^{page 104 note 1} Rev. Chas. Macdonald, , Moidart; or Among the Clanranalds, Oban, 1888, p. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 2} Adamnan, , Vita S. Columbae, lib. I, c. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 3} Harker, Alfred, The West Highlands and the Hebrides, Cambridge, 1941, map I, and pp. 1, 57–9.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} Geikie, Jas., The Great Ice Age and its Relation to the Antiquity of Man, London, 1894, pp. 289–94Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 2} The feature is commonly called the 25-ft. beach, This term is a misnomer, because the elevation is by no means constant. Whenthis was recognized and explained the designation Early Neolithic was suggested, since it was believed that the relics of human industry associated with the beach were referable to that period. A later proposal to call it the Mesolithic beach is based on the surer foundation of present archaeological knowledge, Recently it has been advanced that a more appropriate term would be Litorina Beach after the correlative counter-part formation in the Baltic area, since in both the periwinkle Litorina litorea Linn, occurs as the characteristic fossil. The present author thinks it better not to confuse a British coastal feature with the memorial of a submergence in the Baltic trough. He therefore designates the formation the Early Post-Glacial raised beach.

The beach attains about 50 ft. at Gartmore in the upper Forth valley, in the basin of the Tay above Perth and below Crieff in Strathearn. In the west it standsabout 40 ft. above present high-water mark between Loch Linnhe and the Firth of Clyde. Outward it decreases to present sea-level in Caithness and the Hebrides, inCo. Durham and Lancashire in England, in North Wales, south of Dublin and Co. Sligo in Ireland. A curve joining these points and forming the zero-isobase approximates to that denoting the supposed maximum limits of the Late-Glacial sea. Thus, in the British Isles, as in the Baltic region, the recoil subsequent to these two marine invasions was greatest around the ice-centre of Late-Glacial times.

The Early Post-Glacial raised beach represents a period of erosion and deposition probably longer than that of the sea at approximately its present level. Yet it is doubtful if even the whole platform attributed to the Early Post-Glacial sea was everywhere cut by it, though it carved and wasted rocks. The presence of ice-striated rocks upon its surface, as in the Rough Bounds of the West Highlands, suggests that the terrace may be of pre-glacial or interglacial age, and that it is a coincidence that the beach rests upon an earlier sea-level.

In Baltic chronology, which cannot yet be applied with certainty to Scotland, the period of the Litorina Sea, the equivalent of the Early Post-Glacial sea of the British Isles, corresponds broadly to the Atlantic climatic phase, between 5000 and 2500 B.C. The maximum transgression in Denmark would have taken place about 4500 B.C. and in Finland about 500 years later.

For details and bibliography the reader is referred to the author's ‘The Deglaciation of Scotland and the Forming of Man's Environment’ in Proc. Geol. Assoc., vol. lix (1948), pp. 151–71.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 3} Erdtman, G.,‘Studies in the Postarctic History of the Forests of Northwestern Europe. I. Investigations in the British Isles’, in Geol. För. Stock. Förh., vol. I (1928), pp. 123–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} Wright, W. B., The Quaternary Ice Age, London, 1937, pp. 380–2 and 447–8Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 2} For instance, in Assynt, Sutherland. See Peach, B. N. and Home, J., ‘The Bone-Cave in the Valley of Allt nan Uamh (Burn of the Caves), near Inchnadamph, Assynt, Sutherlandshire’, in Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xxxvi (1917), pp. 327–49Google Scholar.

^{page 106 note 3} Summarized with bibliography in the author's ‘The Stone Age Background of Scotland (with special reference to the South-west and South)’, Trans. Dumfries and Galloway Nat. Hist, and Antiq. Soc., vol. xxvi(1948), pp. 9–40Google Scholar.

^{page 107 note 1} Clark, J. G. D., The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe, Cambridge, 1936, pp. 220–2.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 1} Movius, H. L., The Irish Stone Age, Cambridge, 1942, p. 164.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} IInfra, p. 120.

^{page 112 note 1} Movius, H. L., op. cit., 1942, p. 164Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 2} Lacaille, A. D., ‘The Stone Industries associated with the raised beach at Ballantrae’, inProc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. lxxix (1944–5, pp. 98–9,Google Scholar and fig. 4, nos. 59–62.

^{page 112 note 3} McCallien, W. J. and Lacaille, A. D., ‘The Campbel-town Raised Beach and its contained Stone Industry’ in Proc, Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. lxxv (1940-1941), pp. 81–2,Google Scholar and fig. 6, no. 71.

