Rossess Point revisited.

Rossess Point revisited. IntroductionIn August 1927 J.P.T. Burchell published a note in Nature. In thisnote he claimed to have found a series of limestone artefacts which hefelt were produced during the Palaeolithic. Burchell began to find thismaterial while on holidays in Co. Sligo (Burchell normally worked insouthern England). As Ireland, in spite of numerous claims by William J.Knowles (1897; 1914), had no known Palaeolithic this note initiated oneof the most acrimonious disputes in Irish archaeology. It was like asupernova supernova,a massive star in the latter stages of stellar evolution that suddenly contracts and then explodes, increasing its energy output as much as a billionfold. exploding across the pages of Man and Nature. Charlesworth& Macalister (1930) documented 40 papers, pro/contra between August1927 and May 1929. Like all supernovae this Co. Sligo controversyvanished as quickly as it had appeared and in 1936 Whelan, in his ThePalaeolithic Question in Ireland, did not even refer to the Sligomaterial. Other authors, notably Movius (1942) and Woodman (1978), wereinclined to follow the received wisdom that the Co. Sligo material wasin one way or another a product of nature. However, the rediscovery Noun 1. rediscovery - the act of discovering againdiscovery, find, uncovering - the act of discovering somethingrediscoveryn → redescubrimientoofsome of the material in the stores of the Quaternary quaternary/qua��ter��nary/ (kwah��ter-nar?e)1. fourth in order.2. containing four elements or groups.qua��ter��nar��yadj.1. Consisting of four; in fours. section of theBritish Museum British Museum,the national repository in London for treasures in science and art. Located in the Bloomsbury section of the city, it has departments of antiquities, prints and drawings, coins and medals, and ethnography. gave the author the opportunity to reassess the so called'artefacts'.History of the disputeIn 1927 Burchell claimed to have discovered significant evidence ofan Irish Palaeolithic at three localities in north Co. Sligo[ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 1 OMITTED]. They were1 Ballyconnell (Sligo 6[inches] O.S. 4: G5646 & G5746), whereBurchell claimed to have found two 'artefacts' embedded nearthe base of the boulder clay boulder clay:see drift. where it covered the local limestonebedrock.2 A cave on the northern coast of Coney Island Coney Island(kō`nē), beach resort, amusement center, and neighborhood of S Brooklyn borough of New York City, SE N.Y., on the Atlantic Ocean. (Sligo 6[inches] O.S.8: G6139), where Palaeolithic artefacts were claimed to have beendiscovered on the beach adjacent to the cave.3 The remnants of a 'rock-shelter' on the western edge ofRosses Point (Sligo 6[inches] O.S. 8: G6241), on the northwestern tip ofRosses Lower townland A townland is a small geographical unit of land used in Ireland and Scotland, and believed to be of Gaelic origin. EtymologyThe English term townland is derived from the Old English word 'tun', in turn originating from the Old Norse word t��n . It was suggested that this was the remnants of acollapsed cave whose presumed back had been filled with a series oflarge blocks which covered an area which contained over 100 artefacts(Burchell & Reid Moir 1928):Under the fallen roof blocks and resting on the limestone floor werediscovered over 100 flakes, implements and cores made of limestonetogether with a quantity of powdered shells, a limited amount of smallrolled, beach stones and a few pebbles derived from the 'Boulderclay'.It is important to place the dispute over the Sligo Palaeolithic in abroader context. In particular, Burchell was a close confidant of J.Reid Moir who was at this time claiming that he had identified a seriesof Palaeolithic flint artefacts from in and below the Crag Beds in EastAnglia East Anglia(ăng`glēə), kingdom of Anglo-Saxon England, comprising the modern counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. It was settled in the late 5th cent. by so-called Angles from northern Germany and Scandinavia. (Reid Moir 1927). These he claimed were of much greater antiquitythan the usually accepted Palaeolithic assemblages of England. The factthat much of this material was found out of context on beaches adjacentto Quaternary deposits is of crucial importance as Reid Moir claimed tobe able to identify these early artefacts from the primitive methods ofmanufacture. It is therefore not surprising that Burchell's initialnote in Nature_(20 August 1927) was followed by a supporting letter fromJ. Reid Moir on the following page.