See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236010719

A New Bayesian Chronology for Mesolithic Occupation at Mount Sandel,

Northern Ireland

Article  in  Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society · January 2009

DOI: 10.1017/S0079497X00000311

CITATIONS READS

36 1,989

2 authors:

Alex Bayliss Peter C. Woodman

Historic England University College Cork
224 PUBLICATIONS   26,428 CITATIONS    114 PUBLICATIONS   1,087 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project Radiocarbon View project

High-precision radiocarbon wiggle-matching by AMS of wooden built heritage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alex Bayliss on 05 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 101

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75, 2009, pp. 101–123

A New Bayesian Chronology for Mesolithic Occupation at

Mount Sandel, Northern Ireland

By ALEX BAYLISS1 and PETER WOODMAN2

Mount Sandel has long been an iconic site for the Irish Mesolithic, having produced evidence for a sequence of
occupation huts and pits and the earliest radiocarbon dates for the Mesolithic on the island. This paper presents
details of a recent programme of redating whereby the application of Bayesian modelling has confirmed the early
date for the site but also helped to refine its internal chronology. The major phase of hut building at Mount Sandel
took place within a much shorter period of time than had previously been thought, perhaps only a generation or
two. The dating of pits of differing sizes suggests that many of them were created during other slightly later visits
to the area. The implications of the dating programme for the place of Mount Sandel in the Irish Mesolithic, and
for the chronology of the period and its relations with that on the British mainland, are discussed.

INTRODUCTION geometric microliths was recovered along with core

During the 1970s extensive excavations were
undertaken adjacent to Mount Sandel Fort, Co. Derry,
Northern Ireland. These centred on a series of
Mesolithic settlement sites on a 30 m high bluff
forming the eastern edge of the estuary of the River
Bann (Fig. 1; Irish National Grid, 28545 43075). The
site lay at least 40 m from the edge of the escarpment
and its most significant component was the remnants
of a number of circular structures defined by stake-
holes and sunken hearths (Fig. 2). These were
recovered upon the removal of areas of ‘occupation
soil’. A series of little and large pits that cut across the
main area of huts was also found. Around that core
area extensive agricultural activity had removed the
upper levels of the B Horizon, but it was still possible
to excavate a series of heavily damaged pits and stake-
holes that lay up to 15 m from the main hut area (Fig.
3; see Woodman 1985 for a full description of the
site). A lithic assemblage dominated by so-called
1 English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–142
Holborn, London, EC1N 2ST
2 6 Brighton Villas, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
(pwoodman@ucc.ie)
Received: October 2008. Accepted: February 2009
and flake axes and other tools. This material became
the type assemblage for what came to be called the
Irish Early Mesolithic. Besides demonstrating the
existence of substantial structures and, because of the
occurrence of concentrations of carbonised
environmental evidence, Mount Sandel has been
important in understanding the life-ways of the Irish
Mesolithic. Even though a series of little pits, as well
as one of a group of larger deep pits, cut across the
main hut area (Woodman 1985, 129, fig. 65), these
pits were interpreted as being somehow associated
with phases of hut building and occupation that were
not so well preserved. In other words, each hut was
thought to be associated with a number of little pits
and one larger pit which, it was suggested, was used
for storage.
The site has also conventionally been regarded as
producing the earliest unequivocal traces of human
settlement in Ireland. After the excavation, a
substantial series of 15 conventional radiocarbon
determinations was obtained on bulk samples of
charred plant remains. These measurements lay
beyond the range of the tree-ring calibration data at
the time of the site publication (eg, Pearson et al.
1983), and so were interpreted on the basis of the
uncalibrated measurements. With the exception of
UB-2359 (F109), which was an outlier on both

101
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 102

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 1.
Oblique aerial photograph showing location of Mount Sandel. Photograph courtesy of Fugro-BKS, Coleraine

chronological and spatial grounds, the dates obtained
from the site lay within the period 9000–8400
radiocarbon years BP (Woodman 1985, 148; Fig. 4).
The major concentration of these dates lay between
8700 and almost 9000 radiocarbon years BP and was
associated with the huts.
In the intervening years since the Mount Sandel
excavation a number of other early Mesolithic sites
with the same general range of microliths have been
found throughout Ireland. These sites, most notably

102
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10
A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR
Fig. 2.
Photograph showing the area of the huts
the shore line settlement site at Lough Boora (Ryan
1980) found in the midlands of Ireland and the
cremation burials at Hermitage in south-west Ireland
(Collins & Coyne 2006), clearly demonstrate that the
Irish Early Mesolithic existed throughout Ireland.
None of these assemblages pre-dates Mount Sandel,
however (Woodman in press), because of the limited
number of dated sites from the Early Mesolithic, there
is as yet no clear evidence about which part of Ireland
was first settled.
Despite such a coherent set of results, even in the
original report some concerns were expressed about
the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating. Some of the
dates obtained appeared to be slightly earlier than
expected for the so-called narrow blade or geometric
technology in Britain (op. cit. 146–7 and 171), which,
at the time, was thought to lie, at its earliest, between
8800 and 8600 radiocarbon years BP (Jacobi 1973;
103
10:18 Page 103
MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND
Mellars 1974). Conventionally the appearance of this
technology marks the transition to the later
Mesolithic of Britain. It was also noted that the
earliest dates obtained from Mount Sandel were from
charcoal samples (notably UB-952, -2357, -2362),
while those containing large quantities of hazelnuts
tended to be somewhat later. Although the slightly
earlier results from the charcoal samples raised the
possibility of an old-wood offset, several of the dates
on hazelnut shell were stratigraphically later.
Woodman (2004, 290–1) also discussed the issue of
possible inter-laboratory bias in relation to the
accuracy of the Mount Sandel dating.
The chronology of the site was recently placed in
sharp focus by the new excavation of huts at Howick
in Northumbria (Waddington 2007) and East Barnes
in south-eastern Scotland (Gooder 2007). Both sites
have produced dates that fall within the existing
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 104

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 3.
Overall plan of excavated areas at Mount Sandel, showing the location of the outlying radiocarbon samples

radiocarbon chronology for Mount Sandel, although
the greater precision now available from radiocarbon
dating for these new sites highlighted the limitations
of the chronology provided by measurements made
more than 20 years ago. Not only do many of the
results from Mount Sandel have errors of 100 years or
more (at one standard deviation), but sample choice
for the original programme was severely restricted by
the sample-size demanded by conventional
radiocarbon dating. Indeed the availability of a
sample of the required size often determined what was
dated, rather than the situation today where the
availability of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry allows
series of small samples to be dated that relate directly
to specific archaeological questions (Lanting & van
der Plicht 1994).
THE NEW RADIOCARBON DATING PROGRAMME
It was thus apparent that a number of separate, but
related, issues needed to be investigated as part of a
new dating programme. First the concerns regarding
the accuracy of the initial dates from Mount Sandel
needed to be addressed (eg, the possibility of an old-
wood effect or inter-laboratory bias). Second AMS
dating would enable the potential homogeneity of the
bulk samples originally dated to be assessed and new
single-entity samples of short-life material to be dated
(Ashmore 1999). Another major impetus for the new
dating programme was the availability of Bayesian
analysis to combine the relative dating evidence from
the site provided by stratigraphy with the radiocarbon
dates, and to overcome the statistical scatter inherent
in any suite of determinations (Bayliss et al. 2007a).

