STONECHAT
#1: March 2014
The e-Newsletter of the Implement Petrology Group (IPG).
Editor: Vin Davis

Stonechat is peer reviewed by Members of the IPG Executive Group: Richard Bevins, Steve
Burrow, Tom Clare, Gabriel Cooney, Tim Darvill, Vin Davis, Mark Edmonds, Dave Field, Mik
Markham, Alison Sheridan, Pete Topping and Gill Varndell

The purpose of Stonechat is to disseminate news, views and information between IPG
Members and others with an interest in geoarchaeological studies of stone implements. The
contents of this edition comprise brief reports on the current research being undertaken by
IPG members.

Non-IPG members should direct their correspondence to the IPG Web Site Manager
([email protected]). Thank you.
Photomicrograph of Group IX: porcellanite from Tievebulliagh (in XPL) (Photo: Vin Davis)
1
Contents
1. Katie Kewley on Manx stone axes
2. Kath Walker on stone tools and identity
3. Torben Ballin on some problems associated with lithic analysis
4. Vin Davis: on the importance of the Stainton West Carlisle lithics excavated by Oxford
Archaeology North (OAN)
5. Gabriel Cooney on the Shetland Riebeckite Felsite Project
6. Onur Ozbek on Palaeolithic to Neolithic quarry and workshop sites in Turkey
7. Richard Bevins et al on recent geoarchaeological research on Stonehenge lithics
8. Peter Cherry on reassessing flint, chert and stone scatters from NW England
9. Roberto Risch on the mechanical testing of implement rock and sources
10. Chris Fowler: on Stonescapes in Northern England
11. Vin Davis & Tom Clare on community geoarchaeological workshops and fieldwork in NW
England
12. For your interest and information: new book by Mark Edmonds takes a refreshingly new look
at Langdale geology, prehistory and landscape.
1 The Manx Stone Axe Project: interconnection or isolation?
Katie Kewley: University of Liverpool, Centre for Manx Studies
Inspired by the work of the Implement Petrology Group and “The Irish Stone Axe Project” [ISAP], this
research project examines the contextual, morphological and petrological characteristics of the axes
found on the Isle of Man, in order to help increase understanding of the Island’s significance within
the Irish Sea region during the later Neolithic period. Specifically, it is hoped that the following can, at
least partially, be answered:
I.
to confirm or otherwise the hypothesis that the Oaklands Igneous Complex was the source of
Group XXV stone axes;
II.
are Roughened and Truncated Butt Axes [RTBA] really unique and indigenous to the Isle of
Man?
III.
how much contact between the residents of the Isle of Man and the residents of Britain and
Ireland can be inferred from known axes from the Isle of Man?
In total, 45 axes in the Manx Museum Collection were thin sectioned between 1951 and 1986. These
slides have been re-examined and photomicrographs have recently been taken. Of particular interest
are the quartz diorite axes previously ascribed to the locally significant Group XXV. In the summer of
2014 it is hoped that a representative sample of the axes found on the Isle of Man will be made
2
available for non-destructive geochemical analysis, using the University of Liverpool’s Portable X-Ray
Fluorescence Spectrometer and Backscatter Scanning Electron Microscope.
To date, all the axes in the possession of Manx National Heritage have been photographed.
Morphological characteristics and contextual information have been collated, and a macroscopic
review of the petrology of all the axes has been undertaken. Additionally, because it is not known
how many ‘Manx Axes’ have been identified in Britain and Ireland, several regional museum and
university collections have been visited in order to identify examples of RTBAs and Group XXV axes
that have been found ‘off Island’. The regions visited so far include in the North-West of England and
South-East Scotland, as well as the British Museum in London. A similar inspection of Irish and Welsh
collections is planned for later this year.
All information, especially that which concerns axes not currently in the possession of Manx National
Heritage, would be very welcome. ([email protected])
2 Stone Tools and Identity:
Kath Walker: University of Southampton
This research project investigates the roles that the movement and exchange of imported stone and
flint objects played in identity formation in Neolithic Britain. It starts from the premise that genuine
Neolithic imports are being overlooked unnecessarily due to an instinctive reaction that they are
‘foreign’ and therefore must be collectors’ pieces. Similarly, objects which are unusual in form or
material are often marginalized because they are not fully understood, and many are subsequently
forgotten.
The development and spread of Neolithic ways of life involved the emergence of new subsistence
practices, ideologies and social and material relations. We know that key components derived from
Continental contacts. With these new environments came the development of new identities, which
were clearly not static, but continued to change throughout the period, with notable geographical
variation. The research project, therefore, aims to increase our understanding of the roles that
imported stone and flint objects played in identity formation at the onset of, and then throughout,
the Neolithic in Britain. The term ‘imported’ is used here only for European or Scandinavian imports,
acknowledging that some may have come from farther afield.
Some questions to be answered include:
I.
How did imported stone and flint objects contribute to the formation of different Neolithic
identities within Britain?
II.
At what dates did imported typologically Neolithic stone and flint objects arrive in Britain?
III.
What are the distributions, backgrounds and contexts of both imported and unusual natively
produced stone and flint objects in Britain?
IV.
What were the relationships between imported stone and flint objects and those made in
Britain?
V.
What is the evidence for copying, emulation or stylistic influence of ‘foreign’ objects on Britishmade stone and flint objects?
3
A corpora of all non-jade Neolithic flint and stone imports is being assembled primarily from
published literature; sampled museum collections; and personal communications with experts. Using
JADE I as a model, a map based on ArchGIS data will show the spatial analysis of all finds and
associated prehistoric monuments. Archaeology is riddled with things that cannot yet be explained,
things that do not fit the rules and models. There is a tendency for these things to become
marginalised, ignored and left out of discussions.
Case studies will focus on: (i) establishing what activity was going on within the 1km radius of the find
spots of Alpine axe-heads in Britain; (ii) going beyond the statement that the Sweet Track axe-head
was placed beside the track, but looking at its orientation and close details of its deposition; (iii)
taking a different approach to axe-head distribution by drawing attention to the gaps; (iv) using field
evidence gathered during the planned IPG Field Visit to Brittany (May 2014) to establish the
significance of Breton axe-heads in the British archaeological record; (v) to examine the nature of
British (stone tool) oddities of form and to test the validity of theories about influence from the
continent; and (vi) to investigate whether or not a North Sea identity exists in terms of approaches to
raw material.
