Early Mesolithic Britain: Origins, development and directions 9781841718477, 9781407320410

Citation preview

BAR 393 2005 REYNIER EARLY MESOLITHIC BRITAIN: ORIGINS, DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTIONS

B A R blue cover template.indd 1

Early Mesolithic Britain Origins, development and directions

Michael Reynier

BAR British Series 393 2005

04/04/2012 11:50:11

Early Mesolithic Britain Origins, development and directions

Michael Reynier

BAR British Series 393 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 393 Early Mesolithic Britain © M Reynier and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718477 paperback ISBN 9781407320410 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718477 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS List of Tables.............................................................................................................................v List of Illustrations ...................................................................................................................vi Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................ix Chapter One: Introduction 1.1.0. 1.1.1. 1.1.2. 1.2.0. 1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.3.0. 1.3.1. 1.3.2. 1.4.0. 1.4.1. 1.4.2. 1.4.3. 1.4.4. 1.4.5. 1.5.0. 1.5.1. 1.5.2. 1.5.3. 1.5.4. 1.5.5. 1.5.6. 1.5.7. 1.5.8. 1.6.0. 1.6.1. 1.6.2.

The Problem with the Early Mesolithic.....................................................................1 Culture versus Behaviour............................................................................1 A Statement of the Problem........................................................................2 The Star Carr Model .................................................................................................2 The basis of the model ................................................................................2 Problems with the Star Carr Model ............................................................2 Approaches to the Problem........................................................................................3 Re-inventing Socio-cultural Studies...........................................................3 Theoretical Concepts ..................................................................................4 Method of Research ..................................................................................................4 Assemblage-types .......................................................................................5 Timescales...................................................................................................5 Region of Study ..........................................................................................5 The Databases .............................................................................................6 Selection of Material...................................................................................6 The Study Assemblages.............................................................................................6 Broxbourne 104 ..........................................................................................7 Iping Common 1 .........................................................................................7 Kettlebury 103.............................................................................................7 Longmoor 1.................................................................................................7 Marsh Benham 1 .........................................................................................9 Pointed Stone 3 ...........................................................................................9 St. Catherine’s Hill......................................................................................9 Thatcham III................................................................................................9 Presentation ................................................................................................................9 Structure of Chapters ................................................................................10 Structure of Thesis ....................................................................................10 Chapter Two: Typology

2.1.0. 2.1.1. 2.1.2. 2.1.3. 2.2.0. 2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3. 2.3.0. 2.3.1 2.3.2. 2.3.3. 2.4.0 2.4.1. 2.4.2. 2.5.0. 2.5.1.

Introduction..............................................................................................................11 Selection of material .................................................................................11 Method of analysis....................................................................................11 Presentation of Results..............................................................................11 Historical Review of Early Mesolithic Assemblage-Types ...................................11 ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages..................................................................11 ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblages...................................................................14 ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages..................................................................15 Definition of Early Mesolithic Assemblage-types ..................................................15 ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages..................................................................18 ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblages...................................................................22 ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages..................................................................22 Statistical Analysis of Assemblage-types................................................................22 Cluster Analysis ........................................................................................23 Bar Charts..................................................................................................24 Other Early Postglacial Assemblage-types in Britain .............................................24 ‘Long blade’ Assemblages .......................................................................24

i

2.5.2. 2.6.0. 2.6.1. 2.6.2. 2.7.0.

‘Honey Hill’ Type Assemblages ..............................................................27 Interpretative Framework ........................................................................................29 Definition of Assemblage-types ...............................................................29 Interpretation of Assemblage-types..........................................................29 Conclusions..............................................................................................................30 Chapter Three: Technology

3.1.0 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2.0. 3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.2.4. 3.3.0. 3.3.1. 3.3.2 3.3.3. 3.4.0. 3.4.1. 3.4.2. 3.5.0.

Introduction..............................................................................................................31 Selection of material .................................................................................31 Method of analysis....................................................................................31 Presentation of Results..............................................................................31 Technological Analysis of Assemblage-types ........................................................31 The ‘Star Carr’ Debitage Assemblage......................................................31 The ‘Deepcar’ Debitage Assemblage.......................................................36 The ‘Horsham’ Debitage Assemblage......................................................41 Synthesis of Debitage Analyses................................................................43 Core Reduction Strategies in the Early Mesolithic ................................................48 Core Reduction Strategy in ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages ....................48 Core Reduction Strategy in ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblage .......................49 Core Reduction Strategy in ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages ....................50 Factors Influencing Core Technology.....................................................................51 Raw Material and Core Reduction Strategies ..........................................51 Tradition, Cultural Assemblages and Society ..........................................53 Conclusions..............................................................................................................53 Chapter Four: Chronology

4.1.0 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.2.0. 4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.3.0. 4.3.1. 4.3.2. 4.3.3. 4.4.0. 4.4.1. 4.4.2. 4.4.3. 4.5.0. 4.5.1. 4.5.2. 4.6.0.

Introduction..............................................................................................................54 Selection of material .................................................................................54 Method of analysis....................................................................................54 Presentation of Results..............................................................................54 Stratigraphy ..............................................................................................................54 Thatcham III..............................................................................................54 Other Examples of Early Mesolithic Stratification ..................................58 Pollen Analysis ........................................................................................................60 Pollen Diagrams for ‘Star Carr’ Type assemblages .................................62 Pollen Diagrams for ‘Deepcar’ Type assemblages ..................................62 Pollen Diagrams for ‘Horsham’ Type assemblages.................................65 Radiocarbon Dating .................................................................................................65 Selection of Radiocarbon Dates................................................................65 Radiocarbon Compressions. .....................................................................66 Early Mesolithic Radiocarbon Compression Stages. ...............................66 Chronological Patterns.............................................................................................68 Correspondence of Stratigraphic, Pollen and C14 Records.....................68 Chronological Implications.......................................................................68 Conclusions..............................................................................................................69 Chapter Five: Environment

5.1.0 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.2.0 5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.2.3.

Introduction..............................................................................................................71 Selection of material .................................................................................71 Method of analysis....................................................................................71 Presentation of Results..............................................................................71 Climate ...................................................................................................................71 Simulated Climate at c. 11.0 to 10.0 ka BP..............................................71 Simulated Climate at c. 10.0 to 9.0 ka BP................................................72 Simulated Climate at c. 9.0 to 8.0 ka BP..................................................72 ii

5.3.0. 5.3.1 5.3.2. 5.3.3. 5.4.0. 5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.4.3. 5.5.0. 5.5.1. 5.5.2. 5.6.0. 5.6.1. 5.6.2. 5.6.3. 5.7.0. 5.7.1. 5.7.2. 5.7.3. 5.7.4. 5.8.0. 5.9.0.

Flora .........................................................................................................................73 Flandrian Ia ..............................................................................................73 Flandrian Ib ..............................................................................................74 Flandrian Ic ..............................................................................................74 Fauna ........................................................................................................................75 Terrestrial Species.....................................................................................75 Avian Species............................................................................................75 Piscine species...........................................................................................75 Hydrology ................................................................................................................77 Rivers ........................................................................................................77 Sea-levels ..................................................................................................79 Integration of Environmental Data for the Early Mesolithic .................................80 The Birch Phase ........................................................................................80 The Pine Phase ..........................................................................................81 The Hazel Phase........................................................................................81 Distribution of Resources in Early Mesolithic Biomes...........................................82 Modelling Biomes.....................................................................................82 Birch Scrubland.........................................................................................82 Pine Forest.................................................................................................82 Mixed Woodland ......................................................................................83 Synthesis of Results .................................................................................................83 Conclusions..............................................................................................................84 Chapter Six: Settlement

6.1.0 6.1.1. 6.1.2. 6.1.3. 6.2.0. 6.2.1. 6.2.2. 6.3.0. 6.3.1. 6.3.2. 6.3.3. 6.3.4. 6.4.0. 6.4.1. 6.4.2. 6.4.3. 6.5.0. 6.5.1. 6.5.2. 6.6.0.

Introduction..............................................................................................................85 Selection of Material.................................................................................85 Method of Analysis...................................................................................85 Presentation of Results..............................................................................85 Distribution ..............................................................................................................85 General Distribution..................................................................................85 Distribution of Assemblage Types ...........................................................91 Situation ...................................................................................................................92 Altitude......................................................................................................93 Location.....................................................................................................93 Solid Geology ...........................................................................................93 Raw Material.............................................................................................96 Structure ...................................................................................................................96 Site Density ...............................................................................................96 Assemblage Structure ...............................................................................96 Site Features ..............................................................................................99 Early Mesolithic Settlement Patterns.......................................................................99 Long-term Early Mesolithic Settlement Patterns .....................................99 Short-term Early Mesolithic Settlement Strategies ................................100 Conclusions............................................................................................................101 Chapter Seven: Affinities

7.1.0. 7.1.1. 7.1.2. 7.1.3. 7.2.0. 7.2.1. 7.2.2. 7.2.3. 7.2.4.

Introduction............................................................................................................102 Selection of Material...............................................................................103 Method of Analysis.................................................................................103 Presentation of Results............................................................................103 Denmark.................................................................................................................103 The ‘Barmose Phase’ ..............................................................................103 The ‘Hasbjerg-Prejlerup-Lundby Phase’ ...............................................103 The ‘Svaerdborg Phase’..........................................................................103 Dating Evidence......................................................................................103

iii

7.3.0. 7.3.1. 7.3.2. 7.3.3. 7.3.4. 7.4.0. 7.4.1. 7.4.2. 7.4.3. 7.4.4. 7.5.0. 7.5.1. 7.5.2. 7.5.3. 7.6.0. 7.6.1. 7.6.2. 7.6.3. 7.6.4. 7.7.0. 7.7.1. 7.7.2. 7.7.3. 7.8.0.

Northern Germany .................................................................................................105 The ‘Präboreal’ .......................................................................................105 The ‘Frühboreal’ .....................................................................................105 The ‘Spätboreal’......................................................................................108 Dating Evidence......................................................................................108 The Low Countries ................................................................................................109 The ‘Epi-Ahrensbourgien’......................................................................109 The ‘Beuronien A’ ..................................................................................109 The ‘Beuronien B/C’ ..............................................................................109 Dating Evidence......................................................................................109 North-east France...................................................................................................111 The ‘Mésolithique Ancien’.....................................................................111 The ‘Mésolithique Moyen’ .....................................................................111 Dating Evidence......................................................................................111 European Microlith Assemblage Stages................................................................113 MAS 1 .....................................................................................................113 MAS 2 .....................................................................................................114 MAS 3 .....................................................................................................114 MAS 4 .....................................................................................................114 Affinities of British Early Mesolithic Assemblages..............................................115 The ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages ........................................................115 The ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblages..........................................................115 The ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages ........................................................116 Conclusions............................................................................................................116 Chapter Eight: Conclusions

8.1.0. 8.2.0. 8.2.1. 8.2.2. 8.2.3. 8.3.0. 8.3.1. 8.3.2. 8.3.3. 8.3.4. 8.4.0.

Introduction............................................................................................................117 Summary of Main Conclusions .............................................................................117 The ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages ........................................................117 The ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblages..........................................................119 The ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages ........................................................119 A Model of Early Mesolithic Settlement in Britain ..............................................120 Initial Settlement .....................................................................................120 Expansion and Consolidation .................................................................121 Adaptation and Augmentation................................................................123 Synthesis of Early Settlement Model .....................................................127 Conclusions............................................................................................................127

Glossary.................................................................................................................................128 References .............................................................................................................................135

iv

LIST OF TABLES 1.1. Field lists for MESOTYPE, MESOSETT and MESODATE. .........................................5 1.2. Selected examples of field codes used in the MESOSETT computer database. ....................................................................................................................................6 1.3. Early Mesolithic study assemblages. Site details. .............................................................7 2.1. Microlith typology and attribute data for three 'Star Carr' type assemblages from Britain.......................................................................................................19 2.2. Standard tool typology for three ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages from Britain.............................................................................................................................19 2.3. Microlith typology and attribute data for three 'Deepcar' type assemblages from Britain........................................................................................................20 2.4. Standard tool typology for three ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages from Britain.............................................................................................................................20 2.5. Microlith typology and attribute data for three 'Horsham' type assemblages from Britain........................................................................................................21 2.6. Standard tool typology for three ‘Horsham’ type assemblages from Britain.............................................................................................................................21 3.1. Typological data for cores (including core preparation), core dressings and spalls for three 'Star Carr' type assemblages from Britain...............................32 3.2. Attribute data (butt morphology, dorsal scar pattern, margin morphology and length) for blades from three 'Star Carr' type assemblages from Britain. ...........................................................................................................................35 3.3. Typological data for cores (including core preparation), core dressings and spalls for three 'Deepcar' type assemblages from Britain................................37 3.4. Attribute data (butt morphology, dorsal scar pattern, margin morphology and length) for blades from three 'Deepcar' type assemblages from Britain.............................................................................................................................39 3.5. Typological data for cores (including core preparation), core dressings and spalls for three 'Horsham' type assemblages from Britain. .............................40 3.6. Attribute data (butt morphology, dorsal scar pattern, margin morphology and length) for blades from three 'Horsham' type assemblages from Britain.............................................................................................................................43 3.7. Early Mesolithic raw materials. The ratio of flint to other materials in the nine study assemblages................................................................................................51 4.1. Selected radiocarbon dates for Early Mesolithic stone assemblages in Britain. ...........................................................................................................66 5.1. Selected radiocarbon dates for Early Mesolithic fauna from Britain. ...........................76 5.2. Distribution and accessibility of plant and animal biomass in selected environments.........................................................................................................83 6.1. Early Mesolithic settlement data I: Sites positively identified to assemblage-type level. ............................................................................................................86 6.2. Early Mesolithic settlement data II. Location data..........................................................87 6.3. Early Mesolithic settlement data III: Assemblage composition. ....................................88 7.1. Selected radiocarbon dates and sample details for Early Mesolithic stone assemblages from Denmark........................................................................89 7.2. Selected radiocarbon dates and sample details for Early Mesolithic stone assemblages from Northern Germany. .....................................................108 7.3. Selected radiocarbon dates and sample details for Early Mesolithic stone assemblages from the northern Low Countries........................................111 7.4. Selected radiocarbon dates and sample details for Early Mesolithic (and Final Palaeolithic) stone assemblages from north-east France. ...................................113 8.1. Summary of chief findings. ..........................................................................................118

v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1.1. Simplified model of Early Mesolithic settlement as suggested by J.G.D. Clark for the site at Star Carr, Yorkshire ......................................................................3 1.2. Map showing the location of key Early Mesolithic sites referred to in the text:..................................................................................................................................8 2.1. Microliths from the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage at Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire ..................................................................................................................12 2.2. Standard tools from the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage at Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire ..............................................................................................13 2.3. Microliths from the ‘Deepcar’ type site at Iping Common, Sussex......................................................................................................................................14 2.4. Standard tools from the ‘Deepcar’ type site at Iping Common, Sussex.....................................................................................................................................16 2.5. Microliths from the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage at Kettlebury 103, Surrey ..............................................................................................................................17 2.6. Standard tools from the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage at Kettlebury 103, Surrey............................................................................................................18 2.7. Cluster diagram for 49 Early Mesolithic microlith assemblages analysed by R.M. Jacobi .........................................................................................................23 2.8. Microlith typology for selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types...........................................25 2.9. Microlith lateralization for selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types...........................................25 2.10. Microlith additional retouch for selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. ........................26 2.11. Microlith length for selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types...........................................26 2.12. Microliths from a ‘Honey Hill’ type assemblage..........................................................28 3.1. Cores from the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage at Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire ...........................................................................................................................33 3.2. Debitage from the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage at Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire ...........................................................................................................................34 3.3. Cores from the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage at Iping Common, Sussex......................................................................................................................................36 3.4. Debitage from the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage at Iping Common, Sussex......................................................................................................................................38 3.5. Cores from the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage at Kettlebury 103, Surrey ......................................................................................................................................41 3.6. Debitage from the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage at Kettlebury 103, Surrey ......................................................................................................................................42 3.7. Core typology for nine selected Early Mesolithic assemblages belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types .........................44 3.8. Core preparation indices for nine selected Early Mesolithic assemblages belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types...................................................................................................................44 3.9. Core dressing typology for nine selected Early Mesolithic assemblages belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types...................................................................................................................45 3.10. Spall typology for nine selected Early Mesolithic assemblages belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. ........................45 3.11. Butt morphology for blades from nine selected Early Mesolithic assemblages belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types...................................................................................................................46 3.12. Dorsal scar pattern for blades from nine selected Early vi

Mesolithic assemblages belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types ................................................................................................46 3.13. Margin morphology for blades from nine selected Early Mesolithic assemblages belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types ................................................................................................47 3.14. Length dimensions for blades from nine selected Early Mesolithic assemblages belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. ......................................................................................... 47 3.15. Suggested reconstruction of a typical core reduction sequence for the ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type.................................................................................. 48 3.16. Suggested reconstruction of a typical core reduction sequence for the ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-type................................................................................... 49 3.17. Suggested reconstruction of a typical core reduction sequence for the ‘Horsham’ assemblage-type.................................................................................. 50 4.1. Microliths from Thatcham III, Berkshire. ................................................................. 55 4.2. Relative density of flint contours for Thatcham III, Berkshire. ................................ 56 4.3. Reconstructed profile of deposits at Thatcham III, Berkshire................................... 57 4.4. An extract from J.J. Wymer’s site notebook. ........................................................... 58 4.5. W.F. Rankine’s interpretation of the profile of deposits at Oakhanger VII, Hampshire. ............................................................................................. 59 4.6. Microliths from the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage from Oakhanger VII, Hampshire. ............................................................................................................... 60 4.7. Profile of deposits at Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire. .............................................. 61 4.8. Pollen diagram from Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire ............................................... 61 4.9. Pollen diagram from the ‘new site’ at Thatcham, Berkshire. .................................... 63 4.10. Pollen diagram from Longmoor 1, Hampshire........................................................ 64 4.11. Box and tail diagram of selected Early Mesolithic radiocarbon dates from Britain............................................................................................................. 67 4.12. Suggested sequence of microlith assemblages for south-east England. .......................................................................................................................... 69 5.1. Global circulation model (GCM) showing the relative changes in soil moisture between 9.0 ka BP and the present. ........................................................ 72 5.2. Pollen diagram from Cranes Moor (Flush Bog), Hampshire. ................................... 73 5.3. Isochrone map of the rational limit of pine (Pinus sylvestris) pollen in Britain................................................................................................................ 74 5.4. Box and tail diagram of selected radiocarbon dates run on fauna dated to the period 10.0 ka BP to 8.0 ka BP........................................................... 77 5.5. Stable-bed, aggrading-banks model (SBAB) of lowland floodplain formation. ......................................................................................................................... 78 5.6. Reconstructed shorelines around the British Isles at c. 9.5 ka BP............................. 79 5.7. Reconstructed shorelines around the British Isles at c. 8.5 ka BP............................. 80 5.8. Climatic variations for the last glacial-interglacial transition.................................... 81 6.1. Distribution of selected Early Mesolithic sites in England and Wales................................................................................................................................ 90 6.2. Distribution of classified Early Mesolithic sites in England and Wales................................................................................................................................ 92 6.3. Altitude of selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. .............................................. 94 6.4. Location of selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. .............................................. 94 6.5. Solid geology of selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. .................................... 95 6.6. Raw materials of selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. ........................................ 95 6.7. Distance of site from raw material source for selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’

vii

assemblages-types. ........................................................................................................... 97 6.8. Mean lithic density (MLD) for selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. ................... 97 6.9. Microliths expressed as a percentage of standard tools for selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. ......................................................................................... 98 6.10. Archaeological features on selected Early Mesolithic sites belonging to the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblages-types. ................... 98 7.1. Map of north-west Europe showing the location of key sites referred to in the text. ..................................................................................................... 102 7.2. Selected microliths from eastern Denmark. ............................................................ 104 7.3. Selected microliths from northern Germany. .......................................................... 106 7.4. Selected microliths from the northern Low Countries ............................................ 110 7.5. Selected microliths from north-east France............................................................ 112 7.6. Simplified model of microlith assemblage stages (MAS) for north-west Europe. ......................................................................................................... 114 8.1. Suggested settlement model for ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages................................ 122 8.2. Suggested settlement model for ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages. ................................ 124 8.3. Suggested settlement model for ‘Horsham’ type assemblages................................ 125 8.4. Illustration of a plant harvesting knife from Columnata, North Africa. ................................................................................................................. 126

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to many individuals who, in one or another, have helped in the completion of this study. In thanking them I wish to express my gratitude, but ultimately I accept full responsibility for the ideas expressed in this study. I should like to thank in particular: Dr Roger Jacobi, who inspired my interest in the Mesolithic period and who initially supervised the project; the many hours spent learning about and discussing the Mesolithic with Roger hugely influenced the direction of this study and at the same time were a great pleasure. It is a matter of regret that Dr Jacobi did not see the project through to its conclusion, and in this respect I am indebted to Dr Hamish Forbes (University of Nottingham), whose tremendous encouragement and astute criticism steered the project to completion. I would also like to acknowledge the help of Alison Roberts (Ashmolean Museum) for her comments on earlier drafts of the study. I wish to thank the following researchers for permission to reproduce the figures and tables cited in the text: Dr Keith Barber (University of Southampton); Dr Anthony Brown (University of Exeter); Geoffrey Dimbleby (Emeritus Professor, Insitute of Archaeology); Professor Robert Kelly (University of Louisville); Kurt Lambeck (The Australian National University); Professor John Lowe (Royal Holloway, University of London); John Mitchell and Chris Hewitt (Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research). And the following colleagues for their generosity in discussing aspects of their work, answering queries, making photocopies and allowing the use of published and unpublished data: Nick Barton (Oxford Brookes); Peter Berridge (Colchester Museum); Klaus Bokelmann (Archäologisches Landesmuseum der Christian-Albrechts-Universität); Phillippe Crombé (Universiteit Gent); Andrew David (English Heritage); Thierry Ducrocq (Amiens); Roger Ellaby (Reigate); Robin Holgate (Luton Museum); Axel Johansson (Lundby); John Lewis (Museum of London Archaeological Service); Antony Long (University of Durham); Michael Macullagh (University of Nottingham); Greg Phillips (Northamptonshire Archaeological Service); ‘Ricki’ Standing (Horsham); Pat Stonehouse (Grasscroft); Geoffrey Taylor (Bradford); Martin Street (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum); Leo Verhart (Rijks Museum van Oudheden); Andrew Woodcock (Sussex Archaeological Service); John Wymer (Norfolk Museums Service). I gratefully acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of all the museums visited during the period of study. In particular, I would like to thank Jill Cook and the staff of the British Museum (Quaternary Section) for allowing me special, and prolonged, access to their collections at Franks House. I would also like to thank the following museums for loaning material for study off-site and for allowing samples to be taken for radiocarbon assay: The Barbican Museum (Lewes); Brighton Museum; Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; Chichester Museum; Harlow Museum; Hastings Museum; Horsham Museum; The Natural History Museum (Department of Zoology); Newbury District Museum; Reading Museum and Art Gallery; Worthing Museum. My thanks also to the Oxford AMS unit for running several of the new radiocarbon dates presented in the study. Concerning the practicalities of the study there are those without whom it would not have been possible to start this project, let alone finish it. I would like to thank: The University of Nottingham (in particular the Faculty of Arts) and the Department of Archaeology; the Hallward and George Green libraries and the staff at Cripps Computing Centre. I extend my personal thanks to my mother and father (for support, financial and moral); Mark Reynier (for putting me up in London); and Jill (for proof reading, printing and nagging). Finally I would like to express especial thanks to the many individuals with whom I have come into contact during this period of study, and who have encouraged, cajoled, sympathized, teased, laughed and drank me through the darkest hours: you know who you are.

ix

x

Chapter One INTRODUCTION ‘The resolution of history must be rooted in the reconstruction of past events themselves - in their own terms - based on narrative evidence of their own unique phenomena’ (Gould 1990: 278)

The study of Mesolithic archaeology in Britain has come a long way in the one hundred and four years since the concept was first suggested by J. Allen Brown in 1893. At one level there has been the gradual accumulation of material data, largely in the form of stone scatters, the zenith being the spectacular sites of Star Carr in Yorkshire and Thatcham in Berkshire. At a higher level dealing with the interpretation of these data - perhaps the most obvious development has been the shift from cultural to behavioural models (Rowley-Conwy 1994). Thus the demise of the ‘stone age culture’ and the rise of the ‘seasonal model’. Researchers no longer speak of cultural blocs and of how these may have arisen, developed and interacted, but instead the focus of attention has become the individual site, and how and when it may have operated.

Mesolithic period has been to create an interpretative black hole. Researchers have either tended to treat the whole period (extending over some two thousand years) as one homogeneous socio-cultural unit - the ‘Early Mesolithic’ - or they have viewed aspects of the period such as socio-cultural grouping and chronological sequencing as fundamentally ‘unknowable’ (and hence unprofitable) areas of research. Given this void it is hardly surprising that the Star Carr model has remained the basic source of interpretation within the Early Mesolithic, some 25 years after it was first published. Nevertheless, a model that has not been scientifically challenged is hardly proof that it is a wholly accurate interpretation of the data. It does, however, account for the present listless state of research into Early Mesolithic archaeology in Britain. Indeed, it is not too great an exaggeration to say that the general feeling within the discipline is that everything that can be said about the British Early Mesolithic has already been said - it has become a simple matter of plugging in the data and winding the model up; if the results seem familiar this only proves that the model works. In fact, by the late 1980s this interpretational tautology within Early Mesolithic studies was so great that research into the period virtually dried up altogether.

1.1.0. The Problem with the Early Mesolithic Few would argue that these developments have not been to the general benefit of Mesolithic archaeology. But Prehistory is the study of the evolution as well as the mechanics of human society, and archaeologists’ fascination with behavioural models over the last 25 to 30 years has led to serious deficiencies in the sphere of societal development. Nowhere has this tendency been more acute than in the Early Mesolithic period where most, if not all, of the major interpretational discussions over the last two decades have been coloured by a single site model: the Star Carr model.

1.1.2. A Statement of the Problem. I have made two general criticisms of current theoretical approaches to the Early Mesolithic. These are that there is: 1) an overreliance on the Star Carr interpretational model; and 2) a widespread lack of typological and chronological resolution. The next section analyses the first of these two criticisms in more detail, observing specific problems with the Star Carr model that render it unsuitable as the sole interpretational framework for the Early Mesolithic in Britain. The following section addresses the second criticism by setting out a means by which socio-cultural studies may be re-incorporated into the approach to Early Mesolithic settlement, thereby redressing the imbalance between cultural and behavioural studies.

1.1.1. Culture versus Behaviour. The traditional model of Early Mesolithic settlement derives from J.G.D. Clark’s review of the Star Carr site (1972). In this seminal monograph Clark re-evaluated and updated the chief findings reported in the 1954 site report from a ‘bioarchaeological’ or ‘Functional’ standpoint - defined by Clark as the: ‘Analysis of the manner in which [the] communities ...appropriated and utilized the resources available to them...’ (1972: 15). Clark acknowledged that this approach sidelined typological and chronological problems. However, the seasonal model which he proposed was so vivid, particularly in the artefact arid realm of the Early Mesolithic, that socio-cultural and chronological issues were marginalized as researchers began to explore and corroborate the Star Carr model at other sites and in other regions.

1.2.0. The Star Carr Model The publication of Star Carr: A Case Study in Bioarchaeology (Clark 1972) marks the point at which behavioural studies overtook cultural studies as the primary interpretational tool used by archaeologists working on the British Mesolithic. In the monograph

The effect of this neglect concerning typological, chronological and socio-cultural studies for the Early 1

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER Clark first described the aims and objectives of the 19491951 excavations at Star Carr and updated the 1954 site report on a small number of material details. He then set about constructing five initial parameters upon which to base his ‘bioarchaeological’ interpretation of the site.

red deer onto the North Yorkshire Moors or the Pennines. 1.2.2. Problems with the Star Carr Model. Undoubtedly the simplicity and logic of the Star Carr model has contributed to its remarkable persistence in the archaeological literature. Even in today’s complex computer simulations most elements of the Star Carr model are built-in as initial parameters (cf. Spikins 1996). However, Clark’s assumptions are not beyond criticism. In particular, the five initial parameters outlined in the previous section can be challenged on a number of points:

1.2.1. The basis of the model. The five initial parameters defined by Clark stemmed in part from the excavated data and in part from ethnographic records. They can be summarized as follows: 1) The season of occupation was placed during winter and early spring (October to April), based primarily on the predominance of unshed to shed red deer antler.

1) Season of Occupation. The season of occupation at Star Carr has been disputed by a number of authors. M. Pitts questioned the relative abundance of unshed red deer antlers at the site, used by Clark to indicate winter settlement, noting that: a) only male red deer carry antlers; and b) evidence existed that at least some of the antler was brought to the site as raw material and was not associated with a kill (1979). Pitts went on to illustrate that alternative seasonal indicators (elk/roe deer antlers, crania and calf bones) could be used to argue for occupation of the site at any point in the year.

2) The site territory was set at between 29 and 65 square kilometres, based on land under c. 30 m in a radius of between 5 km and 10 km from the site - one to two hours walk. 3) The food supply was primarily red deer meat, based on the dominance of red deer bone in the faunal assemblage, and the comparative paucity or absence of bird, fish and plant remains. 4) Group size was set at c. 20 individuals, based on the area of the flint scatter in comparison with contemporary anthropological data. Clark estimated four family units of five individuals.

2) Site territory. The site catchment at Star Carr was estimated by Clark using a standard c. 10 km radius - the distance an average human travels in c. 2 hours by foot. Modern studies confirm that this is a suitable figure for the exploitation of the immediate environment from a residential base camp. However, Clark did not consider the possibility that Star Carr was not a base camp. Pitts (1979) suggested that Star Carr may have been a hide processing location. Alternatively, Andresson et al. (1981) have argued that the site may have operated as a hunting stand. While A.J. Legge and P.A. RowleyConwy (1988) favour a temporary hunting camp. Clearly these different types of site may have been associated with distinct catchments, depending on their duration and the type of activity performed at them.

5) Annual territory was estimated at between c. 300 to 600 square kilometres, based on: a) the movements of Norwegian red deer; and b) an extrapolation of the winter site territory. Using these parameters Clark pieced together the wellknown Star Carr model (Fig 1.1). Assuming that the site was occupied by a small band of humans for whom red deer formed the basis of the diet, Clark reasoned that the human group would monitor closely this vital resource. If, then, red deer dispersed into small groups covering upland areas during the summer months, as had been observed in parts of Norway, it followed that the dependent human groups would be likely to adopt a similar strategy. The fact that numbers of stray microliths were actually found on the uplands of the North Yorkshire Moors, and small sites were known further to the west on the Pennines, served to confirm the thesis that Early Mesolithic human groups were indeed ‘mapping on’ to red deer movements. The belief that the Star Carr site was occupied only in the winter months, when it was supposed that red deer gathered together in lowland winter ‘yards’, also appeared to confirm the model.

3) Food supplies. The persistence of red deer as a primary food resource has also been questioned. D.L. Clarke was among the first to recognize the nutritional potential of plant resources in the Early Mesolithic (1976). However it was S. Caulfield who observed that, based on the complete faunal assemblage (not just the antlers), red deer may have represented as little as 20% of the total potential nutritional value present at Star Carr (1978). Legge and Rowley-Conwy (1988) arrived at similar conclusions, noting that most of the choice cuts of meat were absent from the site indicating these cuts were not consumed at the Star Carr site, but elsewhere. If so, there is no way of gauging the relative importance of red deer in the total diet. Indeed recent carbon isotope studies on dog remains at Seamer Carr, 1 km north of Star Carr, indicates that at this site fish was the predominant source of nutrition (Clutton-Brock and Noe-Nygaard 1990).

Thus it was hypothesized that a small band of c. 20 hunters over-wintered together in the Vale of Pickering living off red deer meat, while in the early summer the group dispersed into smaller family groups following the 2

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 1.1. Simplified model of Early Mesolithic settlement as suggested by J.G.D. Clark for the site at Star Carr, Yorkshire. The model depicts a semi-permanent base camp serviced by satellite task sites. [Illustration: M.J. Reynier, after Darvill 1987; Fig 17].

4) Group size. Clark’s figure of c. 20 individuals in the Star Carr band was based on the area of the excavated flint scatter, which Clark assumed was part of a domestic living floor. There is now reason to doubt this contention. N. Noe Nygaard (1977) observed that most of the preserved bone at Star Carr appears to have been deposited in water, suggesting that part of the site lay underwater at the time of the occupation. T. Douglas Price (1982) has gone further in suggesting that the entire excavated site was an underwater refuse dump, forming just one part of an unexcavated domestic site on-shore. If the scatter was deposited underwater the standard area/person ratios (e.g. Naroll 1962; Weissner 1974) will obviously not apply.

Evidently, the Star Carr model is not perfect. Neither, however, is it entirely obsolete. There are still aspects of the archaeological record for which the Star Carr model appears to be a likely explanation. For example, the presence of small ‘camps’ on the North Yorkshire Moors, typologically similar to Star Carr (Jacobi 1978c). It must be stressed, then, that the aim has not been to discredit the Star Carr model. Rather, the intention has been to highlight its limitations, particularly when abstracted, as it regularly has been, to other parts of Britain, other assemblage-types, and other chronological ‘windows’ in the Early Mesolithic period.

5) Annual territory. The principal sources of Clark’s ideas on the annual movements of human groups - one of the most influential aspects of the Star Carr model - were various studies on the migratory habits of red deer. Recent studies suggest these early analyses are only partially accurate. T.H. Clutton-Brock et al., in a detailed study of red deer in Scotland (1982), observe that throughout the year the majority of red deer remain below c. 30 m OD. Interestingly, the proportion of red deer above 30 m OD was at its greatest (only c. 30%) during the late winter/early spring; during the summer almost 80% of the studied red deer population was below 30 m OD (1982: Fig 11.5). This suggests that human groups at Star Carr may have had little need to ‘map on’ to red deer populations at any time of year, least of all in the summer months.

I have suggested that the shift in research away from ‘cultures’ towards ‘behaviouralism’ has led to an imbalance in our interpretation of the Early Mesolithic. There can be no question that ‘behaviouralism’, or ‘bioarchaeology’, has added immeasurably to our understanding of single sites or small systems. However, the premise of this thesis is that one model, poorly defined and based on a single site is not a suitable framework for the interpretation of the entire Early Mesolithic period.

1.3.0. Approaches to the Problem

1.3.1. Re-inventing Socio-cultural Studies. In order to develop a more accurate interpretation of the Early Mesolithic in Britain it is necessary to end the polemic between culture and behaviour. Certainly, to establish the mechanics of a particular site is vital to our understanding of the Early Mesolithic - at one site, at one 3

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER point in time. But unless these mechanics are coupled with defined ‘entities’, be they typological, chronological, technological, environmental or even human, we at best lose ‘the big picture’ - the system - but at worst run the risk of grafting together component parts of different systems. For instance, do all Early Mesolithic sites on the North Yorkshire Moors necessarily belong to the same system as the Star Carr site in the Vale of Pickering? We have no basis for assuming that the different behaviour at these two locations should be linked together in one system unless we can determine that they belong to the same ‘culture’, i.e. the same typological, chronological, technological, environmental or human entity.

this time was R.M. Jacobi. His work is important because it recognized the potential interpretational value of some of the earlier ‘cultural’ models. Although most of Jacobi’s work concentrated on the Later Mesolithic, he did publish one study solely devoted to the problems of the Early Mesolithic (1978c). In this essay he drew on work published by J. Radley and P.A. Mellars in 1964 in which they demonstrated the existence of at least two types of Early Mesolithic assemblage in northern England, termed by Jacobi the ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-types. In other publications, and even more so in the field, Jacobi has been responsible for collecting vital data on a third type of stone assemblage, initially recognized by Clark (1932; 1934) and termed by him the ‘Horsham’ industries (Clark and Rankine 1939).

This is not to propose a return to the ‘neo-marxist’ culture concepts of the 1930s. Nor is it suggested that the behavioural approach to archaeological interpretation has failed us. Instead, I am arguing that the way forward is to blend elements of both approaches: to use cultural studies to define like entities, and to use behavioural studies to determine how such entities may have operated. It follows that if we can define more than one cultural entity and can establish the mechanisms by which such entities operated, we have the beginnings of a more accurate model of the development of human society during the Early Mesolithic.

2) Behavioural Mechanisms. These too, in large part, already exist, although they are mainly to be found in the anthropological literature. Here the problem has simply been one of expediency. With the general rejection of typologically driven research into the Early Mesolithic during the 1970s, most archaeologists fell into thinking of the Early Mesolithic as one homogeneous set of material culture which could be equated with Star Carr in northern England and Thatcham in southern England. The development of the Star Carr model in 1972 appeared to account for much of this evidence, and since the model seemed to work so well there was clearly no point in searching for alternatives.

1.3.2. Theoretical Concepts. The question now becomes: 1) how does one define more than one cultural entity; and 2) how can one establish the mechanisms by which such entities operated. These are the specific goals of this study.

But such alternatives did, and do, exist. L.R. Binford published several papers describing various settlement models during the late 1970s and 1980s (1977; 1979; 1980; 1983). Admittedly, some aspects of Binford’s models, notably the concept of ‘site types’, were adopted by British archaeologists - they were built on to the existing Star Carr model. Surprisingly, however, the most obvious characteristic of Binford’s models has been entirely overlooked. Throughout his work Binford stresses the tremendous flexibility inherent in hunter/gatherer/fisher communities. Indeed, not one of his models depicted a strict two-step seasonal rota, as predicted in the Star Carr model. Rather, human groups were seen to adopt a variety of ‘rolling’ strategies, encompassing annually several thousand square kilometres and using tens of base camps and hundreds of satellite sites. More recently other alternative models have been established in the anthropological literature (Kelly 1995), any one of which may possess attributes applicable to Early Mesolithic settlement data in Britain.

1) Cultural Entities. In fact, what I have called ‘cultural entities’ already exist in the Early Mesolithic. They are part of the legacy of the much maligned ‘cultural studies’ carried out in Britain up to the 1960s, and by select archaeologists after this point. They are based exclusively on the detailed typological analysis of stone assemblages belonging to the period. That this typological work needs to be rediscovered is largely the result of a terminological ambiguity. This was the confusion of the word ‘culture’, meaning material culture, with ‘Culture’ implying human society. In 1968 D.L. Clarke attempted to clear up this problem in a brilliant thesis that set out how researchers might, and might not, move from the level of individual artefacts to human societies. Unfortunately, with a few notable exceptions, archaeologists working in the Mesolithic chose not to apply Clarke’s approach; and in so doing missed an opportunity to combine cultural and behavioural studies towards the more complex modelling of settlement systems in the Mesolithic, with the implications that I have outlined above.

1.4.0. Method of Research The premise of this study is, then, that there is an overreliance on the traditional Star Carr model of Early Mesolithic settlement in Britain, and a general ambivalence toward socio-cultural aspects of the archaeological record. It is suggested here that the resolution of these problems lies in a three-stage

One of the very few archaeologists who did attempt to apply some of Clarke’s ideas to the Mesolithic during 4

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

approach: 1) the isolation of discrete archaeological entities within the Early Mesolithic; 2) the chronological, technological and environmental definition of these entities, and the collation of relevant settlement and affinity data for each; and 3) the construction of settlement models for each entity. This process can be broken down into the study of six key topics, namely: the typology; technology; chronology; environment; settlement and affinities of Early Mesolithic stone assemblages in Britain. The present study is an attempt to follow this route toward a more accurate model of Early Mesolithic settlement in Britain. Below some of the boundaries, assumptions and terminology employed to this end are set out.

dated to between c. 10.2 ka BP and c. 8.7 ka BP (Jacobi 1973; 1976). However, in a recent review of the radiocarbon chronology of the Early Mesolithic it was suggested that ‘true’ Early Mesolithic assemblage-types, as defined here, do not appear in Britain until after 10.0 ka BP, and that in certain regions some of these assemblage-types may persist until as late as c. 8.0 ka BP (Reynier forthcoming). To accommodate this evidence the present study takes the two thousand radiocarbon year period between 10.0 ka BP and 8.0 ka BP as the Early Mesolithic time-frame. Throughout the study radiocarbon dates are given in uncalibrated years Before Present (BP). In the text dates are presented in ‘kiloan’ BP (thousands of years) for the sake of brevity and for ease of reading. However, all radiocarbon dates cited in this way are presented in full, together with sample details, in the relevant tables.

1.4.1. Assemblage-types. The present study makes use of the concept of archaeological ‘assemblage-types’, as defined by D.L. Clarke (1968: 230-286). It will be shown that each of Clarke’s four definition criteria for an archaeological ‘cultural assemblage’ - consistently reoccurring polythetic assemblages of artefact-types, restricted geographically - are met by three existing Early Mesolithic stone assemblage-types from Britain. These assemblage-types, thus defined, represent real archaeological entities. However, whether such entities are interpreted as social groups, bands, dialectal tribes or merely technological units is another question, and one which will be addressed in the present study.

1.4.3. Region of Study. There are two regions of study: 1) south-east England;1 and 2) all of England and Wales.2 In the first instance the detailed definition of Early Mesolithic stone assemblage-types requires typological and technological analyses that are restricted to a defined 1

The south-east England special study area includes the modern counties of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Greater London, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Essex. 2 The general study area (all of England and Wales) excludes Scotland and Ireland because the Early Mesolithic assemblage-types discussed in section 1.3.2, which form the basic unit of study, have not been convincingly recorded from these regions.

1.4.2. Timescales. The Early Mesolithic is traditionally

5

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER geographical area, in order to control for regional variations. South-east England was selected on the basis that this region contains the highest concentration of Early Mesolithic sites in Britain, and because several high quality (and unpublished) excavations from this region were made available to the author. In the second instance, more general patterns were sought. For these analyses (i.e. chronology, environment, settlement and affinities) the study area was enlarged to include all of England and Wales. In these chapters the south-east England special study area has been covered in detail, where possible, but emphasis is generally placed at a supra-regional level in order to observe larger scale trends.3 1.4.4. The Databases. The primary tools used in the study are three relational computer databases: MESOTYPE; MESOSETT; and MESODATE. The first database, MESOTYPE, is designed to collate the typological and technological features of selected Early Mesolithic stone assemblages (section 1.5.0). Each artefact in the assemblage occupies one record for which there are 24 fields of data (Table 1.1). The second database, MESOSETT, is designed to collate settlement data on Early Mesolithic stone assemblages from England and Wales. Each assemblage occupies one record for which there are 26 fields of data (Table 1.1 and 1.2). The third database, MESODATE, contains radiocarbon dates for Early Mesolithic assemblages from north-west Europe. Each assemblage occupies one record for which there are nine fields of data (Table 1.1). 1.4.5. Selection of Material. In order to preserve the integrity of the databases it was important to adopt strict selection criteria. This process has been conducted on a formal basis using a selection scheme which accepts or rejects data on three criteria, termed RID criteria: 1) Reliability (are the data reliably collected and associated); 2) Integrity (are the data free from contamination or mixing); and 3) Dating (are the data associated with reliable radiometric dates). Data not conforming to all three RID criteria have not been selected for detailed analysis. Only in the case of the settlement data were the dating restrictions bypassed to allow a larger sample to be selected. An important corollary of the RID criteria is that they select only a sample of the available data. It is not assumed that this sample is random, since data gathering techniques that conform to RID requirements are comparatively recent, and have not been adopted universally by researchers. 1.5.0. The Study Assemblages The MESOTYPE database comprises nine study assemblages (Table 1.3). These assemblages have been 3

It is felt that the typological and technological data collected from south-east England can be assumed to be relevant to England and Wales as a whole. This is confirmed by visual assessment by the author. However, further statistical tests are planned.

6

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

selected for detailed analysis because they represent the best examples of Early Mesolithic assemblages from south-east England that comply with the RID criteria (section 1.4.5). The site of Pointed Stone 3 has been included to compensate for the low frequency of this type of assemblage in south-east England (see below). The following sub-sections set out the basic details of each assemblage.

analysis was excavated in 1976 by R.M. Jacobi and members of Lancaster University. This assemblage comes from precisely the same scatter as the 1960/1 collection. 1.5.3. Kettlebury 103, Surrey (Fig 1.2: 8). Kettlebury 103 lies on Ministry of Defence land south of Farnham at NGR SU 877396, in the parish of Thursley. The site occupies a undulating plateau between three low hills at a height of c. 95 m OD. Mesolithic artefacts in the area around Kettlebury were first discovered by W.F. Rankine in the early 1930s; Rankine is known to have excavated at least two scatters in the area in 1936 (Rankine 1949: 33). The area was also worked by L.S.V. Venables and his brother R.G.V. Venables in the 1940s. During the mid 1970s field walking in the area undertaken by H.E. Martingell led to the discovery of ten new surface scatters south of Kettlebury Hill. In 1977 and 1978 the most prominent of these scatters, number 103, was excavated by R.M. Jacobi and local enthusiasts. In 1995 the author excavated an additional six square meters of the original 103 scatter, locating and tying in the original 1977/8 trenches and recovering a second series of flint artefacts identical in type to the main assemblage.

1.5.1. Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire (Fig 1.2: 15). Broxbourne 104 lies in the Dobbs’ Weir gravel pits (since abandoned) south of Harlow at NGR TQ 379080. In antiquity the site would have occupied the south bank of the Nazeing Channel, the former course of the River Lea, at a height of c. 30 m OD. Archaeological research in the Broxbourne area began in the early years of this century and resulted in the excavation of Broxbourne 101 and 102 (Hazzledine Warren et al. 1934). In the early 1970s field walking along the course of the old Nazeing Channel conducted by R.M. Jacobi revealed five more flint scatters: 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108 (scatter 103 is an unknown site mentioned by Hazzledine Warren). Scatters 106, 107 and 108 proved to be poorly stratified, while scatter 105 is of a Later Mesolithic type and date. Scatter 104 is the only demonstrably uncontaminated Early Mesolithic assemblage in the group.

