Later Mesolithic Lifestyles, Tools & Key Sites in Ireland (c. 6700 – 4000 BC)

I. Introduction: Ireland on the Edge of the Known World (c. 6700 – 4000 BC)

A. The Later Mesolithic Chronological and Environmental Canvas

The Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age, in Ireland represents the first sustained and continuous human settlement of the island, commencing around 8000 BC and concluding with the advent of farming around 4000 BC.¹ This extensive period is traditionally divided into an Earlier phase (c. 8000 – 6700 BC) and a Later phase (c. 6700 – 4000 BC), with the transition primarily distinguished by changes in stone tool technology.¹ The Later Mesolithic, the focus of this report, is characterized by the emergence of a pan-Ireland and Isle of Man macrolithic (large stone flake/blade) stone tool tradition, a notable departure from the microlithic (very small flake/blade) industries of the Earlier Mesolithic.³ Significantly, no transitional lithic industry has yet been identified that bridges the gap between these two Mesolithic phases, nor has one been found linking the Later Mesolithic macrolithic tradition with the subsequent Neolithic stone tool technologies, which are based on hard and soft hammer percussion, indirect percussion, pressure flaking, and bifacing.³ This apparent abruptness in technological change presents a considerable archaeological question, suggesting possibilities such as rapid internal cultural shifts, the arrival of new population groups, or, critically, substantial lacunae in the archaeological record shaped by preservation biases and the extent of archaeological discovery.

The environmental backdrop of Later Mesolithic Ireland was that of a post-glacial island, isolated from Britain as any potential land bridge had long since submerged.¹ This insularity had profound implications for the initial colonization by seafaring groups, likely from Britain, and for the subsequent development of a unique ecological and cultural trajectory.¹ The landscape was densely wooded with forests of birch, hazel, and oak, and riverine systems and lakes teemed with resources.¹ However, this environment also posed significant challenges for the preservation and discovery of archaeological evidence. Extensive bog growth and alluvial deposits have undoubtedly concealed numerous settlement sites, while Ireland’s predominantly acidic soils have led to the decomposition and destruction of a vast amount of organic archaeological material, such as wooden tools, textiles, and unburnt bone.³ Furthermore, rising sea levels, which peaked between 4500 and 2000 BC, have eroded and submerged a considerable portion of the coastal and estuarine landscapes that were central to Mesolithic life, further skewing the surviving record.³ Consequently, our understanding of this period is often built upon a fragmented and potentially unrepresentative dataset, particularly for the earlier millennia of the Later Mesolithic; indeed, the best lithic data for this period is associated primarily with its last 500 years (c. 4500-4000 BC).³ This inherent limitation in archaeological visibility means that our knowledge itself is often “on the edge.”

B. Conceptualising “Living on the Edge”: A Framework for Understanding Ireland’s First Inhabitants

The theme “Living on the Edge” provides a multifaceted framework for interpreting the lives of Ireland’s Later Mesolithic inhabitants. It extends beyond a simple geographical descriptor to encapsulate the fundamental conditions that shaped their culture, technology, and social organization. Ireland’s position as an island at the westernmost periphery of Europe placed its inhabitants at a geographical “edge”.³ They were also living on an environmental “edge,” constantly adapting to a dynamic post-glacial landscape characterized by evolving coastlines and the significant challenge of rising sea levels which threatened their primary settlement zones.³

Their subsistence strategies were enacted on a resource “edge.” Ireland’s insular environment, while rich in certain resources like fish, shellfish, wild pig, and hazelnuts, notably lacked the large terrestrial ungulates such as red deer (elk) that were staples for many contemporary Mesolithic groups in Britain and continental Europe.³ This necessitated a resourceful and highly adaptive approach to foraging, maximizing the returns from the available, and perhaps more specialized, resource base. Technologically, the Later Mesolithic sits on the “edge” of profound change, marking a distinct shift in stone tool manufacture from earlier microlithic forms and immediately preceding the transformative adoption of Neolithic agriculture and its associated material culture.³

Demographically, these communities were likely living on an “edge” of low population density, with small groups spread thinly across the vast coastal and riverine landscapes.³ Such conditions would have implications for social interaction, group viability, and resilience. Finally, and crucially for archaeological interpretation, our understanding of this period is itself on an “epistemological edge”.³ The challenging preservation conditions and the submerged nature of many coastal sites mean the archaeological record is incomplete and fragmented. This limitation is a direct consequence of the other “edge” factors, particularly the environmental challenges that not only shaped Mesolithic life but also continue to constrain our ability to fully reconstruct it. Thus, the “Living on the Edge” theme underscores a constant negotiation with environmental, resource, and demographic parameters, fostering resilience, specialized local knowledge, and unique cultural adaptations.

II. Settling the Periphery: Habitation and Mobility in Later Mesolithic Ireland

A. Landscape Choices: Coastal, Estuarine, and Riverine Lifeways

The archaeological evidence for Later Mesolithic settlement in Ireland points overwhelmingly towards a strong orientation towards water sources. Sites are predominantly found along coasts, within estuaries, and adjacent to rivers and lakes.¹ To date, no convincing evidence for inland sites focused purely on terrestrial resources, away from significant water bodies, has been identified.³ This pattern is not merely a reflection of where archaeologists have looked but is supported by regional surveys in various parts of the island.³ Such a consistent landscape preference underscores a profound reliance on aquatic and coastal resources, including fish, shellfish, and waterfowl, and highlights the importance of waterways for movement and communication within and between territories.²

The dynamic nature of the Mesolithic coastline, shaped by fluctuating sea levels, significantly impacts the visibility and survival of these settlements. Many earlier coastal sites, particularly in the southwest of Ireland where the land has subsided, are now submerged and inaccessible without specialized underwater archaeological investigation.¹ Conversely, in areas like the northeast, isostatic rebound (the rising of landmass after the weight of ice sheets was removed) has preserved some later Mesolithic shorelines above current sea levels, offering better opportunities for discovery.¹ This differential preservation means that our understanding of regional settlement density and character might be skewed, potentially underrepresenting the extent of Mesolithic activity in areas now lost to the sea. If the observed exclusive focus on coastal and riverine locations is indeed an accurate reflection of Later Mesolithic lifeways, and not solely an artifact of preservation bias, it suggests a highly specialized maritime and riverine adaptation. Such specialization, while allowing for efficient exploitation of rich, concentrated resources, could also represent a form of “living on the edge”—a dependence on the continued productivity and accessibility of these specific environmental zones, vulnerable to changes in sea level or resource availability.

B. Patterns of Movement: Seasonality, Mobility, and Resource Exploitation

The Mesolithic populations of Ireland were characterized by mobility, frequently moving across the landscape, likely on a seasonal basis, to exploit a variety of resources as they became available.¹ This was not a pattern of random wandering but rather a structured system of land use, indicative of a deep and nuanced knowledge of the environment and the seasonal rhythms of its resources.¹ This understanding would have been critical for survival, forming a sophisticated cognitive map of resource availability passed down through generations.

Site-specific evidence, such as that from Ferriter’s Cove in County Kerry, supports this model of seasonal occupation. Analyses of faunal remains from Ferriter’s Cove suggest repeated visits, primarily during mid-summer to autumn, with preliminary isotopic studies on periwinkle shells indicating further visits in late autumn or possibly winter, all likely geared towards specific food and raw material procurement.³ This high degree of mobility is a core component of the generalized forager adaptation model often applied to Mesolithic groups, which also posits low population densities and relatively egalitarian social structures.³ While such mobility was an effective strategy for exploiting dispersed and seasonal resources, it may also have constrained the development of more substantial or permanent material culture, such as large-scale dwellings or monumental architecture. The emphasis on portable toolkits and lightweight shelters would contribute to the often ephemeral archaeological footprint of many Mesolithic sites, posing a challenge for their discovery and interpretation.

C. “Persistent Places”: Anchors in a Mobile World

Despite a generally mobile lifestyle, Later Mesolithic communities repeatedly returned to specific, favored locations over extended periods, sometimes spanning hundreds of years.¹ These “persistent places,” such as Ferriter’s Cove, Belderrig, and Fanore, are often coastal and are characterized archaeologically by the accumulation of “occupation soils”.¹ These deposits are rich in charcoal, discarded stone tools, animal bones, marine shells, and plant remains, representing the commingled material record of numerous, often individually ephemeral, occupation episodes.¹

The significance of these persistent places likely extended beyond mere resource availability. They became imbued with the history of past activities and social memory, with visible traces like shell middens or large scatters of lithic debitage from tool manufacture acting as material prompts or markers of previous occupations.⁷ These accumulations, observable in the past, may have served as convenient sources of raw material for tools or simply reinforced the significance of the location, encouraging return. Such sites were often associated with the exploitation of local stone for tool production, seasonal inshore marine fishing, and some use of terrestrial plants and animals.⁷ The repeated visitation and accumulation of material, even if individual occupations were short-lived, meant these places became tangible links to the past, connecting generations and potentially serving as focal points for social aggregation, information exchange, or ritual activities within a mobile society. Ironically, the “time-averaged” nature of these deposits, which makes it difficult to disentangle individual events, often contributes to their greater archaeological visibility due to the sheer volume of accumulated cultural material.⁷ These locations stand as anchors in a mobile world, reflecting a structured and culturally embedded relationship with the landscape.