(1) Thus the Co. Sligo material wasbeing used to underpin a position in a dispute which was centred in EastAnglia. It is also not surprising that in November 1927counter-arguments were put forward by both a group of senior Irishacademics, namely Macalister (archaeologist), Charlesworth (geologist),Praeger (naturalist) and Stelfox (zoologist) and by Hazeldine Warren,who also worked on the southern English Lower Palaeolithic and was aconsistent opponent of Reid Moir's views on the Cromer Bedartefacts. The substance of the argument advanced by Burchell and ReidMoir was as follows.The discovery of 'artefacts' in the base of the boulderclay at Ballyconnell convinced Burchell that the limestone artefactsfrom Sligo had a genuine Palaeolithic antiquity although only twospecimens were found at Ballyconnell. As a contrast over 100 artefactswere claimed to have been discovered at Rosses Point in what wasinitially claimed to be a collapsed cave. The Rosses Point artefactswere consistently described as being in a comparatively fresh condition.Explorations at Rosses Point in 1928 by Burchell behind the areawhere the artefacts were recovered revealed a cliff cut in the limestonewhich was about 10 ft high. Burchell argued (Burchell et al. 1929: 2)that 'This rock bluff, 10ft high, running north and south, would,in our submission, have constituted the east containing wall of theshelter and so have protected its contents from the effects of the iceaction from the east', i.e. of glaciation. He also suggested thatthis shelter had been created before the local boulder clays had beenlaid down. These boulder clays overlay the limestone. Burchell argued(1929: 2-3) that the degree of marine erosion which was required tocreate the notch would have eroded away most of the overlying overlyingsuffocation of piglets by the sow. The piglets may be weak from illness or malnutrition, the sow may be clumsy or ill, the pen may be inadequate in size or poorly designed so that piglets cannot escape. boulderclay if it had taken place in the postglacial post��gla��cial?adj.Relating to or occurring during the time following a glacial period.postglacial?Relating to or occurring during the time following a glacial period.Adj. 1. :Had this erosion taken place in Post Glacial times we submit that theboulderclay face, immediately adjoining this feature to the North, wouldhave been eroded back to a very great extent. . . . This factor, takenin conjunction with the Archaeological evidence compels us to regard thenotch as of Pro Lower Boulder Age.Burchell recorded the remnants of the postglacial raised beach in anotch which had been cut into the bluff at a higher level [ILLUSTRATIONFOR FIGURE 2 OMITTED].Support for the concept of a rock-shelter was initially based on theobservation of the existence of another cave on the southern end ofRosses Point and on the existence of the cave at Coney Island withpresumed artefacts occurring in the beach (Burchell & Reid Moir1928). The idea that these caves were ancient was subject to criticismby many others who suggested that the caves were relatively modern andso it is not surprising that in the 1929 monograph the role of the cavewas discarded and it was suggested that the Coney Island beachartefacts, including a quartzite quartzite,usually metamorphic rock composed of firmly cemented quartz grains. Most often it is white, light gray, yellowish, or light brown, but is sometimes colored blue, green, purple, or black by included minerals. core, were derived from the boulderclay - a similar scenario to that for the East Anglia shorelinematerial.Burchell claimed that the Rosses Point artefacts were EarlyMousterian as they could be best paralleled by the High Lodge materialfrom Suffolk. Until the 1950s it was generally accepted that the HighLodge material represented an early stage of the Mousterian (see Ashtonet al. 1992). Burchell claimed that the major typological characteristicof the Sligo material was that it was a flake industry which lacked anabundance of faceted platforms which would characterize Levalloisindustries. Therefore it should be considered Mousterian. Essentiallythe cave artefacts were published in monographs in 1928 and 1929. Theauthors claimed to have found and identified side scrapers (Burchell& Reid Moir 1928: plates 11, 12 & 15) as well as primitive handaxes (1928: plates 16 & 17) and choppers (Burchell et al. 1929:[ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 11 OMITTED]).In summary, Ballyconnell appeared to provide a geological context,Coney Island had an East Anglian parallel and Rosses Point provided anassemblage which could be regarded as Mousterian.The counter-argumentThe ideas of Burchell & Reid Moir were not generally wellreceived and as noted earlier, within a few months Irish Quaternaryscientists and Hazeldine Warren had prepared critical replies.There were several areas of contention raised by the critics.1 Ballyconnell: It was apparent to many who visited the Ballyconnelllocation that glacial plucking of the angled limestone bedrock wouldproduce such a large number of angular pieces of limestone, thatpseudo-artefacts would be expected. Therefore the pieces fromBallyconnell should be regarded with suspicion.2 Coney Island: The caves referred to by Burchell & Reid Moir in1928 were generally thought to be of modern marine origin. A cave on