1.5.4. Longmoor 1, Hampshire (Fig 1.2: 7). Longmoor 1 is located on Ministry of Defence land in Liss Forest, west of Hazelmere at NGR SU 787298. The scatter lies at the eastern margin of a shallow valley formed by the headwaters of the River Rother, at a height of c. 90 m OD. Military activity during 1930s and 1940s meant that this area was not well known to collectors until the 1950s. During this period W.F. Rankine excavated eight Mesolithic scatters on The Warren at Oakhanger, 5 km to the north of Longmoor, including Oakhanger V/VII (Rankine 1952, Rankine and Dimbleby 1960). It is certain that Rankine and other researchers also worked Woolmer Forest, 2 km north of Longmoor (Rankine 1953). Recent research began in 1977 when fieldwalking by H.E. Martingell led to the discovery of the first, and largest, of 14 Mesolithic flint scatters around Longmoor Inclosure: Longmoor 1.

1.5.2. Iping Common 1, Sussex (Fig 1.2: 5). Iping Common 1 lies on heathland 3.5 km east of Midhurst at NGR SU 846216. The site is situated in the Rother valley occupying the western slope of a low hill, approximately 50 m OD. Mesolithic settlement in the Iping area has been recorded since the early 1930s. J.G.D Clark refers to ‘flakes of a microlithic character’ from the adjacent Trotton Heath (1932: 77) and the West Heath site lies just 6 km to the west (Clark 1932b; Brailsford 1937). The first collections made on Iping Common were by O.H. Knowles in 1951. Excavations by the West Sussex Excavation Group followed between 1960 and 1961 yielding an extensive collection of Early Mesolithic flintwork (Keef et al. 1965). The material studied in this

7

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

8

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN 1.5.5. Marsh Benham 1, Berkshire (Fig 1.2: 2). The Marsh Benham 1 scatter is located in what is correctly called Benham Marsh, in the parish of Speen at NGR SU 420673. The site occupies a low lying ridge along the valley bottom of the River Kennet, approximately 90 m OD. The Mesolithic site at Marsh Benham was first recorded by local enthusiasts in the 1950s. Although surface collections were made at this time and more recently, the first excavations were not carried out until 1972 by members of the Newbury Museum Archaeological Group. The assemblage discussed here derives from these 1972 excavations. In 1993 a small sampling excavation was undertaken by the author in association with the British Museum. The aim was to collect dating material and establish a precise stratigraphy for the 1972 assemblage. During the excavations the original 1972 trenches were located and a small sample of lithic material identical to the main assemblage was recovered, along with a quantity of charred hazelnuts.

village of Thatcham, in the parish of Newbury, Berkshire (NGR SU 502668 to SU 504667). Flint artefacts were first found on the Newbury Corporation’s Sewage Outfall Works at Thatcham by local workmen in 1920. In the following year H. Peake and O.G.S. Crawford conducted the first excavations (Peake and Crawford 1922). In 1957 members of the Newbury District Museum Archaeological Group rediscovered the location, and between 1958 and 1961 J.J. Wymer conducted a second excavation at the Outfall Works (Wymer 1959, 1962, 1963). These excavations concentrated on five locations (sites I-V). All five sites occupy a low gravel bank adjacent to marshland (the Moor Brook) at a height of c. 70 m OD. Site III lies in a shallow depression between sites I and II. It will be suggested in this study (section 4.2.1) that site III comprises two distinct scatters distinguishable, in the first instance, by the surface discolouration (or ‘patination’ [sic]) on a small part of the assemblage (Wymer 1962: 333). The patinated material originates from the north-east corner of site III, while the unpatinated assemblage forms the larger, south-western scatter.

1.5.6. Pointed Stone 3, Yorkshire (Fig 1.2: 13). It was observed early in the analysis that two of the study assemblages bore a superficial similarity to assemblages common in northern England. Despite a systematic museum and collector search no other examples of this type of assemblage could be found in south-east England. In order to test the hypothesis (and to fully explore this assemblage-type) it was necessary to include a ‘type’ assemblage from northern England for comparison. Pointed Stone 3 was selected for this purpose. The site is situated at c. 400 m OD, just below the crest of a limestone hillock on Bilsdale East Moor, NGR SE 606972. The excavations were conducted by Mr and Mrs G.V. Taylor between 1973 and 1974, the site forming one of a pair of Early Mesolithic scatters (cf. Jacobi 1978c).

All of the above assemblages are from surface, or near surface, scatters and all bar four have been recovered from well developed iron-humus podzols (Table 1.3). Only two of the assemblages, Longmoor 1 and Pointed Stone 3, have been excavated fully. The remainder must, then, be considered to be samples of larger assemblages, and it cannot not be assumed that these samples are random. With the possible exception of Thatcham III (see section 4.2.1) none of the study assemblages exhibited any notable stratification, and none of the study assemblages were associated with archaeological features such as pits, post holes or structures. 1.6.0. Presentation

1.5.7. St. Catherine’s Hill, Surrey (Fig 1.2: 9). St. Catherine’s Hill is located on the outskirts of Guildford, at NGR SU 994483. The scatter occupies the eastern crown of the hill at a height of c. 40 m OD, directly above the River Wey. The area around Guildford has been the subject of Mesolithic research as long as any region of the British Isles. Colonel H.H. Godwin-Austen began collecting ‘pygmy flints’ from Blackheath, 5 km south-east of Guildford, as early as 1881 (GodwinAusten 1884) and General Pitt Rivers and Dr W. Hooper are both known to have collected in the area (Rankine 1949). The scatter at St. Catherine’s Hill was first recorded by W.F. Rankine (1949: Fig 13, No 70.). The first large collection, however, was made by R. Grace prior to 1962 and was the subject of an excellent report by G. Gable (1976). The assemblage used here was collected in 1976 by R.M. Jacobi and H.E. Martingell from precisely the same area as Grace’s initial collection.

Since the initial aim of this study has been to collect and order new and existing data on the six topics selected for analysis, the layout and presentation of the study has placed emphasis on ensuring the accuracy of these data and on the clarity of their presentation. These goals have greatly influenced the overall shape of the study, which is wholly pragmatic. 1.6.1. Structure of the Chapters. The study takes the form of six independent analyses, each concerned with one of the specified topics of research: typology, technology, chronology, environment, settlement and origins. Each analysis forms one chapter. The chapters themselves are structured in order to facilitate reference; they consist of three parts: 1) an introduction; 2) the analyses; and 3) discussion and conclusions. The introduction outlines the aim of the analyses, and gives specific details concerning the selection of material, the method of analyses and the presentation of results. The results of the analyses are presented in full and in collated form, each assemblage-

1.5.8. Thatcham III, Berkshire (Fig 1.2: 1). The Thatcham complex of sites is located 1 km west of the

9

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER type being presented in turn.4 No attempt has been made to impart meaning at this stage of the analysis in order prevent research biases. Finally, the discussions highlight what are subjectively considered to be the most relevant results of the analyses and offer one or more potential interpretations of their meaning for the Early Mesolithic. 1.6.2. Structure of the Book. The six chapters are arranged so as to progressively build up the data for the Early Mesolithic in Britain. Chapter two, on typology, outlines the history and typological definition of the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types that form the basic unit of analysis. Chapter three, on technology, suggests that each assemblage-type is manufactured in a different way. Chapter four, on chronology, shows that each assemblage-type appears in Britain at a different point in time. Chapter five, on the environment, indicates that the sequence of environmental changes in the Early Mesolithic may have influenced Early Mesolithic subsistence patterns. Chapter six, on settlement, suggests that each assemblage-type represents a distinct subsistence variation, while chapter seven, on the affinities of the Early Mesolithic assemblage-types, argues for a general correspondence of technological development between Britain and continental Europe. The study concludes with a final chapter that seeks to bring together these results into a revised model of settlement in Britain during the Early Mesolithic.

4

For reasons that will become clear in Chapter Four (Chronology) the assemblage-types are presented in the order: ‘Star Carr’ type; ‘Deepcar’ type and ‘Horsham’ type.

10

Chapter Two TYPOLOGY artefact were recorded.1 The microlith typology used was based on Jacobi (1978a). Full definitions of artefact typology and attributes are given in the Glossary.

2.1.0. Introduction It was observed in the previous chapter that three useful interpretational entities have been recognized in the Early Mesolithic: the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ type assemblages. The specific aim of this chapter is to introduce these three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types in more detail. An historical review of the assemblage-types will be presented, and details of other potential Early Mesolithic assemblage-types outlined. It will be demonstrated that the three study assemblage-types can be clearly defined and are distinguishable one from the other. It will also be suggested that each corresponds with D.L. Clarke’s definition of an archaeological ‘cultural assemblage’ (1968), although it is argued that the current standard of data in the Early Mesolithic is insufficient to support the full implications of Clarke’s definition. Instead it is suggested that the three Early Mesolithic assemblagetypes represent distinct socio-cultural entities at some undefined level.

2.1.3. Presentation of Results. The chapter comprises five sections. The first section (2.2.0) is a review of the origin and development of the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types. The second section sets out the main typological definitions for each assemblage-type and isolates important diagnostic attributes (2.3.0). In the third section statistical and graphical evidence is presented that demonstrates that the three assemblage-types are distinct from one another (2.4.0), while the fourth section details other assemblage-types that occur partly in the Early Mesolithic time-frame and which may influence the study assemblage-types (2.5.0). Finally, a conceptual framework is outlined in which Early Mesolithic assemblage-types can be interpreted (2.6.0). 2.2.0. Historical Assemblage-types

2.1.1. Selection of Material. The material drawn for the historical review, the description of other Early Mesolithic assemblage-types and for the interpretative framework is derived from published sources. The data presented in the section on the definition of the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types have been obtained from the analysis of nine Early Mesolithic stone assemblages, mainly from south-east England (MESOTYPE). Data for these assemblages were collected over a period of 13 months by one individual (the author). Each artefact was examined with the aid of a hand lens (x10) and five standard attributes were recorded (see below). An attribute was only recorded for an artefact where its correct assignment was considered beyond doubt. Each attribute was given a unique numeric code and, once identified, the code was stored directly on computer using the Database IV software package (Ashton-Tate 1988). The section on statistical analysis draws on both published sources and data obtained from the nine study assemblages.

Review

of

Early

Mesolithic

In section 1.3.2 of the previous chapter it was observed that far from the Early Mesolithic being represented by one monolithic assemblage-type there are, in fact, already defined at least three major typological units within the period: the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types. Surprisingly, these entities have received little, or no, attention by researchers working in the field of Early Mesolithic studies. Indeed, with a few notable exceptions (cf. Jacobi 1978c; Woodcock 1972) nothing has been published concerning these assemblagetypes or the potential rôle they may play in interpreting the Early Mesolithic time-frame. In consequence, the following two sections set out the principal details of each assemblage-type. In this section an outline is given of their origin and development, while in the succeeding section detailed typological definitions are presented. 2.2.1. ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages. The ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage was first identified at the Pennine site of Warcock Hill South in west Yorkshire. The assemblage was one of two flint scatters excavated by F. Buckley from the crown of Warcock Hill in the first half of the 1920s. Buckley identified both scatters as being part of what he termed ‘broad blade’ industries which he had defined for the Marsden area (1923). Crucially, however, Buckley separated the southern scatter from that on the northern side of the hill on two criteria. Firstly, among the microliths

2.1.2. Method of Analysis. The specific aim of this chapter is to establish empirical definitions for each of the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types. The chapter comprises two analyses: section 2.3.0, which sets out typological definitions for the study assemblage-types; and section 2.4.0, which compares the study assemblage-types one against the other. For both, only microliths and/or standard tools have been studied (the debitage assemblages will be examined in the next chapter). For each assemblage the total number of microliths and standard tools were examined and, where discernable, the typological class, lateralization, additional retouch, and dimensions of each

1 These particular attributes have been selected for study as together they account for the majority of typological variation displayed by Early Mesolithic microliths and standard tools.

11

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

from the southern scatter Buckley noted that ‘... working on the side... [was]... comparatively rare’ (1923: no page numbers). This, it seems, is a reference to additional retouch of the leading edge, which is absent among microliths from the southern scatter, but which is known to be present on microliths from the northern scatter. Secondly, Buckley observed that the flint differed between the two scatters, being in the southern scatter a ‘... clear brown and grey flint without white patina...’, while in the north it was ‘ ... a hard grey Lincolnshire flint generally patinated white...’ (1924: 3 and 5).

definition to include: 1) the absence of retouch on the leading edge (e.g. Fig 2.1, 1-6 and 8-11); 2) the presence of broad isosceles triangles (e.g. Fig 2.1, 12-14) and trapezoids (e.g. Fig 2.1, 16-17); 3) a total absence of backed points; 4) the inclusion of elongated steeply worked awls, or ‘mèches de forêt’ (e.g. Fig 2.2, 5); and 5) the use of semi-translucent brown and grey flint (1964: 21). In addition there were the usual standard tools, including short end-scrapers (e.g. Fig 2.2, 1-2), burins (e.g. Fig 2.2, 3-4) and truncated pieces (e.g. Fig 2.2, 6). On these criteria Radley and Mellars were the first to draw similarities between the Warcock Hill (South) assemblage and that from the well-known lowland site of Star Carr (Clark 1954).

Although J.G.D Clark reviewed Buckley’s work in The Mesolithic Age in Britain (1932: 21-26), he failed to mention the distinction Buckley made between the north and south sites at Warcock Hill - and these differences remained undeveloped for the next 40 years. In the early 1960s J. Radley and P.A. Mellars revived the concept. In a discussion of the stone assemblage from Deepcar, near Sheffield (1964), Mellars confirmed Buckley’s observations at Warcock Hill (South) and refined the

R.M. Jacobi (1978c) synthesized these typological arguments under the new term ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages and presented the first evidence for the widespread establishment of this assemblage-type in northern England.

12

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 2.2. Standard tools from the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage at Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire: short end-scrapers (1-2); burin on truncation (3-4); mèche de forêt (5); truncated blade (6); corbiac burin (7); retouched pieces (8-9). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier].

13

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Figure 2.3. Microliths from the ‘Deepcar’ type site at Iping Common, Sussex (Jacobi collection): obliquely truncated points (1, 4-9, 11, 14, 18-21); partially-backed points (2-3, 10, 12, 13, 15-17); trapezoids (22-23); rhomboid (24); backed points (25-26); scalene micro-triangle (27). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier]. He also offered the first credible chronological data on the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. Based on the then small number of conventional radiocarbon dates available he suggested a date for the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages of northern England of around c. 9.5 ka BP (ibid: Table 1).

Deepcar, west Yorkshire. This site, situated at c. 150 m OD, is located on a narrow spur of rock overlooking the confluence of the River Don and the River Porter. Stone artefacts were first collected from the area in the late 1940s by L.H. Butcher and F. Hepworth. However, it was not until 1962 that controlled excavations conducted by J. Radley took place. These excavations recovered c. 36,974 pieces of struck flint and identified evidence of a circular

2.2.2. ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblages. The ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage takes its name from the Mesolithic site of

14

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN structure, an associated hollow and three putative heath areas (Radley and Mellars 1964).

particularly hollow-based points (e.g. Fig 2.5, 31-36); and 3) significant frequencies of geometric forms, mainly isosceles triangles (e.g. Fig 2.5, 17-28). The standard tool assemblage was characterized by common Mesolithic forms such as short end-scrapers (e.g. Fig 2.6, 1-2), burins (e.g. Fig 2.6, 6) and truncated pieces (e.g. Fig 2.6, 3). Since he considered the symmetrical variant of the hollow-based point found in the Horsham assemblages to resemble Belgian ‘Middle Tardenoisian’ points, Clark linked the two together under the term the ‘Horsham Tardenoisian’ (1934: 63-65).

The stone assemblage was the subject of a detailed analysis by P.A. Mellars. Mellars linked the Deepcar assemblage with four stone assemblages from the Marsden area excavated by F. Buckley in the 1920s (Buckley 1923; 1924): Warcock Hill (North), Lominot sites 2 and 3, and Windy Hill. The analysis suggested that the assemblages could be compared on three points. Firstly, the domination of the microlith assemblage by oblique points, many with additional retouch applied to the leading edge, and most lateralized to the left (e.g. Fig 2.3, 1-21); there were also small numbers of backed points (e.g. Fig 2.3, 25-26), triangles, and trapezoids (e.g. Fig 2.3, 22-23). Secondly, in the standard tool assemblage, the dominance of end scrapers (e.g. Fig 2.4, 1-2), the low frequency of burins (e.g. Fig 2.4, 3), and the presence of variable numbers of piercers (e.g. Fig 2.4, 5-6), microdenticulates, truncated pieces and backed pieces. And thirdly, in terms of raw material, the repeated use of opaque grey and white flint.

Although the model of a ‘Horsham Tardenoisian’ was dispensed with in the 1950s in the wake of the general reorganization of French Mesolithic nomenclature (Clark 1955), the idea that the ‘Horsham’ industries were related to developments on the continent was not. A.G. Woodcock proposed a lineage for the ‘Horsham’ assemblages based on the conjectured ‘Maglemosian’ (Early Mesolithic) character of the assemblages, once basally-worked points were excluded, and the supposed ‘Sauveterrian’ (Later Mesolithic) element suggested by the frequency of geometric triangles and rhomboids in the assemblages (1972). Woodcock suggested that the ‘Horsham’ assemblages arose out of the fusion of local ‘Maglemosian’ assemblages with non-local ‘Sauveterrian’ influences. Largely on the basis of spurious sediment analyses Woodcock dated the ‘Horsham’ assemblages to the ‘... within the late Boreal and Atlantic periods’ (1972: 15).

On the basis of this definition Mellars linked this northern group of assemblages with assemblages from the southwest, namely Shapwick, Middlezoy and Dozmare Pool (Wainwright 1960) and also from the south-east, namely Broxbourne, Iver, and Thatcham - the so-called ‘Maglemosian’ assemblages. However, despite this clear definition few researchers took the opportunity to explore the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage further. In 1978 R.M. Jacobi reviewed and confirmed the definition and supplied the first radiocarbon chronology for the ‘Deepcar’ assemblages based on three conventional dates from Yorkshire. These early Cambridge dates suggested an age of c. 9.5 ka BP (1978c: Table 1), roughly the same age as those obtained for the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage. This led to the conclusion that both the ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages were contemporary at this time (1978c: 305).

To date the only attempt to place the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages in an absolute chronological framework is that of R.M. Jacobi (1978a). Jacobi again sought a continental link for the ‘Horsham’ assemblages and suggested the closest parallel lay in the newly defined Mesolithic ‘Mésolithique ancien’ of Belgium and France. Based on extrapolated conventional radiocarbon dates from the ‘Mésolithique ancien’ assemblages Jacobi suggested that in England the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage might occupy a time-frame ‘... close to 7,000 bc...’ (9.0 ka BP), and that they might be younger in age than the Early Mesolithic but older than the Later Mesolithic as dated in this country (1978a: 21).

2.2.3. ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages. In 1877 T. Honywood [sic] published a description and illustration of ‘pygmy flints’ from St. Leonard’s Forest, to the east of the town of Horsham, in West Sussex (1877: 180 and Fig 4). It is considered to be one of the first references in English to Mesolithic artefacts. He stimulated an interest in the field and in the early 1900s C.J. Attree and E.J.G. Piffard began systematically collecting surface finds from a number of locations in and to the north of St. Leonard’s Forest; namely, Old Faygate, Halt, Colgate, Beeding Wood, Roffey Small, Warnham and Newstead.

2.3.0. Definition of Early Mesolithic Assemblage-Types In order to illustrate the key typological features outlined in the previous section a sample of nine Early Mesolithic assemblages was compiled and analysed from a typological point of view. Three stone assemblages were studied for each assemblage-type: Broxbourne 104, Pointed Stone 3 and Thatcham III (patinated series) for the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages; Iping Common, Marsh Benham and Thatcham III (unpatinated series) for the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages; and Kettlebury 103, Longmoor 1 and St. Catherine’s Hill for the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages (details of these assemblages have been presented in section 1.5.0). The data for microliths are presented in full

Part of Piffard’s collection was examined by J.G.D Clark using, for the first time, a microlith classification system (1934). Clark observed that much of the material collected around Horsham could be grouped together in one ‘homogeneous culture’ (1934: 63). He defined this culture as being: 1) dominated by oblique points (e.g. Fig 2.5, 114); with 2) a rich element of basally worked microliths, 15

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Figure 2.4. Standard tools from the ‘Deepcar’ type site at Iping Common, Sussex (Jacobi collection): short end-scrapers (1-2); burin on natural termination (3); awl (4); piercers (5-6); retouched pieces (8-8); notched blade (9). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier].

16

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 2.5. Microliths from the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage at Kettlebury 103, Surrey: obliquely truncated points (1-14); partially-backed point (15); isosceles triangles (17-28); rhomboid (30); obliquely-based point (16); hollow-based points (31-36); scalene micro-triangle (29). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier].

17

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Figure 2.6. Standard tools from the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage at Kettlebury 103, Surrey: short end-scrapers (1-2); truncated blade (3); chamfered pieces (4-5); burin on natural termination (6); notched piece (7); retouched pieces (8-9). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier]. in Tables 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5 and are summarized in parentheses in the text. However, it was found that for standard tools data other than typological class were uninformative. Therefore, only typological class data are presented for standard tools, in Tables 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6. Typological and attribute definitions are given in the Glossary.

(c. 26%-63%), with moderate frequencies of isosceles triangles and trapezoids (c. 5%-15% each). There are no partially-backed points and the only other microlith type occasionally recorded are convex backed points. The frequency of microliths lateralized to the left is low (c. 60%), while additional retouch applied to the leading edge is absent or rare (c. 4%). The mean length of microliths is small (c. 18-34 mm). In general, ‘Star Carr’ type microliths are angular in outline and have broad, feathered distal terminations (cf. Fig 2.1).

2.3.1. ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages. The ‘Star Carr’ microlith assemblage is characterized by a restricted typological range dominated by obliquely truncated points 18

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

19

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

20

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

21

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER The standard tool assemblage is, like the microlith assemblage, restricted in typological range. Scrapers are the dominant tool class (c. 26%-68%) and are almost exclusively dominated by short end forms. Burins are rare but well characterized (c. 11%-48%). The only other standard tool present in notable frequencies are piercers (c. 11%-26%), among which the distinct ‘mèches de forêt’ is a characteristic form (see Glossary), and truncated pieces (c. 7%-30%). Core tools usually include flake axes (not represented in the study assemblages). However, microdenticulates, chamfered pieces and backed pieces are rare or absent (< 5%).

variable frequencies of chamfered pieces (c. 6%-35%). This distinctive tool form (see Glossary) does not appear to be present, to any notable degree, in other Early Mesolithic contexts. In summary, within each assemblage-type the four attributes selected display a marked concordance. The main features are set out below: 1) Microlith typology. The ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type is dominated by simple obliquely truncated points with lesser numbers of isosceles triangles and trapezoids. The ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-type is characterized by an increased frequency of partially-backed points, together with small numbers of backed and basally modified points. The ‘Horsham’ assemblage-type is characterized by the presence of hollow-based points together with small ‘geometric’ type microliths such as isosceles triangles and rhomboids.

2.3.2. The ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblages. The ‘Deepcar’ microlith assemblages are characterized by the marked frequency of partially-backed points (c. 15%-20%), although the assemblage is still dominated, or heavily influenced, by obliquely truncated points (c. 20%-40%). There are also moderate frequencies of trapezoids (< 10%). However, triangles, rhomboids and backed points are present only in low frequencies (c. 1%-5%). Lateralization is biased to the left (> 70%) and there is a notable incidence of additional retouch applied to the leading edge of microliths (c. 20%), particularly on oblique points. The mean length of ‘Deepcar’ type microliths is long (c. 33-38 mm). In outline microliths tend to be slender with narrow, pointed basal terminations (cf. Fig 2.3).

2) Lateralization. ‘Star Carr’ type microliths have the lowest proportion of points lateralized to the left, at c. 65%, while c. 80% of ‘Deepcar’ microliths are lateralized to the left. ‘Horsham’ type microliths have the highest ratio of points lateralized to the left (> 95%). 3) Additional Retouch. Additional retouch occurs on c. 20% of both ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ type microliths. However, additional retouch does not feature on ‘Star Carr’ microliths to any notable degree.

The ‘Deepcar’ standard tool assemblage is dominated by scrapers, mostly of short end form (c. 30%-45%), although there is occasionally a small number of long end scrapers. Burins are poorly characterized (c. 0%-30%) and include high frequencies of ‘corbiac’ (e.g. Fig 2.2 7) and ‘pseudo’ burins (see Glossary). Core tools - most often flake axes (c. 3%-7%), piercers (c. 0%-13%), microdenticulates (c. 1%-23%) and truncated pieces (c. 8%-52%) are all usually present in varying frequencies. Chamfered and backed pieces, however, are rare and poorly characterized (< 2%).

4) Shape. ‘Star Carr’ type microliths are small and angular with broad, feathered bases. ‘Deepcar’ type microliths are entirely different in shape, being both long and slender with narrow bases. ‘Horsham’ type microliths are superficially similar in character to ‘Star Carr’ microliths, being small and angular, however ‘Horsham’ microliths differ from ‘Star Carr’ points in having pointed rather than broad bases.

2.3.3. The ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages. The chief characteristic of the microlith assemblage is the presence of hollow-based points (c. 5%-15%) and other basally worked forms ( 95%) and there is a high proportion of microliths with additional retouch on the leading edge (> 15%). The mean length of microliths is small (c. 22-26 mm). Generally the microliths are small, highly angular and have pointed basal terminations (cf. Fig 2.5).

The chief observation to be made is that each assemblagetype can be described by a relatively narrow typological definition. This definition is based for the most part on analysis of the microlith population alone, although certain traits in the standard tool assemblage may also be relevant. For reasons set out in section 1.4.3 the sample size is still small. However, these definitions should be enough to allow individual assemblages of unknown affinity to be assigned, or otherwise, to one or other of the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types with a good degree of accuracy. The relevance of this procedure will become apparent in later chapters.

The standard tool assemblage is dominated by scrapers (31%-84%). These are mostly short end forms but there is also an increased frequency of nosed forms. Burins are rare and poorly characterized (< 10%). Core tools (< 2%) and microdenticulates (c. 1%) are also rare. Truncated pieces are present in moderate frequencies (c. 4%-14%). The remaining standard tool assemblage is characterized by

2.4.0. Statistical Analysis of Assemblages-types The typological evidence presented above suggests that the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ types of Early Mesolithic stone assemblage are superficially different from one another. The next stage in the analysis is to 22

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 2.7. Cluster diagram (dendogram) for 49 Early Mesolithic assemblages analysed by R.M. Jacobi. The diagram shows three main cluster groups: A/B (‘Star Carr’ type); C (‘Deepcar’ type); and D/E (‘Horsham’ type). [After Switsur and Jacobi 1979; Fig 3]. assess this variation and outline how these differences might be measured and presented. The principal objective is to establish that these three assemblage-types, as defined here, are sufficiently different from one another to be regarded as separate archaeological entities. In general there have been two approaches to this problem: statistical analysis, where mathematical models simulate the probable variation between selected assemblage-types; and graphical analysis, where actual variations between certain assemblage-types are assessed visually. Neither method is absolute, but both techniques used on the same, or similar, dataset can compliment each other: statistical analyses describing general differences between groups of assemblages; graphical analyses isolating specific differences.

data he adopted the statistical technique of ‘cluster analysis’. In simple terms cluster analysis groups individual cases according to the ‘nearness’ of certain variables (SPSS 1988). In this analysis the individual cases were assemblages of microliths, and the variables were the relative proportions of the 32 microlith types in each assemblage. ‘Nearness’ can be calculated in a number of ways, but Jacobi used Ward’s method which uses squared Euclidean distances. At the beginning of the analysis each microlith assemblage is considered to be unique and forms a cluster of its own. Then, based the on calculated distances between each microlith assemblage the analysis groups ‘nearest’ assemblages together to form a cluster group. The analysis proceeds by adding assemblages to existing clusters (or forming new cluster groups) until all the microlith assemblages in the analysis are grouped into one cluster. The results are presented in a dendrogram which shows when and where cluster groups were formed and which assemblages fell into each cluster. ‘Nearness’ can be estimated by how far down on the dendrogram major clusters first form.

2.4.1. Cluster Analysis. Between 1978 and 1985 R.M. Jacobi completed a series of regional reviews of the Mesolithic in Britain, covering Sussex (1978a), northern England (1978c), the West Country (1979), Essex (1980a), Wales (1980b), Hampshire (1981), Kent (1982) and East Anglia (1984). The backbone of these studies was a new microlith typology which replaced Clark’s 1934 version. The new typology reduced Clark’s somewhat cumbersome annotations to 32 microlith types, labelled alphanumerically 1a to 13. In his reviews Jacobi sort to collate and reclassify the chief microlith assemblages in each region. In order to facilitate the presentation of these

The conclusion of Jacobi’s statistical work on British microlith assemblages ultimately included 115 Mesolithic assemblages (Switsur and Jacobi 1979). Of these, 49 were assigned positively to the Early Mesolithic. Examination of 23

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER the dendrogram for these assemblages (Fig 2.7) indicated that within the Early Mesolithic there existed three main groups of microlith assemblages: 1) a cluster including the sites of Thatcham III, Iping Common and Deepcar (cluster C); 2) two clusters including Broxbourne 104, Flixton 1, Daylight Rock and Star Carr (clusters A and B); and 3) two clusters including Beeding Wood, Old Faygate and Colgate (clusters D and E). These statistical cluster groups correspond exactly with what Radley and Mellars defined as ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages (cluster C and cluster A/B, respectively), and what Clark defined as ‘Horsham’ type assemblages (cluster D/E). In other words the typological breakdown of the Early Mesolithic into the ‘Deepcar’, ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types can be tested statistically and proves valid.

assemblage-type of ‘geometric’ triangles and rhomboids as a distinctive feature (Fig 2.8); 4) the variations between the assemblage-types in the degree to which microliths are lateralized to the left, this being lowest in the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages (Fig 2.9); 5) the presence of additional retouch applied to the leading edge of microliths in ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ type assemblages only (Fig 2.10); and 6) the restricted length range of ‘Horsham’ microliths; the extended length range of ‘Deepcar’ microliths and the overall small length of ‘Star Carr’ type microliths (Fig 2.11). Both the cluster analysis by Switsur and Jacobi and the bar charts presented here provide good evidence that the ‘Horsham’, ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-types are real and distinct archaeological entities. The cluster analysis illustrates that the three assemblage-types can be statistically distinguished, while the bar charts indicate something of the nature and order of variability between the assemblage-types. Precisely what these differences may mean in socio-cultural terms is discussed in the final section (2.6.0). Before then, however, it is necessary to ensure that no other entities exist in the Early Mesolithic time-frame that may confuse issues in later analyses.

2.4.2. Bar Charts. As compelling as the cluster analysis is, the test is difficult to perform without expert assistance and the relevant computer databases and software. Indeed, attempts to produce Jacobi’s results with the nine study assemblages proved only partially successful, owing substantially to the small sample size (9, as opposed to Jacobi’s 49), and also to the practice of recording additional retouch as a separate field in MESOTYPE (Jacobi incorporates this attribute as part of the microlith class). An alternative means of quantifying the differences between the ‘Horsham’, ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-types is the use of clustered bar charts. These devices have the benefit of being closely tied to the original data (reducing the need for complex data manipulation), simple to produce (they can, if necessary, be compiled and drawn by hand), and easy to read and interpret.

2.5.0. Other Early Postglacial Assemblage-types in Britain Attempts to break down the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types themselves into smaller subunits, using yet more detailed attribute analyses, have proved largely unsuccessful (Reynier 1994). This is principally because at higher levels of resolution attribute variability becomes so volatile that any meaningful pattern is submerged by background noise (1994: 202-203). However, there are at least two groups of assemblages that exist within the early Postglacial period which almost certainly represent entities at the assemblage-type level. These are the ‘long blade’ and ‘Honey Hill’ assemblages. Both of these assemblage-types have been excluded from the present analysis, primarily because they date only partially within the Early Mesolithic time-frame as defined in section 1.4.2.

For this analysis the selected attributes for microliths typological class, lateralization, additional retouch and length - have been compared across the three assemblagetypes in four clustered bar charts (Figs 2.8 to 2.11). The data used to compile the bar charts have been collated from Tables 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5. For each bar chart the frequencies for the given attribute have been averaged across the study assemblages and collated by assemblage-type. It is acknowledged that mean values are not a precise representation of the raw data (as presented in the tables), however in this instance the mean does provide a useful graphic with which to compare general trends between each assemblage-type.

2.5.1. ‘Long blade’ Assemblages. Assemblages containing long blades appear in a variety of contexts throughout prehistory, from the Middle Palaeolithic through to the Bronze Age (Barton 1986). In Britain one of the earliest published discoveries of an assemblage with long blades was made at North Cray gravel pit in Kent by R.A. Vansittart around 1902-3 (Chandler 1914-15). Later collections were made from the same locality, and also at Bexley in Kent, Uxbridge in Middlesex and from the River Thames. All were characterized by large cores, crested blades and long blades. Perhaps inevitably, at that time, parallels were sort in the French sequence, and British assemblages with long blades were initially equated with the French Upper Palaeolithic. However, a later discovery of a ‘long blade’ site at Springhead (lower floor) in Kent

The bar charts confirm that the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types are indeed different. In particular, they clarify the main points drawn out from the tables in section 2.3.0, namely: 1) the dominance of obliquely truncated points in the ‘Star Carr’ assemblagetype, together with the presence of triangles and trapezoids (Fig 2.8); 2) the appearance of partially-backed points as a characteristic feature of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages, and the broad range but low frequency of other microlith forms in this assemblage-type (Fig 2.8); 3) the appearance of hollow-based points as a characteristic feature of the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage, and the appearance in this 24

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

25

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

26

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN (Burchell 1938) was found to resemble more closely assemblages excavated from northern Germany by G.Schwantes in the late 1920s and A. Rust in the 1930s, and termed by them the ‘Ahrensburgian culture’ (Clark 1938b).

sub-cluster ‘Assemblages of Midlands/East Anglian type’ on the basis that sites in the sub-cluster all belonged to this geographical region. Formal descriptions of the assemblages were first made by A. Saville on surface collections from central England made by B. Waite between 1969 and 1979. Saville compared three assemblages from Warwickshire - Corley Rock, Over Whiteacre 4 and Over Whiteacre Spring (1981a) - with a fourth assemblage, Honey Hill, from Northamptonshire (1981b). He confirmed that the assemblages were typologically distinct from other Mesolithic assemblage-types and represented a distinct central England earlier Mesolithic. He named (as Jacobi had done) the inversely based point as the type fossil of the assemblage-type, and suggested the closest affinities of the assemblage lay with the ‘Horsham’ assemblages from south-east England.

‘Long blade’ assemblages from Britain are characterized by the presence of: 1) long blades, either in the form of large ‘grossklingen’ (12-15 cm in length) or giant ‘riesenklingen’ (> 15 cm in length); 2) blades with bruised edges (‘lames mâchurées’); and 3) cores abandoned while still capable of yielding large or great blades (Taute 1968; Cook and Jacobi 1994). ‘Long blade’ microlith assemblages are enigmatic. On the continent typologically similar assemblages can be associated with simple obliquely truncated points (‘zonhoven points’), tanged points (‘ahrensburgian points’) and/or a variety of bitruncated, backed or basally modified points. In Britain the position of microliths in ‘long blade’ assemblages is less certain, although most continental microlith forms have now been associated with at least some British ‘long blade’ assemblages: e.g. obliquely truncated points at Uxbridge A (Lewis 1991); ‘ahrensburgian’ tanged points from Avington VI in Berkshire (Barton and Froom 1986) and Risby Warren in Humberside (May 1976); and a number of basally modified points (transverse variant) from the King’s site and Phillips 2 in Suffolk (Barton 1986). The standard tool assemblage is generally restricted to end scrapers and well made burins, both in variable numbers. Stone axes have not been recorded.

The ‘Honey Hill’ type microlith assemblage contains a high proportion of oblique points (c. 20%-60%), many of which are of the partially-backed variant.2 Convex backed points are also common (c. 15%-30%). Isosceles triangles and rhomboids are both present but in low frequencies (c. 5%-15%), while scalene triangles form an important but variable feature of the microlith assemblage (c.2%-30%). However, the most notable element in the assemblage-type is the series of basally modified points (c. 5%-20%). These are all of the inverse variant, where backed or partially backed points have been inversely retouched across the base to form a rounded or pointed base. The microlith assemblage as a whole is strongly lateralized to the left (> 90%) and contains a high proportion of points with additional retouch added to the leading edge (c. 25%). The mean length of microliths is small (c. 21-26 mm) and the outline tends to be slender. The standard tool assemblage includes an often large series of end scrapers (c. 84%) and low frequencies of burins (c. 2%). Core tools are present and can include flake axes.

On the strength of these data the British ‘long blade’ assemblages have been tentatively associated with assemblages of ‘Ahrensburgian’ type that appear around the North Sea Basin in north Germany, the Low Countries and northern France (Barton 1989; 1991; 1995). Further links have been suggested on the basis of a so-called ‘Lyngby axe’ from Earl’s Barton, in Northamptonshire, and similar artefacts from ‘Ahrensburgian’ sites (Cook and Jacobi 1994). Consequently, it has been suggested that the British ‘long blade’ assemblages are likely to date to the same time-frame as the ‘Ahrensburgian’ assemblages of northern Germany and France, i.e. to between c. 10.3 ka BP and c. 9.7 ka BP (Fischer and Tauber 1986). At present the only British ‘long blade’ assemblage to be radiometrically dated is Uxbridge (scatter A), where two AMS dates on bone and tooth fall precisely into this slot, at c. 10.2 ka BP and c. 10.0 ka BP (see Table 4.1).

Most of the ‘Honey Hill’ type assemblages so far known (c. 15) are surface scatters and hence no direct radiocarbon dates are available for this assemblage type. However, it has been argued that ‘Horsham’ and ‘Honey Hill’ type assemblages might be broadly contemporary (Saville 1981a; Reynier forthcoming). This argument can now be taken a stage further. The ‘Horsham’ type assemblage from Beedings Wood, in addition to containing hollow-based points, also has a series of 16 inversely-based points of ‘Honey Hill’ type (Clark 1934, Fig 10: 177-192). This suggests that the Beedings Wood assemblage may be close in age to the ‘Honey Hill’ type assemblages. Although no dates are available for Beedings Wood itself, the hollowbased points from Beedings Wood are typologically similar to those from Kettlebury 103 in that both series have the hollow made inversely, from the dorsal surface. Kettlebury

2.5.2. ‘Honey Hill’ Type Assemblages. Artefacts similar to what has now been termed the ‘Honey Hill’ assemblagetype were first published from the site of Peacock’s Farm, in Cambridgeshire, by J.G.D. Clark (Clark et al. 1933; 1955). Clark considered the assemblage to possess ‘Sauveterrian affinities’ on the basis of the ‘geometric’ microlith component present in the assemblage. The same assemblage occurred as part of a ‘fourth cluster’ in a statistical analysis of Mesolithic microlith assemblages (Switsur and Jacobi 1979; Jacobi 1979). Jacobi termed the

2 The figures cited in brackets are only rough estimates and have been collated from data presented in Saville (1981a).

27

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

28

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN 103 has two radiocarbon dates of c. 8.2 ka BP and c. 7.9 ka BP (see Table 4.1), and it seems likely that Beedings Wood is of a similar age. If correct, the earliest dates for inversely-based points of ‘Honey Hill’ type may be of a similar order, i.e. close to c. 8.0 ka BP.3 Indeed, typologically similar points, with inversely worked bases, have been dated in northern France, at La ChauséeTirancourt in the Somme valley (Ducrocq and Ketterer 1995) to between c. 8.4 ka BP and c. 7.7 ka BP (see Table 7.4), and in the Low Countries from c. 8.2 ka BP to c. 7.8 ka BP (Gob 1984).

the material spheres of cultural activity.... 3) The same specific artefact-types occur together repeatedly in those component assemblages, albeit in varying combinations. 4) ...the component assemblages must come from a limited, defined and continuous geographical area and a limited, defined and continuous period of time.’ (1968: 231). The ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblagetypes, as defined above, immediately fulfil three of these four criteria. Each assemblage-type is defined by a specific set of artefact-types, in this case microliths (no.1); the same suites of microliths occur consistently within each assemblage-type (no.3); and each assemblage-type is restricted in both time and space, i.e. they appear only in Early Mesolithic Britain (no. 4). It is in the second criterion - that the assemblage-types are defined by a ‘comprehensive selection’ of artefact-types - that the analogy falls down somewhat, since the three Early Mesolithic assemblages are defined exclusively by their microlith assemblages.

Evidently, both the ‘long blade’ and ‘Honey Hill’ type assemblages possess some typological affinity with the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types under discussion here, and there could be grounds, despite the complication of radiocarbon compressions (see section 4.4.2), to see the ‘long blade’ and ‘Honey Hill’ assemblage-types as influencing, and being influenced by, the main Early Mesolithic assemblage-types. Whether or not this is the case will depend on detailed typological, technological and chronological analyses of these two assemblage-types. Precisely this type of analysis is currently being undertaken for the ‘long blade’ assemblages by S. Dumont (Oxford Brookes), and proposals have already been forwarded by the author to investigate the ‘Honey Hill’ along these lines. However, for the time being, it is sufficient to record that at present there is no other valid archaeological entity known to occur wholly within the defined Early Mesolithic timeframe, other than the ‘Horsham’, ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-types described in this chapter.

However, there are at least two mitigating circumstances. Firstly, the Early Mesolithic standard tool assemblage is extremely restricted in breadth. In many cases the only artefacts present in frequencies large enough to be significant are scrapers, and these are highly standardized throughout the Early Mesolithic. Secondly, there is, in fact, some evidence that minor elements in the standard tool assemblages are specific to individual assemblage-types. For instance, chamfered pieces are largely restricted to the ‘Horsham’ assemblages, microdenticulates mostly to ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages and heavy awls (‘mèches de forêt’) to ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. On this basis it is suggested that all three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types can be assumed to correspond with Clarke’s definition of a ‘cultural assemblage’.

2.6.0. Interpretative Framework Thus far it has been demonstrated that three main assemblage-types exist within the Early Mesolithic timeframe: the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and the ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types. The history of each assemblage-type has been outlined and their typological components detailed. It remains to introduce the framework in which these three assemblage-types will be interpreted.

2.6.2. Interpretation of Assemblage-types. The term ‘cultural assemblage’ brings with it an important set of socio-cultural corollaries. These have been set out at great length by Clarke (1968: 358-398). At the higher levels of resolution Clarke suggested that archaeological cultures could comprise any number of potential ‘sub-cultural’ variations, such as ethnic, regional, occupational, social and even sexual elements. These variations incorporate some aspects of the familiar ‘function versus style’ discussions (e.g. Bordes 1973; Binford 1973; Sackett 1973; Weissner 1983). At a lower resolution Clarke envisaged groupings of cultures and ultimately ‘technocomplexes’: vast groupings of individual cultural assemblages sharing general classes of artefact but differing widely in their specific typological composition. These constructs have been favoured by archaeologists working at a Europeanwide level (e.g. Clark 1936; Kozlowski 1975; Kozlowski and Kozlowski 1979). Thus, as the hierarchy of archaeological entities is scaled Clarke envisaged an

2.6.1. Definition of Assemblage-types. In this study the term ‘assemblage-type’ is defined in accordance with D.L. Clarke’s ‘archaeological cultural assemblage’. Under this definition assemblages grouped together to form an ‘assemblage-type’ must satisfy four requirements: ‘... 1) The component assemblages share a large number of specific artefact-types one with another, although each assemblage need not contain all the types in the shared set. 2) The artefact-types represented in the assemblages comprise a comprehensive selection of types from most of 3 At Peacock’s Farm itself recent excavations have recovered a stone assemblage which, although lacking the inversely based points, is otherwise similar to the original material published by Clark. Radiocarbon dates associated with this new material place the assemblage ‘... either side of 8000 BP’ (Smith et al. 1989: 228).

29

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER interpretational progression from individuals to families, to tribes, to tribal groups and on to confederations consisting of tens of thousands of individuals (e.g. 1968: Fig 61). Needless to say there are difficulties in applying Clarke’s correlations wholesale to the Early Mesolithic record. In particular, in order to get at the full spectrum of sociocultural activity a high standard of archaeological data is required. This calibre of data is simply unavailable in the Early Mesolithic context, where the majority of evidence is in the form of stone artefacts and most perishable items have decayed. Similarly, Clarke’s models prescribe an extensive knowledge of the chronological, environmental and geographical distribution of archaeological evidence. Again this level of information is largely absent from the Early Mesolithic context, as was discussed in chapter 1 (section 1.1.1). Given the present state of knowledge it would be premature to assign anything other than a basic sociocultural meaning to the three Early Mesolithic assemblagetypes described in this chapter. For this reason it is proposed, in the first instance, to interpret the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types as primarily archaeological entities without any specific social or cultural meaning. Hence the term ‘assemblage-type’ is presently preferred to Clarke’s original term. Of course, to some extent the flaws in our knowledge of the Early Mesolithic will be addressed in the present study, and as this information is collated it will be possible to further refine this general definition. 2.7.0. Conclusions In this chapter the basic units of study, the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types, have been introduced. The following areas have been covered: 1) an outline has been given of the origin and history of each assemblage-type; 2) a full typological definition of each assemblage-type has been set out; 3) the results of statistical analyses have been discussed showing that the three assemblage-types represent distinct archaeological entities; and 4) the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types have been fitted into a conceptual framework that interprets these assemblage-types as socio-cultural entities, albeit at some undefined level. An important point to stress here is that most of the concepts introduced and discussed in this chapter are already existent, and have been for 20 years or more. The value of this chapter is, then, that it has brought together some of these disparate concepts and has placed them in a coherent framework, geared specifically to the Early Mesolithic context. From this base a more detailed examination of the Early Mesolithic can proceed.

30

Chapter Three TECHNOLOGY overall core reduction process. In the attribute analysis standard attributes were recorded for cores, flakes and blades only. The attributes selected were: butt morphology, dorsal scar pattern, margin morphology and dimensions (length). These attributes were felt to provide a more detailed description of specific core reduction traits. Full definitions of the debitage typology and attributes are given in the Glossary.

3.1.0. Introduction In the previous chapter the three main Early Mesolithic assemblage-types in the British Isles, the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ type assemblages, were introduced. The microlith and tool assemblages of each assemblage-type were defined and it was hypothesized that each assemblage-type might represent a discrete social group. This chapter will explore the question of social groups in more detail. Specifically, it presents the results of a technological analysis conducted for each assemblagetype. The aim of this analysis has been to isolate the core reduction strategies for each of the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types. It is demonstrated that there are marked differences in the way in which each of the these Early Mesolithic assemblage-types was manufactured. Differences in technology between the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types, it is argued, present strong evidence of the discrete social groups suggested by the typological analysis.

