This page (revision-35) was last changed on 15-Oct-2014 11:59 by Administrator

This page was created on 22-Jul-2014 10:34 by Mesolithic

Only authorized users are allowed to rename pages.

Only authorized users are allowed to delete pages.

Page revision history

Version Date Modified Size Author Changes ... Change note
35 15-Oct-2014 11:59 79 KB Administrator to previous
34 23-Jul-2014 13:48 79 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
33 23-Jul-2014 12:11 79 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
32 23-Jul-2014 10:38 78 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
31 23-Jul-2014 10:37 78 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
30 23-Jul-2014 10:36 78 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
29 23-Jul-2014 10:32 77 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
28 23-Jul-2014 10:30 77 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
27 23-Jul-2014 10:28 77 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
26 22-Jul-2014 14:30 77 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
25 22-Jul-2014 14:29 77 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
24 22-Jul-2014 14:29 77 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
23 22-Jul-2014 14:28 77 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
22 22-Jul-2014 14:18 77 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last
21 22-Jul-2014 13:43 77 KB Mesolithic to previous | to last Mesol_Res_Cons_Framework ==> Meso_Res_Cons_Framework

Page References

Incoming links Outgoing links
Meso_Res_Cons_Framework...nobody
Meso_Res_Cons_Framework

Version management

Difference between version and

At line 1 changed one line
Mesolithic Research and Conservation Framework 2013.
!!!Mesolithic Research and Conservation Framework 2013.
At line 3 changed one line
Edward Blinkhorn and Nicky Milner
!!Edward Blinkhorn and Nicky Milner
At line 5 changed one line
Summary Statement
[{TableOfContents }]
At line 7 added 4 lines
[Download a PDF version of this report|MRF_complete.pdf]
!!Summary Statement
At line 8 changed one line
archaeology had developed a distinct agenda and set of requirements. Since 1999, Mesolithic archaeology has indeed changed significantly: many important discoveries have been made and there has been increased interest in the period among both archaeologists and the public. A new Mesolithic Framework was necessary in order to improve understanding of the period and guide future work. Accordingly this document outlines the current challenges facing the study of the
archaeology had developed a distinct agenda and set of requirements. Since 1999, Mesolithic archaeology has indeed changed significantly: many important discoveries have been made and there has been increased interest in the period among both archaeologists and the public. A new Mesolithic Framework was necessary in order to improve understanding of the period and guide future work. Accordingly this document outlines the current challenges facing the study of the
At line 11 changed one line
Introduction
!!Introduction
At line 13 changed one line
Background and aims of the Framework
!Background and aims of the Framework
At line 29 changed one line
What is the Mesolithic and what are the challenges of studying it?
[{Image src='Postglacial_project.jpg' width='500' height='..' align='center' caption='Excavating horse bone at the long blade site on Flixton Island, 2013(© POSTGLACIAL
project)'}]
At line 36 added 2 lines
!What is the Mesolithic and what are the challenges of studying it?
At line 33 changed 2 lines
There are hints of temporal succession in the Early Mesolithic assemblage types of the Preboreal (Reynier 2005) and some indications of Middle Mesolithic developments around the beginning of the Boreal, but the chronologies require more work. In addition, the nature and timing of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition is much debated (Milner 2010). Although the general consensus is that at some point around 4000 cal BC changes associated with the Neolithic occur (see eg Whittle et al 2011), rod microlith sites have been identified as particularly late vestiges of Mesolithic behaviour, possibly extending into the 4th millennium cal BC (eg Spikins 2002, 43; Chatterton 2005; French et al 2007, 283). Overall, the lack of chronological refinement for the whole of the Mesolithic has been thrown into sharper relief by the precision now achieved for the Early Neolithic through Bayesian modelling (Whittle et
al 2011).
There are hints of temporal succession in the Early Mesolithic assemblage types of the Preboreal (Reynier 2005) and some indications of Middle Mesolithic developments around the beginning of the Boreal, but the chronologies require more work. In addition, the nature and timing of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition is much debated (Milner 2010). Although the general consensus is that at some point around 4000 cal BC changes associated with the Neolithic occur (see eg Whittle et al 2011), rod microlith sites have been identified as particularly late vestiges of Mesolithic behaviour, possibly extending into the 4th millennium cal BC (eg Spikins 2002, 43; Chatterton 2005; French et al 2007, 283). Overall, the lack of chronological refinement for the whole of the Mesolithic has been thrown into sharper relief by the precision now achieved for the Early Neolithic through Bayesian modelling (Whittle et al 2011).
At line 44 added 3 lines
[{Image src='Low_Hauxley.jpg' width='500' height='..' align='center' caption='Cliff face section at Low Hauxley showing tsunami deposit and underlying sediments (© Clive Waddington,
Archaeological Research Services Ltd)'}]
At line 56 added 2 lines
[{Image src='StarCarr_plan.jpg' width='..' height='600' align='center' caption='The full extent of early Mesolithic activity at Star Carr (© POSTGLACIAL project)'}]
At line 62 added 2 lines
[{Image src='Low_Hauxley2.jpg' width='500' height='..' align='center' caption='A youth group excavating at the site of Low Hauxley which had been eroding into the sea (© Clive Waddington, Archaeological Research Services Ltd)'}]
At line 62 changed one line
Achievements since 1999
__Case Study: [Asfordby. Lynden Cooper, University of Leicester Archaeological Services|Asfordby]__
At line 77 added 2 lines
!Achievements since 1999
At line 102 changed one line
National Park; work at North Park Farm, Surrey, where excavations of Mesolithic archaeology by the Surrey County Archaeological Unit, Archaeoscape and volunteers (Guinness 2012) inspired Surrey County
National Park; work at North Park Farm, Surrey, where excavations of Mesolithic archaeology by the Surrey County Archaeological Unit, Archaeoscape and volunteers (Guinness 2012) inspired Surrey County Council to organise a ‘Stone Age Summer’ (2006). Current projects at
Blick Mead near Vespasian’s Camp, Wiltshire, Flixton Island North Yorkshire, and Low Hauxley all include outreach elements such as the participation of school children and volunteers in the excavations. Meanwhile Emily Hellewell has developed a number of activities for children which have been made into a freely available resource pack, Life in the Mesolithic (Hellewell 2012). This has been disseminated to Young Archaeologists’ Club volunteers in order to engage 8–16 year olds with the period.