D. Sheltering on the Edge: Dwelling Structures and Campsites

Evidence for substantial, permanent dwelling structures in the Irish Later Mesolithic is notably rare.⁷ The majority of sites are characterized by relatively small scatters of archaeological material, isolated hearths, and a limited number of stone tools, suggesting transient occupation.⁷ This contrasts somewhat with evidence from the Earlier Mesolithic, exemplified by the site of Mount Sandel, Co. Derry. Here, circular “pit houses,” approximately 6 meters in diameter and defined by post-holes, suggest more extended periods of occupation or at least regular re-occupation in substantial shelters.¹

For the Later Mesolithic, it is widely inferred that the predominant form of shelter was the tent, likely constructed from animal skins or other organic materials stretched over wooden frames.¹ Such structures would leave very minimal traces in the archaeological record, contributing to the ephemeral character of many occupation sites. This preference for lightweight, portable shelters is not seen merely as a functional adaptation to a mobile lifeway but potentially as a deliberate social choice. Open or semi-open structures like tents facilitate proximity, co-presence, and the sharing of resources and information, all crucial aspects of egalitarian forager societies and the maintenance of “relational wealth” over material accumulation.⁷ The “light footprint” of these dwellings, therefore, speaks to a sustainable and low-impact way of life, even as it presents challenges for archaeological detection.

Beyond tents, other forms of structural evidence include temporary encampments, such as that identified at Lough Boora, Co. Offaly, which was likely used for specific resource exploitation trips.¹ Occasionally, pits, hearths, and stakeholes are found, hinting at focused activity areas within larger sites.⁷ In some lakeside locations, more substantial platforms constructed from stone, marl, and timber have been discovered. Some of these platforms supported buildings and may have served as important markers of place or facilitated specialized lakeside activities like fishing or processing.¹ These more constructed features, standing out against a general backdrop of transient campsites, might represent specialized activity zones or locations imbued with particular communal or even ritual significance.

III. The Later Mesolithic Toolkit: Technological Adaptations to an Island Environment

A. From Microliths to Macroliths: The Evolving Stone Tool Tradition

A defining characteristic of the Irish Later Mesolithic period (c. 6700 – 4000 BC) is a significant transformation in stone tool technology. This phase witnesses a departure from the microlithic industries of the Earlier Mesolithic (c. 8000 – 6700 BC), where small, finely worked flint blades (microliths) were commonly hafted into composite tools like harpoons or spears.¹ In their place, a macrolithic tradition, characterized by the production and use of larger stone flakes and blades, becomes dominant across Ireland and the Isle of Man.³ This technological shift is not considered a mere stylistic evolution but likely reflects fundamental adaptations to changing environmental conditions, the availability of different resources, or evolving strategies for hunting, fishing, and processing.¹ For instance, the shift to larger, more robust tools might be linked to an increased emphasis on processing larger fish species, woodworking for the construction of sophisticated fish traps and boats, or different requirements for butchering available game in an environment lacking certain large mammals that might have been targeted with microlith-tipped projectiles elsewhere in Europe.

During the Later Mesolithic, Irish stone tool technology develops a distinctive character, diverging from trends observed in much of Britain and continental Europe, with parallels primarily found on the Isle of Man.⁴ This insular technological trajectory has been variously interpreted as evidence of adaptation to the specific ecological conditions of Ireland, a consequence of relative isolation, or a combination of both.⁴ The distinctiveness, shared with the Isle of Man, hints at a degree of cultural regionalization and perhaps ongoing maritime connections within the Irish Sea zone, suggesting a nuanced form of “islandness” rather than complete separation from Britain.

A striking feature of this technological transition is the apparent absence of any clearly identifiable intermediate lithic industry linking the Early Mesolithic microlithic tradition with the Later Mesolithic macrolithic one.³ This lack of a clear evolutionary bridge in the archaeological record is a significant puzzle, potentially indicating a relatively abrupt change in technological practices or, again, reflecting gaps in archaeological discovery.

B. Bann Flakes: Typology, Manufacture, Materials, and Functional Diversity

The most emblematic stone tool of the Irish Later Mesolithic is the Bann Flake.¹ These artifacts are typically large, leaf-shaped flakes or blades, predominantly manufactured from flint, though chert was also utilized.¹ They are characterized by being butt-trimmed, meaning the striking platform end of the flake was modified, often with light or peripheral retouch, but they generally lack a significant tang for hafting.¹¹ Peter Woodman, a key researcher in Irish Mesolithic studies, described two main forms: elongated or laminar flakes typically less than 3.2 cm across, and wider leaf-shaped forms.¹¹ As their name suggests, Bann Flakes are frequently discovered in proximity to the River Bann in Northern Ireland and other waterways, sometimes occurring in hoards.¹ The “Moss-side hoard” is a well-known example of such a collection.² These tools are considered characteristic of the Later Mesolithic, with some sources suggesting their appearance from around 4500 BC onwards ¹¹, though the broader macrolithic tradition begins earlier, around 6700 BC.

The manufacture of Bann Flakes falls within the macrolithic tradition and was achieved through hard hammer percussion, a technique that involves striking a core stone directly with a harder stone hammer to detach large flakes.³ While flint was a preferred high-quality raw material during the Earlier Mesolithic, influencing mobility patterns to access good sources ¹, the Later Mesolithic saw a broader exploitation of various stone types.

The functional range of Bann Flakes was likely diverse. Many are considered to have been all-purpose tools, adaptable for various cutting, scraping, or processing tasks, and they may also have served as weapons.¹ Some were probably hafted as spearheads, despite their often considerable weight which might seem counterintuitive for projectiles.¹¹ A unique find from the River Bann itself consisted of a Bann Flake with its moss haft still intact, providing direct evidence of how these tools could be handled.¹³ Their versatility would have been highly advantageous for mobile hunter-gatherer groups, allowing a single tool type to be adapted for multiple functions encountered in a varied and potentially unpredictable environment. The discovery of Bann Flakes in hoards also suggests they may have held a value beyond immediate utility, possibly representing cached resources for future use, items of exchange, or even objects with some symbolic or social significance within Later Mesolithic communities.¹

Table 1: Characteristics of Bann Flakes

Characteristic	Description	References
Material	Primarily flint; also chert.	1
Key Morphology	Large, leaf-shaped flake/blade; butt-trimmed; no significant tang; light/peripheral retouch at butt. Two forms: elongated/laminar or wider.	11
Manufacture	Hard hammer percussion; part of the macrolithic tradition.	3
Presumed Uses	All-purpose tool: cutting, scraping, processing food, woodworking, fishing-related tasks. Possibly weapons (e.g., spearheads).	1
Dating	Later Mesolithic, particularly from c. 4500 BC onwards.	11
Key Contexts	Found near River Bann and other waterways; sometimes in hoards (e.g., Moss-side hoard); Ferriter’s Cove.	1
Hafting	Evidence of moss hafting on one example; inferred use as spearheads implies hafting.	11

C. Moynagh Points and Kerry Points: Innovations in Ground Stone Technology

Towards the end of the Later Mesolithic period, a new and distinctive stone tool type appears in the Irish archaeological record: the Moynagh Point.¹ These are typically elongated, beautifully crafted points made from ground slaty sandstone or other fine-grained sedimentary rocks, such as mica schist.¹⁴ The manufacturing technique involved grinding, a departure from the predominant flaked stone technologies of the Mesolithic. Examples from Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath, show distinctive abrasion at their distal ends, which has been interpreted as possible evidence of hafting.¹⁴ Eight definite and two probable Moynagh Points were identified at this key wetland site.¹⁴ Another example, made of mica schist, was recovered from Belderrig, Co. Mayo.¹⁶ Intriguingly, Moynagh Points exhibit parallels with ground slate points found in Mesolithic Scandinavia, suggesting potential long-distance connections, shared technological solutions for specific tasks, or convergent evolution.¹ The emergence of this technology, utilizing different raw materials and manufacturing processes, signals a significant development in the final centuries of the Irish Mesolithic, perhaps reflecting experimentation, new functional requirements, or external cultural influences on the cusp of the Neolithic transition.

Alongside Moynagh Points, excavations at Moynagh Lough also yielded three artifacts referred to as “so-called ‘Kerry Points'”.¹⁴ The available research snippets, however, do not provide specific details regarding the material, morphology, or manufacturing techniques of these Kerry Points, nor how they are typologically distinguished from Moynagh Points beyond their name and presence at this site. This lack of detailed characterization represents a gap in current understanding, highlighting an area for future research to define these points and explore their functional and cultural relationship with other contemporary tool types. The co-occurrence of these distinct point types at a single site like Moynagh Lough hints at a specialized toolkit, where different forms may have been designed for varied functions or perhaps represent different, albeit contemporary, micro-traditions within the broader Later Mesolithic.

