Mesolithic Miscellany

March 2008 Volume 19: Number 1

Editorial

The future of Mesolithic Miscellany??

I thought it would be of interest to the Mesolithic research community to mention that Mesolithic Miscellany
has been reviewed recently in a couple of publications. Firstly, Caroline Wickham-Jones in her “on the web”
reviews in British Archaeology (available on line http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba.html) described MM as:

“specialised but quality, up-to-date, serious and informal communications, with invaluable back numbers. A
model for others?”

A more detailed critique of MM has been published by Graeme Warren (University College Dublin) in issue
22 of Internet Archaeology, (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue22/) an edition dedicated to the Mesolithic
including articles arising from the “Gathering our thoughts” Mesolithic Postgraduate Research Forum, as
featured in MM 18.1. For those of you who have not seen this, or who do not have access to Internet
Archaeology, I will pick out some of the key points Graeme makes, in order to stimulate further discussion.

Graeme writes: “Like encountering any friend you haven't seen for a decade, especially one from the 1980s,
it is interesting to work out what has changed and what hasn't. And it's intriguing to try and imagine how this
old friend is going to fit into your new life - especially with their two planned visits to your inbox a year...This
is especially true for MM as it re-emerges into a very different academic landscape than it had occupied even
in 1996, when it entered hibernation”

As he explains, the early editions of MM tended to contain very short contributions, often one page,
including field results, reviews of research and recent publications. One of the significant differences is that
the articles have become much longer and referenced in full: a recent paper “is 3,500 words of discussion
and four pages (!) of references”. However, some things have barely changed. The look of MM is much the
same, although now it is published on-line, colour photographs can be used.

When I took over as editor of MM, I made the decision to keep the format much as it always had been, and
when I wrote my first editorial I asked for “virtually any information of relevance to the European Mesolithic
is welcome within the page of the newsletter" (MM 1.1, p1). But, as Graeme points out, in Mesolithic studies
“much has changed, and many of the bright young things who drove the development of MM and the MEIC
are now the senior figures in the discipline; some have retired.” (MEIC = Mesolithic in Europe International
MM 19:1

Conferences). He also states, “the quantity of Mesolithic research in Europe is overwhelming and it is
impossible to keep on top of the subject in the way it might have been possible to 20 years ago.”

Graeme suggests that at some stage we must face up to the hard truth:
“any information of relevance to the European Mesolithic is setting itself a tricky task. Once we assume that
we cannot read everything about Europe, wherever it stops, difficult questions about the 'Mesolithic in
Europe' as a research community are raised. MM, it seems to me, needs to address these questions if it is to
re-think its role in assisting that community.”

The problem seems to be, in Graeme’s eyes, that the research community gave nothing by way of direction
for the new MM, and, arguably, there is now a mismatch between the form of the newsletter and the current
research and academic context. Some of the ways in which he thinks MM could gain a new lease of life
involve asking questions about what the European Mesolithic community is prepared to contribute, and ways
in which this can be sustained. His key suggestions are:
• MM should move towards shorter articles and a true newsletter style: the newsletter should be populated
by shorter reviews of key issues in regions/nations/specialist fields, and these should not be referenced to
facilitate production, opinion and speed of production. MM might consider a 'podium' as used in many news-
based publications.
• Greater use of web publication could be made. Certainly a discussion board/mailing list should be
considered.
• Book reviews (critical to promoting debate), conference reviews and museum reviews will remain vital
and fieldwork updates are an important aspect of the newsletter, but these should be short, not full interims,
and they should make links to resources elsewhere.

He concludes by saying that: “I hope the comments made in this review are seen as a contribution towards
rethinking the role MM plays in fostering this research community…. MM can play a central role in the
Mesolithic research community of the 21st century, but it may have to re-imagine itself first.”

As the editor I am very pleased that such issues have been raised and would like to thank Graeme for starting
up this discussion! To date, I have not tried to set an agenda or develop a certain format, and do accept that
MM could be taken forward in different ways. I am currently reviewing the web resources and how to
develop them. However, the content of MM is largely contingent on members of the Mesolithic research
community providing material for publication and I am very keen on more responses and thoughts to the
suggestions put forward by Graeme, perhaps for publication in the next issue. Please do write in!

This volume

In this volume there are three main papers. The first by Søren Andersen reports on his recent excavations at
the shell midden at Havnø, Denmark, including some rather intriguing finds; the second by Alexandru Dinu,
Adina Boroneant, Adrian Balasescu, Andrei Soficaru and Doru Miritoiu considers the scientific evidence for
pig domestication in the Iron Gates region; and the third by Liv Nilsson Stutz, Lars Larsson and Ilga
Zagorska describes their exciting new findings at Zvejnieki. Graeme Warren has also provided a note on a
new project he is running, which seeks to provide a point in time review of the adoption of agriculture and to
identify key research problems for the future. Interested parties are encouraged to contact him about the
project and associated seminar, to be held in Dublin in May.

New publications have always been an important element of MM and so in this volume I have expanded this
section. Some authors have alerted me to their publications, but I have also trawled the journals for some
other recent papers. The list I provide is by no means exhaustive and I would welcome further information.
A number of books on Mesolithic topics have also been published recently (and more to come later in the
year- see the next volume!). These provide a vast wealth of new data and perspectives, including the
identification of areas of Mesolithic human defecation, the analysis of Mesolithic human and animal
footprints, the excavation and reconstruction of Mesolithic structures, the study of 23,000 km² of submerged
landscape in the North Sea, and much, much more!
Nicky Milner

ISSN 0259-3548 2
MM 19:1

A report on recent excavations at the shell midden of Havnø in Denmark

Søren H. Andersen
Moesgård Museum, 8270 Højbjerg, Denmark, e-mail: farksha@hum.au.dk

The Danish shell middens, “Køkkenmøddinger”, from the Stone Age are world famous. A special group, the
so called “stratified middens”, i.e. middens with layers from the Late Mesolithic Ertebølle culture (at the
bottom) and the Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker culture (at the top) are of special importance because they
contain occupation layers covering the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: an event which has
been 14C dated in these middens to 3950 cal BC. Therefore this type of Køkkenmødding offers the best and
most reliable information on the introduction of the oldest farmers in Southern Scandinavia. Not only do they
offer excellent opportunities for 14C dating based on different materials, e.g. shell, bone and charcoal, but
they also have a very fine stratigraphic resolution within the settlement deposits. On such sites it is possible
to analyze the environment, both land and marine, through time and literally measure observed changes.

During the last 25 years a series of systematic excavations of such shell middens have taken place in Jutland,
e.g. Norsminde, Bjørnsholm, Visborg and Krabbesholm, and a series of preliminary surveys have already
been published (Andersen 1991, 1993, 2005; Enghoff 1991, 1993). All these investigations have been
organised as interdisciplinary research teams of archaeologists and natural scientists from Denmark and
Britain, following a more than 150 year old tradition in Danish shell midden research (Andersen 2007).

One of the sites chosen for this type of research is the Havnø shell midden in Eastern Jutland, where
excavations have taken place over the last four years and the plan is to continue for another two to three
years. With regards to the Havnø investigation the team has consisted of archaeologists, a botanist, a
geologist, two zoologists, specialists in charcoal analysis and marine molluscs and a marine biologist.

In 1894 a small excavation was first conducted at Havnø, but since then this midden has not been the subject
of further investigation. In the recent excavations, a long trench has been placed through the midden to
obtain a clear insight into the stratigraphy, combined with larger squares in and to the rear of the midden
proper to look for settlement structures such as house constructions.

In the Stone Age, Havnø was a very small island (“Havnø”actually means the island with a port), only c.
800-900 m long, c. 200-300 m wide which was situated far out and isolated in the mouth of the Mariager
Fiord (figure 1). In this period the island was surrounded by extensive areas of shallow sea and tidal flats to
the north, east and west, while to the south it bordered the fjord with its deeper waters and the opening out to
the salty and nutritious Littorina Sea.

Figure 1: A map of
the Mariager fiord in
East Jutland with the
location of Havnø as
well as other shell
middens, such as
Visborg, marked with
red dots. The green
area represents the
dry land in the Stone
Age, light (and dark)
blue represents the
Littorina (Atlantic)
Sea, and dark blue
represents the
modern sea. Due to a
rise of land of c. 4-
5m since the Stone
Age, extensive areas
of prehistoric sea are
dry land today.

ISSN 0259-3548 3
MM 19:1

The nearest mainland was c. 2 km to the northwest, where the large Visborg shell midden is located.
Botanical investigations show that in the Stone Age the island was covered by primeval forest dominated by
oak and elm with some hazel and birch. The Havnø island must have been a very favourable location for
hunting, fishing and gathering in the Stone Age as not less than 10-15 different coastal settlements (mainly
shell middens) have been recorded, out of which the Havnø midden is by far the largest and has the thickest
shell deposits.

The Havnø køkkenmødding itself is located at, and follows, the prehistoric coastline bordering the deep fiord
which would have been the most favourable position for marine hunting and fishing as well as fowling and
shellfish gathering. The midden is an oblong shape, just like all other Danish køkkenmøddinger, measuring c.
100 m in length, 25-27 m in width and with a shell horizon of c. 70-90 cm deep. Other investigations as well
as 14C dates demonstrate that this characteristic shape is a combination of both a gradual horizontal and
vertical accumulation and movement along the sea shore through time.