thesouthern face of Rosses Point (Burchell & Reid Moir 1928: plate 1)was also felt to be modern.3 Rosses Point: The argument that there was a cave containingartefacts on the western end of Rosses Point was also subjected tocriticism. It is important to remember that ideas were being developedover a 2-year period, and therefore Burchell & Reid Moir were notalways consistent with their suggestions. This would have been and stillis normal for most workers still in the process of field research.However, even today it is not always clear what they were referring to.It is therefore not altogether surprising that their opponents were ableto point to inconsistencies. Instead of a low, narrow rock-shelter 47 by9 ft and 3 to 4 ft in height which had survived glacial activity, Jones& Boswell (Nature 2 June 1928) suggested if a cave had existed ithad been created by marine erosion. They also noted that 26 of the 36blocks of limestone which covered the layer containing artefacts werederived from lower limestones which formed the floor of the so-calledcave. These had probably been derived from further out at present-daysea level and were carried up by storms and deposited in their presentpositionon top of the layer containing the so-called artefacts.Initially Macalister expressed scepticism scep��ti��cism?n.Variant of skepticism.skepticism, scepticisma personal disposition toward doubt or incredulity of facts, persons, or institutions. See also 312. PHILOSOPHY. — skeptic, n. about the human origin ofthe artefacts and claimed that they were a product of sea action(Macalister et al. Nature, 31 December 1927). However Charlesworth &Macalister (1930) quote everyone else's view on this matter butomitted their own suggestion that they were natural - surely a tacitadmission that their contention was erroneous.Charlesworth & Macalister (1930) list other opinions:a C.B. Whelan (Man May 1928) accepted that the artefacts arePalaeolithic.b A leading group of British Palaeolithic experts, Armstrong,Burkitt, Dewey, Garrod and Smith (Nature 28 January 1928) were satisfiedthat they are of human workmanship, but also note 'This statementis without prejudice Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.When a lawsuit is dismissed, the court may enter a judgment against the plaintiff with or without prejudice. When a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice to their cultural age'.c The Abbe Breuil (Man July 1928) agreed that some pieces could be aproduct of nature but most were a product of genuine human activity. Hedid not see any parallel with Mousterian and felt that to determinetheir age was a geological problem.d Sollas (Man July 1929) accepted that they were of human origin.e Following a suggestion initially made by R.J. Welch, Palmer,Jackson and Pierce (Nature March 1928) suggested that the debris was aby-product of stone-anchor manufacture. However as Charlesworth &Macalister (1930) noted, Welch withdrew his suggestion upon inspectionof the site. It is unfortunate that Welch, a noted photographer, did nottake any photographs at Rosses Point.What was usually ignored was that a substantial number of what hadbeen claimed as artefacts, i.e. over 100 pieces, had been found in atiny area of Rosses Point and that no other artefacts were claimed tohave been found elsewhere in the Rosses Point area.Macalister & Charlesworth reinforced their suspicions about theSligo Mousterian with the dangerous and circumstantial EVIDENCE, CIRCUMSTANTIAL. The proof of facts which usually attend other facts sought to be, proved; that which is not direct evidence. For example, when a witness testifies that a man was stabbed with a knife, and that a piece of the blade was found in the wound, and it is found to fit argument that itwas unlikely that any evidence of a Palaeolithic occupation couldsurvive in Co. Sligo. They pointed instead to the recent, morebelievable be��liev��a��ble?adj.Capable of eliciting belief or trust. See Synonyms at plausible.be��lieva��bil , finds of human remains in what appeared to be a'Pleistocene' context at Kilgreany Cave, Co. Waterford(Tratman 1928).By 1935 Macalister was even more sceptical and again doubted whetherthe artefacts were of human manufacture (Macalister 1935: 9):Other stones are less responsive to the methods of ancientartificers ARTIFICERS. Persons whose employment or business consists chiefly of bodily labor. Those who are masters of their arts. Cunn. Dict. h.t. Vide Art. , and the implements made of them would at best be makeshifts,not always to be identified with assurance as products of humanmanufacture. The tragi-comedy of the alleged implements from RossesPoint, which gave rise to a hot controversy a few years before thepublication of this book, is of importance only as illustrating thisuncertainty . . . . The publication of these implements, though afutility in itself, had the extremely valuable effect of showing thatthe criteria of human workmanship, upon which their champions