104
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 105

A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND

Fig. 4.
Uncalibrated radiocarbon determinations from Upper Mount Sandel available in 1985 (Woodman 1985, table 85)

Combined with a rigorous assessment of sample sampling strategy was also informed by a series of
taphonomy, this allows much more refined questions Bayesian simulation models which provided an idea of
of chronology to be addressed. the resolution that might be obtainable from different
New samples were therefore selected to address an dating strategies. Forty-five samples have now been
explicit series of objectives: dated from Mount Sandel, with six contexts being
dated in replicate. The locations of the dated contexts
• to provide more precise and robust dating for the are shown in Figures 3 and 5. Fifteen measurements
main hut, were obtained on samples of bulk charred plant
• to estimate the duration of the use of this remains in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Thirteen of
structure, these were dated by the Queen’s University, Belfast
• to check the chronological relationship between radiocarbon laboratory. All of these were pretreated
the various features found on the site, namely to as described by Smith et al. (1971, 103). Four samples
determine whether each hut was associated with (UB-912–3 and UB-951–2) were then converted to
a particular set of large and little pits, and methane and dated by gas proportional counting as
• to determine whether the outlying pits to the east described by Smith et al. (1970, 285–6). The
and west of the main hut area were part of the remaining nine samples processed by Belfast at this
main period of site use. time were converted to benzene and dated by liquid
scintillation spectrometry as described by Pearson
Answering these chronological questions would allow (1984). The other two samples were dated by the
Mount Sandel to be placed more firmly within the Centre for Isotope Research, Rijksuniversiteit,
early Mesolithic of Ireland, and allow a reassessment Groningen. These were pretreated using the
of the original interpretation of the activities acid/base/alkali method (Mook & Waterbolk 1985),
undertaken on the site. but were converted to carbon dioxide and dated by
Potential samples were assessed individually on the gas proportional counting (Mook & Streurman
basis of our archaeological judgement of their 1983). Between 2004 and 2007, 30 additional
association with these questions, but the overall measurements were obtained from the Queen’s

105
 TABLE 1: RADIOCARBON DETERMINATIONS FROM UPPER MOUNT SANDEL (*MEASURED BEFORE 1985)
Lab. No. Sample Context & material Radiocarbon χ2 test δ13C Calibrated date range Posterior density estimate
Ref. Age (BP) (‰) cal BC (95% confidence) cal BC (95% probability)
Main Hut area
UB-2357* MtsH unident. charcoal, 8955±185 8610–7590 7730–7605
main occupation Hut 1
UB-7029 Mts15 hazelnut shell, main 8658±44 -24.0 7755–7585 7730–7605
occupation Hut 1
UB-2356* MtsG unident. charcoal, main 8765±135 8275–7550 7725–7605
occupation Hut 1
UB-7037 Mts23 hazelnut shell, main 8645±45 -24.0 7750–7580 7725–7605
occupation Hut 1
UB-2358* MtsI charcoal & hazelnut shells, 8795±135 T’=0.7; 7935–7590 730–7615
hearth 56/4 T’(5%)=3.8; ν=1
UB-6842 Mts1 hazelnut shell, hearth 56/4 8672±53 -24.0
UB-6844 Mts3 hazelnut shell, hearth 56/3 8697±52 -26.0 7940–7590 7720–7610
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page

UB-6843 Mts2 hazelnut shell, hearth 56/2 8775±53 -26.0 8180–7605 7710–7605
UB-6847 Mts3 hazelnut shell, hearth 56/6 8724±53 -27.0 7960–7595 7745–7615
UB-952* MtsD charcoal & hazelnut shells, 8960±70 T’=8.9; 8295–7940 8295–7560
hearth 56/5 T’(5%)=3.8; ν=1
4/1/10

UB-6845 Mts4 hazelnut shell, hearth 58/5 8699±53 -26.0 7945–7590 7705–7600
GrN-10471* MtsO carbonised plant remains, 8430±60 T’=10.9; 7590–7350 7590–7505
layer 3, pit 56/1 T’(5%)=7.8; ν=3
UB-7035 Mts21 unident. charcoal, layer 3, 8509±43 -25.0 7600–7510 7595–7525
10:18

pit 56/1

106
UB-951* MtsC unidentified charcoal from 8790±185 8315–7515 8290–7565
layer 3 in pit 56/1
UB-7034 Mts20 hazelnut shell, layer 3, 8647±47 -28.0 7750–7580 7755–7580
pit 56/1
Page 106

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

UB-2360* MtsK unident. charcoal & hazelnut 8670±100 8170–7535 8170–8110 (3%)
shells, layer 1, pit 56/1 or 7985–7540 (92%)
UB-913* MtsB hazelnut shells & unident. 8555±70 T’=0.4; 7650–7570 7645–7545
charcoal, hearth 31/0 T’(5%)=3.8; ν=1
UB-6848 Mts6 hazelnut shell, hearth 31/0 8608±52 -26.0
UB-6854 Mts12 hazelnut shell, small pit F23 8578±52 -25.0 7655–7535 7650–7570
UB-7036 Mts22 hazelnut shell, small pit F22 8636±45 -27.0 7745–7580 7650–7580
Little pits
UB-6849 Mts7 hazelnut shell, pit 31/3 8644±54 T’=1.1; -28.0 7790–7585 7680–7585
T’(5%)=6.0; ν=2
UB-2007* MtsF hazelnut shells & unident. 8795±135
charcoal, pit 31/3
UB-6852 Mts10 hazelnut shell, small pit F102 8674±51 -28.0 7820–7585 7680–7585
UB-6855 Mts13 hazelnut shell, small pit F33 8569±51 -24.0 7650–7535 7655–7565
UB-7032 Mts18 hazelnut shell, small pit 34 8631±50 -24.0 7750–7575 7675–7580
UB-7031 Mts17 hazelnut shell, small pit 8684±45 -27.0 7815–7590 7680–7590
F100/6
UB-6856 Mts14 hazelnut shell, small pit 8672±53 -25.0 7820–7585 7680–7585
F112
 TABLE 1 : RADIOCARBON DETERMINATIONS FROM UPPER MOUNT SANDEL (*MEASURED BEFORE 1985)
Lab. No. Sample Context & material Radiocarbon χ2 test δ13C Calibrated date range Posterior density estimate
Ref. Age (BP) (‰) cal BC (95% confidence) cal BC (95% probability)
Other Features
UB-2362* MtsM unident. charcoal, 8990±80 T’=26.8; 8305–7950 8330–7935 (93%) or
layer 1, F99 T'(5%)=3.8; ν=2 7895–7835 (2%)
UB-6851 Mts9 hazelnut shell, 8502±52 -24.0 7600–7490 7600–7520
layer 1, F99
UB-6850 Mts8 hazelnut shell, hearth 83/b 8645±55 -27.0 7785–7575 7725–7580
UB-6853 Mts11 hazelnut shell, pit F91 8682±51 -25.0 7825–7585 7730–7590
UB-2008* MtsE hazelnut shells & charcoal, 8440±65 7590–7350 7595–7505
pit F27
UB-7033 Mts19 hazelnut shell, 8660±44 -24.0 7780–7585 7720–7585
possible hearth F36
GrN-10470* MtsN carbonised plant remains, 8380±50 7550–7330 7585–7500
layer 2, pit F100/2
UB-912* MtsA hazelnut & unident. 8725±115 8230–7550 7745–7565
charcoal, layer 4, pit F100/2
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page