__Case Study: [Stainton West, Cumbria. Fraser Brown, Oxford Archaeology|Stainton_West]__
__Case Study: [The value of human remains and the potential of ancient DNA studies. Rick Schulting, University of Oxford, and Oliver Craig, University of York|DNA_studies]__
[{Image src='Howick.jpg' width='500' height='..' align='center' caption='The site of Howick and a reconstruction of the Mesolithic house (© Clive Waddington, Archaeological Research Services Ltd)'}]
!!Primary Research Themes
!Introduction
Three primary research themes have been identified for future investigation, broken down into specific questions, many of which have drawn upon other regional, national or thematic frameworks across the country. They have changed from those in the 1999 framework in order to reflect the focus in this framework document on purely Mesolithic research and the advances made in the last fourteen years. The themes are:
# Living in a changing world
# Mesolithic lifeways
# Investigating change and diversity
!Theme 1: Living in a changing world
The Mesolithic is notable for a number of recognised climatic and natural environmental phenomena including rapid climate change at the start of the Holocene, the Preboreal oscillation (Hoek and Bos 2007), the 8.2 kiloyear event (Alley and Ágústsdóttir 2005; Edwards et al 2006), a tsunami caused by the Storegga slide (Weninger et al 2008), and the creation of the British Isles as an archipelago of islands as a result of rising sea levels, the breaching of the strait of Dover (Gupta et al 2007) and the final submersion of Doggerland (Gaffney et al 2007). At the same time there is widespread evidence for anthropogenic change in a landscape enriched by successions of flora and fauna adapting to local conditions. The following questions aim to address the relationship and interaction between human populations and the environment.
* T1.1: What was the effect of the climate and environment on past communities, including both long-term processes and brief events such as the Storegga tsunami?
* T1.2: What was the impact of a human presence upon the environment, vegetation, and animal population, and how does this compare to the wider European evidence?
* T1.3: To what extent did environmental change impact upon Mesolithic technology and ‘tool kits’?
* T1.4: How can our understanding of Holocene environmental change inform perspectives on climate change in the present day?
!Theme 2: Mesolithic lifeways
Social narratives of the period have become more prevalent in recent years, highlighting Mesolithic people as primary agents of change. These perspectives have not sidelined traditional approaches. Rather, new theoretical perspectives have added a social dimension to understanding various aspects of Mesolithic archaeology, such as technology (Conneller
2000b; Warren 2006; Elliott and Milner 2010; Finlay 2003), death (Conneller 2006), settlement and mobility (Spikins 2000; Milner 1999; McFadyen 2006), ritual (Bevan 2003; Chatterton 2006; Conneller 2004), and diet (Milner 2005; 2009). The following questions aim to address aspects of the human experience during the Mesolithic and work out how to build narratives based around the material evidence.
__Technology and art__
* T2.1: What can Mesolithic technology (eg stone, antler, bone and wood working), its production, use and deposition, tell us about Mesolithic lifeways?
* T2.2: To what extent can we understand the sourcing of raw materials and the movement of materials and people at different spatial scales?
* T2.3: How can we better understand spatial and temporal variation in lithic technology, use and deposition?
* T2.4: Can instances of Mesolithic cave and portable art be identified and dated, and placed within a broader understanding of social and geographical context?
__Settlement and mobility__
* T2.5: To what extent can the composition, size and geographical characteristics of lithic scatters be used to define different types of site in the Mesolithic?
* T2.6: What is the range and nature of structural remains? How were structures built, how were they used, and did these features change through space and time?
* T2.7: How were caves and rock shelters utilised in this period and what were their relationship to open-air sites?
* T2.8: How did mobility strategies develop from the Lateglacial to the end of the Mesolithic?
* T2.9: Can patterns of territoriality be distinguished?
* T2.10: How were coastal, island and marine environments incorporated into networks of interaction?
__People__
* T2.11: What did people eat and how varied were their diets?
* T2.12: What was the health of people at this time?
* T2.13: How did the living treat the dead?
* T2.14: What was the genetic relationship between Mesolithic human populations, their predecessors and successors?
* T2.15: Is it possible to understand social organisation in the Mesolithic better? For instance, group sizes and population density?
!Theme 3: Investigating change and diversity
Despite spanning the first half of the Holocene, the Mesolithic has often been discussed as a uniform concept, consequently removing a sense of change and history across almost six millennia. Additionally, interpretations of the few sites with good preservation have been extrapolated to other sites which are temporally distant and geographically diverse. Three main sub-periods are brought into focus: transition from the Terminal Palaeolithic to the Early Mesolithic; change during the Mesolithic; and transition from the Later Mesolithic to the
Early Neolithic.
__Understanding the transition from Lateglacial to early Postglacial hunter-gatherer societies__
* T3.1: Did people occupy Britain during the Younger Dryas, the last cold snap of the Lateglacial?
* T3.2: How can we refine the chronology for long blade sites and for Early Mesolithic sites, and the relationship between the two?
* T3.3: How did human occupation relate to climate and environmental change at the beginning of the Holocene?
* T3.4: What were the origins of the people who occupied Britain at the start of the Holocene?
__Identifying change through the Mesolithic at national and regional scales__
* T3.5: Can we refine further the chronology of Mesolithic lithic industries? For instance, is it possible to refine the spatial and temporal limits of distinctive lithic assemblage types (eg Star Carr, Deepcar, Horsham) and what may these distribution patterns imply? What do the changes in tool form, especially microliths, indicate?
* T3.6: How did bone, antler and woodworking technology change through time and across space?
* T3.7: What changes were there in animal exploitation through the Mesolithic? What were the key arrival and extinction events?
* T3.8: How did subsistence practices and diet change through time and space?
* T3.9: How variable was site use and landscape use through this period?
* T3.10: When and how did Britain become separated from continental Europe and what impact did this have on human groups?
* T3.11: Can radiocarbon dates be used as a proxy for population fluctuation during the Mesolithic?
* T3.12: Were there significant social changes taking place within this period?
__Understanding the transition from the Later Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic__
* T3.13: Can we further refine the dating of final Mesolithic sites and how do these relate to the Early Neolithic?
* T3.14: How can we investigate the character of final Mesolithic archaeology?
* T3.15: Why does there appear to be a paucity of dated 5th-millennium Mesolithic sites?
* T3.16: When do domesticates appear in the archaeological record and what evidence is there for overlap with Mesolithic populations?
* T3.17: What happened to the final Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups when farming peoples brought domesticates to the British Isles?
!!Strategic Themes
!Introduction
The questions set out in the Primary Research Themes can be addressed through a number of strategies for future Mesolithic research and conservation. This section sets out practical ways of advancing Mesolithic research, ensuring conservation of the resource and providing wider access to the period.
!Strategy 1: Improving public engagement and education
Allowing both the wider archaeological sector and the public to engage with the Mesolithic will aid in the progression of Mesolithic research as set out in all three primary research themes, as well as improving conservation and management of the resource. In addition, it is
important to establish the period as a key part of Britain’s history alongside other better-known periods, by demonstrating the exciting potential of the resource and the importance of new discoveries.