hadrelied, are untrustworthy.In summary, by 1930 there was a general acceptance that some of thematerial, in particular from Rosses Point, had been humanly hu��man��ly?adv.1. In a human way.2. Within the scope of human means, capabilities, or powers: not humanly possible.3. manufacturedbut there was general agreement that this material could not be acceptedas being Palaeolithic unless a more believable geological context wasprovided. By the 1940s Movius, in his Irish Stone Age, was equallysceptical of the Rosses Point material; admitting to the possible humanorigin of some flakes, he preferred the stone-anchor explanation.Eventually Irish archaeology was to focus on the negative aspects ofthe Sligo material in that it was not Palaeolithic. Very littleconsideration was given to what it actually was. Obviously in theabsence of new geological information, the argument could not beadvanced and Movius' elucidation e��lu��ci��date?v. e��lu��ci��dat��ed, e��lu��ci��dat��ing, e��lu��ci��datesv.tr.To make clear or plain, especially by explanation; clarify.v.intr.To give an explanation that serves to clarify. of the Kilgreany sequence, showingthat the human remains at that site were not Palaeolithic, helpedconvince many that there was no credible evidence for an IrishPalaeolithic.Revisiting the materialWith the support of the Royal Irish Academy The Royal Irish Academy (RIA) is one of Ireland's premier learned societies and cultural institutions. Founded in 1785, its current and former members include artists, scientists and writers from around Ireland. the author was able toexamine the collection of Irish artefacts held in the British MuseumQuaternary Section stores at Franks House, Orsman Road, London. Thisexamination revealed that a significant sample of Burchells collection,26 pieces in all, had been lodged in the British Museum (British MuseumRegistration Numbers 1927:11-12/1-11 and 1929:1220/1-15). Thiscontradicted the 1928 monograph which claimed that the material had beenlodged in the Ipswich Museum Ipswich Museum is a registered museum of culture, history and natural heritage located in Ipswich, the County Town of the English county of Suffolk. It was historically the leading regional museum in Suffolk, housing collections drawn from both the former counties of East Suffolk . However, Burchell seems to have had apolicy of lodging representative artefacts in the British Museum as healso lodged a sample of his Island Magee material there.The author's re-examination of the material revealed twoimportant points.1 The material is not in as fresh condition as had been suggested bymany of those who wrote about it in the 1920s. The pieces recovered varyfrom comparatively fresh to heavily rolled. Therefore the idea of anassemblage being preserved in a cave in relatively pristine conditionsis not acceptable and, if a later date than the Palaeolithic isenvisaged, is not necessary.2 There is a variation in the form of the artefacts recovered and itis apparent that the material ranges from a series of natural fragments,both fresh and weathered, through flakes, to pieces which could beargued as showing signs of secondary working (see below [ILLUSTRATIONFOR FIGURE 6 OMITTED]).The 26 pieces in the British Museum included three specimens fromBallyconnell. Two had been found by Burchell and one by Whelan. All wereremarkably fresh for pieces recovered from the base of the boulder clay.The two found by Burchell can only be described as massive. 1929:12-20:1is over 10 cm thick while a piece of limestone (1929:12-20:5), which isnot as clearly struck as is suggested by Burchell et al. (1929: 3), hasoptimistically op��ti��mist?n.1. One who usually expects a favorable outcome.2. A believer in philosophical optimism.op being described as a hollow scraper See scraping. yet it is over 6 cmin thickness and nearly 25 cm in length. Another, a piece of quartzite,was found on the beach at Coney Island (Burchell et al. 1929: 1). Thiswas illustrated as a core.The remaining 22 pieces are from Rosses Point, of which 18 wereavailable for inspection. Of these, six pieces should be described asnaturally fractured pieces of limestone. Importantly, these include boththe so-called Mousterian side scrapers (see [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 3OMITTED] which was illustrated by Burchell et al. 1929: [ILLUSTRATIONFOR FIGURE 8 OMITTED]) and one of the handaxes (see [ILLUSTRATION FORFIGURE 4 OMITTED] which was illustrated by Burchell 1928: [ILLUSTRATIONFOR FIGURE 16 OMITTED]) and should be described as natural water-rolledfragments of limestone. Two others could be regarded as dubious. Theremaining 10 pieces were humanly struck. Usually they had distinctiveplatforms [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 5 OMITTED] and showed traces of beingremoved from blocks which had other flakes removed [ILLUSTRATION FORFIGURE 6 OMITTED]. They also did not usually resemble the natural flakesfrom the outer surface of weathered or