3.1.3. Presentation of Results. The results of the technological analysis are described for each of the three assemblage-types in turn (section 3.2.0), first from a typological point of view, pointing to the presence or absence of certain debitage types, and then from a technological aspect, using mainly the attribute data. In the following section (3.3.0) these data are interpreted in terms of core reduction strategies, and it is suggested that each Early Mesolithic assemblage-type is represented by a unique core technology. In section 3.4.0 these results are considered and there is a discussion on how core reduction strategies might have been influenced by natural factors, and what the strategies themselves may signify in sociocultural terms.

3.1.1. Selection of Material. The same sample of nine Early Mesolithic assemblages was selected for this technological analyses as was used in Chapter Two (section 2.3.0). In this analysis, however, the study material was drawn solely from the debitage assemblages of the study sites. Data were recorded for all cores, core dressings, microburins, spalls, blades, flakes and fragments.1 The data were collected by one individual (the author) over a period of 13 months. Each debitage artefact was first typologically classified and then examined to identify those technological attributes to be recorded (see below). Where necessary a hand lens (x10) was employed. Typological and technological attributes were pre-coded and recorded directly onto computer, using the dBASE IV database package (AshtonTate 1988). Data were recorded for an artefact wherever it was possible to ascribe the attribute correctly beyond doubt.2

3.2.0. Technological Analysis of Assemblage-types An initial examination of the data revealed that the most meaningful technological information was contained in the data for cores, core-dressings and blades. These data have been collated into tables for each of the three assemblagetypes (Tables 3.1 to 3.6). In order to compare the three assemblage-types these data have also been transformed into clustered bar charts by averaging for each assemblagetype the data for the corresponding study sites (Figs 3.7 to 3.14), as described in Chapter Two (section 2.4.2). 3.2.1. The ‘Star Carr’ Debitage Assemblage. The three assemblages selected to represent the ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type were: Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire; Pointed Stone 3, Yorkshire; and Thatcham III (patinated series), Berkshire. Further details of these sites are presented in section 1.5.0.

3.1.2. Method of Analysis. The study was by means of typological and attribute analysis. In the typological analysis the typological class of all cores, core dressings, microburins, spalls and fragments was recorded for each of the nine study sites. These debitage classes were selected because they represent the complete array of recognized knapping by-products, and hence reveal something of the

1) Typological Analysis (Table 3.1). All forms of core reduction debitage are present in the ‘Star Carr’ study assemblages. There are three notable features. Firstly, the high frequency of two-platformed cores (e.g. Fig 3.1, 1). This point is emphasized by the prevalence of platform preparation applied to both platforms of the core (cf. Fig 3.8). Secondly, the dominance of crested pieces in the core dressing assemblage (e.g. Fig 3.2, 3). Added to this, the suppressed frequencies of plunging pieces (e.g. Fig 3.2, 4) may again indicate bi-platformed core working (see below).

1 Where feasible, the entire assemblage was examined (sample=100%). However, the size of the blade and flake populations at Iping Common 1, Marsh Benham 1, Thatcham III (unpatinated series) and Longmoor 1 made it necessary to take samples. The method of sampling was systematic (Fletcher and Lock 1994), following at least a 1 in 4 strategy (sample=25%). 2 This means that broken as well as complete artefacts were used, with the corollary that attributes are not uniformly recorded for each artefact. In this way sample populations were maximized across all attributes.

31

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

32

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

33

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

34

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

35

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER And thirdly, the absence of axe sharpening pieces. This corresponds with the apparent absence of axes from the standard tool assemblage noted in the previous chapter, and is believed to be purely the result of a sample bias. Variations between the assemblages are marked. In particular, the assemblage from Pointed Stone 3 differs from the other two assemblages on three criteria. Firstly, in the ratio between those cores with two opposed platforms, and the more common type where both platforms are set at an angle. Secondly, the general absence of platform preparation on all cores. And thirdly, the increased frequency of crested pieces and corresponding decrease in core tablets. These differences will be returned to in sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.1. In most other cases, however, the differences between the three assemblages are in the relative proportions of certain debitage forms, rather than in their presence or absence. 2) Technological Analysis (Table 3.2). In contrast to the typological analysis, the technological attributes recorded for ‘Star Carr’ type blades display a strong correspondence across the three assemblages studied. The same is true of flakes (not shown). There are three striking features. Firstly, the increased frequency of reduced butt types (punctiform and linear butts). This fact is surprising because Early Mesolithic assemblages are traditionally considered to be dominated by plain butts (Barton 1991). Secondly, the dominance of parallel aretes. This is mirrored more subtlely in a higher proportion of blades with parallel margins. And thirdly, the generally long length of complete blades. The mean length for complete blades falls between 45.1 +/- 16.5 mm (66) and 42.2 +/15.7 mm (163) for Thatcham III (patinated series) and Broxbourne 104, respectively. Blade bulbs of percussion are consistently dominated by diffuse bulbs (c. 88%; not shown). Variation between the study assemblages is again restricted to the assemblage from Pointed Stone 3. Two features are notable. Firstly, the lower frequency of plain butts. And secondly, the small size of complete blades. The mean length of complete blades is 29.8 +/- 11.7 mm (47). Again the distinctive traits exhibited by the Pointed Stone 3 assemblage are interesting and will be discussed in more detail in sections 3.3.1 and 3.4.1. 3.2.2. The ‘Deepcar’ Debitage Assemblage. The three assemblages selected to represent the ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-type are: Iping Common 1, Sussex; Marsh Benham 1, Berkshire; and Thatcham III (unpatinated series), Berkshire. Further details of these sites are presented in section 1.5.0. Figure 3.3. Cores from the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage at Iping Common, Sussex (Jacobi collection): two platforms, opposed (1); one platform, partially worked around the platform perimeter (2). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier].

1) Typological analysis (Table 3.3). All forms of recognized debitage are present in the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages studied. However, the most striking feature is the dominance in the core assemblage of single platform cores (e.g. Fig 3.3, 2). This point is emphasized by the high 36

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

37

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Figure 3.4. Debitage from the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage at Iping Common, Sussex (Jacobi collection): core tablet (1); plunging piece (2); axe sharpening flakes (3-4); distal microburin (5); krukowski piece (6); miss-hit microburin (7); notch spall (8); retouch spall (9); corbiac spall (10); proximal microburin (11-12); axe thinning flake (13). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier]. 38

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN frequency of cores with platform preparation applied to one platform only (cf. Fig 3.8). Of minor interest is the consistent presence of axe sharpening pieces (e.g. Fig 3.4, 3-4) and chamfer spalls. The previous chapter demonstrated the presence of axes in the ‘Deepcar’ assemblages and the presence of axe spalls in the debitage assemblage is to be expected. The presence of chamfered pieces was less well attested in the standard tool assemblages. However, the presence of small, but consistent, numbers of chamfer spalls in the debitage assemblages suggests that chamfered pieces may also have played a minor rôle in the tool kit.

The degree of correspondence between the three ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages is remarkably strong, both in terms of the presence or absence of debitage forms and also in the frequencies in which these artefacts occur across the assemblages. Only one major anomaly can be detected. This is the lower frequency of plunging pieces in the assemblage from Marsh Benham 1 (Table 3.3). This point may, perhaps, be related to the quality of flint at this site. 2) Technological analysis (Table 3.4). The technological data for blades also conform well across all three of the assemblages studied. The same is true for flakes (not

39

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

shown). Three features typify the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages. Firstly, the comprehensive dominance of plain butts over both types of reduced butt form (linear and punctiform). It is also noted that worked butt forms are almost entirely absent. Secondly, a minor increase in the frequency of blades with narrow, converging margins. This feature may be related to the predominance of single platformed cores, which often taper towards the base. And thirdly, a general reduction in the length of complete blades. The mean blade length falls between 37.9 +/- 14.1 mm (108) and 43.1 +/- 14.3 mm (346) for Marsh Benham 1 and Thatcham III (unpatinated), respectively. Blade bulbs

of percussion are consistently dominated by diffuse bulbs (c. 88%; not shown). Differences between the three assemblages studied again centre around the assemblage from Marsh Benham 1 (Table 3.4). There are two notable features. In the first instance, there are suppressed frequencies of blades with parallel and Y-type dorsal scar patterns. In the second instance, there are increased frequencies of blades with parallel margins. At present it is not known to what these variations relate.

40

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN 3.2.3. The ‘Horsham’ Debitage Assemblage. The three assemblages selected to represent the ‘Horsham’ assemblage-type are: Kettlebury 103, Surrey; Longmoor 1, Hampshire; and St. Catherine’s Hill, Surrey. Further details of these sites are presented in section 1.5.0. 1) Typological Analysis (Table 3.5). The three ‘Horsham’ type debitage assemblages studied are broadly similar in terms of the presence and absence of specific debitage forms. Generally, the assemblages can be characterized by three features. Firstly, there is a high frequency of cores with two platforms set at right angles to each other, socalled ‘orthogonal’ cores (e.g. Fig 3.5, 1). Secondly, there is a generally high frequency of face dressings (flanc de nucléus). And thirdly, there is a high frequency of chamfer spalls (e.g Fig 3.6, 6) and a low frequency of axe sharpening flakes (both features that compare well with the findings from the standard tool assemblages presented in Chapter Two). In addition there is also a notable proportion of cores with no platform preparation whatsoever (cf. Fig 3.8). Variability is frequently acute. It is most often restricted to the proportions in which specific debitage types occur across the assemblages. It does not, generally, concern the presence or absence of debitage types. Technological variability is particularly evident in the assemblage from St. Catherine’s Hill 1 (Table 3.5) where three features set this assemblage apart from Kettlebury 103 and Longmoor 1. Firstly, the increased frequency of single platformed cores. Secondly, the increased frequency of crested pieces, and a corresponding suppression of face dressings. And thirdly, the increased frequency of notch spalls. The significance of these variations is discussed below. 2) Technological Analysis (Table 3.6). The blade data correspond well across all three of the assemblages studied. There are three important features. Firstly, there is a dominance of plain butts over all other butt forms. The frequency of punctiform butts is also notable; worked butt forms, however, are generally absent. Secondly, there is a minor increase in the frequency of blades with parallel dorsal scar patterns, compared to the two other assemblage-types. Blades with opposed dorsal scar patterns are rare. And thirdly, blade length is tightly clustered and short. The mean length of complete blades falls between 33.3 +/- 8.4 mm (70) and 35.2 +/- 11.1 mm (83) at Kettlebury 103 and Longmoor 1, respectively. Blade bulbs of percussion are consistently dominated by diffuse bulbs (c. 91%; not shown).

Figure 3.5. Cores from the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage at Kettlebury 103, Surrey: orthogonal (1); helix (2). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier]. 1. These data are not presented in this analysis, but the important features of variation can be summarized as follows: 1) an almost complete absence of primary flakes; 2) a high frequency of flakes with no dorsal aretes; 3) a low frequency of flakes with pronounced bulbs of percussion; and 4) a decrease in the mean length of complete flakes. It is not at present known what these variations signify. It may be that unique factors were affecting the core reduction process at this site. Alternatively, it is possible that the St. Catherine’s Hill 1 assemblage represents a distinct stone-working tradition.

Variation in the technological data is restricted again to the assemblage from St. Catherine’s Hill 1. Firstly, there is a high frequency of blades with converging margins (Table 3.6). This feature is not typical of any of the Early Mesolithic assemblages studied. Further variation was observed in the flake population from St. Catherine’s Hill

41

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Figure 3.6. Debitage from the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage at Kettlebury 103, Surrey: plunging piece (1); blade (2); proximal microburins (3-4); krukowski piece (5); chamfer spall (6); core tablet (7). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier].

42

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

3.2.4. Synthesis of Debitage Analyses. In summary, it is possible to make a number of general statements concerning aspects of the core reduction process for each Early Mesolithic assemblage-type:

4) there is a general suppression in the frequency of plunging pieces in the ‘Star Carr’ type debitage assemblages (Fig 3.9). 2) ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages. A general feature of the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages studied is the strong degree of correspondence across the assemblages. This agreement is in terms of both the presence and absence of specific debitage forms and in the proportions in which these forms occur across the assemblages. Three features are distinctive: 1) the high frequency of single platformed cores (Fig 3.7); 2) the dominance of plain butts over all other butt forms (Fig 3.11); and 3) the high frequency

1) ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. There are four features which characterize the ‘Star Carr’ type debitage assemblages: 1) a majority of ‘Star Carr’ type cores are biplatformed, meaning that two platforms were prepared and removals made consistently from both (Fig 3.7); 2) ‘Star Carr’ type blades have high frequencies of reduced butt forms, particularly punctiform butts (Fig 3.11); 3) ‘Star Carr’ type blades, on average, exceed 40 mm in length; and 43

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

44

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

45

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

46

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

47

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER of plunging pieces (Fig 3.9). Less consistent, but notable nonetheless, is the clustering of mean blade lengths between 35 and 40 mm (Fig 3.14).

3.3.0. Core Reduction Strategies in the Early Mesolithic The foregoing analysis has demonstrated that in each of the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types examined it is possible to discern discrete typological and technological traits. These traits appear to be unique to each assemblagetype and are shared by all the selected assemblages grouped within a particular assemblage-type. The next question is to determine what these traits may mean in terms of stone reduction strategies. In this respect some general evaluation of likely stone reduction strategies can be estimated by piecing together the typological and technological attributes recorded above.

3) ‘Horsham’ type assemblages. The ‘Horsham’ type assemblages display more variability than either of the ‘Star Carr’ or ‘Deepcar’ debitage assemblages. Most frequently this is in terms of the proportion in which certain typological attributes occur in the assemblages. However, it is notable that technological attributes are consistent across all three of the assemblages studied. In general, the assemblages can be characterized by four features: 1) the presence of cores with two platforms set at right angles to one another, i.e. orthogonal cores (Fig 3.7); 2) the dominance of plain butts over other butt forms (Fig 3.11); 3) the generally high frequency of face dressings (Fig 3.9); and 4) the tight clustering of mean blade lengths under 35 mm (Fig 3.14). An additional feature is that platform preparation is not commonly employed on ‘Horsham’ type cores (Fig 3.8).

3.3.1. Core Reduction Strategy in ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages. The higher frequency of two-platformed cores in the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages suggests that the reduction strategy was a bi-platformed blade technology (Fig 3.15). The general technique would have been to remove two core tablets from either end of a largish

48

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

closely controlled given the high frequency of reduced butts evident on both flakes and blades. Indeed, the greater proportion of punctiform to linear type butts may suggest the use of a punch; otherwise a small, soft hammerstone is likely.

pebble, leaving a rectangular core with two opposed platforms. These platforms seem to have been used more or less interchangeably, hence both platform edges are prepared with light chipping in order to remove the overhangs and spurs left by previous removals. Approximately 25% of blades measure over 50 mm in length, while only a single blade is in excess of 100 mm. This suggests that the original size of nodules was probably around c. 100 mm in length.

3.3.2. Core Reduction Strategy in ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblages. The ‘Deepcar’ reduction strategy appears to be semi bi-platformed. This means that although two platforms may appear to be present only one is consistently used to remove blades, the second platform being used mostly to correct knapping errors. The general technique appears to have been the removal of a single core tablet from one end of a nodule (Fig 3.16). Removals are then made from one platform only and this platform is carefully maintained by light chipping in order to clear overhangs and spurs left from previous removal beds. Approximately 22% of blades measure over 50 mm in length, while

Although primary and secondary removals struck from a bi-platformed core can be relatively long, tertiary blades do not normally run the full length of the core face, but tend to feather out half, or three quarters, of the way down the core face where they interleave with removal beds from the opposite platform. This has the effect of producing large primary/secondary blades (subsequently converted into standard tools) but much smaller tertiary blades with broad, feathered distal terminations (subsequently converted into microliths).3 The method of striking appears to have been

tertiary blade length is computed against the mean length for all blades within an assemblage-type it is observed that ‘Star Carr’ type tertiary blades are 7 mm smaller that the mean length for all ‘Star Carr’ type blades. This is compared with mean tertiary blade lengths 4 mm and 3 mm smaller for the ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ type blade assemblages, respectively. These data confirm that the ‘Star Carr’ core reduction strategy does indeed yield relatively smaller tertiary blades compared to the ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ strategies.

3 The difference in length between primary/secondary blades and tertiary blades is not apparent in the mean blade lengths cited in the text because this statistic was calculated using all three categories of blade in order to maximize the sample size. Secondary/tertiary blades, being larger in length, will tend to increase the overall mean. However, when mean

49

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

maximum blade lengths are all less than 100 mm This suggests that the original size of nodule lay close to c. 100 mm in length.

frequency of platform preparation at the base of the core (cf. Fig 3.8). In fact, on worked-out cores the removals made from the base are short and thin and are generally of insufficient dimensions to be converted into tools or microliths. To judge from the high frequency of plain butts displayed on both blades and flakes alike, a broad area of the platform edge came into contact with the hammer. This suggests a medium sized hammer. The high ratio of diffuse to pronounced bulbs of percussion suggests a soft stone may have been favoured.

With semi bi-platformed cores successful tertiary blades tend to run uninterrupted down the whole core face, finishing at the base of the core in natural pointed terminations. Consequently these blades are usually long and slender. Errors, such as hinge fracturing, can be corrected by a removal struck from the base of the core. However, the core base is usually much smaller in area than the top platform, and is seldom prepared or maintained as a proper second platform, hence the low

3.3.3. Core Reduction Strategy in ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages. The reduction strategy employed in the

50

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN ‘Horsham’ type assemblages is less consistent than in the other two assemblage-types. Generally, the cores appear to be worked from one platform with corrections, and full removals, made by twisting the core in the hand so that a second platform is developed at right angles to the main platform (Fig 3.17). It is noted that where two opposed platforms are used, the opposed removals are not made on the front of the core, as with the ‘Star Carr’ type cores, but are struck from the back of the core, or more often the side. Only 7% of complete blades measure more than 50 mm, and no blades are greater than 70 mm in length. This suggests that the original nodules were under 70 mm in length.

The above reconstructions suggest three distinct stoneworking technologies. One, where large nodules are generally worked from both ends, possibly with a punch. A second, where equally large nodules are more often worked from one end only, usually with a broad stone hammer. And a third, where much smaller nodules are worked more randomly, again with a broad stone hammer. The questions to arise now are: how might these technologies have evolved, and what do they signify? 3.4.0. Factors Influencing Core Technology In general, two factors can be considered as potentially controlling the development of stone-working technologies: 1) raw material; and 2) cultural tradition. Both elements are complex and contain ‘loops’ that feed into other areas of Early Mesolithic study - settlement and economics in particular. These topics will be considered in more detail in Chapter Six. In this section the influences of raw material and socio-cultural traditions on stone-working technology will be discussed only in terms of the basic concepts involved.

It may be that because the original nodules were small it was necessary to use the full length of the core to obtain blades of sufficient length. If correct this may explain the practices of setting secondary platforms at right angles to the main platform, and of removing blades from the back and sides of the core: to maximize the length of the removals by ensuring that the core face was free from terminal aretes. It may also explain the high frequency of face dressings (flanc de nucléus). In order to avoid blades feathering out short of the core length, as would happen as previous termination beds accumulate on the core face, it would be preferable to clean the face by removing a face dressing. The dominance of plain butts suggests that a broad hammer was generally used. The high frequency of diffuse bulbs of percussion again argues for a soft stone hammer.

3.4.1. Raw Material and Core Reduction Strategies. It is tacitly assumed by many archaeologists that core reduction strategies are inherently unstable, and that any change in the source, size or tractability of a raw material will necessarily result in changes to the reduction strategy itself. Under these conditions, it is argued, different core reduction strategies simply reflect different raw material

51

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER sources.

worked down. Either way, the result appears to be a core reduction strategy specifically adapted to small core sizes. So, in this case it is likely that raw material does influence the core reduction strategy observed in the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages. However, when the distinctive nature of the microlith and standard tool assemblage is taken into account it seems more than possible that this reduction strategy may represent a third tradition.

Data collected in this study challenges this argument on two fronts. Firstly, it can be shown that flint from the same source, and of similar size and tractability, is reduced in different ways. And secondly evidence is presented that contradicts the concept of core reduction strategies as inherently unstable, suggesting instead that such strategies may have been deeply embedded in socio-cultural traditions.

This statement is supported by evidence of the deeply embedded nature of Early Mesolithic core reduction strategies evidenced at the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage at Pointed Stone 3, in Yorkshire. This assemblage is made on non-local, opaque light grey flint, usually provenanced to the Lincolnshire Wolds (Radley and Mellars 1964). There is no local flint source near the site (Taylor pers. comm.). The most striking aspect of the assemblage is the small size of the artefacts. The cores, blades and microliths are all the smallest recorded in the analysis. Only 2.1% of blades and 2.8% of flakes are longer than 50 mm, suggesting a mean nodule size of under 70 mm, as opposed to the 100 mm recorded for the two south-east ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages.

Table 3.7 gives data concerning raw material for the study assemblages. It can be seen that in all cases flint is the dominant material. In Britain flint can be obtained from four main sources: chalk; head deposits (such as clay-withflints); river gravels; and coastal beaches (Care 1982). Analysis of the cortex of primary flakes from the study assemblages indicates that the majority of flint from the two southern ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages and all three ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages derives from local river gravels. However, in the case of the three ‘Horsham’ type assemblages alternative sources appear to be used. At both Kettlebury 103 and Longmoor 1 the cortex is generally rolled smooth but remains thick and in some cases chalky. The most likely source is a local head deposit, possibly clay-with-flints. The cortex from St. Catherine’s Hill 1 is similar in character, and despite the location of the site less than 1 km from the chalk of the Hog’s Back, it seems likely that the flint was obtained on-site, also from a head deposit, in this case the calcareous Bargate beds (Gable 1976).

However, in terms of both typology and technology the Pointed Stone 3 assemblage differs very little from the two south-east examples. In particular, all three assemblages are dominated by the same microlith forms, along with the same technological attributes, and possess the same technological traits in the debitage assemblage, most notably in the high frequency of punctiform butts on blades and flakes. It appears, then, that at Pointed Stone 3 nodule size did not noticeably influence the stone-working technology employed. Indeed, to the contrary, despite the small nodules worked at the site the knappers persisted in reducing cores and making tools in the same manner as at flint rich locations like Broxbourne 104 and Thatcham III (patinated series).

The main point of interest to emerge from this analysis is that in south-east England both ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages appear to use the same type of raw material: river gravel flint. It was noted above that in each assemblage-type these nodules were of approximately the same size, about 100 mm in length, and can be assumed to have been of similar tractability. Indeed, at Thatcham III, in Berkshire, the ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages lie only meters apart, indicating that both assemblages are not only made on the same raw material type, but also on raw material from identical sources. This clearly indicates that raw material can not have overly influenced the core reduction strategy employed at the Thatcham sites. Considering that it has been demonstrated in this chapter that the reduction strategy for each of the two assemblagetypes at Thatcham is markedly different, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-types represent two different styles or ‘traditions’ of stone-working.

This evidence suggests that core reduction strategies may have been far more stable in the Early Mesolithic than archaeologists have traditionally believed. They may even have operated independently of raw materials. One reason why this may have been so is the effect reduction strategies have on the shape of artefact blanks. For instance, it was noted above that bi-platformed cores, as used in ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages, tend to produce short, squat tertiary blades with broad feathered terminations. These blanks are responsible for the short angular microliths characteristic of this assemblage-type. Similarly, the semi bi-platformed cores common in ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages tend to yield longer, slender tertiary blades with pointed terminations, again a characteristic of the predominant microlith shape. A similar correspondence is found between ‘Horsham’ type tertiary blades and microliths. If one assumes that microlith design was important in technological (hafting) or social (styling) terms, then it is not difficult to see how core reduction strategies could become deeply fixed, to the point of over-riding raw material constraints.

Returning to the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages, it appears that these assemblages use a different source of flint from that used in the ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ assemblagetypes, the flint being obtained predominantly from claywith-flint or other head deposits. Evidently these sources yielded smaller nodules, or perhaps useable nodules were less common in these deposits and hence more extensively 52

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN 3.4.2. Tradition, Cultural Assemblages and Society. It was observed in Chapter Two that in theoretical terms the assemblage-type, as defined here, can be equated with D.L. Clarke’s cultural assemblage, ‘... a polythetic set of specific and comprehensive artefact-types which consistently recur together in assemblages within a limited geographic area’ (1968: 232). It was decided at that juncture to adopt a pragmatic interpretation of this concept, and in section 2.6.2 it was suggested that the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types be considered as nothing more than distinct archaeological entities, with no sociocultural connotations. In this chapter it has been possible to go one stage further and suggest that the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types examined represent distinct stone-working traditions. This opens the way for a variety of discussions at the socio-cultural level, since a stoneworking tradition is clearly operating at a social level, rather than at a purely archaeological level.

individuals, based on the suggested existence of three stone-working traditions. Similarly we would predict this hypothetical population to consist of between 24 and 96 bands, based on the central figure of 25 members to a band. These figures are roughly in accordance with those of C. Smith who estimated a population of between 1,200 to 2,400 individuals at c. 10.0 ka BP, extrapolated from the number of radiocarbon dated sites in Britain (1992). However, both estimates are markedly lower than R.M. Jacobi’s calculation of c. 1,980 individuals for south-east England alone based on territorial carrying capacities (1978b: 78). Unfortunately, models of this type are highly unreliable, principally because there are too many unknowns, and because so much of the ethnographical data have been misrepresented by archaeologists (cf. ConstandseWestermann and Newell 1989). In the circumstances it seems best to maintain a strictly pragmatic approach to the interpretation of the stone-working traditions suggested above. In the previous chapter it was observed that the Early Mesolithic assemblage-types almost certainly represented real archaeological entities, and that theoretically these might be associated with socio-cultural groups at some undefined level. In this chapter it is concluded that the evidence of stone-working traditions in the Early Mesolithic confirms the existence of distinct socio-cultural groupings, but again the precise nature of these groupings remains obscure. A case can be made for these groups corresponding with ethnographic bands and tribes, but given the inherent problems with this analogy the term preferred here is ‘human groups’.

Although this study is chiefly concerned with setting out the archaeological data for the Early Mesolithic period some comment ought to be made on this topic. Intuitively it might be said that a tradition implies two levels of communication: 1) communication at the personal level, in order to pass on a ‘way of doing things’ from one generation to the next; and 2) communication at the sociocultural level, in that things are done ‘this way’ and not in any other way. In other words a tradition may be taken to indicate elements of linguistic (i.e. interpersonal) and/or social (i.e. inter-group) boundaries (cf. McBryde 1986). Unfortunately the correlation tradition = linguistic/social group is often too simplistic (Hodder 1978). In the real world traditions can, and are, shared by different ethnic groups. However, a tradition does signify some element of social cohesion, and this must also be true of archaeological traditions, stone-working or otherwise. D.L. Clarke concluded that the ‘cultural assemblage’ represented:

3.5.0. Conclusions In this chapter it has been demonstrated that the three proposed Early Mesolithic assemblage-types can be characterized distinctly through their debitage assemblages. This has confirmed the contention made in Chapter Two that these assemblage-types are distinct archaeological entities. Using the assembled data it has also been possible to suggest the favoured core reduction strategies employed in the manufacture of each assemblage-type. These strategies were found to be unique to the ‘Horsham’, ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-types and it was suggested that these may represent three distinct stone-working traditions in the Early Mesolithic. It was not considered possible to interpret these traditions precisely in sociocultural terms, although it was observed that the closest apparent analogy lay in modern ethnographic tribes. For the time being it has been suggested that the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types can be reasonably interpreted as representing distinct human groups, albeit still at an undefined level. Whether this means three contemporary human groups, or the evolution of one human group through three technological stages is the subject of the next chapter.

‘A social unit greater than the family but effectively intercommunicating in terms of codified actions, sequences of actions, activities and general sociocultural behaviour, requiring a common language, a common social organization and therefore stipulating a largely homogeneous kith, kin and race group...’ (1968: 363). Indeed, if one were to adopt the same hierarchical analogy employed by Clarke (outlined in section 2.6.2) the closest socio-cultural parallel to an archaeological assemblagetype would be the ethnographic tribe (1968: Fig 61). Traditionally cited sources indicate that ethnographic tribes can comprise between 200 to 800 individuals, a marked clustering of population sizes occurring around 500 individuals. These tribes are in turn made up of bands each comprising between 20 and 50 individuals, 25 being a representative figure (Pfeiffer 1973). If this line of thought is followed one would predict an overall population for Early Mesolithic Britain of between 600 to 2,400 53

Chapter Four CHRONOLOGY

4.1.0 Introduction

published sources. The dates used for the analysis have been selected according to the criteria set out in section 4.4.1).

In the previous chapter it was demonstrated that the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types represent distinct stoneworking technologies, and it was suggested that these may correspond with human social groups. The question now arises: do these assemblage-types represent the different activities of a single human group, or the appearance of three distinct human groups? The answer to this question lies in establishing the chronology of the Early Mesolithic time-frame. This chapter reviews the stratigraphic, pollen and radiocarbon evidence for the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types. It will be shown that each assemblagetype appears at a different point in time, although the usage of each persists so that ultimately all three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types appear together. It is suggested that this pattern indicates three distinct human groups developing in Britain during the Early Mesolithic.

4.1.3. Presentation of Results. The analysis is in three sections. The first section is a review of the stratigraphic data from sites in south-east England, notably Thatcham III, in Berkshire. The second section details the available pollen evidence, while the third section deals with the radiocarbon evidence. Each section contains a brief review of evidence from outside the special study area, and concludes with a synthesis of the results from each analysis. The review ends with a discussion on the emergent chronological patterns and what these may mean in terms of the general thesis. 4.2.0. Stratigraphy Accurate recording, and the subsequent museum curation, of stratigraphy in Early Mesolithic assemblages is rare throughout Britain. This is largely because: 1) Early Mesolithic sites are rarely found in contexts where stratigraphy might have been preserved, such as caves or rock-shelters; and 2) in most cases, Early Mesolithic assemblages have been assumed to be homogeneous, and consequently recording by layers has not generally been practiced. In the south-east only the excavation at Wawcott III (Froom 1976), in Berkshire, has claimed evidence of a stratified Early Mesolithic assemblage. Unfortunately, an examination of the stratigraphy of this site suggests that the assemblage is, in fact, mixed throughout with Later Mesolithic material.1 Indeed, it was found that the only plausible evidence of Early Mesolithic stratigraphy, in south-east England at least, may be at Thatcham III, in Berkshire. This evidence was not observed in the initial publications of the sites (Wymer 1959, 1962, 1963) and is presented here for the first time. Slightly less convincing evidence has also been recorded from Oakhanger V/VII, in Hampshire (Rankine 1952, and Dimbleby 1960), and possibly at Rhuddlan site E, in Clwyd (Berridge in Quinnell 1994).

4.1.1. Selection of Material. Three lines of evidence have been selected for review and analysis: 1) stratigraphy; 2) pollen data; and 3) radiocarbon dates. For practical reasons the majority of this evidence is drawn from south-east England (see section 1.4.3). All three lines of evidence are strongly influenced by the poor conditions of preservation found at most Early Mesolithic sites. The principal problem is the predominance of known Early Mesolithic assemblages on sandy soils. These soils preserve very little in the way of meaningful stratigraphy, largely as result of deflation (Barton 1987), while organic evidence (suitable for pollen analysis and radiocarbon samples) is rare and, as will be shown, not always reliably associated with the stone assemblage. Extensive areas of peat cover, where stratified organic material might be expected to survive, are now rare, especially in south-east England. Many have been cut away for fuel or dried out by agricultural drainage systems (Scaife 1987b). Increasingly, the only areas where organic remains are likely to have been preserved and stratified are river valleys, caves and rock shelters, where deposition of organic sediments has been ongoing throughout the Flandrian.

4.2.1. Thatcham III. Five sites were excavated on the north bank of the River Kennet (NGR SU 502668), in Berkshire, between 1957 and 1961. Thatcham III consists of two concentrations of flint (Reynier in prep.). One

4.1.2. Method of Analysis. Analysis is chiefly by review of published stratigraphies, pollen diagrams and radiocarbon dates. Stratigraphic evidence is analysed in the form of sections. However at Thatcham III, in Berkshire, reevaluation of the assemblage has meant that the published section is not fully relevant. For Thatcham, therefore, new sections have been drawn up, the data being obtained from archive preserved at Reading Museum and Art Gallery. Pollen evidence is taken from published (and two unpublished) pollen diagrams and reports. The interpretation of these diagrams is that of the original authors. Radiocarbon dates are drawn solely from

1

Although published as ‘A Stratified Mesolithic Succession’ (Froom 1976), the Wawcott III assemblage is not stratified in the usual sense. The bulk of the assemblage derives from unconsolidated silt. Late Mesolithic microliths occur all the way through the profile, generally representing 25% of each spit.

54

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

55

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

concentration is patinated a light blue and belongs to the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage, as defined in this study (Fig 4.1a, 1-22). The other concentration is largely unpatinated and belongs to the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage (Fig 4.1b, 1-21). In plan (Fig 4.2), the patinated ‘Star Carr’ type material is concentrated in a small scatter in the north-east corner of site III (the eastern scatter). The unpatinated ‘Deepcar’ type material is concentrated in a larger scatter to the south-west (the western scatter).

‘...unpatinated or very thinly so’ (J.J. Wymer, Site Diary 1958, 05/04/59; Reading Museum and Art Gallery Archive: Fig 4.4). Analysis of the existing microlith and standard tool assemblages from the eastern scatter shows that c. 96% of this material is patinated. Of this number c. 45% is from layer 5, and c. 50% from layer 4. 2) The western scatter. The western scatter was excavated between the summers of 1959 and 1961 by J.J. Wymer. It comprises parts of Boxes B to G (rows 1-6), an area of c. 86 square meters (96 square yards). The section recorded for box F4 was described by D.M. Churchill (1962) and is presented in Figure 4.3. In contrast to the eastern scatter, only c. 0.5% of the microlith and standard tool assemblages from the western scatter is patinated and c. 95% of this material is marked as originating from Layer 4, the clayey silt.

1) The eastern scatter. The eastern scatter was excavated by A.W. Barber during the winter of 1958/59. It consists of Boxes 9, 8, A3 and A4, which together encompass an area of c. 77 square meters (86 square yards). The section for Box 8 shows five layers (Fig 4.3). The flint assemblage is recorded as originating from layers 4 and 5. The site notebook states that in layer 5 ‘...90% [of the flint was] patinated heavily’, while in layer 4 the flints were

56

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

4 and 5 from the eastern scatter have become amalgamated into one layer (Layer 4) in the western scatter, either geologically or by the excavator. Nevertheless, it is apparent from Figure 4.4 that even if Layers 4 and 5 are one layer, the patinated series from the eastern scatter derives from the lowermost part of this layer, while the unpatinated assemblage is higher up in the same layer.

Figure 4.3 compares the profiles from the western and eastern scatters. Generally, the profiles agree well with one another.2 Assuming the peat layer is contemporary, it may act as a datum level for the inferior deposits. Thus, beneath the peat both profiles record a layer of silt, a layer of clay and have river gravels at the base. However, Layer 5 from the eastern scatter is not represented in the western profile. It is from layer 5 that the majority of the patinated flint assemblage originates. It is, of course, possible that Layers

Re-analysis of the profiles from Thatcham III indicate two occupations, an eastern and a western scatter. The eastern scatter is the smaller of the two. It originates, in part at least, from layer 5 and is patinated light blue. The material from the eastern scatter has been shown in Chapters Two and Three to resemble a ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage. The western scatter is much larger than the eastern scatter. The latter originates almost entirely from layer 4 and is generally unpatinated. It has been shown in Chapters Two and Three that the material from the western scatter resembles a ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage. This evidence suggests that at Thatcham III the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage is initially stratified below, and earlier, than the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage.

2 The published profile from the eastern scatter differs from the profile recorded for the western scatter in two respects. Firstly, in the eastern scatter layer 2 is recorded as ‘charcoal’. No such description exists for the western scatter. Subsequent analysis of the ‘charcoal’ layer by C.A. Lambert (Cambridge University) demonstrated that it is a peat (Churchill 1962). It seems likely that this peat corresponds with layer 3 from the western scatter. Secondly, the eastern scatter does not have the ‘reworked algal marl’ recorded in layer 2 of the western scatter. Analysis by D.M. Churchill suggested that the marl originated from the adjacent marsh and was transported over the terrace, possibly by flood action (ibid.). From the orientation of the nodules, and the spot depths of the marl layer, Churchill determined that the marl was swept from a south-west to north-east direction across the western scatter. At its northern extremity (Box B2) the marl is no more than a narrow tongue, c. 8 cm thick. It seems likely that the marl fanned out entirely before reaching the eastern scatter. These changes have been incorporated into the stratigraphic profiles for Thatcham III (Fig 4.3).

57

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

4.2.2. Other Examples of Early Mesolithic Stratification. The above instance is not an ideal example of stratification. Unfortunately, no other example of stratification between identified ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages is known from south-east England. Outside the south-east, however, a similar putative pattern of ‘Star Carr’ type artefacts stratified earlier than a ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-type may possibly be identified at Rhuddlan site E, in Clwyd (Berridge in Quinnell 1994), where obliquely truncated points and triangles, type-fossils of the ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type, are present in the lower context (H39) but absent in the superior context (J104).

known from south-east England. At Oakhanger V/VII, in Hampshire, W.F. Rankine reported three discrete layers of artefacts separated by sterile horizons in an iron-humus podzol (1952, and Dimbleby 1960). The layers are labelled, in descending order, phases III to I (Fig 4.5). The bulk of the assemblage originated from phase II (c. 15-38 cm) and is certainly a ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage (Fig 4.6). The assemblage from phase I (c. 61 cm) was found in several isolated concentrations and seems most likely to represent material washed into tree-fall pits from phase II (Jacobi pers. comm.). It too appears to be of ‘Deepcar’ type. The assemblage from phase III (c. 0-5 cm) differs from those below it in that phase III contains six hollowbased points.

There is only one published record of stratification between a ‘Deepcar’ and a ‘Horsham’ type assemblage 58

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 4.5. W.F. Rankine’s interpretation of the profile of deposits at Oakhanger VII, Hampshire. The figure shows Rankine’s three phases of occupation (column 3). Phase I is probably the result of tree throws. Phase II is the main ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage. Phase III is the putative ‘Horsham’ level. [Reproduced courtesy of the British Museum].

59

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Although only three of these were observed in situ, Rankine was certain all six (five from site VII and one from site V) came from Phase III (1961: no page numbers). This level was also found to correspond with the first of two ‘surfaces’ inferred from pollen analysis conducted by G.W. Dimbleby. It may, then, tentatively be suggested that at Oakhanger V/VII ‘Horsham’ type assemblages appear above, and later, than ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages.

examine first the pollen record, in the hope of isolating any relative chronology that may help in interpreting these, and later, results. 4.3.0. Pollen Analysis The use of pollen analysis as a means of dating has declined with the ascendency of radiocarbon assay. However, the technique has the advantage of a large database in the Early Mesolithic period in Britain, particularly in the south-east. This is largely due to the work of G.W. Dimbleby who pioneered the retrieval of fossil pollen from mineral soils (Dimbleby 1985). Unfortunately, the ease with which pollen appears to move through mineral soil profiles casts considerable doubt on the validity of these particular diagrams, as will be shown below. However, peat deposits remain a relatively reliable source of pollen and emphasis is placed on these diagrams.

The results of the stratigraphic analysis, although based on a small and contentious sample, indicate that ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages might be stratified later than ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages, and that in turn ‘Horsham’ type assemblages might be stratified later than ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages: a succession of ‘Star Carr’-’Deepcar’’Horsham’. In order to test this hypothesis each assemblage-type must be dated. However, before moving on to the radiocarbon evidence it may be instructive to

60

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 4.7. Profile of deposits at Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshire. The diagram shows the position of the pollen samples taken from Profiles 1 and 2: nos. 1-5, 9 and 13 (G.W. Dimbleby); nos. 15-18 (R.E. Simms). The arrow marks the position of the stone assemblage. Below, the relative positions of Profiles 1(P 1) and 2 (P 2) are shown in plan. [Illustration: M.J. Reynier; after Jacobi, unpublished archive].

Figure 4.8. Pollen diagram from Broxbourne 104, Hertfordshie (Profile 1). This diagram was produced by G.W. Dimbleby and indicates a Preboreal age for the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage. The position of the stone assemblage is marked by the arrow. [Reproduced curtesy of Harlow Museum]. 61

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER from Turnpike and Star Carr, the strength of dating evidence at other sites of ‘Star Carr’ type (see section 4.4.0) and the reservations expressed concerning pollen from mineral soils, this late pollen age must be considered suspect.

4.3.1. Pollen Diagrams for ‘Star Carr’ Type assemblages. There are two major pollen sites associated with ‘Star Carr’ type stone assemblages, Broxbourne 104, in Hertfordshire, and Star Carr itself, in Yorkshire. In addition mineral soil pollen analysis has been undertaken at a number of Pennine sites. A single example is presented here, that from Turnpike in west Yorkshire.

4.3.2. Pollen Diagrams for ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblages. Pollen data associated with ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages are relatively abundant, particularly in south-east England. Outlined below is a selection of six of the best known diagrams.

1) Broxbourne 104. The stone assemblage from site 104 was found resting on, and in, a gravel bank beneath c. 50 cm of humified peat (Fig 4.7). Two separate pollen samples were taken from the site at two different profiles. Neither one has been published. G.W. Dimbleby (Institute of Archaeology) took seven samples from the peat at a depth of between c. 20 cm and c. 55 cm below datum, at Profile I (Nos 1-5, 9 and 13: unpublished report). R.E Simms took four more samples, one of which (No. 18) came from beneath the peat, in the top part of the gravel at Profile I, c. 70 cm below datum and at the same level as a number of flint artefacts (unpublished report). Simms took two more samples (Nos 16 and 17) at the intersection of the gravel and peat 1.5 m further north, at Profile II.3 Both analyses place the onset of peat formation in the early Boreal (V) pollen zone (Fig 4.8). This would correspond with a relative age for the peat of between c. 9.5 ka BP and c. 9.0 ka BP. However, the sample taken from within the top of the gravel (No. 18), which was associated with flint artefacts, was assigned by Simms to the onset of the early Boreal. This suggests an age nearer c. 9.5 ka BP for the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage at site 104.

1) Broxbourne 101 and 102. Pollen analysis of the peat deposits at Broxbourne 101, in Hertfordshire, was conducted by H. and M.E. Godwin (Cambridge University) from one column of ten samples taken at intervals of c. 5 cm. (Hazzledine Warren et al. 1934). Two small samples were also taken from peat remnants in the area of site 102. The stone assemblage at site 101 was found in a secondary deposit, the spoil from gravel workings at Rikof’s Pit. Typologically the small assemblage is of ‘Deepcar’ type and parallels the larger assemblage from site 102, which was found in situ within loam, or resting directly on the gravel surface. At both sites peat was overlying the loam. Pollen was preserved throughout this peat layer and was assigned by Godwin to the Late Boreal pollen zone (VI) at 101. The two smaller samples from site 102 were also placed towards the end of the Boreal. This indicates a maximum age for the peat of c. 9.0 ka BP and suggests the ‘Deepcar’ stone assemblages may date, in part, to the early Boreal (V), to between c. 9.5 ka BP and c. 9.0 ka BP.

2) Star Carr. Pollen data were obtained from the type site (site 4) of the ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type by D. Walker and H. Godwin (in Clark 1954). Pollen was sampled from a single profile from cutting I with sample intervals of c. 10 cm. The stone assemblage originated from a coarse detrital mud, overlying gravel, and was sealed by woody mud and disturbed peat. The coarse detrital mud itself contained pollen solely of Preboreal (IV) age, while pollen from the superior woody mud belonged to the Early Boreal (V). This clearly places the occupation level(s) at Star Carr in the Preboreal (IV), notably before the onset of Early Boreal (V) conditions. This would correspond with a relative age-range of between c. 10.2 ka BP and 9.5 ka BP. A similar pattern of data has been obtained from other ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages in the Vale of Pickering area, notably at Flixton site 1, and Seamer Carr, sites C and K (Clark 1954; Cloutman and Smith 1988; Schadla-Hall 1987; 1989; Day 1993).

2) Iping Common 1. The diagram for Iping Common 1, in Sussex, was produced by G.W. Dimbleby (Institute of Archaeology) from a single column of samples taken at 2.5 cm intervals (Dimbleby in Keef et al. 1965). The stone assemblage from the site is of ‘Deepcar’ type and was found to occur throughout the eluviated E horizon (pale grey sand) of an iron-humus podzol to a depth of c. 45 cm, but was concentrated mainly between 18 cm and 38 cm (Keef et al. 1965). Pollen was preserved to a depth of c. 43 cm. Analysis of the pollen suggested the diagram could be divided into four stages. The most distinct stage (C) was placed in the Boreal (V/VI) pollen zone (Dimbleby 1985) and occurs between 18 cm and 38 cm, corresponding exactly with the level of the stone assemblage. This would represent a relative age for the deposit of between c. 9.5 ka BP and 7.5 ka BP. Similar results have been obtained from Iping Common by T.H. Keatinge (1983).

3) Turnpike. Pollen data from mineral soils have tended to yield anomalously young pollen, as at Turnpike in Yorkshire, where a typical ‘Star Carr’ type stone assemblage was found to be associated with pollen of Atlantic (VII) age or later (Stonehouse 1992). Given the close typological similarity between the stone assemblages

3) Oakhanger VII. The diagram for Oakhanger VII, in Hampshire, was produced by G.W. Dimbleby (Institute of Archaeology) from a single column of samples taken at 2.5 cm intervals (Rankine and Dimbleby 1960). The stone assemblage from this site is of ‘Deepcar’ type and was found throughout the eluviated E horizon of a iron-humus podzol to a depth of c. 61 cm, but was concentrated mainly

3 The remaining sample taken by Simms (no.15) was from higher up in Profile I, c. 25 cm below datum. It is not associated with artefacts and is of later (Atlantic) age.