It is also important to note that ground stone axes, indicating woodworking capabilities, were manufactured and used throughout the Mesolithic, including the Later phase, distinct from these later, more specialized ground points.¹

Table 2: Characteristics of Moynagh Points and Kerry Points

Tool Type	Characteristic	Description	References
Moynagh Point	Material	Slaty sandstone, fine-grained sedimentary rock, mica schist.	14
	Key Morphology	Elongated, ground, often described as beautifully crafted.	1
	Manufacture	Grinding. Some show distal abrasion, possibly from hafting.	14
	Presumed Uses	Projectile points (specific function debated).	General Inference
	Dating	End of Later Mesolithic.	1
	Key Sites	Moynagh Lough, Belderrig.	14
	Parallels	Mesolithic Scandinavia.	1
Kerry Point	Material	Not specified in available sources.	14
	Key Morphology	Not specified in available sources.	14
	Manufacture	Not specified in available sources.	14
	Presumed Uses	Not specified in available sources.	14
	Dating	Later Mesolithic context at Moynagh Lough.	14
	Key Sites	Moynagh Lough.	14
	Parallels	Not specified in available sources.

Note: Information on Kerry Points is limited in the provided research material, indicating a need for further scholarly definition and analysis.

D. Raw Material Procurement and Use: A Diversifying Strategy

The procurement and utilization of stone raw materials for tool production underwent a noticeable shift during the Irish Mesolithic. While the Earlier Mesolithic (c. 8000-6700 BC) was characterized by a strong preference for high-quality flint, with access to good flint sources likely influencing patterns of mobility ¹, the Later Mesolithic (c. 6700-4000 BC) witnessed a significant diversification in the range of lithic materials exploited.¹ Alongside flint, materials such as chert, silicified siltstones, dolomites, mudstones, rhyolites, and various forms of quartz became increasingly common in stone tool assemblages.¹ This broadening of the raw material base suggests a more flexible and opportunistic approach to resource use, potentially reflecting changes in mobility patterns, an expansion into territories where flint was scarce, or simply a pragmatic adaptation to locally available resources. For example, the lithic assemblage from Corralanna, Co. Westmeath, is composed almost exclusively of chert ¹⁹, while at Belderrig, Co. Mayo, quartz, including both vein quartz and rock crystal, was the dominant material used for tool production.²¹

This diversification indicates an increased local adaptation and resourcefulness. By utilizing a wider array of locally available stones, even if some were of a lower “quality” for knapping compared to prime flint, Later Mesolithic groups could reduce the potential costs and risks associated with long-distance travel to specific flint sources. This might suggest more regionally focused settlement patterns or a greater emphasis on exploiting the lithic resources encountered within regular foraging territories.

Despite this diversification in raw materials, a striking feature of the common macrolithic tools, such as broad blades and flakes, is the island-wide homogeneity in their method of production—primarily hard hammer percussion—and a general lack of stylistic variability.³ This uniformity has been interpreted in several ways: as evidence for cultural insularity, as a reflection of frequent interaction and communication between forager groups across the island, or as an adaptation suited to a high-mobility lifeway where standardized, versatile tools were advantageous.³ The paradox of raw material diversification coexisting with technological and stylistic homogeneity in basic tool forms is intriguing. It suggests that while the specific stones used for toolmaking varied according to local availability, the fundamental knowledge of how to produce effective macrolithic tools and the mental template for these implements remained remarkably consistent across Ireland. This shared “technological grammar” could be a key characteristic of Irish Mesolithic identity, with social distinctiveness perhaps being expressed through other, more perishable media such as clothing, tattoos, or canoe paddles, which have not survived in the archaeological record.³

IV. Sustaining Life on the Edge: Diet, Subsistence, and Resource Management

The Later Mesolithic inhabitants of Ireland developed sophisticated strategies to sustain themselves in a unique insular environment, characterized by a specific suite of available flora and fauna. Their diet was broad-spectrum, exploiting resources from terrestrial, riverine, lacustrine, and coastal environments.

A. Foraging a Diverse Landscape: Faunal and Floral Resources

1. The Hunt: Wild Pig, Birds, and Small Game

A cornerstone of the terrestrial protein supply for Later Mesolithic people in Ireland was the wild pig (Sus scrofa).³ Evidence from numerous sites, including Ferriter’s Cove ³, Moynagh Lough ¹⁴, and Mount Sandel (primarily Early Mesolithic context, but indicative of early fauna) ²⁶, confirms its importance. It is widely suggested that red deer (Cervus elaphus), a common prey for Mesolithic hunters elsewhere in Europe, may have been absent from Ireland until the Neolithic period, making wild pig the largest commonly available terrestrial game animal.³ Intriguingly, it is believed that wild boar were actually introduced to Ireland by the earliest Mesolithic colonists, indicating a deliberate shaping of their new environment’s faunal resources from the outset.²³ This reliance on an introduced species, in the potential absence of a large native ungulate like red deer, fundamentally shaped Irish Mesolithic hunting practices and landscape interaction, setting it apart from British and continental European patterns.

The diet was supplemented by various bird species, including duck, woodpigeon, and grouse, as well as small game such as hares.⁶ While bird remains are found, they often constitute a minor component of faunal assemblages.²⁹ Hunting was carried out using tools such as spears, bows, and arrows, tipped with sharpened flint points.⁶ The presence of dog bones at some sites suggests that these animals, the only domesticated species in Mesolithic Ireland, may have assisted in hunting activities.¹² The faunal record also includes remains of other animals like bear (Moynagh Lough ¹⁴) and otter (Moynagh Lough ¹⁴). While these may not have been primary food sources, their presence and evidence of butchery suggest encounters with a broader range of fauna, potentially for pelts or even for symbolic or ritualistic purposes beyond simple subsistence.

2. Aquatic Bounty: Fish and Shellfish Exploitation

Aquatic resources were of paramount importance to the Later Mesolithic economy, reflecting the predominant settlement pattern along coasts, estuaries, and inland waterways. Fish, in particular, appear to have been a dietary staple. Salmonids (salmon and trout) and eels were extensively exploited from rivers and lakes, with their seasonal migrations likely providing predictable and abundant food supplies.³ Evidence from sites like Newferry indicates a focus on these species.³

At coastal locations such as Ferriter’s Cove, a wide array of marine fish contributed to the diet, including whiting, wrasse, bream, and even larger species like tope and conger eel, suggesting both inshore and potentially some offshore fishing.³ The advanced fishing technologies evident from this period, such as the large, intricately woven wooden fish traps discovered at Clowanstown, Co. Meath (dated to c. 5210-4970 BC) ¹, and similar finds from North Wall Quay, Dublin ³², attest to a significant investment of time, skill, and knowledge in harvesting these aquatic resources. These traps, along with inferred use of nets, harpoons, spears, and possibly hook and line, indicate a sophisticated understanding of fish behavior and the properties of materials like wood for constructing effective capture devices.⁶ This proficiency was a critical adaptation to Ireland’s specific island ecology.

Shellfish were another crucial and reliable component of the coastal Mesolithic diet. Vast accumulations of discarded shells, known as middens, are common features at coastal sites and provide direct evidence of the species exploited. These typically include oysters, limpets, periwinkles, mussels, and dog whelks.² The year-round availability of many shellfish species would have provided a vital, dependable food source, acting as a buffer against the seasonal fluctuations or unpredictability of other resources like migratory fish or hunted game.²⁹ This reliability was a key element in successfully “living on the edge.”

3. Gathering from the Wild: The Centrality of Hazelnuts and Other Plant Foods

Plant foods, though often less visible in the archaeological record than faunal remains due to preservation biases, played a significant role in the Later Mesolithic diet. Hazelnuts (Corylus avellana) stand out as a particularly important resource. Charred hazelnut shells are one of the most common plant remains found at Irish Mesolithic sites, including Tinryland ⁷, Ferriter’s Cove ²⁵, and Mount Sandel.⁹ They were widely collected in autumn and, crucially, could be stored, likely providing a vital source of carbohydrates and fats throughout the winter months.¹² The ubiquity of hazelnuts and evidence for their storage suggest they were a staple, critical for overwintering and overall dietary balance, especially in an environment potentially lacking consistent large game. There is even some palynological evidence to suggest that Mesolithic people may have actively managed the landscape, possibly through controlled burning, to promote the growth of useful plants like hazel ³⁴, indicating a more proactive approach to resource enhancement than simple opportunistic gathering.

Beyond hazelnuts, a diverse array of other wild plant foods would have been gathered, including fruits (e.g., wild apples 9), berries, seeds (e.g., water-lily seeds 9), roots, leaves, stems, flowers, and fungi.6 Elm bark is also suspected to have been consumed for its nutritional properties.23 While direct archaeobotanical evidence for many of

these softer plant foods is scarce, their exploitation is inferred from ethnographic analogy and the general understanding of hunter-gatherer subsistence. This broad-spectrum gathering strategy, coupled with an intimate knowledge of local flora and their properties (both nutritional and potentially medicinal), was essential for survival and dietary diversity.