In the location of the new section, the midden was built up by a series of 10-15 smaller, individual shell
deposits, each measuring c. 3-4 m in diameter and c. 10-20 cm thick. It is impossible to tell how many of
such small shell heaps the whole midden consists of but there is no doubt that it amounts into the hundreds.
14C dates, as well as the archaeological remains, demonstrate that the Havnø midden has been visited in the
period 5000-3700 cal BC, i.e. the middle and younger Ertebølle and oldest Funnelbeaker culture. It is
impossible to tell if the site was been in continuous use during this 1300 year long period; however, the
stratigraphy does not demonstrate any breaks in the occupation. It is essential to stress that such coastal shell
middens demonstrate a surprisingly long topographical continuity and local stability of occupation on the
same spot, in this case over 1300 years but at other sites up to 1500 years, e.g. the site of Ertebølle (locus
classicus).

The subsoil is Late Glacial sandy clay, and the shell horizon covers the old land surface (vegetation horizon).
In such cases the middens offer important possibilities for palynological investigations of prehistoric sealed
surfaces and such an investigation is one of our future tasks. The cultural horizon(-s) is made up by shells of
oyster, cockle, mussel and periwinkle mixed with settlement debris (flint debris, bone, charcoal and cooking
stones (pot-boilers)) as well as food remains, i.e. bones of fish, sea birds and seal, as well as game from the
forests (figure 2). There are also artefacts and tools of flint, bone and antler, as well as sherds of typical
Ertebølle and Funnelbeaker vessels. In the midden layers we find settlement structures like hearths of two
types (accumulations of ash and a layer of stones), pits and stake holes. The hearths are clearly settlement
loci because we find high concentrations of cultural debris reflecting production and repair of tools and
equipment as well as remains of food production and consumption. As usual in the Danish middens we also
find scattered human bones at Havnø. These are probably from graves, but to date no in-situ burials have
been recorded. So far there are no traces of well defined house structures in the midden proper, but in the
coming years we are going to excavate larger areas to the rear of the midden, where we expect to find such
structures.

Figure 2 (left): A section through the shell layer. Figure 3 (right): The surface of the bottom horizon in the Ertebølle
midden, characterised by a uniform layer of (exclusively) large oysters.

ISSN 0259-3548 4
MM 19:1

Figure 4 (left): During last summers excavation at Havnø a collection of c 40 ‘pearls’ of two completely new types was
found in the Ertebølle layer. They are of circular or oblong shape and made of mother-of-pearl - most probably of flat
oyster shells. The pearls are polished on the surface and all have a groove along the edge. Figure 5 (right): A
concentration of cooking stones and cattle bones in the Earliest Neolithic horizon.

The Havnø midden is principally made up of two shell horizons: a lower one from the Late Mesolithic and
an upper one from the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and the Early Neolithic. The change from the Late
Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic is easy to observe in the sequence: the Late Mesolithic shell layers are
white-gray and dominated by large, whole molluscs (mainly oysters) and snails; in the Early Neolithic layers
the oyster is less dominant, the shell matrix is more crushed and the layers are blacker because of a higher
content of charcoal and many more cooking stones. The younger horizon is also very rich in faunal remains
and in fact the Havnø material is today one of the largest, if not the largest, collections of Early Neolithic
faunal material in Denmark.

As the marine environment was of utmost economic importance for the Ertebølle population it is also
obvious that investigations into the remains of the marine environment have been of special relevance and
importance in this investigation. The oysters have especially been the focus of intense investigation, not so
much because of their food value, but because this species is sensitive towards temperature and salinity and
therefore is excellent as a “signal” of marine environmental change, e.g. alterations in temperature, salinity,
the tide and the content of mineral sediments in the sea water. The oyster is the dominant marine mollusc
throughout the whole midden sequence, but we can observe characteristic, relative changes among the
species as well as in their size through time. In the very bottom the shell layer is characterized by a
continuous layer exclusively of very large oysters, which form a characteristic horizon throughout the whole
midden (figure 3). Higher up in the shell matrix there is a mixture of oyster, cockle, mussel and periwinkle.
In the early Neolithic midden the number of cockles increase, but it is still the oyster, which dominates. One
can observe that the size of the oysters gradually decrease through time so that in the uppermost layers the
oysters are just half or two-thirds the size as in the deepest layers; at the same time there seems to be an
increase in the number of deformed oysters in the Early Neolithic than earlier. An explanation could either
be environmental changes or that the population has been over-exploiting the mollusc bank through time.
Analysis in the University of York on oyster shells from the Ertebølle layer show that they have been
collected in the early spring, i. e. March and April (Milner 2002). Unfortunately we have not yet had the
possibility to analyse the shells from the Early Neolithic. A preliminary conclusion is that environmental
change(-s) in the marine biotope took place contemporary with the introduction of a farming economy, but it
is still impossible to tell if this factor was of any importance for this event.

The stratigraphy indicates that the shift from the Ertebølle (Late Mesolithic) to the Funnel beaker (Early
Neolithic) was fast on this site and took place within a very short time span around c. 3950 cal. BC. In the
Ertebølle layers we find the usual range of artefacts, i. e. flake- and core axes of flint, tools on blades, and
transverse arrowheads. Added to this are antler axes, fish hooks of bone, simple bone points and pointed
bottomed vessels without ornamentation. In addition, during last summers excavation a collection of c. 40
“pearls” of two completely new types was found in the Ertebølle layer. They are of circular or oblong shape
and made of mother-of-pearl, most probably from the flat oyster shells (figure 4). The pearls are polished on

ISSN 0259-3548 5
MM 19:1

the surface and all have a groove along the edge. In the Early Neolithic horizon we find larger and finely
polished flint axes and completely new forms of pottery (Funnel beakers) with new types of ornamentation.

The economic basis of the population is well documented by the many animal bones, which demonstrate that
hunting, fishing and shell gathering was of primary importance during both the Mesolithic and the Neolithic.
Molluscs and the animal bones tell us that the site was visited at different seasons: in March-April (oyster),
late summer (eel), while the birds indicate both summer and winter. It is impossible to tell if the shell midden
was occupied throughout the whole year, but considered from a landscape perspective it is more reasonable
to interprete that the Havnø køkkenmødding was a location which was visited at different seasons with the
purpose of exploiting the excellent possibilities for fishing, sealing and bird hunting in the extensive reed
marshes. Not only the fish hooks but also many bones of eel and flatfish tell us about fishing, and bones of
sea birds such as swans, ducks, geese and cormorant are numerous and testify of fowling. In the fiord and
along the beaches grey seals were captured. Mammals such as wild boar, red deer, roe deer, elk and aurochs
have been found. In the Late Mesolithic the only domesticated animal is the dog, whilst we also find bones
of cattle, pig and sheep/goat in the Early Neolithic horizons (figure 5).

It is essential to underline that in the Early Neolithic the economy was still based on hunting, fishing and
gathering the same animals as in the Late Mesolithic, but it was also supplemented by a small number of
domesticated animals, mainly cattle. However, the number of domesticated animals is low and it is obvious
that the basic economy was still fishing, hunting and gathering. Therefore, the population in this period could
best be described as “fisher-farmers”. Even in 1894 the zoologists pointed out that with regards to the
economy, the Havnø site had certain traits different from the site of Ertebølle, mainly a smaller number of
large mammals and furred animals, while the number of sea birds was much larger; an observation which has
been further supported by the new excavations and analysis.

However, considering the small size of the island it is most improbable that the larger animals had been
captured on the island. More probably the bones of these animals are the remains of provisions brought onto
the island from settlements further into the long fiord, at least in the Ertebølle period. In regards to the
domesticated animals from the Early Neolithic it is more difficult to determine if these could have been
traces of small farming households on the island or if such food had also been transported to Havnø in this
period.

In conclusion, this site demonstrates the long coastal occupation on the same favourable positions in the Late
Mesolithic-Early Neolithic. The explanation for the continued habitation at Havnø is to be found in resource
stability, mainly in the marine biotope. The transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic took place c. 3950
cal. BC and there was a fast change within the material culture: however, the economy gradually changed
and was a long lasting process. During several centuries of the Early Neolithic the hunting, gathering and
fishing economy continued and was based on the Mesolithic way of life, with the addition of a few new
elements of domesticated animals.

Bibliography
• Andersen, S. H. 1991. Norsminde. A “Køkkenmødding” with Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Occupation.
Journal of Danish Archaeology vol. 8, 1989, 13 – 40.
• Andersen, S. H. 1993. Bjørnsholm. A Stratified Køkkenmødding on the Central Limfjord, North Jutland. With a
contribution by Kaare Lund Rasmussen. Journal of Danish Archaeology vol. 10. 1991, 59 – 96.
• Andersen, S. H., 2005. Køkkenmøddingerne ved Krabbesholm. Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 2005, 151 – 171.
København. (English summary: New research on kitchen middens).
• Andersen, S. H. 2007. Shell middens (“Køkkenmøddinger”) in Danish Prehistory as a reflection of the marin
environment. In N. Milner, O. Craig and G. Bailey (eds.) Shell middens in Atlantic Europe, Oxford: Oxbow, 31-45.
• Bratlund, B. 1993. The Bone Remains of Mammals and Birds from the Bjørnsholm Shell-Mound. A Preliminary
Report. Journal of Danish Archaeology vol. 10, 1991, 97 – 104.
• Enghoff, I. B. 1991. Fishing from the Stone Age Settlement Norsminde. Journal of Danish Archaeology vol. 8, 1989,
41 – 50.
• Enghoff, I. B. 1993. Mesolithic Eel-Fishing at Bjørnsholm, Denmark, Spiced with Exotic Species. Journal of Danish
Archaeology vol. 10, 1991, 105 – 118.
• Milner, N. 2002. Incremental growth of the European Oyster, Ostrea edulis: seasonality information from Danish
kitchenmiddens. Oxford: Archaepress, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1057.