The Mesolithic has been conspicuous by its relatively low profile amongst the public and even within archaeological circles. This low profile means that innovative means of communication need to be sought so that the Mesolithic can compete both with the older and more ‘exotic’
Palaeolithic, and later periods replete with monumental archaeology and more familiar means of living. However, since 1999, there has been a sizeable shift in attitudes to public engagement and a sense of duty to communicate archaeological findings of projects more widely. In fact,
impact beyond academic circles is now positively encouraged.
* S1.1: National media coverage should be increased to demonstrate the high relevance (to current social, political and environmental concerns) of earlier human adaptations to changes in climate and relative sea level during the Mesolithic.
* S1.2: Museums should be encouraged to establish a greater presence for the Mesolithic: currently the visibility of the period from displays is generally minimal, particularly when compared to other countries in Europe, such as Denmark, where the presentation of the Mesolithic is much more prominent.
* S1.3: Innovative means of presentation should be explored to present Early Holocene archaeology to the public, particularly digital technologies which can be made accessible over the internet. Resources should be developed on the identification of materials, particularly lithics, and opportunities could be provided for handling. Innovative means of presentation should be tested, such as rotating images using multi-image photogrammetry (structure-from-motion) which could be mounted on websites, or 3D printing of key diagnostic pieces.
* S1.4: Engagement with local communities is essential to engender a spirit of shared ownership in decision-making about how land is managed and the means by which archaeology is accessed and preserved. Working with local societies and raising awareness among relevant people about at-risk zones, such as eroding coastlines, could help with monitoring and research.
* S1.5: Workshops could be set up to train interested parties in Mesolithic archaeology and how to identify materials from this period.
* S1.6: Archaeologists should actively engage schools in diverse ways (such as visits by archaeologists or production of resource packs) to expose primary and secondary education professionals and pupils to an otherwise remote period. We should also aim to establish the Mesolithic as a component period of prehistory within the National Curriculum.
* S.1.7: We should assess the extent to which undergraduates have an understanding of the Mesolithic and increase the opportunities for training on Mesolithic sites: it is critical that future generations of archaeologists are made fully aware of Mesolithic issues, as part of developing and applying appropriate research methodologies in prehistory.
* S.1.8: PhD research undertaken since the last framework has provided a significant and important output for the Mesolithic but opportunities for postgraduate research have now fallen significantly due to changes in AHRC funding routes. New ways of funding should be sought, for instance, through the new AHRC collaborative doctoral partnerships which could provide an opportunity for potential Mesolithic researchers to work with organisations such as English Heritage or the British Museum.
__Case Study: [Engaging people with Star Carr. Nicky Milner, University of York|Star_Carr]__
!Strategy 2: Enhancing approaches to fieldwork and survey
All three of the research themes are dependent on obtaining good-quality data. The important discoveries which have been made since 1999 have overturned the ways in which the Mesolithic is interpreted and this momentum needs to continue, in particular focusing on sites which can
provide data on the palaeoenvironment (T1.1–T1.4, T3.7, T3.8, T3.16), structures and site sizes (T2.5–T2.7), human remains (T2.11–T2.12), rare organic artefacts made of plants, bone and antler (T2.1, T3.6) and providing opportunities for dating (T3.1–T3.17). It is also important that we focus resources on sites at risk, such as wetland sites where peat
is drying out, dry land sites which are being ploughed away or coastal sites which are eroding into the sea: these may not survive for future generations to research.
Mesolithic archaeology is notoriously difficult to find because the remains tend to be ephemeral and consequently further research is needed to develop robust strategies for prospection. Some sites such as lithic scatters, particularly in plough soil, have been viewed as of little value but this is not the case and strategies to address these will enable important research questions to be answered (T2.1–T2.3, T2.5, T2.8–T2.10, T3.5, T3.9, T3.10, T3.14, T3.15, T3.17). Intelligent approaches to fieldwork are essential if the production of inappropriate datasets is to be avoided and sites are not to be overlooked. This is especially relevant to the commercial sector where the high frequency of field interventions and the large number of multi-period sites and landscapes can lead to methodologies not best tailored to Mesolithic archaeology. Injudicious schemes of evaluation-trenching, strip-map-record or ploughzone investigations can miss or remove Mesolithic archaeology and low sampling intervals do not account for relatively intact yet discrete scatters of material.
Building on developments in Quaternary studies, and using a combination of remote sensing technologies and more intrusive fieldwork, investigation of geomorphological contexts may help explain patterns of survival and allow the development of models of favoured settlement locations in the Mesolithic, akin to those of Fischer (1995) in Denmark. The approach is applicable to terrestrial, coastal and marine contexts, and such models would be of great importance for the archaeological assessment of areas affected by development, and also in drowned and buried landscapes.
[{Image src='Vale_of_Pickering.jpg' width='..' height='600' align='center' caption='Coring to determine the depth of the Mesolithic land surface in the Vale of Pickering (© POSTGLACIAL project)'}]
__Prospection methods__
* S2.1: The extent and ways in which geophysical survey and aerial remote sensing techniques can be used to understand the presence and nature of Mesolithic archaeology need to be explored further.
* S2.2: Broader use of fieldwalking, test-pitting and other low-impact techniques is needed, especially within a developer-led context.
* S2.3: Prospection methods should be conducted at a sampling density appropriate to the scale of the archaeology that is anticipated. Due to the sometimes small and discrete nature of Mesolithic lithic scatters, many will not be found using conventional methods: however, understanding small scatters is of considerable value in researching single-scale events as well as in investigating the composition of palimpsest assemblages.
* S2.4: Novel methodologies to evaluate the locations of Mesolithic activity should be sought and successes in the field appropriately communicated across all sectors. For instance, these might be grounded in geoarchaeological modelling, or the application of borehole, coring and sieving strategies.
* S2.5: Investigation of palaeolandscapes is achievable although how different techniques perform in different environments with varying landscape histories should be evaluated.
* S2.6: Predictive/deposit modelling should be explored further to help understand the contexts in which Mesolithic archaeology is found.
* S2.7: Landscape surveys like those undertaken in the Vale of Pickering and the Severn Estuary should be carried out in other regions in order to understand the landscape context of Mesolithic activity.
[{Image src='Lake_Flixton_map.jpg' width='500' height='..' align='center' caption='Map of the
palaeolandscape of Lake Flixton obtained by coring through the peat and Late Palaeolithic and
Early Mesolithic sites found by test-pitting (Milner et al 2013) (© POSTGLACIAL project).'}]
__Lithic scatters__
* S2.8: Techniques to assess ploughsoil lithic scatters need revisiting to assess their appropriateness in determining the location and character of Mesolithic archaeology.
* S2.9: The relationship between surface scatters and the presence of in situ archaeology remains unsatisfactorily addressed, hampering the potential of ploughsoil lithic analysis. Finer-grained understanding of the extent and character of different lithic scatter sites might highlight the value of these.