Outlying features
UB-8872 Mts30 unident. charcoal, layer 4, 8655±37 -25.3 7750–7580 7740–7590
pit F74
UB-2361* MtsL unident. charcoal, layer 2, 8545±165 8170–7180 8180–8105 (4%) or
4/1/10

A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY

F74 8065–8035 (1%) or

8000–7505 (90%)
FOR

107
10:18

UB-7030 Mts16 hazelnut shell, pit F210 8594±44 -24.0 7655–7570 7705–7695 (1%) or
7685–7545 (94%)
UB-7038 Mts24 hazelnut shell, pit F102 8678±41 -23.0 7790–7590 7725–7590
UB-8871 Mts29 hazelnut shell, pit F126 8681±49 -24.3 7820–7580 7730–7590
UB-8138 Mts26 hazelnut, layer 4, pit F209c 8566±52 -25.7 7640–7530 7675–7530
Page 107

UB-8139 Mts27 hazelnut, post-hole 991 8757±51 -25.4 8170–7600 7750–7595

UB-8137 Mts25 hazelnut, layer 3, pit F211 8680±44 -29.3 7800–7590 7725–7590
UB-8140 Mts28 unident. charcoal, 8660±44 -28.4 7780–7580 7760–7585
post-hole 992
MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION

UB-2359* MtsJ unident. charcoal, 7885±120 7080–6465 –

AT

hearth F109
MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 108

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 5.
Site plan showing the locations of the dated samples in the central area of the excavation, the grey shading indicates the
location of the grid squares from which samples from the occupation layer were submitted

University, Belfast radiocarbon laboratory. These were
pretreated as described by Mook and Waterbolk
(1985) and converted to graphite using the method of
Slota et al. (1987). The samples were then dated at the
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit by AMS using
methods outlined in Bronk Ramsey et al. (2004).
Full details of all the radiocarbon measurements
from Upper Mount Sandel are provided in Table 1. All
are conventional radiocarbon ages (Stuiver & Polach
1977). They have been calibrated using the
program OxCal v3.10 (Bronk Ramsey 1995; 1998;
2001) and IntCal04 (Reimer et al. 2004).
The calibrated date ranges provided in Table 1 and
given in normal type have been calculated using the
maximum intercept method (Stuiver & Reimer 1986).
The distributions of calibrated dates shown in outline
in the graphs (Figs 6–10) have been calculated using
the probability method (Stuiver & Reimer 1993).
Replicate measurements from the same sample have
been tested for statistically consistency and, where
appropriate, combined by taking a weighted mean
before calibration using the methods described by
Ward and Wilson (1978).

108
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 109

A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND

Fig. 6.
Overall structure of the chronological model for Upper Mount Sandel. The component sections of this model are shown
in detail in Figs 7–10. The large square brackets down the left hand side of Figs 6–10 along with the OxCal keywords
define the overall model exactly

CHRONOLOGICAL MODELLING
The Bayesian approach to the interpretation of
archaeological chronologies has been described by
Buck et al. (1996). It is based on the principle that
although the calibrated age ranges of radiocarbon
measurements accurately estimate the calendar ages of
the samples themselves, it is the dates of
archaeological events associated with those samples
that are important. Bayesian techniques can provide
realistic estimates of the dates of such events by
combining absolute dating evidence, such as
radiocarbon results, with relative dating evidence,
such as stratigraphic relationships between
radiocarbon samples. These ‘posterior density
estimates’ (which, by convention, are always
expressed in italics) are not absolute. They are
interpretative estimates, which will change as
additional data become available or as the existing
data are modelled from different perspectives.
It is also possible to calculate distributions for the
dates of events that have not been dated directly by
radiocarbon measurements, such as the beginning and
end of a continuous phase of activity (which is
represented by a number of radiocarbon results). For
example, the posterior density estimate ‘start Mount
Sandel’ (Fig. 6) has been calculated using all the
radiocarbon dates from the site, except for UB-2359
(which dates Mesolithic activity considerably later
than the main phase of use of the site), UB-951-2, UB-
2360–1, UB-2362, UB-7035, and UB-8872 (which are
samples containing unidentified charcoal which
exhibit an old-wood offset), and UB-7034 (which is
residual). All of these measurements, however (except
for UB-2359), are used to calculate the estimate of
when the main phase of use of the site ended (‘end
Mount Sandel’; Fig. 6), since they all provide termini
post quem (that is maximum ages only) for the
contexts from which they were recovered. By
comparing estimates such as these, it is possible to
calculate new probability distributions which estimate
the durations of phases of activity (eg, ‘occupation
Mount Sandel’; Fig. 11).
The technique used here is a form of Markov Chain
Monte Carlo sampling, which has been applied using
the program OxCal v3.10. Details of the algorithms
employed by this program are available from the on-
line manual or in Bronk Ramsey (1995; 1998; 2001).
The algorithms used in the models described below
can be derived from the structure shown in Figures
6–10. Full details of the archaeological information
which has been included in the model are provided
below, and further explanation of the Bayesian
approach to chronological modelling in archaeology
is provided in Bayliss et al. (2007a). Worked examples
demonstrating the application of this approach are
provided by the series of papers by Buck et al. (1991;