^{page 112 note 4} Octobon, E., ‘Le Pré-Campignien ou Campignien I. Station Pré-Campignienne de Champlat, Hameau de Boujaucourt (Aisne)’, in Bull. Soc. Préhist. Franç., vol.xxviii (1931), pp. 172–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 113 note 1} Movius, H. L., op. cit., 1942, pp. 164–5,Google Scholar nd fig 29, no. 2.

^{page 113 note 2} Infra, pp. 130–1.

^{page 113 note 3} Lacaille, A. D., ‘A Stone Industry, Potsherds, and a Bronze Pin from Valtos, Uig, Lewis’, in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot.,Vol. lxxi (1936-–7), pp. 282–92,Google Scholar and specimens in figs.particularly 4, nos. 7, 9, and 12.

^{page 113 note 4} Movius, H. L., op. cit., 1942, pp. 161–4,Google Scholar and fig. 28, no. 1.

^{page 114 note 1} Lethbridge, T. C. in Man, 1927, no. 115Google Scholar; nd infra, pp. 128-34.

^{page 115 note 1} Infra, pp. 125–6.

^{page 115 note 2} The Glasgow Herald, 21st August 1920.

^{page 115 note 3} Sir Macdonald, George, ‘Prehistoric Scotland’: the typescript of an unfinished work, p. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 1} It is believed that the last of this interesting race was killed in Iceland in 1844. See Grieve, Symington, The Great Auk, or Garefowl, London, 1885, p. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 117 note 1} Breuil, H., ‘The Pre-Neolithic Industries of Scotland’, in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. lvi, 1921-1922, pp. 266–7Google Scholar.

^{page 117 note 2} Grieve, Symington, op. cit., 1885, pp. 53–8;Google ScholarAnderson, Joseph, ‘Notes on the Contents of a Small Cave or Rock-Shelter at Druimvargie, Oban; and of Three Shell-Mounds in Oronsay’, in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. xxxii, 1897-1898, pp. 306–13.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 3} A. Henderson Bishop, ‘An Oransay Shell-Mound—A Scottish Pre-Neolithic Site’, in ibid.,,vol. xlviii, 1913–14, pp. 52-108.

^{page 117 note 4} (a)Joseph Anderson, ‘Notice of a Cave Recently Discovered at Oban, Containing Human Remains, and a Refuse-Heap of Shells and Bones of Animals, and Stone and Bone Implements’, in ibid., vol. xxix, 1894-5, PP-211-30; (b) Sir William Turner ‘On Human and Animal Remains Found in Caves at Oban, Argyllshire’, ibid., pp. 410-38.

^{page 117 note 5} e.g. the surface flaking of the axe-like tools produced in the Late Larnian industries of Ulster, probably influenced by Baltic Forest Culture tradition from Scotland (Movius, 1942, pp. 166-70, and figs. 31, nos. 6–8, and 32, nos. 1–4, all from the Curran, Larne). In this country a closely surface-flaked tool comparing with the Irish examples has been noted in the Early Neolithic industry

of Ballantrae (Lacaille, A. D., op. cit., 1944-1945, p. 100,Google Scholar and fig. 4, no. 67).

^{page 118 note 1} McCallien, W. J. and Lacaille, A. D., op. cit. 1940-1941, p. 81,Google Scholar and fig. 6, no. 70.

^{page 118 note 2} e.g. pl. xxv, no. 15, and p. III, supra.

^{page 118 note 3} Supra, p. 114.

^{page 118 note 4} McCallien, W. J. and Lacaille, A. D., op. cit., 1940-1941, pp. 70–3,Google Scholar 87, and 91, and fig. 3, nos. 28–30.

^{page 118 note 5} Lacaille, A. D., ‘Scottish Micro-burins’, in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. lxxvi, 1941-1942, pp. 104–8Google Scholar and 119.

^{page 118 note 6} Breuil, H., op. cit., 1921-1922, pp. 265–6Google Scholar and fig. 3, no. 1.

^{page 118 note 7} Supra, pp. 114-15.

^{page 118 note 8} So far there is nothing to show that fine Tardenoisian technical methods reached Ireland.

^{page 118 note 9} Movius, H. L., ‘Report on a Stone Age Excavation at Rough Island, Co. Down’, journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ire., vol. lxx, 1940, p. 131Google Scholar and fig. 7, no. 78.

