Mesolithic Research and Conservation Framework 2013.#

Edward Blinkhorn and Nicky Milner#

Download a PDF version of this report

Summary Statement#

In 1999 the first Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Framework document was produced. Due to significant advances in Palaeolithic research, a new Research and Conservation Framework document was published in 2008 for the Palaeolithic alone, in which it was noted that Mesolithic 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 Mesolithic, as well as the opportunities, and sets out a series of research themes and strategies to address these over-arching aims.

Introduction#

Background and aims of the Framework#

Since the previous Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Framework document (Prehistoric Society 1999) was produced numerous significant discoveries have been made and fresh perspectives have been developed for the British Mesolithic. These include the discovery of a number of settlement sites with houses; the recognition of the potential of intertidal and offshore deposits following the mapping of submerged landscapes under the North Sea and elsewhere; renewed excavations at the flagship site of Star Carr which have highlighted alarming problems with drying out of the peat; and more detailed studies of the Mesolithic environment and landscape change including the creation and settlement of the British archipelago.

However, the Mesolithic is arguably still the most neglected period in British prehistory and as a consequence of its low profile and the need to assimilate new information and discoveries a project was commissioned by English Heritage to develop a new Mesolithic Research and Conservation Framework for England. This supersedes the 1999 joint framework for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic and sits alongside the current Palaeolithic Framework, which acknowledged that Mesolithic archaeology had developed its own distinct agenda and requirements (Pettitt et al 2008, 3–4).

The aims of this Research and Conservation Framework are to: (1) improthe understanding of the Mesolithic of England; and (2) set out key issues and priorities for future work. In addition, it will aid English Heritage in its broader objectives of identifying and protecting our most important heritage, and helping people appreciate and enjoy England’s national story (English Heritage 2011), as well as contributing to the Pleistocene and Early Holocene activity of the National Heritage Protection Plan (English Heritage 2012).

This framework has been produced by undertaking broad-ranging consultation across the sector using a dedicated website to disseminate information, an on-line discussion forum to generate interactive debate, email correspondence, and a meeting of interested experts from across the sector. The framework process has been composed of three parts, as set out by Olivier (1996) in Frameworks for our Past. The first part was a resource assessment: a statement of the current state of knowledge and a description of the archaeological resource; this will be archived with the Archaeology Data Service (Blinkhorn and Milner 2012a). The second part was a research agenda: a list of the gaps in that knowledge, of work which could be done, and of the potential for the resource to answer questions (Blinkhorn and Milner 2012b). This was discussed at the expert meeting and formed the basis for the final part of the process, the production of this Research and Conservation Framework, which sets out key issues and priorities for future work as well as methods and approaches for achieving these.

In terms of geographical scope, the document aims to improve the understanding of the Mesolithic of England. It should be noted that for over half the period Britain was physically joined to Europe and consequently the maritime resource has been included. This framework partners the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research Framework for the Archaeology of Wales (Walker 2011), the Scottish Archaeological Research Framework for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (ScARF 2012), and the Maritime Research Agenda (Ransley et al 2013).

Excavating horse bone at the long blade site on Flixton Island, 2013(© POSTGLACIAL

What is the Mesolithic and what are the challenges of studying it?#

The Mesolithic is generally defined as corresponding to the beginning of the Preboreal period (which follows the Younger Dryas – the last cold snap of the Ice Age) at about 9600 cal BC, and finishes at about 4000 cal BC in Britain with the introduction of farming. However, the term ‘Mesolithic’ is a modern construct, coined in 1866, and the boundaries of the period are rather fuzzy (Milner and Woodman 2005a). The ‘transition’ from Upper Palaeolithic to Mesolithic is poorly understood: the long blade sites of the Terminal Palaeolithic are poorly dated and the degree of continuity with the Early Mesolithic is not clear (Barton and Roberts 2004).

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).