B. Isotopic Narratives: Reconstructing Diet, Seasonality, and Human-Environment Interactions

Stable isotope analysis of human and faunal skeletal material, as well as marine shells, has emerged as a powerful tool for directly investigating past diets, seasonality of site occupation, and broader human-environment interactions in Mesolithic Ireland.³ By measuring the ratios of stable isotopes such as carbon (δ13C), nitrogen (δ15N), and oxygen (δ18O), researchers can reconstruct the proportional contributions of different food sources (e.g., marine vs. terrestrial, plant vs. animal) to an individual’s diet over their lifetime, and determine the season of death for certain animals or the season of collection for shellfish.²³

At Ferriter’s Cove, for example, δ18O analysis of periwinkle (Littorina littorea) shells has provided evidence for site use during mid-summer to autumn, and also suggests visits in the late autumn or possibly winter.³ Isotopic analysis of human bone from the same site points towards a significant reliance on marine-derived foods.²⁵ Such data provides a more direct, biochemical insight into assimilated diet than can be obtained solely from faunal and floral assemblages, which represent a “shopping list” of items brought to a site rather than necessarily the precise dietary intake of individuals. This allows for a more nuanced understanding of subsistence, helping to quantify the relative importance of different food groups.

The combination of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dating with stable isotope analysis is proving particularly fruitful, revealing a more dynamic and complex picture of forager lifeways during the Later Mesolithic than was previously appreciated.³ Seasonality data derived from isotopic studies is especially crucial for refining models of settlement patterns, mobility, and resource scheduling. It provides empirical support for the “structured system of land use” inferred from site distributions and artifact assemblages, allowing archaeologists to connect specific site activities to particular seasonal resources and thereby reconstruct annual rounds of movement and exploitation with greater confidence. Broadly, isotopic studies across northwestern Europe, including Ireland, indicate a general pattern of marine-focused diets during the Mesolithic, which contrasts sharply with the predominantly terrestrial-based diets that characterize the subsequent Neolithic period.³⁶

C. Processing and Preservation: Everyday Technologies for Survival

The survival of Later Mesolithic communities depended not only on successful hunting, fishing, and gathering but also on effective techniques for processing and preserving foodstuffs. Archaeological evidence, though often indirect, sheds light on these crucial everyday technologies.

Butchery practices are evident from cut marks on animal bones, such as those found at Moynagh Lough, indicating the removal of flesh and possibly tendons.¹⁴ The deliberate breakage of long bones for marrow extraction and the cracking of skulls to access brains, also noted at Moynagh Lough, demonstrate a strategy to maximize nutritional yield from hunted animals, leaving little to waste.¹⁴ This efficiency would have been particularly important if access to large quantities of game was inconsistent. Plant foods also required processing; nuts like hazelnuts needed to be shelled, and seeds may have been ground, while vegetables would have been cleaned and peeled, tasks inferred from the general utility of stone toolkits.¹

Cooking methods are indicated by the presence of hearths, which were central features in the earlier Mesolithic huts at Mount Sandel and are common at many Later Mesolithic sites.⁹ Food was likely roasted on spits over open fires or cooked in earthen hearths.²³ At Clonava, Co. Longford, the “pot-boiler” method of cooking, where heated stones are dropped into water-filled pits or containers to boil food, has been suggested based on analysis of unworked stones.³⁸

Given the seasonal availability of many key resources, food preservation and storage were essential for mitigating periods of scarcity, particularly during winter. Smoking was likely used to preserve meat and seafood.²³ Fish may also have been dried, with stakeholes found at Ferriter’s Cove interpreted as potential supports for fish-drying racks.²⁵ Nuts, especially hazelnuts, and seeds were likely cached for later use, possibly stored underground to protect them through the winter months.¹² These practices of foresight and planning, extending the availability of seasonally abundant foods, were critical adaptations for “living on the edge” and ensuring year-round sustenance.

V. Beyond Stone: The Organic Record of Later Mesolithic Material Culture

While stone tools dominate the archaeological record of the Irish Later Mesolithic due to their durability, evidence from waterlogged sites and shell middens reveals that organic materials such as wood, bone, antler, and plant fibres also played a crucial role in the technology and daily life of these communities.¹ These perishable artifacts offer invaluable, albeit rare, glimpses into a richer and more complex material world.

A. Woodcraft: Fish Traps, Torches, and Other Wooden Artefacts

The sophistication of Later Mesolithic woodworking is strikingly demonstrated by the discovery of large, intricately woven fish traps. A notable example, dated to approximately 7,000 years old (c. 5000 BC), was unearthed at Clowanstown, Co. Meath.¹ This and other fish traps, such as those found at North Wall Quay, Dublin ³², were constructed using techniques like twining, with materials including alder, birch, and rosewood twigs.³¹ These artifacts not only highlight advanced craftsmanship but also a profound understanding of fish behaviour and the properties of different woods suitable for construction in aquatic environments. The ability to create such complex items implies that simpler wooden tools and objects were likely commonplace but have not survived in most archaeological contexts, skewing our perception of Mesolithic technology heavily towards stone.

Other evidence of wood use includes small, charred lengths of pine found at various sites, interpreted as pine torches used for temporary illumination.¹ Wooden handles would have been essential for many stone tools, such as the microliths of the Earlier Mesolithic and likely for some Later Mesolithic tools like Bann Flakes, and wooden shafts were used for spears.¹ Wood was also fundamental for structural purposes, employed in the timber frames of huts, as seen in the Earlier Mesolithic at Mount Sandel ¹, and for the construction of lake-edge platforms.¹ A particularly intriguing find from Clowanstown is a small, carved wooden object that has been interpreted as a child’s toy or a model boat, offering a rare insight into aspects of Mesolithic life beyond pure subsistence.¹

B. Bone and Antler: Utilitarian Tools and Symbolic Objects

Bone and antler were also important raw materials, fashioned into a range of utilitarian tools and, occasionally, objects with potential symbolic meaning.² These materials, with their unique properties of toughness, elasticity, and workability, complemented the stone toolkit and were particularly suited for certain types of implements.

Bone points, presumed to have been used for fishing (perhaps as leister prongs or parts of harpoons), have been recovered from contexts such as the River Bann.¹ Needles and awls, essential for processing hides and making clothing or shelters, were also crafted from bone.⁶ Antler was utilized for tools like mattocks or picks, possibly for digging or grubbing ³⁹, and for harpoon heads.⁴⁰ The selection of these materials demonstrates an empirical understanding of their suitability for tasks where stone might be too brittle or difficult to shape into the required forms, such as barbed points.

A highly unusual and significant find from the multi-period site of Moynagh Lough is an ogham-inscribed antler, which has been associated with the Mesolithic levels in some reports.¹⁴ Ogham script is typically dated to the early medieval period in Ireland (c. 4th-7th centuries AD and later). If this antler artifact is securely dated to the Mesolithic and the inscription is confirmed as ogham or a precursor, it would have profound implications for our understanding of Mesolithic cognitive abilities, symbolic systems, and potentially very early forms of literacy or marking systems in Ireland. However, given the multi-period nature of Moynagh Lough, the precise context and dating of this artifact are critical, and the possibility of later intrusion into Mesolithic layers must be carefully considered.¹⁷ Faunal remains from sites like Moynagh Lough also show extensive evidence of butchery and marrow extraction, indicating the processing of bone as a food resource, distinct from its use as a raw material for tool manufacture.¹⁴

C. Plant Fibre Technologies: Evidence for Basketry, Nets, and Cordage

Evidence for technologies utilizing plant fibres, such as basketry, nets, and cordage, is exceptionally rare in the Irish Mesolithic due to the poor preservation of such organic materials. However, their importance can be inferred from subsistence activities and occasional remarkable discoveries. The sophisticated twined wooden fish baskets from Clowanstown, Co. Meath, provide direct evidence of advanced basket-making skills.³¹ While these are made from wood, the techniques involved are closely related to fibre basketry, and their existence implies that other forms of containers and woven items from more pliable plant fibres were likely also produced.

The widespread exploitation of fish resources strongly suggests the use of nets and fishing lines, which would have been manufactured from cordage made from plant fibres.⁶ Although direct evidence of Mesolithic nets from Ireland is lacking in the provided sources, finds from elsewhere in Mesolithic Europe, such as looped fibre net fragments from Denmark (c. 9000 BP) and the famous Antrea net from Finland (c. 9000 BC, made of willow fibres), demonstrate that netting technology was well-established during this period.⁴² The “String Revolution” concept, proposed by Elizabeth Wayland Barber, emphasizes the foundational role of cordage in the development of many other crucial technologies, including nets, traps, woven textiles, and hafting for tools.⁴²

Suitable plant fibres would have been available in the Irish Mesolithic landscape, including those from nettles, tree bark (e.g., lime, willow), and various grasses or rushes.⁴² The Clowanstown baskets, for instance, utilized young, flexible twigs of alder, birch, and rosaceae species.³¹ Plant fibre technology, though largely invisible archaeologically, would have been indispensable for numerous daily tasks: creating containers for gathering and storage, making carrying bags, producing ties for clothing, constructing fishing lines and nets, setting snares, and securely hafting stone and bone components to handles or shafts. The underrepresentation of this vital technology due to preservation issues significantly limits our full appreciation of the Mesolithic toolkit and adaptive ingenuity.

D. Adornment and Symbolism: Glimpses into Mesolithic Aesthetics and Belief

While the Irish Later Mesolithic archaeological record is primarily characterized by utilitarian objects related to subsistence and daily survival, there are rare but significant finds that offer glimpses into the aesthetic sensibilities, personal adornment, and potentially symbolic or ritual lives of these early inhabitants.

