the past and alsohow artefacts were deposited, moved and rediscovered.

Figure 1 - Aerial Photograph with 1937 OS 6” Map overlay showing the extent of the twocollections and some placenames mentioned in the text. (© Ordnance Survey

Ireland/Government of Ireland Copyright Permit No. MP 003406).

The most recent and probably best known work carried out on Lambay has been Prof.Cooney’s excavations of a Neolithic stone axe production/quarry site. The site isextremely important as it is the first definite recognition in Ireland or Britain of aquarry site where the rock was not primarily worked through flaking (Cooney 2005,17). Cooney has also undertaken some smaller-scale rescue excavations, large-scalegeophysical survey of parts of the island and the collection of one of the surfacecollections under consideration here, all as part of an ongoing research program(Cooney 1998a; Cooney 1998b; Cooney 2000b; Cooney 2000a; Cooneyforthcoming). Lambay Island, however, has attracted archaeological attention formany years. The collection of surface artefacts on the island was recorded as far back

3

as the nineteenth century (Seymour 1896) and lithic artefacts from Lambay arepresent in the Keiller-Knowles collection (Cooney forthcoming, 16). Mitchell (1946)also reported finding chipped stone artefacts, including a hollow scraper. Macalister(1929; Herity 1982) reported a number of artefacts found during work on the island’sharbour in the twenties that dated to the Neolithic/Bronze Age as well as the IronAge, including some highly unusual La Tène and Roman finds later re-interpreted byRynne (1976). The recent analysis of the surface collections has extended the historyof human settlement on the island as far back as the late Mesolithic and possiblyfarther (Dolan 2005).

COLLECTION

Methods of collection are extremely important in interpreting surface assemblages.They can easily introduce biases, affect and possibly create patterns in the materialanalysed. As mentioned above, there are references to the collection of lithic materialon Lambay since at least the nineteenth century. This is unsurprising considering theirubiquity and the ease with which they can be gathered. It is unclear as to how manyartefacts were collected or what effect their absence had on the current analysis. Thematerial considered here was collected in a similar fashion, as an aside to excavationsand surveys on the island and on both random walks around the island and walksspecifically to find artefacts. The data recorded for each artefact was variable withinthe assemblage and this had repercussions on how the methodology was designed andhow the data was analysed and interpreted.

The assemblage consisted of two separate collections (Fig. 1). The main part of theassemblage analysed, consisting of 493 artefacts, was collected between the years1992 and 2005 as a by-product of annual fieldwork by Cooney (Collection 1). Asmaller part of the assemblage, consisting of 156 artefacts, was collected by BeatriceKelly during occasional visits to the island over a less well defined period of time.These were picked up as casual finds on walks and also in repeated visits to locationsknown to produce high numbers of finds (Collection 2).

Both collections were accumulated during walks that would have covered themajority of the island’s surface, although some areas would certainly have beenwalked more frequently then others. Areas where the ground was broken or sectionswere exposed were specifically surveyed for artefacts and areas known to produce alot of flint were deliberately revisited. Repeated survey has been noted as being veryimportant in reducing biases caused by variations in survey intensity, individualvariability, weather conditions, visibility and weathering (Shott 1995). It isparticularly important when only small numbers of artefacts are visible at any onetime, as in limited erosive contexts. Finds from Collection 1 were bagged andrecorded in the field. Artefacts from particular findspots were bagged together and thelocation described on the bag and/or plotted on a field map of the island. Theaccuracy of the plots varied depending on the proximity of the findspot to mappedfeatures. In 2004 and 2005 some co-ordinates were also recorded using a handheldGPS (Global Positioning System). A large proportion of the artefacts recorded duringthis survey could be located with some confidence in the GIS (GeographicalInformation System), while some could be assigned to much less specific locations.The collection methods for Collection 2 are not as well known. Some finds werenumbered and their locations recorded in a notebook but none were plotted on field

4

maps. The spatial information for Collection 2 was therefore less reliable than that forCollection 1.

TAPHONOMY

The taphonomic processes affecting the Lambay material are very distinctive. Whilenone of the surface assemblage was recovered from recently ploughed contexts,ploughing has taken place on the island in the past and has played an indirect part inshaping some of the assemblage. Similarly, spade cultivation on the island played nopart in bringing the collections to the surface but its role in the shaping of theassemblage cannot be ignored. The actual exposure of artefacts on Lambay andconsequently their collection has been caused by a variety of natural erosiveprocesses. Coastal erosion has uncovered artefacts along the western shore while themovement of cattle around the island has led to broken ground at gates, tracks,watering holes and sheltered spots. The most significant cause of erosion, however, isthe island’s large rabbit population, estimated in 2005 to be c.15,000-20,000. Theirexcavations have led to significant soil disturbance on almost all areas of the island,particularly on the steeper slopes (Fig. 2).