3 The provenance of some Scottish lithic raw materials – identification,
terminology and interpretation
Torben Bjarke Ballin Lithic Research, Stirlingshire Honorary Research
Fellow, University of Bradford
INTRODUCTION
As a lithics specialist I analyse lithic assemblages on a daily basis. In connection with this work, a lot of
assemblages pass across my desk, and occasionally I notice raw materials I feel either represent
problems of identification, terminology or interpretation. I have selected the following small group of
raw materials as raw materials in need of some attention. They are: chert, flint, mylonite, baked
mudstone, and felsite. I suggest that we start in the south of the British Isles and slowly move
northwards.
CHERT FROM SOUTHERN SCOTLAND
Firstly, we have chert, which is usually associated with southern Scotland, although there are cherts
further north, such as on Orkney.
In southern Scotland, chert dominated lithic raw material use through the Mesolithic and Early
Neolithic periods. It is most abundant in the Southern Uplands, that is south of the Southern Uplands
Fault, and it occurs in a number of different rock types. However, chert also occurs north of the Fault,
and many assemblages in the Central Lowlands include notable proportions of chert, such as Cramond
at Edinburgh, Woodend Loch at Glasgow, and Midross by Loch Lomond. Some are very similar to the
southern cherts, whereas the chert from Midross is considerably coarser.
We have two main problems regarding the southern cherts, namely terminology and prehistoric
procurement. The chert from Cramond has been called ‘chert of Southern Uplands Type’, as it looks
very much like chert found south of the Fault, but what do we call the chert from Midross? It is clearly
related to the other cherts, but it also differs by being notably coarser.
4
As a term like Southern Uplands chert indicates provenance and thereby indirectly procurement
strategies, and as I personally believe that most cherts were procured locally we should probably
discuss this problem in greater detail. One potential way of dealing with this problem would be
through a project which investigates cherts from different parts of southern Scotland geologically in
an attempt to define them and link them to their local bedrock. Basically, can we identify cherts as
being from the Southern Uplands, the Lothians, Glasgow or Argyll? Because geochemically, chert is
chalcedony, a microcrystalline quartz with vary amounts of impurities; the black chert, flint, may be
towards pure silica. Consequently, perhaps we ought to adjust our terminology to fit the existence of
different forms of chert in southern Scotland.
FLINT AND ‘FLINT’ FROM WESTERN SCOTLAND
Recently, I examined an assemblage of worked ‘flint’ from one of Karen Hardy’s projects in western
Scotland. It had been recovered from a site in the inner part of Loch Torridon, and its location as well
as its association with minuscule unworked pebbles suggested that it might represent a local
resource.
On that basis, I consulted a number of geologists, such as John Faithfull from the Hunterian Museum
in Glasgow, and Catherine Goodenough and Maarten Krabbendam from British Geological Survey in
Edinburgh. I also had a look at the archaeological and geological literature relating to flints and cherts
in the Inner Hebrides. It appears that the Inner Hebrides archipelago can be subdivided into two
groups, namely the southern parts (Islay, Jura and adjacent parts of the Scottish mainland) and the
northern parts (Skye and surrounding areas). Notwithstanding current confusion in the use of the
terms chalcedony, chert and flint in the archaeological literature, assemblages in the south are
characterised by what seems to be flint either from primary Cretaceous Chalk sources on Mull or
Morvern or from deposits at sea, whereas those from the north are dominated by flint-like chert from
a variety of locations.
The northern group of cherts includes fossil-free chert from the Precambrian Torridonian sandstone;
chert with fossils from the Cambrian/Ordovician Durness Limestone; Jurassic chert from Skye and
Applecross; and altered cherts from the volcanic centre on Skye (Faithfull, Goodenough &
Krabbendam pers comm). Again, we have a terminological problem in the sense that these flint-like
materials are technically cherts, as they derive from non-Cretaceous deposits, but it may be more
practical to continue to call them flint, or possibly flint-like cherts, as only geological analysis of the
individual pieces will allow us to correctly identify them as deriving from Cretaceous or other sources.
But it would be useful to have this group of flint-like cherts from the northern parts of the Inner
Hebrides examined and characterized in more detail to help us when we discuss prehistoric lithic
procurement in that region.
MYLONITE/BAKED MUDSTONE
The third main group of raw materials in need of attention is what I – with Lacaille – generally refer to
as mylonite. This is a low temperature, high pressure metamorphic rock formed by the
fracturing/disintegration of the source rock due to tectonic stresses. Usually shear zones and relics of
the original rock can be seen. It is variously referred to in the archaeological literature as baked
mudstone or hornfels. This is a type of stripy rock commonly found in Neolithic and Bronze Age
assemblages along the Lewisian west-coast.
5
The problem is a frustrating one, as colleagues choosing to call this type of rock one thing or the other
have all consulted geological expertise. Although there is a clear petrographical difference, authors
describing recent re-examined finds from Northton on Harris have switched their terminological
preference from mylonite to baked mudstone, but the geological investigation of the Northton finds is
no more scientific than any previous investigations. Admittedly, one piece from Northton was thinsectioned, but all other samples were examined as hand specimens.
The problems relating to the identification of this material are that 1) most of the artefacts in this
material are weathered, occasionally heavily so; and 2) when weathered, fine-grained metamorphic
rocks like mylonite, baked mudstone and hornfels look alike. This is strange because hornfels is
another rock type, with no shearing and secondary mineralisation due to high temperature low
pressure metamorphism; it is usually hard and brittle, and can form very sharp edges. My suggestion
in this case is therefore not immediately to consult more geological expertise, but to try a different
approach. Mylonite is present along the entire faultline running along the east-coast of the Western
Isles, and in south-east Lewis there are mountains made of this type of rock, some of it exposed on
the coast. Why don’t we go there, carry out a survey, and attempt to find possible mylonite quarries?
FELSITE
At a point of time it was thought that artefacts in riebeckite felsite from Shetland had been traded
into mainland Scotland, but close examination by Noel Fojut of one felsite knife reported to be from
Lanark, showed that the text on its label actually said Lerwick Shetland knives were clearly not traded
into mainland Scotland in prehistoric time.