water rolled blocks. In generalthese were a series of large flakes which were broader than longer,often more than 10 cm in width [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURE 7 OMITTED].While there were no handaxes present, two of the pieces showed signs ofbeing trimmed into a regular shape, reminiscent of cleavers, e.g. FIGURE8.As only 10 of the 18 pieces from Rosses Point were humanly struck andas these were the type specimens which had been published there wasalways the possibility that they represented the best of the RossesPoint material and that the remainder were natural. It was apparent,therefore, that the British Museum material might not be typical.However, there was a complication in that the material which had beendeposited in the Ipswich Museum was not available, as an unspecifiednumber of pieces from Ipswich Museum had been sent to Oxford in theearly 1960s. Unfortunately the accession registers in Ipswich did notspecify which Oxford institution received the Rosses Point material.Conversations with Dr. Derek Roe Derek Roe is a British archaeologist most famous for his work on the Palaeolithic period.Educated at St Edward's School in Oxford he undertook his National Service with the Royal Sussex Regiment and the Intelligence Corps in Berlin. suggested that the material might havegone to the Pitt-Rivers Museum and eventually a selection of limestoneflakes were recovered at the Baden-Powell Laboratory of the Pitt-RiversMuseum at 60 Banbury Road Banbury Road is a major arterial road in Oxford, England, running from St Giles' at the south end, north towards Banbury through the leafy suburb of North Oxford and Summertown, with its local shopping centre. , Oxford. Most of these still retained theIpswich registration number 1927:98 and individual number.Unfortunately this again only represented a fraction of the RossesPoint material as a second batch had been donated by Burchell in 1928 toIpswich Museum. This second batch of artefacts has yet to be recovered.In total 14 flakes were recovered from 60 Banbury Road. Of these 14pieces, three (1927:13, 14 & 15) were unsatisfactory, being eithertoo incomplete or natural. The remaining 11 pieces show clear signs ofhuman percussion and vary in quality from a specimen marked 1933:217N towater-rolled flakes such as 1927:98:11. An unnumbered flake and1933:217N are good examples of humanly struck flakes in the Pitt-Riverscollection [ILLUSTRATION FOR FIGURES 9 & 10 OMITTED].In general the Oxford material contains a higher percentage of struckflakes than the British Museum collection. There is also no pretension PretensionSee also Hypocrisy.Prey (See QUARRY.)Pride (See BOASTFULNESS, EGOTISM, VANITY.)Absolonvain, officious parish clerk. [Br. Lit. towards handaxes or side scrapers but instead there are a number of goodflakes present.These flakes are again of the same type as those in the BritishMuseum collections. From the total material available, i.e. 32 pieces,it is possible to state that 21 are clearly the product of humanactivity. Virtually all the flakes have a maximum dimension of more than10 cm; in fact a significant number exceed 20 cm. These is no recordthat the exploration of the site revealed any small flakes and none werefound in any of the surviving assemblages; therefore this assemblagecould be described as a massive flake industry.It is unfortunate that the remaining 50% of the Rosses Point materialcannot be located but if the Oxford material is typical then thefollowing observations can be made:1 Biases in presentationIn order to underpin an argument based on British and Continentalparallels, Burchell & Reid Moir were prepared to identify artefactssuch as scrapers and handaxes, within the pieces of natural limestone,yet play down the existence of perfectly good struck flakes. Thereaction of Macalister, Charlesworth and others was to the Palaeolithicattribution, but they ignored the existence of numerous struck flakes.It is, of course, salutary sal��u��tar��yadj.Favorable to health; wholesome.salutaryhealthful.salutaryHealthy, beneficial to remember that this tendency to select theelements which help justify one's own perceptions of a particularassemblage is an inherent danger in all publications of lithics. Inother words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , do we publish what is representative or those pieces whichare either very distinctive or support our own particular agenda? RossesPoint has lessons for us all.2 Curatorial responsibilitiesA second lesson of this assemblage is that when a key assemblage isthought not to be of significance we still have a responsibility toretain the material for future reconsideration. It is a truism inarchaeology to state that no generation has a right to assume that itsinterpretations of any assemblage are both complete and infallible in��fal��li��ble?adj.1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.2. yet,today, these responsibilities are expected to take second place