Figure 2 - Rabbit burrows in the cliffs above Carnoon Bay (© B. Dolan).

Rabbits were originally introduced to Ireland and presumably Lambay Island by theAnglo-Normans (Butler 1989) and have clearly had a long-term impact on the islandlandscape, although population levels have fluctuated. Very little research has beencarried out on the biases created by the excavation of archaeological material byrabbits (although see Barclay 1994). The best conditions for their burrows consist ofareas of light sandy soil with few rocks (Harting 1986, 60). Only the western shore ofLambay, where there is a thin north-south band of sandy raised beach material, offersthis ideal environment. This can be seen particularly in the area bordered by the twoharbour walls where there is a profusion of burrows. Conversely, there is an absenceof burrows along Beach 2 (Fig. 4) due to the shallow, stony nature of the soil (Fig. 3).

5

At the tip of ‘The Point’ (Fig. 1) this changes and there are numerous rabbitexcavations running on, above and a little back from the shoreline, from here toBishop’s Bay (Fig. 4). There are also plentiful burrows along the shore at Beach 1,while the coast of Scotch Point, where the soil is thinner and rockier, boasts few (Fig.3). The northern and eastern coastlines of the island are high and rocky and onlysupport sporadic rabbit activity. The interior of the island also has varying patterns ofrabbit disturbance. In the upland eastern portion of the island burrows are spreadrandomly wherever soil cover is thick enough and the soil not too rocky. Fields usedfor grazing cattle, mainly located in the lowland western area of the island, have onlyslight visible rabbit activity. In general, sporadic burrow activity occurs over much ofthe island with particularly dense concentrations near the harbour and along thecoastal till cliffs (e.g. Fig. 2). Where the soil cover is thin, in particularly stony areasor in flat areas where cattle can graze, burrows are absent or much less dense. Theeffect of all this rabbit activity at the level of individual artefacts is unclear. Rabbitscertainly move artefacts (see Barclay 1994, 6-7) and the tendency of rabbit burrows tobe located on slopes may indicate that down-slope movement is important. In mostcases it is thought that the spatial disturbance caused by burrowing does not have asignificant effect beyond the local level. On Lambay the areas where down-slopemovement is likely to have been most acute are the steep coastal cliffs. An importantpoint to note is that the soils favoured by rabbits are the light, well-drained soils alsolikely to have been favoured for human settlement during prehistory.

Figure 3 - Beach 2. Note its stony nature and the lack of any rabbit activity in the thin stonysoil at the edge of the beach (© B. Dolan).

A significant number of artefacts were collected from a small number of beachsections exposed by wave action. Coastal erosion has exposed sections of raisedbeach/midden material at Beaches 1, 3 and 7 (Fig. 4), all of which have producedstone tools. Artefacts from these sections appear to be in situ in midden deposits andare unlikely to have been subjected to the spatial displacement affecting artefactsfrom other erosive contexts.

6

Cattle erosion did not expose a large number of artefacts. Churned up cattle tracksoccur in only a few places and were not important findspots; a few finds were foundin areas of broken ground at field gates, around the cattle sheds and at a seasonalwatering spot to the east of Knockbane. One significant exception to this rule was‘Assemblage 10’ (see Fig. 6), a large collection of artefacts recovered over a numberof years from one cattle scrape which also displayed some rabbit activity (Dolan2005).