However, a small number of mainland axes are said to be in riebeckite felsite and how do we deal
with them? Are they from Shetland? It is just possible that some of these axes could be in local raw
materials, and I suggest that we 1) re-examine their raw material again (thin-sections or XRF analysis);
and 2) collect samples for comparison from local riebeckite felsite outcrops, such as Eildon Hill in East
Lothian, and other felsites and riebeckite-bearing rocks, such as those from Holy Isle on Arran and
Ailsa Craig.
OTHER RAW MATERIALS
I recently came across some local natural glass from the Western Isles, namely pseudotachylite, kindly
identified by local geologist Jean Archer, South Uist. It is black, but considerably coarser and more
opaque than pitchstone, and it may possibly have been used in prehistory. Some very dark flakes in
archaeological assemblages from the west-coast of Lewis could well be in this material. However, this
problem requires an input of fieldwork. Like mylonite, it was formed in connection with tectonic
activity along the main fault line of the Western Isles; as well as analysis of further lithic assemblages
from the island group.
CONCLUSION
These are just some problems relating to the identification of Scottish lithic raw materials, but I hope
that we will find solutions to them, as solving these problems is important to our discussions of
matters such as procurement strategies, prehistoric territories and exchange patterns. Is now the
right time for us to start using proper rock definitions, for example, adopting as standard the British
Geological Survery’s (BGS) Igneous, Sedimentary and Metamorphic terminology? But as indicated
above – solving the problems require activity in the field as well as in the laboratory.
6
(This article is a summary of presentation at the symposium Lithics research in Scottish prehistory:
science-based and methodological issues, University of Glasgow, 13 December 2013; the presentation
was repeated at the AGM of the Implement Petrology Group in York, 11 January 2014).
4 Stainton West, Carlisle: the importance of the lithics excavated from the
site by Oxford Archaeology North. Vin Davis
A study sample of 130 specimens was selected by the Excavation Director for investigation using
macroscopic description, microscopic analysis of rocks in polished thin section, and geochemical
analysis of PXRF measurements provided by Mik Markham. The petrological evidence was compared
with a range of published and unpublished sources of information; thin sections in the IPG National
Collection of Thin Section Slides – including type and early thin sections examined by Dr F S Wallis;
and reference material in museum and private collections. By combining this comprehensive range of
data, it was possible to match, with greater confidence than usual, flakes and fragments of polished
stone axes with secure archaeological provenance excavated at the site, with outcrop rock adjacent to
Harrison Stickle and the Langdale Fells, Stake Beck and the Scafell Area. The study sample contained a
range of lithologies, some quite different to the Group VI type specimen from Stake Pass, which might
reasonably be included within the range of Group VI because they probably derive from the same
volcaniclastic events. The new evidence obtained from an analysis of the Stainton West lithics will be
important when revising the generic Group VI.
PETROLOGY
In addition to the published description for Group VI, the following six sub-groups were recognized in
the Stainton West study sample:
I.
rhyolite tuff
II.
dacite tuff (probably Scafell area)
III.
spotted fine grained tuff
IV.
epidote tuff
V.
andesite tuff
VI.
porphyritic tuff
Each of the six proposed Group VI sub-groups had previously been recognized at or adjacent to the
stone tool manufacturing sites which occur between Thunacar Knott and Scafell.
GEOCHEMISTRY
Elemental analyses were undertaken using PXRF measurements of 19 field specimens, and a control
sample of six roughout stone tools gathered c 1960-70 by Stuart Feather from sites in the vicinity of
Harrison Stickle, Thorn Crag, Top Buttress, Mart Crag Moor, Stake Pass and Scafell. Graphic analysis
using Nb v Zr, Rb v Sr and Al v K helped to differentiate between implements, source rock and control
samples.
The petrological and geochemical evidence points to polished stone tools being brought to the site,
where they broke during use, sometimes to be re-used. It also points to the selection and use of bi7
facially struck cobbles to form crude cutting tools, sometimes of a similar lithology to the polished
axes but originating in the local till.
5 Shetland Islands stone implement research project
Gabriel Cooney, UCD School of Archaeology, University College Dublin
(Principal Investigator), Torben Ballin, Vin Davis, Alison Sheridan and Will
Megarry
Shetland is the northernmost part of Europe where farming was practiced during the Neolithic (38002500 BC). People transformed a visually distinctive island stone; (riebeckite) felsite, into polished axes
and knives. These are found across the archipelago but yet to be identified outside it. The source is at
North Roe, mainland Shetland where grey-blue felsite dykes stand out against red granite bedrock.
The key objective of the project is detailed archaeological and geochemical/petrological survey and
characterization of this major quarry complex, followed by targeted excavation, identifying the scale,
nature and date of extraction and production processes. A project GIS integrates data from the quarry
complex with the analysis and mapping of felsite artifacts in major museum collections. The project
will provide new perspectives on Neolithic Shetland and the linkages between different parts of the
archipelago. It is a case study of the use of an insular lithic source and island dynamics that can be
compared with other island Neolithic societies.
Building on previous geoarchaeological activity in North Roe by Torben Ballin and Vin Davis the first
season of the North Roe Felsite Project; Making an Island World: Neolithic Shetland, funded by the
National Geographic Northern Exploration Fund (GEFNE) took place in June/July 2013. There were
three foci of work: the geochemical and petrological characterization of outcrops and artifacts; the
topographical survey and characterization of production at Grut Wells; and the characterization of
axes and knives in the Shetland Museum (Lerwick). A portable x-ray fluorescence (PXRF) analyzer was
used to measure elemental composition of a large study sample (over 1,000 analyses) comprising:
rocks at outcrop, debitage, and stone axes and knives in the Shetland Museum and National
Museums Scotland (Edinburgh). Initial petrological analysis has been carried out on 30 thin sections.
Detailed survey at Grut Wells of a concentration of quarry pits and their environs provided a basis for
modelling and understanding the working of felsite. The survey was accompanied by a sampling
strategy to understand the surface accumulation of felsite debitage. The axes and knives in the
Shetland Museum were recorded, characterized and photographed. A multi-scalar approach to data
collection and an anlysis is being implemented and integrated through a project GIS.
In 2014 the geochemical and petrological characterization of outcrops and museum collections will
continue. A particular target at North Roe will be the southern end of the complex, including Ronas
Hill, the highest point of Shetland which has a chambered cairn (and felsite dykes) on the summit. The
focus of topographical survey will be the Beorgs of Uyea at the north end of the complex. Here there
is a palimpsest of felsite debitage and important archaeological features. At Grut Wells targeted
excavation will take place in the area surveyed in 2013. The aims are to recover detail of the primary
stages in the process of quarrying and production and dating evidence, and also to get to the actual
dyke so we can take measurements of dyke rock in situ.