109
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
1992; 1994). Archaeological problems tackled by
integrating radiocarbon evidence with other forms of
chronological information are becoming common in
the literature (see for example Bayliss et al. 1997;
Needham et al. 1998), although applications from the
Mesolithic period are still rare (Blockley et al. 2004;
Dark et al. 2006; Bayliss et al. 2007b).
THE BAYESIAN MODEL
The overall structure of the chronological model for
Upper Mount Sandel is shown in Figure 6, with the
components relating to the main hut area, little pits,
and other and outlying features shown in
Figures 7–10.
We have interpreted the occupation at Mount
Sandel as forming a single, continuous phase of
archaeological activity (Fig. 6; Buck et al. 1992).
Additionally, the occupation of the main hut is
interpreted as another single, continuous sub-phase of
activity within this period (Fig. 7), as is the period of
use of the little pits (Fig. 8). These statistical
distributions form the ‘uninformative’ prior
information component of the model.
We have only included direct stratigraphic
relationships between dated contexts as the
‘informative’ prior information component of the
model presented here. Critically, as stratigraphy
provides relative dating for archaeological deposits
and radiocarbon dates are obtained on samples of
organic material from those deposits, our inclusion of
such information depends both on our understanding
of the site stratigraphy and our assessment of the
taphonomy of the dated material.
These archaeological interpretations underpin our
choices of how to incorporate stratigraphic
information into the model, and also of how to
incorporate the radiocarbon dates (the ‘standardised
likelihoods’ component of the model). We have to
deal both with dates on bulked, multiple-entity,
samples and also with samples that may incorporate
an old-wood offset. Our approach has been
pragmatic. Where a result on an unidentified or
partially identified sample is statistically consistent
with one made on short-life material from the same
deposit, we have combined the results before
calibration if the samples derive from what may be
interpreted as a ‘single-event’ context (eg, UB-6842
110
Page 110
and UB-2358 from hearth 56/4). This approach is
consistent with the assumptions inherent in dating
bulk samples. Where the results on such samples are
consistent with those on short-life material, but where
the dated deposit may actually form a period of
activity, the dates have all been included in the model
but a weighted mean has not been taken before
calibration (eg, UB-2356–7, UB-7029, and UB-7037
from the occupation layer in the main hut area).
Where results on unidentified or partially identified
samples are statistically inconsistent with those on
short-life material from the same deposit, or where
repeat samples or other information that may suggest
that these results are reliable is not available, then
these measurements have been included in the model
as termini post quem only (eg, UB-952).
The brackets down the left hand side of Figures
6–10, along with the chronological query language
commands, define the model for the chronology of
Mount Sandel exactly. Here, we discuss the
archaeological interpretations which have led us to
construct the model in this way.
Main hut area
The sequence of hearths at the centre of the main hut
was dated (Fig. 7). A single hazelnut fragment was
dated from what appeared, stratigraphically, to be the
earliest hearth (56/6; UB-6847). Above this, two
statistically consistent radiocarbon determinations
were obtained on a single hazelnut shell (UB-6842)
and a bulk sample of unidentified charcoal and
hazelnut shell (UB-2358) from hearth 56/4. A
weighted mean has been taken of these measurements
(56/4). The consistency of these measurements
suggests that the charcoal component of the bulk
sample did not contain a significant proportion of old
wood. Two single hazelnut shells were also dated
from further up this sequence of hearths – UB-6844
from 56/3 and UB-6843 from 56/2. Later than these
are two samples from hearth 56/5, which produced
two statistically inconsistent radiocarbon
measurements (UB-6845 and UB-952). The bulk
sample of unidentified charcoal and hazelnuts
produced a result that is significantly older than the
result from the single fragment of hazelnut shell dated
in the recent programme. UB-952 therefore
probably contained an appreciable amount of old
wood and so only provides a terminus post quem for
the use of this hearth.
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 111

A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND

Fig. 7.
Probability distributions of dates from the main hut area at Upper Mount Sandel. Each distribution represents the
relative probability that an event occurred at a particular time. For each of the dates two distributions have been plotted,
one in outline which is the result produced by the scientific evidence alone, and a solid one which is based on the
chronological model used. The other distributions correspond to aspects of the model. For example, the distribution
‘start hut 1’ is the estimated date when hut 1 was constructed. Dates followed by ? have been excluded from the model
for reasons explained in the text. The figures followed by % are the individual indices of agreement which provide an
indication of the consistency of the radiocarbon dates with the prior information included in the model
(Bronk Ramsey 1995)

111
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Fig. 8.
Probability distributions of dates from the little pits. The format is identical to that of Fig. 7
Four samples have been dated from the occupation
layer associated with the hollow that contained the
main hut, two single fragments of hazelnut shell (UB-
7029 and UB-7037) and two bulk samples of
statistically consistent (T’=3.3; T’(5%)=7.8; ν=3),
unidentified charcoal (UB-2356–7). The results are
suggesting that the charcoal samples did not contain
an appreciable quantity of old wood.
Some time after the hut went out of use a pit (56/1),
over a metre across and more than 0.6 m deep, was
cut through the edge of the hearth sequence. Samples
from two of the fills of this pit have been dated. Four
obtained from layer 3 (T’=10.9; T’(5%)=7.8; ν=3).
statistically inconsistent measurement have been
GrN-10471, the latest determination made on
carbonised plant remains, probably provides the most
reliable indication of the date of this feature. This
T’(5%)=3.8; ν=1) but, as this latter sample was
result is statistically consistent with UB-7035 (T’=1.1;
unidentified charcoal and GrN-10471 has only been
partially identified, we have erred on the side of
caution and included UB-7035 in the model only as a
terminus post quem for later activity. UB-951 was a
bulk sample of unidentified charcoal and appears to
have contained a considerable proportion of old wood
112
Page 112
or reworked charcoal from the underlying phases of
occupation in the hut. UB-7034; a single fragment of
hazelnut shell must be residual. UB-2360 from the
overlying layer 1 appears to have included reworked
material or charcoal with a significant age-offset. It
therefore only provides a terminus post quem for the
end of occupation at the site.
Feature 31/0 is a hearth that cuts across a line of
stake-holes delimiting the eastern edge of the main hut
area. Two statistically consistent results were obtained
from a single fragment of hazelnut (UB-6848) and
from a bulk sample of burnt hazelnut shells and some
unidentified charcoal (UB-913). This unidentified
charcoal was probably not long-lived, and so the
weighted mean of these results (F31/0) provides the
most reliable estimate for the date of this feature.
Single fragments of hazelnut shell were also dated
from little pits F20 (UB-7036) and F23 (UB-6854),
which were cut through the occupation layer
(Woodman 1985, fig. 65).
Little pits
Samples from eight of the little pits that were found on
the site were dated (Fig. 8). These were little, shallow
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 113

A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND

Fig. 9.
Probability distributions of dates from other features. The format is identical to that of Fig. 7

Fig. 10.
Probability distributions of dates from outlying features. The format is identical to that of Fig. 7