Although none of the artefacts analysed were from freshly ploughed contexts, asubstantial number of the artefacts collected came from once-ploughed areas. At thetime of collection these had not been under tillage for a number of decades (GabrielCooney pers. comm.). Indeed, many of the areas of the island that have producedfinds may never have been ploughed at all. It is not known to what extent the islandwas ploughed in prehistory but there is clear evidence that it was under tillage in themedieval period. One findspot produced a medieval plough pebble (Fig. 1); thesehave been associated with medieval ridge and furrow cultivation (see O'Kelly 1976,Brady 1988). A small excavation prior to the installation of a new windmill in theWindmill Field (Fig. 1) revealed evidence for ploughing using a horse drawn metalplough, in the form of scrapes on a rock under the soil (Cooney and Byrnes 2001, 4).All of the evidence for ploughing, as might be expected, is concentrated in thewestern half of the island in the area with the best soil coverage. Ploughing much ofthe eastern upland areas would not have been easy, although the improved nature ofthe upland field to the east of Knockbane (Fig. 1) may indicate it has been ploughedin the past. It is important to recognise the effects of previous ploughing episodes onsome areas of the island as artefacts from these areas may have seen extensivedisturbance and mixing. It is also important to recognise that ploughing does notcompletely destroy or homogenise the archaeological record, patterns of associationstill exist (Steinberg 1996, 368).

The island was heavily cultivated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and theevidence for this can be found all over the island in the remains of field boundariesand cultivation ridges. The ridges are the result of spade cultivation and although nodetailed research has been done, it is thought likely that this method of farming wouldhave resulted in the movement of artefacts both laterally and down slope. Spadecultivation can certainly destroy archaeological features, as was discovered duringexcavations on the Neolithic axe quarry and production site (Cooney 2005, 19, 27).Despite the localised effect of cultivation it is likely that if broader patterns in thearchaeological record can survive ploughing then they can also survive this method ofagriculture.

METHODOLOGY

Analysis of the surface collection from Lambay Island required a tailored approachthat took into account the nature of the evidence, its strengths and its shortcomings.The unusual taphonomy and circumstances of collection meant that there were noexisting methodological models to work from; as a result a fresh approach wasdevised. A variety of techniques were used, including a beach pebble survey, theanalysis of individual artefacts within a database, the aggregation of finds into‘assemblages’ and finally the interpretation of these assemblages through the use ofstatistical analysis and a GIS integrated with the database.

7

A GIS was created for two reasons. Firstly, it allowed the easy creation of a widevariety of maps from the data entered into the database and secondly it served as aninvaluable interpretive tool allowing instant visual interpretation of multiple databasequeries. Unfortunately, getting to this stage of integration was not as simple as it firstappeared. Analyses of surface collections in the past have run into a major problemwhen attempting to define ‘sites’ to be plotted onto maps (see Schofield 1991a).‘Sites’ have been defined as dense clusters of artefacts occurring against a lowdensity ‘background’ (Schofield 1991c, 4). Difficulties arise in defining how manyartefacts are needed for a site to be ‘high density’ and how to identify spatial limits. Aconcern with ‘sites’ can also lead to ignorance of the wider landscape. In the Lambayanalysis an attempt was made to avoid the pitfalls of earlier work; ideally, artefactswould have been plotted individually avoiding the problems inherent in assigningartefacts to sites (see Holdaway et al., 1998). Unfortunately, the spatial informationavailable for the collection was too variable to allow this approach so a new techniquewas required.

Figure 4 - 1937 OS 6” map showing the confidence levels of different sites and the beachesmentioned in the text. (© Ordnance Survey Ireland/Government of Ireland Copyright Permit

No. MP 003406).

Artefacts were grouped according to the spatial information available. Whereartefacts were found in the same spot in different years they were included in oneassemblage and the assemblage was given a number. If only one artefact was found inany one spot then this would also be termed an assemblage and assigned a number. Away was needed to illustrate the varying accuracy of the locational information fordifferent assemblages and for this reason each assemblage was assigned a confidencelevel between 1 and 7 (Fig. 2; Fig. 5). These levels give an idea of how well knownthe find location of each artefact was and how likely it was that artefacts in particularassemblages were associated. Associations between artefacts were at best consideredto be spatial and not chronological or stratigraphical.

8

ConfidenceLevel Criteria

1Finds likely to be associated with each other. Location certain.Located using handheld GPS to specific grid co-ordinates orlocated to within a few metres on the map.

2 Finds likely to be associated with each other. Location not entirelycertain. Plotted on a field map but not close to landmarks.

3

Finds possibly associated with each other. Located to a specificlocale. A central grid co-ordinate has been set for the locale. Findsmay not have come from this exact spot but from no more thantens of metres away.

4

Finds unlikely to be associated with each other. Located to ageneral area on the island (For example a field or a hill slope). Acentral grid co-ordinate has been set for finds from this area but itis not known where exactly they were picked up.

5Finds unlikely to be associated with each other. Located to aspecific area of a beach, fresh finds. These finds are likely to havebeen eroded from the shoreline nearby.