ISSN 0259-3548 6
MM 19:1

Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans: Astragali vs. Teeth as
Markers of Domestication

Alexandru Dinu1, Adina Boroneant2, Adrian Balasescu3, Andrei Soficaru4, Doru Miritoiu4

1. UW Madison (adinu@wisc,edu); 2. Institute of Archaeology “V. Parvan”, Bucharest (boro30gmail.com); 3. Museum

of National History, Bucharest, (abalasescu2005@yahoo.fr); 4. The Centre of Anthropological Research “Fr. Rainer”,
Bucharest, (asoficaru@yahoo.com)

Introduction

This study compares the metric data of pig remains from Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in southeast Europe,
in order to determine if domestic traits are equally identifiable in both cranial and postcranial elements.

The Danube Gorges, along the border between Romania and Serbia, is an area rich in archaeological sites.
Some of the caves on the northern shore, like Veterani, were investigated archaeologically before 1900 and
open sites like the ones located on the islands of Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul Mare, and Ostrovul Corbului,
were partly excavated in the 1920’s and 1930’s (Paunescu 2000). During the early 1960’s, Romania and
former Yugoslavia built a hydroelectric dam across the Danube and a large-scale archaeological project was
initiated, leading to the discovery of a great number of sites on both shores of the river such as Lepenski Vir
in Serbia, and Schela Cladovei in Romania.

The faunal analysis at one of the Mesolithic Romanian sites, Icoana (Bolomey 1973), suggested that the
hunter gatherer population may have exercised at least some degree of control over pigs. Most regrettably,
some academics have subsequently misinterpreted these conclusions and although Bolomey never used the
term “domestication”, the suid remains at Icoana were subsequently associated with the idea of possible
domestication.

It is usually accepted among zooarchaeologists that the most visible and reliable of the changes associated
with animal domestication occur in the cranium. However, the interpretation of change in body size tends to
remains problematic. As suggested by some studies, the variability of animal size may have been triggered
by natural causes (Rowley-Conwy 1995). It has also been pointed out that metrics may not always offer
strong evidence for diminishing size, and that an observed pattern such as this may be due to a larger number
of females in the herd (Zeder 2006). Confusion may especially occur if the archaeological circumstances
related to the interpretation of the recovered material and stratigraphic uncertainties present difficulties (Dinu
2007).

According to previous research, there is a significant degree of size variability among the wild pig population
along the Danube Valley in southern Romania (El Susi 1996). Could it be that the size of the Iron Gates
prehistoric pigs were smaller, therefore producing a false image of economic developments? A comparative
metric analysis of the Mesolithic Iron Gates, Neolithic and modern pigs from Romania has been studied in
detail (Dinu et al. 2006); this paper will expand the comparative data incorporating information from the
Mesolithic Iron Gates site of Vlasac, situated on the southern shore of the Danube (Bokonyi 1978), the
Neolithic sites of Cascioarele, Bordusani and Harsova, chosen because they are situated on the lower end of
the Lower Danube Valley of southern Romania, opposite to the Iron Gates, the Neolithic site of Sitagroi,
northeastern Greece (Bokonyi 1986), and the Neolithic site of Divostin, Serbia (Bokonyi 1988) (figure 1).

Teeth metrics

In this study a comparative sample has been analysed, for which the provenience was known: pig skulls from
Antipa Museum, the Department of Comparative Anatomy of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, and
Museum of National History in Bucharest were listed as “wild” or “domestic” in the institutions’ records; the
specimens from Dubova were wild pigs that had been poached and recovered from the locals. The
archaeological specimens from Vlasac, Sitagroi, and Divostin have previously been identified as wild and
domestic (Bokonyi 1978, 1986, 1988). As a result, the status of the rest of the material could be determined
by comparison.
ISSN 0259-3548 7
MM 19:1

Figure 1. Sites presented in this paper.

Sitagroi: red dot on the map of Europe; the
Iron Gates region sites; Bucharest material:
Institute of Archaeology “V. Parvan”;
Museum of Natural Sciences “Emil
Racovita”; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine –
Laboratory of Comparative Anatomy;
Museum of National History.

In figure 2 a comparison is made of the

maximum length of the lower 3rd molar
for the Neolithic sites of Cascioarele,
Divostin, Bordusani, and Sitagroi, and
the modern domestic and modern wild
samples from Antipa and Dubova. The
larger pigs from Cascioarele cluster
together with the modern wild samples,
while the smaller values from the same
site cluster with the smaller Neolithic
domestic pigs.

Recent DNA analysis of the pig remains from Cascioarele has proved to be of importance in this analysis
(Larson et al. 2007): the three large values from Cascioarele were genetically identified as wild European, as
opposed to the rest of the batch that produced results associated with Neolithic Starcevo and Asia Minor
domestic pigs.

Interestingly, although there is a clear clustering of the Neolithic values demonstrating a break between the
modern wild specimens and the Neolithic and modern domestic pig tooth sizes, it is also noticeable that the
values from Sitagroi domestic Neolithic pigs slightly overlap with the modern wild values from Antipa
Museum; possibly, the high values from Sitagroi represent either large males or very large older females.

In order to verify the consistency in the size of wild specimens, values from the Iron Gates, Sitagroi, and
Divostin pigs have been plotted together. The results shown in figure 3 present a grouping in the same range
for all the samples. Bokonyi (1978, 46) mentions that the largest lower 3rd molar from the Mesolithic site of
Vlasac is one of the largest ever measured and the largest tooth from the Antipa modern wild collection
appears to be comparable.

Figure 2 (left): Sus lower 3rd molar maximum length; modern domestic, Neolithic domestic, and modern wild. Figure 3
(right): Sus lower 3rd molar maximum length; modern wild, Mesolithic, and Neolithic wild.

ISSN 0259-3548 8
MM 19:1

Figure 4 (left): Sus lower 3rd molar maximum length, Mesolithic Iron Gates, modern domestic, and Neolithic; Figure 5
(right): Sus astragali maximum length.

The Mesolithic samples have also been plotted against the modern domestic, Neolithic wild and domestic
samples (figure 4). All the Mesolithic Iron Gates values clearly group in the same range as the Neolithic
Sitagroi wild and the three Cascioarele samples genetically identified as “wild European”.

Astragali metrics

According to Bolomey (1973) there were 32 measurable Sus astragali at Cascioarele. However, we could
find only 2: the rest of the collection could not be located. Due to the geological conditions the state of
preservation at this site was excellent and consequently both pieces are measurable. At Icoana 37 Sus
astragali were reported measurable (Bolomey 1973). Within the faunal collection located at the Institute of
Archaeology “V. Parvan” in Bucharest, 109 pieces were found, of which 47 were measurable. We have
plotted the maximum length of Sus astragali from the Mesolithic Iron Gates sites of Icoana and Vlasac
against the Neolithic sites of Cascioarele, Divostin, and Sitagroi (figure 5). There is a clear grouping of
samples from the Sitagroi and Divostin wild populations and Cascioarele and Vlasac (although for the latter
site the lowest values are very close to the domestic range from Sitagroi). However, the sample from the
Mesolithic site of Icoana is highly problematic because its range extends from the lowest Neolithic domestic
pig values to almost the upper range of wild pigs. Could this suggest that at least part of the Mesolithic pig
sample from Icoana represents domestic pigs? In order to find an answer to this question, we plotted Sus
astragali from Icoana by the excavation depth ascribed to them. Surprisingly, small and large bones appear to
have been present throughout the occupation of the site (figure 6).

Figure 6 (left): Size of Sus astragali from Icoana by depth; Figure 7 (right): Cervus astragalus size by depth at Icoana
and Ostrovul Corbului

ISSN 0259-3548 9
MM 19:1

If the smaller astragali are to be associated with domestic pigs, such admixture would suggest that the
Mesolithic people inhabiting the Iron Gates already owned domestic pigs or at least exercised control over
pigs as early as 8820-8540 BC (AA65564, one sigma, 67.2%; excavation level -1.40m) when they apparently
settled at Icoana. However, if another species, Cervus elaphus (red deer) is considered as a control, a similar
spread in size by depth is seen in the astragali at both Icoana and Ostrovul Corbului (figure 7).

Comparing the two species, it is obvious that in both cases small and large bones appear at all depths and it
may be safe to infer that such a picture is more consistent with the sex and the age of the hunted animals
rather than any possible connection to human management. Some of these depths are dated very early, and
arguably too early for defining a human–animal relationship other than hunting (Dinu 2007). Nevertheless, it
is extremely difficult to explain why the pig astragali at the Mesolithic sites of Vlasac and Icoana do not
show size ranges which are similar to each other. It is difficult to accept that at Icoana pigs of all sizes and
ages were hunted, while at Vlasac only large pigs were killed. It may be that the size variation observed by
El Susi (1996) may also be true in this case. Regrettably, the absence of ancient comparative material makes
it impossible to conduct further investigation in this area.

Bolomey (1973, 47) has also suggested the possibility of smaller animals occurring in the Mesolithic in the
Iron Gates region, particularly Sus and Cervus elaphus. If this was true only for this area, it would mean that
throughout time an observable increase in the size of teeth and bones would have occurred. However, the
data shown for pigs and deer (figures 6 and 7) is consistent with the idea that over time there is no detectable
size variability in these two species, with bones of all sizes occurring at all depths. In order to verify this
alternative we have further compared the maximum length of Sus lower 3rd molar samples from different
layers of excavation. Although the sample size is not very large, the result is significant (figure 8). It is
shown that the various sizes are mixed at all levels suggesting that a regular pattern of variation in the lower
3rd molar length over time cannot be demonstrated.