113
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 114

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 11.
Probability distributions for the number of years during which different activities occurred at Mount Sandel, derived
from the model defined in Figs 6–10

pits that were normally between 0.8 m and 0.5 m in
diameter. Sometimes these were found on their own,
but sometimes in little intercutting groups (eg,
F31/2–5). Eight single fragments of hazelnut shell
were dated, one from each of the sampled pits. One
feature has two statistically consistent radiocarbon
determinations (F31/3; UB-2007 and UB-6849). This
consistency confirms that the bulk sample of hazelnut
shells and charcoal dated by UB-2007 did not contain
a high proportion of old wood, and so a weighted
mean has been taken of these measurements.
Other features
Some of the other samples dated were from a group of
features that lay some metres north of the main hut
area (Figs 3 & 9). These included two samples from
F99, a large and deep pit which was just over a metre
in diameter. These results are statistically inconsistent,
with the bulk sample of unidentified charcoal (UB-
2362) providing a substantially older date than the
single hazelnut shell fragment from the same layer
(UB-6851). For this reason, UB-2362 only provides a
terminus post quem for the fill. Two other, potentially
hearth-like features, were dated from this area, both
using samples of single hazelnut shells (UB-6850 and
UB-6853; Fig. 9). It should be noted that a partial arc
of stake-holes appeared to be centred on these two
features, which may suggest the presence of further
huts in this area.
The remaining dated features include a series of pits
that vary in character. F27, a partially truncated pit to
the west of the main hut area, is dated by a
measurement on a bulk sample in which hazelnut shell
predominated (although some unidentified charcoal
was also included in the sample). It is, however,
unlikely that the small charcoal component in this
sample (UB-2008) created a significant old-wood
effect, especially as this result is one of the youngest
associated with the period of occupation on the site.
In approximately the same area, pit F100/2, produced
two samples from a sequence of fills. UB-912, another
bulk sample dominated by hazelnut shell, from layer
4 is stratigraphically earlier than GrN-10470, a bulk
sample of unspecified carbonised plant remains, from
layer 2 above. The results are in good agreement with
relative dating suggested by the excavated sequence,
which may suggest that neither sample contained a
large proportion of old wood. Finally, another
hazelnut shell was dated from a heavily truncated
feature, F36 (UB-7033). It is just possible that this
feature was the last remnants of a hearth.
Outlying features
Nine features on the periphery of the main area of
activity have been dated (Figs 3 & 10). F74 was
another large, deep pit, just over a metre in diameter,
containing charcoal-rich layers separated by dumps of
clean gravel. Two samples of unidentified charcoal
from this feature (UB-2361 and UB-8872) provide
termini post quem for its filling. Three dates were
obtained from charred hazelnuts shells recovered
from pits that lay roughly 10 m away from the centre
of the main focus of activity. F102 lay to the east (UB-
7038), F210 to the west (UB-7030), and F126 to the
north (UB-8871).
Four features have been dated from an area to the
north-east of the main area: hazelnuts were dated
from pits F209c (UB-8138), post-hole 991 (UB-8139),
and pit F211 (UB-8137). A date on a fragment of
unidentified charcoal from post-hole 992 (UB-8140)

114
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10
A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR
Fig. 12.
Probability distributions of key parameters from Mount Sandel, derived from the model defined in Figs 6–10
provides a terminus post quem for pit F209c, as post-
hole 992 is stratigraphically earlier than this feature.
One radiocarbon result was obtained from a bulk
sample of unidentified charcoal from F109, a hearth
that lay roughly 15 m north of the main hut (UB-
2359). This provides a terminus post quem for the use
of this hearth. It is significantly later than all the other
Mesolithic activity dated from the site, and
must represent a separate episode of human activity in
the area. For this reason, it has not been included
in the model for the chronology of the main
period of activity.
A CHRONOLOGY
The chronological model shown in Figures 6–10
suggests that the Mesolithic activity at Mount Sandel
started in 7790–7635 cal BC (95% probability; start
Mount Sandel; Fig. 6), probably in 7750–7670 cal BC
(68% probability). This period of activity ended in
115
10:18 Page 115
MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND
7570–7480 cal BC (95% probability; end Mount
Sandel; Fig. 6), probably in 7560–7510 cal BC (68%
probability). The difference between these date
estimates suggests that the main occupation at Mount
Sandel occurred over a period of 80–290 years (95%
probability; occupation Mount Sandel; Fig. 11),
probably over a period of 125–240 years (68%
probability).
The first hut in the main hut area was constructed
in 7755–7615 cal BC (95% probability; start main
hut; Fig. 7), probably in 7725–7650 cal BC (68%
probability). Occupation associated with huts in this
area ended in 7700–7595 cal BC (95% probability;
end main hut; Fig. 7), probably in 7660–7600 cal BC
(68% probability). The series of structures associated
with the hearths in this area were in use for 1–120
years (95% probability; use main hut; Fig. 11),
probably for 1–65 years (68% probability) – perhaps
for one or two generations.
The radiocarbon dates from the little pits form a
coherent group, suggesting that the first was dug in
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
7720–7595 cal BC (95% probability; start little pits;
Fig. 8), probably in 7665–7600 cal BC (68%
probability). The last of these pits was dug in
7630–7535 cal BC (95% probability; end little pits;
Fig. 8), probably in 7605–7570 cal BC (68%
probability). Overall these pits seem to have been dug
over a period of 1–160 years (95% probability; use
little pits; Fig.11), probably of 1–85 years (68%
probability).
Figure 12 shows the probability distributions of
some key parameters from Mount Sandel. A
chronological trend can be discerned, which is
confirmed by statistical comparison of the posterior
density estimates. The main hut was constructed
before the first of the little pits (80% probable),
although it is unclear whether the earliest of these pits
was cut during the time when the hut was in use. It is
apparent, however, that the little pits continued to be
dug after the main hut had gone out of use (97%
probable). The cutting of a series of large pits in the
76th century cal BC seems to be the latest activity
during the principal phase of use of the site. F99 and
F56 are both likely to have been dug after the last of
the little pits (79% probable and 87% probable
respectively). The dating of a similar feature, F74,
dated only by samples of unidentified charcoal, is too
insecure to contribute to this discussion.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
In order to investigate the reliability of this model, a
number of alternative models were constructed
incorporating different archaeological interpretations
of these data. First, all the conventional radiocarbon
dates on samples of bulk charred plant remains
(which might contain fragments of material which
derived from different plants which ceased
exchanging carbon with the atmosphere in different
years) were excluded from the analysis. Otherwise this
model has precisely the same form as that defined in
Figures 6–10. The posterior density estimates for the
start and end of occupation at Mount Sandel are
shown in Table 2. It is apparent that this alternative
approach to modelling the results from the
conventional samples shifts the start date for the site
later by c. 15 years and brings the end date c. 25 years
earlier. In our view, this is not the most plausible
model for the site chronology, however, because these
116
Page 116
bulk samples do provide maximum ages for activity
on the site and so should contribute to our estimate
for date when occupation ended.
Following the chronological trend visible in Figure
12, a second alternative model was constructed. In
this case, the conventional radiocarbon dates were
incorporated into the model as shown in Figures
6–10, but additional ‘informative’ prior information
was included that was not based simply on vertical
stratigraphy. Here, we incorporated a sequence of
archaeological phasing based on different types of
feature: that the main hut was earlier than all the little
pits, and that all the little pits were earlier than all the
larger pits. Although this interpretation is consistent
with the stratigraphic information where it exists,
many of these features are not in fact related by
stratigraphy. This model has good overall agreement
(Aoverall=124.2%), which means that the radiocarbon
dates do not contradict this interpretation. The
posterior density estimates produced by this reading
are very similar to those from the main model (Table
2). These analyses suggest that our modelling of these
data is reliable, probably to within a few decades.
DISCUSSION
This new chronology has implications for both the
interpretation of Mount Sandel itself and its
chronological position within the earlier part of the
Mesolithic of the British Isles. The original concern
expressed about the early dates provided by some of
the Mount Sandel samples were justified. At the time
it was suggested that the old-wood factor might have
only had a very limited influence on the age of the
samples, as it was assumed that in the early Boreal
forests there would have been few trees that lived for
several hundred years. It is now apparent that the
three oldest dates from the original series (UB-952,
UB-2362, and UB-2357) contained old wood. There
is, however, no evidence that there is any systematic
laboratory bias between the original series and the
new AMS dates.
The suggested commencement of occupation at
Mount Sandel, sometime just after 7700 cal BC, still
leaves the site as the earliest known evidence for
Mesolithic settlement in Ireland (so far, no indications
of an equivalent of the English so-called Early/Non
Geometric Mesolithic has been found in Ireland).
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:18 Page 117