Characterization of felsite axes and knives in museum collections will focus on the collections of
National Museums Scotland, the Hunterian Museum and Kelvingrove Museum. A programme of
experimental work aimed at understanding the processes of working felsite will continue. It will be
8
linked with a 'felsite roadshow' and exhibition, planned with Shetland Museum and Archives to record
axes in private collections and provide local people with information and archaeological and
geochemical profiles of objects.
1. GEOCHEMICAL AND PETROLOGICAL MAPPING
A Thermo Scientific ‘NITON XL3T GOLDD+’ portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer (PXRF), on loan from
and with thanks to Historic Scotland was used to measure elemental compositions of a large study
sample of felsite (stone axe petrological Group XXII) comprising: rocks at outcrop; debitage from tool
production episodes; and polished stone axes and knives from the collection of the Shetland Museum.
Of the almost 500 implements associated with Shetland and/or described as Group XXII the project
now has PXRF analyses for 213. Nine hundred PXRF analyses were carried out in Shetland – at the
quarry complex and on the objects in the Shetland Museum - and a further 211 in the National
Museums Scotland in Edinburgh (and plan to do more in the near future). Ninety three field samples
were collected and 30 thin sections prepared, on which initial analysis has been carried out.
2. TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF PRODUCTION AT GRUT WELLS
Detailed survey of an area 250m (north-south) by 150m (east-west) provided a detailed basis for
understanding the working of felsite in this area. There are two distinct groups of quarry pits on a
north-south alignment (following a felsite dyke). Other pits appear to be single episode or exploratory
quarry pits. On the surface there were significant numbers of large blocks of felsite. The survey
demonstrated a clear spatial relationship between these large blocks of felsite (over 30cm in length)
and the quarry pits. It seems clear that the blocks of felsite were quarried from the pits and were the
primary source utilized for the production of roughouts.
3. AXES AND KNIVES IN THE SHETLAND MUSEUM
All the axes (126) and knives (60) in the Shetland Museum were characterized archaeologically, their
geochemical signature and petrology was recorded (see above) and they were photographed. Visual
analysis of the axes in the Shetland Museum demonstrated the dominance of felsite as a source.
Almost 75% (94 out of 126) axes are made of felsite, with a significant proportion manufacture red
from serpentinite (13%). The dominance of felsite is even more apparent in the case of the knives
with 95% (57 out of 60) being made from felsite. The detailed examination of the Shetland Museum
collection also provided quantitative support for the visual observation that felsite axes are less
spectacular in appearance than the knives. Whereas the felsite knives in the collection are produced
in almost equal numbers from non-spherulitic and spherulitic felsite, the majority (85%) of the felsite
axes were made from non-spherulitic varieties of felsite.
4. HOARD AND MINIATURE HEEL-SHAPED CAIRN
Two other results of project fieldwork demonstrate the special role of felsite, and of the quarry
complex in the wider context of the Shetland archipelago. A hoard of three felsite roughouts; two
large axes and a Shetland knife was discovered below and to the south-east of the Grut Wells dyke
discussed above. The material is macroscopically identical to the debitage around the quarry pits.
Comparison with the Shetland Museum collection indicates that the objects in the hoard are
unusually large and well-produced. A small megalithic tomb which can be seen as having the
characteristics of the distinctive Shetland heel-shaped cairns was discovered, about 300m north of
9
the surveyed area at Grut Wells and overlooking the line of outcrop of a felsite dyke which dips down
on to lower ground. The tomb appears to be orientated to visually link this area of the complex with
the Beorgs of Uyea to the north. Far from being remote it would appear that the North Roe felsite
quarry complex was a central place not just for axe and knife production but also for the construction
of identity in Neolithic Shetland.
4.1 View across Petterwater from the main Riebeckite Felsite outcrops, quarries and production
sites on Beorgs of Uyea (Photo: Vin Davis)
4.2 View across exposures of Riebeckite Felsite dykes cutting pink coloured grante country rock;
Beorgs of Uyea (Photo: Vin Davis)
10
4.3 Field exposure of felsite and granite contact zone (Photo: Vin Davis)
4.4 Field contact of felsite and granite. Beorgs of Uyea (Photo: Vin Davis)
11
4.5 Roughouts of two felsite axes and one discoid knife found in a bog by Pete Topping on Beorgs
of Uyea (Photo: Vin Davis)
4.6 Riebeckite Felsite roughout axe, Midfield 1 (Photo: Vin Davis)
12
4.7 Prehistoric quarry face, Riebeckite Felsite dyke, 1 metre deep (Photo: Vin Davis)
4.8 Structure associated with prehistoric quarry face (Fig 7 also) (Photo: Vin Davis)
13
4.9 Naturally weathered rectangular blocks of Riebeckite Felsite, Beorgs of Uyea (Photo: Vin Davis)
4.10 Pecked block of Riebeckite Felsite near pit alignment on Beorgs of Uyea (Photo: Vin Davis)
14
4.11 Part of a pit alignment along one felsite dyke on Beorgs of Uyea . (Photo: Vin Davis)
4.12 Survey team, Beorgs of Uyea (Photo: Vin Davis)
15
4.13 Geoarchaeological terrorist, or protection from the cold wind??? (Photo: Vin Davis)
4.14 Using the PXRF in the field (Photo: Vin Davis)
16
4.15 Using the PXRF in Shetland Museum (Photo: Vin Davis)
4.16 Metamorphic textures typically associated with contact of some older felsite dykes and the
granite (Photo: Vin Davis)
17
4.17 Altered feldspathic veins in felsite typically associated with the contact of some younger
felsite dykes and the granite (Photo: Vin Davis)
In addition to the Principal Investigator and the project participants listed above the field team was
enriched by the hard work of Mik Markham, David Field, Pete Topping and Rob Sands. Key to the
success and overall organization of the project and the team were the input and commitment of
Niamh Kelly, Bernard Gilhooly and Brendan O’Neill (doctoral students in the UCD School of
Archaeology, University College Dublin). In the PXRF work in the National Museums Scotland we were
greatly helped by the input and assistance of Chelsea Anderson. We are indebted to the assistance of
the staff of Shetland Museum and Archives under the leadership of Dr Ian Tait, Curator, in particular
Jenny Murray, Curator of Collections, Dr Carol Christenson and Laurie Goodlad. Dr Val Turner, County
Archaeologist, Shetland Amenity Trust has been very supportive of the project. The project is
extremely grateful to Mrs Jane Brown, Delhi, Ollaberry, clerk of the Ollaberry grazing committee for
access to the Gruts Wells area and John Alec Cromarty, Lochend End House, Housesetter, the owner
of the Beorgs of Uyea area for access. We are very grateful to Historic Scotland for the loan of the
portable x-ray fluorescence analyzer. University College Dublin and National Museums Scotland
provided institutional support.