62

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 4.9. Pollen diagram from the ‘new site’ at Thatcham, Berkshire. The samples were taken through Layer 3, a loam. The position of the stone assemblage is marked by the arrow. The diagram indicates a Boreal age for the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage. [Illustration: M.J. Reynier, after Scaife in Healy et al. 1992, Fig 18]. between c. 20 cm and c. 30 cm, in what Rankine termed ‘Phase II’ (ibid.). Pollen was preserved to a depth of 45 cm. Analysis indicated that the oldest pollen at the site, between 45 cm and 20 cm, dated to the Late Boreal or early Atlantic zone (Dimbleby 1985). This would indicate a maximum age for the pollen assemblage of c. 9.0 ka BP. Dimbleby concluded in his later review of the diagram: ‘It appears ... that the pollen has not survived from the time of the archaeological occupation...’ (1985: 111). Independent pollen research has confirmed that pollen preservation at Oakhanger does not appear to begin much before zone VII (Prince 1979).

5) Thatcham I, II, and the ‘new’ site. Three major analyses have been conducted from the area adjacent to the original Thatcham sites in Berkshire. The first series, by G.W. Dimbleby (Institute of Archaeology), consisted of single columns of samples taken at 2.5 cm intervals, one each from Thatcham I and II (Dimbleby 1959). The second, by D.M. Churchill (Cambridge University), was from site V and consists of 5 irregularly spaced samples taken from the wall of the coffer dam between c. 23 cm and c. 89 cm (Churchill 1965). The third series was taken by R.G. Scaife (University of Southampton) from a new site situated 200 m north-west of Wymer’s original excavations, and consisted of five samples taken at 8 cm intervals (Healy et al. 1992). The stone assemblages from Thatcham I, II and the new site are all of ‘Deepcar’ type and were situated on a gravel terrace, beneath, or in, loam and overlain by peat. The pollen from sites I and II was preserved in the overlying peat and was found to be of Late Boreal (VI) to Atlantic (VII) age respectively. The pollen from the new site (Fig 4.9) was from the loam itself and was also assigned to the Boreal (V/VI). Therefore, these three analyses place the ‘Deepcar’ Thatcham stone assemblages before the Atlantic and most probably in the Late Boreal pollen zone. This would correspond to a relative age of between c. 9.0 ka BP and 7.5 ka BP.4

4) Sandstone, Iver. The ‘Deepcar’ type stone assemblage from Iver, in Buckinghamshire, was recovered from a loam resting directly on top of terrace gravel and overlain by c. 76 cm of clayey peat (Lacaille 1963). Eleven samples were taken by A.D. Lacaille at irregular intervals, five of which came from the peat overlying the stone assemblage. Analysis of two of these samples by G.F. Mitchell (Trinity College, Dublin) indicated that the pollen was poorly preserved but probably belonged to the Late Boreal (VI) zone (ibid.). This would correspond with a radiocarbon age for the peat of between c. 9.0 ka BP and c. 7.5 ka BP, and suggests that the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage from Iver is somewhat older than c. 9.0 ka BP.

4 An associated radiocarbon date from the new Thatcham site of 9,100 +/80 uncal. BP (BM-2744), run on carbonized hazelnut shells from layer 3, indicates a period in the earlier part of this time-frame (Healy et al. 1992).

63

Figure 4.10. Pollen diagram from Longmoor 1, Hampshire. The samples were taken through the top part of an eluviated mineral soil. The distribution of the stone assemblage is marked by the arrows. The diagram appears to indicate an Atlantic age for the assemblage. [After Dimbleby 1985, Fig 30].

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

64

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN 6) Uxbridge C. The stone assemblage from Uxbridge scatter C, in Greater London, is of ‘Deepcar’ type. The assemblage was recovered from a clay loam and was overlain by c. 10 cm of black clay containing much organic material (Lewis et al. 1992). Pollen was preserved only in this black clay and was sampled at 1 cm intervals by P.E.J. Wiltshire (Institute of Archaeology). Analysis suggests that the oldest pollen, preserved at the interface between the clay loam (containing the Early Mesolithic stone assemblage) and the overlying black clay, belonged to the mid Boreal pollen zone (V/VI) (ibid.). This would correspond with a radiocarbon age of c. 9.0 ka BP, and may suggest that the ‘Deepcar’ assemblage at scatter C is marginally older than this age (see Radiocarbon dating section).

arguments presented above, this would place the ‘Horsham’ assemblages somewhere in the 9th millennium. Clearly this typochronology can only be tentative, at best. In order to corroborate the sequence radiocarbon dates are required. 4.4.0. Radiocarbon Dating The Early Mesolithic radiocarbon record comprises many hundreds of dates. Unfortunately, only a small proportion of these are reliable. Firstly, the earliest conventional dates (Libby 1955) were not pre-treated. It was not understood at this time that rootlets and other organic material could transfer ‘recent’ carbon down a soil profile, significantly affecting the resulting age of the sample (Vaughan 1958). Secondly, conventional dates required a sample of several grams of organic material which, at most Early Mesolithic sites, meant bulk sampling. The potential of lumping together material of differing ages is now apparent. The advent of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) dating revolutionized radiometric dating of the Early Mesolithic. The technique is capable of measuring samples containing c. 1 mg of carbon (Hedges 1981), greatly reducing both the problem of sample size and contamination.

4.3.3. Pollen Diagrams from ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages. There is only a single pollen diagram associated with a ‘Horsham’ type assemblage, that for Longmoor 1, in Hampshire (Fig 4.10). This diagram for was produced by G.W. Dimbleby (Institute of Archaeology) from a single column of samples taken at 2.5 cm intervals (Dimbleby unpublished report). The stone assemblage from Longmoor 1 is of ‘Horsham’ type and is mostly derived from the top 25 cm of the eluviated E horizon (white sand) of an iron-humus podzol. Pollen at Longmoor 1 was preserved to a depth of 32 cm (below a dumped layer), the pollen and artefacts occurring at roughly the same levels. Analysis of the pollen suggests the entire sequence belongs to the Atlantic (VII) pollen zone (ibid.). This would indicate a maximum relative age for the pollen of c. 7.5 ka BP. In fact AMS radiocarbon dates from the site are over a millennium older (see below) and suggest that the preservation of pollen at Longmoor 1 post-dates the deposition of the stone assemblage.

4.4.1. Selection of Radiocarbon Dates. Dates used for the analysis were selected on the following criteria: 1) The sample must be short-lived (this is to ensure that the sample originated from as restricted a range of events as possible - following Waterbolk (1971) a life-span of 20 years is considered to be short-lived); 2) the sample must be discrete (the sample must come from a single context and be closely associated with the stone assemblage which it is to date); and 3) the sample must be humanly accumulated or otherwise modified (to ensure that the sample refers to human activity and not natural events). On the basis of these criteria only dates on samples of modified bone, antler, wood, charred hazelnut shells or mastics were included in the analysis. (It is assumed that charred hazelnut shells are humanly accumulated, although it is accepted that this need not be the case.).

A review of the main pollen diagrams associated with defined stone assemblages indicates three points: 1) ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages appear to occur around the Preboreal/Boreal (IV-V) pollen zone boundary; 2) ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages seem to date, at the earliest, to the onset of the Late Boreal (VIa), but may be associated with pollen on either side of zone VIa; and 3) there is no reliable pollen evidence concerning the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages.

Existing conventional radiocarbon dates for the Early Mesolithic in Britain have been reviewed in this manner by R.M. Jacobi (1994). His findings indicate that many frequently cited conventional dates are unreliable, primarily because of bulk sampling. More recent AMS dates have been reviewed by M.J. Reynier (forthcoming) in the same way. The present study updates this database to include all known conventional radiocarbon and AMS dates referable to the Early Mesolithic, complying with the criteria set out above, published up to August 1996. A small number of dates released but not yet published is also included. Selected radiocarbon dates are presented in Table 4.1. All dates are in uncalibrated years before present (BP). Figure 4.11 is a box diagram of the dates in Table 4.1 with the tails set at two standard deviations.

If, then, the ‘Star Carr’ pollen data is correct it suggests that the sequence begins with ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages, around c. 9.5 ka BP. ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages, with stratigraphic evidence from Thatcham III (which placed a ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage above a ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage), together with the terminus post quem non supplied by the pollen data, would seem to date to after c. 9.5 ka BP, but before c. 7.5 ka BP, with a central point of around c. 9.0 ka BP. Concerning the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages little can be added to the stratigraphic evidence, which suggested these assemblages may be older than ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages. On the basis of the

65

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

4.4.2. Radiocarbon Compressions. A consideration in any pattern that might emerge from this analysis must be the radiocarbon compressions that are known to exist in the early Postglacial radiocarbon record. To date three major compressions are recognized in this period, at 10.0 ka BP, 9.6 ka BP and 8.7 ka BP (Becker et al. 1991). There may also be a minor compression at 9.2 ka BP (cf. Kromer and Becker 1993: Fig 1c). With the larger compressions affecting up to 400 calender years of time (Becker and Kromer 1991) it is clear that the majority of the Early Mesolithic time-frame will be distorted by compression effects.

falling between 9.6 ka BP and 9.2 ka BP. Figure 4.11 has been sub-divided along these lines. 4.4.3. Early Mesolithic Radiocarbon Compression Stages. The results of the analysis of radiocarbon dates are presented below, using the compression stages outlined above as a framework: 1) ‘Stage 1’ (10.0 ka BP to 9.6 ka BP). There is little dated evidence of Early Mesolithic settlement in the first half of the 10th millennium. Only a single date on a worked antler beam from Thatcham site IV (OxA-732) and one, also on worked antler, from close to Clark’s excavations at Star Carr (OxA-1176) lie prior to the 9,600 BP compression. Further dates from both sites, on modified antler, lie some 200 radiocarbon years younger in age (OxA-894 and OxA1154), at around 9.5 ka BP, i.e. in stage 2. These younger dates provide a good fit with the general trend of dates at this point in the diagram and might be considered a better indication of the first recorded phase of Mesolithic settlement in the British Isles.

Although the radiocarbon compressions make absolute chronology difficult, it may be possible to use these compressions as bench-marks in a relative chronology. In this way the 10th millennium can be sub-divided into three blocks of time, each approximately 400 radiocarbon years long: one between the 10.0 ka BP and 9.6 ka BP compressions; a second between 9.6 ka BP and 9.2 ka BP; and the third between the 9.2 ka BP and the 8.7 ka BP compression. As long as account is taken of the standard deviations, it is relatively certain that these stages are progressively getting younger; for instance, dates falling between 10.0 ka BP and 9.6 ka BP are older than those

2) ‘Stage 2’ (9.6 ka BP to 9.2 ka BP). The early part of this stage matches the rather ephemeral evidence from stage 1. In Yorkshire there are younger dates for Star Carr (OxA-

66

Figure 4.11. B Box and tail diagram of selected Early Mesolithic radiocarbon dates from Britain. The dates are arranged in chronological order with the tails set at two standard deviations. The dashed vertical lines indicate the hypothetical compression stages referred to in the text. [Illustration: M.J. Reynier].

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

67

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER 1154; OxA-2343), providing positive evidence of a ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type at about this date. While in Berkshire there is a sequence of dates for Thatcham V (OxA-5190; OxA-5191 and OxA-5192) and the younger date for Thatcham IV (OxA-894); unfortunately the associated artefacts from both Thatcham IV and V are too few to be diagnostic. In the second half of stage 2 there appear the first ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages at Lackford Heath in Suffolk (OxA-2342), Oakhanger in Hampshire (Q-1489) and Greenham Dairy Farm and Thatcham III in Berkshire (OxA-5194; OxA-2848). These assemblages appear together with the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage from Nab Head in Dyfed (OxA-1495; OxA-1496).

assemblages from Thatcham III are potentially the most important Early Mesolithic assemblages in Britain. To date there is nowhere else in Britain where stratigraphic, pollen and radiocarbon data come together at a single site. At Thatcham all three lines of evidence are broadly in accordance. It was observed that at Thatcham III a ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage (the blue patinated series) was stratified beneath a ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage. Approximately half the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage occurs in layer 5, while the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage occurs exclusively in layer 4. The ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage at Thatcham III is dated by a single radiocarbon date of c. 9.2 ka BP, run on resin adhering to an unretouched flake from layer 4. Pollen associated with the ‘Deepcar’ phase of settlement belongs to the onset of the Late Boreal pollen zone, corresponding with a maximum age of c. 9.0 ka BP. Therefore stratigraphy, pollen and radiocarbon evidence all place the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage in the first half of the 9th millennium.

3) ‘Stage 3’ (9.2 ka BP to 8.7 ka BP). The opening of stage 3 matches the close of stage 2 with ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages in apparent contemporaneity. The younger date from Nab Head in Dyfed (OxA-1496) is supported by a tight sequence of dates for the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage from Daylight Rock, also in Dyfed (OxA2245; OxA-2246 and OxA-2247). These dates overlap with the ‘Deepcar’ assemblage dates from Marsh Benham and Greenham Dairy Farm in Berkshire (OxA-5195; OxA5194). In the second half of stage 3 there appear the first ‘Horsham’ dates from Longmoor 1 in Hampshire (OxA376; OxA-377). These dates overlap with both ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ dates. Also appearing at the end of stage 3 are two dates from Prestatyn in Clwyd which represent the earliest Later Mesolithic dates in Britain (OxA-2268; OxA2269).

The ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage at Thatcham III originates beneath the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage, in the inferior layer 5, implying that the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage is older. Layer 5 is not yet directly dated.5 However, existing dates from Thatcham IV and Thatcham V indicates that the earliest human activity in the area occurs around c. 9.5 ka BP. Pollen associated with the earliest settlement at Thatcham V belongs to the end of the Preboreal pollen zone, also corresponding with a radiocarbon age of c. 9.5 ka BP. Taken together this evidence indicates a likely age for the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages in the second half of the 10th millennium. This corresponds with the early radiocarbon dates for other known ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages.

Broadly speaking the pattern that emerges from the analysis of radiocarbon dates can be summarized as follows: 1) c. 9.6 ka BP to c. 9.5 ka BP - initial Mesolithic settlement characterized by ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages; 2) c. 9.3 ka BP to c. 9.0 ka BP - the persistence of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages and the appearance of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages; and 3) c. 9.0 ka BP to c. 8.7 ka BP - the persistence of ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages, the appearance of ‘Horsham’ type assemblages and the introduction of Later Mesolithic assemblages.

Evidence of the chronological position of the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages is poor. There is reason to believe that the pollen evidence from Longmoor 1 is unassociated with the deposition of the stone assemblage. Indeed, the only securely dated ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are those of Kettlebury 103 and Longmoor 1, with radiocarbon dates placing these assemblages in the 9th millennium. Both these assemblages are unstratified.

4.5.0. Chronological Patterns Before moving on to discuss the chronological evidence presented above, it should be stressed that this evidence is heavily influenced by the radiocarbon record, despite efforts to provide supporting data in the form of stratigraphy and pollen analysis. Consequently, the picture that emerges is subject not only to the vagaries of the radiocarbon technique itself, such as compressions, calibration and contamination, but also to the problems of the resulting radiocarbon record, in particular the small number of useable dates for this period. The conclusions drawn in this section are based, and can only be based, on the chronological evidence as it appears at the time of writing. Therefore, the following two sections are considered to be interim statements only. 4.5.1. Correspondence of Stratigraphic, Pollen and C14 Records. From a chronological point of view the two stone

4.5.2. Chronological Implications. In summary, the available stratigraphic, pollen and radiocarbon evidence, poor as it is, suggests that the earliest Early Mesolithic assemblages in Britain are the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. On the basis of current radiocarbon dates this assemblage type appears in Britain shortly before 9.5 ka BP. If the dates from Daylight Rock and Nab Head are

5 A sample from the tip of an unworked antler tine from layer 5 has been submitted to the Oxford AMS laboratory for dating. Unfortunately, a failure in the Oxford system has delayed the measurement of this sample.

68

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 4.12. Suggested sequence of microlith assemblages for south-east England. The diagram shows the early appearance of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages, followed by ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages and then ‘Horsham’ type assemblages. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the point at which all three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types appear to be contemporary. [Illustration: M.J. Reynier]. correct, the ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type persists through to at least 9.0 ka BP. The first radiocarbon dates for ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages occur at c. 9.3 ka BP. This assemblage-type also appears to persist through to 9.0 ka BP, and very likely into the 9th millennium. Radiocarbon dates for the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages first occur around 9.0 ka BP. Although the radiocarbon record is poor for this assemblage-type it appears, on current evidence, to persist through to c. 8.0 ka BP. Figure 4.12 illustrates these features.

Britain. The fact that the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ assemblage-types appear at different points in time within the Early Mesolithic time-frame suggests that these assemblage-types are the elements of a chronological sequence, rather than contemporary technologies. However, the apparent co-existence of all three assemblage-types around c. 9.0 ka BP indicates that this sequence does not represent a unilinear progression from one assemblage-type into another. Rather it suggests a branch-like development of independent assemblage-types emerging through time. These findings represent a marked shift from the traditional model of one monolithic ‘culture’ occupying the entire Early Mesolithic period.

Two important points emerge from these analyses of chronological data: 1) the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types appear in the archaeological record in chronological sequence; and 2) that once present each assemblage-type appears to persist through to at least c. 9.0 ka BP.

4.6.0. Conclusions Analysis of stratigraphic, pollen and radiocarbon data suggest that the three Early Mesolithic assemblage types described in Chapters One and Two may be of differing ages. ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages seem to be the oldest Early Mesolithic assemblages, appearing sometime before c. 9.5 ka BP. ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages are generally younger, occurring first at c. 9.3 ka BP. And ‘Horsham’

Recalling that these assemblage-types have been interpreted as representing distinct human groups (Chapter Two), but subject to the reservations set out at the beginning of this section, these findings suggest the evolution of a permanent and complex human settlement in 69

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER type assemblages appear youngest of all, developing around c. 9.0 ka BP. However, the radiocarbon evidence also indicates that both ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages persist to the end of the 10th millennium. This suggests that all three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types may have been contemporary around c. 9.0 ka BP. If correct, this evidence does not point to a straight-forward unilinear sequence of assemblage-types, from one into the other, but suggests a more complex ‘branching’ sequence of settlement in the Early Mesolithic. Before moving on to examine how this sequence may have evolved and developed, it may be useful to consider the environment in Britain during the Early Mesolithic time-frame, not only to place the individual Early Mesolithic assemblage-types in their context, but also to seek out likely influences that may account for their development.

70

Chapter Five ENVIRONMENT

that of the original authors. The analysis is in six sections. The first four sections outline the climatic, floral, faunal and hydrological evidence from south-east England and Britain as a whole (5.2.0-5.5.0). Section 5.6.0 integrates the most important details of these analyses into a general three stage model of environmental change. The following section (5.7.0) investigates the likely distribution of animal and plant resources in each of these stages. A synthesis of results draws together the chief findings (5.8.0).

5.1.0. Introduction This chapter reviews environmental data concerning climate, flora, fauna and hydrology during the Early Mesolithic time-frame. Each category of data is discussed in turn and an idealized sequence of changes is presented for each. It is noted that the Early Mesolithic period begins with a rapid warming event leading to initial open scrubland. This, it is suggested, is followed by a pause or regression in afforestation lasting several hundreds of years. Only after this standstill do drier conditions allow the development first of pine forest and then of mixed species woodland. It is suggested that these changes will have markedly affected the potential subsistence base of Early Mesolithic human groups, with important implications for settlement during this period.

5.2.0. Climate There are at least six general circulation models (GCMs) available for the Early Mesolithic period (cf. Fig 5.1).1 The primary model used here is that published by J.F.B. Mitchell et al. for 9.0 ka BP (Mitchell et al. 1988). This model uses present day values of land ice and albedo, but uses enhanced insolation to simulate Milankovitch forcing. In order to reconstruct conditions at the start of the Early Mesolithic (Fl/Ia) a second GCM model covering the period 11.0 ka BP to 10.0 ka BP has been selected (Rind et al. 1986). This model simulates the effect of idealized icesheets in the northern hemisphere on the climate during the Younger Dryas cold event. It is used here as an approximation for conditions prior to c. 10.0 ka BP.

5.1.1. Selection of Material. For the purposes of this study the term ‘environment’ has been broken down into four major categories: climate, flora, fauna, and hydrology. For the most part evidence pertaining to these categories is not direct, but comes through proxies by which past conditions can be inferred with varying degrees of accuracy. Conditions suitable for the preservation of the relevant direct or proxy data are poor in Britain, and in south-east England in particular. Low rainfall, the general lack of glacial basin features, the predominantly alkaline hydrology and recent human disturbance (peat cutting, agriculture, urbanization) have all contributed to the decline of deposits suitable for the preservation of environmental data (Scaife 1987b). Inevitably, therefore, reconstructions are based on patchy data. To control for regional variations the study is based on data from the south-east England study area. Where relevant, reference is made to conditions outside this study area.

Unfortunately no specific models exist for the time-frame between 10.0 ka BP and 9.0 ka BP. However, a variation of the 9.0 ka BP model simulates conditions with an idealized remnant Laurentide ice-sheet, such as is likely to have existed prior to c. 9.0 ka BP (Mitchell et al. 1988). In addition time-series simulations from 18.0 ka BP to 0 ka BP (Kutzbach and Guetter 1986) also allow some estimation to be made of the prevailing climatic trends. Together these may be used to approximate Early Mesolithic climatic conditions between c. 10.0 ka BP and c. 9.0 ka BP.

5.1.2. Method of Analysis. The analysis is by literature review. The principal details of the analysis are as follows: 1) climate is taken to be temperature, precipitation and wind. This study reviews selected computerized general circulation models (GCMs), which are able to simulate climatic conditions; 2) vegetation and floral components are taken from radiocarbon dated pollen diagrams; 3) animal populations are estimated directly from archaeological assemblages with preserved faunal records; and 4) hydrology is restricted to the behaviour of major river systems and the North Sea using research based on revised theories of the mechanics and measurement of sealevel changes and river regimes.

5.2.1. Simulated Climate at c. 11.0 ka BP to c. 10.0 ka BP. The southward extension of the polar front during the Younger Dryas event to c. 52o N (Ruddiman and McIntyre 1973) led to a marked cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean. The simulated effect on western Europe is significant. Annual temperatures are predicted to have been c. 6o C

1

Computer general circulation models (GCMs) operate in a similar manner to traditional models of climate reconstruction (Lamb 1977; 1982; Lamb et al. 1966) but make use of greatly improved data sets (Mitchell 1993). The advantage of general circulation models is their ability to loop minor changes in boundary parameters back into the model to formulate dynamic surface pressure maps. From these maps temperature, precipitation, winds and even cloud cover can be estimated.

5.1.3. Presentation of Results. The simulations, diagrams and data used in this chapter are presented as published and, except where indicated, the interpretation of them is 71

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

also have been marginally warmer (Kutzbach and Guetter 1986: Fig 4b). Cloud cover is generally reduced, while winds are approximately similar to today. Precipitation increases c. 10% (Kutzbach and Guetter 1986: 1748), but the combined effect of higher mean temperatures and less cloud cover increases evaporation of surface moisture, and leads to a general drying out of the land surface (Fig 5.1).

lower than today, precipitation and evaporation are also decreased, while cloud cover is increased by c. 7% (Rind et al. 1986: Table 9). Winds are also markedly increased. In general, the winters are colder and the summers warmer than present. 5.2.2. Simulated Climate at c. 10.0 ka BP to c. 9.0 ka BP. The British and Fennoscandian ice-sheets had largely collapsed by c. 10.0 ka BP, but the reduced Laurentide icesheet persisting over North America still influenced temperatures over western Europe. Simulated summer temperatures over north-west Europe are closer to present day values, but winter temperatures remain c. 2o C lower than present (Mitchell et al. 1988: Fig 17). Generally, models predict increases in precipitation and decreases in evaporation throughout this period, with winds becoming lighter. The combined effect is an increase in simulated surface moisture.

Although relatively complex, global circulation models provide only an estimate of the prevailing climatic trends through the Early Mesolithic time-frame. Other proxy records can supply more detail. For example, stable oxygen isotope records from the North Atlantic suggest that the temperature increase at the start of the Early Mesolithic, labelled ‘termination 1b’, was extremely rapid. Indeed, oxygen isotope records from southern Greenland ice cores suggest a 7o C increase in temperature in c. 50 years (Dansgaard et al. 1989: 532). This approximates the simulated temperature rise between the Younger Dryas and early Flandrian models suggested above. In addition, the Greenland ice cores also record a short-term (c. 20-50 years) decrease in dust and deuterium values at c. 10.0 ka BP which are taken to indicate a decline in winds and a c. 50% increase in precipitation (Dansgaard et al. 1989: 533). If correct, these climatic data indicate that climate c. 10.0

5.2.3. Simulated Climate at c. 9.0 ka BP to c. 8.0 ka BP. The complete collapse of the Laurentide ice-sheet sometime after c. 9.0 ka BP leads to further increases in continental temperatures. Simulated annual summer temperatures are c. 1-2o C greater than today (Mitchell et al. 1988: Fig 12a) while predicted winter temperatures may

72

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 5.2. Pollen diagram from Cranes Moor (Flush Bog), Hampshire. The diagram is radiocarbon dated and shows the whole Early Flandrian I sequence. It is used here as the type diagram for the Early Mesolithic environment in south-east England. Note the collapse of the Cyperaceae curve after c. 9.5 ka BP. [Reproduced courtesy of K.E. Barber, University of Southampton, from Barber and Clarke 1978, Fig 3]. (Flush Bog) in Hampshire (Barber and Clarke 1987), which has four associated radiocarbon dates covering the Early Mesolithic time-frame (Fig 5.2). Six other dated pollen diagrams have been used for correlation. These diagrams are from: Cothill Fen in Oxfordshire (Day 1991); Pannel Bridge in East Sussex (Waller 1993); Thatcham V in Berkshire (Churchill 1962); Gatecombe Withy on the Isle of Wight (Scaife 1987); Enfield Lock in Middlesex (Chambers et al. 1996); and Bonhunt Water in Essex (Baker 1976).

ka BP (Fl/Ia) was characterized by warm but very moist conditions. These did not apparently last long and by c. 9.0 ka BP (Fl/Ib) land surfaces had dried out. By c. 8.0 ka BP (Fl/Ic) conditions approximately similar to today were attained. 5.3.0. Flora Of the 32 published pollen diagrams of Early Mesolithic (Flandrian I) date from south-east England cited by Scaife (1987b: 133-134), only 6 are supported by reliable radiocarbon dates.2 With the addition of recently published dated diagrams, this number is increased to c. 10. The type diagram selected for this study is that for Cranes Moor

5.3.1. Flandrian Ia (c. 10.0 ka BP to c. 9.5 ka BP). There is general agreement that between c. 10.0 ka BP and c. 9.5 ka BP the environment in south-east England remained relatively open. All diagrams record a light birch (Betula) dominated tree cover, with lesser amounts of pine (Pinus). Herbs and grasses, particularly Gramineae, are strongly represented in the understorey, indicating areas of open or

2 Pollen diagrams commonly cited in the literature are either from the mineral soils of archaeological sites, which contain little or no, datable material, or were obtained prior to the advent of radiocarbon dating.

73

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Figure 5.3. Isochrone map of the rational limit of pine (Pinus sylvestris) pollen in Britain. The diagram shows the spread of pine across England from the south-east. Note the independent centres of dispersion for Ireland and Scotland. [Illustration: M.J. Reynier; after Birks 1989, Fig 6]. disturbed ground. Among these, sedges (Cyperaceae) are often hyper-abundant suggesting generally high levels of ground water. The persistence of glacial taxa, such as artemisia (Artemisia), suggests that harsh conditions may have persisted locally.

sedges are both indicative of a reduction in ground water levels. This feature is observed clearly at Cothill Fen, where the basin vegetation shifts from a swamp flora in Fl/Ia to drier rush conditions in Fl/Ib (Day 1991: 464). A similar course of events is observed at Pannel Bridge (Waller 1993: 360).

5.3.2. Flandrian Ib (c. 9.5 ka BP to c. 9.0 ka BP). Shortly after c. 9.5 ka BP a shift is observed in the pollen record. In the canopy pine increases sharply to peak levels. Birch, already decreasing in importance, continues to do so, while hazel (Corylus) makes its first appearance. In the understorey sedges decrease dramatically, even disappearing altogether in some diagrams. Grasses and herbs also decrease in importance, although not to the same extent as sedges. The rise of the pine curve and the crash of

5.3.3. Flandrian Ic (c. 9.0 ka BP to c. 8.5 ka BP). This stage sees continued closing of the forest canopy. Around 9.0 ka BP hazel reaches peak frequencies, becoming hyperabundant in most diagrams. Pine decreases in response, while the birch curve begins a weak recovery. In the understorey grasses and herbs remain suppressed at minimum values, indicating extensive canopy cover. Sedges, however, stage a moderate recovery in some

74

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN diagrams, suggesting moister conditions than in Flandrian Ib. The most significant feature of this stage is the first appearance of thermophilous taxa, most notably elm (Ulmus) and oak (Quercus). Neither is strongly represented at this stage but their presence confirms that warm, moist conditions were beginning to prevail.

deer (Cervus elaphus), roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild pig (Sus scrofa) are the species most commonly found. Frequently wild ox (Bos primigenius) and elk (Alces alces ) are also present. Minor elements can include dog (Canis familiaris), wolf (Canis lupus), fox (Vulpes vulpes), badger (Meles meles), beaver (Castor fiber) and pine marten (Martes martes). Where conditions for preservation are very good there is also usually a wide range of smaller animals present, such as vole, shrew, mouse and hedgehog.

In so far as it can be determined the general features observed in the dated pollen diagrams are paralleled in the undated diagrams from within the research area. In particular, the detailed pollen diagram from Elstead in Surrey (Carpenter and Woodcock 1981) records the same Betula-Pinus-Corylus sequence through Flandrian Ia, Ib and Ic. The Elstead diagram also records a similar moisture pattern to the dated diagrams, with increased ground water in Flandrian Ia, reduced ground water in Flandrian Ib and moderate ground water in Flandrian Ic.

5.4.2. Avian Species. Although bird remains are often associated with Early Mesolithic faunal assemblages the number of bones is usually low, frequently indicating no more than individual animals. This is most likely a feature of poor preservation rather than genuine rarity. The most commonly found birds are aquatic species, such as goldeneye duck (Bucephala clangula), crane (Grus grus) and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Interestingly, passerine species are always rare. Outside the research area nine species of bird were recorded from Star Carr in Yorkshire, seven of which were aquatic (Clark 1954), while at the later site of Wetton Mill in Staffordshire there are nine species of bird, most of which are again aquatic (Bramwell 1976).3

Outside the research area the pollen record is different. Primarily this is because beyond south-east England the spread of pine is relatively slow (Fig 5.3), this taxon not colonizing central England until c. 9.0 ka BP and northern England until c. 8.5 ka BP (Birks 1989). Therefore, outside the south-east study area the pine peak recorded in Flandrian Ib does not occur until Flandrian Ic. In central England, northern England and Wales the Flandrian Ia vegetation persists to c. 9.0 ka BP (Bennett 1988; Day 1991; Tipping 1993; Hibbert and Switsur 1976). While in Scotland, where ice-sheets may still have existed at c. 10.0 ka BP, the juniper type vegetation prevalent in south-east England before c. 10.0 ka BP persists up to c. 9.0 ka BP (Birks 1972). Therefore it seems that outside south-east England, and especially in Scotland, the vegetation remained relatively open until the beginning of the 9th millennium, c. 500 radiocarbon years later than in southeast England.

5.4.3. Piscine species. Fish remains are very rare from Early Mesolithic contexts. Again this is likely to be a taphonomic feature, although it has been suggested that freshwater fish may have been slow to recolonize rivers after the glacial maximum (Wheeler 1978). From within the research area there is a single pike jaw (Esox lucius) recorded from sediments dating to between c. 9.3 ka BP and 8.7 ka BP at Broxbourne 106/2 in Hertfordshire (Harlow Museum archive) and an unidentified vertebra from Thatcham (provenance unknown; King in Wymer 1962). Elsewhere in Britain there are published records of pike from Norfolk (Bennett 1983), trout (Salmo trutta) and rudd (Scardinius erythrophalmus) from Cheshire (Johnson et al. 1970), and salmonoid bones from Cumbria (Pennington and Frost in Bennet 1983) and Staffordshire (Bramwell in Kelly 1976). Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and eel (Anguilla anguilla) have also been recorded from the Mesolithic site at Mount Sandel in Ireland, dated to c. 9.0 ka BP (Woodman 1985).

5.4.0. Fauna Taphonomic studies have indicated that even in favourable deposits as much as 80% of a total faunal assemblage may have been lost (Aaris-Sørensen 1983). This loss will mostly affect the smaller and lighter bones of small mammals, birds and fishes. As a result the Early Mesolithic faunal record is heavily biased in favour of large terrestrial mammals. In south-east England there are just two Early Mesolithic sites with large faunal assemblages. These assemblages are from Thatcham III in Berkshire (Wymer 1962) and Uxbridge C in Middlesex (Lewis 1991). Occasional faunal remains have also been found at Broxbourne 104 (unpublished); Greenham Dairy Farm (Sheridan et al. 1967); Marsh Benham (unpublished); Moor Farm (Ames 1991-3); Victoria Park (unpublished) and Wawcott III (Froom 1976). However, only the assemblages from Thatcham III and Uxbridge C are large enough to give an accurate impression of the faunal prevalent at the site.

Taken together the Early Mesolithic fauna is indicative of a largely forested environment. However, the radiocarbon dating of the faunal evidence reveals a different pattern. Table 5.1 lists 32 radiocarbon dates for individual animals. The dates are presented graphically in Figure 5.4. The initial part of the Early Mesolithic, c. 10.0 ka BP to c. 9.7 ka BP, indicates the presence of reindeer, horse and pika (Ochotonidae spp.). This suite of animals is usually associated with open landscapes although both reindeer and horse can exist in lightly wooded habitats (Grigson 1978). It is not until around c. 9.7 ka BP that there is the 3 The Wetton Mill assemblage probably dates to between c. 9.5 ka BP and c. 8.2 ka BP (Saville in Kelly 1976: 89).

5.4.1. Terrestrial Species. At all Early Mesolithic sites red 75

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

first consistently dated occurrence of red deer. Red deer typically favour deciduous woodland, but the species is also known to tolerate open environments (Nowak 1991). Consequently, it is certainly conceivable that open (socalled ‘cold’) species persisted through the first quarter of the 10th millennium, up to c. 9.7 ka BP.

Flandrian record. Although at present there are no published dates for wild pig from this phase, the consistent recognition of wild pig in indirectly dated faunal assemblages of this age attests to its presence too. After c. 9.0 ka BP there is a general lack of directly dated fauna through to c. 8.0 ka BP. Red deer is the only species to be consistently dated (there is a single date for wild pig). The paucity of the faunal record in this later period may be related to the overall dearth of archaeological material from the 9th millennium and is presumed to be a taphonomic effect.

At c. 9.5 ka BP there appears to be a marked shift in the ungulate population. Reindeer and horse are no longer present. Instead there is a broadening of the warmth-loving ungulate species, with elk, roe deer, beaver and probably aurochs all appearing for the first time in the dated

76

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 5.4. Box and tail diagram of selected radiocarbon dates run on fauna dated to the period 10.0 ka BP to 8.0 ka BP: species (left); date and range at two standard deviations (centre) and reference number for date in Table 5.1 (right). Date no. 10 (Greenham Dairy Farm) is excluded because it falls outside the selected range. The diagram shows the apparent persistence of ‘open’ type fauna into the first third of the 10th millennium. [Illustration: M.J. Reynier]. accommodated by lateral movement of the channel banks. Gradual stabilization of the channel banks, through aggradation and increasing floodplain vegetation, leads to a sequence of channel shedding. The abandonment of these channels increases flow through the existing channels and periodically stabilizes the system. Only continued aggradation will eventually force the river to shed more channels.

5.5.0. Hydrology Traditionally, early Holocene hydrology has been interpreted as a direct shift away from the multiple braided channels of the Lateglacial to single meandering channels in the Early Mesolithic, and a gradual rise of sea-levels to isolate Britain mid-way through the 9th millennium (Evans 1975). However, there is now evidence to suggest that semi-braided channels existed throughout this period and that the North Sea did not close until after c. 8.0 ka BP.

This stable-bed aggrading bank process delays the development of a single meandering channel. Indeed, it is predicted that many rivers may have had 2-3 channels throughout the Early Mesolithic time-frame (Brown pers. comm.); to date, in south-east England SBAB sequences have been observed in the Ouse, Cuckmere, Thames and Gipping valleys (in Brown 1995: 55-57). A corollary of this type of river regime is increased numbers of lakes and ponds. There is little in the way of lacustrine data from Britain, and from south-east England in particular. However, it is estimated that in Cheshire lake coverage may have been 10 times greater than today (Brown pers. comm.). Solid geology means that lake coverage in south-

5.5.1. Rivers. The processes by which river channels develop are believed to depend largely on climatic, tectonic, eustatic and anthropogenic influences which affect the river gradient, runoff and sediment load (Starkel 1995). Recent research indicates that the shift away from the shallow braided streams, typical of the Lateglacial, to the single meandering channels of the Postglacial followed a ‘stable-bed aggrading bank’ (SBAB) model (Brown 1995). In this model (Fig 5.5) the river bed is consolidated Pleistocene gravel through which the river is unable to down-cut. Thus changes in river discharge are 77

Figure 5.5. Stable-bed, aggrading-banks model (SBAB) of lowland floodplain formation. The model indicates that multi-channelled, fast-flowing rivers may have persisted throughout the Early Mesolithic time-frame. [Reproduced courtesy of A.G. Brown, University of Exeter, from Brown 1995, Fig 3.6].

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

78

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 5.6. Reconstructed shorelines around the British Isles at c. 9.5 ka BP, simulated using a glacio-isostatic rebound model (GHIR). The diagram shows predicted sea-levels equivalent to c. –65 m.OD, with much of the North Sea basin represented as low-lying land. [This iteration run and reproduced courtesy of K. Lambeck, The Australian National University, based on Lambeck 1995, Fig 3]. east England would have been less extensive than in Cheshire, although it is still predicted to have been many times greater than at present.

model simulates mean sea-level (i.e. 2-3 m lower than the standard for shorelines - mean high water spring) at time intervals of 10.0, 8.0 and 7.0 ka BP (ibid.). K. Lambeck has also run additional iterations at 9.5 ka BP, 9.0 ka BP and 8.5 ka BP especially for this study. The results for 9.5 ka BP and 8.5 ka BP are presented in Figures 5.6 and 5.7.

5.5.2. Sea-levels. New methodologies for estimating past shore-lines link sea-level data (largely derived from dated peat contacts) with models of ice-sheet decay (estimated from trim-lines, erratics and the mathematical relationships between ice height and dimensions), together with rebound models of isostatic recovery based on seismic data. These factors have recently been coupled together in a computer ‘Glacio-Hydro-Isostatic Rebound’ (GHIR) model (Lambeck 1995). This model takes into account relative crustal downwarping in the North Sea Basin and is considered to be more accurate than traditional sea-level models (e.g. Devoy 1977 or Jelgersma 1979).4 The GHIR

At the start of the Early Mesolithic most of the North Sea Basin up to 55o N is above sea level. This is equivalent to a sea level c. 65 m below present at c. 10.0 ka BP and is in broad agreement with traditional estimates (i.e. Jelgersma 1979). However, by the end of the Early Mesolithic timeframe the area of the North Sea basin above sea level, although marginally reduced, remains extensive. At c. 8.5 ka BP the model simulates sea levels still c. 50 m below present (Fig 5.7). This contrasts with the traditional model where sea levels are c. 30-36 m below present. The

4 The traditional method of estimating past sea-levels has been to radiocarbon date buried peat horizons. However crustal downwarping in the southern North Sea basin (Long and Shennan 1993) means that while sea-levels may have risen the sea-floor has lowered. In consequence sea-

levels have been over estimated, and the inundation of the North Sea basin thus accelerated.

79

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Figure 5.7. Reconstructed shorelines around the British Isles at c. 8.5 ka BP, simulated using a glacio-hydro-isostatic rebound model (GHIR). The diagram shows predicted sea-levels equivalent to c. –50 m.OD, with much of the North Sea basin still above sea-level. [This iteration run and reproduced courtesy of K. Lambeck, The Australian National University, based on Lambeck 1995, Fig 3]. difference is over 10 m. The effect of this adjustment is that while traditional models predict complete inundation of the North Sea basin between c. 9.0 ka BP and 8.0 ka BP, the GHIR model simulates this event between c. 8.0 ka BP and 7.0 ka BP (not shown), approximately one millennium later.

5.6.0. Integration of Environmental Data for the Early Mesolithic In the foregoing analyses there should be enough evidence to put together a general picture of environmental changes between 10.0 ka BP and 8.0 ka BP. It is evident that Early Mesolithic warming is not characterized by the gradual, continuous amelioration that is traditionally suggested for the period. Instead, the analyses indicate three abrupt environmental shifts after initial warming had begun c. 10.2 ka BP. These shifts are outlined below.

The hydrological evidence suggests that at the start of the Early Mesolithic time-frame, between c. 10.0 ka BP and c. 9.5 ka BP, there was a high surface water budget over much of Britain. Major rivers remained active with increased meltwater flow persisting. To accommodate output river channels were constantly changing and it is likely that numerous lakes and ponds existed at this time. After c. 9.5 ka BP river regimes begin to stabilize. Channels are shed as flow decreases and, as valley vegetation builds up, so river channels become restricted and less mobile. During the Early Mesolithic time-frame sea-levels are relatively low and Britain remains connected to the European mainland throughout the period.

5.6.1. The Birch Phase (c. 10.0 ka BP to c. 9.5 ka BP). During the first half of the 10th millennium termination 1b warming appears to level off. In Britain there is a marked stasis in Postglacial afforestation, while environmental proxies across continental Europe indicate a short-term cold pulse dated between c. 10.0 ka BP and c. 9.7 ka BP

80

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

Figure 5.8. Climatic variations for the last glacial-interglacial transition, based on coleopteran MCR data, and on oxygen isotope data from Swiss lake sediments and from the Dye 3 ice core (Greenland). The diagram indicates an abrupt oscillation between c. 10.0 ka BP and 9.5 ka BP on all three proxies (marked by the arrow). This event is now termed the Preboreal Oscillation. [Reproduced courtesy of J.J. Lowe, Royal Holloway University of London, from Lowe et al. 1995, Fig 5]. (Fig 5.8).5 Understorey vegetation shows that sedges were abundant around water catchments indicating high levels of ground moisture. Lakes and ponds are also predicted to have been common and rivers are known to have remained active. These features suggest that periglacial meltwaters were still working their way through the system. Outside the water catchments juniper scrubland was increasingly replaced by light woodlands of birch, which thrives on disturbed, nutrient poor soils and is also tolerant of high surface moisture. The combination of open canopy and poor soil favoured the growth of juniper, gorse (Ulex) and brambles (Rubus) in the understorey. The faunal record indicates that red deer and other ‘forest’ animals were already present in the environment. However, the possible persistence of reindeer suggests open and seasonally harsh conditions may have prevailed in certain regions, particularly in northern Britain.

Around c. 9.5 ka BP there is a renewed rise in projected temperatures. This stimulates a negative response in aquatic taxa suggesting a marked decrease in the surface water budget. In the understorey sedges crash and are replaced by dry ferns, while lakes and ponds dry-out from swamp vegetation to rush marshes. In the canopy pine increases to dominate the woodland. Pine is intolerant of surface moisture and the rapid increase of this species, together with the decline of sedges is almost certainly indicative of a drier climatic regime. This is supported by evidence of channel shedding in the major river valleys beginning at about this time, suggesting decreased flow as well as more stable banks. The deficit in the surface water budget may be partly the result of the final dissolution of periglacial meltwater in the previous period, and partly the effect of increases in solar radiation (Milankovitch forcing) which is estimated to have reached maximum levels during this period (COHMAP 1988). Decreasing albedo as a result of afforestation (Foley et al. 1994) and a predicted decrease in cloud cover beginning at about this time (Mitchell et al. 1988) may also have led to increased evapotranspiration.

5.6.2. The Pine Phase (c. 9.5 ka BP to c. 9.0 ka BP). 5

This event is of uncertain, but low, magnitude and appears to correspond with similar events observed in Denmark (Iversen 1973), Sweden (Florin 1977), Germany (Behre 1967), Greenland (Dansgaard et al. 1989: Fig 1), the Netherlands (Cleveringa et al. 1977), Belgium (Cordy 1991) and Switzerland. The event is variously termed the Friesland/Rammelbeek oscillation, the Piottino phase and, most recently, the Preboreal Oscillation (Lowe pers. comm.)

5.6.3. The Hazel Phase (c. 9.0 ka BP to c. 8.0 ka BP). Between c. 9.0 ka BP and c. 8.0 ka BP annual temperatures increase to maximum levels, on average c. 3 degrees 81

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER centigrade higher than today. These changes accompany a shift in vegetation. Around c. 9.1 ka BP hazel begins a rapid spread across Britain and northern Europe, frequently dominating pollen diagrams entirely. Although certain species of hazel (e.g. C. colurna) are large enough to form forest canopy, the hazel recorded in British pollen diagrams is identified as C. avellana, which at most grows to small tree height but more often occurs as a large shrub. The appearance, and apparent dominance, of this light demanding shrub, together with a marked decline in pine, appears to indicate the opening up of the forest canopy during this period. Regardless of its size hazel is always associated with a mixed deciduous forest canopy, rich in understorey shrubs, herbs and grasses (Huntley and Birks 1983). In the canopy the first thermophilous trees, such as oak and elm, are recorded indicating warm, moist climatic conditions. Although faunal evidence is sparse during this period, there is every reason to suggest that a full suite of forest animals was present, with the exception of elk which disappears from the faunal record shortly after c. 9.0 ka (Grigson 1978).

5.7.1. Modelling Biomes. In the most general terms a given biome can be described by two categories: primary and secondary biomass. Primary biomass is the total amount of standing plant material present in the region at a particular point in time. Secondary biomass is the total amount of animal resources present in the same region (Kelly 1983). Both of these components can be estimated, with varying degrees of accuracy, in terms of grams per metre squared (g/m2). However, while most animals can be consumed by humans, not all primary biomass is edible in the same way. For instance, many plants are unpalatable, toxic or difficult to convert into consumable form. Therefore, the relative proportions of edible plant material in a given biome (primary production) will be considerably less than the primary biomass (ibid.). Table 5.2 sets out relative estimates of primary production, primary biomass and secondary biomass for six typical modern biomes (columns 2, 3, and 4). Using these basic data R.L. Kelly has calculated two additional statistics: the accessibility of edible plant resources; and the accessibility of animal resources. Accessibility is a crude estimate of the ease with which a resource can be located within a given biome. It can be estimated for edible plant resources by dividing the primary production (edible plants resources) by the primary biomass (total plant material). For animals in the same biome accessibility is estimated by dividing secondary biomass (fauna) by the primary biomass (Kelly 1983: 286-287). These additional figures provide a basic means of assessing the relative visibility and distribution of edible plant and animal resources in specific biomes, both important considerations in human economic strategies. These statistics are included in Table 5.2 (columns 5 and 6).