A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND

TABLE 2: POSTERIOR DENSITY ESTIMATES FOR THE START AND END OF OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL,
FROM SENSITIVITY ANALYSES (ALTERNATIVE MODELS)
Parameter Posterior density estimate cal Posterior density estimate cal
BC (95% probability) BC (68% probability)
Main model (Figs 6–10)
start Mount Sandel 7790–7635 7750–7670
end Mount Sandel 7570–7480 7560–7510

Main model (no bulk samples)

start Mount Sandel 7775–7620 7740–7655
end Mount Sandel 7590–7525 7585–7550

Sequence (main hut > little pits > big pits: other features)
start Mount Sandel 7790–7635 7750–7670
end Mount Sandel 7575–7480 7560–7510

However, it should also be noted that certain local
elements occur in the Mount Sandel assemblage.
These include the quadrilateral sectioned and surface
retouched needlepoint microliths (Fig. 14: 15–16)
which, although they have a limited resemblance to
the basally modified points forms found within Honey
Hill assemblages (Saville 1981), are different from any
forms found in Britain. Perhaps the local
developments are most striking when amongst the
axes especially the development of local forms of flake
axes (Fig. 14: 23) as well as ground/polished stone
axes. (For a broader selection of these artefacts types
see also Woodman 1985, figs 24–9). This suggests
that Mount Sandel, with its local forms of artefacts,
was occupied some time after an initial phase of
settlement in Ireland (ie, when sufficient time had
elapsed to allow these local types to develop).
Therefore, it is probable that some marginally earlier
traces of Mesolithic settlement remain to be
found in Ireland.
The re-dating of Mount Sandel, combined with the
recent excavations at Howick in north-east England
(Waddington 2007) and East Barnes (Gooder 2007) in
south-east Scotland, has helped resolve the problem
posed by the fact that a geometric assemblage at
Mount Sandel in Ireland seemed to be considerably
older than equivalent assemblages in Britain. It would
now appear that both these latter sites are older than
Mount Sandel. In the case of Howick it is clear that
the first occupation occurred 100 years or more
before the first documented settlement at Mount
Sandel (30–260 years (95% probability) or 75–190
years (68% probability); Difference start
structure/start main hut, Fig. 13), while the
radiocarbon dates at East Barnes (Gooder 2007, 53)
suggest that occupation may have occurred slightly
earlier again (Fig. 13). Both these sites appear to
contain simple assemblages dominated by scalene
triangles and rods. The needle points from Howick
illustrated in Waddington (2007, 7: 2) differ quite
significantly from the Irish forms referred to earlier.
The other Irish local implement types also referred to
earlier, in particular the flake axes, are certainly
totally lacking from Howick.
There is some doubt about when the so-called
scalene triangle dominated assemblages came into
existence in Britain. This uncertainty is based on the
assemblage from Cramond near Edinburgh in
Scotland, where six radiocarbon dates on hazelnut
shell suggest activity in the 85th and/or 84th centuries
cal BC (Fig. 13), but where the microlith component is
dominated by scalene triangles (Saville 2008,
210–11). As these dates seem to be out of step with
the appearance of similar assemblages in adjacent
parts of Europe, Saville urges that some caution is
necessary in using Cramond as an indication of a very
early presence of scalene triangle dominated
assemblages in the British Isles. However, even if this
type of assemblage did not emerge in Britain until
after 8000 cal BC it is still probable that a simpler
assemblage, that pre-dates Mount Sandel and has
more in common with Howick and other sites in
Britain, will be discovered in Ireland.
In the case of Ireland, although Mount Sandel is
slightly later in date than the British sites, it still has
produced the earliest unequivocal evidence for human

117
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:19 Page 118

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 13.
Probability distributions of key parameters from dated Mesolithic huts in Britain and Ireland and from activity associated
with an early narrow blade assemblage from Cramond, Scotland. Distributions are derived from the models defined in
Figs 6–10 (Mount Sandel), Bayliss et al. (2007b, fig. 6.2, Howick), and Waddington et al. (2007, fig. 15.12 Cramond)

settlement in Ireland (see Woodman in press for a
fuller discussion of problematic early dates). It is not
possible to refine the dating of Castleroe (Woodman
1985, 199–200) as suitable material does not appear
to survive in archive. Lough Borra (Ryan pers.
comm.), Hermitage (Collins & Coyne 2006), and
perhaps Killuragh Cave (Woodman 1997), all of
which lie further south, are later in date. As noted by
Woodman (in press), well-dated assemblages with
diagnostic artefacts such as microliths are still
remarkably rare in Ireland. Therefore, given the
paucity of dated early Mesolithic assemblages whose
locations are recorded in Figure 15, some caution is
should be exercised in assuming that Mount Sandel
represents the earliest phase of settlement in Ireland.
Earlier sites may well remain to be discovered, as
hinted by insular elements in the make-up of the
Mount Sandel flint assemblage. These putative sites
could be found anywhere within the island of Ireland.
Besides re-interpreting the site in its broader
context, it is also necessary to re-evaluate the phasing
of Mount Sandel itself. The new dating programme
has helped immeasurably in providing a more precise
history of the occupation of the site. Much of our
current interpretation of site organisation (Woodman
1985, chapter 11) was predicated on two
assumptions. First, given the spread of the
uncalibrated radiocarbon dates over a period of at
least 600 years, it was felt that the area had been used
regularly for more than half a millennium. As noted
earlier, it would now appear that the site was actually
used for less than half that period of time. The use of
this place persisted, but for a century or two, not for
many hundreds of years.
The new chronology has also led to a new phasing
for Mount Sandel. It suggests that the site was used in
a different manner. Instead of envisaging a sequence of
huts, each one of which would have had several little
pits and one large (storage?) pit associated with its
use, there would now appear to be a better case for
arguing that the huts from the main hut area, centred
on hearth complex 56, as well as the huts associated
with other potential hearths such as Features 31/0, 36,
and 91, belong to an initial period of activity spanning
only one or two generations (Figs 9 & 11). As can be
seen from Woodman 1985 (figs 64 & 65), many of the
series of little pits were noted to be cutting through
the initial hut complex. The new AMS dates from the
little pits confirm this stratigraphic sequence as they