The discovery of cowrie shell beads at a shell midden site in Fanore, Co. Clare, represents the first known examples of Mesolithic personal adornment in Ireland.¹ These marine shells, deliberately perforated for stringing, indicate a concern with self-expression and aesthetics. Similar finds of shell beads in Mesolithic contexts in Scotland and Brittany suggest shared cultural practices or exchange networks across maritime regions, connecting Irish communities with broader European trends.¹ The choice of marine shells for adornment also reinforces the strong coastal orientation of many Mesolithic groups.

The use of pigments, specifically red ochre, has also been noted at Mesolithic sites.¹ While its exact application is often unclear, red ochre was widely used by prehistoric peoples globally for decorative, symbolic, or ritual purposes, including body painting, colouring artifacts, or in burial rites.

Evidence for more complex ritual or ceremonial practices is sparse but suggestive. Some archaeologists interpret certain aspects of Mesolithic life, such as burial practices or specific types of sites, as having ritual components.⁶ Mesolithic burials themselves are relatively rare in Ireland. The cremated human remains found at Hermitage, Co. Limerick, represent one of the most significant discoveries, potentially indicating an early cemetery and offering insights into mortuary rituals.² The previously mentioned ogham-inscribed antler from Moynagh Lough, if its Mesolithic association is secure, could also be considered an object with profound symbolic or ritual meaning.

The rarity of formal Mesolithic art (such as engraved bone or rock art comparable to some continental European finds) and the scarcity of elaborate burials in Ireland might reflect culturally specific mortuary practices that left few archaeological traces (e.g., excarnation, exposure, or water deposition) or a focus on symbolic expression through perishable media like wood carving, painted skins, or elaborate hairstyles and body painting. This scarcity further challenges archaeological attempts to fully understand the cognitive and spiritual world of Ireland’s Later Mesolithic people, adding another dimension to the concept of their lives being “on the edge” of our current comprehension.

VI. Key Sites: Illuminating Later Mesolithic Ireland

The archaeological understanding of Later Mesolithic Ireland is built upon investigations at several key sites, each offering unique insights into the lifestyles, technologies, and environmental interactions of its inhabitants. While some sites have predominantly Early Mesolithic components, their findings provide essential context for the subsequent Later Mesolithic developments.

A. Lough Boora and Mount Sandel: Early Mesolithic Foundations and Their Relevance

Lough Boora (Co. Offaly): Discovered in 1977 during peat extraction, the Lough Boora site is located on what was the storm shoreline of a post-glacial lake.⁴³ Radiocarbon dates place its main occupation in the Early Mesolithic, generally between c. 6800 and 6500 BC, though some sources suggest earlier dates around 7000 BC or even 8000 BC for initial activity.²⁸ Excavations, notably by Michael Ryan, revealed charcoal remains from ancient campfires associated with approximately 1,500 stone artifacts, predominantly chert microliths (including rods and “needle points”) and some polished stone axes.⁴³ The site, covering over 2000m², yielded debris from hearths but no substantial structural remains beyond these temporary campfire locations.⁴⁶

The primary significance of Lough Boora lies in its challenge to the then-prevailing notion that early human settlement in Ireland was exclusively coastal. Its discovery pushed back the accepted date for the colonization of the Irish midlands by over 3,000 years, demonstrating an early adaptation to inland lacustrine environments.⁴³ Analysis of heavily calcined bone fragments suggested deliberate discard into fires after meat removal, possibly indicating ritual behavior rather than normal food preparation.⁴⁸ While primarily Early Mesolithic, Lough Boora establishes the early presence of humans in diverse Irish landscapes, a pattern that continued and evolved into the Later Mesolithic.

Mount Sandel (Co. Derry): Excavated by Peter Woodman between 1973 and 1977, Mount Sandel is widely regarded as the earliest securely dated Mesolithic settlement in Ireland, with occupation beginning around 7000 BC (or c. 8000 BC calibrated).¹ The site yielded remarkable evidence of structures: a series of circular or oval huts, approximately 6 meters in diameter, constructed with bent saplings inserted into post-holes over shallow depressions, each with a central hearth.¹ These represent the only confirmed Mesolithic houses found in Ireland and suggest a degree of sedentism or at least regular, prolonged re-occupation by a small group, perhaps an extended family of around fifteen people, possibly on a year-round basis.²⁷ Recent Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon dates suggests the main hut-building phase may have been relatively short, perhaps spanning only a generation or two, with pits created during later visits.⁵⁰

The artifact assemblage from Mount Sandel is characteristic of the Early Mesolithic, dominated by microliths (scalene triangles, backed rods), along with flint axes (both flake and core types) and polished stone axes.⁹ The site provided exceptional organic preservation for its period, with faunal remains dominated by migratory fish (salmonids, eel, bass – accounting for 81% of bones) and wild pig (98% of mammal bones), supplemented by hare, possibly dog/wolf, and various bird species.⁹ Plant remains included abundant hazelnut shells, water-lily seeds, and apple seeds.⁹

Mount Sandel is crucial for understanding the foundational human presence in Ireland and the initial adaptive strategies employed. The transition from its microlithic toolkit to the macrolithic technologies of the Later Mesolithic is a key area of inquiry in Irish prehistory.⁵ The site appears to have been abandoned by around 6000 BC, prior to the full emergence of the Later Mesolithic cultural package.²⁷ The contrast between Mount Sandel’s substantial huts and the more ephemeral evidence for Later Mesolithic dwellings raises important questions about changes in settlement patterns, mobility, or simply biases in archaeological preservation and discovery.

B. Ferriter’s Cove (Co. Kerry): A Window onto Coastal Adaptation and Intermittent Occupation

Ferriter’s Cove, located on the Dingle Peninsula, stands as a pivotal site for understanding Later Mesolithic coastal adaptation in Ireland.¹ Excavated extensively by Peter Woodman and his team between 1983 and 1995, the site revealed evidence of ephemeral but repeated occupation spanning over a millennium, broadly from c. 4600 BC to 3600 BC, with a particularly intensive phase between 4600 BC and 4300 BC.¹ This pattern of short-term stays over a long duration exemplifies the “persistent place” phenomenon.

The archaeological discoveries included scatters of lithic debris, various hearths, dumps of marine shells (predominantly dog whelk, periwinkle, and limpet), concentrations of burnt stone, pits, and stakeholes, some of which have been interpreted as supports for fish-drying racks.²⁴ The stone tool assemblage was characteristic of the Later Mesolithic, featuring Bann Flakes, picks, borers, and notched pieces, primarily made from locally sourced stone such as flint, rhyolite, tuff, and greenstone.²⁴ A notable find was a cache of five polished stone axes made from black shale, deposited together, alongside other individual axes and a grindstone.⁵¹ Marked sandstone pebbles were also recovered, though their specific interpretation remains open.⁵¹

The diet of the Ferriter’s Cove inhabitants was heavily marine-oriented, as confirmed by isotopic analysis of human bone found at the site.²⁵ Faunal remains included a variety of seafish such as whiting, wrasse, and bream, with evidence for the capture of larger species like tope and conger eel.³ Shellfish were clearly a staple. Terrestrial resources included wild pig, hare, and birds, while plant foods were represented by burnt hazelnut shells.³ Isotopic analysis (δ18O) of periwinkle shells has provided crucial seasonality data, indicating site use from mid-summer to autumn, with further evidence for visits in late autumn or winter.³ Although no formal burials were discovered, several isolated human bones and teeth were found, with direct dates placing them in the late 5th millennium BC (e.g., 4225–3950 BC).⁵¹

Ferriter’s Cove is exceptionally significant not only for its detailed record of Later Mesolithic coastal lifeways but also for its insights into the transition to the Neolithic. The site yielded some of the earliest evidence for domesticated cattle and sheep in Ireland, with bones dated to as early as c. 4350 BC.²⁵ As sheep are not native to Ireland, their presence, alongside cattle, in what is otherwise a Later Mesolithic forager context, strongly suggests contact with external farming communities, possibly through the exchange of goods (perhaps imported joints of meat rather than live animals initially) or the very early, small-scale adoption of domesticates by foragers.²⁵ This places the inhabitants of Ferriter’s Cove literally “on the edge” of a major economic and social transformation, providing a crucial window into the complex processes of Neolithisation in Ireland.

C. Moynagh Lough (Co. Meath): A Rich Wetland Assemblage and Its Unique Contributions

Moynagh Lough is an exceptional multi-period wetland site in County Meath, with significant occupation layers spanning from the Mesolithic through the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and into the early medieval period.¹⁴ Excavations directed by John Bradley from 1980 to 1998 uncovered a rich and complex archaeological sequence, with the Mesolithic levels providing particularly important insights due to the excellent organic preservation afforded by the waterlogged conditions.¹⁴ The Mesolithic environment at Moynagh Lough was characterized by open wet woodland, possibly alder carr, with areas of standing water and the input of some fast-flowing water.¹⁴ Artificial platforms constructed at the edges of inland lakes are recognized as a key feature of late fifth millennium BC Ireland, and Moynagh Lough exhibits evidence of occupation on a marl-enhanced knoll during this period.⁵⁴

The Later Mesolithic lithic assemblage from Moynagh Lough is described as rich and significant.¹⁴ Butt-trimmed forms, characteristic of the period, are abundant, particularly those made from chert, and many exhibit distinctive abrasion at their distal ends, possibly related to hafting techniques.¹⁴ There is also tentative evidence for an Early Mesolithic presence. Most notably, the site has yielded eight definite and two probable examples of elongated ground stone points made of slaty sandstone, known as ‘Moynagh Points’, and three artifacts referred to as ‘Kerry Points’.¹⁴ These ground stone points represent an important late technological development within the Irish Mesolithic.