Despite the difficulties of defining a specific beginning and end point to the period, we can say that the Mesolithic spans roughly five and a half thousand years: a significant chunk of time which covers about half of the Holocene, the geological epoch we are currently living in. One of the reasons this period has been overlooked may be because it lacks the impressive monuments and artefacts associated with later periods. Developments in lithic artefact styles and technology enable a broad Early/Late assignment to stone tools, the change occurring across the late 9th and 8th millennia cal BC, and a ‘Middle’ facies has been posited for southern and central England. Scarcity of substantial remains and associated radiocarbon dates has hindered refinement of Mesolithic chronology to a more familiar, human scale. Consequently, these five and a half thousand years tend to be conflated and the Mesolithic is often seen as a ‘timeless’ period, lacking history and change until the arrival of the Neolithic.

Cliff face section at Low Hauxley showing tsunami deposit and underlying sediments (© Clive Waddington,

However, this neglect in the past arguably makes the Mesolithic one of the most exciting periods to study because there are so many questions to answer; recent work has demonstrated that important discoveries can overturn our understanding of hunter-gatherers after the Ice Age and contribute significantly to the national story. Recent research has also shown that a historical perspective is both vital and possible. Several cultural and environmental events occurred during the Mesolithic, including rapid climate change at the beginning of the period, significant changes in lithic technology and, in the 7th millennium cal BC, a cold event, a tsunami and eventually the breaching of the landscape which joined Britain to the rest of Europe. Many of these events speak to current concerns about climate change, the environment, and Britain’s place in the world.

There are a number of challenges that those dealing with the Mesolithic have to face (Spikins 2010). Mesolithic sites can be hard to find: the archaeology can be ephemeral and prospecting for sites can be difficult. There are some entrenched views on what Mesolithic sites and material should look like, which can limit exploration and consequently lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. For instance, because the human bone record is so sparse for the Mesolithic, such remains are not expected to be found. It is only through recent radiocarbon dating programmes that more have been identified as Mesolithic (Meiklejohn et al 2011).

Similarly, recent excavations at Star Carr have shown that the site is much larger than the original excavator had envisaged, which had been based on a belief that sites of this period are small (Conneller et al 2012).

Conversely, the difficulties of prospection for small sites (and intra-site archaeology) mean that the enormous potential of studying single-period events is mostly untapped. Such small sites can preserve archaeological signatures for short-term events, archaeological snapshots, and offer ‘clean’ assemblages, unaffected by the palimpsests often seen on larger scales. Their significance is inversely proportional to their size, offering huge potential to inform our understanding of the bigger picture at certain points in time (see text box).

The full extent of early Mesolithic activity at Star Carr (© POSTGLACIAL project)

There can also be negative expectations that Mesolithic sites will be disturbed and therefore of little value, or that structural remains such as hearths, pits, and postholes are unlikely to be found: these perceptions can mean that important archaeology is missed or incorrectly assigned to other periods (Spikins 2010).

There are also a number of threats to the resource which in recent years have come to the fore. Growing pressure on previously uncultivated land, which on the one hand presents a new opportunity to identify unrecorded Mesolithic scatters, also results in potential further damage to buried sites which have long been protected by grassland. The severe drying out of peat, at upland sites due to climate change (ibid), and on lowland sites due to changing water tables often related to drainage (Boreham et al 2011; Milner et al 2011), is also having a significant damaging effect on the Mesolithic resource.

A youth group excavating at the site of Low Hauxley which had been eroding into the sea (© Clive Waddington, Archaeological Research Services Ltd)

A number of coastal Mesolithic sites are also under threat from sea-level rise, or are currently eroding into the sea (Milner 2012), such as at Low Hauxley, Northumberland (Waddington 2011; Eadie and Waddington 2013). Rapid assessments of England’s coastal zones, undertaken to inform asset management in areas affected by coastal erosion and defence, have added significant evidence for nearshore and intertidal peats and forest beds. Many of these organic deposits have dates showing that they formed during the Mesolithic period (eg Eadie 2013, chapter 6). These provide evidence of past environments and relative sea levels. A national database is managed by English Heritage and new discoveries can be added on-line at http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/professional/research/heritage-science/environmentalarchaeology/Environmental-Studies-Resources/intertidal-peat-database/.