Discussion and conclusion

It may be that in the case of certain species, and probably in relation to environmental circumstances, the
hunter’s preferences played a significant role in the formation of the zooarchaeological record. Although
generally the adult wild pig is an extremely determined and skilled fighter regardless of the sex of the animal,
the meat of a younger female wild pig tends to be of better quality than that of the male and therefore
constitutes a better food prize; there is also the possibility of capturing a large number of piglets. On the
other hand, the tusks of the male wild boar were probably highly valued as a raw material for manufacturing
tools, or perhaps as a hunting prize. It could be that the age and the sex of the Sus astragali from Icoana
strongly influence the statistics. In fact, it appears that the age of the killed animals coincide with the most
difficult period of the year for hunter gatherers in a continental temperate climate: the late winter and early-
mid spring and the statistical representation of the pig age from Icoana (Dinu 2006) strongly suggests an
intensive killing at this time of the year.

Figure 8 (left): Icoana Sus lower m3 maximum length by depth; Figure 9 (right): Maximum length and breadth of lower
3rd molar from: Antipa (l:38.62; b: 20.66), Cascioarele (l: 39.78; b: 21.07), Icoana (l: 39.70; b: 18.90), Insuratei (l:
37.23; b: 20.13), Ostrovul Banului (l: 39.17; b: 22.92).

ISSN 0259-3548 10
MM 19:1

On the other hand, most of the domestic pigs in Romania are also killed at the same time of the year, but at
an age that makes it impossible to take measurements of the 3rd molar. Therefore, the available comparative
data for modern domestic pigs is limited. Even so, it appears that there is a consistency in the clusters of the
values shown in the graphs above: the modern domestic and the Neolithic pig lower 3rd molar measurements
do fall within the same range, and the Mesolithic Iron Gates, the modern wild, and the Neolithic wild pig
values fall in a separate range.

There are two other important aspects with the data presented in this study that need to be emphasised. First
there is the question of whether there is domestic pig in a Mesolithic assemblage: the small size of one lower
3rd molar from the Mesolithic site of Icoana has been used to suggest that it belongs to the domestic range
(Bolomey 1973), an idea also suggested by Bokonyi (1978). Most regrettably, Bolomey never published the
measurements she took at any of the Iron Gates sites, therefore we do not know if she was referring to the
same tooth that we measured (as presented in figure 4). In order to analyse this further, we have also
compared the available length and breadth measurements of this lower 3rd molar, to teeth of similar size from
the village of Insuratei (modern domestic, collected by the authors), Antipa, Cascioarele, Ostrovul Banului;
only a total of five teeth could be found to be within this size range. As seen in figure 9, the tooth from
Icoana is a rather odd shape: it is longer than most of the others, but the narrowest by at least 1.23mm. The
uncertainty of the tooth identification excludes a definitive statement regarding its status: however, a
comparative analysis suggests that the smallest tooth in the Icoana faunal collection can only be associated
with wild pigs (figure 4). More intriguing is the statement from the original study that at Icoana a canid
mandible was found with a second premolar in an oblique position (Bokonyi 1978: 46). We could not find
anything like this in the collection at the Institute of Archaeology “V. Parvan” in Bucharest. Instead, we
found a Sus mandible fragment matching the above description (figure 10), and it is our assumption that
perhaps there was a miscommunication. Interestingly, Bolomey (1973) never mentioned this particular Sus
mandibula fragment but Bokonyi (1978, 46) generally considers malformations as the one presented here, as
evidence for incipient domestication. Because another such example could not be found in order to prove a
pattern, we can only label this sample as a genetic accident.

In summary, this study suggests that where the metrics of a postcranial element, the astragalus, is considered
alone it may have produced confusing conclusions with regard to the process of animal domestication.
Clearly, the tooth size of the Mesolithic Icoana pigs puts them in the same group as the rest of the Iron Gates
ancient and modern wild pigs. On the other hand, there is a clear differentiation between the tooth size of the
Mesolithic Iron Gates pigs and Neolithic ones; the latter are consistently smaller. It is also more likely that at
the Iron Gates sites no size variation occurred over time in teeth and astragali; at Icoana the same values are
found at all levels of excavation.

This study therefore concludes that the changes in the post-cranial skeleton are less reliable in offering clues
about the process of domestication, and that they should not be considered alone when analysing data
concerning this process.

Figure 10.
Transversal
lower 2nd and
3rd molars
from Icoana.

ISSN 0259-3548 11
MM 19:1

Bibliography
• Bokonyi, S. 1978. The Vertebrate Fauna of Vlasac. In M. Garasanin (ed.) Vlasac: A Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron
Gates. Beograd: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 35-65.
• Bokonyi, S. 1986. Faunal Remains. In E. S. Elster (ed.) Excavations at Sitagroi. Monumenta Archaeologica, vol. 13.
Los Angeles: The Institute of Archaeology, 63-100.
• Bokonyi, S 1988. The Neolithic Fauna of Divostin. In A. McPherron and S. Dragoslav (eds.) Divostin and the
Neolithic of Central Serbia. Pittsburgh: Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh. 419-446.
• Bolomey, A. 1973. An Outline of the Late Epipaleolithic Economy at the Iron Gates: The Evidence of Bones. Dacia
17, 41-52.
• Dinu, A. 2006. The Question of Pig Domestication at Mesolithic Iron Gates. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Wisconsin in Madison, Deptartment of Anthropology.
• Dinu, A. 2007. Mesolithic at the Danube's Iron Gates: New Radiocarbon Dates and Old Stratigraphies. Documenta
Praehistorica 34, 31-52.
• Dinu, A., D. Meiggs, A. Balasescu, A. Boroneant, D. A. Soficaru, and N. Miritoiu. 2006. On Men and Pigs: were
Pigs Domesticated at Mesolithic Iron Gates of the Danube? Part One: Teeth Metrics. Studii de Preistorie 3/2005-
2006, 77-98.
• El Susi, G. 1996. Vinatori, Pescari si Crescatori de Animale in Banatul Mileniilor VI I.Ch - I D.Ch. Timisoara:
Editura Mirton.
• Larson, G., K. Dobney, P. Rowley-Conwy, J. Schibler, A. Tresset, J.-D. Vigne, C. J. Edwards, A. Schlumbaum, A.
Dinu, A. Balasescu, G. Dolman, D. G. Bradley, A. Cooper, and U. Abarella. 2007. Pigs, Ancient DNA and the
Origins of Neolithic Farming in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 15276-15281
• Paunescu, A. 2000. Paleoliticul si Mezoliticul din Spatiul Cuprins Intre Carpati si Dunare. Bucuresti: Editura AGIR.
• Rowley-Conwy, P. 1995. Making First Farmers Younger: The West European Evidence. Current Anthropology 36,
46-353.
• Zeder, A. M. 2006. Archaeological Approaches to Documenting Animal Domestication. In A. M. Zeder, G. D.
Bradley, E. Emshwiller, and D. B. Smith (eds.) Documenting Domestication. New Genetic and Archaeological
Paradigms. Berkeley: University of California Press, 171-180.

More Burials at Zvejnieki. Preliminary results from the 2007 excavation

Liv Nilsson Stutz*, Lars Larsson* and Ilga Zagorska**

* Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University,

** Institute of Latvian History at the University of Latvia, Riga

Zvejnieki is a large Stone Age cemetery and occupation site complex located on the North Eastern side of
Lake Burtnieki in Northern Latvia (figure 1). The whole area around the lake is remarkably rich in
archaeological finds and sites, and has played a central role in the development of Latvian prehistoric
archaeology (Zagorska 2006). The most influential research project in the area was the excavations at
Zvejnieki in the 1960s and early 1970s, directed by the late Francis Zagorskis which revealed the presence of
extensive settlement layers and over 300 burials, of which the great majority have been dated to the
Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (Zagorskis 1987, 2004). During the 1990s, Ilga Zagorska at the Institute of
Latvian History at the University of Latvia, Riga, and Lars Larsson at the Department of Archaeology and
Ancient History, Lund University, initiated a research collaboration that eventually came to incorporate a
number of researchers from a wide range of fields, and who contributed with their respective analyses to the
understanding of the site (Larsson and Zagorska 2006). As part of this renewed research effort, a new field
project, including both excavation and survey, began in 2005. Geological and palaeoecological surveys were
conducted in order to reconstruct the environmental history of the site (for a more detailed description, please
see Eberhards 2006, Kalnina 2006, and for an introduction to the most recent results, please see Larsson
2007). The focus of the new archaeological excavations was to better understand the relationship between
the settlements and the cemetery which still remain somewhat unclear (Larsson 2007). In 2005 and 2006,
several previously unexcavated areas on the Zvejnieki site were investigated in order to identify occupation
layers and determine the period of use. Similarly, previously unexcavated areas within the cemetery were
investigated in order to locate and excavate new burials.

While the majority of the cemetery was excavated in the 1960s and 1970s, parts of it were left unexamined.
One reason for this is the presence of a farmhouse on the site. This farmhouse is now gradually falling apart,
and this dilapidation has opened up areas around it for excavation. In 2006, the excavations immediately to
ISSN 0259-3548 12
MM 19:1

Figure 1: Zvejnieki is located on

the North Eastern side of Lake
Burtnieki in Northern Latvia.

the north of the house revealed several features, but none of them contained any human remains. To the east
of the house the excavation efforts were more successful and several burials were uncovered (see below). In
2007 the research efforts of the Lativan-Swedish project were divided into two equal parts. One team
conducted an extensive trial excavation of the neighbouring site, Brauksas, where the objective was to assess
the potential of this new Mesolithic site. The other team continued to excavate the remains of the cemetery at
Zvejnieki. This report will focus on the results from this cemetery excavation. Since the analyses are ongoing,
all results reported here must be regarded as preliminary.