It is acknowledged that in reality these changes would have been much more complex. In particular, it is noted that across England, and over of Britain as a whole, the development of particular stages or ‘biomes’ would have been time-transgressive. It is also important to state that these biomes have no exact parallel in the modern environment; they are unique to the early Postglacial period. However, for the purposes of interpretation it may be useful to equate such palaeoecological biomes with modern ‘type biomes’. Although the analogy is not precise it may shed more light on the Early Mesolithic environment, in particular on the relative distribution of animal and plant resources in each biome. These resources were the subsistence base of Early Mesolithic human groups and it is likely that changes in the relative distributions of these resources, between biomes, will have influenced the way in which Early Mesolithic human groups organized themselves.

5.7.2. Birch Scrubland. The low overall cover of plant material (c. 6,000 g/m2) reflects the relatively open nature of this type of biome. Correspondingly, edible plant resources are low to moderate in quantity (c. 700 g/m2) but relatively easily accessed (0.12). Interestingly, animal resources are also relatively high (c. 5 g/m2) and, importantly, easily accessible (0.8). In antiquity, a low but dispersed distribution of edible plant resources is likely to have resulted in an equally dispersed and relatively mobile animal population. Under these conditions large animals, particularly herbivores, tend to form mobile herds as this represents an effective means of defence from predators in an open landscape. Consequently, while animal populations during the birch phase may have been relatively abundant and easily accessible they are also predicted to have been highly mobile.

5.7.0. Distribution of Resources in Early Mesolithic Biomes Large scale variations between modern biomes are generally assigned to two factors: temperature and rainfall. It is the interplay of these factors across the globe that controls the development, or otherwise, of plant communities, from grasses to trees. And it is the plant community that conditions the type, abundance and distribution of animal resources. There should, then, be a correlation between the type of biome and the general distribution of plants and animals within it. Of course, the exact relationship between temperature, rainfall and biometype is extremely complex and attempts to model it are necessarily crude. However, such models do provide an able means of comparing general trends between different biomes as long as their reductive nature is not overlooked.

5.7.3. Pine Forest. The figures for Boreal forests are revealing. Overall plant cover is extensive (c. 20,000 g/m2), yet of this quantity the edible proportion is extremely low (c. 800 g/m2). Not surprisingly edible plant accessibility is the lowest recorded (0.04). Largely as a result of the low

82

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN edible plant content this type of woodland does not support a large animal population. Indeed, the figure remains the same as for the open birch scrubland (c. 5 g/m2). In a closed environment herbivores tend to break up into smaller groups of animals, and in ancient biomes it is traditionally believed that these groups are highly mobile and difficult to encounter. However, it may be that thick pine forest, together with the decreased plant biomass within this biome, would have encouraged herbivores to remain close to the forest margins. In these areas, particularly along river courses and lake edges, where water is available, woodland is lightest and where edible plants/foliage are more abundant, relatively high concentrations of herbivores may have occurred during this period. 5.7.4. Mixed Woodland. Mixed deciduous woodland of the type envisaged developing in Britain after c. 9.0 ka BP is amongst the most luxuriant of all biomes barring tropical rain forests. The overall plant cover is extremely high (c. 30,000 g/m2) and edible plant resources are markedly increased as a result (c. 1,200 g/m2). It is estimated that on average half a tonne of hazelnuts can be gathered from a single hectare of deciduous woodland, while one square kilometre can yield as much as 15 kilograms a day of berries and 20-50 tonnes of bracken root (Maclean 1993: 6). However, plant resources are well dispersed within this type of biome and their overall accessibility is still remarkably low (0.04). Animal resources flourish in a mixed woodland biome, increasing to near maximum values (c. 16 g/m2), but open woodland and well distributed plant resources also act to disperse these resources and as a consequence animal resources are, in fact, less accessible than in other biomes (0.5). In conclusion, it may possible to suggest three general trends in the distribution of plant and animal resources during the Early Mesolithic time-frame: 1) during the first third of the 10th millennium both plant and animal resources were low in abundance and well dispersed, the latter being relatively mobile; 2) during the second half of the 10th millennium plant and animal resources remain low in abundance but may have become locally concentrated in natural features such as river valleys; and 3) with the onset of the 9th millennium both plant and animal resources increase in frequency but become more dispersed. 5.8.0. Synthesis of Results The review of key environmental parameters indicates that shortly before c. 10.0 ka BP there was an abrupt warming event associated with termination 1b, where temperatures increased c. 7 degrees centigrade in less than 100 radiocarbon years. Following this event there are three major stages within the Early Mesolithic time-frame: 1) Between c. 10.0 ka BP and c. 9.5 ka BP amelioration in Britain stabilizes, while on the continent there is a possible regression known as the Preboreal Oscillation. During this 83

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER period the final dissolution of periglacial features causes a marked increase in the surface water budget. Rivers remain active while lakes and ponds are common. The poor, moist soils favour the development of open birch scrubland which is likely to have been low in edible plant resources. However, the largely open scrubland may have encouraged herbivores to remain in relatively large herds. 2) Shortly after c. 9.5 ka BP increases in solar radiation and decreases in cloud cover and albedo lead to a renewed rise in temperature. The corresponding increase in evapotranspiration creates a deficit in the surface water budget which is evidenced by the drying out of lakes, the shedding of river channels and a shift to dry land vegetation, notably pine woodland. The pine forest is dense, low in edible plant resources and disrupts animal resource patterns. It is suggested that the margins of this forest, particularly along river courses and lakes, would have been the most favourable biome for animals and human groups alike. 3) Around c. 9.1 ka BP increases in precipitation and continued temperature rises mark the arrival of the first warmth loving trees: oak and elm. Their presence in the canopy breaks up the pine forest, allowing more sunlight and nutrients to reach the forest floor, creating a luxuriant and species-rich understorey and herb layer. Hazel rapidly becomes dominant. This mixed woodland is high in edible plant resources but may have allowed increased mobility among animal populations, leading to a more dispersed resource base. 5.9.0. Conclusions The analysis of climatic, pollen, fauna and hydrological records suggests that the early Postglacial environment underwent a series of three marked shifts after the initial rapid amelioration between c. 10.2 ka BP and 10.0 ka BP. These shifts are believed to stem from genuine changes in the climatic regime, the result of a variety of external phenomena. The stages are: 1) open birch scrubland between c. 10.0 ka BP and 9.7 ka BP; 2) dense pine forest between c. 9.5 ka BP and 9.1 ka BP; and 3) deciduous woodland after c. 9.0 ka BP. It is argued that these stages represent distinct biomes, the onset of which is timetransgressive across Britain. Evidence has been presented that suggests that each biome possessed unique characteristics which ultimately will have influenced the abundance and distribution of the plant and animal resources within them. It is observed that differences between these biomes may have affected the way in which human groups came to exploit them. This question is the subject of the next chapter.

84

Chapter Six SETTLEMENT

6.1.2. Method of Analysis. Analysis is through the use of an especially compiled computer database of Early Mesolithic settlement data (MESOSETT). The database consists of 26 fields of information for each site (Table 1.1). From these the following variables have been chosen for settlement analyses: national grid reference; altitude; location; solid geology; raw material; distance of site from source of raw material; assemblage-type; total number of artefact-type (for microliths, scrapers, burins and axes respectively); total number of struck stone; area of excavation; and features. The chief source of information was published site reports. Where national grid references were not given these were obtained from Wymer (1977). Where altitude and location data were absent these were derived from Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 maps. Because of inconsistencies in reporting solid geology, this variable was recalculated for all sites using British Geological Survey 1:625,000 maps. Distance of site from raw material was calculated using the report author’s suggested source and measuring the straight line distance.

6.1.0 Introduction This chapter presents settlement data for a selection of Early Mesolithic sites from England and Wales. It will be demonstrated that each of the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types has a unique settlement pattern which, it is argued, correlate with certain changes in the Early Mesolithic environment observed in the previous chapter. Each of these settlement patterns is translatable into a unique subsistence strategy. The study begins with an analysis of the general distribution of Early Mesolithic sites in England and Wales and proceeds to more detailed analyses of altitude, location, raw material, assemblage density, assemblage structure and site features. 6.1.1. Selection of Material. In order to maximize the sample and to avoid regional influences it was decided to enlarge the study area to include the whole of England and Wales. Scotland and Ireland were not included because no conclusive evidence of any of the three assemblage-types under examination has been identified from these regions. All published Early Mesolithic assemblages from England and Wales were, however, eligible for inclusion. Selection of sites for further analysis was restricted to those assemblages with: 1) a total of ten microliths or more; and 2) a minimum of admixture. These criteria were intended solely to ensure that the assemblage could be correctly assigned to an Early Mesolithic assemblage-type. When this was not possible to do with absolute confidence the site was dropped from the analysis.

6.1.3. Presentation of Results. Results are presented in the form of distribution maps and clustered bar charts. The distribution maps were created using MapInfo 3.0 (MapInfo 1985-94) and the statistics and bar charts with SPSS 6.1 (SPSS 1988). In order to maximize the variable samples the database was recalculated for each analysis, so that for each variable analysed any site that returned a valid value for that variable was selected for analysis. For this reason the variable samples differ in size between analyses. The bar charts are clustered according to assemblage-type and are calculated using percentages to facilitate comparison. The relevant parts of the database are presented in Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.

The effective database (those sites selected for further analysis) consisted of 61 Early Mesolithic sites. It is stressed that this database is not intended to represent the entirety of Early Mesolithic settlement in England and Wales. Indeed, it is acknowledged that not all published Early Mesolithic sites will have been included, while other well-known sites remain to be published. Therefore the database used here is considered a sample of Early Mesolithic settlement. Attention is also drawn to the fact that the special study area, south-east England, by dint of previous and current research is likely to be overrepresented.1

6.2.0. Distribution The distribution of Early Mesolithic sites across England and Wales is analysed in two parts. Firstly, the overall distribution is looked at with a view to gaining a general impression of Early Mesolithic settlement and flagging those regions of potential bias. Secondly, the distribution of each of the known Mesolithic assemblage-types is examined in isolation in order to build a more detailed picture of Early Mesolithic settlement.

1

For a number of social, political and environmental reasons south-east England has attracted an unusually high frequency of collectors over time, notably: C.J Attree and E.J.G Piffard/ S. Standing (Horsham north and south); E.C. Curwen/ C. Charman (Hassocks); W. Hooper/Grinling Collins (Guildford-Dorking); P.A.M. Keef (Pulborough-Petworth); and W.F. Rankine (Farnham-Hazelmere). Not only have these workers greatly increased the overall number of Mesolithic sites in the region, their activities have also significantly affected the distribution of Mesolithic material.

6.2.1. General Distribution (Fig 6.1.). In Figure 6.1 each open square represents one Early Mesolithic assemblage. It is immediately apparent that Early Mesolithic settlement encompasses most of England and Wales, from the east to the west coasts and from the south to the north. Even comparatively remote locations such as Anglesey, and the

85

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

86

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

87

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

88

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

89

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Figure 6.1. Distribution of selected Early Mesolithic sites in England and Wales. The map includes 61 typologically pure assemblages (see Table 6.4) as well as the following 28 assemblages which contain a substantial, but not definitive, Early Mesolithic element within them: Cass ny Hawin (Isle of Man), Crandons Cross (Devon), Fairlight (Sussex), Farnham (Surrey), Flanchford Mill (Surrey), Graffham Common (Sussex), Hassocks (Sussex), High Rocks C (Sussex), Leatherhead (Surrey), Melbourne (Derbyshire), Middlezoy (Somerset), Nab Head 1 (Dyfed), Nether Exe (Devon), Nettlebed (Oxfordshire), Paddington Farm, (Surrey), Peacehaven (Sussex), Priory Gardens (Kent), Rackham (Sussex), Raylands (Sussex), Rhuddlan E (Clwyd), Rocks Wood 1 (Sussex), Selmeston 1 (Sussex), Staple Crag (County Durham), The Sandbeds (Yorkshire), Trwyn Du (Anglesey), Wawcott 3 (Berkshire), Wetton Mill (Staffordshire), Thatcham 89 (Berkshire). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier].

90

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN south-west tips of Wales and Cornwall possess good evidence of Early Mesolithic settlement. However, having drawn attention to the near ‘global’ nature of Early Mesolithic settlement in England and Wales, it is evident that several regions exist for which there is little or no recorded evidence of Early Mesolithic settlement. Principally, these regions are central England (i.e. parts of Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire) and central Wales (i.e. Powys). Smaller blank spots exist in parts of Cumbria, lowland north Yorkshire, Devon, Kent and Wiltshire.2 The apparent cluster of Early Mesolithic sites in south-east England is an artefact of research bias, both past and current.

disruptions of Early Mesolithic settlement, or there is some other form of research bias operating. In favour of the latter argument archaeologists in all three areas report that at least some Early Mesolithic material has been mixed in with later prehistoric assemblages and remains to be properly identified and separated (Phillips; Saville; Hedges; all pers. comm.). It is worth noting that while more detailed field walking is producing more Mesolithic material, these are more often Later Mesolithic in age, or mixed, while definitive Early Mesolithic assemblages remain rare. In the case of the former argument - that these lowland blank spots represent a genuine disruption in Early Mesolithic settlement - there is, as yet, no convincing explanation available (but see section 6.5.0).

One factor in this pattern may be the research database which deliberately excluded certain assemblages (section 6.1.1.). However, for the most part these blank spots are best explained by regional physical geography. The blank spots in central Wales and those in parts of Cumbria, Devon and Wiltshire correspond closely with the major areas of upland geography in these regions, respectively parts of the Cambrian Mountains, the Cumbrian Mountains, Dartmoor, Exmoor and Salisbury Plain. Given the density of settlement around the margins of these blank spots it seems improbable that such regions were not at least partly exploited during the Early Mesolithic; indeed, stray Early Mesolithic finds have been recorded in most of the above areas. Neither is it likely that these upland regions were too inhospitable for settlement since Early Mesolithic sites are known from similar upland zones on the North Yorkshire Moors and the Pennine Chain. Clearly, the most plausible explanation for these blank spots lies in research bias. However, the possibility that upland regions were used more ephemerally than their lowland counterparts ought not to be discounted.

6.2.2. Distribution of Assemblage-types (Figure 6.2.). In Figure 6.2 only those assemblages that can be positively identified down to assemblage-type level are presented. The assemblages have been coded so that all known Early Mesolithic assemblage-types can be displayed on one map. The patterns to emerge are discussed in turn, according to their suggested chronological sequence (section 4.5.2). 1) ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages (closed circles). Although low in number ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages display a distribution restricted to northern England and Wales. It may be significant that the distribution of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages bears a close correlation with the maximum extension of the Devensian ice sheets. To date, only two assemblages lie outside this distribution: the patinated assemblage from Thatcham III and the assemblage from Broxbourne 104. Whether these two assemblages represent outliers from the main distribution or indicate a broader pattern of settlement is not, at present, known. However, it is notable that in northern England and Wales ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages occur with regular frequency while outside the main distribution this assemblage-type is far less common.

There remain three blank spots on Figure 6.1 which do not fall into the category of upland regions. These are the areas of central England, Kent and lowland north Yorkshire. The apparent dearth of Early Mesolithic assemblages from these areas is particularly intriguing. All three of these blank spots are low-lying regions which, although prone to colluvial action, are also the focus of major ground disruption in the form of urbanization and agriculture. Such activities would be expected to unearth a number of stone assemblages purely by chance. Furthermore, lowland regions are generally more accessible to local and amateur researchers who may be expected, on average, to locate at least one major site per county. By both accounts there ought to be a random sample of sites from both these areas. However, there appears to be none.

2) ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages (open squares). The immediate impression gained from the distribution of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages is that these assemblages are more numerous than any other Early Mesolithic assemblage-type. In fact, ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages outnumber both ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Horsham’ type assemblages by a ratio of nearly 4:1, representing c. 67% of all classified Early Mesolithic assemblages in the analysis. On the basis of current data ‘Deepcar’ assemblages tend to appear in two distinct clusters: southern England and northern England. This distribution is most likely an effect of the research bias noted above for central England. However, the possibility that two populations of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages exist ought not to be discounted.

Either these lowland blank spots represent genuine

3) ‘Horsham’ type assemblages (closed triangles). As expected the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are restricted in distribution to south-east England. Interestingly, there appears to be little overlap between the distributions of

2

This is not to say that no Early Mesolithic material can be found in these localities. In certain cases Early Mesolithic assemblages were found to be too small or too mixed to be selected for analysis, while in others the material has not been published or otherwise made available.

91

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

Figure 6.2. Distribution of classified Early Mesolithic sites in England and Wales. The map shows only those assemblages that can be positively assigned to one of the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types. The diagram shows the mainly northern and western distribution of 'Star Carr' type assemblages (closed circles), the near 'global' distribution of 'Deepcar' type assemblages (open squares) and the exclusively south-eastern distribution of 'Horsham' type assemblages (closed triangles). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier]. known ‘Horsham’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages in this region. In fact, the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages correlate well with the Wealden district, by which term these assemblages are alternatively known (Jacobi 1978a: 21), while the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages appear to be peripheral to this area. Isolated examples of basally modified points can be found outside the south-east in a small number of assemblages across Britain: e.g. Crandons Cross in Devon (Berridge 1985) or Cass ny Hawin on the Isle of Man (Woodman 1987). However, these occurrences are not considered to reflect directly ‘Horsham’ settlement, but instead may represent indirect influence through

exchange or the transfusion of ideas. There is, then, some evidence of geographical patterning in the general distribution of the three Early Mesolithic assemblage-types, with ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages restricted chiefly to northern England, the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages restricted to south-east England, and the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages appearing in both regions. 6.3.0. Situation In order to learn more about the specific choices that may 92

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN have influenced Early Mesolithic settlement patterns, particularly in regard to the three main assemblage types, four aspects of settlement situation have been selected for further analysis. These aspects are: altitude; location; solid geology and raw material.

10% respectively), while none of those sites selected occurred on hill summits. Interestingly, ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages were the only Early Mesolithic assemblagetype to display notable ‘near coastal’ preferences, with c. 10% of assemblages in the analysis occurring close to the present coastline (cliff top).

6.3.1. Altitude (Figure 6.3). Among most Early Mesolithic sites there is a unimodal altitude distribution indicating a preference for low-lying locales. Indeed, c. 70% of ‘Deepcar’ type and 90% of ‘Horsham’ type assemblages occur below the 100 m contour. However, the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages display a more balanced altitude distribution. Only 50% of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages are situated below the 100 m contour, the second group of assemblages occurring between 300 m and 500 m OD. These data suggest that both ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are primarily placed at low altitudes. The ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are the most restricted in this respect with no sites above 200 m OD. However, the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages exhibit more flexibility in altitude with small numbers of sites also found between 100 and 500 m OD. The ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages are unique in that they are more commonly found in two altitude bands: those sites below 100 m (50%) and those sites above 300 m OD (50%).

Analysis of site location confirms that ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages commonly occupy two areas: lowland river valleys and upland plateaus. In contrast, ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages are seen to be predominantly situated in the lowland river valley locale with only a small number of sites located on hills, while ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are situated in different locales altogether: valley sides and lowland plateaus. 6.3.3. Solid Geology (Figure 6.5). The most striking feature of the solid geology analysis is the high density of ‘Horsham’ type assemblages on sandstone (c. 70%). This is in general accordance with the accepted correlation between Mesolithic sites and sandy soil (Clark 1932).3 However, here the similarity ends. The ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages are found on a wide array of solid geology, including siltstone, clay and chalk, while ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages also display considerable variety in solid geology, occurring on limestone, sandstone, clays and gravels.

An obvious explanation for the increased number of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages at high altitudes is regional physical geography. It has been shown that the focus of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages is across northern England into south-west Wales. Both regions are dominated by land over 300 m OD and it is reasonable to assume that at least a portion of this higher land will have been exploited over time, even if the general preference was for lower lying land. In south-east England, where the land is generally below 300 m OD, the option to exploit higher land was not available. Consequently the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages, which are concentrated in the south-east, appear restricted in altitude.

Regional physical geography again plays a part in the patterns observed. The correlation between ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages and limestone/sandstone geology is relatable to those correlations found for altitude and location, and is a feature of the physical geography of northern and western Britain. However, the strong correlation expected between Early Mesolithic sites and sandstone solid geology in south-east England is only partially apparent. In fact, the analysis indicates that this correlation is mainly confined to the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages. Again this is likely to be the result of regional physical geography, in that it was observed that most ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are located on, and around, the Weald (section 6.2.2), an area dominated by sandstone solid geology. Given the strong influence of regional geography on local soil-types, the traditional correlation between Early Mesolithic settlement and sandy soils seems overstated.

6.3.2. Location (Figure 6.4). An important feature of the location data is the detail these add to the trends brought out by the altitude analysis. In the case of those assemblages types found to favour low altitudes (all of the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages, most of the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages and half of the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages) a distinct pattern emerges. Both the lowland ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages are located on the floodplains of river valleys (40% and c. 50% respectively). However, the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages, all of which were lowland assemblages, are primarily located on valley sides and the lowland plateaus in between valleys (40% each). Very few ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are located on valley floodplains (10%). In the case of those assemblage types found at high altitudes (around 40% of the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages and a small number of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages) the favoured locations are upland plateaus (30% and 19% respectively). A lesser proportion of these assemblage-types occur on hill crowns (20% and

3 Long-term settlement in south-east England has long been linked to solid geology. J.G.D. Clark was the first to suggest this idea by illustrating the apparent correlation of Mesolithic sites then known with the sandstone geology of the Lower Greensand and Hastings Beds (1932: Map II, facing page 90). Clark argued that the light, sandy soils on these formations would have led to dry, open or lightly wooded regions that would have favoured Mesolithic settlement. Later research, with the benefit of additional discoveries, largely confirmed the correlation with sandstone geology, although noting an increasing number of Mesolithic sites on chalk and clay deposits (Mellars and Reinhardt 1978; Jacobi 1978b). However, this later work argued that sandstone geology was favoured not because it was lightly wooded per se, but because it interfaced with adjacent clay and chalk geology which possessed resources considered of equal, if not greater, importance than the benefits of sandstone.

93

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

94

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

95

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER 6.3.4. Raw Material (Figure 6.6). As expected flint is the dominant raw material, used exclusively in c. 90% of all Early Mesolithic assemblages. However, where both flint and chert are used in an assemblage flint is the dominant raw material in ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages, while in ‘Horsham’ type assemblages it is chert that predominates. It has also been noted (section 3.4.1) that where sources have been determined for the flint used on ‘Horsham’ type sites it is most frequently found to be from secondary drift deposits, most likely clay-with-flint. However, ‘Deepcar’ sites mainly use gravel flint, presumably taken directly from local river beds, while ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages appear to rely mainly on coastal flint.

are, therefore, likely to be of interest. The most obvious departure concerns the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages which demonstrate an extensive range of MLD values. Only half the ‘Deepcar’ type sites studied have MLDs under 100 pieces of struck stone per square metre, while the remainder all record higher MLD values. Indeed, c. 15% of ‘Deepcar’ sites have MLDs of over 500 pieces of struck flint per square metre. In contrast, ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages have the most restricted MLD range of the Early Mesolithic sites studied, with c. 90% of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages recording mean lithic densities under 100 pieces of struck stone per square metre. The ‘Horsham’ type assemblages display a tendency to slightly higher MLDs with c. 25% of assemblages having a range of 101200 pieces of struck stone per square metre. Similar results to those presented above, for MLD, were obtained using other criteria, i.e. excavated area and total lithic assemblage (not shown).

Figure 6.7 shows the distance of Early Mesolithic sites from the most likely source of the dominant raw material. Most Early Mesolithic sites are located on or near the source of raw material, indicating a general preference for sites situated close to raw material sources. However, ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages can also be situated considerable distances away from likely sources of material. Indeed, c. 20% of both types of assemblage are situated 91-100 km away from the most likely source of raw material, in both cases the east coast of Yorkshire. In marked contrast all ‘Horsham’ type assemblages analysed were located on or near the likely raw material source.

6.4.2. Assemblage Structure (Figure 6.9). Linked to site density is the question of site usage. Research into this question has been conducted by P.A. Mellars (1976). Mellars used an index of ‘assemblage structure’ to suggest three types of Mesolithic stone scatter: 1) microlith dominated assemblages; 2) balanced assemblages; and 3) scraper dominated assemblages. Microlith dominated assemblages were interpreted as mainly hunting locations, while scraper dominated assemblages were suggested as largely domestic settlements. Balanced assemblage structures were considered to be semi-permanent ‘seasonal’ settlements.

6.4.0. Structure Having examined the general distribution and specific location of Early Mesolithic sites it remains to explore the structure of individual sites. It is not possible in this analysis to include all aspects of internal site structure for all sites in the database. In consequence, three key aspects of general site structure have been selected for further analysis. These are: site density; assemblage structure; and site features.

This analysis adopts the same formula of calculating the percentage of microliths in the tool assemblage as was used by Mellars (1976: Table 2). However, ‘tool assemblage’ as defined here includes microliths, scrapers, burins and axes only. Microdenticulates (saws) are not included in the tool assemblage, although this tool form was included by Mellars. It was found that in the literature microdenticulates are not consistently recognized, and since a large part of the database was compiled solely from site reports the inclusion of microdenticulates in more recent publications was considered to add undue bias to the sample.

6.4.1. Site Density (Figure 6.8). A fact of immediate interest concerning the structure of Early Mesolithic sites is the overall size of the struck stone scatters. The obvious means of establishing this index (measuring the area of the scatter or using the total amount of struck stone in the assemblages) is not viable for reasons of recovery bias (see Mellars 1976: 386). Therefore this analysis uses an index of ‘mean lithic density’ (MLD), which represents the average amount of struck stone per excavated square metre. The MLD index is an approximate record of the intensity with which a site was used. Intensity may be interpreted as indicating the size of the human group using the site, the duration of site use or the potential of site reuse. The MLD statistic has the benefit of allowing some comparison between fully excavated sites and scatters only partly excavated. However, it is strongly influenced by the method and standards of recovery.

For clarity, the percentages on the x-axis in Figure 6.9 (representing the percentage of microliths in the tool assemblage) have been grouped together in three unequal bands according to the parameters used by Mellars to distinguish his three types of assemblage structure (1976: Tables 3-5). The most notable feature of Figure 6.9 is that c. 90% of all ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages conform to the ‘balanced’ assemblage structure. Indeed, c. 60% of the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages also possess balanced assemblage structures. However, c. 40% of the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages fall into the ‘microlith dominated’ category. Virtually no Early Mesolithic assemblages fall into the scraper dominated category.

Figure 6.8 indicates that a majority of Early Mesolithic stone scatters have an average of less than 100 pieces of struck stone per square metre. Deviations from this figure 96

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

97

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

98

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN 6.4.3. Site Features (Figure 6.10). Another indication of how Early Mesolithic sites might have functioned in the environment is the presence of site features. For this analysis site features include: pits; platforms; hearths; structures; post or stake holes; and clusters or concentrations of artefact material. In some instances a site possesses more than one feature (as at Deepcar itself) in which case the site has been recorded as having a ‘combination’ of features. In general, site features are well recorded in the literature and the database is considered a relatively accurate record of site features on Early Mesolithic sites. However, the proviso ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ still stands.

settlement as a single homogeneous unit, while only a proportion have observed the differences between Early and Later Mesolithic settlement. 1) ‘Star Carr’ Long-term Settlement. The correspondence of the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages and the maximum extent of Devensian glacial effects is not directly relevant, but it may have meaning in terms of environmental conditions. In Chapter Five it was noted that northern England, Wales and Scotland may have remained relatively lightly wooded for several hundred years after the onset of Postglacial warming, possibly as a result of glacial and periglacial soil deterioration. Indeed, there is evidence in the pollen record to suggest that pine did not colonize northern England until between 9.0 ka BP and 8.5 ka BP (Birks 1989; section 5.3.0). It is conceivable, therefore, that ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages were specifically adapted to this open type of environment and hence their apparent correspondence with those regions where glacial and periglacial conditions persisted longest.

Figure 6.10 illustrates that the majority of Early Mesolithic sites studied lack evidence of site features. However, of interest is the relatively high frequency of ‘Star Carr’ type sites that possess evidence of clusters of artefacts (in the form of concentrations of stone debris) and hearths. No ‘Horsham’ type sites reveal any evidence of site features, while ‘Deepcar’ type sites exhibit a low but broad range of features. Given the poor preservation of organic remains already noted on Early Mesolithic sites (section 5.1.1) it is unlikely that this pattern is entirely valid.

2) ‘Deepcar’ Long-term Settlement. The near ‘global’ distribution of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages indicates an important shift in settlement patterns, suggesting an increase in residential mobility and/or an increase in population. The onset of pine woodland (section 5.6.2) corresponds closely with the appearance of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages (section 4.5.2) and may not be unrelated to the long-term settlement pattern observed here. It has been noted that pine re-colonization began from south-east England at c. 9.5 ka BP and spread steadily northward and westward, reaching northern England by c. 8.5 ka BP (section 5.3.0 and Fig 5.3). It has been suggested that the replacement of the relatively open birch landscape with dense pine woodland will have dramatically altered the pattern and type of animal and plant resources, as well as inhibiting across country movement. River valleys, therefore, may not only have acted as corridors through the landscape but may also have supplied important diet breadth in the form of newly restocked riverine resources, as well as concentrations of animal and plant resources.

6.5.0. Early Mesolithic Settlement Patterns4 In bringing together the foregoing results it is proposed to divide discussion into two categories: ‘long-term settlement’ and ‘short-term settlement’. Long-term settlement is defined as a pattern of settlement that develops through relatively long periods of time, in this case 10s or 100s of years. Short-term settlement is the opposite, a pattern of settlement that develops through a relatively short period of time, i.e. under 10 years. The purpose of this division is to separate general settlement patterns, which are more readily exposed in the archaeological data, from detailed settlement patterns, usually those involving annual cycles of settlement, which are not easily sustained by the level of archaeological data currently available.

3) ‘Horsham’ Long-term Settlement. The ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are restricted to south-east England. It is apparent from the settlement data presented here that ‘Horsham’ type assemblages were geared towards use in ‘secondary’ areas of the Early Mesolithic landscape. It was shown in Chapter Four that the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages seem, on current evidence, to date between c. 9.0 ka BP to c. 8.0 ka BP (section 4.5.2). In environmental terms this period coincides with the development in Britain of thermophilous vegetation, most notably the arrival of oak and elm (section 5.6.3). It was suggested that mixed forest would have represented a more favourable biome for Early Mesolithic human groups than the preceding pine forests. The open canopy allowed more light to reach the forest floor which, in turn, stimulated the development of herb and understorey vegetation suitable for animal browsing and human collection. It is therefore conceivable

6.5.1. Long-term Early Mesolithic Settlement Patterns Long-term Early Mesolithic settlement patterns, as defined above, have been discussed in a variety of contexts (Clark 1932; Rankine 1956; Mellars and Reinhardt 1978; Jacobi 1978c; Mellars and Haynes 1986; Myers 1987; Spikins 1996). Attention, for the most part, has centred on regional studies. Much of this work has treated Mesolithic 4 It is necessary to draw attention to two limitations of the database. Firstly, the data used here are a sample of Early Mesolithic sites not a complete schedule. Therefore it is likely to possess bias. Most obviously this concerns the greater number of sites from south-east England compared to the rest of the country. Secondly, the selection of positively identified and largely uncontaminated assemblages for the analysis has reduced the sample of ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Horsham’ type assemblages to 11 and 10 respectively. Sample sizes of this order are easily biased by outliers. Examination of the raw data for each analysis indicates that the selected ‘Horsham’ assemblages possess no outliers. However, the selected ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages display considerable variation in certain analyses.

99

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER that the development of mixed forest allowed, perhaps for the first time, consistent human exploitation of hinterland regions which formerly were not readily exploitable.

resources are intercepted and harvested by task groups sent out from a residential base camp, and the crop brought back to camp for processing and consumption (Binford 1980). It is predicted that an intercept strategy will generate: 1) large semi-permanent base-camps; and 2) small task specific sites located considerable distances away from the base camp. In terms of the archaeological record it is likely that because task sites are used to intercept specific predicted resources, these locations will tend to be re-used; it has been noted, for instance, that inland ‘Star Carr’ type sites frequently occur in pairs (Stonehouse 1990). Base camps, however, will be tend to be relatively rare because by moving distant resources back to the base camp the immediate environment can be sustained and the need for residential mobility reduced. If correct, and the ‘Star Carr’ type sites do represent this type of intercept strategy, then the large ‘Star Carr’ type sites situated close to the east coast may indeed have served as home bases, while the smaller sites situated on the North Yorkshire Moors and the Pennines may have acted as task sites, as has been suggested (Clark 1972; Jacobi 1978c; Spikins 1996).

Potentially the most interesting pattern to emerge from the long-term distribution of Early Mesolithic assemblages is the apparent dearth of sites from lowland central England. Initially it was thought that this region may have been occupied by a fourth Early Mesolithic assemblage-type: namely, the ‘Honey Hill’ type assemblage (Reynier forthcoming). However, it has been suggested here (section 2.5.2) that the ‘Honey Hill’ type assemblage may date closer to c. 8.0 ka BP and thus may lie outside much of the Early Mesolithic time-frame. This means that central England was available for settlement for most of this period yet barely one definitive Early Mesolithic assemblage is known from the region. If true, this fact effectively divides Britain into two regions: southern Britain and northern Britain, with the lowland midlands seemingly unsettled to any notable degree. 6.5.2. Short-term Early Mesolithic Settlement Strategies. Short-term settlement models covering the Early Mesolithic period are effectively limited to one: that put forward by J.G.D. Clark (1972). Clark suggested a twostage annual round based largely on the predicted movements of red deer (see section 1.2.1). Red deer were, at that time, understood to be the chief nutritional resource in the Mesolithic and Clark argued that human settlement was likely to have ‘mapped on’ to red deer annual movements. Hence, the ‘deer hunter’ model of lowland/high-density/semi-permanent base camps for winter, and upland/low-density/mobile task camps for summer. P.A. Mellars (1976) adopted the ‘deer hunter’ model to interpret Mesolithic settlement in south-east England, adding supporting environmental details, while R.M. Jacobi also used the model to interpret both Early and Later Mesolithic settlement in England (1978c, 1979). Even modern computer simulation models have the ‘deer hunter’ model built into their initial parameters (Spikins 1996).

2) ‘Deepcar’ Short-term Strategy. A very different picture emerges when the short-term settlement data for ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages are examined. The majority of ‘Deepcar’ type sites were found to be situated on lowland valley floors with only small numbers of sites on valley sides and plateaus. Patterns of raw material collection were largely local and assemblage structure was balanced. However, ‘Deepcar’ site densities were found to be considerably larger than those for the ‘Star Carr’ or ‘Horsham’ type assemblages. The extensive settlement of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages across England and Wales via major river valleys suggested a long-term settlement pattern with an emphasis on mobility. If correct, one way of interpreting these data on a short-term basis may be as an ‘encounter strategy’. Under this model, rather than intercepting resources and returning them to a static home base in a logistical manner, human groups opt to move the home base with the intention of encountering resources (Binford 1980). The corollaries of an encounter strategy are: 1) increased residential mobility (the base camp is continually moved, perhaps as much as 50 times a year); 2) increased site size (the entire human group travels to each new location); 3) a decrease in site specialization (all tasks are carried at the base camp); 4) increased site redundancy (the same location is seldom revisited); and 5) a tendency to tie the whole system to one particular locale - a phenomenon termed ‘tethered nomadism’ (ibid.: 7). In terms of the archaeological record these predictions correspond closely with the ‘Deepcar’ settlement data: an increased number of large, homogeneous sites, tied closely to a particular locale, i.e. river valleys.

1) ‘Star Carr’ Short-term Strategy. The data presented here for the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages indicated that nearly half the ‘Star Carr’ type sites were found in lowland valleys while a notable number occurred on upland plateaus. Analysis of the raw materials used on these sites indicated that coastal sources were the most likely source. It was also suggested that while about half the sites were situated close to coastal raw material sources the remainder were found at increasing distances away from the source, a notable number being some 100 km inland on upland plateaus. Assemblage structure indicated that most ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages were balanced but that overall stone densities were relatively low. This pattern of short-term settlement tends to support a model along the lines of Clark’s ‘deer hunter’ model. It is perhaps best described as an ‘intercept’ strategy, where key

3) ‘Horsham’ Short-term Strategy. The short-term settlement of the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages may 100

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN represent a third pattern. ‘Horsham’ type sites are situated preferentially on small valley sides and on the lowland plateaus in between. Analysis of raw material procurement indicated that while flint remained the preferred raw material, proportions of chert were included in 10% of the assemblages. The source of flint is entirely local and is most likely to be from secondary head deposits. The ‘Horsham’ type sites were found to have moderate lithic densities, generally lower than ‘Deepcar’ sites but higher than ‘Star Carr’ type sites. In addition, assemblage structure at the ‘Horsham’ type sites was less balanced than at ‘Star Carr’ and ‘Deepcar’ type sites with c. 40% of the assemblages dominated by microliths.

specialized fixed facility strategy restricted to south-east England. The implications of these suggested settlement strategies will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Eight.

Undoubtedly the most noteworthy aspect of ‘Horsham’ type settlement is its geographical restriction. By c. 9.0 ka BP large areas of England and Wales were developing mixed deciduous woodland and it was suggested in section 5.7.4 that this type of open woodland may have increased edible plant resources, allowing animal resources to become more dispersed. This may have affected human groups. An animal-based intercept or encounter strategy in open forest is high in risk. Animals are difficult to locate, hard to approach and can easily escape. Two solutions are apparent: 1) set up ‘fixed facilities’ such as traps or deadfalls, in order to reduce search costs; 2) increase investment in edible plant resources. Which ever one, or combination, of these strategies may have been adopted, it is likely to have required increased investment in terms of the energy and time needed to construct and maintain such facilities (traps or gardens). In addition, it is also likely that a degree of specialization in terms of equipment and technology would also be required. This level of investment, where it is found in modern hunter-gatherer tribes, is nearly always accompanied by an element of territoriality. It is conceivable, then, that the ‘Horsham’ settlement pattern represents this type of fixed facility strategy, with increasing technological and territorial specialization. 6.6.0. Conclusions The data presented in this chapter suggest that the importance traditionally attached to geological influences on the pattern of Early Mesolithic settlement is exaggerated. Instead, it is argued here that geographical and environmental features exert a stronger influence on Early Mesolithic settlement. Distribution maps indicate that Early Mesolithic settlement incorporated most regions of England and Wales, although there appears to be little, or no, evidence from Ireland, Scotland and (interestingly) central lowland England. Situation and on-site evidence indicates that the ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ type assemblages may each represent a unique settlement pattern. ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages have been linked to a intercept strategy restricted largely to northern and western England. ‘Deepcar’ type sites appear to suggest a mobile, valley-based encounter strategy which ultimately encompasses most areas of England and Wales. While the data for ‘Horsham’ type sites have been interpreted as a 101

Chapter Seven AFFINITIES

7.1.1. Selection of Material. Reviews were undertaken for the following modern countries: Ireland; Scotland; southern Norway/Sweden; Denmark; northern Germany; the Low Countries; and north-east France (Fig 7.1). Initial examination suggested that the first two regions - Ireland and Scotland - lacked any definitive assemblage-types relatable to the material from England and Wales discussed in this study. These regions were, therefore, excluded from the analysis. The sequence of assemblages from Norway and Sweden was found to be broadly similar to that recorded elsewhere in Europe. However, it was felt that this material was unlikely to have directly influenced the British sequence and, in the interests of brevity, it too is excluded from the analysis. In the cases of Germany, the Low Countries and France analysis was restricted to the northern provinces for similar reasons, and to avoid confusion with predominantly southern complexes such as the ‘Beuronien’ and the ‘Sauveterrien’. However, it is

7.1.0. Introduction Up to this point the study has concentrated on events taking place within Britain during the Early Mesolithic time-frame. This chapter reviews the British Early Mesolithic in the context of north-west Europe. It is demonstrated that across north-west Europe the same general sequence of microlith assemblages occurs and that these microlith assemblage ‘stages’ are broadly contemporary. It is shown that the British sequence fits in well with this continental sequence. However, it is noted that variations in the British assemblages suggest that Britain maintained a degree of independent development during this period. It is concluded that north-west Europe was populated by human groups endowed with a rich social network that allowed ideas to move freely over large geographical areas. Britain was a part of this network throughout the Early Mesolithic time-frame.

Figure 7.1. Map of north-west Europe showing the location of key sites referred to in the text: Vig (1); Lundby (2); Sværdborg II (3); Barmose I (4); Seedorf (5); Duvensee 1-13 (6); Friesack (7); Gramsbergen I (8); Neerharen-de-Kip (9); Zonhoven-Kapelberg (10); Les Mazures (11); l’Ourlaine (12); Bedburg-Königshoven (13); Posterholt (14); Sablonnière II (15); Thennes I (16); Hailles (17); Longpré-les-Corps-Saints (18); Hangest-sur-Somme (19). [Illustration: M.J. Reynier].

102

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN recognized that both complexes do influence northern assemblages and where this is apparent it is noted in the text.

by the assemblage from Barmose I in southern Zealand (Johansson 1990). The microlith assemblage from this site is dominated exclusively by broad obliquely truncated points or ‘lanceolates’ (c. 95%). Lateralization is evenly distributed between the left and right margins. The standard tool assemblage contains both convex end scrapers and a large series of simple burins (mostly on breaks). Flake axes are common (there is also a single core axe present). Core technology is predominantly uniplatformed with hard hammer percussion. Microburins are moderately represented. Another assemblage of ‘Barmose’ type is Bjergby Enge in north-west Zealand (Andersen 1980), while small collections from Skottemarke in Lollund and the well-known Vig bull in northern Zealand have both been attributed to this phase (Fischer 1996).

7.1.2. Method of Analysis. Neither funds nor time were available for first hand examinations to be made of the study material. Thus, the data presented here have been gathered exclusively from site reports and review articles. It is acknowledged that secondary sources are no substitute for ‘hands on’ study. However, where possible reports have been read in the native language and no third hand translations have been used. Every precaution has been made to ensure misrepresentations have been minimized and where uncertainties have arisen these have been clarified with the original author. The danger of ‘shoehorning’ artefacts, assemblages or terminologies into prescribed boxes is also recognized and every attempt has been made to describe the various assemblage-types in their own terms.

7.2.2. The ‘Hasbjerg-Prejlerup-Lundby Phase’ (Fig 7.2b). Based on the assemblage from Hasbjerg II, in southern Zealand (Johansson 1990), this stage is characterized by the presence of partially-retouched points and the appearance of broad triangles (both isosceles and scalene variants). However, obliquely truncated points (‘lanceolates’) continue to dominate the microlith assemblages (c. 60-70%). In addition a small number of assemblages contain basally modified points (oblique variant). Scrapers and burins are common, and both flake and core axes are well represented. Cores are most often uni-platformed but fully bi-platformed variants are also present in notable frequencies. Microburins are numerous. Other examples of this microlith assemblage-type include Klosterlund, Sønder Hadsund, Bøllund and Melsted on Jutland (Brinch Petersen 1966).

7.1.3. Presentation of Results. The sequence of assemblage-types for each of the four study regions is given in turn for the period 10.0 ka BP to 8.0 ka BP. Where percentages are given in the text these are of a general nature and have been calculated by the author from the stated site report. Each section concludes with an outline of the dating of the relevant assemblage-types (sections 7.2.0 to 7.5.0). The results from the four reviews have been collated into a simplified model of microlith development across north-west Europe (section 7.6.0). Finally, the three British Early Mesolithic assemblagetypes are discussed within this framework (section 7.7.0).

7.2.3. The ‘Svaerdborg Phase’ (Fig 7.2c). The ‘Svaerdborg’ phase takes its name from the site of Svaerdborg II in southern Zealand (Brinch Petersen 1971). Microlith assemblages corresponding to this phase are dominated almost exclusively by narrow scalene triangles. Many of these are elongated in form. Oblique points are poorly represented while generally no other major microlith forms are present. The standard tool assemblage contains small numbers of end scrapers and burins on natural breaks. Heavy tools, mainly flake axes, are also present in moderate frequencies. Core technology is predominantly uni-platformed yielding irregular blades. Microburins are present, but in variable frequencies (microburin facets can seldom be identified). Typical examples of this type of assemblage also come from Ulkestrup II, in northern Zealand, and Norre Sandegård II on the island of Bornholm (Johansson 1990).

7.2.0. Denmark The Early Mesolithic in Denmark has for many years been synonymous with assemblages termed by J.G.D. Clark ‘Maglemosian’ (1936: 86). It has long been recognized that the ‘Maglemosian’ in Denmark is not a single entity but several loosely connected assemblage-types (cf. Becker 1951) and the precise definition of assemblage-types in the ‘Maglemosian’ group, based largely on microlith populations, has been well established (Brinch Petersen 1966). Recent research has supplied an absolute chronology to this seriation (Johansson pers. comm.). The eastern Maglemosian is sub-divided into seven chronologically ordered assemblage-types, named after their respective type-sites: Barmose; Hasbjerg; Prejlerup; Lundby; Ulkestrup; Mosegården and Orelund. A similar sequence is observed in western Denmark. In this section the first part of this sequence is used.1

7.2.4. Dating Evidence (Table 7.1). The ‘Barmose phase’ has the earliest dates for the Danish Mesolithic. At the type-site of Barmose 1 five AMS dates on charcoal fall between c. 9.3 ka BP and c. 8.9 ka BP, with a weighted mean of c. 9.2 ka BP (Fischer 1996). Elsewhere, fauna associated with small collections of Barmose phase material have been dated at Skottemarke to between c. 9.4 ka BP and c. 9.3 ka BP, and at Vig to c. 9.5 ka BP. The

7.2.1. The ‘Barmose Phase’ (Fig 7.2a). The earliest true Mesolithic assemblages from Denmark are characterized 1 For ease of comprehension the Hasbjerg, Prejlerup and Lundby phases have been grouped together. All three assemblage-types share similar typologies and occur together in a time-frame of less than 200 radiocarbon years.