118
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:19 Page 119

A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND

post date those obtained from the main hearth and
hut complex.
The dates for the larger pits overlap those for the
hut complex but a number are also later in date. It is
therefore probable that some of the larger pits, such as
Features 56/1, 99, and possibly 74, post-date the
earlier phases of occupation associated with the main
hut complex. This period of activity seems to have
endured for some time, as is best illustrated by the
sequence of intercutting of large pits that made up the
complex F209/F211. Both the little and larger pits
may have been created at a later date when, instead of
building circular dwellings, very different types of
activity were taking place at Mount Sandel. While the
case for over-winter storage of hazelnuts still remains
(ie, due to their association in the same hearths as the

Fig. 14.
Range of Mesolithic flint tools from Mount Sandel; 1–20 microliths and related forms; 21–3 & 26 axes and related
forms; 24 micro awl; 24 scraper (after Woodman 1981)

119
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:19 Page 120

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY

Fig. 15.
Map showing locations of key Mesolithic sites from Ireland and Britain dating to the 8th millennium cal BC

120
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10
A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY FOR
remains of piglets that would have been born in the
spring), it certainly seems less likely that many of the
large pits were used for storage in association with the
main group of excavated huts. The evidence that the
Mount Sandel huts were used at different seasons of
the year, however, remains.
It is of course always tempting to assume that the
little and larger pits were associated with other
undocumented huts. However the excavation
explored an area approximately 30 x 40 m across.
These other parts of the site, as well as fieldwalking
and geochemical analysis of the area around the
excavation, revealed no other traces of settlement.
Within the excavated area it is probable that many
post- and stake-holes were partially obliterated but all
traces of potential hearths were found in one small
area (Woodman 1985, fig. 86). Therefore there is little
reason to believe that the pits that post-date the main
hut complex were associated with other undiscovered
or destroyed traces of huts
Perhaps, too much attention is paid to the search
for dwellings and not enough is being paid to the
possibility that other forms of structures were created
and used throughout the Mesolithic. Therefore it is of
interest that at Crathes in Aberdeenshire (British
Archaeology 2007 March/April, 7), a line of large pits
has ‘been confidently dated to c. 8000–7500 BC’. The
same article notes that these are not unique, as large
pits that have produced dates of a Mesolithic age have
been found at Stonehenge, Thornborough in
Yorkshire, and at Bryn Celli Ddu in Anglesey (see also
Allen and Gardiner 2002).
There are many other aspects of Mount Sandel
which are worthy of reconsideration but lie outside
the implications of the re-dating programme and are
therefore outside the remit of this paper. However, this
project combined with the publication of Howick
(Waddington 2007) and the fuller publication of East
Barnes highlights one curious aspect of the settlement
archaeology of the British Isles. These three sites,
which are characterised by the presence of substantial
huts up to 6 m in diameter with large stake-holes set
into artificially created or enhanced depressions of
varying depths, were all built during one short period
of time between c. 8000 and 7600 cal BC. Other forms
of structures and dwellings from the Mesolithic have
been documented by Wickham Jones (2004) and
Waddington (2007, fig. 15:1) but, with the possible
exception of the two large circular structures from
Silvercrest near Elgin (Suddaby 2007), one of which is
121
10:19 Page 121
MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND
dated to just before 6000 cal BC, few other large
structures have been found. Staoisnaig (Mithen 2000),
which is smaller and may have served a different
purpose, and Cass ny Hawin (Woodman 1987),
which is a much smaller hollow, are both later. The
nature of Broomhill is, as noted by Gooder (2007,
55), rather unclear.
It is of interest that, as was shown during a hut
building experiment carried out by local primary
schools from the Coleraine area in 2006, quite
substantial structures of up to 4 m in diameter, can be
built and will leave little or no trace in the form of
stake-holes. Therefore it would appear that these
larger circular huts found at the three sites referred to
above represent, at the very least, a significant
investment in time. Whether these were, as could be
argued at Mount Sandel, at key locations chosen to
maximise access to a broad range of resources
throughout much of the year (Woodman 1985,
167–8) or because they would have had more ritual
purposes is still unclear. Only further research and
other excavations will show whether these distinctive
types of huts are really confined to a very restricted
period of time.
SUMMARY
The Mount Sandel project demonstrates that Bayesian
modelling, combined with the careful use of AMS
radiocarbon dating of well contextualised samples
from older excavations, can provide the basis for a
critical re-evaluation of the original interpretations of
the excavation. In this case, it has been possible to
show that the major phase of hut building at Mount
Sandel took place within a short period of time and
that this may have lasted well under 100 years,
perhaps only a generation or two. This, in itself,
suggests a more intensive use of the site at one time
rather than occasional re-uses of the location in the
same manner for a period of perhaps more than half a
millennium. Similarly the dating of other features,
namely a range of pits of differing sizes, suggests that
many of them were created during other slightly later
visits to the Mount Sandel area. It is possible that
either the manner in which the site was used had
changed or that the reasons for the use of this location
had changed.
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:19
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank the
following for financial support: Environment and Heritage
Service (DOE NI), UCC Faculty of Arts research fund and
the Dean of Arts research fund, and finally the Royal Irish
Academy/Chrono radiocarbon fund. We would also wish to
express our thanks to Sinead McCartan, Antiquities
Department, Ulster Museum for facilitating the re-
examination of the Mount Sandel collections. Finally we
would wish to thank Hugh Kavanagh for preparing the
illustrations and Sam Barr of Fugro-BKS for his help in
identifying and providing a suitable image of the Mount
Sandel area.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, M.J. & Gardiner, J. 2002. A sense of time: cultural
markers in the Mesolithic of southern England. In B.
David and M. Wilson (eds), Inscribed Landscapes:
making and marking place, 139–53. Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press
Ashmore, P. 1999. Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by
avoiding mixed samples, Antiquity 73, 124–30
Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C. & McCormac, F.G. 1997.
Dating Stonehenge. In B. Cunliffe & C. Renfrew (eds),
Science and Stonehenge, 39–59. London: Proceedings of
the British Academy 92
Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C., Plicht, J, van der & Whittle,
A. 2007a. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for
the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17,