* S2.10: Better methods need to be found for identifying very highintegrity sites dominated by lithic artefacts such as those recovered at March Hill (Spikins 2002), and known high-integrity sites need protection from repeated, destructive collection.
__Excavation__
* S2.11: Sites with organic preservation should be targeted in order to move beyond reliance on the small number of sites, such as Star Carr and Thatcham, Berkshire, which dominate interpretations of the period.
* S2:.12: Similarly, features containing palaeoenvironmental information should be targeted to complement archaeological information, especially where the two datasets can be demonstrated to be contemporary or relevant for investigating landscape use and development through the Early Holocene.
* S2.13: Coastal, estuarine and marine contexts also require the development of novel methodologies both to evaluate the archaeological resource and to mitigate for its destruction through development or erosion. Areas of poor data need to be targeted and archives need to be accessed through working in partnership with developers (eg wind farms) (see also the recently published maritime research agenda, Ransley et al 2013).
!Strategy 3: Scientific methods
There is enormous potential for a range of scientific techniques, both established and new, to be applied to Mesolithic datasets. There is also the potential for re-examining curated material currently held in archives in addition to any newly excavated samples.
Mesolithic archaeology has a history of applying scientific techniques, particularly those connected with the palaeoenvironment and economy, since Grahame Clark’s seminal study of Star Carr (Clark 1954). The need to understand the palaeoenvironment and palaeoclimate has not gone away, and further high-resolution techniques have been developed which are critical for answering questions related to Research Theme 1 ‘Living in a changing world’ (T1.1–T.1.4) and issues of environmental change through time (T3.1, T3.3, T3.9).
Grahame Clark carried out some very early radiocarbon dating on material from Star Carr, but approaches to dating have since gone through several revolutions, the latest being the application of Bayesian modelling which has been most notably applied to Howick, and is currently being applied to recent dates at Star Carr and Low Hauxley.There is a critical need for many more good-quality dates on Mesolithic samples in order to answer all of the questions set out in Research Theme 3 ‘Investigating change and diversity’ (T3.1–T3.17).
Biomolecular approaches have also revolutionised the ways in which we can address archaeological questions and many techniques have significant value for Mesolithic studies, particularly in addressing issues concerning people and animals (T2.11–T2.15). For instance, stable isotope studies have been used to interpret the relative contribution of animal and marine resources to the diet patterns of humans and animals (eg Schulting 2010; Schulting and Richards 2002). In addition, some forensic approaches can also be applied to stone and organic tools which can further enhance our understanding of technology and use (T2.1, T2.3, T3.6). Geochemical approaches and studies of raw materials would help us better understand the movement of stone, in turn helping to answer questions of settlement and mobility (T2.2–T2.4, T2.8–T2.10, T3.9, T3.14).
__Dating__
* S3.1: The desirability of AMS dates, and where possible the application of Bayesian modelling, should be emphasised. Where this is not possible (eg due to a lack of stratigraphy), direct dating of secure, short-lived materials, such as human or animal bone or hazelnuts, is essential in order to expand the database of Mesolithic dates and to provide a better chronological framework for the period.
* S3.2: Dating linked to lithic assemblage types is essential to underpin the development of typochronologies that can then be applied to lithic assemblages where no directly datable material survives. This should be accompanied by precision in typological description and appropriate illustration to engender confidence in lithics assessments (see Saville 2009).
* S3.3: Dates should be calibrated and expressed preferably in BC terms. Bayesian modelling depends on calibration, and use of cal BC for the entire Holocene will help overcome disjunctures across the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition.
* S3.4: Other dating techniques, such as TL (Thermoluminescence) and OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminescence), should also be considered with appropriate specialist advice.
* S3.5: Tephrochronology is relevant to some sites and can provide an important chronostratigraphic underpinning of environmental sequences. The recent recognition of cryptotephra deposits provides an expanded series of volcanic ash isochrons for potential synchronisation of environmental and archaeological records in the Lateglacial and Early Holocene.
* S3.6: Dendrochronology is a technique becoming increasingly relevant to the Mesolithic and is particularly important when dating submerged forests (eg see Bell 2007).
* S3.7: A national on-line database would be a desirable development which would include both archaeological sites and palaeoenvironmental data. It is important that dates are shared and communicated if patterns of change and continuity are to be discerned across the country.
__Case Study: [Erosion of in situ Mesolithic remains at Low Hauxley, Northumberland. Clive Waddington, Archaeological Research Services Ltd|Low_Hauxley]__
__Biomolecular techniques __
* S3.8: There is great potential for aDNA studies in order to understand population history and movement of people better. Major advances have recently been made and with a developing dataset it should be possible to carry out ground-breaking research, as in other parts of Europe. aDNA analysis on animal remains should also be extended in order to understand animal demography, arrivals and extinctions.
* S3.9: A better understanding of human and animal mobility can also be achieved through strontium and oxygen isotope analysis, which has been used to great effect in later prehistory.
* S3.10: Carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis has provided insights into human diet, including proportions of marine and terrestrial dietary components, and temporal and regional patterning. This should be continued as more human skeletal material is discovered.
* S3.11: Zooms (Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry) is a technique which uses subtle differences in collagen sequences to identify tiny bone fragments to a high taxonomic resolution (genus or species level). This is being trialled for a number of Mesolithic sites and has the potential to revolutionise the way in which bone is identified.
* S3.12: Forensic approaches to tool use, such as use-wear analysis and residue analysis, are being used more widely, particularly in other parts of Europe, to help discern the cultural biographies of stone and organic tools. Further applications in Britain are needed in order to understand how tools were used.
__Stone raw materials__
* S3.13: The establishment of national/regional lithics raw material reference collections should be undertaken in collaboration with geologists, geomorphologists and Quaternary scientists. The comparison of archaeological material with geological examples, and access to the most recent geological research, would be of great benefit in facilitating progress in an area that has been persistently slow to develop. Typochronologies with supporting dates should also be analysed with a focus on raw material selection.
* S3.14: Further investigation is needed into the potential of geochemical approaches to establish the location of lithic sources, and how trace element analysis can develop ideas of settlement and mobility.
[{Image src='Westward_Ho.jpg' width='500' height='..' align='center' caption='An aerial picture
of Westward Ho!, Devon (© N Balaam, English Heritage).'}]
__Climate and environment__
* S3.15: Well-dated palaeoenvironmental studies should continue to be undertaken to develop understanding of the temporal and spatial scales of human interaction with the environment. These should include palaeoenvironmental dating work to synchronise our chronological, environmental and archaeological records – targeted high-resolution work at coincident palaeoenvironmental and archaeological sites is key.
* S3.16: There is a need to refine understanding of the burning episodes which occur in the Mesolithic and are attributed to human agency, with the consequent need to understand patterns of wildfire occurrence and their relationship to climatic episodes favourable for burning.