6Re-deposited material. For example finds located to a beach andvery rolled or finds from paths which have been renewed withmaterial from beaches.

7 No spatial information

Figure 5 - Criteria for assigning confidence levels to different assemblages.

Maps were created using ArcGIS 9.1. The basic building block of the maps createdwithin the GIS was a scanned image of the 1937 O.S. 6” map for Lambay, which wasrectified to the Irish national grid. The image was rectified using mapped points takenwith a GPS accurate to the nearest centimetre. Next, individual maps were customisedby linking tables generated within the database to the GIS. This facilitated the displayof multiple aspects of the data. Other layers of information could also be easily added,such as aerial photographs and a variety of other information layers.

One week was spent surveying the accessible beaches on Lambay to assess theirrelative value as sources of flint (Dolan 2005, Chapter 5). Though not directlyrelevant to resolving the taphonomic issues discussed here, the survey was veryuseful in identifying sources for raw materials on the island. This helped in theinterpretation of densities of materials across the island, informing the identificationof taphonomic, natural and social processes affecting the distribution of lithics acrossthe island.

DISCUSSION

Data from ‘open sites’ has an inherent suite of problems relating to stratigraphy,definition and chronology. These issues have been called the ‘ploughzone paradox’;there is a great deal of evidence but it lacks context from which chronology andassociations can be discerned (Steinberg 1996). Other issues relate to taphonomicprocesses including cultivation and erosion (see above) and it is clear thataggregations of materials found on the surface cannot be simply equated withdeposition in prehistory (Allen 1991). It is likely, however, that at a large, whole-island scale, measured in thousands of metres, valid patterns in the distribution ofartefacts will be identifiable (Holdaway et al., 1998, 2).

9

It is not clear to what extent the taphonomic processes described above haveinfluenced the distribution of finds across Lambay Island. Certainly it seems thatwherever erosion is occurring artefacts have been found. The concentration of rabbitburrows on slopes, especially around the western and southern coast, has probably atleast contributed to higher densities of finds in these areas, while the lack of burrowsand other forms of erosion over most of the western lowland area has led to blankspots on the distribution map (Fig. 6). It is important, however, to note that at gatesand other areas of localised erosion within these ‘blank’ spots artefacts are invariablyfound. Excavations in the Windmill field produced flint artefacts in test pits withfifteen flints occurring fairly evenly along a cable trench 300m long (Cooney andByrnes 2001). This suggests that the real distribution of artefacts is widespread andthe empty spaces on the map are the result of differential erosion.

Figure 6 - Elevation map showing the density of finds across the island (© B. Dolan).

The upland, eastern, area of the island has a more random distribution of findspotsand a few blank areas. The random finds probably reflect the distribution of rabbitburrows and for obvious reasons, only occur in areas with reasonably thick soil cover.Three eastern areas have a noticeably low level of finds; Heath Hill, Thorn ChaseValley and the area north of a line between Assemblage 10 and Pilot Hill (Fig. 4).These ‘blank’ areas are curious as they have significant areas of soil cover and accessto fresh water at Raven’s well and the stream emptying into Freshwater Bay,therefore they are likely to have been attractive places in prehistory. The absence offinds may be explained by any of a number of factors; a lack of deposition inprehistory; a lack of modern erosion; differential visibility due to vegetation (seeBevan and Conolly 2002-2004, 127) or a tendency not to collect in these areas,especially as these are the least frequented areas on the island. It may be significantthat these areas are quite far away from the western beaches identified as the mostabundant sources of flint during the pebble survey (Dolan 2005). Density can berelated to areas where access to supply zones is available (Schofield 1991c, 4) and itseems logical to expect a generalised fall off in deposition of flint the farther awayfrom the source an area is. A significant exception to this trend was Assemblage 10, a

10

concentration of chipped stone unique on the island with 123 artefacts (nineteen percent of the entire collection). Finds collected in a ploughzone survey are thought torepresent between two per cent and five per cent of the total artefact population in theploughsoil at any one time (Shott 1995). While similar estimates are not available forthe context in which Assemblage 10 was collected, it is likely that it is representativeof a much larger subsurface assemblage. This suggestion is certainly supported by thefact that the small area excavated by Cooney in the location of the axe quarry hasproduced in the region of 12,000 flint artefacts (Gabriel Cooney pers. comm.).