In terms of management and protection, most Mesolithic sites found on the Schedule of Ancient Monuments are there because of archaeology of another period, since designation requires there to be evidence of buildings, structures or works. Significantly, Star Carr was designated as a Scheduled Monument in 2011 (see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-centenary/landmark-listings/star-carr) because of the discovery of a ‘house’, offering the possibility that the Mesolithic will be afforded increased statutory protection elsewhere when such features are recognised. The case at Star Carr has helped inform the rationale for designation in that it was scheduled both in order to encourage a dialogue with stakeholders over best management practices, including further excavation, and to support funding applications by official recognition of the importance of the site. A further step forward is that English Heritage has now published a ‘scheduling selection guide for sites of early human activity’ which outlines degrees of significance of various forms of evidence (see http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/dssg-sites-early-human-activity/).

A further challenge is the presentation of the period to the public. The 2008 Palaeolithic Framework identified rising sympathies with creationism as a cause for concern, to which can be added the low level of understanding of deep time and chronology amongst the public at large, and the persisting ‘caveman’ stereotype. In a recent questionnaire to members of the public in Scarborough over a period of three years, only 9% knew about the Mesolithic despite living a few miles away from the site of Star Carr (Milner et al forthcoming); although the sample size was relatively small (a total of 173 people over three years), the results were consistent each year. This lack of knowledge is hardly surprising given the relative paucity of information in the public domain: the Mesolithic is not taught in schools, it has a minimal presence in most museums and there are very few popular books on the subject. In addition, some representations of the period tend not to be the type of depictions that Mesolithic archaeologists would make: eg the film 10,000 BC bore no relation to the existing data for the period. However, other examples such as the graphic novel MeZolith (Haggarty and Brockbank 2010), and books like The Gathering Night (Elphinstone 2009), Wolf Brother (Paver 2004) and subsequent books in the Chronicles of Ancient Darkness highlight what can be achieved. In sum, there is a continuing need to disseminate our understanding of the Mesolithic widely, clearly, and in non-specialist language in order to explain the story of how the repopulation of Britain took place in a changing world.

Case Study: Asfordby. Lynden Cooper, University of Leicester Archaeological Services

Achievements since 1999#

Since 1999, the shape of Mesolithic archaeology has changed significantly:

• there have been a number of projects (research, community-based and developer-led) which have resulted in important discoveries (see below);
• there has been a significant increase in academic interest, including a surge in edited volumes which set new agendas, expanding the breadth of subjects of interest to include social and interpretative questions (eg Bailey and Spikins 2008; Bevan and Moore 2003; Conneller 2000a; Conneller and Warren 2006; Milner and Woodman 2005b; Waddington and Pedersen 2007; Young 2000);
• a range of new scientific techniques have been applied such as Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon dates (Waddington 2007), modelling of the submerged landscape (Gaffney et al 2007), and stable isotope analyses (Schulting and Richards 2002);
• a range of different funding bodies have provided significant support: English Heritage, Heritage Lottery Fund, European Research Council, British Academy, Natural Environment Research Council and the now discontinued Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund;
• and there has been a rise in public engagement, in particular through popular TV programmes.

Such achievements are described within the Mesolithic Resource Assessment Document (Blinkhorn and Milner 2012a); some of the major successes are highlighted here.

Numerous sizeable research projects in England have taken place or been published within this period: eg Howick (Waddington 2007), the Severn Estuary (Bell 2007), Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge (Lewis and Rackham 2011), ‘Doggerland’ (Gaffney et al 2007, 2009), Star Carr (Conneller et al 2012; Milner et al 2013), Bouldnor Cliff (Momber et al 2011) and most recently at Low Hauxley (Waddington, pers comm) and a project on high-resolution analysis of late-date ‘rod’ microlith sites (Jim Innes and Peter Rowley-Conwy, pers comm). Significant lithic assemblages have continued to be identified across the country from diverse projects such as infrastructure work, eg Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Foreman 2009; Booth et al 2011) and the Steppingley to Aylesbury Pipeline (Moore 2010), and aggregates sourcing, eg Tubney Wood, Oxfordshire (Bradley and Hey 1993; Norton 2008). Similar large-scale work at the Stainton West site on the Carlisle Northern Development Route in Cumbria has recovered vast amounts of Later Mesolithic lithics utilising industrial-scale sieving strategies (see text box).