6 Recent research in Turkey
Associate Professor Dr. Onur Özbek (Head of the field surveys in Gökçeada
Island and Gallipoli Peninsula between 2011 and 2013)
The following field surveys cover a large period of Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic, Epi
Palaeolithic/Mesolithic and Neolithic. The main purpose of the research was to improve our
understanding of prehistoric cultures by investigating their flaking technology, raw material sources
and prehistoric quarries. The surveys formed part of a programme of research and excavation
concerning the Neolithic Period funded mainly by Turkish Ministry of Culture and the Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK). Current research and excavation interests
include: Ulucak Höyük (İzmir), Uğurlu Höyük (Gökçeada Island) Aktopraklık Höyük (Bursa) and
Çatalhöyük (Konya). These projects focus on the raw material procurement and the typo18
technological studies of ground stone tools in the Neolithic societies (7000 BC cal eg., Ulucak to
6400 BC cal eg. Uğurlu, 6200 BC cal Aktopraklık and 6000 BC cal eg. Çatal Höyük).
1 THE DISCOVERY OF A PALAEOLITHIC TO NEOLITHIC QUARRY AND WORKSHOPS ON
THE ISLAND OF GÖKÇEADA (IMBROS).
Gökçeada is the largest island in Turkey. It is situated in the North Aegean Sea, a region strongly
associated with prehistoric routes between Anatolia and Europe via Greece. Chronologies concerning
the migration to the North Aegean islands and Greek mainland cover not only the Neolithic Period but
also the Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 3) and Epi Palaeolithic (MIS 1). For further details about raw
materials and their sources, please see Ozbek (2012).
19
2. DISCOVERY OF THE ÜÇDUTLAR SITE IN THE GALLIPOLI IN 2011 DURING THE GALLIPOLI
FIELD SURVEY PROJECT.
For full details about the Üçdutlar site, including drawings of the lithic finds please refer to Ozbek
(2012). The finds were petrographically identified as jasper from outcrops 6 km away from the
prehistoric site. Our evidence suggests that the site was used as a workshop and settlement from
Middle Palaeolithic onwards. The time scale appears to be similar to that encountered at Gökçeada.
All the prehistoric mounds are situated on a 100 km long and 10 km wide peninsula, and were
occupied from Neolithic (6200 BC) to Bronze Age. It seems that jasper was procured from the
prehistoric quarry sites at Kabatepe and used in workshops occupying a site covering at least 2
hectares from MP to Neolithic.
3 THE GALLIPOLI FIELD SURVEY.
Not sure these are the same; metabasite is a generic term given to metamorphosed basic rocks,
nephrite is a tremolite-actinolite amphibole, one of the two minerals commonly known as jade.
Our field survey also revealed that the polished implements made from metabasite or nephrite found
on the prehistoric settlements both on the Gallipoli Peninsula and the island of Gökçeada most likely
originated from the same outcrop previously described by Ozbek (1997). No other outcrop of similar
rock has yet been found in Şarköy-Tekirdağ near the Marmara Sea coast.
4. A MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROJECT WAS SPONSORED BY TUBITAK.
This three year-long project, which finished in 2013, involved field survey and laboratory-based
analyses in both Turkey and in Australia (Erdoğu et al: 2013). All the speleological studies were
conducted by O. Özbek during the project. A three year geoarchaeological investigation of the Sızma
and İncikini caves using radio-active and chemical probes revealed that speleothems from the caves
had been deposited in dwellings at Çatalhöyük 60 -70 km away during the Early Neolithic. Thus, as far
20
as we know, this is the first time that such scientific research into the sourcing and deposition of
speleothems (stalagmites and dogtooth spar formations) has been conducted into such an early
prehistoric period archaeological setting.
5 ULUCAK HÖYÜK
In 2012 and 2013 our studies at Ulucak Höyük aimed at finding the source of the ground stones used
in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic mound. Our research has indicated that some of the ground stones
came from a source at Nif Dağı, 10-15 km. away. A detailed inventory has been produced, and a typotechnological analysis is underway. Initial results suggest that chalcedony is the main lithic material
used to make prehistoric implements in the vicinity of Çaldağ, which is a mountain about 40 km
away. This research project was also part-funded by TUBITAK; the petrographical analysis was
undertaken by İzmir Dokuz Eylul University, Geology Dept. in Turkey.
21
The ‘fair use’ of Google Earth images in this article is fully acknowledged, with gratitude.
REFERENCES
Erdoğu, B, Uysal, I. T. O, Özbek, O, and Ulusoy, Ü. (2013), Speleothems of Çatalhöyük, Turkey, in
Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry: An International Journal, 13.1, 21-30).
Ozbek, O. (1997).The prehistoric ground stone implements from Yartarla: the preliminary results of a
geoarchaeological study in the Tekirdag Region of Thrace, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique.
Suppl 51, 695-705).
Ozbek, O. (2012). Sea level changes and Prehistoric sites on the coasts of Southern Turkish Thrace,
12.000-6.000 BP, in Quaternary International 261, 162–175.
7 Richard Bevins, Rob Ixer and Nick Pearce: three recent papers linking the
petrology of Stonehenge Bluestones to possible sources in SW Wales.
Two recent papers by Dr Rob Ixer (Institute of Archaeology UCL) and Dr Richard Bevins (Amgueddfa
Cymru, National Museum Wales) and Professor Nick Pearce (University of Aberystwyth) were tabled
for information and discussion at the 18th IPG Meeting, York 11-12 Jan 2014). The papers reported
the results of their investigations into the geographical provenance for the bluestones of Stonehenge
and the meaning –if any- of the debris/debitage that is associated with the Stonehenge Landscape.
