Framework objectives#

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 in communicating 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: at present 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 and we should 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.

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, and in particular focus 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 provide 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 be here 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, or 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 high importance for the archaeological assessment of areas affected by development, and also in drowned and buried landscapes.

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 significant 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 palaeo-landscapes is achievable although how different techniques perform in different environments with varying landscape histories should be evaluated.
• S2.6: Predictive/deposit modelling should be further explored 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.

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: We need to find better methods for identifying very high integrity 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 to both 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 (e.g. 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 also carried out some very early radiocarbon dating on material from Star Carr: 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 of patterns of humans and animals (e.g. 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 relating to 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 (e.g. 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 as BC. 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 and OSL, 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 synchronization 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 (e.g. see Bell 2007).
• S3.7: A national online database would be a desirable development which would include both archaeological sites and palaeo-environmental data. It is important that dates are shared and communicated if patterns of change and continuity are to be discerned across the country.

Biomolecular techniques#

• S3.8: There is great potential for aDNA studies in order to better understand population history and movement of people. 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.
• 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.

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 need to refine understanding of the burning episodes which occur in the Mesolithic and are attributed to human agency, with the consequent need to also understand patterns of wildfire occurrence and its relation 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 (e.g. for coppice or nut production).
• S3.18: The archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential of Lateglacial and Postglacial landscape features such as kettle-holes, palaeochannels and more broadly 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, e.g. 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.

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 further 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 (e.g. 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 online 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 properly represented in national and local records, standardised quality audits and enhancements need to be undertaken, especially in Historic Environment Records (HERs). This would serve the purposes both of making the HERs a viable research tool, and enabling Mesolithic archaeology to be adequately catered for 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 to 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 recognise 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: Stronger connections between Mesolithic specialists and local planning archaeologists are needed 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.