103

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

104

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

‘Hasbjerg phase’ is dated to between c. 9.2 ka BP and c. 8.9 ka BP at Klosterlund and to between c. 8.6 ka BP and c. 8.3 ka BP at Mullerup (Tauber 1972) and at Prejlerup (Johansson pers. comm.). The ‘Svaerdborg phase’ is dated by three conventional dates from Ulkestrup II of c. 8.0 ka BP (Tauber 1972).

truncated and partially-backed points (c. 70%). In addition there are small numbers of isosceles triangles (c. 25%) and basally modified points (c. 5%). It should be noted that elsewhere in northern Germany, for instance at Duvensee sites 8 and 9 in Schleswig-Holstein (Bokelmann et al. 1981; Bokelmann 1991), triangles are seldom found in the ‘Präboreal’ stage. In the standard tool assemblage scrapers and burins are present in low frequencies. Axes, however, are well represented, with both the flake and core variants present. At Friesack only core axes occur in the ‘Präboreal’ stage, while at Duvensee 8 flake axes predominate during this stage. Data on core and blade technology are not generally presented in local site reports. However, at Duvensee 9 blade butts were unfaceted with pronounced bulbs, indicating hard hammer percussion. Microburins are present.

7.3.0. Northern Germany The Early Mesolithic time-frame in northern Germany is typically divided into three stages. No generic terminological sequence has been defined for these stages (Bokelmann pers. comm.), although the term ‘Duvensee Culture’ has been used to refer to the whole Early Mesolithic time-frame in the past (Kozlowski and Kozlowski 1979). Recent research in northern Germany, however, bases the lithic sequence on pollen chronozones. Thus Early Mesolithic assemblages in northern Germany are generally termed: ‘Präboreal’ (Preboreal); ‘Frühboreal’ (Early Boreal); or ‘Spätboreal’ (Late Boreal). The descriptions used in this section are taken mainly from the sites at Friesack in the district of Potsdam (Gramsch 1987, and Kloss 1989) and Duvensee in Schleswig Holstein (Bokelmann 1975-77, 1991, Bokelmann et al. 1981, 1985).

7.3.2. The ‘Frühboreal’ Stage (Fig 7.3b/c). The early Boreal assemblage-type at Friesack is characterized by the presence of simple oblique points (c. 45%) together with triangles (c. 35%). Among the oblique points the partiallybacked variant is generally more common, while among the population of triangles the isosceles variant is predominant, many with a concave short margin. In addition backed points (convex) and basally modified points (transverse) are both present (c. 10% each). Scrapers and burins are both present together with flake and/or core

7.3.1. The ‘Präboreal’ Stage. (Fig 7.3a) The oldest assemblage at Friesack is dominated by broad obliquely

105

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

106

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

107

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

axes. As noted above little can be said concerning core and blade technology other than that reduction appears to be by hard hammer. Microburins are numerous. Other examples of this assemblage-type can be found at the Schleswig-Holstein sites of Duvensee 1, 2 and 6 (Schwabedissen 1944; 1949; Bokelmann 1975-1977; 1991) and Seedorf (Bokelmann 1994).

represented (c. 18% each) while basally worked points (concave) are rare (c. 5%). Also in this stage are the first transverse arrowheads (c. 1%), typical of the later Mesolithic across much of north-west Europe. The standard tool assemblage is restricted. Poorly defined scrapers and burin-like artefacts are present, while axes are predominantly of the flake variant. Core and blade technology is characterized by hard hammer percussion. Microburins are numerous.

7.3.3. The ‘Spätboreal’ Stage (Fig 7.3d). In the late Boreal period the microlith assemblage at Friesack is dominated by triangles (c. 56%). Another example is the late Boreal assemblage from Duvensee 13 (Bokelmann 1985). In both assemblages the most common form is the scalene triangle, many of which tend towards narrow, elongated variants. Simple oblique and backed points are moderately

7.3.4. Dating Evidence (Table 7.2). The ‘Präboreal’ stage in northern Germany has been extensively dated at Friesack (layers 10a; 13a; 9b and 9a), where nine conventional dates on charcoal have a weighted mean of c. 9.5 ka BP. At Duvensee 8 layers of bark flooring have two

108

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN conventional dates also with a weighted mean of c. 9.5 ka BP, while at Duvensee 9 four samples of charcoal from the settlement area yielded a weighted mean of c. 9.4 ka BP.2 The ‘Frühboreal’ stage is also well dated at Friesack (layers 8b; 8a and 17). Here eight conventional dates on charcoal gave a weighted mean of c. 9.2 ka BP. Similarly the early Boreal sites at Duvensee (sites 1, 2 and 6) have all produced mean dates between c. 9.3 ka BP and c. 9.0 ka BP. The ‘Spätboreal’ stage at Friesack (layers: 7; 6c; 6b; 5b; 6a; 5a; 16; 32b and 33) has 18 associated conventional radiocarbon dates with a weighted mean of c. 8.9 ka BP. While the late Boreal assemblage from Duvensee 13 has four younger dates with a weighted mean of c. 8.6 ka BP.

assemblages are dominated by narrow backed points, termed ‘segments’ (c. 36%), and slender ‘zonhoven’ points (c. 24%) - in this case more accurately termed ‘partiallybacked points’. In addition are found notable frequencies of triangles, mostly broad scalenes (c. 18%), and increasing numbers of basally modified points (c. 15%), including the ‘hollow-based’ variant. Lateralization of microliths is biased to the left (> 60%). Standard tools include variable frequencies of end scrapers, poorly made burins and piercers. Axes, however, have yet to be found associated this assemblage-type. Core reduction is mainly uniplatformed (no data are available on blade butts). Microburins are abundant in number. 7.4.3. The ‘Beuronien B/C’ (Fig 7.4c). Taken together ‘Beuronien B/C’ assemblages are characterized by the predominance of scalene triangles in the microlith assemblages. Typical examples are the Belgian sites of Brenn Hag (Lausberg-Miny and Pirnay 1985) and Les Mazures (Pirnay and Straet 1978), both in Liege and the Dutch site of Aardhorst-Vessem 3 in Noord-Brabant (Jacobi 1976). In ‘Beuronien B’ assemblages, such as Aardhorst-Vessem 3, scalene triangles represent c. 25% of the microlith assemblage. In ‘Beuronien C’ assemblages, such as Les Mazures, scalene triangles (often elongated) frequently represent c. 50% or more of the microlith assemblage. Both assemblage-types contain ‘zonhoven’ points (partially-backed variant) but basally modified points (transverse variant) are more frequent in ‘Beuronien B’ type assemblages. Most microliths are lateralized to the left. Standard tools are restricted and include low frequencies of end scrapers and burins. Core technology is predominantly uni-platformed (there are no data on blades). Microburins are present.

7.4.0. The Low Countries Researchers on the continent agree that the sequences of stone assemblages across Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are broadly comparable with one another, despite parochial variations (Gob 1991). The sequence has been well defined in Belgium where a four-stage sequence has been proposed covering the entire Mesolithic timeframe (Gob 1979; 1984). These stages are as follows: 1) ‘Epi-Ahrensbourgien’; 2) ‘Beuronien A’; 3) ‘Beuronien B/C’; and 4) ‘Rhein-Meuse-Schelde’ (RMS). The Early Mesolithic time-frame is covered by the first three of these assemblage-types. 7.4.1. The ‘Epi-Ahrensbourgien’ (Fig 7.4a). This assemblage-type is characterized in Belgium by assemblages from Zonhoven-Kapelberg (Huyge 1985) and Neerharen - de Kip (Lauwers and Vermeersch 1982), both in Belgian Limbourg, and in the Netherlands by assemblages like Geldrop III-2 in Noord-Brabant and Gramsbergen I in Overijssel (Stapert 1979). In all cases the microlith assemblages are dominated by ‘zonhoven’ points (c. 72%) - a short, obtusely truncated variant of the oblique point. A notable feature is the marked frequency of points lateralized to the right. Other forms of microlith, predominantly isosceles or scalene triangles, are also present (c. 13%) while basally modified points, including tanged points, are absent. The standard tool assemblage is often restricted, and contains small numbers of end scrapers and well-made burins. Axes, however, do not appear to be present. Core reduction is predominantly biplatformed and blades frequently have linear or punctiform butts suggestive of soft hammer production. Microburins are present but in low frequencies.

7.4.4. Dating Evidence (Table 7.3). Thus far the oldest date for an ‘Epi-Ahrensbourgien’ type assemblage is a single conventional date of c. 9.3 ka BP from Gramsbergen I. This is comparable with another single conventional date of c. 9.1 ka BP from Neerharen - De Kip. Both dates place the ‘Epi-Ahrensbourgien’ assemblage-type within the second half of the 10th millennium. The ‘Beuronien A’ assemblage-type can be dated to c. 8.9 ka BP at l’Ourlaine (pooled mean of two conventional radiocarbon dates) and c. 9.0 ka BP at Posterholt (pooled mean of four accelerator dates). This places the ‘Beuronien A’ assemblage-type in first half of the 9th millennium. ‘Beuronien B’ type assemblages are dated by two dates from AardhorstVessem 3 with a pooled mean of c. 8.6 ka BP, while Gob (1984) suggests that microlith assemblages completely dominated by scalene triangles - ‘Beuronien C’ - may be equated with the French assemblages of La Sablonnière II and Montbani II, dated to c. 8.1 ka BP (see below). This places ‘Beuronien B/C’ type assemblages mainly in the second half of the 9th millennium.

7.4.2. The ‘Beuronien A’ (Fig 7.4b). Typical ‘Beuronien A’ assemblages are found at the Belgian site of l’Ourlaine in Liege (Lausberg-Miny et al. 1982) and the Dutch site of Posterholt in Dutch Limborg (Verhart 1996). These 2 In addition to these large stone assemblages a smaller collection containing three simple truncated points has also been dated to c. 9.5 ka BP at Bedburg-Königshoven (Street 1991; Table 7.2). This collection is too small to be positively assigned to a specific assemblage-type.

109

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

110

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

also includes a small number of elongated scalene triangles (c. 8%) and a single basally modified point. Both assemblages have a small number of standard tools that include short end scrapers and simple burins. Axes, however, are rare and poorly defined. Microburins are present at both sites, although they appear to be more common at Hailles. Both uni-platformed and bi-platformed cores are present, although uni-platformed cores are more common at Hailles. Approximately 92% of blade butts at Hailles are plain (corresponding information for Thennes 1 is not available).

7.5.0. North-east France There exist two discrete sequences in northern France: a western and an eastern sequence, the boundary between the two being marked by the course of the River Seine (Hinout 1990). Assemblages to the west of the Seine are derived from the traditional ‘Sauveterrien’ assemblage-type(s) with origins in the south-west of France, while assemblages to the east of the Seine have certain elements in common with assemblages from the Low Countries. In particular, northeastern assemblages possess variants of the oblique point which is absent from the western assemblages. Since the oblique point is a type fossil of the north-west European Early Mesolithic this section focuses on the eastern assemblages alone.3 The sequence used here is that proposed by A. Thévenin (1990). This sequence groups the many local seriations into a general four-stage sequence: ‘Mésolithique Ancien’; ‘Mésolithique Moyen’; ‘Mésolithique Récent’; and ‘Mésolithique Final’. The Early Mesolithic time-frame is covered by the first two of these stages.

7.5.2. The ‘Mésolithique Moyen’ (Fig 7.5b/c). The characteristic microlith elements of the ‘Mésolithique Moyen’ are scalene triangles and basally modified points. At the site of Longpré-les-Corps-Saints, Somme, (Fagnart and Vaillant 1982) the microlith assemblage is dominated by oblique points (c. 34%), most of which are of the partially-backed variant. The remainder of the assemblage is made up of backed points (c. 24%), broad scalene triangles (c. 20%) and basally modified points (c. 15 %), mostly of the concave variant. A similar assemblage exists at Hangest-sur-Somme (Ducrocq 1992). Conversely, at the well-known site of Sablonnière II, Aisne, (Parent et al. 1973) oblique points are reduced in frequency while backed points dominate the assemblage and elongated scalene triangles and basally modified points (mostly transverse) increase in frequency. Standard tools are not well represented: end scrapers and burins are present in low frequencies, but axes are again rare and atypical. Cores are predominantly uni-platformed and microburins are numerous.

7.5.1. The ‘Mésolithique Ancien’ (Fig 7.5a). Typical of the ‘Mésolithique Ancien’ are the sites of Thennes 1 (Blanchet 1986) and Hailles (Ducrocq 1989), both in the Avre valley (Somme). In each case the microlith assemblages are dominated by oblique points (c. 49%). At Thennes 1 the oblique points are mostly obliquely truncated forms, while at Hailles they are more often the partially-backed form. Other microlith forms include narrow, backed points or ‘segments’ (c. 19%). At Hailles the microlith assemblage 3 The exclusion of assemblages found to the west of the Seine does not mean that these assemblages did not influence development to the east of the river. Indeed it is likely that elements of the later Mesolithic, at least, originate in contacts west of the Seine.

7.5.3. Dating Evidence (Table 7.4). There are, at present, no radiocarbon dates for the ‘Mésolithique Ancien’. The

111

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

112

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

inclusion of sites such as Thennes I and Hailles in the ‘Mésolithique Ancien’ is based primarily on typological grounds. The dominance at Thennes I of oblique points, particularly the obliquely truncated form, is associated with the ‘zonhoven points’ found in the Low Countries which have radiocarbon dates of c. 9.3 ka BP to c. 9.1 ka BP (see above). This suggests that Thennes I is older in age than Hailles, where partially-backed points are more common. It is assumed, then, that the ‘Mésolithique Ancien’ dates to the second half of the 10th millennium. The ‘Mésolithique Moyen’ appears to develop over the 9th millennium and can be divided into two sub-stages on the basis of current radiocarbon dates: an early ‘Mésolithique Moyen’ where at the site of Hangest-sur-Somme a microlith assemblage similar to that recovered from the undated site at LongpréLes-Corps-Saints has three radiocarbon dates of c. 8.8 ka BP; and a later ‘Mésolithique Moyen’ characterized by the sites at Sablonnière II, and a similar assemblage from the nearby site of Montbani II, Aisne, which both date to c. 8.1 ka BP.

Assemblage Stages’ (MAS). These stages are not rigid compartments, but they do represent a useful framework in which to discuss the general patterns that emerge from the forgoing analyses. 7.6.1. MAS 1 (c. 10.0 ka BP to c. 9.7 ka BP). During the first third of the 10th millennium there is little in the way of clearly defined Early Mesolithic evidence from northwestern Europe.4 It has already been shown that in Britain characteristic Early Mesolithic settlement does not appear until after c. 9.7 ka BP (section 4.5.2). In this chapter it has also been shown that the same is true of Denmark, northern Germany, the Low countries and north-east France. This may appear, at first site, to suggest a cultural break or ‘hiatus’ between the Final Palaeolithic and the Early Mesolithic. However, in Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany ‘Ahrensburgian’ type assemblages have now been dated as late as c. 9.8 ka BP (Fischer and Tauber 1986), while in northern France and Britain ‘long blade’ assemblages are believed to date to as late as c. 9.7 ka BP (Cook and Jacobi 1994). Assuming these dates are correct, it seems certain that there is continuous settlement in northern Europe throughout the Devensian/Flandrian transition and that the apparent hiatus, where it occurs, is probably the result of radiocarbon compressions or preservation biases.

7.6.0. European Microlith Assemblage Stages With the data set out in this manner it may be possible to detect a general similarity in the development of stone assemblages in the early Postglacial. These trends are particularly evident in the microlith sequences that have been developed for each country. In general, there seem to be three shifts in the character of microlith assemblages during the Early Mesolithic time-frame. These shifts are all in the same typological direction and appear to occur at roughly the same points in time. The first shift occurs around c. 9.7 ka BP, the second at c. 9.3 ka BP and the third after c. 8.6 ka BP. The four stages in between these shifts may conveniently be described as ‘Microlith

4 Although not presented here, in Norway and Sweden the Early Hensbacka-Fosna assemblage-type, containing single-edge and tanged points together with crude flake axes and microburins, has been loosely dated to the first third of the 10th millennium (Kindgren 1995; Schmitt 1995).

113

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER 7.6.2. MAS 2 (c. 9.7 ka BP to c. 9.4 ka BP). Across northwest Europe the oldest definitive Early Mesolithic assemblages appear shortly after c. 9.7 ka BP. These microlith assemblages are dominated by simple obliquely truncated points almost to the exclusion of all other microlith forms. It may be possible to detect an east-west gradient: to the west, in France (if the dating is correct), backed points make an early appearance in this stage and decline in frequency as one moves eastward; while in the east, axes, both flake and core variants, appear common throughout southern Scandinavia and north Germany but are only poorly represented in the Low countries and France. This gradient may tie in with a similar gradient observed for the Final Palaeolithic (Gob 1991). The remaining standard tool assemblage is restricted to end scrapers and well-characterized burins. Unfortunately, not enough data are available on core and blade technology to discern meaningful patterns.

continue to be poorly represented in assemblages from western regions of northern Europe. In summary, it may be possible to discern four general stages in the character of microlith assemblages occurring between 10.0 ka BP and 8.0 ka BP (Fig 7.6). The first stage (MAS 1) possesses little, or no, Early Mesolithic evidence. The second stage (MAS 2) begins after c. 9.7 ka BP, with the appearance of microlith assemblages dominated by simple obliquely truncated points, almost to the exclusion of all other microlith forms. The third stage (MAS 3a) begins around c. 9.3 ka BP with the development, within the oblique point category, of the partially-backed point and the appearance of new microlith forms, such as isosceles triangles and backed points; basally modified points and scalene triangles also make their first appearance towards the end of this stage. Shortly after c. 9.0 ka BP oblique points decline in importance and are replaced by triangles and basally modified points (MAS 3b). The fourth stage (MAS 4) begins at c. 8.6 ka BP with scalene triangles rising in frequency to dominate microlith assemblages across north-west Europe.

7.6.3. MAS 3 (c. 9.3 ka BP to c. 8.6 ka BP). Two traits characterize MAS 3. Firstly, the general increase in frequency of partially-backed points within the oblique point category. And secondly, the appearance of new microlith forms. To the east, in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, isosceles triangles appear in addition to the oblique point population. To the west, in the Low countries and north-east France, backed points remain a part of the microlith assemblage but are augmented with basally modified points and increasing numbers of scalene triangles. A division might also be made between early and late MAS 3 assemblages based on the decline in frequency of the oblique point category after c. 8.9 ka BP. Thus, it might be useful to refer to sub-stage 3a (c. 9.3 ka BP to c. 9.0 ka BP), where oblique points are still frequent, and substage 3b (c. 8.9 ka BP to c. 8.6 ka BP) where oblique points are outnumbered by triangles and basally modified points. The standard tool assemblage shows little development in MAS 3 other than a gradual decline in burin quality and frequency. Axes again appear poorly represented in western regions but remain common in the east, where both flake and core variants are present. 7.6.4. MAS 4 (c. 8.5 ka BP to c. 8.0 ka BP). In MAS 4 scalene triangles, continue to increase in frequency, ultimately dominating microlith assemblages across northwest Europe. Initially, the scalene triangles are broad but towards the close of the stage they develop into narrow, elongated forms. As far as other microlith forms are concerned, in both eastern and western regions partially backed points remain moderately represented. However, in the east isosceles triangles, and in the west backed and basally modified points, decrease in frequency towards c. 8.0 ka BP. New microlith forms include inversely-based points and straight-backed points (‘rods’), both appearing in assemblages towards the end of this stage. The standard tool assemblage becomes increasingly impoverished across north-west Europe during this stage. Axes, however, remain moderately frequent in the eastern assemblages, but

Figure 7.6. Simplified model of microlith assemblage stages (MAS) for north-west Europe. The diagram shows the key microlith types for stages 2, 3a, 3b, and 4. It is suggested that across north-west Europe Mesolithic microlith assemblages follow broadly the same sequence. When compared with Figure 4.12, which shows the suggested British sequence, it appears that Britain also follows this sequence. [Illustration: M.J. Reynier].

114

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN transition). Alternatively, if it is accepted that the presence or absence of isosceles triangles and/or trapezoids is relevant, then the consistent association of these elements in the British ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages, and the general absence of these forms from continental European assemblages of similar age, may argue for the mainly local evolution of British ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages.

7.7.0. Affinities of British Early Mesolithic Assemblages It is apparent, then, that the sequence of microlith progression - broad obliquely truncated points to narrow partially-backed points to isosceles triangles and/or basally modified points to scalene triangles - is a phenomenon that may reach across the whole of north-west Europe. It has also been suggested that the timing of these microlith assemblage stages is broadly synchronous. It remains now to see if the British sequence, as outlined in Chapter Four, fits into this general European pattern, and if so, where its nearest affinities lie.

7.7.2. The ‘Deepcar’ Type Assemblages. The ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages have traditionally been seen as possessing ‘Maglemosian’ affinities and are interpreted as representing links across the North Sea basin to Denmark (Clark 1936, 1975). It has been shown in this study that the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages in Britain are chiefly characterized by the appearance of narrow partially-backed points, the presence of isosceles trapezoids and the use of additional retouch on the leading edge of microlith points (Chapter Two). There is also a small and variable proportion of backed and basally modified points. On the continent assemblages containing narrow oblique points (partially-backed points) appear around c. 9.3 ka BP in MAS 3a. Identical dates have been recorded for ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages from Britain (Chapter Four). However, with the exception of certain sites in The Netherlands observed above, isosceles trapezoids are seldom reported from continental Europe until after c. 8.0 ka BP, while additional retouch applied to the leading edge of microliths is rare or absent (Bokelmann; Johansson; Verhart: all pers. comm.).

7.7.1. The ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages. The closest parallels to British ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages have traditionally been placed in northern Germany and Denmark. Indeed it has, until recently, been the practice to label all British Early Mesolithic stone assemblages as ‘Maglemosian’ in general and, in particular, to associate ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages with the ‘Duvensee Culture’ (Clark 1975; Kozlowski and Kozlowski 1979). However, it has been noted that assemblages from northern Germany and Denmark dating to before c. 9.3 ka BP (i.e. MAS 2) generally lack isosceles triangles and trapezoids, both of which are characteristic elements of British ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. Indeed, the contemporary assemblages at Duvensee sites 8 and 9 are almost entirely lacking in isosceles triangles, while even further to the west MAS 2 assemblages from The Netherlands, like Gramsbergen I, Geldrop III-2 and Swalmen, contain only a few poor examples of isosceles triangles and/or trapezoids. In addition, flake axes are common in north Germany and southern Scandinavia but appear to be absent from English and Welsh assemblages, their place taken by core axes.5

Contrary to traditional belief this analysis suggests that the closest parallel to ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages are those assemblages that develop in the western region of continental north-west Europe. A good parallel is the assemblage from Posterholt in The Netherlands where narrow partially-backed and fully backed points dominate the microlith assemblage. Posterholt has recently been dated to c. 9.0 ka BP - precisely the same age as British ‘Deepcar’ assemblages. Similar assemblages occur in north-east France, at Hailles, Hangest-sur-Somme and Longpré-les-Corps-Saints. The latter two assemblages, however, also contain small frequencies of basally modified points and/or scalene triangles, which may indicate a slightly younger age for these assemblages. Indeed, the radiocarbon dates from Hangest-sur-Somme (c. 8.8 ka BP) place this assemblage at the beginning of MAS 3b while, on current evidence, the British ‘Deepcar’ assemblages can probably be restricted to MAS 3a.

Only in assemblages further to the south do isosceles triangles appear more frequently. Thus, at Friesack the Preboreal assemblage contains both obliquely truncated points and isosceles triangles in roughly the same proportions as in the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. On this typological basis Friesack would appear to the closest continental parallel to the British ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. However, the geographical position of Friesack, south of assemblages generally lacking isosceles triangles and trapezoids, argues against a strong connection between this assemblage and the British ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. Unfortunately, the great rarity of Early Mesolithic assemblages dated to between 9.7 ka BP and 9.3 ka BP elsewhere in north-west Europe makes it difficult to assess the relevance of these observations. For instance, it is conceivable that MAS 2 assemblages with isosceles triangles are present in northern Germany and The Netherlands at earlier dates and remain to be discovered (the Gramsbergen I dates are late, around the MAS 2/3a

The appearance of small numbers of backed points in British ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages adds to the possibility of western contacts or influences. Both Belgium and France also have notable proportions of backed points in their MAS 3a assemblages, while in northern German and southern Scandinavian assemblages these elements are rarer. However, it should be stressed that despite these similarities British ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages have no exact parallel on the continent: additional retouch to the leading edge is as yet unrecorded in most continental

5

Flake axes do, however, occur in the Irish ‘Early Mesolithic’, dated to c. 9.0 ka BP (Woodman 1985).

115

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER assemblages, and isosceles trapezoids are rare and poorly characterized even in The Netherlands.

isosceles triangles and hollow-based points. Good examples of such assemblages are those from Duvensee 6 and Friesack (Early Boreal). However, the persistent absence of both additional retouch to the leading edge and rhomboid microliths illustrates that these affinities are not exact.

7.7.3. The ‘Horsham’ Type Assemblages. The British ‘Horsham’ assemblages have traditionally been associated with northern French ‘Middle Tardenoisian’ assemblages (Clark 1934; Clark and Rankine 1939) based on the fact that both assemblage-types share a basally modified point element. In Britain, the type-fossil of the ‘Horsham’ assemblage-type is the hollow-based point. These distinctive basally modified points are found together with isosceles triangles and/or rhomboids, as well as short obliquely truncated points, many of which possess additional retouch on the leading edge. This review indicates that shortly after c. 9.0 ka BP, in MAS 3b, similar assemblages, containing basally modified points (oblique, hollow or transverse) together with triangles and oblique points, occur across most of northern France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany. Indeed, it is only in southern Scandinavia that these assemblages appear to be rarer.

In summary, analysis of the typological affinities of stone assemblages surrounding the North Sea basin indicate that the development of British stone assemblages during the Early Mesolithic shadows developments in neighbouring regions, suggesting at least some degree of external contact. However, British stone assemblages also display unique variations which make it difficult to find precise analogues for these assemblages elsewhere in north-west Europe. In part this may be a research bias. Alternatively, however, it may indicate that contact between Early Mesolithic human groups across north-west Europe was indirect, and that Britain maintained some degree of cultural independence throughout the Early Mesolithic.

Despite general similarities in assemblage structure it is again noted that no exact analogue exists for the ‘Horsham’ type assemblage on the continent. In southern Scandinavia, where MAS 3b is poorly represented, the few basally modified points that occur are mainly the obliquely-based variant, while in northern Germany, the Low Countries and north-east France the basally modified population is dominated entirely by the transversely-based variant. Hollow-based points, such as occur in Britain, are not common forms on the continent. Concerning the ‘geometric’ element (triangles and rhomboids) the ‘Horsham’ assemblages appear unique among MAS 3b assemblages in possessing isosceles triangles, while elsewhere in north-west Europe during MAS 3b the trend is towards scalene triangles. Rhomboids, of the type common at Kettlebury 103, are apparently absent from continental Europe during this period. Again, additional retouch on the leading edge of oblique points, common to British ‘Horsham’ type assemblages, is rare or absent in continental MAS 3b assemblages.

If the latter argument is correct it presumes the existence of multiple, largely indigenous, Early Mesolithic populations across and around the North Sea basin. These populations, if they existed as such, would appear to have maintained a complex network of communications, presumably via exchange and population flux - a network into which, on the basis of the evidence presented here, Britain was almost certainly plugged. Given the nature of this system it is clearly impossible, at present, to be precise about exact origins and directions of influence: Britain is as likely to have influenced mainland Europe as Europe is to have influenced Britain. All that may be said on current evidence is that the closest parallels between Britain and the continent suggest an emphasis on southern routes across the North Sea basin, perhaps centred around the Low Counties and western Germany. 7.8.0. Conclusions In this chapter the sequence of microlith assemblages for the main regions surrounding Britain during the Early Mesolithic time-frame have been described. It has been demonstrated that assemblages developing around the North Sea basin during this period follow a similar typological progression and it has been shown that Britain fits in well with this pattern. However, it has not been possible to discern precise parallels for the British assemblages on the continent. It is suggested that these facts may presume a developed network of largely indirect communication across north-west Europe. If so, Britain was clearly a part of such a network and this would imply that the British ‘Star Carr’, ‘Deepcar’ and ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are largely in situ interpretations of prevailing north-west European trends. The available evidence suggests an emphasis on southern routes for the transmission of ideas and humans across the North Sea basin.

The closest parallels to the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages may, in fact, be northern German assemblages first appearing around c. 9.0 ka BP. These assemblages are characterized by a persistence of fairly broad obliquely truncated points together with neat isosceles triangles. The presence of low frequencies of scalene triangles and basally modified points places these assemblages in MAS 3b (c. 8.9 ka BP to c. 8.6 ka BP), dates that correspond well with those for the British ‘Horsham’ type assemblages. As noted above the basally modified points are mainly represented by the transverse variant. However, the scalene triangles include distinct examples which, with short concave margins, appear to resemble hollow-based points. If one argues that these scalene triangles may well, in fact, be forms of hollow-based point, then the assemblage-type as a whole resembles a typical ‘Horsham’ type assemblage, with short obliquely truncated points, 116

Chapter Eight CONCLUSIONS

platforms on the core. Percussion can be direct, with a hard hammer, or indirect with a narrow punch. The two platforms are used alternatively, with a sequence of blades removed from one platform before the core is inverted and a further sequence struck from the second platform. In this way blades struck from one platform tend to feather out in the termination aretes of blades struck from the second platform. Thus the potential tertiary blade length is limited to half the length of the core face. This may account for the small, broad microliths characteristic of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. Raw material was estimated to be divided between local and non-local sources.

8.1.0. Introduction This study began by making two specific criticisms of the interpretational approach to the Early Mesolithic in Britain. It was suggested that there was: 1) an over-reliance on the traditional Star Carr model of human settlement; and 2) a general ambivalence toward typological and chronological resolution in the period (section 1.1.2). In the previous chapters a specific attempt has been made to correct this imbalance by examining in detail six key areas of the Early Mesolithic. For each it has been possible to suggest alternative ways of interpreting the Early Mesolithic data. This final chapter begins by highlighting the main findings of each analysis and attempts to integrate these facts into a working model of the evolution and development of Early Mesolithic settlement in Britain between 10.0 ka BP and 8.0 ka BP.

3) Chronology. Analysis of stratigraphy, pollen diagrams and radiocarbon dates indicated that the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage was the first Early Mesolithic assemblage-type to appear in Britain, shortly before c. 9.5 ka BP. Available evidence suggests that in certain regions, notably northern and western Britain, ‘Star Carr’ assemblages may have persisted through to c. 9.0 ka BP and possibly later.

8.2.0. Summary of Main Conclusions In this section the chief conclusions from each of the six data chapters of the study are presented (Table 8.1). These findings are based solely on the available evidence as it appeared during the period of this study. In order to gain as full a picture as possible of each of the chosen units of study the conclusions for each analysis have been collated by assemblage-type and are set-out in chapter order under the relevant headings.

4) Environment. It was observed that the climatic amelioration begun at c. 10.2 ka BP was halted or even regressed between c. 10.0 ka BP and c. 9.7 ka BP. Current evidence indicates that during this time the environment in Britain remained relatively open, particularly in the areas of northern and western England, Wales and Scotland. Much of the country appears to have supported a light birch scrubland. Analysis of this biome suggested that scrubland supports low to moderate amounts of edible plant resources but relatively high frequencies of animal resources. It was noted that both types of resource would have been well dispersed within the landscape.

8.2.1. The ‘Star Carr’ Type Assemblages. The number of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages available for this study was small and the conclusions arrived at here must remain tentative for the present. The most significant aspects to emerge are presented below:

5) Settlement. Despite the identification of two ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages in south-east England, attesting to partial settlement in this region, by far the greatest majority of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages were found to be located in the north and west of England and Wales. Examination of short-term settlement patterns suggested that these sites were located in two particular locales: river valleys and upland plateaus. Evidence also pointed to these sites tending towards specialization, with some sites interpreted as small hunting bivouacs and others as larger processing camps. It was suggested that this type of settlement may represent an intercept economic strategy. Under this system human groups established semi-permanent base-camps close to a variety of resources. These resources are then systematically harvested by smaller task groups that intercept predicted resources and return the produce back to the base-camp.

1) Typology. The ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type is characterized by its restricted nature. The microlith assemblage is dominated by obliquely truncated points; other than these forms only simple isosceles triangles and trapezoids are found. Elaborate microlith forms do not occur. The microliths themselves are small, angular and broad. There is usually no additional retouch. The standard tool assemblage is similarly restricted. Short end scrapers are the most abundant tool form with well made burins and axes also present. The impression gained during this study is that the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblage is a specialized Early Mesolithic assemblage-type geared towards specific objectives. 2) Technology. In Chapter Three it was shown that ‘Star Carr’ type core reduction is frequently bi-platformed, the knapper choosing to prepare and maintain two opposed

117

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

118

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN 6) Affinities. In regard to the origin of the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages it was observed in Chapter Seven that after c. 9.7 ka BP assemblages similar in form to the British ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages appear all around the North Sea basin. It was noted that the closest parallels to the British material remain in northern Germany, however these parallels are not exact. It was alternatively suggested that ‘Star Carr’ assemblages may have developed independently in Britain, mirroring a general north-west European trend.

BP there was a renewed warm pulse, perhaps stimulated by Milankovitch forcing. At this time there appears a marked decrease in the surface water budget, as recorded in pollen diagrams, and this may have encouraged the colonization of dry-loving pine. Pine forest was found to develop first in south-east England and then gradually moves northwestward, not reaching northern Britain until c. 8.5 ka BP and Wales until c. 8.0 ka BP. It was observed that this type of forest rapidly forms dense, dark stands and is surprisingly low in edible plant resources. In addition, unmanaged pine forest is difficult to move through for both humans and animals alike. It was suggested that this type of biome may have encouraged flora, fauna and human groups to concentrate along forest margins.

8.2.2. The ‘Deepcar’ type Assemblages. The ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-type was found to be the most common Early Mesolithic assemblage-type in Britain. The various analyses undertaken revealed a surprisingly coherent and distinct set of patterns. The main features are outlined below:

5) Settlement. It was established that ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages tended to favour major river valley locations. It was suggested that this pattern of settlement may represent an encounter economic strategy. Under this scenario human groups do not rely on the regular movements of animal resources. Once a base-camp is established in a new territory resources are randomly harvested when and where they are encountered within the catchment of the base-camp. The group remains in the territory until resources become depleted and returns diminish. Residency of a territory may therefore be no more than a week. The whole group then moves into a fresh territory and establishes a new base camp. It was suggested that sites generated by encounter strategies would tend to be large and general in character, while territories would be small but tightly packed.

1) Typology. It was observed that ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages are characterized by an augmented tool-kit. Among the microlith assemblage oblique points are dominant, but of these an increasing proportion are of the partially-backed variant. Isosceles trapezoids persist, but triangles are rare or absent. In addition new microlith forms emerge, including backed points and the occasional basally modified point. Attention was drawn to the increased slenderness of all ‘Deepcar’ type microliths and to the appearance of additional retouch applied to the leading edge of microliths, oblique points in particular. A similar trend towards generalization was found in the standard tool assemblage, with an increased range of forms and variants of forms. The axe is well-represented in these assemblages but burins decrease in frequency.

6) Affinities. It was observed that assemblages roughly similar to British ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages appear across north-west Europe from c. 9.3 ka BP onwards. This apparently represents a general trend in microlith manufacture towards long, slender points. However, attention was drawn to the fact that additional retouch and isosceles trapezoids are not generally apparent in continental assemblages, occurring only rarely in assemblages from the Low Countries. It was suggested that the British ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages shared general Europe trends, but that they may equate more directly with those assemblages developing in the southern half of the North Sea basin.

2) Technology. It was found that in ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages core reduction is often initiated from a single platformed core. Percussion was determined to be direct, by means of a broad, hard hammer, presumably another stone. The knapper appears to work mainly from the prepared platform, removing blades from around half to two thirds of the perimeter of the platform. Only when errors or flaws occur does the knapper invert the core to make the necessary corrections from a second small, and usually unprepared, platform located opposite the main platform. This technique allows blades to be removed from the entire length of the core face, a feature which may have led to the increased length and narrowness of ‘Deepcar’ type microliths. Raw material sources were found to be local and were most often from river gravels.

8.2.3. The ‘Horsham’ type Assemblages. The ‘Horsham’ type assemblages, in common with the ‘Star Carr’ assemblages, were under-represented in the study. Consequently the emergent patterns must treated as provisional. The main findings are as follows:

3) Chronology. Examination of available stratigraphy, pollen diagrams and radiocarbon dates indicated that the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages appear shortly after c. 9.4 ka BP and persist into the early 9th millennium. No reliable dating evidence was found from northern Britain and it was not possible to determine where the assemblage-type appeared first.

1) Typology. The chief characteristic of the ‘Horsham’ assemblages was found to be the introduction of new artefact types and variants. In the microlith assemblage obliquely truncated points are dominant, many with additional retouch applied to the leading edge, while partially backed points decrease in frequency or are absent. New microlith forms include isosceles triangles,

4) Environment. It has been suggested that around c. 9.5 ka 119

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER rhomboids, and various basally modified points, most notably the hollow-based point. It was observed that, with the exception of hollow-based points, there is a marked decrease in size of most microliths. In the standard tool assemblage chamfered pieces are introduced, while axes and burins are rare or absent from assemblages of this type.

locales hitherto regarded as marginal, such as on the sides of smaller river valleys and particularly on the lowland plateaus in between these valleys. The break-down of the southern pine forests was cited as a likely stimulus for settlement to move out of the major river valleys. It was also argued that the increase in hunting costs, as a result of the more open landscape, may have encouraged human groups to develop a more specialized economic strategy. In particular, it was speculated that fixed facilities, such as traps and even gardens, may have been established, both leading to increased territoriality and technical specialization.

2) Technology. Analysis of the core reduction technique suggested a more random use of the core. The cores themselves were found to be smaller in size with platforms that were irregularly positioned and often unprepared. Some cores had up to three platforms. The impression was that the knapper worked the core intensively, removing blades from any, and all, available surface(s). A distinctive style, the helix core, was to begin working the core from the top, then twist and work the core across the side and finally rotate the core and work the back. Percussion was exclusively by hard hammer. Tertiary blades were short and frequently irregular in shape and this may explain the small size of microliths in the ‘Horsham’ assemblages. It was suggested that the raw material was of inferior quality, predominantly from drift deposits, possibly clay-with-flint beds.

6) Affinities. The general evolution of microlith assemblages across north-west Europe towards more complex assemblages including triangles and basally modified points made it difficult to isolate potential sources for the British ‘Horsham’ type assemblages. No precise analogue was isolated, although it was noted that the closest parallel to hollow-based points may be found in northern Germany at c. 9.0 ka BP and after. It was suggested that ‘Horsham’ type assemblages may have developed independently of, but parallel to, mainland European assemblages.

3) Chronology. It was observed that stratigraphical data, where this occurred, was poor but tended to indicate a superior context for ‘Horsham’ assemblages over ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages. The pollen data, however, were found to be unassociated with the stone assemblages. Consequently, the basis of the chronology relies on four radiocarbon dates from Longmoor 1 in Hampshire and Kettlebury 103 in Surrey. These dates indicate an age range in the 9th millennium, between c. 8.9 ka BP and c. 7.9 ka BP. Such a small data-set renders the earliest appearance of ‘Horsham’ type assemblages relatively meaningless, although a source in south-east England remains likely given the total absence of typical ‘Horsham’ type assemblages outside this region.

8.3.0. A Model of Early Mesolithic Settlement in Britain Given the extent of the revisions isolated in this study it is clearly desirable to offer some form of alternative model which may better account for these data. In this section such a model is presented. This model represents one interpretation of the events that occurred in Britain between 10.0 ka BP and 8.0 ka BP based on the findings set out in the previous section. This is only one of a number of possible reconstructions that could be made using this evidence. It is offered here as a prototype model - a platform - to be challenged, augmented and built upon. It is specifically not intended to be a definitive statement.

4) Environment. Environmental data suggested that around c. 9.0 ka BP the climate became more moist, while Postglacial warming continued. The effect of a warm, wet climate appears to have been the breakup of the dense pine forest that had covered much of south-east and central England and the spread of more light demanding species: from the west hazel and oak; from the east, elm. It was observed that deciduous woodland of this type allows the development of a rich herb understorey and is consequently relatively high in edible plant resources. It was also noted that this type of environment allows animal resources to become more diffusely distributed, making these resources harder to locate, monitor and harvest.

8.3.1. Initial Settlement (c. 9.7 ka BP to 9.4 ka BP). Evidence has been presented suggesting that in the first half of the 10th millennium there was a standstill or regression in Postglacial warming resulting in an abrupt decline in climatic conditions. This event has been termed the Friesland/Rammelbeek or Preboreal oscillation. The effects of this event are not well recorded in Britain, however it is likely that they were most acute in those regions of Britain where soils and vegetation were directly effected by former glacial events, namely: Scotland, Wales and the north and west of England. Pollen analysis indicates that tree and shrub cover was negligible over much of this region during the early part of the period (Birks 1972; Tipping 1993) and it was observed in section 5.7.2 that this type of open scrubland is generally low in plant resources suitable for human consumption, although it may have supported relatively large and predictable herbivore populations.

5) Settlement. The distribution of ‘Horsham’ type assemblages in the landscape suggested a unique settlement pattern. ‘Horsham’ type assemblages are believed to occur exclusively in south-east England. However, a more detailed analysis indicated that ‘Horsham’ type assemblages were primarily located in

It is into this environment that the first true Early 120

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN Mesolithic assemblages appear in northern England: the ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages. It is, of course, possible that ‘Star Carr’ human groups formerly settled a larger area of England, particularly to the south. However, the precise origin of these assemblages is difficult to determine. One possibility is that they formed part of a large ‘technocomplex’ covering the whole of the northern North Sea basin. Under these circumstances British ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages may be linked with assemblages developing in northern Germany at the same time. Another possibility is that the British ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages developed out of the indigenous Final Palaeolithic ‘long blade’ assemblages which are found mainly in southern and central England. Certainly the interface between these two assemblage-types is worth exploring further.1

Carr’ type settlement pattern. For instance, those ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages found in northern England can be linked on various evidence to several distinct resource points, i.e. to the coast (via carbon isotope evidence), and on typological evidence to upland areas (the North Yorkshire Moors and the Pennines) and to lowland river valleys (Star Carr and Seamer Carr). Similarly, recent research in Wales has suggested that ‘Star Carr’ type sites found on the Brecon Hills may be linked typologically and in terms of raw material to sites on the southern Welsh coast (Barton et al. forthcoming). Concerning the repeated use of the same location W.P.B. Stonehouse has noted that ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages often tend to occur in pairs (1992: 12), as at Pointed Stone sites 2 and 3 or Warcock Hill South and Turnpike. This situation may also apply to the site of Star Carr itself, which shows repeated occupation over a number of seasons (Day 1993).

It has been suggested here that the settlement data for the ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type corresponds with an intercept strategy as defined by L.R. Binford (1980; 1983). The implications of this type of settlement strategy for the archaeological record have been discussed in section 6.5.2. The principal elements are the existence of residential base camps together with satellite task locations. These elements, it will be re-called, are the basis of the traditional Star Carr model. However, rather than the two-step seasonal round favoured by Clark and other researchers the model proposed here is altogether more fluid (Fig 8.1).

Turning to the apparent persistence of ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages through to the end of the 10th millennium in southern Wales and northern England, it is noted that both of these regions retained a relatively open environment up to as late as c. 9.0 ka BP. In northern England birch scrubland persists until the arrival of elm and hazel at c. 9.0 ka BP and oak and pine five hundred years later. Full pine forest, such as existed in south-east England, never fully developed in northern England. A similar situation occurs in southern Wales where open birch scrubland persisted through to c. 9.0 ka BP until the early colonization of oak, elm and hazel. Pine does not colonize this region until c. 8.0 ka BP. Consequently, in both these regions a closed environment does not appear until c. 9.0 ka BP, and when it does it is of mixed woodland character. If it is correct that the ‘Star Carr’ assemblage-type is an adaption to predictable or migratory resources using an intercept strategy, it is precisely these regions of relatively open landscape that would allow the economy to be practised through to c. 9.0 ka BP.2

Resources harvested under an intercept strategy can include plants, tubers, fish and shellfish, as well as large ungulates. Since these resources are unlikely to come into season simultaneously and in the same geographical location, select resources have to be scheduled so that at least one resource is on-line throughout the year. In theory, this means that the base camp has to be moved on a regular, quasi-seasonal rota, i.e. between 4 and 12 times a year, not twice as imagined by Clark. And since disparate resource points, such as the coast, valleys and uplands, are exploited it also implies that the seasonal territory is large, encompassing several thousand square kilometres. However, the practice of resource scheduling avoids the dangers of over-exploitation, allowing human groups to spend a number of years, even decades, exploiting the same territory. Therefore two elements are strongly engrained in human groups adopting intercept strategies: 1) groups will tend to exploit the same large but well-defined territory on an annual cycle, usually for a period of decades; and 2) the same resource points within this territory will be visited repeatedly during the groups residence in the territory.

8.3.2. Expansion and Consolidation (c. 9.4 ka BP to 9.0 ka BP). Following the short standstill or regression in Postglacial amelioration that occurred between c. 10.0 ka BP and c. 9.7 ka BP there followed a renewed pulse of warming between c. 9.5 ka BP and c. 9.0 ka BP. The result of this warming appear to have been a marked increase in 2

An interesting aside to this concept are the supposed ‘Early Mesolithic’ assemblages in Scotland. It has been noted that the assemblages from Morton A, Fife and Glenbatrick Waterhole, Isle of Jura have a certain affinity with ‘Star Carr’ type assemblages from England (Jacobi 1982b and Morrison and Bonsall 1989; Woodman 1989). Traditionally, the young dates for these assemblages, c. 6.5 ka BP for Morton (Coles 1971), and c. 8.0 ka BP for the Jura sites (Mercer 1972-4), have precluded a direct link between the two. However, if the correlation between open landscape and ‘Star Carr’ type technology is correct, there is a startling coincidence to be found in the arrival of forest and the location of these Scottish assemblages. According to H.J.B. Birks (1989) pine is the first forest species to colonize south-east Scotland, between c. 5.0 ka BP and c. 8.0 ka BP, and south-west Scotland shortly after c. 7.0 ka BP (Fig 5.3). These dates correspond respectively with the ages of the Morton A and Jura assemblages. Could these assemblages represent the last of the ‘Star Carr’ hunters?