^{page 118 note 10} Lacaille, A. D., op. cit., 1944–45, pp. 98–9,Google Scholar and fig. 4, no. 62.

^{page 120 note 1} Breuil, H., op. cit., 1921-1922, pp. 265–6,Google Scholar fig. 3, nos. 2–7.

^{page 120 note 2} Movius, H. L., op. cit., 1942, p. 157,Google Scholar and fig. 25, nos. 1–4.

^{page 120 note 3} Supra, pp. 110 and 112-13.

^{page 120 note 4} Breuil, H., op. cit., 1921-1922, p. 269,Google Scholar and examples in fig. 4.

^{page 120 note 5} Movius, H. L., op. cit., 1942, pp. 183–5.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 6} McCallien, W. J. and Lacaille, A. D., op. cit., 1940-1941, pp. 82–4,Google Scholar and fig. 6, nos. 73–5.

^{page 120 note 7} Lacaille, A. D., op. cit., 1944-1945, p. 98,Google Scholar and fig. 4, nos. 56–8.

^{page 122 note 1} Cf. the end-worn pebbles from here (pp. 125-6), from Oronsay, and Oban, as well as from the Morar site (p. 115).

^{page 122 note 2} Anderson, Joseph, op. cit., 1894-1895, p. 222Google Scholar and fig. 10.

^{page 122 note 3} Cf. the two lined fragments of barbed bone points from Cnoc Sligeach, Oronsay ( Bishop, A. Henderson, op. cit., 1913–14, p. 97,Google Scholar and fig. 38).

^{page 122 note 4} Ibid., p. 95.

^{page 122 note 5} Similar implements of bone and deer-horn have been found in a shell-heap on Inchkeith in the Firth of Forth (Anderson, Joseph, op. cit., 1897–8, p. 304 fn.)Google Scholar.

^{page 122 note 6} Anderson, Joseph, op. cit., 1894-1895, pp. 222–3.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 1} Bishop, A. Henderson, op. cit., 1913-1914, pp. 98–9;Google ScholarBreuil, H., op. cit., 1921-1922, p. 271,Google Scholar and fig. 6.

^{page 123 note 2} Supra, p. 107.

^{page 123 note 3} Munro, Robt., Prehistoric Scotland, Edinburgh, 1899, pp. 57–8, and fig. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 4} Breuil, H., op. cit., 1921-1922, p. 271,Google Scholar and fig. 6.

^{page 123 note 5} Anderson, Joseph, op. cit., 1897-1898, p. 309.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 6} Ibid., p. 302.

^{page 123 note 7} Anderson, Joseph, op. cit., 1894-1895, P. 224Google Scholar and fig. 13. He has suggested (loc. cit.) that this and another example may have been broken from longer implements, and that the damaged lower part was rounded off.

^{page 124 note 1} Conveniently summarized by , Movius, op. cit., 1942, p. 185,Google Scholar and fig. 39, nos. 2, 3, and 9.

^{page 124 note 2} Op. cit., 1921-1922, p. 261.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 3} ‘The Forest Cultures of Northern Europe: A Study in Evolution and Diffusion’, in Journ. Roy. Anthr. Inst., vol. lxi, 1931, p. 333.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 1} Supra, pp. 120–2.

^{page 125 note 2} Op. cit., 1885, p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 3} Comparable examples have been noted at prehistoric coastal sites outside Scotland. For instance, in south-west Pembrokeshire they have been found with the products of a flaked-stone industry which includes crude choppers and a suite of other tools very similar to those manufactured at Risga and places referred to in this communication. See Cantrill's, T. C. ‘Flint Chipping-floors in south-west Pembrokeshire’, in Arch. Cambr., 6th series, vol. xv, 1915, pp. 157–210, passimGoogle Scholar.

^{page 126 note 1} Because of the aspect of its bone and antlerimplements the Obanian industry has often been described as Azilian. It has even been suggested that this industry of the Scottish seaboard is of Azilian age. Butit is only fair to remember that the late Professor James Geikie long ago recognized that a prolonged period separated the Pyrenean post-Upper Palaeolithic culture from the Oban industry (The Antiquity of Man in Europe, Edinburgh, 1914, p. 298).Google Scholar For he assigned the former to his ‘Lower Forestian’ climatic epoch and the latter to his ‘Upper Turbarian“, respectively the Boreal and Atlantic climatic phases. The accuracy of this ascription of the full Azilian culture is now proved.