Faunal remains from the Mesolithic levels, though relatively few, were well-preserved. Analysis by Finbar McCormick identified hare, bear, otter, and at least four wild pigs.¹⁴ Cut marks on these bones indicate butchery for flesh and tendon removal, while fractured long bones suggest marrow extraction, and skulls appear to have been cracked open to access brains, all pointing to the thorough processing of animal carcasses for maximum nutritional yield.¹⁴ This broad-spectrum hunting strategy, including the processing of bear and otter, suggests diverse resource exploitation in this inland wetland environment.

Organic finds from the Mesolithic layers include a “handful of bone and wooden objects”.¹⁴ The most famous and enigmatic of these is an ogham-inscribed antler, first discovered in 1886 and subsequently associated with the Mesolithic levels in some excavation reports.¹⁴ Given that ogham is typically an early medieval script, its secure association with a Mesolithic context would be revolutionary, though the multi-period nature of the site necessitates extreme caution regarding its precise stratigraphic provenance and dating.⁴¹

Moynagh Lough’s primary contribution to Later Mesolithic studies lies in its detailed lithic assemblage, particularly the type-site status for Moynagh Points, its evidence for subsistence practices in an inland wetland setting, and the rare preservation of organic materials. It underscores the immense value of wetland archaeology for revealing aspects of Mesolithic life that are typically lost on dryland sites.

D. Other Significant Loci: Belderrig, Fanore, Rockmarshall, Newferry, Dalkey Island, Clowanstown – Expanding the Narrative

Beyond the major sites of Mount Sandel, Ferriter’s Cove, and Moynagh Lough, a growing number of other locations across Ireland are contributing significantly to our understanding of the Later Mesolithic period. These sites, often discovered through development-led archaeology or targeted research projects, reveal the diversity of Mesolithic landscape use and adaptation.

Belderrig, Co. Mayo: This coastal “persistent place,” excavated by Graeme Warren, shows occupation from c. 4800 BC to 3600 BC.⁷ Buried beneath blanket bog, the site has extensive deposits of Later Mesolithic stone tools, predominantly made of quartz (vein quartz and rock crystal), alongside faunal remains (including fish bone), hazelnuts, evidence of stony surfaces, stake-holes, and pits.¹⁶ A notable find is a mica schist Moynagh Point, linking it to the specialized ground stone technologies seen at Moynagh Lough.¹⁶ Belderrig highlights adaptation to the northwest coast and the intensive use of local quartz resources.

Fanore, Co. Clare: Excavations by Michael Lynch at Fanore have uncovered a coastal shell midden, a cooking and food processing area, dated to c. 6,000 years ago (c. 4000 BC), making it the earliest Mesolithic occupation site identified in County Clare.³³ Artifacts include stone axes, flakes of shale, chert, and sandstone, burnt hazelnut shells, and abundant sea shells, confirming hunter-gatherer presence before the arrival of farming.³³ Crucially, Fanore has also yielded cowrie shell beads, representing rare evidence of Mesolithic personal adornment in Ireland and hinting at wider connections.¹

Rockmarshall, Co. Louth: This site on the Cooley Peninsula shows evidence of Mesolithic settlement from c. 5700 BC onwards.⁵⁶ Excavation of a midden revealed “late tools” (presumably Later Mesolithic types), oysters, and periwinkles.⁵⁶ Later Mesolithic material from a raised beach at Rockmarshall is also part of the National Museum’s collections.⁴⁷ The site indicates continued occupation in an area with lower quality flint, suggesting adaptation to local resources.⁵⁶

Newferry, Co. Antrim: A key floodplain site along the River Bann, Newferry is particularly important for its well-stratified sequence of diatomite deposits which span the known Later Mesolithic.³ Discovered during diatomite cutting, excavations revealed a focus on the exploitation of salmonids and eels.³ The site provides a crucial chronological framework for the Later Mesolithic in the northeast and evidence for long-term, repeated use of a resource-rich riverine location.⁵⁷

Dalkey Island, Co. Dublin: This coastal island has produced evidence of Mesolithic activity, with artifacts recovered from excavations now housed in the National Museum of Ireland.⁴⁷ While detailed Later Mesolithic specifics are not abundant in the provided snippets, its location and finds point to the exploitation of marine environments by Mesolithic groups in the Dublin Bay area.

Clowanstown, Co. Meath: A remarkable Late Mesolithic (c. 5300-4720 BC) lakeside fishing site, Clowanstown has yielded exceptional organic preservation.¹ Finds include a timber platform, a cache of Bann flakes, and, most significantly, four complete conical fish baskets made using a twining technique with alder, birch, and rosewood, along with a small carved wooden object interpreted as a miniature dugout canoe or toy.¹ Clowanstown provides unparalleled insights into Mesolithic fishing technology and woodworking skills.

Other smaller sites, often found through infrastructural development, such as Tinryland 1, Co. Carlow (a hollow with a few Later Mesolithic tools and hazelnuts, c. 4000 BC ⁷), Curraghprevin 3, Co. Cork (a fire-setting and stake holes indicating short-term activity ⁷), and Farriters, Co. Tyrone (an isolated hearth and pit from the mid-5th millennium BC ⁷), contribute to a more nuanced picture. These less “spectacular” finds likely represent a broader range of logistical camps or single-event sites, balancing the narrative previously dominated by larger “persistent places” and demonstrating the widespread, if often ephemeral, Later Mesolithic presence across diverse Irish landscapes. The consistent discovery of Later Mesolithic material in coastal, riverine, and lacustrine locations across the island, despite regional variations in available raw materials, underscores a shared, fundamental adaptation to aquatic resource zones. This focus on the land/water interface appears to be a unifying characteristic of the Irish Later Mesolithic experience.

Table 3: Summary of Key Later Mesolithic Sites

Site Name & County	Approx. Date Range (Later Mesolithic)	Site Type	Key Features/Finds	Contribution to “Living on the Edge” Theme	References
Ferriter’s Cove, Co. Kerry	c. 4600-3600 BC	Coastal “Persistent Place”, Midden	Bann Flakes, polished stone axes, shell dumps, hearths, fish drying racks, human bone fragments, early cattle/sheep bones. Marine diet (isotopic evidence), seasonal occupation.	Coastal adaptation, specialized marine resource use, intermittent long-term occupation, evidence of early contact with farming elements (edge of transition).	25
Moynagh Lough, Co. Meath	Late 5th Millennium BC – c. 4000 BC	Inland Wetland Site, Lake-edge platform	Moynagh Points (slaty sandstone), Kerry Points, butt-trimmed chert tools, faunal remains (pig, bear, otter, hare), ogham-inscribed antler (context debated).	Specialized toolkit for wetland environment, broad-spectrum hunting, rare organic preservation, potential early symbolic complexity.	14
Belderrig, Co. Mayo	c. 4800-3600 BC	Coastal “Persistent Place”	Quartz-dominated lithics, mica schist Moynagh Point, faunal remains (fish), hazelnuts, stony surfaces, pits, stake-holes.	Adaptation to northwest coast, intensive local quartz use, long-term intermittent occupation.	7
Fanore, Co. Clare	c. 4000 BC	Coastal Shell Midden	Stone axes, shale/chert/sandstone flakes, burnt hazelnuts, sea shells, cowrie shell beads.	Coastal foraging, earliest Mesolithic in Clare, evidence of personal adornment and potential maritime connections.	1
Rockmarshall, Co. Louth	From c. 5700 BC (Mesolithic occupation)	Coastal Midden, Raised Beach	“Late tools” (Later Mesolithic types), oysters, periwinkles.	Long-term coastal settlement, adaptation to area with lower quality flint.	47
Newferry, Co. Antrim	Spans Later Mesolithic	Riverine Floodplain Site	Stratified deposits with lithics, focus on salmonids and eels.	Chronological sequence for Later Mesolithic, long-term exploitation of rich riverine fishery.	3
Clowanstown, Co. Meath	c. 5300-4720 BC	Lakeside Fishing Site	Timber platform, Bann flakes, sophisticated twined fish baskets (wood), carved wooden “toy boat”.	Advanced fishing technology, exceptional organic preservation, specialized lakeside resource exploitation.	1

VII. Social Dimensions of an Island Existence

Reconstructing the social fabric of Later Mesolithic Ireland presents considerable challenges due to the nature of the archaeological record. However, by combining evidence from settlement patterns, material culture, demography, and comparative ethnographic studies, it is possible to infer key aspects of their social lives.