* S3.17: A better understanding of the exploitation and use of plant resources in the Mesolithic is required, the data for England being very limited. An extension to this is investigating whether evidence exists for the management of woodland (eg for coppicing or nut production).
* S3.18: The archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential of Lateglacial and Postglacial landscape features such as kettle-holes, palaeochannels and areas of waterlogged deposits should be recognised and targeted. Palaeochannels are highlighted here for their potential to bear archaeological evidence of fishing, such as fish-traps and dugout canoes, that can be dated to the Mesolithic with certainty. As such they should not be discounted in schemes of investigation.
* S3.19: Submerged forests are also important, as their archaeological potential extends from submarine, through intertidal and reclaimed wetland areas. Many of those in western Britain relate to the final millennia of the Mesolithic and represent tracts of Mesolithic landscape with known Mesolithic sites, eg Westward Ho!, Devon. Elsewhere in north-west and north-east England peats have recently been dated from the Windermere Interstadial through to the Late Mesolithic and these represent a very important and, as yet, barely tapped resource.
__Case Study: [Potential for palaeoenvironmental data. Martin Bell, University of Reading|Palaeoenv]__
!Strategy 4: Curation and conservation
There is a huge amount of data that has previously been obtained but which needs further collation, investigation, publication and archiving. This includes analysis of artefacts and ecofacts stored in museums (and sometimes private collections) and unpublished data and reports
from research, commercial and amateur excavations. Through further examination of these data it may be possible to contribute answers to the questions posed for all three of the Research Themes. For instance, Rick Schulting has shown the potential for making new discoveries which
can address questions around people and lifeways (T2.11–T2.15) through dating human bone material in museum collections, and there is often potential for lithics specialists to revisit collections, thus contributing to a better understanding of technology (T2.1–T2.3). Progress in these areas will be achieved through better communication across the sector.
__Data__
* S4.1: A quality audit on radiocarbon dates from across the country encompassing the full temporal range from the Lateglacial to the last vestiges of the Mesolithic should be carried out, as has previously been undertaken in the South-West under the Ancient Human Occupation of Britain banner for the Lateglacial (see Jacobi and Higham 2009). As part of this programme, the identification of samples suitable for re-dating could be undertaken.
* S4.2: Complementing the quality audit, identification of suitable samples for radiocarbon dating in museum collections which could either enhance the value of assemblages or provide temporal clarity on specific classes of evidence (eg worked faunal remains, human bone) would open up new opportunities to investigate and refine understanding of the Mesolithic. If successful, opportunities to perform further scientific testing may be identified.
* S4.3: More widespread on-line information about museum and known private collections would facilitate access by researchers.
* S4.4: Updating Wymer’s gazetteer (1977) would reconnect Mesolithic research to museum collections and review the state and location of many key sites and assemblages. Substantial additions from rescue/developer-led and academic archaeology are anticipated.
* S4.5: For the Mesolithic to be represented properly in national and local records, standardised quality audits and enhancements need to be undertaken, especially in Historic Environment Records (HERs). This would serve the purpose both of making the HERs a viable research tool and of enabling Mesolithic archaeology to be catered for adequately in the planning process. Standards could be agreed which embed refined dating assignations into these records and draw upon palaeoenvironmental and geomorphological evidence with which to inform schemes of fieldwork and resource management.
* S4.6: Reassessment of known mixed Mesolithic–Neolithic assemblages may isolate temporal components allowing reinterpretation.
* S4.7: Comprehensive surveys of the data available for all aspects of the environment and biotope through the Lateglacial and Early Holocene would clarify the state of knowledge and identify lacunae in the national dataset.
__Analysis and publication__
* S4.8: Work on known collections held privately or by museums should be championed; many of these might form suitable projects for university students or ‘indoor’ components of community archaeological projects.
* S4.9: An audit of the regional research frameworks is required to identify significant sites which require analysis and publication, including assemblages from old academic and rescue projects known or likely to include significant Mesolithic components. For example, excavations at Eskmeals, Cumbria, and the work of the Vale of Pickering Research Trust have produced important information and their publication should be a priority.
* S4.10: Synthesis of unpublished material from various urban and rural investigations could be achieved without the necessity to publish individual collections or projects. This might elevate the perception of frequent ‘residual’ or ‘background’ Mesolithic archaeology, highlight the problems with site-based synthesis, and encourage the continued detailed recording of Mesolithic archaeology by demonstrating value through publication.
* S4.11: Reports submitted to OASIS for inclusion in Historic Environment Records and the Archaeology Data Service should take care to include Mesolithic information even where its recovery was incidental to the original aims of the investigation.
* S4.12: Guidelines for long-term storage and curation (and, on exceptional occasions, disposal) of lithic artefact collections would ensure their continued relevance and research value.
__Communications__
* S4.13: The potential impact of changes in land-use and development on Mesolithic archaeology, as part of the planning process or otherwise, needs to be recognised at an early stage. There is a need to realise that Mesolithic deposits are important and are more prevalent than is sometimes imagined.
* S4.14: Stronger connections between the university, museum and commercial sectors are necessary to promote sharing of both interpretative and methodological findings and developments. Further to this, effective cross-sector relationships may prove to be fruitful in establishing efficient schemes by which one party can fill the other’s skills gap as necessary.
* S4.15: Closer connections between Mesolithic specialists and local planning archaeologists are needed in order to strengthen the academic justification for undertaking research into the Mesolithic, and communicate this justification to developers.
* S4.16: Opportunities potentially exist to engage with groups already researching or managing resources pertinent to Postglacial climate, palaeoenvironment and geomorphology. These may exist within agencies such as Natural England, charities like the RSPB or the private sector. The success of the North Sea Palaeolandscapes Project is testament to the benefits of engaging with Quaternary science and industry in gaining access to established datasets.
* S4.17: There is great potential for further collaborations between academics in a range of University departments (including but not confined to geology, geography, ecology, biology and oceanography) to investigate changes in sea level, climate, vegetation and landforms during the Early Holocene/Mesolithic periods.
!!Studies
![Asfordby. Lynden Cooper, University of Leicester Archaeological Services|Asfordby]
![Stainton West, Cumbria. Fraser Brown, Oxford Archaeology|Stainton_West]
![The value of human remains and the potential of ancient DNA studies. Rick Schulting, University of Oxford, and Oliver Craig, University of York|DNA_studies]
![Engaging people with Star Carr. Nicky Milner, University of York|Star_Carr]
![Erosion of in situ Mesolithic remains at Low Hauxley, Northumberland. Clive Waddington, Archaeological Research Services Ltd|Low_Hauxley]
![Potential for palaeoenvironmental data. Martin Bell, University of Reading|Palaeoenv]
![Mapping Doggerland. Vince Gaffney and Simon Fitch, University of Birmingham|Doggerland]
!!Conclusion
Mesolithic archaeology is an exciting area of study with the potential for many more important discoveries to be made in the future. The three themes of ‘Living in a changing world’, ‘Mesolithic lifeways’, and ‘Investigating change and diversity’ provide a range of questions which commercial archaeologists, academics, students, planners and the public can use to advance Mesolithic research. The ways in which we might do this are set out as strategies which are aimed at ensuring the conservation of the resource and providing wider access to the period.