Both of the above elements appear to feature in the ‘Star 1

Aside from their complimentary spatial and temporal distribution (‘long blade’ assemblages in southern and central England up to c. 9.7 ka BP; ‘Star Carr’ assemblages in northern England after c. 9.7 ka BP), there are other parallels between the two assemblage-types: both have typologically restricted toolkits; both have evidence of bi-platformed core reduction; both use punch technology and both have been interpreted as evidence of intercept strategies (cf. Barton 1995).

121

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

evapotranspiration which in turn led to a general dryingout of the landscape. The resulting dry soils favoured the penetration of pine forest into south-east England (section 5.6.2). It is during this time-frame that the first ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages appear in Britain (section 4.5.2).

the forest. They would also have supplied additional riverine resources, while the open banks and forest edge would have been an ideal environment for edible plants and feeding herbivores. The accumulation of resources together in one part of the landscape is unlikely to have gone un-exploited by human groups. Indeed, it is possible that under these circumstances river valley locales represented a relatively benevolent environment.

The colonization of pine created a unique set of problems for Early Mesolithic human groups. The dense foliage shut out most sunlight from the forest floor, while the acidic pine needle litter will have broken down soil clays and initiated leaching and ultimately podzolization. The resulting forest was dark, dense and low in edible plant resources (section 5.7.3). As such it would have been an unattractive biome to animals and humans alike. Under these circumstances it is possible that major river valleys would have afforded considerable advantages to human groups. Valleys would have allowed easy access through

Closed forest may account, then, for the predominantly riverine distribution of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages. This type of forest may also describe the high frequency of ‘Deepcar’ type sites in south-east and central England, where pine forest first colonized. If correct, and the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage is a response to the closure of pine forest, then it may suggest that the source of, or influence for, the ‘Deepcar’ human groups was

122

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN predominantly southern, as opposed to the traditional sourcing to the north, in Denmark. It has already been suggested that the closest parallels for the British ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages come from around the southern half of the North Sea basin, in particular The Netherlands, but also north-east France (section 7.7.2). To this can be added the observation that, to date, evidence for Early Mesolithic occupation in the North Sea basin itself is restricted entirely to the south, the Brown Bank in particular (Louwe Kooijmans 1970-71; Verhart 1995). Both lines of evidence point at least to the existence of a southern route into Britain between c. 9.5 ka BP and c. 9.0 ka BP. Whether or not a northern route also existed, between north-east England and southern Scandinavia, remains to be established.

with small site territories tethered to specific locales (Fig 8.2). Sites tend to be large and general in function since most tasks are carried out at the base camp rather than at separate task sites. The base camps themselves are strongly tied to specific types of locale since in known locales resource patterns can be pre-learned and are hence reliable. And over time an encounter strategy exploits large areas of land since the human group is continually moving into new territory and seldom backtracks on itself by re-visiting former base camps. Without exception these corollaries are met by the ‘Deepcar’ settlement data (sections 6.2.0 to 6.4.0). In the archaeological record ‘Deepcar’ sites were found to be single, large, general scatters, strongly tied to major river valleys. In addition ‘Deepcar’ type sites are closely packed and outnumber all other known Early Mesolithic site types.

Regardless of whether or not one accepts a southern source or influence for the ‘Deepcar’ assemblage-type it appears that once present in England the ‘Deepcar’ type technology spreads from one end of the country to the other with little or no modification, a fact that suggests a relatively rapid rate of spread. Unfortunately, with no reliable ‘Deepcar’ dates from northern England it is not possible to calculate exact spread rates. However, an arbitrary value between 1.6 km and 5.0 km per year might be anticipated on current evidence.3 Compared with data from known colonizations, such as that across the Bering Straight (Kelly forthcoming), this equates with a moderate to high rate of spread. One explanation for this large intake of territory associated with the ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage may be the economic strategy for which the technology was adapted.

Concerning movement into new territory R.L. Kelly has noted that since occupation of a site territory is always short-term, human groups using an encounter strategy invest very little energy in learning about, or seeking to control, new territories (Kelly 1995; Kelly and Todd 1988). Consequently, potentially useful features within the landscape, such as springs, caves, rock-shelters, and natural dead-falls or corrals, tend to be ignored. In this context it may be useful to observe that among the extensive networks of rock-shelters in south-east England not one contains evidence of a ‘Deepcar’ type assemblage. In addition, because an encounter strategy does not seek to predict what resources are to be utilized but encounters resources at random, harvesting and processing technology must also be flexible enough to deal with all eventualities. It can be observed that of all Early Mesolithic stone technologies ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages are the most general in nature, employing a wide range of both microlith and tool forms (section 2.3.2).

It was suggested in section 6.5.2 that the settlement pattern of ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages is best interpreted as an encounter strategy. Under this strategy human groups display a marked profligacy in their management of the environment. A group will move into an area, establish a base camp, and exploit that part of the territory that can be readily accessed from the base camp - a radius of 5 km to 10 km at most - until returns fall off. Specialist camps are not employed nor is there much in the way of storage capacity. Harvested resources are generally returned directly to the base camp and consumed. This type of intensive exploitation of the local environment means that resources within the site catchment are quickly depleted. In fact, the average site catchment may be able to sustain an encounter strategy for no more than one week. Therefore, at the point at which it becomes necessary for the human group to search outside the local catchment for harvestable resources, i.e. beyond a maximum radius of c. 10 km, the group will abandon the camp and move a short distance into a new catchment. Over time this strategy will lead to the exploitation of large areas of the landscape.

8.3.3. Adaptation and Augmentation (c. 8.9 ka BP to 8.0 ka BP). By c. 9.0 ka BP it is envisaged that Britain supported at least two technological complexes representing distinct economic strategies. In southern, central, and by this point, northern England, ‘Deepcar’ type assemblages had exploited the major river valleys using an encounter strategy. While persisting in the parts of northern Britain and southern Wales (and perhaps southern Scotland too), where the landscape remained relatively open, ‘Star Carr’ type groups still practised an intercept strategy largely dependent on predictable or migratory resources. But by the beginning of the 9th millennium a marked shift was taking place in Britain. From the west open, deciduous woodland spread into central and southern England. Available radiocarbon records indicate that these changes occurred rapidly with hazel, the chief indicator of an opening forest canopy, apparently colonizing the whole of Britain between c. 9.1 ka BP and c. 9.0 ka BP. It is at this time that the first ‘Horsham’ type assemblages appear in south-east England.

The theoretical pattern of settlement generated by an encounter strategy is, therefore, one of multiple base camps 3 A distance of c. 500 km in a matter of 100 to 300 years, yields rates of between 1.6 km per year and 5.0 km per year.

123

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

The effect developing deciduous woodland had on the distribution of edible resources is likely to have been marked and this in turn is likely to have affected human groups. Whereas in dense pine forest animal resources were effectively concentrated in, and around, the valley corridors, the more even distribution of sunlight (and hence plant resources) in open mixed woodland allowed animal resources to move freely over much larger areas of the landscape (section 5.7.4). In consequence, a more scattered animal population is likely to have decreased immediate returns and increased costs invested in harvesting these species. The difficulties of hunting animal resources in deciduous woodland have been considered by S.J. Mithen (1990). Since species tend to become more dispersed in mixed woodland it is harder to initially locate resources, increasing search costs. If successful, animals are encountered at random and this necessarily restricts the kill

strategy to ‘shoot-on-sight’. If not immediately felled, an animal has a multitude of flight and hide options which will force the hunter into a costly tracking mode with no guarantee that the animal will be harvested at the end. Yet if successful here, the animal must still be processed and returned to camp, incurring further travel costs. If correct, and returns on animal resources begin to decrease around c. 9.0 ka BP, a number of counter measures may have been employed by human groups occupying Britain. The most immediate option may have been to modify hunting technology to increase the probability of killing an animal on sight. A likely choice has been identified by A. Myers (1987) who has suggested hunters may have added ‘redundant’ components to equipment to facilitate the maintenance and increase the efficiency of weapons. An example is the addition of 124

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN

enforce predictability in the location of animal resources. One option may have been to deliberately create suitable locales for certain species of animal, perhaps in the form of forest clearings as suggested by P.A. Mellars (1976b) in reference to the Later Mesolithic. Another option may have been to develop a trapping strategy which, although costly to initiate, could have been easily maintained once established and has the specific benefit of negating search costs. Whichever strategy was employed it is probable that in open woodland animal returns were less predictable than in other biomes and than at other times during the early Postglacial. Failure rates would need to be countered by additional resources and it seems inconceivable that these did not include the abundant edible plant resources that were available in the deciduous forest.

multiple armatures to projectiles such as arrows or spears. Under this weapon system should a barb break before, during or after use the redundant barbs still render the weapon effective (Bleed 1986). It is, perhaps, worth remarking that the first archaeological evidence for redundant technology appears in western Britain around c. 9.0 ka BP, precisely where the new environmental conditions first develop.4 An alternative strategy may have been to attempt to re4

This technology is traditionally referred to as ‘Later Mesolithic’ and in its initial stages consists of a microlith assemblages dominated by oblique points and scalene triangles (Jacobi 1973; 1976). Assemblages of this type have been radiocarbon dated to c. 9.0 ka BP at Mount Sandel, Northern Ireland (Woodman 1985), and c. 8.9 ka BP at Prestatyn, north Wales (Hedges et al. 1994).

125

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER

It is suggested here that after c. 9.0 ka BP the use of fixed facilities, such traps and clearings, may have increased in order to counter hunting failures (Fig 8.3). This may, in turn, have led to an increase in territoriality and in the harvesting of edible plant resources. Indeed, the relationship between fixed facilities, territoriality and intensive plant cultivation in a close one. In the first place the energy invested in constructing, maintaining and monitoring fixed facilities effectively ties human groups to a particular territory. Consequently the option of moving territory if or when short-falls in animal resources occur is not readily available. In fact, there is a strong incentive for human groups to utilize all potential resources in an existing territory precisely to avoid having to abandon costly facilities in search of alternative resources. Assuming fixed facilities, in particular clearings, were already in use it may not be too far-fetched to image the development of small gardens at this time. In connection with this idea it may be worth drawing attention to an illustration of a plant harvesting knife from Columnata, North Africa (Fig 8.4). This implement is made of wood

with a groove cut along part of one end into which stone components are set vertically. Three components are still in place: number 1 is a scalene triangle; number 2 is a exact parallel to a hollow-based point. In terms of the archaeological record there is evidence to support the development of more permanent territories after c. 9.0 ka BP. Immediately apparent is the restriction of the ‘Horsham’ type assemblages to south-east England. There is also evidence of more intensive utilization of the landscape within this region, and indirectly of fixed facilities, in the appearance for the first time in the Early Mesolithic time-frame of settlement in and around permanent features of the landscape, such as caves and rock-shelters. Examples are the hollow-based points found at the Hermitage (Jacobi and Tebbutt 1981), High Rocks (Money 1961) and Lullings (Clark 1934b) rock-shelters, in Sussex. Perhaps it is not coincidental that the first evidence of Mesolithic burial, itself believed to be related to land tenure (Chapman 1981), also appears around c. 9.0 ka BP in the south west of England, as at the Somerset caves of

126

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN Aveline’s Hole (Tratman 1977), Badger’s Hole and Gough’s Cave (Housley 1991).

simply a blade technology but consists of multiple traditions of core reduction strategy. This study has isolated three.

8.3.4. Synthesis of Early Mesolithic Settlement Model. In summary, given the data that have been assembled and analysed in previous chapters it is possible to set out an altogether more complex model of Early Mesolithic settlement in Britain than the existing Star Carr model. The proposed model, as it now stands, suggests that Early Mesolithic settlement in Britain began shortly before c. 9.7 ka BP with ‘Star Carr’ type human groups practising an intercept economic strategy based mainly in the relatively open northern and western territories of Britain. Sometime after c. 9.4 ka BP it is suggested that ‘Deepcar’ human groups appear in southern England. These groups move rapidly through the landscape along the major river valleys, exploiting most of England and Wales in a few hundred years. Around c. 9.0 ka BP ‘Horsham’ groups develop in south-east England and Later Mesolithic groups appear in the western territories. It is argued that both groups may have been attempting to cope with resource stresses which ultimately led to increased territoriality and the intensification of plant resources.

3) The Early Mesolithic is not one homogeneous temporal complex but consists of several, chronologically sequenced units. 4) The Early Mesolithic environment is not characterized by a gradual amelioration, with coast to coast forest and red deer. There are several marked shifts in climate and these changes affect plants, animals and human groups. 5) Early Mesolithic settlement is not solely characterized by J.D.G. Clark’s ‘deer hunter’ model. Three distinct, and often complex, patterns of settlement can be observed. 6) Britain does not become progressively more isolated from continental events. Britain interacts with continental Europe throughout the Early Mesolithic period, and beyond. One way in which these findings might be integrated into a more dynamic model of Early Mesolithic settlement in Britain has been suggested and it is hoped that this model will tested and challenged in the future. Inevitably, however, the study has raised more questions than it has answered. Nevertheless, by acknowledging the dynamic complexity within the Early Mesolithic, even if our understanding of it is feeble, we are undeniably closer to creating a more realistic model of the Early Mesolithic period in Britain. Clearly there is much work still to do. However, it is hoped that this study has taken the cause forward by suggesting useful approaches to the problems encountered and by posing new and interesting questions for research in the future.

Whether or not one chooses to accept all aspects of this model will depend on future research, and it is in this spirit that the model is offered. Nevertheless, the study in general, and the model in particular, provoke several new and interesting questions that ought to be addressed. For instance: Is there a technological link between ‘Star Carr’ and ‘long blade’ assemblages? Are ‘Deepcar’ assemblages in northern England younger in age than those in southern and central England? Why is central England so poor in Early Mesolithic material? How might one test whether the ‘Horsham’ assemblages really do represent early moves toward the manipulation of key resources? What rôle do the ‘Honey Hill’ assemblages play in the transition to the Later Mesolithic? Is there, perhaps, a case for a ‘Middle Mesolithic’ in Britain in the 9th millennium, as there is on the continent? These and many more questions await further research. 8.4.0. Conclusions This study has presented detailed examinations of six aspects of Early Mesolithic settlement in Britain between 10.0 ka BP and 8.0 ka BP. It has been found that the traditional model of this period is out-dated. In particular, the ingrained concept of the Early Mesolithic as monolithic, homogeneous and static has been discredited and the inherent complexity during this period, in all spheres of study, has been emphasized. The principal conclusions to emerge are as follows: 1) The Early Mesolithic is not one homogeneous cultural complex but consists of at least three distinct assemblagetypes. Others undoubtedly exist, for instance the ‘long blade’ and ‘Honey Hill’ assemblage-types. 2) Early Mesolithic stone-working technology is not 127

GLOSSARY The following definitions have been employed in this study. Where words are given in italics this indicates that a definition of the term appears elsewhere in the glossary. Where a reference is supplied for an entry this indicates that the definition is that of the cited author; in all other cases the definition is that of the present author. In the case of microlith typology references are made to the typologies published by J.G.D Clark (1934) and R.M. Jacobi (1978a). dorsal surface, so as to maintain the original outline of the blank (Clark’s B; Jacobi’s 4). Biome. Ecological term. Large area of territory in which recognizable associations of animal and plant species occur; a simplified model of an ecosystem (Bryant 1979: 224).

Abraded butt. Butt type. Irregular butt form where the original platform edge has been ground or battered to the extent that the preserved butt is largely obscured. Additional Retouch. Typological term. Irregular sequence of retouch where: 1) the retouch removals are generally smaller than c. 2 mm in size; and 2) do not extend more than c. 20 mm along the margin of the artefact.

Blade. Debitage form. A piece of struck stone: 1) with a length twice, or more than twice, the width of the piece; and 2) where both lateral margins are relatively parallel (Wymer 1977: xii). Classification is by the extent of cortex remaining on the dorsal surface. The measurement of this criteria varies between researchers. Here the following definitions apply: primary- (fully cortical); secondary(some cortex) and tertiary- (no cortex).

Albedo. Meteorological term. Refers to the refection of solar (and other) radiation from the earth’s surface. Arete. Technological term. A dorsal ridge occurring between flake or blade beds. Artefact. Descriptive term. An object modified by a set of humanly imposed attributes (Clarke 1968: 186).

Blank. Typological term. A blade or flake suitable for conversion into a standard or non-standard tool form.

Attribute. An independent variable, logically irreducible and consisting of two or more states (present or absent) that describe part, or parts, of an artefact (Clarke 1968: 42).

Bulb of Percussion. Technological term. An attribute of struck stone characterized by: 1) a surface swelling; 2) located on the ventral surface of a struck stone; 3) situated just below the butt. The bulb represents part of a cone formed by the pressure wave emanating from a point of impact (Lord 1993). Classification is by the size of the bulb area (i.e. pronounced or diffuse). Some researchers suggest the bulb type is related to the size and type of hammer employed to make the blow (cf. Ohnuma and Bergman 1983).

Axe. Standard tool form. A core or flake which has been: 1) worked into an elongated rectangular outline by parallel or radial flaking across the dorsal and/or ventral surface(s); and 2) truncated at one extremity by one or more transversal removal(s). Classification is by support (core/flake) and section (axe/adze). Assumed to function as a woodworking or butchery tool.

Burin. Standard tool form. Blade or flake with narrow spall (burin facet) removed from one or more lateral margins. Classification is by the morphology of the margin from which the removal is made (break; truncation; natural termination; double-ended; corbiac burin). Function is assumed to be that of a chisel, gouge or related form.

Axe sharpening flake. Debitage form. Flake resulting from the rejuvenation of a stone axe’s working edge. The form is characterized by the relict of the axe’s former working edge on one lateral margin (Calkin 1924). Axe thinning flake. Debitage form. Flake resulting from the manufacture of a stone axe characterized by: 1) multidirectional flake scars on the dorsal surface; 2) broad plain or dihedral butts; and 3) diverging margins. This form can also be divided into preparation flakes and finishing flakes on the basis of the thinness of the latter (Ashton 1988).

Butt. Technological term. An attribute of stuck stone: 1) located at the proximal extremity of a flake or blade; and 2) formed by the preservation of a small part of a core’s striking platform on a blade or flake after its removal from the core.

Backed piece. Non-standard tool form. Blade or flake with extensive, heavy and continuous retouch applied along all, or most of, the length of one or more lateral margin(s). Classification is by number and position of backed margins (unilateral; bilateral). Function is assumed to be that of a knife or related form.

Butt Morphology. Technological term. Typological breakdown of butt forms based on the size and detail of this facet. See cortical; plain; linear; punctiform; dihedral; faceted; massive (Tixier et al. 1980: 105). Chamfered piece. Standard tool form. Blade or flake terminated by one or more transversal or oblique removals (Bordes 1970). Classification is by number and position of

Backed point. A microlith form. A point with one lateral margin retouched along its entire length, usually from the

128

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN chamfer facets (i.e. unifacial or bifacial). Function is not known but use-damage may suggest scraping or planing.

Cortical butt. Butt type. Irregular butt form where no prepared surface has been used as a striking platform, the butt being entirely composed of cortex (Tixier et al. 1980).

Conical Core. Single platformed core variant. One platform is positioned at an extremity of the core and removals are struck from around all, or most of, the platform perimeter so as to give the core a conical outline.

Cortication. The process by which cortex is formed. Cortication involves the loss of water from the crystalline cell structure of a flint. Dehydration causes microscopic cavities to form in the surface of the flint. Initially light is reflected off these cavities causing a milky blue and then a white colour to appear. Later on the cavities become so deep that the crystalline structure begins to fail, forming a friable crust (cortex) several millimetres thick (Shepherd 1972). The initial white and milky blue colours are usually (and incorrectly) referred to as ‘patination’.

Corbiac Burin. Standard tool form. Variant of the transversal burin lacking any form of preparatory retouch (Bordes 1970). This form of burin can also be made accidentally. Core. Debitage form. Nodule or flake of stone from which: 1) two or more blade or flake removals have been struck; 2) in a recognizable sequence; 3) from a prepared surface or striking platform. Classification is by the number and position of platforms (i.e. 1 platform: conical; semiconical; 2 platformed: orthogonal; opposed; multiplatformed: helix). The function of a core is to obtain regular blades or flake blanks.

Crested Piece. Debitage form. A core dressing, usually a blade or part thereof with: 1) crushing or chipping applied to part or all of the dorsal ridge; and 2) a triangular crosssection. Classification is determined by whether or not both sides of the dorsal ridge have been crested (i.e. unilateral or bilateral). The function of cresting is to create a longitudinal ridge running down part, or all, of a core face in order to facilitate the later removal of long, parallel blades.

Core dressing. Debitage form: 1) a non-standard flake or blade; 2) deliberately struck from the surface of a core; 3) to remove obstructions to, or otherwise facilitate, the removal of further standard blades/flakes. Classification is by appearance (crested piece; core tablet; face dressing; plunging piece). Core dressings are alternatively termed ‘rejuvenation flakes’.

Denticulate. Non-standard tool form. A variant of the notched piece class. A blade or flake with multiple (more than three) notch facets. There is no further classification. Function is unknown but may be related to whittling.

Core preform. Debitage form. A large nodule or flake of stone with: 1) one unprepared platform from which; 2) one to four removals have been made in; 3) a semi-consistent sequence. Frequently cresting and evidence of flaws in the raw material exist. It is assumed that preforms are test cores that have been found at an early stage to be unsuitable and subsequently abandoned.

Dihedral butt. Butt type. Worked butt form where the butt carries traces of two previous platform preparation removals, usually separated by a single arete (Tixier et al. 1980). Distal. Descriptive term. The part of a blade or flake opposite, or furthest away from, the butt and/or bulb of percussion. See also proximal. (Barton 1992: 266)

Core reduction sequence. Technological term. The combined sequence of preparation, production and maintenance removals stuck from a core.

Dorsal. Descriptive term. The upper surface of a blade or flake. The dorsal surface carries the ridges and scars (aretes) of previous removals and/or cortex. See also ventral.

Core tablet. Debitage form. Core dressing that removes the platform of a core. Mostly a flake, it is struck perpendicularly to the core face and usually carries part of the upper core face on its butt end. There is no further classification. A core tablet may serve to remove a damaged striking platform, or merely to adjust the platform angle.

Dorsal scar pattern. Technological term. The arrangement of aretes on the upper (dorsal) surface of a flake or blade caused by previous removals or flake beds. Classification is by appearance (i.e. parallel; Y-type; Ttype; radial). The dorsal scar pattern is useful in determining the core reduction sequence.

Cortex. Attribute of flint. A white crust found on the external surface of raw flints. Cortex varies in texture and thickness. Classification is by texture (i.e. rounded/angular; chalky/not chalky; rough/smooth). Cortex can be used to determine the type of deposit the flint was most recently held in: for example, river gravel, clay or chalk.

Edge-damaged piece. Non-standard tool form. Blade or flake with irregular removals or damage over part, or parts, of the support. Classification is by the size and style of damage (i.e. regular; micro; rotational; impact; worn; crushed; anvil; scratched). Edge damage can also be formed by natural processes. Function is indeterminate.

129

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER detailed retouching work (Barton 1992). It is widely supposed that the type of hammer employed may be determined by examination of the butt, bulb of percussion and other surface features on the support (Ohnuma and Bergman 1982).

Evapotranspiration. Climatic term. Refers to the net loss of moisture from the earth’s surface by the combined effects of evaporation, from water bodies, and transpiration, from plants (Bryant 1979: 120). Fabricator. Standard tool form. Core or flake tool of: 1) small (i.e. length = c. 5-8 cm), rod shaped form; with 2) radial or parallel retouch over part of the dorsal surface; and 3) one or both terminal extremities heavily abraded. Fabricators are assumed to function as percussive tools (Rankine 1952: 29-32; Palmer 1977: 47).

Helix Core. Debitage from. Multi-platformed core variant with three platforms: one at either extremity of the core and a third at right angles to them. In most cases the platforms merge one into the other creating a continuous platform that spirals around the core, hence the term ‘helix’ (Rozoy 1968: 378); an alternative name is ‘paraboloid’ (Froom 1976: 67). All three platforms are prepared and appear to be used consecutively.

Face Dressing. Debitage form. A core dressing, usually a flake of rectangular or square outline, that: 1) carries most or all of a core face on its dorsal surface; 2) is unusually thick. Classification is determined by the direction in which the face dressing is struck relative to the core face (normal; transverse). A face dressing or ‘flanc de nucléus’ can occur either accidentally, by striking too far back from the striking platform edge, or deliberately, to remove hinge fractures or other knapping errors from the core face.

Hinge Fracture. Technological term. Knapping accident arising when the shock wave delivered by the hammer is deflected prematurely towards the dorsal surface instead of continuing down the length of the core face. This causes the resulting removal to terminate abruptly short of the intended length (Hayden 1979). Frequently the termination is thick and rounded resembling a ‘hinge’. Impurities in the raw material and insufficient or poorly directed hammer force are factors that can lead to hinge fracturing.

Faceted butt. Butt type. Worked butt form where the butt carries traces of multiple (three or more) surface platform preparation removals (Tixier et al. 1980).

Hollow-based point. Microlith form. A point with: 1) a single lateral margin retouched along its entire length, usually from the dorsal surface; and 2) with the distal (basal) extremity truncated to form a concavity from the dorsal or ventral surface (Clark’s F; Jacobi’s 10). Frequently, the opposing margin has light additional retouch.

False butt. Butt type. A knapping inconsistency occurring when a punch is not held vertically but allowed to slope at an angle to the right or left. When struck the punch removes a thick portion of the platform edge along with the blade. This part of the platform resembles a plain butt, but in fact the real butt is a punctiform butt located to one side, hence ‘false butt’.

Invasive retouch. Technological term. A type of retouch where flat, shallow removals are made from a lateral margin across the dorsal or ventral surface, the resulting flake scars being said to ‘invade’ the surface of the artefact.

Feathered termination. Technological term. The distal extremity of a blade or flake where the thickness of the blank decreases imperceptibly until it terminates naturally (Hayden 1979).

Inverse retouch. Technological term. This term is used to describe retouch applied from the dorsal surface of a lateral margin, the resulting flake scars appearing on the ventral surface. This is contrary to normal retouch which is applied from the ventral surface with the flake scars appearing on the dorsal surface, hence it is termed ‘inverse retouch’.

Flake. Debitage form. A piece of struck stone: 1) with a length less than twice the width of the piece; and 2) with irregular margins. Classification is by the extent of cortex remaining on the dorsal surface. The measurement of this criteria varies between researchers. Here the following definitions apply: primary- (fully cortical); secondary(some cortex) and tertiary- (no cortex).

Inversely-based point. Microlith form. A point with: 1) a single lateral margin partially retouched or retouched along its entire length, usually from the dorsal surface and; 2) with the distal (basal) extremity truncated or constricted by 3) invasive retouch across the ventral surface from one or both lateral margins to form a shoulder, tongue or point (Clark’s E2; Jacobi’s 11).

Fragment. Debitage form. Any blade or flake that is broken. Some fragments may have been made deliberately, such as ‘segmented blades’ (Owen 1982; Bergman et al. 1987). Hammer. Non-flint tool. A percussive instrument used to strike blades and flakes from a core or tool. Hammers are divided into two categories: hard (generally a stone such as a quartzite pebble) and soft (usually an organic material such as antler, wood or bone but also including soft stones such as limestone). In general, hard hammers are used for initial core working while soft hammers are used for more

Lateral margin. Descriptive term. The medial edge of a blade or flake extending between the distal and proximal extremities.

130

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN armature, although alternative functions are commonly cited (cf. Clarke 1976).

Lateralization. Technological term. The position around the periphery of an artefact where the primary retouch is located (left lateral, right lateral, proximal, distal etc.).

Milankovitch Forcing. Meteorological term. Astronomical variables affecting the earth’s orbit and axis that condition that amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth. Changes in the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the earth’s surface account for marked variations in temperature and seasonality over time (Bell and Walker 1992). Milankovitch forcing is known to have been particularly acute between c. 15 ka BP and c. 6 ka BP, with maximum effects around c. 9.0 ka BP (Mitchell 1993).

Length. Typological attribute. The length of an artefact is measured along the bulbar axis at right angles to the striking platform (Saville 1980: 16). Only complete artefacts are measured. Linear butt. Butt type. Reduced butt form where: 1) the width of the butt is less than 2 mm; and 2) the length of the butt is at least four times that of the width. The butt is smooth, possessing no evidence of surface platform preparation (Tixier et al. 1980).

Nodule. Raw material term. A rounded lump. One of two natural forms in which flint is found, the other being tabular, slab-like flint.

Massive butt. Butt type. Irregular butt form where the length and width of the butt exceed c. 5 mm in dimension. The butt is smooth, possessing no evidence of surface platform preparation.

Non-standard Tool Assemblage. Typological term. Category of artefacts with irregular working facets or edges. The non-standard tool assemblage comprises: notched pieces; retouched pieces; and edge-damaged pieces. The category is designed to separate those artefacts that could have be made accidentally or naturally from and those that are genuine humanly modified artefacts (i.e. standard tools).

Mèches de Forêt. Standard tool form. A variant of the piercer class. A blade or flake with steep retouch applied to most of, or all, the length of both lateral margins. Function is assumed to that of a drill (Clark 1975: 108). Medial. Descriptive term. The part of a blade or flake surface, body or edge extending between the distal and proximal extremities.

Notched piece. Non-standard tool form. Blade or flake with one or more indentations fashioned by single or multiple retouch applied to one point in a lateral margin. Classification is by the number of notches (i.e. single; two; three; denticulate). Notched pieces can be formed by natural processes. Their function is assumed to be that of a spoke-shave or related task.

Microburin. Debitage form. A by-product of microlith manufacture characterized by: 1) an oblique break facet usually running from the dorsal to the ventral surface; opposite 2) a notch. ‘The microburin technique involves the notching of a blade or bladelet until the piece fractures obliquely’ (Barton 1992: 269). This process results in two pieces: a pointed blank (which is subsequently converted into a microlith) and a smaller fragment, the microburin (which is discarded). Classification is by where on the blade the notch is made (proximal, distal). In addition, the break facet can occasionally run directly across the blade, rather than obliquely through the piece. This is termed a ‘miss-hit’.

Obliquely-based point. Microlith form. A point with: 1) a single lateral margin retouched along its entire length, usually from the dorsal surface; and 2) with the opposing distal (basal) extremity obliquely truncated from the dorsal surface (Clark’s C1b; Jacobi’s 3d). In an obliquely-based point the retouched margin and the truncation must meet at the base, there being no unretouched margin between the two.

Microdenticulate. Standard tool form. Blade or flake with extended series of small, continuous and regular notches applied along part of one, usually concave, lateral margin. Classification is by the number of microdenticulate edges (i.e. unilateral or bilateral). Function, based on experimentation, is believed to be that of a saw (Barton 1992; 215-218).

Obliquely truncated point. Microlith form. A point with one extremity obliquely truncated, usually from the dorsal surface, at an acute angle so as to break the original outline of the blank (Clark’s A1; Jacobi’s 1a). An obliquely truncated point will have a distinct angle between the truncation and the unretouched part of the margin (GEEM 1972).

Microlith. Standard tool form. A blade or bladelet from which the bulb of percussion has been deliberately detached (Clark 1934: 55). Classification is by outline and presence and/or position of primary retouched margin(s). See: obliquely truncated point; partially-backed point; triangle; rhomboid; trapezoid; backed point; transverselybased point; obliquely-based point; hollow-based point; tanged point. Function is assumed to be that of an

Opposed platformed core. Debitage form. Two platformed core variant where both platforms are parallel, or nearly parallel, to one another, one at either extremity of the core. Both platforms are prepared and removals are consistently made from each, either alternately or consecutively.

131

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER removals and crushing found at the intersection of the platform edge and core face.

Orthogonal Core. Debitage form. Two platformed core variant where the platforms are located at right angles one to the other: one platform at one extremity of the core; the second platform on one lateral margin of the core (cf. Froom 1976: 67). Both platforms are prepared and removals are made from each consecutively.

Plunging piece. Debitage form. A core dressing, usually a blade, that: 1) thickens markedly at its distal extremity; 2) terminates in a thick keel or toe; and 3) possesses a concave ventral surface (Tixier 1963). A plunging piece can occur accidentally (by striking the core platform too hard) or deliberately (in order to clear away bunches of converging flake beds that can obstruct the base of the core).

Partially-backed point. Microlith form. A point with one extremity obliquely retouched, usually from the dorsal surface, at an accute angle so as to maintain the original outline of the blank (Clark’s A2; Jacobi’s 1aC). A partially backed point will have no angle or break in the outline between the retouched and unretouched parts of the margin.

Pressure rings. Technological term. A series of concentric rings or ripples: 1) found on the ventral surface of a removal; and 2) emanating from the point of impact, i.e. the bulb of percussion and/or the butt (Oakley 1975). The rings result from the passage of a shock wave that radiates away from the point of impact when a blade or flake is struck from a core (Lord 1993). This shock wave disrupts the crystalline structure of the flint in both the removal (on the ventral surface) and on the core itself (on the dorsal surface). The orientation of the rings can thus be used to discern the direction from which the blow was struck and is useful in determining core reduction strategies.

Passerine. Biological term. A bird belonging to the order Passeriformes. These are small, perching song birds, e.g. sparrows. Patination. Raw material term. Widely (and inaccurately) used to describe any discolouration of flint. In fact, the term correctly refers to a waxy/shiny lustre apparent on certain exposed flints. This lustre occurs through the absorbtion of silica into microscopic cavities in the surface of the flint left by the dehydration, or cortication, of the crystalline structure (Shepherd 1972). The discolouration usually termed ‘patination’ is, in fact, the early stages of cortication before, or without, silica uptake.

Primary retouch. Typological term. A regular sequence of retouch where: 1) the removals are more than 2 mm in overall size; and 2) extend in excess of 20 mm along the margin of the artefact.

Pick. Standard tool form. Core or flake tool with: 1) an elongated, sub-rectangular outline; 2) a triangular section; and 3) with one pointed extremity formed by bifacial or unifacial retouch. The precise function of picks is unknown but they may have been used for digging purposes (Palmer 1977: 25; Saville 1977: 3).

Proximal. Descriptive term. The part of a blade or flake with, or nearest to, the butt and bulb of percussion (Barton 1992: 271). Pseudo-burin. Typological term. Arbitrarily used by some researchers to describe an artefact with a burin-like facet but which typically possesses no other sign of human modification. The term is intended to signal that the burin may, in fact, be accidentally or naturally made.

Piercer. Standard tool form. Blade or flake with a short sequence (c. 10 mm) of heavy, abrupt retouch applied to one or both margins of an extremity of the support so as to form a stout point. Classification is by the number and position of piercer facets (i.e. unilateral; bilateral; mèches de forêt or awl). It is assumed that piercers performed boring, drilling or piercing functions.

Punctiform butt. Butt type. Reduced butt form where: 1) both the length and width of the butt are less than 2 mm in size; and 2) the butt is smooth, possessing no evidence of surface platform preparation (Tixier et al. 1980).

Plain butt. Butt type. Standard butt form where: 1) the length and width of the butt are greater than 2 mm in size; and 2) the butt is smooth, possessing no evidence of surface platform preparation (Tixier et al. 1980).

Rational limit. Pollen analytical term. The point at which a species’ pollen curve begins to rise to sustained high values (Birks 1989). Retouch. Technological term. Small removals struck from an artefact in order to give it shape or purpose. J. Tixier has defined six types of retouch based on the size and arrangement of the retouch scars (1963). In this study the following are recognized: primary retouch; additional retouch; invasive retouch; and inverse retouch (but see also spontaneous retouch).

Platform preparation. Technological term. The removal of aretes, spurs and overhangs that accumulate at the edge of a core’s striking platform. These features are left-overs from previous removals and, if not removed, they can render the edge of the striking platform unstable so that when struck with a hammer the platform edge shatters causing subsequent removals to fail. To avoid this situation the platform edge is rubbed, or ground, with a hammer to removed the weaker parts of the striking platform. Evidence of platform preparation are the small retouch-like

Retouch spall. Debitage form. Small removal resulting from the retouching of a standard tool form. Retouch spalls 132

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN are: 1) small in size (c. 10-20 mm in length); and are characterized by 2) a marked curved profile; and 3) a feathered distal termination. It is not generally possible to assign retouch spalls to specific standard tool types (Newcomer and Karlin 1987).

during knapping when, at the moment of detachment, the distal end of a removal impacts with the core face causing small chips to break off (Newcomer 1976). Spontaneous retouch can easily be confused with truncations. Staining. Raw material term. Discolouration of flint through the absorbtion of soil pigments (Shepherd 1972). During the process of cortication microscopic cavities are formed in the crystalline structure of flint by the gradual loss of water. These cavities can either: 1) remain open, and so reflect light causing a milky blue or white surface colour to emerge (cortication); 2) absorb silica and so develop a shiny, waxy film (patination); or 3) absorb soil minerals such as iron or manganese and develop a variety of yellow, orange, brown and red colours (staining).

Retouched piece. Non-standard tool form. Blade or flake with short or discontinuous sequence of retouch applied to part or parts of the support. Classification is by style of retouch (i.e. primary; additional; invasive; and inverse). Retouched pieces can also be formed by natural processes. Their function is indeterminate. Rhomboid. Microlith form. A point where both the proximal and distal extremities of the blank have been obliquely truncated in the same plane so as to give the point a rhomboidal outline (Clark’s C1a, C1c, D7; Jacobi’s 3a). In isosceles rhomboids the truncations are of equal length; in the scalene variant one truncation, usually the proximal one, is longer than the other. In a true rhomboid there must always be a length of unretouched margin between the two truncations.

Standard Tool Assemblage. Category of retouched tools where the working edge facets are highly standardized. The standard tool assemblage comprises: scrapers; burins; piercers; core tools; microdenticulates; chamfered pieces; truncated pieces; and backed pieces. The term is derived from the French category ‘outils du fonds commun’ and is used here to distinguish artefacts that are clearly humanly modified from those that could be accidentally or naturally made (i.e. non-standard tools).

Scraper. Standard tool form. Blade or flake with a restricted sequence of narrow retouch scars (scraper facets), frequently arranged in a convex formation, at one extremity or lateral margin. Classification is according to the position of the scraper facets on the support: i.e. end-; side-; double-end-; or disc- (Clark 1960: 217). The function of a scraper is assumed to be that of a wood or hide working tool.

Striking Platform. Technological term. Surface prepared on nodule or core in order to receive the blow of the hammer during flaking (Barton 1992: 271). Support. Technological term. The term is used to describe a blade or flake after it has been converted into a standard or non-standard tool form. Thus it is said that a end scraper is on a ‘blade support’.

Semi-conical core. Debitage form. Single platformed core variant where the platform is positioned at one extremity of the core and removals are struck from around part of the platform only. Frequently the unworked side of the core retains its cortical or natural surface.

Tanged point. Microlith form. A point with: 1) one lateral margin partially retouched or retouched along its entire length, usually from the dorsal surface; with 2) the distal (basal) extremity worked to form a shoulder or tongue (Clark’s G).

Site. Archaeological term. A site is here defined as an excavated assemblage of artefacts. This definition excludes isolated stray finds.

Thermophilous. Biological term. Organism that requires warmth in order to thrive. Here the term is used to describe certain species of tree, such as oak and elm, that prefer warm annual temperatures.

Site redundancy. Settlement modelling term. The tendency with which settlement sites are re-visited by the same human group: low site redundancy indicates that sites are frequently re-used; high site redundancy suggests the opposite, that sites are seldom re-visited.

Transversely-based point. Microlith form. A point with: 1) one lateral margin retouched along its entire length from the dorsal surface; and 2) the distal (basal) extremity transversely truncated (Clark’s C2; Jacobi’s 5e). The retouched margin and the truncation must meet at the base for a correct classification.

Spalls. Debitage form. The part of an artefact removed in order to make or sharpen a specific tool form. Classification is by artefact type (i.e. microlith- or krukowski piece, scraper-, burin-, axe- or axe sharpening piece, chamfer-, notch-, retouch-, microburin-). In most cases spalls are redundant parts of the working edge of an artefact. Spalls can also be made accidentally or naturally.

Trapezoid. Microlith form. A point where both the proximal and distal extremities of a blank have been obliquely truncated in opposite planes, usually from the dorsal surface, so as to give the point a trapezoidal outline (Clark’s D8; Jacobi’s 2b). In isosceles trapezoids the truncations are of equal length; in the scalene variant one

Spontaneous retouch. Technological term. Light and irregular retouch formed at the distal termination of a flake or blade. Spontaneous retouch is formed accidentally 133

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER truncation, usually the proximal one, is longer than the other. A trapezoid differs from a triangle in that the two truncations do not meet to form an angle; there is always a length of unretouched lateral margin between the two truncations. Triangle. Microlith form. A point where both the proximal and distal extremities of a blank have been obliquely truncated in opposite planes, usually from the dorsal surface, so as to form three distinct angles. This gives the point a triangular outline (Clark’s D1; Jacobi’s 2a). In the isosceles triangle both truncations are of equal length; in the scalene variant they are unequal. A triangle is scalene when the apex on the truncated margin is offset by 10% or more from the middle of the margin (GEEM 1969: 357). A triangle is different from a trapezoid in that both truncations meet at a point along the lateral margin, there being no unretouched margin between the truncations. Truncated Piece. Standard tool form. Blade or flake with one extremity, most often the distal extremity, truncated with abrupt, linear or oblique retouch so that the original outline of the blank is broken. Classification is by number of truncation facets (i.e. single end or double end). The precise function of truncated pieces is unknown. Ventral. Descriptive term. The lower surface of a blade or flake. The ventral surface: 1) carries the bulb of percussion; and 2) exhibits pressure rings. See also dorsal. Width. Typological attribute. The width of an artefact is measured at right angles to the length at the widest point of the outline (Saville 1980: 16). Only complete artefacts are measured.

134

REFERENCES AARIS-SØRENSEN, K. 1983. An example of taphonomic loss in a Mesolithic faunal assemblage. In Animals and Archaeology 1: Hunters and their Prey (eds J. CluttonBrock and C. Grigson). British Archaeological Reports (International series), 163, 243-247.

In Mesolithic Northwest Europe: Recent Trends (eds P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil and H.P. Blankholm). Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, 55-62. BARTON, R.N.E. 1989. Long blade technology in southern Britain. In The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium (ed C. Bonsall). Edinburgh: John Donald, 264-271.

ALLEN BROWN, J. 1893. On the continuity of the Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 22, 66-98.

BARTON, R.N.E. 1991. Technological innovation and continuity at the end of the Pleistocene in Britain. In The Late Glacial in North-west Europe: Human Adaptations and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene (eds R.N.E. Barton, A.J. Roberts and D. Roe). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 77, 234-245.

AMBERS, J., MATTHEWS, K. and BURLEIGH, R. 1985. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XVIII. Radiocarbon, 27(3), 508-524. AMBERS, J., MATTHEWS, K. and BOWMAN, S. 1987. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements XX. Radiocarbon, 29(2), 177-196.

BARTON, R.N.E. 1992. Hengistbury Head, Dorset. Volume 2: The Late Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic Sites. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph, 34, vide 201-261.

AMES, R.E. 1991. A Mesolithic assemblage from Moor Farm, Holyport, near Maidenhead. Berkshire Archaeological Journal, 74, 1-8. ANDERSEN, K. 1980. Bjergby Enge, Maglemoseplads. Aarbøger, 1980, 5-12.

en

BARTON, R.N.E. 1995. The long blade assemblage. In Lithics and Landscape: Archaeological Discoveries on the Thames Water Pipeline at Gatehampton Farm, Goring, Oxfordshire 1985-92 (ed. T.G. Allen). Thames Valley Landscapes Monograph, 7, 54-64.

tidlig

ANDRESSEN, J.M., BYRD, B.F., ELSON, M.D., MCGUIRE, R.H., MENDOZA, R.G., STASKI, E. and WHITE, J.P. 1981. The deer hunters: Star Carr Reconsidered. World Archaeology, 13(1), 31-46.

BARTON, R.N.E. and FROOM, F.R. 1986. The Long Blade assemblage from Avington VI, Berkshire. In The Palaeolithic of Britain and its Nearest Neighbours: Recent Trends (ed S.N. Collcutt). Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, 8084.

ARMSTRONG, A.L. 1931. A late Upper Aurignacian site in north Lincolnshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 6, 335-339. ASHTON, N. 1988. Tranchet axe manufacture from Cliffe, Kent. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 54, 315-320.

BARTON, R.N.E., ROBERTS, A.J. and BERRIDGE, P.J. forthcoming. Persistent places in the Mesolithic landscape: an example from the Black Mountain uplands of south Wales.

ASHTON-TATE. 1988. Getting started with dBase IV. London: Pitman Publishing.

BECKER, B. and KROMER, B. 1991. Dendrochronology and radiocarbon calibration of the early Holocene. In The Late Glacial in North-west Europe: Human Adaptation and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene (eds N. Barton, A.J. Roberts and D.A. Roe). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 77, 22-24.

BAKER, C.A. 1976. Late Devensian periglacial phenomena in the Upper Cam Valley, north Essex. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 87, 285-306. BARBER, K.E. and CLARKE, M.J. 1987. Cranes Moor, New Forest: Palynology and macrofossil stratigraphy. In Wessex and the Isle of Wight - Field Guide (ed K.E. Barber). Cambridge: Quaternary Research Association, 3344.

BECKER, B. KROMER, B. and TRIMBORN, P. 1991. A stable-isotope tree-ring timescale of the Late Glacial/Holocene boundary. Nature, 353, 647-649.

BARTON, R.N.E. 1986. A Study of Selected British and European Flint Assemblages of Late Devensian and Early Flandrian Age. University of Oxford: unpublished doctoral thesis.

BECKER, C.J. 1951. Maglemosekultur paa Bornholm. Aarbøger, 1951, 96-177. BEHRE, K-E. 1967. The Late Glacial and early Postglacial history of vegetation and climate in northwestern Germany. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 4, 149-161.

BARTON, R.N.E. 1987. Vertical distribution of artifacts and some post-depositional factors affecting site formation. 135

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER BIRKS, H.J.B. 1989. Holocene isochrone maps and patterns of tree-spreading in the British Isles. Journal of Biogeography, 16, 503-540.