The excavations at the cemetery

The excavations at Zvejnieki in 2007 were exclusively devoted to the cemetery remains. For the excavation
of the human remains, a field protocol based on the French approach anthropologie de terrain was
implemented. The approach is taphonomically based, and combines detailed observations in the field with
knowledge in biology about how the human body decomposes after death. All the remains are carefully
uncovered, and their exact position is mapped in detail and photographed, in order to allow for a detailed
analysis of the sequences of disarticulation, disturbance etc (for a more detailed description of the approach,
see Duday et al. 1990; Nilsson Stutz 2003). The goal with this approach is to account in detail for the
mortuary practices, and especially the handling of the body (including how it was placed in the grave, if it
was wrapped or placed in a coffin, if it was manipulated during or after decomposition, etc). All artefacts and
faunal remains encountered in the features were recorded using three dimensional coordinates.

Figure 2 (left): Burials 314 and 315. The two individuals appear to have been buried in two separate episodes. The
individual in grave 315, has been deposited across the individual in grave 314. This has partially damaged the older
grave. Further damage to both burials was later caused by the construction of a foundation related to a house
construction. Figure 3 (right): Grave 313. The body was deposited on the back with the limbs in extension.
(Photographs by Liv Nilsson Stutz).
ISSN 0259-3548 13
MM 19:1

Results from the 2005 and 2006 excavation seasons

The strategies for the 2007 season were based on the encouraging results from the two previous seasons. In
2005, an area of 8m by 4m was opened up east of the house. This area had previously been covered by a
veranda and therefore had been inaccessible for excavation. Due to the construction of the veranda, a
foundation wall cuts across the area. During this first season, the remains of two graves were encountered
here. Grave 309 was disturbed and only the skull and the upper part of the thoracic cage remained. Also the
second burial, grave 310, was disturbed and only the remains of the lower limbs and the pelvis were
preserved. When the excavations continued in 2006, the investigation of the area was intensified and several
features that could potentially be graves were identified. Two of these were distinguished by a blackish
brown fill that contrasted sharply to the surrounding substrate of yellow gravel and sand. These features were
carefully excavated in profile in order to document the stratigraphy. They were both rich in finds, including
flint and bone artefacts, as well as fragments of fauna. On the last day of excavation in 2006, an articulated
foot was found at the bottom of one of these features, but due to time restrictions, it had to be left in situ to
be excavated the following season. The excavation of the other of these two features revealed no human
remains and both were left to be completely excavated during the 2007 season. Two graves were found in
features that could not be as easily distinguished from the surrounding substrate. They were more
superficially located, and the fill was lighter in colour and more gravelly and sandy in consistency. One of
them, grave 311, contained the fragmented remains of an individual placed on the back. The construction of
the veranda had damaged extensive parts of the grave, and only the left side of the upper part of the body
was preserved. Finally, grave 312 contained at least four individuals, three adults and one child placed close
together, directed SW – NE, with the heads directed to the SW, extended on the back, and partially on top of
each other (see also Larsson 2007). Due to the complications associated with the excavation of this feature,
and the time constraints of the field season, only the remains of the child (teeth) and of one of the adults were
extracted. The rest of the burial was documented, covered and left in situ for excavation in 2007.

The excavations in 2007

The strategy for the 2007 season was initially to continue the excavation of the collective burial left in situ,
and to investigate the two other features that had been partially investigated the previous year. However,
when the team returned to the site we discovered that the collective grave (312) had been looted, and was
almost completely destroyed. A few remains were found in situ, but the damage was extensive and a
thorough osteological analysis will be required to confirm the exact number of individuals present in the
burial.

More burials were found as the remainder of the area was cleared. Close to the wall of separation between
the trenches the remains of two individuals were found in greyish sandy sediment that contrasted against the
sandy gravel substrate (figure 2). The preliminary taphonomic analysis indicates that the two individuals
were buried in two separate episodes. The individual buried in grave 314 was lying N-S, with the head to the
north, in extension on the back with a slight rotation to the left of the upper part of the body. The foundation
of the veranda has cut across the mid section of the body and evacuated and/or destroyed the bones in that
region. Further to the south, the distal parts of the femora, the tibiae and fibulae and the feet were excavated
in the position that confirms that the body was placed in extension. Moreover, despite the partially very
disturbed remains, the perfect articulation of the remaining bones (including for example the cervical
vertebrae which are maintained in position by relatively unstable articulations, and the bones of the feet)
indicates that the deposit was primary. The individual buried in grave 315 was lying across the individual in
grave 314, placed WSW-ENE with the legs to the ENE, slightly diagonally across the upper part of the body.
This individual was fragmentary. The remains present were limited to a couple of disarticulated ribs and
vertebrae, the articulated left radius, left ulna, left hand, distal part of the left femur, both tibiae, fibulae and
feet. The absence of the considerable amount of bones can probably be explained by disturbance relating to
the construction of the veranda. The maintenance of the articulations of the hand and the two feet, along with
their overall position, indicates that the deposit was primary, and that the body was placed on the back with
the limbs in extension. The proximity to the individual in grave 314 is interesting. As mentioned above, it
appears as if the two bodies were buried in two separate episodes. Further analyses will be devoted to this
question, but it is possible that the disturbance of the right part of the upper part of the body of the individual
in grave 314 was the result of disturbance related to the burial of the individual in grave 315, rather than the
wall construction. This in turn would mean that the individual in grave 315 was deposited after the individual
in grave 314, and at a point when this latter individual was at least in an advanced stage of decomposition
which would render the bones susceptible to this kind of disturbance.
ISSN 0259-3548 14
MM 19:1

Four more individuals were found in the two features that were partially excavated in 2006. Grave 313
(figure 3) contained an undisturbed and complete skeleton of an individual placed N-S, with the head
directed to the south, and on the back with the limbs in extension. The maintained labile articulations of
hands and feet clearly indicate that the deposit was primary. The body was placed on the bottom of a deep pit
(50 cm). A couple of animal bone fragments were placed in close proximity to the body and could potentially
be intentional depositions.

Finally, the remains of three individuals (graves 316, 317, 318) were encountered in the second dark feature.
At the bottom of the deep feature, the remains of two adult individuals were encountered lying side by side,
directed E-W, with their heads to the east, and on the back with the limbs in extension (figure 4).
Unfortunately the burial extended further west and in under the farmhouse and it could not be fully
excavated this season. Only the upper half of the burial (the remains of the upper part of the bodies) has
therefore been documented this year. The aim is to return in 2008 and complete the excavation. Both
individuals were covered in ochre around the entire upper part of the body, and they were buried with a
significant amount of amber. The northernmost individual, 316, had two amber rings of approximately 8 cm
in diameter placed in the vicinity of the left shoulder. This individual also had what appears to be a belt of
perforated amber beads across the pelvis (figure 5). Smaller amber beads were found in the direct proximity
of the skulls of both individuals. With a total number of 41 amber pieces, containing both large oval
elongated pendants and large pendants of irregular form, both shapes perforated with one or two holes for
fastening, and smaller oval pendants, this makes this burial one of the richest in amber from this period and
compares to other burials which were extremely rich in amber found at Zvejnieki (grave 212 with 57 pieces
and grave 221 with 56 pieces). The presence of the unique large amber rings makes the finding very
noteworthy.

The preliminary taphonomic analysis indicates that at least one of the two individuals (317) was rather
tightly wrapped in some kind of material at the time of burial. This phenomenon has been noted at several
burials at the site (Nilsson Stutz 2006). A closer examination is needed to confirm the hypothesis. When
excavating this feature, several isolated human bones were encountered, including several disarticulated
vertebrae and a more or less articulated right forearm and hand. The articulated remains of the forearm were
encountered, in the northern end of the feature. A right humerus was encountered adjacent to these bones,
but it was disarticulated. The relative articulation of the bones of the forearm and parts of the hand indicates
a primary deposit, an interpretation that would exclude that these human remains were simply part of the fill
taken from the surrounding cemetery and used for this burial. Moreover, these bones do not belong to any of
the two individuals buried further down in the feature (316 and 317) since the parts of the skeletons
excavated were complete. Instead these remains could be those of a third individual, grave 318, buried prior
to the burial of individuals 316 and 317. The stratigraphy of the filling of the feature could indicate that a
more superficial feature was disturbed, as the deeper grave for the two individuals was dug. A full
excavation of the feature and an analysis of all human remains in the feature are required to confirm this
hypothesis.

Summary of the results

The results from the excavations at the Zvejnieki cemetery in 2007 are very interesting and promising. By
now, the remains of a total number of 13 individuals have been excavated since 2005 (the exact number
might be adjusted as the osteological analysis is carried out). The implementation of new methodologies
(including anthropologie de terrain and micro-stratigraphy of the features) in the field is also very promising,
and it will be interesting to evaluate the results. The preliminary analysis of the contents of the fill of the
features, very rich in bone fragments and flint, indicates that the fill of the burial was taken from the cultural
layers at the site. Moreover, the spectacular finds made this year (especially graves 316 and 317) indicates
that this rich site still has a lot to offer in terms of insight into Mesolithic mortuary practices. For the future
we hope that we will be able to investigate previously unexamined parts of the settlement areas as well as a
continuation of the excavation of the cemetery.