A. Population and Demography: A Sparse but Resilient Presence

The population of Ireland during the Later Mesolithic was likely quite low, with estimates based on ethnographic parallels of forager societies suggesting around 8,400 individuals at any given time.³ These small communities would have been spread thinly across the island, primarily concentrated along the extensive coastlines, lakeshores, and river valleys that offered the richest and most reliable resources.³ Such low population density would necessitate extensive social networks and a degree of mobility to ensure group viability, particularly for finding mates, sharing information about dispersed resources, and providing mutual support in times of local scarcity. This “thin spread” of population can be seen as another facet of “living on the edge” – a constant negotiation with demographic sustainability.

Analysis of radiocarbon date frequencies from Mesolithic sites has suggested a long period of relative demographic stability, a ‘steady state’ from approximately 9000 BC to 5200 BC, potentially followed by a phase of population growth towards the end of the Mesolithic period, possibly linked to wider European demographic trends or local environmental amelioration.⁴ However, there is ongoing debate regarding the impact of significant climatic downturns, such as the 8200 cal BP event, with some researchers positing population bottlenecks or increased cultural isolation as a consequence, while others argue against significant demographic decline in Ireland related to this specific event.⁴ The potential vulnerability of these small, dispersed populations to environmental instability underscores the precariousness of their existence and the resilience required to endure such challenges.

Recent advances in ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis have provided fascinating insights into the physical characteristics of Mesolithic Irish people. Studies suggest they possessed a distinctive pigmentation combination of very dark skin, light-coloured eyes (often blue), and possibly light hair, a genetic signature characteristic of many Western European hunter-gatherer populations of the time.⁵ This genetic profile appears to have left little trace in more recent Irish populations, indicating significant demographic shifts with the arrival of Neolithic farmers.

B. Social Organisation: Inferences from the Archaeological Record

The prevailing model for Later Mesolithic social organization in Ireland is that of small, mobile, and relatively egalitarian groups.² This interpretation is supported by several lines of evidence, including the patterns of high residential mobility, low inferred population density, and a generalized forager adaptation strategy focused on diverse, seasonally available resources.³ The archaeological record generally lacks indicators of significant social hierarchy, such as lavish burials or major differences in dwelling size or material wealth between sites or individuals.

The nature of their stone tool technology also offers clues. The striking lack of stylistic variability in the common macrolithic tools (broad blades and flakes) found across the island, all produced using a consistent hard hammer percussion technique, is particularly noteworthy.³ This homogeneity could be interpreted in several ways: it might suggest a degree of cultural insularity, where a shared technological tradition was maintained without significant regional divergence. Alternatively, it could reflect frequent interaction and communication between groups across the island, facilitating the widespread adoption and maintenance of common technological norms. A third possibility is that this standardized toolkit was an efficient adaptation to a highly mobile lifeway, where versatile and easily replicable tools were favoured. It is also plausible that social identities and regional distinctions were expressed through other, more perishable media, such as clothing styles, tattoos, or carvings on wooden implements like canoe paddles, which have not survived archaeologically.³

The concept of “persistent places” and the evidence for a structured system of land use, involving seasonal movements to exploit known resources, imply the existence of shared knowledge, cultural traditions, and sophisticated cognitive maps of the landscape that were transmitted across generations.¹ The choice of ephemeral shelters, likely tents, as the predominant dwelling type in the Later Mesolithic may also have social implications. Rather than simply being a functional response to mobility, this preference could reflect a social ethos that valued “maximum sharing, co-presence and living-together,” thereby fostering strong intra-group bonds and emphasizing relational wealth over the accumulation of material possessions or the construction of permanent, fixed households.⁷

Despite the model of small, mobile bands, there is evidence for long-distance contacts, at least across the island of Ireland. The presence of small quantities of non-local raw materials in lithic assemblages, sometimes sourced from distances of 100-200 km, suggests that groups were not entirely isolated.⁷ These “exotic” materials, typically finished objects, are usually few in number and do not appear to be functionally or prestigiously distinct from tools made of local materials. Their movement likely reflects social strategies that encouraged a degree of connectivity and information flow between different communities, emphasizing relationships and networks over material wealth accumulation.⁷ This balance of local adaptation within specific territories and broader, island-wide social networks would have been a resilient strategy for egalitarian groups “living on the edge.”

VIII. The End of an Era: The Later Mesolithic on the Cusp of Change

The Later Mesolithic period in Ireland, spanning roughly from 6700 BC to 4000 BC, drew to a close with the transformative arrival of the Neolithic way of life. This transition, marked by the introduction of agriculture, pottery, new house forms, and monumental tomb construction, was not necessarily an abrupt event but likely a complex process unfolding over several centuries.¹ Later Mesolithic communities were, in these final centuries, literally “living on the edge” of one of the most profound shifts in human history.

Evidence from sites like Ferriter’s Cove, with its Later Mesolithic forager context yielding some of the earliest dates for domesticated cattle and sheep in Ireland (c. 4350 BC), suggests a period of overlap or interaction between indigenous hunter-gatherers and incoming farming influences or populations.²⁵ Whether these early domesticates represent trade items, small-scale adoption by Mesolithic groups, or the vanguard of Neolithic settlement is a subject of ongoing research and debate. Similarly, the appearance of distinctive ground stone tools like Moynagh Points towards the very end of the Mesolithic, some with Scandinavian parallels, might indicate new external contacts or internal innovations spurred by changing circumstances.¹

The archaeological record for the transition is still being refined, with ongoing research into the “impressively underrepresented” earlier phases of the Later Mesolithic and the precise mechanisms of Neolithisation.³ Stable isotope analyses consistently show a significant dietary shift from predominantly marine/aquatic resources in the Mesolithic to terrestrial resources (domesticated plants and animals) in the Neolithic, a change that appears to have been relatively rapid once farming took hold.³ Ancient DNA studies further indicate a substantial influx of new people with Near Eastern farming ancestry, who largely, though perhaps not entirely, replaced the genetic signature of the indigenous Mesolithic population.⁵

The legacy of Ireland’s Later Mesolithic foragers is one of remarkable adaptation to a unique island environment. For over two and a half millennia, they thrived by developing specialized toolkits, intricate knowledge of seasonal resources, and flexible social strategies suited to a life lived in close connection with the coasts, rivers, and woodlands. Their story, pieced together from often scarce and challenging evidence, reveals a resilient and resourceful people who successfully navigated the opportunities and constraints of “living on the edge.”

IX. Conclusion: Resilience and Adaptation on the Western Frontier

The Later Mesolithic period in Ireland (c. 6700 – 4000 BC) represents a critical chapter in the island’s human story, characterized by profound adaptation to a dynamic post-glacial environment and a unique insular setting. The theme of “Living on the Edge” encapsulates the multifaceted challenges and opportunities faced by these first continuous settlers. Geographically peripheral, they developed distinct cultural and technological trajectories, notably the shift to a macrolithic stone tool industry exemplified by the versatile Bann Flake and the later emergence of ground stone Moynagh Points.

Their settlement patterns, overwhelmingly focused on coastal, estuarine, and riverine locales, underscore a deep reliance on aquatic resources. This was a structured, mobile lifeway, anchored by “persistent places” that served as focal points for resource exploitation, social interaction, and the accumulation of cultural memory over centuries. The predominance of ephemeral shelters, likely tents, speaks to a social organization that valued flexibility, sharing, and relational wealth, consistent with small, egalitarian forager bands.

Subsistence was a testament to their resourcefulness. In an environment lacking some of the large terrestrial game common elsewhere in Mesolithic Europe, they successfully exploited wild pig (an early introduction), a diverse array of fish and shellfish through sophisticated techniques including woven traps, and a wide range of plant foods, with hazelnuts playing a central role. Isotopic studies are increasingly refining our understanding of their diet and seasonal movements, painting a picture of a dynamic and knowledgeable engagement with their surroundings. The limited but significant organic record—wooden fish traps, bone points, and rare hints of adornment like cowrie shell beads—reveals a technological and symbolic complexity often masked by the dominance of stone tools in archaeological assemblages.

Key sites such as Ferriter’s Cove offer crucial insights into coastal adaptation and the very beginnings of interaction with Neolithic farming practices, highlighting the Later Mesolithic communities’ position on the cusp of profound societal change. Moynagh Lough showcases the richness of wetland archaeology, revealing specialized toolkits and organic preservation. Discoveries at sites like Belderrig, Fanore, and Clowanstown continue to expand our understanding of regional adaptations and specific technological innovations.

The archaeological record of the Later Mesolithic is, itself, often “on the edge” of visibility due to challenging preservation conditions and the impact of sea-level change. This makes every discovery precious and underscores the need for continued, methodologically innovative research. The story of Later Mesolithic Ireland is one of resilience, sophisticated environmental knowledge, and successful adaptation on the westernmost edge of Europe, laying the foundations for millennia of subsequent human history on the island. Their legacy is not one of impoverished survival, but of a dynamic and enduring hunter-gatherer-fisher society that thrived for over two and a half thousand years.