Clearly the taphonomic processes in play on Lambay were significant in shaping thesurface scatter considered here. Differential erosion has caused blank spots on themap and the preferences of rabbits have contributed to the particularly high densitiesof artefacts collected along the southern and western coast of the island. Localisedmovement of artefacts through rabbit burrowing, spade cultivation, cattle erosion andploughing have also displaced and distorted many of the artefacts plotted on thedistribution map. Recognition of these processes and their effects was extremelyimportant in interpreting the results (Dolan 2005) but the most important conclusionto be drawn from this brief consideration is that valid archaeological patterns arelikely to have survived them. With careful and considered interpretation thesepatterns can be identified. The high density of artefacts in certain areas of the island,for example, may be exaggerated by the predilections of rabbits, but artefacts cannotbe exposed if they are not already there. For this reason alone the observed patternhas some archaeological relevance. Blank areas on the distribution maps can betreated with more suspicion, a lack of erosion in an area does not necessarily equateto a scarcity of prehistoric activity, but equally it does not imply abundance.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpretation of surface artefact scatters is tricky at the best of times but particularlywhen dealing with material affected by unknown quantities, such as spade cultivationand rabbit excavation. The methodology outlined attempted to maximise the potentialof the data to reveal archaeological patterns. A deeper understanding of the variedprocesses affecting surface assemblages would increase the likelihood of identifyingwhich patterns are the result of past human actions and which are the result of post-deposition processes. Valuable research has already been carried out in Scotland,concentrating on the structural damage caused by rabbits on archaeological sites (seeBarclay 1994, Dunwell and Trout 1999), but a focus on rabbits impact on artefactsbefore, during and after exposure is needed. Further research into rabbit taphonomywill hopefully inform us about the activities of other burrowing animals, such asmoles, who are also known to excavate the odd flint flake (Warren 2001, 68).Similarly there is a reference to burrowing puffins on Lambay (Seymour 1896, 186).While rabbits were a particularly significant factor in the case of Lambay Island it ispossible that further understanding of the effects of spade cultivation would be muchmore significant in a wider Irish context. Spade cultivation has been widely usedthroughout Ireland (Whelan 1997), particularly in the west, and will have directlyimpacted on a huge proportion of Ireland’s archaeological heritage, particularly at thelevel of individual artefacts. While the obstacles to archaeological interpretation ofsurface scatters have been the central theme of this paper it is important to endoptimistically. Though surface scatters, particularly those not systematically

11

collected, can be difficult to deal with they still have the potential to tell stories aboutpast peoples, their landscapes and their lives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to extend my gratitude to all those who have helped during my researchon Lambay. In the UCD School of Archaeology particular thanks go to ProfessorGabriel Cooney and my supervisor, Dr. Graeme Warren, who read and providedvaluable comments on this paper. Also to Dr. Rob Sands for his patient help with allthings computerised. Kerri Cleary has to be thanked for successfully organising anextremely impressive conference and succeeding in bringing the proceedings topublication, both are exceedingly difficult tasks. I would also like to thank Patrick,Margaret and Beatrice Kelly and the Lambay Island Trust for permission to work onthe island. Finally thanks to Serena and to my family and friends who were a constantsupport throughout the MA.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, M. J. 1991. Analysing the landscape: a geographical approach to archaeologicalproblems. In A.J. Schofield (ed.) Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions toPloughzone Archaeology. Oxford, 39-57.

Barclay, G. 1994. Earthwork erosion in eastern Scotland. In A. Berry and I. Brown (eds)Erosion on Archaeological Earthworks: Its Prevention, Control and Repair. Clwyd,25-28.

Bevan, A. and Conolly, J. 2002-2004. GIS, archaeological survey, and landscape archaeologyon the island of Kythera, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology, 29, 123-138.

Brady, N. D. K. 1988. The plough pebbles of Ireland. Tools and Tillage 6, 47-60.Butler, V. 1989. Animal bones in archaeology. Archaeology Ireland 3, 104-107.Cooney, G. 1990. The Mount Oriel Project: an introduction. Journal of the County Louth

Archaeological And Historical Society 22, 125-133.Cooney, G. 1998a. Breaking stones, making places. In A. Gibson and D.D.A. Simpson (eds)

Prehistoric Ritual and Religion. Stroud, 108-118.Cooney, G. 1998b. Lambay Island. In I. Bennett (ed.) Excavations 1997. Dublin, 57-8.Cooney, G. 2000a. Lambay Island. In I. Bennett (ed.) Excavations 1999. Dublin, 88.Cooney, G. 2000b. Lambay Island. In I. Bennett (ed.) Excavations 1998. Dublin, 62-4.Cooney, G. 2005. Stereo porphry: quarrying and deposition on Lambay Island, Ireland. In P.