!!Acknowledgements
We would like to thank English Heritage for funding this project and especially Jonathan Last who has monitored the progress of the work. We are also grateful to the Department of Archaeology, University of York, and in particular Claire McNamara, Claire Watkins, Jo Tozer and Ben Elliott who have provided additional administrative support. We thank ADS for technical support and particularly Catherine Hardman and Tim Evans who have provided expertise on the production of a dedicated site where the framework and associated documents will be hosted. We also thank the Council for British Archaeology and particularly Catrina Appleby and Frances Mee, along with Lucy Frontani of Carnegie Publishing, for producing the paper version of the Framework. Finally, we are extremely grateful to everyone who participated in the
construction of the Assessment report and the Framework through email correspondence and participation in the on-line discussion. We would particularly like to thank the following people for attending a meeting for interested experts from across the sector and for commenting on and providing text and images for this document: Martin Bell, Fraser Brown,
Chantal Conneller, Lynden Cooper, Oliver Craig, Ben Elliott, Tim Evans, Simon Fitch, Vince Gaffney, Jim Innes, Jonathan Last, Maria Medlycott, Andrew Myers, Matt Pope, Alan Saville, Rick Schulting, Penny Spikins, Sue Stallibrass, Fraser Sturt, and Clive Waddington.
!!References
Allen, M J and Gardiner, J, 2002 A sense of time: cultural markers in the Mesolithic of southern England?, in B David and M Wilson (eds), Inscribed Landscapes: Marking and Making Place, 139–53. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press
Alley, R B and Ágústsdóttir, A M, 2005 The 8k event: cause and consequences of a major Holocene abrupt climate change, Quaternary Sci Revs 24, 1123–49
Bailey, G and Spikins, P (eds), 2008 Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Barton, R N E and Roberts, A J, 2004 The Mesolithic period in England: current perspectives and new research,’ in A Saville (ed), Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours. The Early Holocene Prehistory of Scotland, its British and Irish context, and some Northern European Perspectives. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 339–58
Bell, M, 2007 Prehistoric Coastal Communities: The Mesolithic in western Britain, CBA Res Rep 149. York: Council for British Archaeology
Bevan, L, 2003 Stag nights and horny men: antler symbolism and interaction with the animal world during the Mesolithic, in Bevan and Moore (eds) 2003, 35–44
Bevan, L and Moore, J (eds), 2003 Peopling the Mesolithic in a northern environment, BAR Internat Ser 1157. Oxford: Archaeopress
Blinkhorn, E H, 2012 The Mesolithic and the Planning Process in England. York University unpublished PhD thesis
Blinkhorn, E H and Milner, N, 2012a Developing a Mesolithic Research and Conservation Framework: Resource Assessment. Available at http: ????
Blinkhorn, E H and Milner, N, 2012b Developing a Mesolithic Research and Conservation Framework: Research Agenda, unpublished report, University of York
Bond, C, 2010 The Portable Antiquities Scheme: the contribution of lithics and lithic scatters, in S Worrell, G Egan, J Naylor, K Leahy, and M Lewis (eds), A Decade of Discovery: Proceedings of the Portable Antiquities Scheme Conference 2007, BAR Brit Ser 520. Oxford: Archaeopress, 19–38
Booth, P, Champion, T, Foreman, S, Garwood, P, Glass, H, Munby, J and Reynolds, A, 2011 On Track: the Archaeology of High Speed I Section I in Kent. Oxford and Salisbury: Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monogr 4
Boreham, S, Conneller, C, Milner, N, Needham, A, Boreham, J and Rolfe, C J, 2011 Geochemical indicators of preservation status and site deterioration at Star Carr, J Archaeol Sci 38 (10), 2833–57
Bradley, P and Hey, G, 1993 A Mesolithic Site at New Plantation, Fyfield and Tubney, Oxfordshire, Oxoniensia 58, 1–26
Brunning, R and Firth, H, 2012 An early Mesolithic cemetery at Greylake, Somerset, UK, Mesolithic Miscellany 22 (1), 19–21
Chatterton, R, 2005 Transition and persistence: material culture in the Mesolithic landscape of north Yorkshire, University of Manchester unpublished PhD thesis
Chatterton, R, 2006 Ritual in Conneller and Warren (eds) 2006, 101–20 Ch’ng, E and Gaffney, V, forthcoming Simulation and Visualisation of Agent Survival and Settlement Behaviours in the Hunter-Gatherer Colonisation of Mesolithic Landscapes, in E Ch’ng, V Gaffney and H Chapman (eds), Visual Heritage in the Digital Age. Springer Cultural Computing Series References 43
Clark, J G D, 1954 Excavations at Star Carr, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Coles B J, 1998 Doggerland: a speculative survey, Proc Prehist Soc 64, 45–81
Conneller, C J (ed), 2000a New Approaches to Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Archaeology, Archaeological Review from Cambridge 17.1
Conneller, C J, 2000b Fragmented spaces? Hunter-gatherer landscapes in the Vale of Pickering, in Conneller 2000a (ed), 139–50
Conneller, C, 2004 Becoming deer. Corporeal transformations at Star Carr, Archaeological Dialogues 11 (1), 37–56
Conneller, C, 2006 Death, in Conneller and Warren (eds), 139–64
Conneller, C, Milner, N, Taylor, B and Taylor, M, 2012 Structured settlement in the European early Mesolithic: New research at Star Carr, Antiquity 86, 1004–20
Conneller, C and Warren, G (eds), 2006 Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: New Approaches. Stroud: Tempus
Davies, G, Buckland, P, Chamberlain, A, Richards, M, Tweddle, J and Tyers, I, 2001 A Palaeoenvironmental Study and Watching Brief on Borrow Pits at Staythorpe Power Station.