ISSN 0259-3548 15
MM 19:1

Figure 4 (left): Graves 316 and 317. The two individuals were deposited side by side and surrounded by ochre. Two
large amber rings are deposited in the area of the left shoulder of individual 316. The bi-lateral pressure around the
upper part of individual 317 indicates that this body was wrapped at the time of burial. (Photograph by Liv Nilsson
Stutz). Figure 5 (right): Detail of the “amber belt” in the pelvic area of individual 316. For preservation reasons, the
amber was lifted immediately after excavation (and this explains why it was no longer in situ when the picture in figure
4 was taken). (Photograph by Lars Larsson).

Bibliography
• Duday, H., Courtaud, P., Crubézy, E., Sellier, P., Tillier, A.-M. 1990. L’Anthropologie “de terrain”: reconnaissance
et interprétation des gestes funéraires. In E. Crubézy, Duday, H., Sellier, P., Tillier, A.-M. (eds.) Anthropologie et
Archéologie : Dialogue sur les ensembles funéraires. Bull. et Mém. de la Soc.D’Anthrop. de Paris. n.s., t.2, no. 3-4, 29-
50.
• Eberhards, G. 2006. Geology and the Development of the paleolake Burtnieks during the Late Glacial and Holocene.
In: L. Larsson & Zagorska, I. (ed.) Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and
environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°, No. 52, pp: 25-51. Lund: Almqvist &
Wiksell International.
• Kalnina, L. 2006. Paleovegetation and human impact in the surroundings of the ancient Burtnieks lake as
reconstructed from pollen analysis. In: L. Larsson & Zagorska, I. (ed.) Back to the Origin. New research in the
Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°,
No. 52, pp: 53-73. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
• Larsson, L. 2007. Research at Zvejnieki, Northern Latvia. A preliminary report. Mesolithic Miscellany 18:1, 15-16.
• Larsson, L. & Zagorska, I. 2006. (ed.) Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki
cemetery and environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°, No. 52. Lund: Almqvist &
Wiksell International.
• Nilsson Stutz, L. 2003. Embodied Rituals and Ritualized Bodied. Tracing ritual practices in late Mesolithic burials.
Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, series in 8º, no 46. Lund: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
• Nilsson Stutz, L. 2006. Unwrapping the dead. Searching for evidence of wrappings in the mortuary practices at
Zvejnieki. In: L. Larsson & Zagorska, I. (ed.) Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki
cemetery and environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°, No. 52, pp: 217-233. Lund:
Almqvist & Wiksell International.
• Zagorska, I. 2006. The history of research on the Zvejnieki site. In: L. Larsson & Zagorska, I. (ed.) Back to the Origin.
New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica
Lundensia, Series in 8°, No. 52, pp: 5-24. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
• Zagorskis, F. 1987. Zvejnieku akmens laikmeta kapulauks. Riga.
• Zagorskis, F. 2004. Zvejnieki (N Latvia) Stone Age Cemetery. BAR International Series 1292. Oxford.
ISSN 0259-3548 16
MM 19:1

The Adoption of Agriculture in Ireland: a point in time review, and towards

national research priorities
Graeme Warren, UCD President’s Research Fellow 2007 – 2008
UCD School of Archaeology, K006, Newman Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland, graeme.warren@ucd.ie
Project webpage: http://www.ucd.ie/archaeology/research/schoolresearch/adoptionofagricultureinireland/

The adoption of agriculture (the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition) is a key revolution in human history, and
one of the most dynamic areas of archaeological research including environmental, genetic and linguistic
material in addition to archaeological data. In Ireland, the latter includes substantial evidence recovered
through development-led archaeological processes. At a European level Ireland has much to contribute to
understandings of the adoption of agriculture, for example as an island with a limited terrestrial fauna and
flora and with an idiosyncratic later mesolithic stone tool technology. Existing reviews of the transition in
Ireland (c. 4000 BC) highlight key patterns but, in a context of a rapidly changing field, require development.
The 2007 Review of Research Needs in Irish Archaeology developed by the Heritage Council
(http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/Research_Needs/index.html), include the ‘Beginnings of
Agriculture’ as a key national priority and a critical synthesis of the current state of knowledge across the
broad spectrum of researchers is urgently required to realise the potential of this topic. This brief note
outlines a new project, hosted in the UCD School of Archaeology, which seeks to provide a point in time
review of the adoption of agriculture and to identify key research problems for the future.

The project is enabled by a UCD President’s Research Fellowship; a one year research sabbatical. In the
course of this year, I am conducting interviews with researchers in archaeology and other disciplines
(genetics, palaeoenvironmental studies) in Ireland and overseas. Interviews have been sought with nearly 100
researchers. Within Ireland, this includes commercial archaeological companies and national archaeological
institutions. Individuals from overseas provide invaluable broader contexts, ensuring that priorities generated
in Ireland are truly at the international cutting edge. All data arising from these interviews will be analysed
using recognised consensus building techniques and will form the basis for the creation of a provisional
research strategy. One of the key, recognised, weaknesses of consensus building exercises is that those who
dislike the conclusions attack the representativeness of the methods. In order to transcend this problem a
rigorous methodology is applied here: a report is generated on each interview and is returned to the
interviewee: only once they have signed off on the report as an accurate representation of their views is the
information used in the final collation phase. The provisional document will be pre-circulated to all
interested parties in advance of a seminar with international discussants, to be hosted at UCD May 17th 2008.
Discussion at this seminar and invited comment on drafts will feed back into the publication of research
priorities. All are welcome to the seminar, further details of which are available on the project web pages.

Key questions that the project assesses include:

• What is the current state of knowledge of the adoption of agriculture in Ireland?
• How does this compare to other regions of Europe?
• What have been the key developments in mesolithic – neolithic studies in the last 20 years?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of research into the transition?
• What are the key questions for research in Ireland over the next 20 years?
• Is it possible to establish priorities in this regard?
• To what extent does the fragmentation of contemporary archaeological practice impact on our
understanding of this process? How might this be remedied?
• Who are the key national and international partners in developing the field?

Further information is available on the project web pages or by contacting Graeme. I would like to warmly
invite all colleagues to contribute to the process of consensus building.

Acknowledgements
This project is enabled by a UCD President’s Research Fellowship. The Humanities Institute of Ireland have
provided office facilities and the UCD School of Archaeology provides support in kind. Most thanks,
however, go to the many individuals who are giving up their time to answer my questions: a better
demonstration of intellectual generosity could not be asked for.
ISSN 0259-3548 17
MM 19:1

Publications
I have included details of a number of papers published over the last year (listed in alphabetical order). This
is not an exhaustive list, and I would be very pleased to receive references and abstracts for other recent
articles (published in 2007 or 2008) for the next edition of Mesolithic Miscellany.

• A. Fischer, M. Richards, J. Olsen, D. E. Robinson, P. Bennike, L. Kubiak-Martens and J. Heinemeier

(2007) The composition of Mesolithic food – evidence from a submerged settlement on the Argus Bank,
Denmark. Acta Archaeologica 78 (2) 2007:163-178.

Abstract: Well preserved food remains from a submerged settlement on the Argus Bank bear witness to the
human consumption of fish, game, nuts and fruit. δ15N data derived from the bones of the inhabitants show
that aquatic food was the dominant source of their dietary protein. The δ13C measurements demonstrate that
much of this protein derived from marine animals, probably high trophic level fish. The isotopic data also
imply that the two children represented in the analyses were predominantly breast-fed up to the age of 2-3
years. In addition these data indicate that an adult female consumed more marine protein than two males,
while a dog consumed food of a lower trophic level than the humans.

• Anders Fischer, Jesper Olsen, Mike Richards, Jan Heinemeier, Árny E. Sveinbjörnsdóttir and Pia Bennike
(2007) Coast–inland mobility and diet in the Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic: evidence from stable
isotope values of humans and dogs Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 2125-2150.

Abstract: Here we present the stable isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen measured in bone collagen
extracted from humans, dogs, herbivores and fish from Mesolithic and Neolithic coastal and inland sites in
Denmark. Bones of freshwater fish from several Early Mesolithic lake-side sites have δ13C values
surprisingly similar to those seen in marine fish. We propose a model, based on δ13C and δ15N, for the
correction for both marine and hard water reservoir effect in radiocarbon dates. A strong reliance on aquatic
protein is demonstrated for the Mesolithic inhabitants of the region from the middle of the Early Mesolithic
onwards. A significant part of the protein in the diets of the dogs and humans from the Middle and Late
Mesolithic was of marine origin, even at inland sites. This observation points to a high degree of (seasonal)
coast-inland mobility. The isotopic evidence indicates that during the Neolithic small quantities of aquatic
foods were still common sources of dietary protein.

• M. A. Mannino, K. D. Thomas, M. J. Leng, M. Piperno, S. Tusa, A. Tagliacozzo (2007) Marine resources

in the Mesolithic and Neolithic at the Grotta dell'Uzzo (Sicily): evidence from isotope analyses of
marine shells, Archaeometry 49 (1) , 117–133.

Abstract: Oxygen isotopes in shell carbonate samples from the marine rocky-shore intertidal gastropod
Monodonta turbinata (Born) are investigated in both modern analogue specimens and in archaeological
specimens from the Grotta dell’Uzzo (Sicily). Variations in shell edge values of δ18O in living specimens
collected monthly over two years are closely correlated with monthly seawater temperatures measured at the
time of collection, showing that the species can be used for palaeoseasonality studies. Analyses of shell edge
δ18O values in archaeological specimens, from Mesolithic through to early Neolithic phases at the Grotta
dell’Uzzo, enabled the inference of various seasons of collection of shellfish and how such seasonality varies
between the different phases of occupation. Interesting similarities and differences exist between the seasons
of marine shellfish exploitation and the seasons inferred from the vertebrate zooarchaeological assemblages.
A major inference drawn from the analyses and discussion is that the exploitation of all marine resources
(fish and shellfish) increased in the later Mesolithic and early Neolithic periods.