1–28
Bayliss, A., Waddington, C., Bronk Ramsey, C., Boomer, I.
& Hamilton, W.D., 2007b. Absolute Dating. In
Waddington 2007, 65–74
Blockley, S.P.E., Lowe, J.J., Walker, M.J.C., Asioli, A.,
Trincardi, F., Coope, G.R., Donahue, R.E. & Pollard,
A.M. 2004. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon
chronologies: examples from the European Late-glacial.
Journal of Quaternary Science 19, 159–75
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and
analysis of stratigraphy: The OxCal Program.
Radiocarbon 37, 425–30
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating.
Radiocarbon 40, 461–74
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon
calibration program. Radiocarbon 43, 355–63
Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T. & Leach, P. 2004. Towards
high precision AMS; progress and limitations.
Radiocarbon 46, 17–24
Buck, C.E., Cavanaugh, W.G. & Litton, C.D. 1996.
Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data.
Chichester: Wiley
Buck, C.E., Christen, J.A., Kenworthy, J.B. & Litton, C.D.
1994. Estimating the duration of archaeological activity
using 14C determinations. Oxford Journal of Archaeology
13, 229–40
122
Page 122
Buck, C.E., Kenworthy, J.B., Litton, C.D. & Smith, A.F.M.
1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon
information: a Bayesian approach to calibration.
Antiquity 65, 808–21
Buck, C.E., Litton, C.D. & Smith, A.F.M. 1992. Calibration
of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological
events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 497–512
Collins, T. & Coyne, F. 2006. As old as we felt. Archaeology
Ireland 20(4), 21
Dark, P., Higham, T.F.G., Jacobi, R. & Lord, T.C. 2006.
New radiocarbon accelerator dates on artefacts from the
early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire.
Archaeometry 48, 185–200
Gooder, J. 2007. Excavation of a Mesolithic house at East
Barnes, East Lothian, Scotland: an interim report. In C.
Waddington & K. Pedersen (eds), Mesolithic Studies in
the North Sea Basin and Beyond, 49–59. Oxford: Oxbow
Jacobi, R.M. 1973. Aspects of the Mesolithic age in Britain.
In S. Kozlowski (ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe, 237–65.
Warsaw: University Press
Lanting, J.N. & Plicht, J. van der. 1994. 14C AMS: pros and
cons for archaeology. Palaeohistoria 35/36, 1–12
Mellars, P.A. 1974. The Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. In
C. Renfrew (ed.) British prehistory: a new outline, 41–99.
London: Duckworth
Mithen, S.J. 2000. Hunter-Gatherer Landscape
Archaeology: the Southern Hebrides Project 1988–98.
Cambridge: MacDonald Institute Monograph
Mook, W.G. & Streurman, H.J. 1983. Physical and
chemical aspects of radiocarbon dating. In W.G.
Mook & H.T. Waterbolk, Proceedings of the First
International Symposium 14C and Archaeology,
PACT 8, 31–55
Mook, W.G. & Waterbolk, H.T. 1985. Radiocarbon
Dating. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation
Handbook for Archaeologists 3
Needham, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Coombs, D., Cartwright,
C. & Pettitt, P.B. 1998. An independent chronology for
British Bronze Age metalwork: the results of the Oxford
Radiocarbon Accelerator Programme. Archaeological
Journal 154, 55–107
Pearson, G.W. 1984. The Development of High-precision
14C Measurements and its Application to Archaeological
Timescale Problems. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queen’s
University Belfast
Pearson, G.W., Pilcher, J.R. & Baillie, M.G.L. 1983. High-
precision 14C measurement of Irish oaks to show the
natural 14C variations from 200 BC to 4000 BC.
Radiocarbon 25, 179–86
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck,
J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr,
G.S., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L.,
Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg,
A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G.,
Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele,
S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W.,
Plicht, J. van der & Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2004. IntCal04
terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP.
Radiocarbon 46, 1029–58
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10
A. Bayliss & P. Woodman. NEW BAYESIAN CHRONOLOGY
Ryan, M. 1980. An Early Mesolithic site in the Irish
midlands. Antiquity 54, 46–7
Saville, A. 1981. Mesolithic industries in central England an
exploratory investigation using microlith typologies.
Archaeological Journal 138, 49–71
Saville, A. 2008. The beginning of the later Mesolithic in
Scotland. In Z. Sulgostowska & A.J. Tomaszewski (eds),
Man–Millennia–Environment: studies in honour of
Romauld Schild, 207–14. Warsaw: Polish Academy of
Sciences
Slota Jr, P.J., Jull, A.J.T., Linick, T.W. & Toolin, L.J. 1987.
Preparation of small samples for 14C accelerator targets
by catalytic reduction of CO. Radiocarbon 29, 303–6
Smith, A.G., Pearson, G.W. & Pilcher, J.R. 1970. Belfast
radiocarbon dates I. Radiocarbon 12, 285–90
Smith, A.G., Pearson, G.W. & Pilcher, J.R. 1971. Belfast
radiocarbon dates III. Radiocarbon 13, 103–25
Stuiver, M. & Polach, H.A. 1977. Reporting of 14C data.
Radiocarbon 19, 355–63
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P.J. 1986. A computer program for
radiocarbon age calculation. Radiocarbon 28, 1022–30
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P.J. 1993. Extended 14C data base
and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program.
Radiocarbon 35, 215–30
Suddaby, I. 2007. Downsizing in the Mesolithic? The
discovery of two associated post-circles at Silvercrest,
Lesmurdie Rd. Elgin, Scotland. In C. Waddington & K.
Pedersen, Mesolithic Studies in the North Sea Basin and
Beyond, 60–8. Oxford: Oxbow
Waddington, C. (ed.). 2007. Mesolithic Settlement in the
North Sea basin: a case study from Howick, North-East
England. Oxford: Oxbow
Waddington, C., Bailey, G., Bayliss, A. & Milner, N. 2007.
Howick in its North Sea context. In Waddington 2007,
201–24
10:19 Page 123
FOR MESOLITHIC OCCUPATION AT MOUNT SANDEL, N. IRELAND
Ward, G.K. & Wilson, S.R. 1978. Procedures for comparing
and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a
critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31
Wickham-Jones, C.R. 2004. Structural evidence in the
Scottish Mesolithic. In A. Saville (ed.), Mesolithic
Scotland: the early Holocene prehistory of Scotland and
its European context, 243–60. Edinburgh: Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland
Woodman, P.C. 1981. A Mesolithic camp in Northern
Ireland. Scientific American 245, 120–32
Woodman, P.C. 1985. Excavations at Mount Sandel,
1973–77. Belfast: HMSO, Northern Ireland
Archaeological Monograph 2
Woodman, P.C. 1987. Excavations at Cass ny Hawin, a
Manx Mesolithic site, and the position of the Manx
microlithic industries. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society 53, 1–22
Woodman, P.C. 1997. Killuragh cave. In I. Bennett (ed.),
Excavations 1966: summary accounts of archaeological
excavations in Ireland, 67–8. Bray, Co Wicklow:
Wordwell
Woodman, P.C. 2004. Retrospect and prospect. In A.
Saville. Mesolithic Scotland: the early Holocene
prehistory of Scotland and its European context, 285–99.
Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland
Woodman P.C. in press. Challenging times: reviewing Irish
Mesolithic chronologies. In P. Crombé, M. Van
Strydonck, J. Sergant, M. Bats & M. Boudin (eds),
Proceedings of the international congress ‘Chronology
and Evolution in the Mesolithic of NW Europe’,
Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publishing
123
Bayliss and Woodman:Wessex Article Master Page 4/1/10 10:19 Page 124

View publication stats