Their earlier papers (2010-2013) had concentrated on describing and determining the origin of the
silica-rich (rhyolitic) bluestones and their debris. This work contributed to the discovery of a possible
quarry source at Craig Rhosyfelin.
In their first paper (Bevins, Ixer & Pearce: 2013), focus on the spotted dolerites, considered to be the
most abundant of the bluestones. Using ‘total petrography’ (a methodology synonymous with Rob,
which consists of the full petrographical description of a rock in both transmitted and reflected light),
Ixer and an Open University team first examined these rocks in the mid-1990s. More recently
however, Bevins, Ixer and Pearce examined the rocks using a more robust methodology achieved by
combining petrography and whole rock geochemistry; they concentrated on the compatible elements
22
which, they believed, provided a clearer discrimination between sets of samples from Stonehenge
and the Preseli and revealed hitherto undetected geochemical groupings. They concluded that
although there are at least two geographical sources in the Preseli Hills and perhaps more, Carn
Goedog is the source of the numerically largest group of dolerite orthostats, and is the likely major
source of Stonehenge doleritic bluestones. Their evidence, based on compatible element
geochemistry and Principal Component Analysis, reused the Open University’s geochemical data,
earlier petrographical analyses and their own previously unpublished data. To date, they have been
unable to match any of the Stonehenge bluestones to the spotted dolerite bluestone quarry site at
the Preseli Hills.
In the second paper (Ixer and Bevins: 11-22 ), the focus is on the relative position of the standing
stones and their debris within Stonehenge and its immediate environs. It is the first paper to discuss
in any detail the bluestone debitage material and to try to relate its distribution to the standing, lying
and buried orthostats. For the non-dolerite lithologies there appears to be an antipathetic
relationship between the debitage and the surviving orthostats. They predict that attributing the
spotted dolerite debris to a named orthostat may be difficult as many dolerite orthostats cannot be
distinguished from each other by either petrographical or geochemical means.
An interesting finding was that the Rhyolite Groups A-C (rhyolite with fabric) debitage, identified by
Ixer and Bevins as coming from Craig Rhosyfelin, appears not to be associated with any above-ground
orthostat but may be from buried orthostat SH32d or SH32e. This debitage is common in secure and
non-secure prehistoric contexts. Work on the spotted dolerites including the paper above suggest
that other bluestone lithologies have yet to be identified and fully described.
REFERENCES
Bevins, R.E, Pearce, N.J.P, and Ixer, R.A Pearce (2011) Stonehenge rhyolitic bluestone sources and the
application of zircon chemistry as a new tool for provenancing rhyolitic lithics. Journal of
Archaeological Sciences, 38, 605-622.
Ixer, R.A, Williams-Thorpe, O, Bevins, R.E, and Chambers, A.D (2004) A comparison between ‘total
petrography’ and geochemistry using portable X-ray fluorescence as provenancing tools for some
Midlands axe-heads; in E.A Walker, F. Wenban-Smith and F. Healy (eds), Lithics in Action. 105-115:
Oxford; Oxbow/Lithics Studies Society Occasional Publication 8.
Ixer, R.A and Bevins, R.E (2010) The petrography, affinity and provenance of lithics from the Cursus
Field, Stonehenge. WANHM 103, 1-15
Ixer, R.A and Bevins E.R (2011) The detailed petrography of six orthostats from the bluestone circle,
Stonehenge; in Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 104, 1-14.
Ixer, R.A and Bevins, E.R (2013) Craig Rhos-y-Felin, Pont Saeson is the dominant source of the
Stonehange rhyolitic ‘debitage’; in Archaeology in Wales 50, 21-31
Ixer, R.A and Bevins, R.E (2013) Chips off the old block: the Stonehenge debitage dilemma.
Archaeology in Wales 52, 11-22.
23
8 Flint, chert and stone scatters in NW England: a review of current work
Peter Cherry
Over the period from the early 1960s to the mid 1990s, my father and I were involved in systematic
fieldwalking in two areas, the S W Cumbrian coast and the limestone uplands of eastern Cumbria
between Shap and Kirby Stephen. The former area includes our sites at Eskmeals excavated by Clive
Bonsall which have received some publication although work on the excavated lithics remains
unpublished. In that area we found in excess of 70,000 lithics from around 180 scatters, all now in
Carlisle Museum. The latter area produced over 15,000 lithics from around 180 scatters, now in
Kendal Museum. In the course of our survey in eastern Cumbria we worked with Richard Bradley and
Mark Edmonds who were working on the Langdale axe factories at the time. All of our work has been
published through the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society.
The material from SW Cumbria was almost exclusively of Irish Sea beach pebble flint (over 98%).
There is some chalk flint of presumed Yorkshire origin, almost all on Late Neolithic and Bronze Age
sites. No Antrim flint has been identified. The remainder is of a relatively heterogenous range of
volcanic tuffs, banded material and lavas mainly comparable to the Seathwaite Fell tuffs which
include Group VI, but also including Ennerdale banded rhyolite. Banded material is considered to be
rare and may well have been preferentially selected. The source of material appears to be pebbles not
outcrop although some possible weathered scree was noted. Chert is present but in very small
quantities (less than 0.5%). One pitchstone blade has been identified at St Bees. Quartz was not
noted.
The raw materials from eastern Cumbria are very different. On sites of Late Mesolithic appearance,
cherts formed c.67% of assemblages, the remainder made up from (probably Yorkshire) chalk flint
and pebble flint. Volcanic tuff is present but relatively rare. Some pitchstone has been identified. The
pebble flint was unlike Irish Sea beach pebble flint, differing markedly in colour and cortex. On sites of
Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age appearance, presumed Yorkshire chalk flint was the dominant raw
material, and chert provided no more than c.33% of finds. Volcanic tuff was present but largely in the
form of flakes from use and reworking of ground stone tools. All of these have been studied by Vin
Davis and published by him in our reports. A small amount of flaked clear crystal quartz was also
noted.
It is not clear whether these differences reflect territory or function. At first sight, the S W Cumbrian
sites appear almost to exclude imported raw materials suggesting the possibility a separate social
group. However, the sites we found in S W Cumbria were all very close to the modern shoreline and I
cannot eliminate the possibility that they are predominantly raw material procurement sites,
involving the removal of processed lithics for use elsewhere. If any lithic scatter was generated by
activity based on testing and removing beach pebble flint for use elsewhere, the absence of imported
raw material becomes easier to explain as an issue of function, not territory.