ISSN 0259-3548 18
MM 19:1

• Lesley McFadyen (2007) Mobile spaces of Mesolithic Britain, Home Cultures vol 4, 117-128.

Abstract: This article examines how spaces were being made during the Mesolithic of Britain. Rather than
focus upon material culture and landscape as separate analytical constructs, it demonstrates instead how they
intersect and in so doing give rise to an understanding of space that is mobile and rendered through force. In
investigating this the author asks whether objects not carried around by the occupants of Mesolithic Britain
should be regarded as discarded (as has traditionally been the case), or should be seen as an ongoing and
active component of how people make themselves at home. She goes on to suggest that people left things
behind in the Mesolithic in order to create the possibility for future connections, making these objects
anything but 'homeless'.

• M. McQuade and L. O’Donnell (2007) Late Mesolithic fish traps from the Liffey estuary, Dublin,
Ireland, Antiquity, 81, 569-584.

Abstract: An opportunity to investigate in advance of new construction led to the discovery of five
Mesolithic hazel fish traps some 6.3m below mean sea level in the River Liffey. Closely paralleled on the
continent of Europe they imply a well organised community that knew how to catch fish using the tide to
make wattle-work and baskets and who undertook coppicing on an eight year cycle in about 6100-5700 cal
BC. The likelihood of more Mesolithic remains under European towns that have remained attractive to
fishers and settlers has considerable implications for Cultural Resources Management. Do we always know
how to find and access such delicate and important traces?

• Rick J. Schulting, Stella M. Blockley, Hervé Bocherens, Dorothée Drucker and Mike Richards (2008)
Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis on human remains from the Early Mesolithic site of La
Vergne (Charente-Maritime, France), Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 763-772.

Abstract: We report here the results of stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis of human and faunal
remains from La Vergne (Charente-Maritime, western France), a rare Early Mesolithic burial site (ca. 8500–
8000 cal BC). The results for nine humans (average δ13C = −19.3‰; δ15N = 9.4‰) indicate a strongly
terrestrial diet, dominated by animal protein, with the possibility of, at best, a slight contribution of marine-
derived protein. Given lower sea-levels in the early Holocene, the site would have been some 60–80 km from
the sea at the time of its use; nevertheless, contacts with the coast are shown by the presence of numerous
marine shell beads in the graves. In the light of the stable isotope results, it is suggested here that such
contacts most likely took the form of exchange with coastal communities whose remains now lie underwater.

• Stephan Shennan and Kevan Edinborough (2007) Prehistoric population history: from the Late Glacial
to the Late Neolithic in Central and Northern Europe, Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (8), 1339-
1345.

Abstract: Summed probability distributions of radiocarbon dates are used to make inferences about the
history of population fluctuations from the Mesolithic to the late Neolithic for three countries in central and
northern Europe: Germany, Poland and Denmark. Two different methods of summing the dates produce very
similar overall patterns. The validity of the aggregate patterns is supported by a number of regional studies
based on other lines of evidence. The dramatic rise in population associated with the arrival of farming in
these areas that is visible in the date distributions is not surprising. Much more unexpected are the
fluctuations during the course of the Neolithic, and especially the indications of a drop in population at the
end of the LBK early Neolithic that lasted for nearly a millennium. Possible reasons for the pattern are
discussed.

• Olena V. Smyntyna (2007) Late Mesolithic of the Ukrainian part of the Lower Danube region: New
perspectives of human adaptation and interpretation of natural environments, Quaternary International
vol. 167-168, 114-120.

Abstract: Colonization of Ukrainian part of Lower Danube began in the interval 7.5–7.0 ka BP, when the
regional landscape was mesophilous meadow steppe. Forest plots with small percentages of deciduous
vegetation were present in river valleys, temporary estuaries, and on ridges. The faunal complex was
ISSN 0259-3548 19
MM 19:1

dominated by aurochs, red deer, and wild boar. High biomass density, combined with the fact that the region
had not been intensively explored previously, allowed relatively stable forms of human adaptation. This is
illustrated by the presence of the base camp Mirnoe, the seasonal settlements Zaliznychne and Vasylivka,
which display diverse forms of livelihood activity, and by the distinctive pattern of site distribution pattern.
In this context, the beginning of auroch domestication in this region is conceptualized not so much as an
adaptive response to subsistence source base shortage, but rather as a phenomenon caused, together with
joint exploitation of the same settlement area, by resource spatial distribution.

• Willy Tinner, Ebbe H. Nielsen and André F. Lotter (2007) Mesolithic agriculture in Switzerland? A
critical review of the evidence, Quaternary Science Reviews 26, Issues 9-10, 1416-1431.

Abstract: Accumulating palaeobotanical evidence points to agricultural activity in Central Europe well
before the onset of the Neolithic, commonly dated at ca 5500–5200 cal BC. We reinvestigated an existing
pollen profile from Soppensee with refined taxonomical resolution by further subdividing the Cerealia pollen
type into Triticum t. and Avena t. because the sediments at this site currently provide the highest temporal
resolution and precision for the period of interest among all sites in Switzerland. Our new results are in
agreement with previous high-resolution investigations from Switzerland showing scattered but consistent
presence of pollen of Cerealia, Plantago lanceolata, and other cultural plants or weeds during the late
Mesolithic period (6700–5500 cal BC). Chronologically, this palynological evidence for sporadic
agricultural activities coincides with a major break in material culture at ca 6700 cal BC (i.e. the transition
from early to late Mesolithic). Here, we review possible arguments against palaeobotanical evidences of
Mesolithic agriculture (e.g. chronological uncertainties, misidentification, contamination, long-distance
transport) and conclude that none of these can explain the consistent pollen pattern observed at several sites.
The palynological evidence can, of course, not prove the existence of pre-ceramic agriculture in Central
Europe. However, it is so coherent that this topic should be addressed by systematic archaeobotanical
analyses in future archaeological studies. If our interpretation should turn out to be true, our conclusions
would have fundamental implications for the Neolithic history of Europe. Currently, it is intensely debated
whether Central European agriculture developed locally under the influence of incoming ideas from areas
where Neolithic farming had already developed earlier (e.g. southeastern Europe) or whether it was
introduced by immigrating farmers. On the basis of our results, we suggest that agriculture developed locally
throughout the late Mesolithic and Neolithic. Mesolithic trading networks connecting Southern and Central
Europe also support the hypothesis of a slow and gradual change towards sessile agriculture, probably as a
result of incoming ideas and regional cultural transformation.

• Tim van der Schriek, David Passmore, Anthony Stevenson, Jose Rolao (2007) The palaeogeography of
Mesolithic settlement-subsistence and shell midden formation in the Muge valley, Lower Tagus Basin,
Portugal, The Holocene, 17, 369-385.

Abstract: This paper reports the first detailed palaeogeographical analysis of the environmental context of
late Mesolithic shell midden sites in the lower Tagus area and focuses on the lower Muge valley, which
contains an internationally significant Mesolithic record. The lower Muge valley fill comprises buried
estuarine and fluvial environments contemporary with Mesolithic settlement. Holocene environmental and
palaeogeographic changes influenced Mesolithic settlement-subsistence and midden accumulation. The
sudden appearance of large late Mesolithic shell middens throughout Portugal represents a process of
increased visibility and preferential preservation of the archaeological record. Prior to ~6100 cal. BC,
aggrading valley floor environments did not occupy the entire width of the present lower Tagus floodplain
and any sites located in the early Holocene valley are currently deeply buried. Shell midden occupation on
terrace levels followed the establishment of aggrading estuarine environments, containing productive shell
beds, near the mouth of the lower Muge valley at ~6100 cal. BC. The critical factors in site choice appear to
have been the nearby presence of (i) rich shell resources and (ii) freshwater environments. Long-term site
occupation and (semi-)sedentary behaviour was favoured by the local presence, for over 2000 years, of rich
resources from estuarine, freshwater and open woodland environments. Site abandonment (~5300—4800 cal.
BC) coincided with the regional establishment of an open landscape (~5000 cal. BC) and the contraction of
local estuarine environments (~5555—3800 cal. BC). The associated gradual decrease in resources and
cultural interaction with the expanding early Neolithic communities may have influenced Mesolithic site
abandonment.

ISSN 0259-3548 20
MM 19:1

• Mapping Doggerland. The Mesolithic Landscapes of the Southern North Sea, edited by Vincent
Gaffney, Kenneth Thomson, and Simon Fitch, (2007) Oxford: Archaeopress
ISBN: 9781905739141, paperback £19.99
xii+131 pages; illustrated in colour and black and white

“12,000 years ago the area that now forms the southern North Sea was dry land: a vast plain populated by
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. By 5,500 BC the entire area had disappeared beneath the sea as a consequence
of rising sea levels. Until now, this unique landscape remained hidden from view and almost entirely
unknown.”