Sheffield: Archaeological Research and Consultancy at the University of Sheffield
Eadie, G, 2013 The North West Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment (NWRCZA) Phase 2 Final Report
Eadie, G and Waddington, C, 2013 Rescue Recording of an Eroding Inter-Tidal Peat Bed at Low Hauxley, Northumberland (6109), Report No 2013/17. Gateshead: Archaeological Research Services
Edwards, K J, Langdon, P G and Sugden, H, 2006 Separating climatic and possible human impacts in the early Holocene: biotic response around the time of the 8200 cal. yr BP event, J Quaternary Sci 22, 77–84
Elliott, B J, and Milner, N, 2010 Making a point: a critical review of the barbed point manufacturing process practiced at Star Carr, Proc Prehist Soc 76, 75–94
Elphinstone, M, 2009 The Gathering Night. Edinburgh: Canongate English Heritage, 2011 English Heritage Corporate Plan 2011–2015, [http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/publications/corporate-plan-2011-2015/|http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/publications/corporate-plan-2011-2015/] (accessed August 2013)
English Heritage, 2012 National Heritage Protection Plan: an introduction, [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/nhpp-leaflet/|http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/nhpp-leaflet/] (accessed August 2013)
Finlay, N, 2003 Microliths and Multiple authorship in L Larsson, H Kindgren, K Knutsson, D Loeffler and A Akerlund (eds), Mesolithic on the Move. Oxford: Oxbow, 169–76
Fischer, A, 1995 An entrance to the Mesolithic world beneath the ocean. Status of ten years work on the Danish sea floor, in A Fischer (ed), Man and Sea in the Mesolithic. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 371–84
Fitch, S and Gaffney, V with Ramsey, E & Kitchen, E 2011 West Coast Palaeolandscapes Survey. [http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/wcpp_eh_2013/|http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/wcpp_eh_2013/] (web format)
and [http://www.dyfedarchaeology.org.uk/lostlandscapes/|http://www.dyfedarchaeology.org.uk/lostlandscapes/] (pdf) (accessed September 2013)
Foreman, S, 2009 Channel Tunnel Rail Link Section 1. York: Archaeology Data Service (doi:
[10.5284/1000230|http://dx.doi.org/10.5284/1000230]).
French, C, Lewis, H, Allen, M J, Green, M, Scaife, R and Gardiner, J, 2007 Prehistoric Landscape Development and Human Impact in the Upper Allen Valley, Cranborne Chase, Dorset. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research monogr
Gaffney, V, Thomson, K and Fitch, S (eds), 2007 Mapping Doggerland: The Mesolithic Landscapes of the Southern North Sea. Oxford: Archaeopress
Gaffney, V, Fitch, S and Smith, D, 2009 Europe’s Lost World: the Rediscovery of Doggerland, CBA Res Rep 160. York: Council for British Archaeology
Gaffney, V, Fitch, S, Ramsey, E, Yorston, R, Ch’ng, E, Baldwin, E, Bates, R, Gaffney, C, Ruggles, C, Sparrow, T, McMillan, A, Cowley, D, Fraser, S, Murray, C, Murray, H, Hopla, E and Howard, A, 2013 Time and a place: a luni-solar ‘time-reckoner’ from 8th millennium BC Scotland, Internet Archaeology 34 ([http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue34/1|http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue34/1])
Guinness, A, 2012 A Mesolithic site at North Park Farm Quarry, Bletchingley: an archaeological investigation, [http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/?a=189942|http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/?a=189942] (accessed September 2013)
Gupta, S, Collier, J, Palmer-Felgate, A and Potter, G, 2007 Catastrophic flooding origin of shelf valley systems in the English Channel, Nature 448, 342–5
Haggarty, B and Brockbank, A, 2010 MeZolith. Oxford: David Fickling Books
Hellewell, E, 2012 Life in the Mesolithic, [http://lifeinthemesolithic.wordpress.com/|http://lifeinthemesolithic.wordpress.com/] (accessed September 2013)
Hilary, K, Murray, J, Murray, C and Fraser, M F, 2009 A tale of the unknown unknowns: a Mesolithic pit alignment and a Neolithic timber hall at Warren Field, Crathes, Aberdeenshire. Oxford: Oxbow
Hoek, W M and Bos, J A A, 2007 Early Holocene climatic oscillations – causes and consequences, Quaternary Sci Revs 26, 1901–06
Jacobi, R M & Higham, T F G, 2009 The early Lateglacial re-colonization of Britain: new radiocarbon evidence from Gough’s cave, southwest England, Quaternary Sci Revs 28, 1895–913
Lewis, J, Leivers, M, Brown, L, Smith, A, Cramp, K, Mepham, L and Phillpotts, C, 2010 Landscape Evolution in the Middle Thames Valley: Heathrow Terminal 5 Excavations Volume 2, Framework Archaeology Monogr 3. Oxford and Salisbury: Framework Archaeology
Lewis, J and Rackham, J, 2011 Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge: A Lateglacial and Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherer Site in the Colne Valley. Oxford: Oxbow
McFadyen, L, 2006 Landscape, in Conneller and Warren (eds), 121–38
Mears, R and Hillman, G, 2007 Wild Food. London: Hodder & Stoughton
Meiklejohn, C, Chamberlain, A T and Schulting, R J, 2011 Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in Great Britain, Mesolithic Miscellany 21, 20–58
Mellars, P and Dark, P, 1998 Star Carr in Context. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
Milner, N, 1999 Pitfalls and Problems in Analysing and Interpreting the Seasonality of Faunal Remains, Archaeol Rev Cambridge 16 (1), 51–67
Milner, N, 2005 Seasonal consumption practices in the Mesolithic: economic, environmental, social or ritual?’, in Milner and Woodman (eds) 2005b, 56–8
Milner, N, 2009 Mesolithic consumption practices: food for thought, J Nordic Archaeol Sci 16, 49–63
Milner, N, 2010 Subsistence at 4000–3700 cal. BC: landscapes of change or continuity?, in B Finlayson and G Warren (eds), Landscapes in Transition, Levant Supplementary Series 8. Oxford: Oxbow, 46–54
Milner, N, 2012 Destructive events and the impact of climate change on Mesolithic coastal archaeology in North West Europe: past, present and future, J Coastal Conservation 16:2, 223–31
Milner, N and Woodman, P C, 2005a Looking into the Canon’s mouth: Mesolithic Studies in the 21st Century, in Milner and Woodman2005b, 1–13
Milner, N and Woodman, P (eds), 2005b Mesolithic Studies at the Beginning of the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxbow
Milner, N, Blinkhorn, E, Hadley, P, Hellewell, E, forthcoming The Meso-what? The public perception of the Mesolithic, in REF
Milner, N, Conneller, C, Elliott, B, Koon, H, Panter, I, Penkman, K, Taylor, B and Taylor, M, 2011 From Riches to Rags: Organic Deterioration at Star Carr, J Archaeol Sci 38 (10), 2818–32
Milner, N, Taylor, B, Conneller, C and Schadla-Hall, T, 2013 Star Carr: Life in Britain after the Ice Age. York: Council for British Archaeology