Recently I decided to review our SW Cumbrian material at the request of Torben Ballin to look for
Arran pitchstone, a search which has so far produced the poor return of one blade in over 50,000
lithics so far searched. After I had begun that work, the site at Stainton West near Carlisle was found
and excavated by Oxford Archaeology North. Discussions with OAN soon demonstrated that the raw
materials used at Stainton West were very different to those in SW Cumbria in that chert comprises
over 30% of the excavated assemblage of over 325,000 pieces, and there is significant use of chalk
24
flint. Volcanic tuffs are a common factor and pitchstone is present. Given that our most northerly sites
are no more than 40 miles from Stainton West, it was felt that the difference between raw materials
merited a closer look.
I therefore widened my review of S W Cumbrian materials to include all non-flint lithics, accepting
that it may be difficult to distinguish between flint and chert macroscopically, particularly in small
pieces. This review (which involves Antony Dickson) has confirmed the negligible use of chert, and I
understand this also to be confirmed by the excavated assemblages at Eskmeals. The cherts fall into
two categories. First, there are dark grey cherts which appear Carboniferous. These are mainly
derived from pebbles but at St Bees, nearest to limestone outcropping around Egremont, we found
material which in my opinion is quarried. Vin has seen some of this material, understands my
argument but has not yet declared himself convinced by it. The second group of cherts includes
material which resembles Scottish Southern Uplands chert according to Torben and appear to be from
small pebbles for which we have a credible source in the tills of the Scottish Readvance in the S W
Cumbrian lowlands.
The material in Kendal Museum has now been reviewed on a preliminary basis. The cherts from the
Shap sites of Late Mesolithic appearance seems pretty homogenous and are presumed to be local.
Adrian Evans of Bradford University who is doing chert sourcing work at Stainton West has had a look
and is now aware of the existence of the collection. Rosemary Stewart has also had a look and found
no cherts resembling Scottish Southern Uplands chert, although a more thorough search is planned.
Pitchstone (apparently confirmed by XRF by Annie Hamilton Gibney) is present across a range of sites,
and is significantly more common than in SW Cumbria.
The non-axe tuffs are again a heterogenous looking group. We have 1 microlith and 1 microburin from
the Shap sites. Some nodules may be from weathered scree rather than pebbles, and one or two
pieces have a rough, rust brown cortex that might possibly indicate heat damage. Enquiries of Richard
Bradley and Mark Edmonds indicate that visibly heat damaged tuffs were not noted in Langdale
despite the evidence for fire setting. There is nothing that looks like it might be derived from outcrop
Antony Dickson is now carrying out a proper lithic analysis on the material from 2 sites from S W
Cumbria and 2 sites from E Cumbria, each with around 1000+ lithics so that there is a decent sample
to play with. This may allow a more informed view on whether the S W Cumbrian sites have a
significant raw material procurement function.
9 MECHANICAL CHARACTERISATION OF STONE AXES
Selina Delgado & Roberto Risch: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
During the last years we have been working on the mechanical properties of rocks used in prehistoric
tool production, and specifically on their reaction towards friction and percussion (Delgado 2008;
Delgado et al. 2008, 2009). Elsewhere, considerable work has been done on rock types for use in road
manufacture where factors like ‘polished stone value’ are derived to quantify a rock’s resistant to
abrasion. The aim is to gain a better understanding of the petrological variables and the technical
relevance of the rock differences used as tools. Interpretations in archaeology are often based on the
position one gives to different raw material and objects on a value scale, which is seldom made
explicit. The mechanical differences of rocks definitely have had an influence on the effort necessary
to obtain a given tools, as well as on their use value.
25
While in the first phase of the project we mainly focused on grinding stones, in a second phase we
propose to compare the mechanical and petrographic properties of rocks used as stone axes. The
main question, which can be addressed through the proposed characterisation studies is: Do
significant differences exist in terms of the resistance to fraction and friction between the rocks? Both
parameters have direct implications for the use, as well as the production of stone axes.
Friction analyses definitely provide information about the resistance to abrasion (time and strength).
Differences in the polishing requirements can be substantial between rocks, and this has evident
social implications. In the case of the compression and flexion tests, rock texture and fabric will have
more importance on the mechanical behaviour of the rocks. For each sample thin sections were
examined in order to determine grain size and orientation, quartz content, and other parameters
which condition the behaviour of the rocks (Delgado et al. 2008, 2009). These descriptions can again
be compared with petrographic analysis of archaeological materials, and allow to understand which
qualities are relevant for past strategies of raw material procurement.
In order to test these parameters and to understand the relation between petrographic
characterisation and mechanical behaviour, we are seeking collaboration with different researchers
who have analysed stone axe quarries and production, and who are willing to provide natural rock
samples for our experiments. Usually, we carry out mechanical test of flexion, compression and
abrasion under controlled conditions (for a description of some of them see Delgado et al. 2008,
2009). The three samples for each rock type should be larger than:
Flexion:
100x40x40 mm
Compression:
70x70x70 mm
Abrasion:
70x70x30 mm
In principle, it is not necessary to select and send a whole block out if which we cut the samples. You
can break the rock into adequate pieces, which should be slightly larger than the measurements given
above. In the petrographic laboratory we will cut these pieces into standard blocks, which than can
inserted in the different machines.
During the last twelve months, we have done some mechanical experiments in order to evaluate the
physical properties of the rocks used for making artifacts in which abrasion is involved (i. e. grinding
stones, abraders and polishers). After the interesting results gained, we are undertaking a new
exerimental program that allows us to characterize the behaviour of different stone types used for
percussion. For this purpose we are collecting samples which will enable us to compare the degree of
adjustment between the chosen/selected rock and the function it was produced for (efficiency). We
are including jadeite and eclogite from the Alps (samples provided by Pierre Petrequin); amphibolite
from Portugal; Hornfells from Catalonia; and Group VI tuff from Gt Langdale, Group IX porcellanite
from Teivbullagh, and Group XXII reibeckite felsite from Shetland (samples provided by Vin Davis).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DELGADO RAACK, S.; GÓMEZ-GRAS, D.; RISCH, R. (2008), Las propiedades mecánicas de los artefactos
macrolíticos: una base metodológica para el análisis funcional, in Rovira S., Montero Ruiz I. & García
Heras M. (eds.), Actas del VII Congreso Ibérico de Arqueometría (Madrid, 8-10 octubre de 2007).