Most prominent amongst new discoveries are the substantial structures that have been found. Howick, Northumberland, which featured prominently in the media as the ‘oldest house in Britain’ (Richards 2011) was the first to be identified, amongst a number of new Mesolithic structures which are of remarkably similar form and dimensions. The Howick structure featured a sunken floor with a ring of substantial post-sockets and an internal sequence of hearth pits. More recently at Star Carr a smaller structure was found, with a shallow scooped floor surrounded by postholes, but which dates to about 1000 years earlier (Conneller et al 2012). The excavations at Star Carr have also revealed that the worked wooden platform first identified in the 1980s (Mellars and Dark 1998) extends over 30m of lake shore – a major structural undertaking. The evidence from both Howick and Star Carr has suggested the possibility that hunter-gatherers invested significant time and resources into building structures and that they may not have been as mobile at certain times and at certain places as was previously thought.

Furthermore, some sites in Britain, such as Stonehenge, Wiltshire (Allen and Gardiner 2002), and Warren Fields, Aberdeenshire (Hilary et al 2009), have evidence for large posts or post-rows (usually attributed to the Neolithic) dated to the Mesolithic. Against a background of more frequent recognition of Mesolithic features, this sort of evidence is demonstrating the possible ritual use of the landscape in the Mesolithic and lends further support to the idea that people invested time and energy at certain places in the landscape (Gaffney et al 2013).

We are also beginning to understand submerged landscapes due to the pioneering work of the North Sea Palaeolandscapes Project which has firmly placed modern technology at the heart of submarine archaeology (Gaffney et al 2007). A total of 23,000km2 of 3D seismic survey data was acquired and reprocessed to reconstruct Mesolithic land surfaces. This project has illustrated the significance of marine geophysical survey in identifying areas of enhanced archaeological potential. A similar project off the west coast in the Bristol Channel and Liverpool Bay areas identified former freshwater bodies that may have attracted human activity and areas with the potential for organic preservation (Fitch and Gaffney 2011). In addition, at Bouldnor Cliff in the Solent, the value of submarine exploration saw impressive returns when the Hampshire and Wight Trust for Marine Archaeology excavated twisted plant fibres, hearths, pits, burnt flint, timbers and lithics (Momber et al 2011).

Human skeletal evidence remains slight in England and new discoveries are rarely made; however, a human femur excavated from a palaeochannel at Staythorpe, Nottinghamshire (Davies et al 2001) was radiocarbon dated to the Mesolithic (the 6th millennium cal BC). Further discoveries have been made through radiocarbon dating of previously excavated bone, such as two human skulls from Greylake, Somerset (Brunning and Firth 2012). Much of this dating work has been carried out by Rick Schulting as part of a wider study to determine diet through stable isotope analyses and dental microwear, which is very important in its own right (see text box).

Possible Mesolithic rock art has been suggested by members of the University of Bristol Spelæological Society, comprising two incised rows of crosses sealed by a stalagmite at Aveline’s Hole (Mullan and Wilson 2004) and similar motifs at Long Hole, Somerset (Mullan and Wilson 2005; Mullan and Wilson 2006); there is also a figurative example at Goatscrag in Northumberland (Waddington 1999). More prolific and stratified items such as portable art objects and decorated woodwork are found across Europe so it is not unreasonable to anticipate similar discoveries in Britain, especially from marine or wetland contexts.

One of the most significant scientific achievements has been the enhancement of dating precision through the use of Bayesian statistics, as carried out on the sequence of hearths from the structure at Howick (Waddington 2007). This dating programme has demonstrated the level of refinement that is possible on sites with stratigraphy. Furthermore, the association of geometric narrow-blade lithics with these early dates has allowed Waddington to suggest a north-eastern point of entry to Britain for this lithic technology (ibid, 223; Waddington and Passmore 2012), a conclusion supported by a recent assessment of the northern British evidence (Ritchie 2010). A similar programme of radiocarbon dating and Bayesian modelling is currently being carried out by Alex Bayliss for Star Carr and by Ian Bailiff and Clive Waddington for Low Hauxley. This technique is beginning to provide the historical perspective that has been so lacking for the Mesolithic. Other dating techniques, such as thermoluminescence (TL) and optically stimulated luminescence (OSL), have also been used on a number of sites. Although they tend to have broad error ranges, these lesser-used techniques have helped to clarify chronologies on sites where radiocarbon dating was unsuitable, such as at Heathrow Terminal 5 where TL dating suggested a late 8th- to 7th-millennium cal BC origin for burnt flint-filled pits (Lewis et al 2010).