Works cited

1. The Archaeology of Ireland: from the Mesolithic to the Modern Era, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://irisharchaeology.org/the-archaeology-of-ireland-from-the-mesolithic-to-the-modern-era/
2. Mesolithic Archaeology of Ireland: The First Hunter-Gatherer Settlements, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://irisharchaeology.org/mesolithic-archaeology-of-ireland-the-first-hunter-gatherer-settlements/
3. Irish Mesolithic – Wikipedia, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Mesolithic
4. ‘…where they pass their unenterprising existence…’: change over time in the Mesolithic of Ireland as shown in radiocarbon-dated activity – ResearchGate, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/T-Rowan-Mclaughlin-2/publication/361105464_’where_they_pass_their_unenterprising_existence’_change_over_time_in_the_Mesolithic_of_Ireland_as_shown_in_radiocarbon-dated_activity/links/62a26780416ec50bdb1ab324/where-they-pass-their-unenterprising-existence-change-over-time-in-the-Mesolithic-of-Ireland-as-shown-in-radiocarbon-dated-activity.pdf
5. Hunter-Gatherers in Ireland – The Heritage Council, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.heritagecouncil.ie/content/files/Our-Ancient-Landscapes-Hunter-Gatherers-in-Ireland.pdf
6. Mesolithic Period In Ireland – History of Ancient Ireland – Your Irish Culture, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://yourirish.com/history/ancient/mesolithic-ireland
7. Scaling an island of hunter-gatherers Writing the Mesolithic of Ireland – transcript.open, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.transcript-open.de/pdf_chapter/bis%206399/9783839460993/9783839460993-010.pdf
8. lesson 1 – Scoilnet, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.scoilnet.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/T2U1L1.pdf
9. Mount Sandel | Encyclopedia.com, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/mount-sandel
10. Mesolithic archaeology, hunter gatherers and representations of the past – Earth Talks – University College Dublin, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://earthtalks.ucd.ie/mesolithic-archaeology-hunter-gatherers-and-representations-of-the-past/
11. Bann flake – Wikipedia, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bann_flake
12. Who lived in Ireland before Neolithic times? – National Museums NI, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://cms.nationalmuseumsni.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/nmni-ancient-ireland-3-who-lived-in-ireland-before-neolithic-times_0.pdf
13. Adhesive as a hafting material: a case study from the Irish Mesolithic, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://learningthroughmakingblog.wordpress.com/2021/04/29/adhesive-as-a-hafting-material-a-case-study-from-the-irish-mesolithic/
14. mural.maynoothuniversity.ie, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/id/eprint/19742/1/EBSCO-FullText-04_25_2025%20%281%29.pdf
15. Hunter-Gatherer Ireland: Making Connections in an Island World – ResearchGate, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358907147_Hunter-Gatherer_Ireland_Making_Connections_in_an_Island_World
16. Excavations in 2007 at Belderrig Co. Mayo Stratigraphic Report – University College Dublin, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/bdg07_stratigraphic_report.pdf
17. Moynagh Lough Studies 1 – Four Courts Press, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.fourcourtspress.ie/books/2024/moynagh-lough-studies-1
18. Something rocky this way comes: An investigation of raw materials in Mesolithic Leinster: Winner, undergraduate thesis prize: Hunter Gatherer Research – Liverpool University Press, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/abs/10.3828/hgr.2024.43
19. A late Mesolithic lithic scatter from Corralanna, Co. Westmeath – Research Repository UCD, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/rest/bitstreams/7926/retrieve
20. (PDF) A late Mesolithic lithic scatter from Corralanna, Co. Westmeath, and its place in the Mesolithic landscape of the Irish Midlands – ResearchGate, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250211737_A_late_Mesolithic_lithic_scatter_from_Corralanna_Co_Westmeath_and_its_place_in_the_Mesolithic_landscape_of_the_Irish_Midlands
21. Internet Archaeol. 26. Driscoll. Current project, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue26/12/3.html
22. 9 Case study 1: Belderrig quartz scatter, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.lithicsireland.ie/phd_quartz_lithic_technology_chap_9.html
23. Irish cuisine – Wikipedia, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_cuisine
24. Seandálaíocht Chorca Dhuibhne – ArcGIS StoryMaps, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/461053a5943c4c78903e019e290bf19d
25. Ferriter’s Cove – Eir, accessed on May 23, 2025, http://homepage.eircom.net/~mickmongey/FerritersCove.html
26. The Mesolithic and Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Ireland chapter 3, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.lithicsireland.ie/mlitt_mesolithic_west_ireland_chap_3.html
27. Mount Sandel – Mesolithic Settlement in Ireland – ThoughtCo, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.thoughtco.com/mount-sandel-mesolithic-settlement-in-ireland-171665
28. Mesolithic Stone Age in Prehistoric Ireland – Wesley Johnston, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/pre_norman_history/mesolithic_age.html
29. 02 Lovely Bones: Osteoarchaeological evidence of animal produce in Ireland – Arrow@TU Dublin, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=1&article=1000&context=irishfoodhist&type=additional
30. Prehistoric Ireland – Wikipedia, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Ireland
31. Fig. 1 Fish basket preserved in – peat matrix. (John Sunderland), accessed on May 23, 2025, https://websitecms.tii.ie/media/wpxn1k03/catch-of-the-day-at-clowanstown.pdf
32. www.tii.ie, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.tii.ie/media/cc0bspdt/mon-5-ch-8-oconnor.pdf
33. Clare’s ancient roots unearthed in Fanore | The Clare Champion, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://clarechampion.ie/clares-ancient-roots-unearthed-in-fanore/
34. Late Mesolithic and early Neolithic forest disturbance – Sci-Hub, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://2024.sci-hub.se/2582/5c95a53c8ce130926a3640cca16ab342/innes2013.pdf
35. Diet, DNA, and the Mesolithic–Neolithic Transition in Western Scotland – MDPI, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9461/5/1/8
36. (PDF) Against the grain? Response to Milner et al. – ResearchGate, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40852888_Against_the_grain_Response_to_Milner_et_al
37. Mount Sandel Mesolithic site – Wikipedia, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sandel_Mesolithic_site
38. Clonava Island revisited: A story of cooking, plants and re-occupation during the Irish Late Mesolithic – ResearchGate, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277942342_Clonava_Island_revisited_A_story_of_cooking_plants_and_re-occupation_during_the_Irish_Late_Mesolithic
39. Antler Tool – Virtual Museum – Cotswold Archaeology, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk/museum/antler-tool/
40. INTRODUCTION TO PREHISTORY MESOLITHIC FACTSHEET 2 MESOLITHIC HUNTING EQUIPMENT – The Prehistoric Society, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://prehistoricsociety.org/sites/prehistoricsociety.org/files/resources/ps-intros-meso-2-hunting-equipment.pdf
41. Archaeology Legacy Grant Report – Royal Irish Academy, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.ria.ie/assets/uploads/2025/03/ALG-2024-Michael-Potteron.pdf
42. Looped Cordage: Netted Bags – Native Hands, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://nativehands.co.uk/2018/04/looped-cordage-netted-bags/
43. Archaeology – Lough Boora Discovery Park, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.loughboora.com/our-story/archaeology/
44. Lough Boora – Mesolithic Loop | Slieve Bloom Mountains, Irelands Hidden Heartlands, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://slievebloom.ie/walk/lough-boora-mesolithic-loop
45. The Irish Mesolithic and Developer-led Archaeology – Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland, accessed on May 23, 2025, http://www.iai.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Proceedings-of-the-IAI-Spring-2013-Conference.pdf
46. An early Mesolithic site in the Irish midlands Lough Boora, Birr, Co …, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/library/browse/details.xhtml?recordId=3006958
47. Stone Age | National Museum of Ireland, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.museum.ie/en-ie/collections-research/irish-antiquities-division-collections/collections-list-(1)/stone-age
48. Being Ritual in Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: Identifying Ritual Behaviour Within an Ephemeral Material Record, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://d-nb.info/1169743072/34
49. History – Mountsandel Discovery and Heritage Group, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.mountsandeldiscovery.com/mountsandel-history/
50. A New Bayesian Chronology for Mesolithic Occupation at Mount Sandel, Northern Ireland | Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society – Cambridge University Press, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/new-bayesian-chronology-for-mesolithic-occupation-at-mount-sandel-northern-ireland/51EC4111C92E2D5FD128928277103028
51. Ferriter’s Cove – Wikipedia, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferriter%27s_Cove
52. Hunting and Gathering at Ferriters’ Cove – Storied Kerry, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://storiedkerry.com/2020/10/30/hunting-and-gathering-at-ferriters-cove/
53. The Neolithic Archaeology of Ireland, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://irisharchaeology.org/the-neolithic-archaeology-of-ireland/
54. researchrepository.ucd.ie, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://researchrepository.ucd.ie/bitstreams/c4dff9ae-7831-4efc-80eb-d8c79b8d52d8/download
55. IQUA Newsletter no. 58 February 2017 – Irish Quaternary Association, accessed on May 23, 2025, http://iqua.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IQUA-NEWSLETTER-58.pdf
56. Rockmarshall Court Tomb – Wikipedia, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockmarshall_Court_Tomb
57. The Mesolithic and the Donabate Portrane Peninsula – Eir, accessed on May 23, 2025, http://homepage.eircom.net/~mickmongey/Mesodonabate.html
58. Pre-History – River Bann, Lough Neagh, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://riverbannloughneagh.org/pre-history/
59. Dalkey Island – Wikipedia, accessed on May 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalkey_Island