to othermore immediate pressures in the museum world.3 The age of the Rosses Point assemblageIf it therefore became more important to deny the Palaeolithiccharacter of the material, then, the obvious question must be - if notPalaeolithic then what was the Rosses Point material?During the summers of 1993 and 1994 the author, in the company ofMartin A. Timoney of the Sligo Field Club, had the opportunity to visitthe three key locations. During these visits attention centred on RossesPoint and, in particular, the cliff face which had been considered asthe back of Burchell's suggested cave. Although it was heavilyovergrown overgrownsaid of a part that has not been kept trimmed.overgrown hoofovergrown hooves put unusual stresses on bones and tendons and allow for distortion of the wall and sole. , it was apparent that it could have been quarried by humanagencies, thus the notch cut into the cliff face. It is just possiblethat this is neither a feature created by a Mid-Holocene marinetransgression nor is the cliff face with the limestone blocks entirelymodern. Seventy years after the discovery of Rosses Point the area ofthe rock-shelter has altered very little. This would confirm R.J.Welch's feelings that it was not a recent creation, and certainlynot from the manufacture of primitive anchors. The idea that this waslittle more than a modern quarry also suffers from the fact that nounfinished blocks remain. It would be reasonable to presume, therefore,that the activity at Rosses Point had some antiquity but there must someuncertainty as to its actual age.a Palaeolithic age?There is no more reason to believe that the Rosses Point site andassemblage rather than any other site is Palaeolithic in age. There isno geological evidence and the comparison of certain pieces withMousterian artefact See artifact. types is clearly spurious.b Later Mesolithic?The notch noted by Burchell to be cut into the cliff above the sitecould be the last trace of the Mid-Holocene Marine Transgression.and itis known that the coastal region of Co. Sligo was subjected to atransgression at or before 5000 b.p., e.g. as was noted in theCuleenamore area of the Knocknarea penninsula (Burenhult 1984).Therefore the potential for the survival of this location at sea levelif the site had been created before 5000 b.p. must be questioned. Allknown Irish Later Mesolithic assemblages used a hard hammer percussiontechnology to produce large blades and blade-like flakes. While somecore tool production took place on certain Later Mesolithic sites thereare so far no sites from this period where blade production is entirelyabsent.So far there are no known Later Mesolithic axe factory sites thoughthere are numerous polished axes made out of materials other than flint.One possible exception might be the factory site at Fisher Street, Co.Clare (Knowles 1901). Even here the axes, irrespective of irrespective ofprep.Without consideration of; regardless of.irrespective ofpreposition despitethe period oforigin, tend to use beach pebbles as blanks for manufacture, thoughKnowles found some blanks which had been chipped in a maimer maim?tr.v. maimed, maim��ing, maims1. To disable or disfigure, usually by depriving of the use of a limb or other part of the body. See Synonyms at batter1.2. reminiscentof those found at Rosses Point. As noted earlier there is no realevidence of the smaller elements of debitage The term debitage refers to the totality of waste material produced during lithic reduction and the production of chipped stone tools. This assemblage includes, but is not limited to, different kinds of lithic flakes, shatter, and production errors and rejects. which might have beenexpected at an axe-manufacturing location but as the site was obviouslynot in pristine undisturbed state and some of the material was slightlywater-rolled it is possible that some of the finer elements could haveeither been washed away or simply not noticed in the excitement.c Neolithic?While all the observations about the possibility of the site being anaxe factory or quarry discussed earlier can be applied to a suggestionof Neolithic age the possibility that a site of this type would onlysurvive after the Mid-Holocene transgression would increase theprospects of this site being Neolithic or Later.d Post-dating the Stone Age?Very little attention has been given to the possibility that knappingof material such as that found at Rosses Point could continue after theStone Age and it is possible that quarrying and stone-working at RossesPoint to produce large core and/or flake tools for other as yetunidentified purposes had taken place. It may be of significance thatoccasional similar large flakes of limestone have been recovered fromthe shores of Lough Lough(lŏkh, lŏk). For names of Irish lakes and inlets beginning with "Lough," see second part of element; e.g., for Lough Corrib, see Corrib, Lough. See lake. Gara at the other end of Co. Sligo.ConclusionAt this stage it would be premature