Madrid, Digital publication of the CSIC: 330-345.
26
DELGADO RAACK, S., GÓMEZ-GRAS, D. y RISCH, R. 2009. The mechanical properties of macrolithic
artifacts: a methodological background for functional análisis, Journal of Archaeological Science 36.9,
pp. 1823-1831.
10 Stonescapes: Living and working with stone in the prehistoric landscapes
of Northern England.
Chris Fowler, University of Newcastle
The landscapes of Europe changed dramatically during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. The
introduction of farming was one key factor in this transformation while new ways of engaging with
stone were another, particularly in northern Europe. Recent perspectives stress that technologies,
including the working of stone, are means of ‘doing’ and ‘relating’ that are fundamental to ways of life
- and to shaping ideas, things, places and landscapes. The key questions are: how, and to what extent,
were people’s lives and landscapes changed by new ways of living and working with stone? Research
being planned at Newcastle University is original in that it will embrace all manipulations of stone in
later prehistory at different spatial scales across northern England, a region dominated by hard stone.
It aims to change our understanding of the long-term development of places and landscapes, and
produce a new holistic and dynamic approach to how Neolithic and Early Bronze Age people
experienced, understood and acted in association with landscapes, places and communities in which
stone was a key component. A study of artefacts will be central to this new understanding.
In order to answer the questions: What were the stonescapes of northern England like at the outset of
the Neolithic? and How did these change during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age?, the planned
research will gather evidence about how human experiences of stone and stonescapes unfolded in
the prehistoric past. For example, it will examine the properties of stone at sources used for
quarrying axes and stone for megalithic and non- megalithic constructions. Chronological and spatial
patterns in the shaping of stone implements will be sought. Reconstructing the extent of Neolithic
and post-early Bronze Age quarrying will provide new insights into the current distribution of rock art
and other stone features, including unworked stone outcrops and boulders, in wider landscapes.
11 Geoarchaeology community outreach workshops and field visit
Vin Davis and Tom Clare
During spring 2013, a request was received from a U3A Archaeology Group to talk to them about
Implement Petrology (IP). They didn’t know what IP was, but had been told that it could be
interesting! It was decided to have a workshop rather than a formal presentation because the
participants were inquisitive, and liked doing things. Planning, resourcing and delivering the U3A
workshop was great fun; it was less exacting, but equally rigorous, when compared with normal
petrological and geochemical research. The plan was that by handling authentic stone tools from
different parts of the world, and comparing them visually, the U3A archaeologists would begin to
appreciate patterns, similarities and differences. They began to see how particular rocks appeared to
be more suited than others to stone tool manufacture. They examined a sequence of evidence
ranging from unworked rock collected from outcrop; debitage produced during the reduction process;
flaked stone tools; and examples of the final ground and polished implements. They began to
connect with the ‘biographies’ of people in prehistory through handling their stone artefacts. As the
27
workshop progressed, the participants started to recognise differences in form, style and function, for
example why some tools were functional whilst others were ritualistic. They viewed rocks in thin
section using a petrological microscope and marvelled at the amazing colour changes that occurred as
the minerals were rotated in crossed polarized light. At the end of the workshop, all agreed that
‘learning by discovery’ had worked. Consequently, a follow-on workshop on the theme: Basic
Geology for Archaeologists – was requested.
The Basic Geology for Archaeologists workshop followed a similar hands-on format as the previous
workshop on IP, except that, this time, the emphasis was more on the raw materials than on the
artefacts made from them. The U3A participants used specially prepared teaching and learning
collections of rocks, fossils and minerals to create categories based on their own discoveries and
experiences. They consulted simple geological maps and began to interpret the geological column.
Gradually, their perceptions of archaeological time, measured in thousands of years, was telescoped
when compared with geological time, measured in hundreds of millions of years. Inevitably, the
concept of Landscape became increasing relevant during discussions, especially when applied to
quarries, topography and prehistoric land use. It was not too surprising therefore when, at the end of
the geology workshop, the U3A Group participants requested some fieldwork activity.
In collaboration with Tom Clare, a dual geological-archaeological fieldwork programme extending
over two days was arranged in and around Shap, Cumbria. Visits were made to key geological
exposures, and the local succession of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks was worked out.
A visit to the Shap Pink Quarry yielded some attractive specimens, and examples of chert were seen in
the local Carboniferous Limestone rocks. A number of stone circles and earthworks were visited, and
interpreted within the archaeological landscape. Sites where scatters of worked flints, chert and tuff
described by Jim and Peter Cherry at al were noted for visiting on another occasion. The field visit
ended with an opportunity to use ariel photographs and large scale maps to interpret two different
sets of earthworks near Little Asby: one appeared to be a prehistoric settlement site on the limestone
pavement; the other consisted of shallow excavations associated with the mining of copper, possibly
dating from Elizabethan times.
11.1 Implement petrology workshop (Photo: Vin Davis)
28
11.2 Implement petrology workshop (Photo: Vin Davis)
11.3 Implement petrology workshop (Photo: Vin Davis)
11.4 Implement petrology workshop (Photo: Vin Davis)
11.5 Implement petrology workshop (Photo: Vin Davis)
29
The three aspects of this U3A geoarchaeology programme mirrored the intentions of the IPG
International Conference held in York during September 2007: to focus on raw materials and stone
implements, leading to an exploration of the wider landscape. The U3A experience provided valuable
insights for when the IPG begins to plan and provide IP workshops, linked to its intentions to provide
community outreach and IP training workshops.
12 For your interest and information: Stonework
Stonework is the title of a new book co-authored by Mark Edmonds, which presents an unusual and
memorable perspective on the geology, prehistory and landscape of the Langdale Valley. It is not a
textbook, but a beautifully presented book of poems and enigmatic illustrations. Those who value
Mark’s artistic flair in the design of Stone Axe Studies III will see that he has taken it to new heights in
Stonework. As one not normally moved by poetic verse, I have to admit being ambushed by this
book, which connected me in so many different ways with the exhilaration of decades of field visits
made to Great Langdales – its narrative connected with me! (RVD)
(Published by Marks’ ‘Group Six Press’, as follows:
https://sites.google.com/site/group6press/home/about).
30