It has therefore to be conceded that elements of this facies could have reached Argyll by Late Atlantic times. But against this is the fact that the known diffusion of the Azilian culture does not comprise northern France. Actually its distribution in that country corresponds almost exactly to that of the parent Late Magdalenian. Moreover, owing to the probable limits of the territory reclaimed from. the Channel and the north-easterly situation of the land-bridge during the Boreal emergence, it is more than doubtful if Azilian strains penetrated into Britain: for here only the Early Magdalenian has left the slightest trace.

^{page 126 note 2} Anderson, Joseph, op. cit., 1894-1895, pp. 228–30.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 1} Grieve, Symington, The Book of Colonsay and Oronsay, Edinburgh, 1923, vol. i,pp. 42–4.Google Scholar Cf. Bishop, A. Henderson, op. cit., 1913-1914, p. 64 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 2} Lacaille, A. D.,‘Some Scottish Core-tools and Ground-flaked Implements of Stone’, in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. Ixxiv, 1939-1940, pp. 6–8Google Scholar and fig. I, nos. 4 and 5.

^{page 127 note 3} During the Atlantic climatic phase the upperreaches of the Forth would probably be fenlands within a few miles of the lower valley of the Endrick Water, a feeder of Loch Lomond.

^{page 128 note 1} C. F. C. Hawkes, review of Movius's, H. L.Irish Stone Age in Nature, 3831,3rd April 1943, p. 377Google Scholar.

^{page 128 note 2} Op. cit., 1927.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 1} Called Gorten Bay by Mr. , Lethbridge in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. lix, 1924-1925, pp. 105–8.Google Scholar In his paper, ‘Battle Site in Gorten Bay, Kentra, Ardnamurchan’, he describes small medieval relics, presumably of battles, on the shores of Cul na Croise and of another bay to the north-west. He only touches upon the prehistoric remains.

^{page 130 note 1} i.e. the Skerry in the Kyle (Sound or Strait).

^{page 130 note 2} Supra, p. 113, and pl. xxv, no. 24.

^{page 132 note 1} Cf. the small trimmed flint blade from Morar, fig. 3, no. 6, and p. 114, supra.

^{page 132 note 2} Lacaille, A. D., ‘Mesolithic Implements from Ayrshire’, in Proc. Sqc. Ant. Scot.,vol. lxiv, 1929-1930, pp. 44–5,Google Scholar and examples in fig. 2.

^{page 132 note 2} Lacaille, A. D., op. cit., 1944-1945, pp. 100–4,Google Scholar and examples in fig. 5.

^{page 133 note 1} The Shell-fish Bank.

^{page 133 note 2} It is interesting to observe that this report is the first of the kind to be published in connexion with a stone industry from a Scottish site.

^{page 134 note 1} In letter, Cambridge, 9th December, 1947.

^{page 134 note 2} Wright, W. B. and Peach, A. M., ‘The Neolithic Remains of Colonsay, in the Western Isles ofScotland’, in Geol. Mag. 562 (vol. viii, no. iv), Apri1911, pp. 164–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} Supra, pp. 125-6.

^{page 136 note 1} T. C. Lethbridge, in litt. cit. supra.

^{page 136 note 2} p. 114, and fig. 3, no. 6.

^{page 136 note 3} The antiquity nearest Rudha'n Achaidh Mhòir is the lake-dwelling of Loch nan Eala in Arisaig ( Munro, R., Ancient Scottish Lake-dwellings, Edinburgh, 1882, p. 52).Google Scholar Fractured quartzes reported from here cannot be regarded as implements. Between this manifestly late inland site and the coastal industries there exists no conceivable con-nexion.

^{page 136 note 4} ‘Excavation of Rudh 'an Dunain Cave, Skye’, in Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., vol. lxviii, 1933-1934, pp. 200Google Scholar ff. J. G. D. Clark describes the stone industry, pp. 222-3, and fig. I

^{page 137 note 1} Lacaille, A. D., op. cit., 1936–7, pp. 279–96Google Scholar.

^{page 137 note 2} It is interesting that the artifact evidence afforded by the site at Valtos contrasts with that from the villages of earlier but culturally more advanced people at Skara Brae, Orkney, and Jarlshof, Shetland.At both northern settlements among the variety of stone tools few show the refinements of craftsmanship. On the other hand, the relics of the bone-work comprise well-defined forms which illustrate the survival of Baltic traditions. ( Childe, V. G., Scotland before the Scots, London, 1948, p. 25.)Google Scholar