Momber, G Tomalin, D, Scaife, R, Satchell, J and Gillespie, J, 2011 Mesolithic occupation at Bouldnor Cliff and the submerged prehistoric landscapes of the Solent. CBA Res Rep 164. York: Council for British Archaeology
Moore, R, 2010 Flint Scatter at Priestley Farm, Flitwick, Bedfordshire Archaeol 26, 11–40 Mullan, G J and Wilson, L J, 2004 A possible Mesolithic engraving in Aveline’s Hole, Burrington Combe, North Somerset, Proc Univ Bristol Spelaeological Soc 23:2, 75–85
Mullan, G J and Wilson, L J, 2005 Mesolithic Engravings at Cheddar Gorge, Current Archaeol 199, 360–1
Mullan, G J and Wilson, L J, 2006 Possible Mesolithic Cave Art in Southern England, Internat Newsletter on Rock Art 44, 15–21
Norton, A, 2008 Extension Areas 1 and 2, Tubney Wood Quarry, Tubney, Oxfordshire: Archaeological Testpitting Report, Post Excavation Assessement and Updated Project Design. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology
Olivier, A, 1996 Frameworks for our Past. London: English Heritage
Paver, M, 2004 Wolf Brother. London: Orion
Pettitt, P, Gamble, C and Last, J (eds), 2008 Research and Conservation Framework for the British Palaeolithic. English Heritage/Prehistoric Society
Prehistoric Society, 1999 Research Frameworks for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Britain and Ireland. Salisbury: Prehistoric Society
Ransley, J, Sturt, F, Dix, J, Adams, J and Blue, L (eds), 2013 People and the Sea: A Maritime Archaeological Research Agenda for England, CBA Res Rep 171. York: Council for British Archaeology
Reynier, M, 2005 Early Mesolithic Britain: Origins, Development and Directions. BAR Brit Ser 393. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports
Richards, J, 2011 Britain’s Oldest House? BBC History website. Available at: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/oldest_house_01.shtml|http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/oldest_house_01.shtml](accessed September 2013)
Ritchie, G A, 2010 Chronological and regional variability in Late Mesolithic narrow-blade lithic assemblages from northern Britain. University of Edinburgh, unpublished PhD thesis
Saville, A, 2009 The illustration of Mesolithic artefacts and its contribution to the understanding of Mesolithic technology, in S McCartan, R Schulting, G Warren and P Woodman (eds), Mesolithic Horizons: Papers presented at the Seventh International Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 745–53
ScARF, 2012 Saville, A and Wickham-Jones, C (eds), Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Panel Report, Scottish Archaeological Research Framework: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Available online at [http://tinyurl.com/d86dgfq|http://tinyurl.com/d86dgfq] (accessed August 2013)
Schulting, R J, 2005 ‘…pursuing a rabbit in Burrington Combe’: New research on the Early
Mesolithic burial cave of Aveline’s Hole, Proc Univ Bristol Spelaeological Soc 23, 171–265
Schulting, R J, 2010 Staying home for dinner: an isotopic approach to regionality in Mesolithic Atlantic Europe, in R Barndon, A Engevik and I Øye (eds), The Archaeology of Regional Technologies: Case Studies from the Palaeolithic to the Age of the Vikings. Lewiston NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 69–88
Schulting, R J, in press ‘Tilbury Man’: a Mesolithic skeleton from the Lower Thames, Proc Prehist Soc
Schulting, R J and Richards, M P, 2002 Dogs, ducks, deer and diet: a reappraisal of the stable isotope evidence on early domestic dogs from the Vale of Pickering, north-east England, J Archaeol Sci 29,327–33
Schulting, R J, Murray, E V, McLaughlin, R, Walker, E A, Macphail, R I, Price, C and Fibiger, L, in press Mesolithic and Neolithic humans remains from Foxhole Cave (Gower, South Wales), Antiq J
Spikins, P, 2000 Ethno-facts or ethno-fiction? Searching for the structure of settlement patterns, in Young (ed) 2000, 105–18
Spikins, P A, 2002 Nomadic People of the Pennines: Reconstructing the Lifestyles of Mesolithic
People on Marsden Moor. West Yorkshire Archaeology Service and English Heritage
Spikins, P A, 2010 Research Agenda: Palaeolithic and Mesolithic West Yorkshire. Wakefield: West Yorkshire Archaeology Advisory Service
Tappin, D R, Pearse, B, Fitch, S, Dove, D, Geary, B, Hill, J, Chambers, C, Bates, R, Pinnion,
C, Green, M, Gallyot, J, Georgiou, L, Brutto, D, Marzialetti, S, Hopla, E, Ramsay, E, and Fielding, H, 2011 The Humber Regional Environmental Characterisation. British Geological Survey Open Report OR/10/54 online
Waddington, C, 1999 A Landscape Archaeological Study of the Mesolithic–Neolithic in the Milfield Basin of Northumberland. BAR Brit Ser 291. Oxford: Archaeopress
Waddington, C, 2007 Mesolithic settlement in the North Sea basin: A case study from Howick, North-East England. Oxford: Oxbow Books
Waddington, C, 2011 Low Hauxley, Northumberland: a review of archaeological interventions and site condition. Report No. 2010/25. Gateshead: Archaeological Research Services
Waddington, C and Passmore, D G, 2012 Hunter-gatherer-fishers c.13,400–3900 BC, in D G Passmore and C Waddington (eds), Archaeology and Environment in Northumberland: Till Tweed Studies Vol.2. Oxford: Oxbow, 112–40
Waddington, C and Pedersen, K, 2007 Mesolithic Studies in the North Sea Basin and Beyond. Proceedings of a Conference held at Newcastle in 2003. Oxford: Oxbow
Walker, E, 2011 Renewing the Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales: Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Periods. Available at: [http://www.archaeoleg.org.uk/documents2011.html|http://www.archaeoleg.org.uk/documents2011.html] (accessed August 2013)
Warren, G, 2006 Technology in Conneller and Warren (eds) 2006, 13–34
Waughman, M, 2012 North East Yorkshire Mesolithic Project: Phase 2 Report. Hartlepool: Tees Archaeology
Weninger, B, Schulting, R, Bradtmöller, M, Clare, L, Collard, M, Edinborough, K, Hilpert, J, Jöris, O, Niekus, M, Rohling, E J and Wagner, B, 2008 The catastrophic final flooding of Doggerland by the Storegga Slide tsunami, Documenta Praehistorica XXXV, 1–24
Whittle, A, Healy, F & Bayliss, A, 2011 Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxbow
Whyte, C, 2008 A database of Mesolithic Sites based on J J Wymer and C J Bonsall, 1977. York:
Archaeology Data Service doi:[10.5284/1000181|http://dx.doi.org/10.5284/1000181]
Wymer, J J, 1977 A Gazetteer of Mesolithic Sites in England and Wales, CBA Res Rep 20. London: Council for British Archaeology doi:[10.5284/1000332|http://dx.doi.org/10.5284/1000332]
Young, R, 2000 Mesolithic lifeways: Current research from Britain and Ireland, Leicester Archaeol Monogr 7. Leicester: University of Leicester
This page (revision-35) was last changed on 15-Oct-2014 11:59 by AdministratorTop