to claim that this was an axefactory but it would seem reasonable to presume that at some point inthe past quarrying took place at Rosses Point and that some of theresidue survived at the foot of the cliff until 1927, but that much ofthe material has been washed away from this exposed location, just abovemean high water mark.Perhaps some future effort should be put into examining what actuallyhappened at Rosses Point rather than worrying about what did not happen!Acknowledgements. I thank the staff of the Quaternary Section of theDepartment of Prehistoric and Roman Antiquities of the British Museumfor all their help in retrieving the Rosses Point material which hadbecome scattered to various localities. Similarly I thank the staff ofthe Baden Powell Laboratory, Pitt Rivers Museum The Pitt Rivers Museum is a museum displaying the archaeological and anthropological collections of the University of Oxford. The museum is located to the east of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, and can only be accessed through that building. , 60 Banbury Road,Oxford, for their perseverance and vigilance in the search for theelusive Oxford material. Mr Stephen Plunkett of Ipswich Museum was afount of information on the East Anglian background. I also thank thelate Ms Elizabeth Anderson for the drawings of selected artefacts andtyping the various drafts. Record photographs were provided by KarenPerkins and Kath Price.The search for material and the preparation of this paper was madepossible through funding provided by the Royal Irish Academy/BritishAcademy Fund, the Royal Irish Academy National Committee for ArchaeologyResearch Fund and the UCC An abbreviation for the Uniform Commercial Code. Evening Arts Research Fund.The author would like to thank Martin and Mary Timoney for their helpand hospitality during fieldwork in Co. Sligo.1 Inspite of J. Reid Moir's robust support for Burchell, it isapparent from his correspondence with Burchell (lodged in IpswichMuseum) that he could not be persuaded to visit Co. Sligo in the key1928-1929 period.ReferencesASHTON, N., J. COOK, S.G. LEWIS & J. ROSE. 1992. High Lodge:Excavations by G. de G. Sieveking 1962-69 and J. Cook. London: BritishMuseum Press.BURCHELL, J.P.T. 1927. Discovery of Stone Implements of LowerPalaeolithic Age in Ireland, Nature 120: 260-1.BURCHELL, J.P.T. & J. REID MOIR. 1928. The Early Mousterianimplements of Sligo, Ireland. Ipswich: W.E. Harrison.BURCHELL, J.P.T., J. REID MOIR & E.E.L. DIXON. 1929. PalaeolithicMan in North West Ireland, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society ofEast Anglia. Occasional Paper 1.BURENHULT, G. 1984. The archaeology of Carrowmore. Stockholm'.Theses and Papers in North European Archaeology.CHARLESWORTH, J.K. & R.A.S. MACALISTER. 1930. The allegedPalaeolithic implements of Sligo: a summary, Proceedings of the RoyalIrish Academy 39: 18-32.KNOWLES, W.J. 1897. Survivals from the Palaeolithic Age among IrishNeolithic Implements, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries ofIreland The Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland is a learned society based in Ireland, whose aims are 'to preserve, examine and illustrate all ancient monuments and memorials of the arts, manners and customs of the past, as connected with the antiquities, language, literature and 27: 1-18.1901. The 4th report on the prehistoric remains from the sandhills Sandhills could be: Sandhills (Carolina), in the Carolinas in the United States Sand Hills (Nebraska), United States The Sand Hills (Ontario), near Houghton Centre, Ontario, on Lake Erie Sandhills, Bournemouth Sandhills, Dorset Sandhills, Kent ofthe coast of Ireland, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy series3(6): 331-89.1914. The Antiquity of Man in Ireland, being an Account of the OlderSeries of Irish Flint Implements (Archæol.) tools, etc., employed by men before the use of metals, such as axes, arrows, spears, knives, wedges, etc., which were commonly made of flint, but also of granite, jade, jasper, and other hard stones.See also: Flint , Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute 44: 83-121.MACALISTER, R.A.S. 1935. Ancient Ireland. London: Methuen.MOVIUS, H.L. 1942. The Irish Stone Age. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). .REID MOOR, J. 1927. The Antiquity of Man in East Anglia. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.TRATMAN, E.K. 1928. Excavations at Kilgreany Cave, County Waterford County Waterford (Irish: Contae Phort L��irge) is a county in the province of Munster on the south coast of Ireland. Administratively, the city of Waterford is a county-level authority. ,Proceedings of the Bristol Speleological Society 3: 109-53.WHELAN, C.B. 1936. The Palaeolithic question in Ireland, in Report ofthe XVI International Geological Congress Washington (1933): 1209-18.WOODMAN, P.C. 1978. The Mesolithic in Ireland. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports. British series 58.