knapping process. This is suggested by the platform preparation on one core and some of the flakes and blades, together with the presence amongst the debitage of two flakes that could be classified as core rejuvenation flakes. The first is a flanc de nucleus recovered from a thick hillwash layer above the main prehistoric levels (Fig. 6, context 90). This flake has been struck from the side of a core at 90 degrees to the original platform, and has removed the flaked face of the core and the edge of the original platform. The second ‘rejuvenation’ flake is from another sealing hillwash layer (context 91, not shown on section), and has resulted from a sharp blow set some way back from the edge of the core platform to remove the platform edge, where the previous removals had undercut the platform. In both cases these removals would have allowed flaking of the core to continue, and it is unlikely that they are accidental removals. It seems fairly certain from the excavated contexts that both these pieces must be derived, washed down from further up the hill.
   The first tool is also derived from a hillwash layer (context 130, not shown on section). It consists of a single side-and-end scraper manufactured on a flake fragment (Fig. 7.3). Abrupt retouch has modified one lateral edge and the proximal end of a flake or blade fragment, after removal of the bulb and platform. The opposite lateral edge could not have functioned as a knife, so the retouch cannot have been intended as backing. It is therefore concluded that this was intended for use as a side-and-end scraper, and was most probably used by a left handed person.
   The second tool came from the burnt apron deposit on the west side, context 55, and must be directly associated with the main site under consideration here. It is unburnt and has been manufactured on a disc-shaped flake that has been heavily abraded or ground around the proximal end, along one lateral edge and partly around the distal end (Fig. 7.1). A small number of semi-abrupt or invasive retouch flakes have then been removed bifacially, probably as a result of this preparation rather than as secondary working. The opposite lateral edge has some semi-abrupt retouch forming a shallow concave area, together with possible utilisation damage along this edge. The abrasion or grinding may have been intended as preparation of the flake edge for subsequent bifacial invasive removals, although if this was the case it was either abandoned or utilised without this additional retouch taking place. This tool does not fit any current standard implement type, but is most closely related to a discoidal knife, possibly unfinished, or utilised in its partly made state.
   In addition to the above tools, there was also a hard hammer-struck blade from context 55, with possible utilisation damage along one lateral edge (Fig. 7.2), together with a retouched flake and a retouched fragment from later contexts (not illustrated).
   The largest sub-assemblage of flints, comprising 72 pieces, was recovered from the apron of burnt debris around the prehistoric pits (contexts 55 and 96). This includes 54 flakes and blades, 11 flake fragments, both of the cores and the core fragments, together with the discoidal knife and utilised blade (Fig. 7). The flakes are predominantly hard hammer-struck, whilst most of the ‘soft hammer-struck’ pieces were probably removed with a soft stone hammer. Apart from a single residual, probable Mesolithic bladelet, all this material would fit a Later Neolithic