Topping and M. Lynott (eds) The Cultural Landscape of Prehistoric Mines. Oxford,14-29.

Cooney, G. Forthcoming. The role of islands in defining identity and regionality during theNeolithic: the Dublin coastal group. In G. Barclay and K. Brophy (eds) RegionalDiversity in the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland. Oxford.

Cooney, G. and Byrnes, E. 2001. Archaeological Test Excavation and Monitoring on LambayIsland, Co. Dublin, Department of Archaeology, UCD. Unpublished Report.

Dolan, B. 2005. An Analysis of the Surface Flint Assemblage from Lambay Island, Co.Dublin. Unpublished MA Thesis, University College Dublin.

Dunnell, R. C. and Simek, J. F. 1995. Artifact size and ploughzone process. Journal of FieldArchaeology 22, 305-319.

Dunwell, A. J. and Trout, R. C. 1999. Burrowing Animals and Archaeology, HistoricScotland Technical Advice Note 16.

Green, S. W. and Zvelebil, M. 1990. The Mesolithic colonization and agricultural transitionof south-east Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 57-88.

12

Guinan, B. P. 1992. Ploughzone Archaeology in North Dublin: The Evidence from a LithicCollection and Fieldwalking Survey. Unpublished MA Thesis, University CollegeDublin.

Harting, J. E. 1986. The Rabbit, Southampton.Herity, M. J. 1982. Irish decorated Neolithic pottery. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy

82c, 247-404.Hodgers, D. 1994. The Salterstown surface collection project. Journal of the County Louth

Archaeological And Historical Society 23, 240-268.Holdaway, S., Witter, D., Fanning, P., Musgrave, R., Cochrane, G., Doelman, T.,

Greenwood, S., Pidgon, D. and Reeves, J. 1998. New approaches to open site spatialarchaeology in Sturt National Park, New South Wales, Australia. Archaeology inOceania 33, 1-19.

Macalister, R. A. S. 1929. On some antiquities discovered upon Lambay Island. Proceedingsof the Royal Irish Academy 38c, 240-246.

Mitchell, G. F. 1946. Unpublished notebook.O'Kelly, M. J. 1976. Plough pebbles from the Boyne Valley. In C. Ó Danachaír (ed.) Folk

and Farm: essays in honour of A. T. Lucas. Dublin, 165-176.Peterson, J. D. 1990. From foraging to food production in south-east Ireland: some lithic

evidence. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56, 89-99.Rynne, E. 1976. The La Tène and Roman Finds from Lambay, Co. Dublin: a re-assessment.

Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 76c, 231-44.Schofield, A. J. (ed.) 1991a. Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone

Archaeology, Oxford.Schofield, A. J. 1991b. Artefact distributions as activity areas: examples from south-east

Hampshire. In A.J. Schofield (ed.) Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions toPloughzone Archaeology. Oxford, 117-128.

Schofield, A. J. 1991c. Interpreting artefact scatters: an introduction. In A.J. Schofield (ed.)Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology. OxbowMonograph 4, Oxford, 3-8.

Seymour, H. J. 1896. Excursions of Dublin Naturalists Field Club to Lambay. The IrishNaturalist 5, 185-186.

Seymour, H. J. 1907. Geology of Lambay. The Irish Naturalist 16, 3-13.Shott M. J. 1995. Reliability of archaeological records on cultivated surfaces: a Michigan

case study. Journal of Field Archaeology 22, 475-490.Steinberg, J. M. 1996. Ploughzone sampling in Denmark: isolating and interpreting site

signatures from disturbed contexts. Antiquity 70, 368-392.Stillman, C. 1994. Lambay, an ancient volcanic island in Ireland. Geology Today 62, 62-67.Warren, G. M. 2001. Towards a social archaeology of the mesolithic in eastern Scotland:

landscapes, contexts and experience. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University ofEdinburgh.

Whelan, K. 1997. The modern landscape: from plantation to present. In F.H.A. Aalen, K.Whelan and M. Stout (eds) Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape. Cork, 67-103.

Woodman, P. 1978. The Mesolthic in Ireland: Hunter-Gatherers in an Insular Environment,BAR British Series 58, Oxford.