Interrogating source material has become much easier with the advent of OASIS (http://www.oasis.ac.uk/index.cfm) and the Archaeology Data Service’s (ADS) ‘Grey Literature Library’ providing on-line access to unpublished commercial fieldwork reports. The Archaeological Investigations Project’s (AIP) database facilitates the identification of grey literature, as does the on-line portal for Historic Environment Records (HERs) ‘Heritage Gateway’. This is complemented by the Colonisation of Britain by Modern Humans project run by Wessex Archaeology, also known as PaMela (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/48666/colonisation-britain-project), which digitised Roger Jacobi’s archive, and Blinkhorn’s (2012) work which compiled evidence from PPG16-era archaeology. Additionally, John Wymer’s gazetteer (1977) has been digitised and made available on the ADS (Whyte 2008). As of May 2013, the Portable Antiquities Scheme database (http://finds.org.uk/database/search/results/broadperiod/MESOLITHIC/) contains almost 6000 items identified as being of Mesolithic date (see also Bond 2010). However, the system of identification and verification requires tightening to lend more credibility to the lithics in the database.

The consistent popularity of Time Team since the 1999 Framework was published has served to maintain archaeology in the public consciousness but the incorporation of the Mesolithic into its schedule has been scant in comparison to other periods: of the 256 episodes listed on the Channel 4 website only five give any coverage to the Mesolithic. However, these have included a number of special programmes on Doggerland (2007) and the Mesolithic tsunami (2013), with another being filmed during excavation at Low Hauxley in 2013. In 2003, the BBC featured Howick in a Meet the Ancestors episode on ‘Britain’s oldest house’ and on the first series of Coast. Ray Mears chose the Mesolithic for a five-part series with Gordon Hillman entitled Wild Food (Mears and Hillman 2007), in which they explored Mesolithic Britain from a dietary perspective and included contributions from academics specialising in the Mesolithic period. The BBC series A History of Ancient Britain included items on Goldcliff, Star Carr and Bouldnor Cliff alongside more extensive discussion of the Mesolithic, and the first episode of Britain BC had an item on Star Carr with special reference to the canine faunal remains. More recently, the BBC’s Digging for Britain programme also investigated Star Carr, highlighting the recent research into the site’s deterioration.

Although museum exhibitions on the Mesolithic are rare in this country, in recent years attempts have been made to rectify this. Notably, Clive Waddington has carried out two reconstructions of the Howick structure, one on the site itself and one on the Maelmin Heritage Trail near Wooler, Northumberland. In addition, the Yorkshire Museum in York installed a major, year-long exhibition on Star Carr in 2013 and the Great North Museum, Newcastle upon Tyne, is producing a display on the site at Low Hauxley.

Other initiatives to get the public involved in discovering the Mesolithic include the North East Yorkshire Mesolithic Project (Waughman 2012), which has used volunteers to monitor erosion scars in order to identify areas of Mesolithic potential in the North York Moors 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

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

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:

1. Living in a changing world
2. Mesolithic lifeways
3. 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

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.

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.

Map of the

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

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.

An aerial picture

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

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#

Stainton West, Cumbria. Fraser Brown, Oxford Archaeology#

The value of human remains and the potential of ancient DNA studies. Rick Schulting, University of Oxford, and Oliver Craig, University of York#

Engaging people with Star Carr. Nicky Milner, University of York#

Erosion of in situ Mesolithic remains at Low Hauxley, Northumberland. Clive Waddington, Archaeological Research Services Ltd#

Potential for palaeoenvironmental data. Martin Bell, University of Reading#

Mapping Doggerland. Vince Gaffney and Simon Fitch, University of Birmingham#

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/ (accessed August 2013)

English Heritage, 2012 National Heritage Protection Plan: an introduction, 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/ (web format) and 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).

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)

Guinness, A, 2012 A Mesolithic site at North Park Farm Quarry, Bletchingley: an archaeological investigation, 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/ (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(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 (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 (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

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

Young, R, 2000 Mesolithic lifeways: Current research from Britain and Ireland, Leicester Archaeol Monogr 7. Leicester: University of Leicester