BELL, M. and WALKER, M.J.C. 1992. Late Quaternary Environmental Change: Physical and Human Perspectives (2nd edition). Harlow: Longman.

BLANCHET, J-Cl. 1986. Circonscription de Picardie. Gallia Préhistoire, 29(2), 413-441.

BENNETT, K.D. 1983. An occurrence of pike (Esox lucius L.) in the early Post-glacial at Sea Mere, Norfolk, and the origin of British freshwater fishes. Quaternary Newsletter, 41, 7-10.

BLEED, P. 1986. The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity, 51(4), 737-747.

BENNETT, K.D. 1988. Holocene pollen stratigraphy of central East Anglia, England, and comparison of pollen zones across the British Isles. New Phytologist, 109(2), 237-253.

BOKELMANN, K. 1975-77. Eine neue Borealzeitliche fundstelle in Schleswig-Holstein. Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 15, 181-188.

BERGMAN, C.A., BARTON, R.N.E., COLLCUTT, S.N. and MORRIS, G. 1987. Intentional breakage in a late Upper Palaeolithic assemblage from southern England. In The Human Uses of Flint and Chert (eds G. de G. Sieveking and M.H. Newcomer). Cambridge: University Press, 21-32.

BOKELMANN, K. 1991. Duvensee, Wohnplatz 9: Ein präborealzeitlicher Lagerplatz in Schleswig-Holstein. Offa, 48, 75-109. BOKELMANN, K. 1994. Frühboreale Mikrolithen mit Schäftungspech aus dem Heidmoor im Kreis Segeberg. Offa, 51, 37-47.

BERRIDGE, P.J. 1985. Mesolithic sites in the Yarty valley. Proceedings of the Devonshire Archaeological Society, 43, 1-21.

BOKELMANN, K., AVERDIECK, F-R., and WILLKOMM, H. 1981. Duvensee, Wohnplatz 8: Neue Aspekte zur Sammelwirtschaft im frühen Mesolithikum. Offa, 38, 21-40.

BERRIDGE, P.J. 1994. The lithics. In Excavations at Rhuddlan, Clwyd 1969-73: Mesolithic to Medieval (by H. Quinnell and M.R. Blockley). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 95, 95-114.

BOKELMANN, K., AVERDIECK, F-R., and WILLKOMM, H. 1985. Duvensee, Wohnplatz 13. Offa, 42, 13-33.

BINFORD, L.R. 1973. Interassemblage variability - the Mousterian and the 'functional' argument. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory (ed C. Renfrew). London: Duckworth, 227-254.

BONSALL, C. and SMITH, C. 1989. Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic bone and antler artifacts from Britain: first reactions to accelerator dates. Mesolithic Miscellany 10(1), 33-38.

BINFORD, L.R. 1977. Forty-seven trips. A case study in the character of archaeological formation processes. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers: Change, Evolution and Complexity (ed R.V.S. Wright). New Jersey, USA: Humanities Press, 24-36.

BORDES, F. 1970. Observations typologiques et techniques sur le Périgordien supérieur de Corbiac (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 67, 105-113.

BINFORD, L.R. 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 35(3), 255-273.

BORDES, F. 1973. On the chronology and contemporaneity of different palaeolithic cultures in France. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory (ed C. Renfrew). London: Duckworth, 217-226.

BINFORD, L.R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs' tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity, 45(1), 4-20.

BOWMAN, S.G.E., AMBERS, J.C. and LEESE, M.N. 1990. Re-evaluation of British Museum radiocarbon dates issued between 1980 and 1984. Radiocarbon, 32(1), 59-79.

BINFORD, L.R. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record (2nd edition). London: Thames and Hudson.

BRADLEY, P. and HEY, G. 1993. A Mesolithic site at New Plantation, Fyfield and Tubney, Oxfordshire. Oxoniensia, 58, 1-26.

BIRKS, H.J.B. 1972. Studies in the vegetational history of Scotland. New Phytologist, 71, 731-754.

BRAILSFORD, J.W. 1937. A new microlithic site on West Heath. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 78, 224-229.

136

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN BRAMWELL, D. 1976. The vertebrate fauna at Wetton Mill rock shelter. In The Excavation of Wetton Mill Rock Shelter, Manifold Valley, Staffs. SK 096563 (ed J.H. Kelly). City of Stoke-on-Trent Museum Archaeological Society Report, 9, 40-51.

CHAMBERS, F.M., MIGHALL, T.M. and KEEN, D.H. 1996. Early Holocene pollen and molluscan records from Enfield Lock, Middlesex, UK. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 107, 1-14. CHANDLER, R.H. 1914-15. Implements of Les Eyziestype and a working-floor in the River Cray valley. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 2(1), 80-98.

BRINCH PETERSEN, E. 1966. Klosterlund - Sønder Hadsund - Bøllund. Les trois sites principaux de Maglémosien ancien en Jutland. Essai de typologie et de chronologie. Acta Archaeologica, 37, 77-185.

CHAPMAN, R. 1981. The emergence of formal disposal areas and the 'problem' of megalithic tombs in prehistoric Europe. In The Archaeology of Death (eds R. Chapman, I. Kinnes and K. Randsborg). Cambridge: University Press, 71-81.

BRINCH PETERSEN, E. 1972. Svaerdborg II. A Maglemose hut from Svaerdborg bog, Zealand, Denmark. Acta Archaeologica, 42, 43-77. BROWN, A.G. 1995. Holocene channel and floodplain change: A U.K. perspective. In Changing River Channels (eds A. Gurnell and G. Petts). Chichester: John Wiley, 4364.

CHURCHILL, D.M. 1962. The stratigraphy of the Mesolithic sites III and V at Thatcham, Berkshire, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 28, 362370.

BRYANT, R.H. 1979. Physical Geography Made Simple (2nd edition). London: W.H. Allen.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1932. The Mesolithic Age In Britain. Cambridge: University Press.

BUCKLAND, P.C. and DOLBY, M.J. 1973. Mesolithic and later material from Misterton Carr, Notts - an interim report. Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire, 77, 5-33.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1932b. A microlithic flaking site at West Heath, W. Harting. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 73, 145-155. CLARK, J.G.D. 1934. The classification of a microlithic culture: The Tardenoisian of Horsham. Archaeological Journal, 90, 52-77.

BUCKLEY, F. 1923. Untitled article. Oldham Chronicle, 15th December, 1923. BUCKLEY, F. 1924. A microlithic industry of the Pennine chain. Related to the Tardenois of Belgium. Privately printed, 1-7.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1934b. Some unrecorded finds of microliths from England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 7(3), 421-423.

BURCHELL, J.P.T. 1938. Two Mesolithic 'floors' in the Ebbsfleet valley of the lower Thames. The Antiquaries Journal, 18(4), 397-401.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1936. The Mesolithic Settlement of Northern Europe. Cambridge: University Press.

BURLEIGH, R., HEWSON, A. and MEEKS, N. 1976. British Museum natural radiocarbon measurements VIII. Radiocarbon, 18(1), 16-42.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1938. The Reindeer hunting tribes of northern Europe. Antiquity, 12, 154-171. CLARK, J.G.D. 1954. Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge: University Press.

CALKIN, J.B. 1924. Pygmy and other flint implements found at Peacehaven. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 65, 224-241.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1955. A microlithic industry from the Cambridgeshire fenland and other industries of Sauveterrian affinities from Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 21, 3-20.

CARE, V. 1982. The collection and distribution of lithic materials during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods in southern England. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 1(3), 269-285.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 26, 202-245.

CARPENTER, C.P. and WOODCOCK, M.P. 1981. A detailed investigation of a pingo remnant in western Surrey. Quaternary Studies, 1, 1-26. CAULFIELD, S. 1978. Star Carr - an alternative view. Irish Archaeological Research Forum, 5, 15-21.

CLARK, J.G.D. 1972. Star Carr: A Case Study in Bioarchaeology. Module in Anthropology, 10. Reading, Mass., USA: Addison-Wesley.

137

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER CLARK, J.G.D. 1975. The Earlier Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia. Cambridge: University Press. CLARK, J.G.D., GODWIN, H., GODWIN, M.E. and MACFADYEN, W.A. 1933. Report on an early Bronze Age site in the South-Eastern fens. The Antiquaries Journal, 13, 266-296.

CONSTANDSE-WESTERMANN, T.S. and NEWELL, R.R. 1989. Social and biological aspects of the western European Mesolithic population structure: a comparison with the demography of North American Indians. In The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium (ed C. Bonsall). Edinburgh: John Donald, 106-115.

CLARK, J.G.D. and RANKINE, W.F. 1939. Excavations at Farnham, Surrey (1937-38): The Horsham culture and the question of Mesolithic dwellings. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 5, 61-118.

COOK, J. and JACOBI, R.M. 1994. A Reindeer antler or 'Lyngby' axe from Northamptonshire and its context in the British Late Glacial. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 60, 75-84.

CLARKE, D.L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.

CORDY, J-M. 1991. Palaeoecology of the Late Glacial and early Postglacial of Belgium and neighbouring areas. In The Late Glacial in North-west Europe: Human Adaptations and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene (eds R.N.E. Barton, A.J. Roberts and D. Roe). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 77, 40-47.

CLARKE, D.L. 1976. Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis. In Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology (eds G. de. G Sieveking, I.L. Longworth and K.E. Wilson). London: Duckworth, 449-481. CLEVERINGA, P., DE GANS, W., KOLSTRUP, E. and PARIS, F.P 1977. Vegetational and climatic developments during the Late Glacial and the Early Holocene and aeolian sedimentation as recorded in the Uteringsveen (Drente, The Netherlands). Geologie en Mijnbouw, 45, 234-242.

DARVILL, T. 1987. Prehistoric Britain. London: Batsford.

CLOUTMAN, E.W. and SMITH, A.G. 1988. Palaeoenvironments in the Vale of Pickering. Part 3: Environmental history at Star Carr. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 54, 37-58.

DAVID, A. 1990. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic settlement in Wales, with Special Reference to Dyfed. University of Lancaster:unpublished doctoral thesis.

DANSGAARD, W., WHITE, J.W.C. and JOHNSEN, S.J. 1989. The abrupt termination of the Younger Dryas climate event. Nature, 339, 532-534.

DAVIES, A.G., GIBSON, A.V.B. and ASHDOWN, R.R. 1980-2. A Mesolithic site at Stanstead Abbots, Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire Archaeology, 8, 1-10.

CLUTTON-BROCK, J. and NOE-NYGAARD, N. 1990. New osteological and C-isotope evidence on Mesolithic dogs: companions to hunters and fishers at Star Carr, Seamer Carr and Kongemose. Journal of Archaeological Science, 17(6), 643-653.

DAY, S.P. 1991. Postglacial vegetational history of the Oxford region. New Phytologist, 119(3), 445-470.

CLUTTON-BROCK, T.H., GUINNESS, F.E. and ALBON, S.D. 1982. Red Deer. Behaviour and Ecology of Two Sexes. Edinburgh: University Press, vide 219-250.

DAY, S.P. 1993. Preliminary results of high-resolution palaeoecological analyses at Star Carr, Yorkshire. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 3(1), 129-133.

COGGINS, D., LAURIE, T. and YOUNG, R. 1989. The late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of the northern Pennine dales in the light of recent fieldwork. In The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium (ed C. Bonsall). Edinburgh: John Donald, 164-174.

DEVOY, R J.N. 1977. Flandrian sealevel changes in the Thames estuary and the implications for land subsidence in England and Wales. Nature, 270, 712-715.

COHMAP members. 1988. Climatic changes of the last 18,000 years: Observations and model simulations. Science, 241, 1043-1052.

DIMBLEBY, G.W. 1985. The Palynology Archaeological Sites. London: Academic Press.

DIMBLEBY, G.W. 1959. Thatcham - pollen analysis. Berkshire Archaeological Journal, 57, 25-29. of

DOUGLAS PRICE, T. 1982. Willow tales and dog smoke. Review of Archaeology, 3(1), 4-7. DUCROCQ, T. 1989. Le mésolithique de Marais de Hailles, (Somme). In Paléolithique et Mésolithique de Nord de la France. Nouvelles Recherches (ed A. Tuffreau). Publications du CERP, 1, 109-120.

COLES, J.M. 1971. The early settlement of Scotland: excavations at Morton, Fife. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 37(2), 284-366.

138

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN GEEM, 1969. Epipaléolithique - Mésolithique. Les microliths géométriques. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 66, 355-366.

DUCROCQ, T. 1992. Une nouvelle occupation mésolithiques datée dans le Nord de la France. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 89(3), 72-73.

GEEM, 1972. Epipaléolithique - Mésolithique. Les armatures non géométriques 1. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 69, 364-375.

DUCROCQ, T. and KETTERER, I. 1995. Le gisement mésolithique du 'Petit Marais', La Chaussée-Tirancourt (Somme). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 92(2), 249-259.

GILKS, J.A. 1994. Earlier Mesolithic sites at Nab Water, Oxenhope Moor, West Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 66, 1-19.

EVANS, J, G. 1975. The Environment of Early Man in the British Isles. London: Paul Elek.

GILLESPIE, R., GOWLETT, J.A.J., HALL, E.T., HEDGES, R.E.M., and PERRY, C. 1985. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 2. Archaeometry, 27(2), 237-246.

FAGNART, J-P. and VAILLANT, J. 1982. Le gisement mésolithique de la gravière Merque à Longpré-les-CorpsSaints (Somme). Revue Archéologique de Picardie, 3, 3-7. FISCHER, A. 1996. At the border of human habitat. The Late Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic in Scandinavia. In The Earliest Settlement of Scandinavia and its Relationship with Neighbouring Areas (ed L. Larsson). Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell International, 157-176.

GODWIN AUSTEN, H.H. 1884. On the discovery of some worked flints, cores, and flakes from Blackheath, near Chilworth and Bramley, Surrey. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 13, 137-143. GOULD, S.J. 1990. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (2nd edition). London: Hutchinson Radius.

FISCHER, A. and TAUBER, H. 1986. New C-14 datings of Late Palaeolithic cultures from Northwestern Europe. Journal of Danish Archaeology, 5, 7-13.

GRAMSCH, B. 1987. Ausgrabungen auf dem mesolithischen Moorfundplatz bei Friesack, Bezirk Potsdam. Veröffentlichungen des Museums für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Potsdam, 21, 75-100.

FLETCHER, M. and LOCK, G.R. 1994. Digging Numbers: Elementary Statistics for Archaeologists (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.

GRAMSCH, B. and KLOSS, K. 1989. Excavations near Friesack: an Early Mesolithic marshland site in the northern plain of central Europe. In The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium (ed C. Bonsall). Edinburgh: John Donald, 313324.

FLORIN, M.B. 1977. Late Glacial and Preboreal vegetation in southern central Sweden II. Pollen, spore and diatom analyses. Striae, 5, 3-59. FOLEY, J.A., KUTZBACH, J.E., COE, M.T. and LEVIS, S. 1994. Feedbacks between climate and boreal forests during the Holocene epoch. Nature, 371, 52-54.

GRIGSON, C. 1978. The Late Glacial and Early Flandrian ungulates of England and Wales - an interim review. In The Effect of Man on the Landscape: The Lowland Zone (eds S. Limbrey and J.G. Evans). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 21, 46-56.

FROOM, F.R. 1972. Some Mesolithic sites in south-west Berkshire. Berkshire Archaeological Journal, 66, 11-22. FROOM. F.R. 1976. Wawcott III: A Stratified Mesolithic Succession. British Archaeological Reports (British Series), 27.

GOB, A. 1979. Le Mésolithique dans le bassin de l'Ourthe. Helinium, 19, 209-236. GOB, A. 1984. Les industries microlithiques dans la partie sud de la Belgique. In Peuples chasseurs de la Belgique Préhistorique dans leur cadre naturel (eds D. Cahen and P. Haesaerts). Bruxelles, 195-210.

FROOM, R., COOK, J., DEBENHAM, N. and AMBERS, J. 1994. Wawcott XXX: An interim report on a Mesolithic site in Berkshire. In Stories in Stone (eds N. Ashton and A. David). Lithics Studies Society Occasional Paper, 4, 206212.

GOB, A. 1990. Chronologie du Mésolithique en Europe: Atlas des Dates 14C. Liège: Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres. GOB, A. 1991. The early Postglacial occupation of the southern part of the North Sea basin. In The Late Glacial in North-West Europe: Human adaptation and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene (eds

GABLE, G. 1976. St Catherine's Hill: a Mesolithic site near Guildford. Surrey Archaeological Society Research Volume, 3, 77-101.

139

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER N Barton, A.J. Roberts and D.A. Roe). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 77, 227-233.

dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 18. Archaeometry, 36(2), 337-374.

GOWLETT, J.A.J., HEDGES, R.E.M., LAW, I.A. and PERRY, C. 1986. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 4. Archaeometry, 28(2), 206-221.

HEDGES, R.E.M., HOUSLEY, R.A., PETTITT, P.B., BRONK RAMSEY, C., and VAN KLINKEN, G.J. 1996. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 21. Archaeometry, 38(1), 181-207.

GOWLETT, J.A.J., HEDGES, R.E.M. LAW, I.A. and PERRY, C. 1987. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 5. Archaeometry, 29(1), 125-155.

HIBBERT, F.A. and SWITSUR, V.R. 1976. Radiocarbon dating of Flandrian pollen zones in Wales and northern England. New Phytologist, 77, 793-807. HIGGS, E. 1959. Excavations at a Mesolithic site at Downton, near Salisbury, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 25, 209-232.

HAYDEN, B. 1979. The Ho Ho classification and nomenclature committee report. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis (ed B. Hayden). New York: Academic Press, 133-135.

HINOUT, J. 1990. Quelques aspects du mésolithique dans le Bassin parisien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 87, 434-449.

HAZZLEDINE WARREN, S., CLARK, J.G.D., GODWIN, H. and M.E., and MACFADYEN, W.A. 1934. An early Mesolithic site at Broxbourne sealed under boreal peat. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 64, 101-128.

HODDER, I. 1978. Simple correlations between material culture and society: A review. In The Spatial Organisation of Culture (ed I. Hodder). London: Duckworth, 3-24.

HEALY, F., HEATON, M. and LOBB, S.J. 1992. Excavations of a Mesolithic site at Thatcham, Berkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 58, 41-76.

HONYWOOD, T. 1877. Discovery of flint implements near Horsham, in St Leonard's Forest. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 27, 177-183.

HEDGES, R.E.M. 1981. Radiocarbon dating with an accelerator: Review and preview. Archaeometry, 23(1), 318.

HOUSLEY, R.A. 1991. AMS dates from the Late Glacial and early Postglacial in North-west Europe: A Review. In The Late Glacial in North-west Europe: Human Adaptation and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene (eds N. Barton, A.J. Roberts and D.A. Roe). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 77, 2539.

HEDGES, R.E.M., HOUSLEY, R.A., LAW, I.A., PERRY, C. and GOWLETT, J.A.J. 1987. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 6. Archaeometry, 29(2), 289-306.

HUNTLEY, B. and BIRKS, H.J.B. 1983. An Atlas of Past and Present Pollen Maps for Europe: 0-13,000 Years Ago. Cambridge: University Press.

HEDGES, R.E.M., HOUSLEY, R.A., LAW, I.A., PERRY, C., and HENDY, E. 1988. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 8. Archaeometry, 30(2), 291-305.

HUYGE, D. 1985. An Early Mesolithic site at ZonhovenKapelberg (Belgian Limburg). Notae Praehistoricae, 5, 37-42.

HEDGES, R.E.M., HOUSLEY, R.A., LAW, I.A., and BRONK, C.R. 1989. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 9. Archaeometry, 31(2), 207-234.

IVERSEN, J. 1973. The Development of Denmark's Nature Since the Last Glacial - Geology of Denmark III. Geological Survey of Denmark, 5 (series 7 - C.C.A). Copenhagen: Reitzel.

HEDGES, R.E.M., HOUSLEY, R.A., LAW, I.A. and BRONK, C.R. 1990a. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 10. Archaeometry, 32(1), 101-108.

JACOBI, R.M. 1973. Aspects of the 'Mesolithic Age' in Great Britain. In The Mesolithic in Europe (ed S.K. Kozlowski). Warsaw: University Press, 237-265.

HEDGES, R.E.M., HOUSLEY, R.A., BRONK, C.R. and VAN KLINKEN, G.J. 1990b. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 11. Archaeometry, 32(2), 211-237.

JACOBI, R.M. 1976. Britain inside and outside Mesolithic Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 42, 67-84. JACOBI, R.M. 1978a. The Mesolithic of Sussex. In Archaeology in Sussex to AD 1500 (ed P.L. Drewett).

HEDGES, R.E.M., HOUSLEY, R.A., BRONK RAMSEY, C. and VAN KLINKEN, G.J. 1994. Radiocarbon 140

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN JACOBI, R.M., MARTINGELL, H.E. and HUGGINS, P.J. 1978. A Mesolithic industry from Hill Wood, High Beach, Epping Forest. Essex Archaeology and History, 10, 206-219.

Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 29, 15-22. JACOBI, R.M. 1978b. Population and landscape in Mesolithic lowland Britain. In The Effect of Man on the Landscape: The Lowland Zone (eds S. Limbrey and J.G. Evans). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 21, 75-85.

JACOBI, R.M. and TEBBUTT, C.F. 1981. A Late Mesolithic rock-shelter site at High Hurstwood, Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 119, 1-36.

JACOBI, R.M. 1978c. Northern England in the eight millennium bc: an essay. In The Early Postglacial Settlement of Northern Europe (ed P.A. Mellars). London: Duckworth, 295-332.

JELGERSMA, S. 1979. Sea-level changes in the North Sea basin. In The Quaternary History of the North Sea (eds E. Oele, R.T.E. Schüttenhelm and A.J. Wiggers). Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Symposium Universitatis Upsaliensis Annum Quingentesimum Celebrantis, 2, 233248.

JACOBI, R.M. 1979. Early Flandrian hunters in the south-west. Proceedings of the Devon Archaeological Society (Special Issue), 37, 48-93.

JOHANSSON, A.D. 1990. Barmose-gruppen. Praeboreale bopladsfund i Sydsjaelland. Aarhus: Universitetsforlag.

JACOBI, R.M. 1980. The Mesolithic of Essex. In Archaeology in Essex to AD 1500 (ed D.G. Buckley). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 34, 1425.

JOHNSON, R.H., FRANKS, J.W. and POLLARD, J.E. 1970. Some Holocene faunal and floral remains in the Whitemoor meltwater channel at Bosley, East Cheshire. North Staffordshire Journal of Field Studies, 10, 65-74.

JACOBI, R.M. 1980b. The early Holocene settlements of Wales. In Culture and Environment in Prehistoric Wales (ed. J.A. Taylor). British Archaeological Reports (British Series), 76, 131-206.

KEATINGE, T.H. 1983. Development of pollen assemblage zones in soil profiles in south-eastern England. Boreas, 12, 1-12.

JACOBI, R.M. 1981. The last hunters in Hampshire. In The Archaeology of Hampshire (eds. S.J. Shennan and R.T. Schadla-Hall). Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society Monograph, 1, 10-25.

KEEF, P.A., WYMER, J.J. and DIMBLEBY, G.W. 1965. A Mesolithic site on Iping Common, Sussex, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 31, 85-92. KELLY, J.H. 1976. The Excavation of Wetton Mill Rock Shelter, Manifold Valley, Staffs. SK 096563. City of Stokeon-Trent Museum Archaeological Society Report, 9.

JACOBI, R.M. 1982. Later hunters in Kent: Tasmania and the earliest Neolithic. In Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500 (ed P.E. Leach). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 48, 12-24.

KELLY, R.L. 1983. Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 39, 277-306.

JACOBI, R.M. 1982b. When did Man come to Scotland? Mesolithic Miscellany, 3(2), 8-9.

KELLY, R.L. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press.

JACOBI, R.M. 1984. The Mesolithic of northern East Anglia and contemporary territories. In Aspects of East Anglian Pre-History (ed. C. Barringer). Norwich: Geo Books, 43-76.

KELLY, R.L. forthcoming. Hunter-gatherer foraging and colonization of the western hemisphere. In The Human Tide (ed O. Soffer). Plenum Press.

JACOBI, R.M. 1987. Misanthropic miscellany: musings on British early Flandrian archaeology and other flights of fancy. In Mesolithic Northwest Europe: Recent Trends (eds. P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil and H.P. Blankholm). Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, 163-168.

KELLY, R.L. and TODD, L.C. 1988. Coming into the country: early Paleoindian hunting and mobility. American Antiquity, 53, 231-244. KINDGREN, H. 1995. Hensbacka-Hogen-Hornborgasjön: early Mesolithic coastal and inland settlements in western Sweden. In Man and Sea in the Mesolithic: Coastal Settlement Above and Below Present Sea Level (ed A. Fischer). Oxbow Monograph, 53, 171-184.

JACOBI, R.M. 1994. Mesolithic radiocarbon dates: a first review of some recent dates. In Stories in Stone (eds N. Ashton and A. David). Lithics Studies Society Occasional Paper, 4, 192-198.

141

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER KOZLOWSKI, S.K. 1975. Cultural Differentiation of Europe from 10th to 5th Millennium B.C. Warsaw: University Press.

LAUSBERG-MINY, J., LAUSBERG-MINY, P. and PIRNAY, L. 1985. Le site mésolithique du Brenn Hag à Kelmis. Archaeologia Belgica, 1(1), 55-65.

KOZLOWSKI, J.K. and KOZLOWSKI, S.K. 1979. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Europe: Taxonomy and Palaeohistory. Warsaw: Polska Akedemia Nauk.

LAUWERS, R. and VERMEERSCH, P.M. 1982. Un site du Mésolithique ancien à Neerharen - de Kip. In Contributions a l' Etude du Mésolithique de la Basse Belgique (ed P.M. Vermeersch). Studia Praehistorica Belgica, 1, 16-52.

KROMER, B. and BECKER, B. 1993. German Oak and Pine 14C calibration, 7200-9439 BC. Radiocarbon, 35(1), 125-135.

LAYARD, N.F. 1927. A late Palaeolithic settlement in the Colne Valley, Essex. Antiquaries Journal, 7, 500-514.

KUTZBACH, J.E. and GUETTER, P.J. 1986. The influence of changing orbital parameters and surface boundary conditions on climate simulations for the past 18 000 years. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 43(16), 1726-1759.

LEGGE, A.J. and ROWLEY-CONWY, P.A. 1988. Star Carr Revisited: A Re-analysis of the Large Mammals. London: Centre for Extra-Mural Studies, Birkbeck College, University of London.

KUTZBACH, J.E. and STREET-PERROTT, F.A. 1985. Milankovitch forcing of fluctuations in the level of tropical lakes from 18 to 0 Kyr BP. Nature, 317, 130-134.

LEWIS, J. 1991. A Late Glacial and early Postglacial site at Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge, England: Interim report. In The Late Glacial in North-west Europe: Human Adaptation and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene (eds N. Barton, A.J. Roberts and D.A. Roe). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 77, 246255.

LACAILLE, A.D. 1963. Mesolithic industries beside Colne waters in Iver and Denham, Buckinghamshire. Records of Buckinghamshire, 17(3), 143-181. LACAILLE, A.D. 1966. Mesolithic facies in the transpontine fringes. Surrey Archaeological Collections, 63, 1-43.

LEWIS, J.S.C., WILTSHIRE, P.E.J. and MACPHAIL, R. 1992. A Late Devensian/Early Flandrian site at Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge: environmental implications. In Alluvial Archaeology in Britain (eds S. Needham and M.G. Macklin). Oxbow Monograph, 27, 235-247.

LAMB, H.H. 1977. The late Quaternary history of the climate of the British Isles. In British Quaternary Studies: Recent Advances (ed F.W. Shotton). Oxford: University Press, 283-298.

LIBBY, W.F. 1955. Radiocarbon Dating. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. LONG, A.J. and SHENNAN I. 1993. Holocene relative sea-level and crustal movements in southeast and northeast England, UK. In Neotectonics: Recent Advances (eds I.A. Owen, I. Stewart and C. Vita Finzi). Cambridge: Quaternary Research Association, 15-19.

LAMB. H.H. 1982. Reconstruction of the course of Postglacial climate over the world. In Climate Change in Later Prehistory (ed A.F. Harding). Edinburgh: University Press, 11-32. LAMB, H.H., LEWIS, R.P.W. and WOODROFFE, A. 1966. Atmospheric circulation and the main climatic variables between 8000 and 0 BC: meteorological evidence. In World Climate from 8000 - 0 BC (ed J.S. Sawyer). London: Royal Meteorological Society, 174-217.

LORD, J.W. 1993. The Nature and Subsequent uses of Flint. Volume 1: The Basics of Lithic Technology. Brandon: John Lord. LOUWE KOOIJMANS, L.P. 1970-71. Mesolithic bone and antler implements from the North Sea and from The Netherlands. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, 20-21, 27-73.

LAMBECK, K. 1995. Late Devensian and Holocene shorelines of the British Isles and North Sea from models of glacio-hydro-isostatic rebound. Journal of the Geological Society, 152, 437-448.

LOWE, J.J., COOPE, G.R., LEMDAHL, G. and WALKER, M.J.C. 1995. The Younger Dryas climate signal in land records from N.W. Europe. In The Younger Dryas (eds S.R. Troelstra, J.E. van Hinte and G.M. Ganssen). Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 3-26.

LAUSBERG-MINY, J., LAUSBERG, P. and PIRNAY, L. 1982. Le gisement mésolithique de l'Ourlaine. In Le Mésolithique Entre Rhin et Meuse (eds. A. Gob and F. Spier). Luxembourg: Publication de la Société Préhistorique Luxembourgeoise, 323-329.

142

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN MACLEAN, R. 1993. Eat your greens: an examination of the potential diet available in Ireland during the Mesolithic. Ulster Journal of Archaeology, 56, 1-8.

MONEY, J.H. 1960. Excavations at High Rocks, Tunbridge Wells, 1954-1956. Sussex Archaeological Collections, 98, 173-221.

MANBY, T.G. 1966. Creswellian site at Brigham, east Yorkshire. Antiquaries Journal, 46, 211-228.

MOORE, J.W. 1950. Mesolithic sites in the neighbourhood of Flixton, north-east Yorkshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 16, 101-108.

MAPINFO. 1985-94. MapInfo: UK User's Guide. New York: MapInfo Corporation.

MORRISON, A. and BONSALL, C. 1989. The early Postglacial settlement of Scotland: a review. In The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium (ed C. Bonsall). Edinburgh: John Donald, 134142.

MAY, J. 1976. Prehistoric Lincolnshire. History of Lincolnshire, 1. Lincoln: History of Lincoln Committee. McBRYDE, I. 1986. Artefacts, language and social interaction: a case study from south-eastern Australia. In Stone Age Prehistory: Studies in the Memory of Charles McBurney (ed G.N. Bailey and P. Callow). Cambridge: University Press, 77-93.

MYERS, A.M. 1987. All shot to pieces? Inter-assemblage variability, lithic analysis and Mesolithic assemblage 'types': some preliminary observations. In Lithic Analysis and Later British Prehistory: Some Problems and Approaches (eds A.G. Brown and M.R. Edmonds). British Archaeological Reports (British Series), 162, 137-153.

MELLARS, P.A. 1976. Settlement patterns and industrial variability in the British Mesolithic. In Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology (eds G. de G. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth and K.E. Wilson). London: Duckworth, 375-399.

NAROLL, R. 1962. Floor area and settlement population. American Antiquity, 27, 587-588. NEWCOMER, M.H. Staringia, 3, 62-64.

MELLARS, P.A. 1976b. Fire ecology, animal populations and man: a study of some ecological relationships in prehistory. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 42, 15-45.

1976.

Spontaneous

retouch.

NEWCOMER, M.H. and KARLIN, C. 1987. Flint chips from Pincevent. In The Human Uses of Flint and Chert (eds G. de G. Sieveking and M.H. Newcomer). Cambridge: University Press, 33-36.

MELLARS, P.A and HAYNES, M. 1986. Mesolithic exploitation of sandy areas: towards the testing of some hypotheses. In Stone Age Prehistory: Studies in the Memory of Charles McBurney (eds G.N. Bailey and P.Callow). Cambridge: University Press, 69-76.

NOE-NYGAARD, N. 1977. Butchering and marrow fracturing as a taphonomic factor in archaeological deposits. Paleobiology, 3, 218-237.

MELLARS, P.A. and REINHARDT, S.C. 1978. Patterns of Mesolithic land-use in southern England: a geological perspective. In The Early Postglacial Settlement of Northern Europe (ed P.A. Mellars). London: Duckworth, 243-293.

NORMAN, C. 1975. Four Mesolithic assemblages from west Somerset. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, 119, 26-37. NOWAK, R.M. 1991. Walker's Mammals of the World (5th edition). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

MERCER, J. 1974. Glenbatrick Waterhole, a microlithic site on the Isle of Jura. Proceedings of Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 105 (1972-4), 9-32.

OAKLEY, K.P. 1975. Man the Tool-maker (6th edition). London: Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History).

MITCHELL, J.F.B. 1993. Modelling of palaeoclimates: examples from the recent past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (series B), 341, 267-275.

OHNUMA, K. and BERGMAN, C. 1982. Experimental studies in the determination of flaking mode. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, 19, 161-170.

MITCHELL, J.F.B., GRAHAME, N.S. and NEEDHAM, K.J. 1988. Climate simulations for 9000 years Before Present: seasonal variations and effect of the Laurentide ice sheet. Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, 8283-8303.

OWEN, L. 1982. An analysis of experimental breaks on blades and flakes. Studia Praehistorica Belgica, 2, 77-87. PALMER, S.W. 1977. Mesolithic Cultures of Britain. Poole: Dolphin Press.

MITHEN, S.J. 1990. Thoughtful Foragers: A Study of Prehistoric Decision Making. Cambridge: University Press.

PALMER, S.W. and DIMBLEBY, G.W. 1979. A Mesolithic habitation site on Winfrith Heath, Dorset. 143

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER Proceedings of the Dorset Natural Archaeological Society, 101, 27-50.

History

and

REYNIER, M.J. 1994. A stylistic analysis of ten Early Mesolithic sites from south east England. In Stories in Stone (eds N. Ashton and A. David). Lithic Studies Society Occasional Paper, 4, 199-205.

PARENT, R., PLANCHAIS, N. and VERNET, J-L. 1973. Fouille d'un atelier tardenoisien à La Sablonnière de Coincy (Aisne). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 70, 337-351.

REYNIER, M.J. forthcoming. Radiocarbon dating of Early Mesolithic stone technologies from Great Britain. In Chronostratigraphie et environnement des occupations humaines du Tardiglaciare et du debut de l'Holocene en Europe du Nord-Ouest (eds J.P. Fagnart and A. Thevénin). Amiens.

PEAKE, H. and CRAWFORD, O.G.S. 1922. A flint factory at Thatcham, Berks. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 4, 499-514.

RIND, D., PETEET, D., BROECKER, W., McINTYRE, A. and RUDDIMAN, W. 1986. The impact of cold North Atlantic sea surface temperatures on climate: implications for the Younger Dryas cooling (11-10 k). Climate Dynamics, 1, 3-33.

PFEIFFER, J.E. 1973. The Emergence of Man (3rd edition). London: Book Club Associates. PIRNAY, L. and STRAET, H-C. 1978. Le site mésolithique des Mazures (commune de Pepinster, province de Liège, Belgique). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 75(10), 327-340.

ROWLEY-CONWY, P.A. 1994. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic: from culture to behaviour. In Building on the Past: Papers Celebrating 150 Years of the Royal Archaeological Institute (ed. B. Vyner). London: Royal Archaeological Institute, 75-89.

PITTS, M.W. 1979. Hides and antlers: a new look at the gatherer-hunter site at Star Carr, north Yorkshire, England. World Archaeology, 11(1), 32-42.

ROZOY, J-G. 1968. L'Etude du matérial brut et des microburins dans L'Epipaléolithique (mésolithique) Franco-Belge. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 65, 365-390.

PRINCE, H.E. 1979. Oakhanger, Hampshire: Post-glacial Environmental History by Analysis of Peat Deposits. University of Durham: unpublished B.Sc. dissertation. RADLEY, J. and MARSHALL, G. 1965. Maglemosian sites in the Pennines. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 41, 394-402.

RUDDIMAN, W.F. and McINTYRE, A. 1973. Timetransgressive deglacial retreat of polar waters from the North Atlantic. Quaternary Research, 3, 117-130.

RADLEY, J. and MELLARS, P.A. 1964. A Mesolithic structure at Deepcar, Yorkshire, and the affinities of its associated flint industries. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 30, 1-24.

SACKETT, J.R. 1973. Style, function and artifact variability in Palaeolithic assemblages. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory (ed C. Renfrew). London: Duckworth, 317-325.

RANKINE, W.F. 1949. A Mesolithic Survey of the West Surrey Greensand. Research Papers of the Surrey Archaeological Society, 2.

SAINTY, J.E. 1924. A flaking site on Kelling Heath, Norfolk. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, 4(2), 165-176.

RANKINE, W.F. 1952. A Mesolithic chipping floor at The Warren, Oakhanger, Selbourne, Hants. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 18, 21-35.

SAVILLE, A. 1976. The Mesolithic flint and chert artifacts from Wetton Mill rock shelter. In The Excavation of Wetton Mill Rock Shelter, Manifold Valley, Staffs. SK 096563 (ed J.H. Kelly). City of Stoke-on-Trent Museum Archaeological Society Report, 9, 84-95.

RANKINE, W.F. 1953. Mesolithic research in East Hampshire: the Hampshire Greensand. Hampshire Field Club and Archaeological Society, 18(2), 157-172.

SAVILLE, A. 1977. Two Mesolithic implement types. Northamptonshire Archaeology, 12, 3-8.

RANKINE, W.F. 1961. A Mesolithic flaking floor at Oakhanger, Selbourne, Hants. Epitomised supplement to the abstract of the report published in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1960, Vol XXVI, 246-262. Privately Printed.

SAVILLE, A. 1980. On the measurement of struck flakes and flake tools. Lithics, 1, 16-20. SAVILLE, A. 1981. Mesolithic industries in central England: an exploratory investigation using microlith typology. Archaeological Journal, 138, 49-71.

RANKINE, W.F. and DIMBLEBY, G.W. 1960. Further excavations at a Mesolithic site at Oakhanger, Selbourne, Hants. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 26, 246-262.

144

EARLY MESOLITHIC PERIOD IN BRITAIN SAVILLE, A. 1981b. Honey Hill, Elkington: a Northamptonshire Mesolithic site. Northamptonshire Archaeology, 16, 1-13.

SMITH, C. 1992. The population of Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 58, 37-40.

SCAIFE, R.G. 1987. The late-Devensian and Flandrian vegetation of the Isle of Wight. In Wessex and the Isle of Wight - Field Guide (ed K.E. Barber). Cambridge: Quaternary Research Association, 156-180.

SPIKINS, P. 1996. Rivers, boundaries and change: a hypothesis of changing settlement patterns in the Mesolithic of northern England. In The Early Prehistory of Scotland (eds T. Pollard and A. Morrison). Edinburgh: University Press, 87-107.

SCAIFE, R.G. 1987b. A review of later Quaternary plant microfossil and macrofossil research in southern England; with special reference to environmental archaeological evidence. In Environmental Archaeology: A Regional Review, Volume II (ed H.C.M. Keeley). Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, Occasional Paper, 1, 125-203.

SPSS 1988. Spss-X User's Guide (3rd edition). Chicago: SPSS Incorporated. STAPERT, D. 1979. Zwei fundplätze vom übergang Zwischen Paläolithikum und Mesolithikum in Holland. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, 9(2), 159-166.

SCHADLA-HALL, R.T. 1987. Recent investigations of the Early Mesolithic landscape and settlement in the Vale of Pickering, north Yorkshire. In Mesolithic Northwest Europe: Recent Trends (eds P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil and H.P. Blankholm). Sheffield: Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, 46-54.

STARKEL, L. 1995. Changes of river channels in Europe during the Holocene. In Changing River Channels (eds A. Gurnell and G. Petts). Chichester: John Wiley, 27-42.

SCHADLA-HALL, R.T. 1989. The Vale of Pickering in the early Mesolithic context. In The Mesolithic in Europe: Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium (ed C. Bonsall). Edinburgh: John Donald, 218-224.

STONEHOUSE, W.P.B. 1990. Some Mesolithic sites in the central Pennines: comments on 23 years of field work. Manchester Archaeological Bulletin, 5, 58-64.

STONEHOUSE, W.P.B. 1982. Mesolithic sites on the Pennine watershed. Greater Manchester Archaeological Journal, 3 (1987-1988), 5-17.

STONEHOUSE, W.P.B. 1992. Two Early Mesolithic sites in the central Pennines. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 64, 1-15.

SCHMITT, L. 1995. The west Swedish Hensbacka: a maritime adaptation and a seasonal expression of the northcentral European Ahrensburgian? In Man and Sea in the Mesolithic: Coastal Settlement Above and Below Present Sea level (ed A. Fischer). Oxbow Monograph, 53, 161170. SCHWABEDISSEN, H. 1944. Die mittlere Steinzeit im westlichen Norddeutschlund. Neumünster: Karl Wacholtz.

STREET, M. 1991. Bedburg-Königshoven: a Pre-boreal Mesolithic site in the Lower Rhineland, Germany. In The Late Glacial in North-west Europe: Human Adaptation and Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene (eds N. Barton, A.J. Roberts and D.A. Roe). Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 77, 256-270.

SCHWABEDISSEN, H. 1949. Die Bedeutung der Moorarchäologie für die Urgeschichtsforschung. Offa, 8, 46-74.

SUMMERS, P.G. 1941. A Mesolithic site near Iwerne Minster, Dorset. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 7, 145-146.

SHEPHERD, W. 1972. Flint: Its Origin, Properties and Uses. London: Faber and Faber.

SWITSUR, V.R. and JACOBI, R.M. 1979. A radiocarbon chronology for the Early Postglacial stone industries of England and Wales. In Radiocarbon Dating (eds R. Berger and H.E. Suess). Los Angeles: University of California Press, 41-68.

SHERIDAN, R., SHERIDAN, D. and HASSELL, P. 1967. Rescue excavation of a Mesolithic site at Greenham Dairy Farm, Newbury, 1963. Transactions of the Newbury District Field Club, 11(4), 66-73.

SWITSUR, V.R. and WEST. R.G. 1973. University of Cambridge natural radiocarbon measurements XII. Radiocarbon, 15(3), 534-544.

SMITH, A.G., WHITTLE, A., CLOUTMAN, E.W., and MORGAN, L.A. 1989. Mesolithic and Neolithic activity and environmental impact on the south-east fen-edge in Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 55, 207-249.

TAUBER, H. 1972. Radiocarbon chronology of the Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic. Antiquity, 46, 106-110.

145

MICHAEL JOHN REYNIER TAUTE, W. 1968. Die Stielspitzen-Gruppen im nördlichen Mitteleuropa: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der späten Altsteinzeit. Köln Graz: Böhlau Verlag.

WIESSNER, P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity, 48(2), 253-276.

THEVÉNIN, A. 1990. Du Dryas III au début de l'Atlantique: pour une approche méthodologique des industries et des territoires dans l'Est de la France (2e Partie). Revue Archéologique de l'Est, 42(1), 3-62.

WOODCOCK, A.G. 1972. The Nature of the Horsham Industry and its Place Within the British Mesolithic. Chichester Museum Occasional Papers, 1. WOODMAN, P.C. 1985. Excavations at Mount Sandel 1973-77. Belfast: Northern Ireland Archaeological Research Monograph, 2.

TIPPING, R. 1993. A detailed early postglacial (Flandrian) pollen diagram from Cwm Idwal, North Wales. New Phytologist, 125, 175-191.

WOODMAN, P.C. 1987. Excavations at Cass ny Hawin, a Manx Mesolithic site, and the position of the Manx microlithic industries. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 53, 1-22.

TIXIER, J. 1963. Typologie de L'Epipaléolithique du Magreb. Paris: Arts et Métiers Graphiques. TIXIER, J., INIZAN, M-L., ROCHE, H. and DAUVOIS, M. 1980. Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée I: Terminologie et Technologie. Cercle de Recherches et d' Etudes Préhistoriques.

WOODMAN, P.C. 1989. A review of the Scottish Mesolithic: a plea for normality! Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 119, 1-32.

TRATMAN, E.K. 1977. A further radiocarbon date on the human bone material from Aveline's Hole, Burrington Combe, Mendip. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Speleological Society, 14(3), 261-262.

WYMER, J.J. 1959. Excavations on the Mesolithic site at Thatcham, Berks - 1958. Interim report. Berkshire Archaeological Journal, 57, 1-24. WYMER, J.J. 1962. Excavations at the Maglemosian sites at Thatcham, Berkshire, England. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 28, 329-361.

VAUGHAN, D.E. 1958. The Influence of Geological History and Sample Preparation on Radiocarbon Dating. University of London: unpublished doctoral thesis.

WYMER, J.J. 1963. Excavations at Thatcham: Final report. Transactions of the Newbury District Field Club, 11(2), 41-52.

VERHART, L.B.M. 1995. Fishing for the Mesolithic. The North Sea: a submerged Mesolithic landscape. In Man and Sea in the Mesolithic: Coastal Settlement Above and Below Present Sea level (ed A. Fischer). Oxford: Oxbow Monograph, 53, 291-302.

WYMER, J.J. 1977. Gazetteer of Mesolithic Sites in England and Wales. Council for British Archaeology Research Report, 22.

VERHART, L.B.M. 1996. An Early Mesolithic hunting camp at Posterholt, Municipality of Ambt Montfort (The Netherlands). Mesolithic Miscellany, 16(2), 20-29.

WYMER, J.J. and ROBINS. P.A. 1995. A Mesolithic site at Great Melton. Norfolk Archaeology, 42(2), 125-147.

WAINWRIGHT, G.J. 1960. Three microlithic industries from south-west England and their affinities. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 26, 193-201. WALLER, M.P. 1993. Flandrian vegetational history of south-eastern England. Pollen data from Pannel Bridge, East Sussex. New Phytologist, 124, 345-369. WATERBOLK, H.T. 1971. Working with radiocarbon dates. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 37, 15-33. WHEELER, A. 1978. Why were there no fish remains at Star Carr? Journal of Archaeological Science, 5, 85-89. WIESSNER, P. 1974. A functional estimator of population from floor area. American Antiquity, 39(2), 343-349.

146