This book is the result of an amazing study of the southern part of the North Sea which utilised 3D seismic
data, provided by Petroleum Geo-Services, to map 23,000 km² of this “lost world”. The book starts by
providing an outline of previous methodological approaches before explaining the methodology used here
including the co-ordination of the marine survey data sources, an account of how the data sets were selected,
the interpretation strategy (at Birmingham University the team can inspect the data on a powerwall using 3D
glasses - see figure below - well worth a go if you ever get the chance!), and how the area was mapped
digitally. The information in these initial chapters is very detailed and presents a fascinating insight into the
development of the research design and the strategies employed. Following on from this, several chapters
explain how the geomorphology is investigated and how features are interpreted; in chapter 7 an “atlas” of
the palaeolandscapes is presented, which includes maps of palaeochannels; and chapter 8 outlines the
potential for environmental reconstruction through borehole sediment data. The concluding chapter brings
the data together and discusses the archaeology of the palaeolandscapes, opportunities for future research and
threat mapping.

The book is full of data which takes some time to work through, but it is very clearly presented and well
explained. The project is incredible because of the sheer scale of the area covered, the speed at which the
project has been completed and published and consequently the new information that this provides for
archaeologists interested in this submerged landscape: “In comparison to the situation described by
Flemming, a mere 3 years ago, the North Sea is no longer terra incognita” (pg. 108). They state that this
project has demonstrated the potential of marine, remote sensed data for the exploration of the inundated
Holocene land surfaces of the North Sea but clearly feel that there is more work to be done in new areas, as
well as refine the work they have done by the integration of further data sets.

The project team should be congratulated on revolutionising the way in which we can now study submerged
landscapes in such a short space of time. This project was funded by the Marine Aggregates Levy
Sustainability Fund. Let’s hope that further funding will come their way so that their ambitions for future
work can be realised. Finally it should be noted that one of the editors and lead researchers, Dr Kenneth
Thomson, sadly died last year. The book has been dedicated to him.

Further information can be found on the website:

http://www.iaa.bham.ac.uk/research/fieldwork_research_themes/projects/North_Sea_Palaeolandscapes/index.htm

Cover of book and the HP Vista Centre Powerwall being used for seismic interpretation.
ISSN 0259-3548 21
MM 19:1

• Prehistoric coastal communities: The Mesolithic of western Britain, edited by Martin Bell (2007),
Council for British Archaeology: CBA Research Report 149, ISBN 1 902771 64 8, paperback, £40
60 ills, 250pp (http://www.britarch.ac.uk/pubs/latest.html)

This volume provides a new perspective on the Mesolithic period, c. 6000-3000 cal BC in western Britain.
Detailed evidence is presented from two main case study areas: the Severn Estuary and the late Mesolithic
and early Neolithic shell middens in the Prestatyn area of north Wales. In both cases there is a particular
emphasis on the use of a range of sources of palaeoenvironmental evidence to reconstruct the nature and
context of human activity.

The book starts off with a chapter by Martin Bell on the Mesolithic and Neolithic in the coastal zone of
western Britain. This provides a thorough introduction to the study area with very detailed maps of all the
sites, submerged forests and intertidal peats, and accounts of the history of research, explanations of the
sediments, sea level change, dating of the forests, and an outline of the current research questions for the
Mesolithic and the transition to the Neolithic.

The first part of the book (18 chapters written by a number of specialists) studies a complex of Mesolithic
sites at Goldcliff in the Severn Estuary. These lay around a former island which was surrounded first by
forest and later by a highly dynamic wetland. These chapters set out an extraordinary wealth of information
which is impossible to summarise here. Flint, worked wood, bone and antler tools have all been found and
fully analysed. Perhaps the most well known discovery has been the Mesolithic footprints of both humans
and animals. These are remarkable, perhaps because they provide a particularly tangible link with people and
animals in the past. What is also notable is the wealth of information that can be ascertained from these
hundreds of footprints: this includes the way in which children and adults were using these areas – some
possible deer tracking, and children possibly playing in the mud; as well as the identification of crane from
bird prints, which is interesting because this species is no longer resident in the UK. Another usual discovery
is the possible identification of a human defecation area on the periphery of one of the sites, through the
analysis of human intestinal parasites found during pollen analysis. As Martin Bell suggests, this “cast(s)
new light on defecation practice in prehistory, a topic which is largely unconsidered, at least in a north-west
European context.” (pg 225). The topic is important because of health implications and the human social use
of space. In chapter 18, Martin Bell sums up all the evidence and paints a convincing picture of Mesolithic
life in this area. Chapter 19 goes on to examine Mesolithic and Neolithic human activity and impact in the
wider context of the Severn estuary.

The book then moves on to study the shell middens at Prestatyn, north Wales. Again this is a comprehensive
analysis of the data from the sites followed by a broader discussion of settlement patterns, diet and the
Mesolithic Neolithic transition. The inclusion of this report on the shell middens is of great value to British
Mesolithic studies because such sites are poorly represented in the archaeological record. The final
concluding chapter on Mesolithic coastal communities in western Britain brings the key themes together. It
explores ecodynamism, fire and
human agency, axes of movement,
territory and patterns of movement,
seasonality, islands and change. It
also challenges an evolutionary
model for the Mesolithic and
examines the evidence for the
transition to the Neolithic.

This is a fantastic book with a

wealth of detail and engaging
interpretation. It is an exemplary
palaeoenvironmental study and a
must for anyone who is interested
in Mesolithic life at the coast.

Figures show the cover of the book and some of the footprints found at Goldcliff
ISSN 0259-3548 22
MM 19:1

• Mesolithic settlement in the North Sea Basin. A case study from Howick, North-East England, (2007),
Oxford: Oxbow books, ISBN: 978 1 84217 246 9, hardback, £20

An indication of Mesolithic occupation at Howick was discovered on separate

occasions by two amateur archaeologists, who each found flints eroding out of the cliff
edge. This led to the excavation of a small test pit, followed by geophysics and then a
full excavation season in 2000. In 2002 another excavation season was mounted to
record in full all archaeological remains that were in danger of further erosion. I should
mention that I was one of the co-directors of the project and so perhaps am biased, but
the results of these excavations are exciting in that they have revealed a structure which
has been shown to have been used for several generations: a rare occurrence for British
Mesolithic archaeology. The edited volume details the findings. It starts with chapters
on the field methodology (geophysics, fieldwalking, test pits, and excavation); it then
covers dating, stone tools and residue and use-wear analysis; this is followed by the palaeoenvironmental
analysis (faunal and floral remains and a full study of the geomorphology and pollen); experimental
reconstruction of the structure which has been carried out twice; and finally there are two chapters which
discuss the interpretation and the wider North Sea context.

One of the areas that I think should be highlighted here is the dating, carried out by Alex Bayliss (English
Heritage). A Bayesian approach was taken, which is a mathematical modelling technique that combines the
radiocarbon dates with the stratigraphic sequence. Three structures had been constructed on the site, all on
the same footprint, with no evidence to indicate a gap between occupations. Within the centre of the structure
were a series of hearths with burnt sand and charred hazelnut shells in situ. The hazelnut shells in
stratigraphic sequence were dated and it was determined that the structure was constructed c. 7850 cal. BC
and abandonment probably took place around 7650 cal. BC, indicating generations of occupation. The dating
has also meant that the lithic material is securely dated. The lithics are classic narrow-blade industry, with
scalene triangles being predominant and the dates suggests an earlier start for this type of industry than
previously thought.

The experimental reconstructions are also worth a mention. The first reconstruction happened because the
chance arose as part of a BBC programme “Meet the Ancestors” when Howick was dubbed “Britain’s Oldest
House”. The second was built two years later on the actual site itself and provided further opportunity to
experiment with construction. This second house is felt to be the more faithful of the two (see images below).
Both were based on the excavated evidence which included a sunken-floored pit, an internal ring of vertical
timber supports, and a series of roofing poles. What is most important is that the constructions have
prompted much discussion about how the hut may have been constructed and then maintained over such a
long period of time.

Overall, this book presents some rare and interesting insights into Mesolithic structures. The discussion
which raises many issues concerning the permanence of structures, and the reasons for constructing them in
the 8th millennium BC, will attract much debate for years to come.

Construction 1: thatched roof Construction 2: more upright, and turf was used for roofing

ISSN 0259-3548 23
MM 19:1

• Mesolithic Studies in the North Sea Basin and Beyond. Proceedings of a Conference held at
Newcastle in 2003. Edited by Clive Waddington and Kristian Pedersen (2007)
Oxford: Oxbow books, ISBN: 978 1 84217 224 7, hardback £48

The volume originated out of a day conference conceived by Kristian Pedersen and held
at Newcastle University. It followed the excavations at Howick and was used as a forum
for discussing recent finds and Mesolithic research from countries surrounding the North
Sea basin. With a series of new settlement sites appearing and a developing interest in
the North Sea as a hub of Mesolithic settlement and interaction it was thought important
to bring this new information together in a volume following the conference. This
volume is also intended as a “useful sister volume” to the Howick monograph (see
above). Overall, there are 16 papers which cover a number of themes: setting the scene,
off-shore archaeology, settlement, and themes and perspectives.

The volume starts with a short introduction by Clive Waddington and Kristian Pedersen which considers the
North Sea basin, how it has sometimes been considered a barrier, and the dynamic environment during the
Mesolithic period. The setting the scene chapters elaborate on this further: Geoff Bailey describes the
palaeogeography of the North Sea Basin and discusses sea level change and time depth; Adrian Osler takes a
rather brief look at the North Sea from the perspective of a later period (AD 1300-1900) and considers
seafaring and the sea as a highway; and Rob Young provides a very useful and thorough review of research
on the coastal Mesolithic of North-East England.

The second theme, that of off-shore archaeology, begins with a paper by Morten Engen and Penny Spikins
on “A needle in a haystack” and the use of predictive modelling, limitations and challenges, in prospecting
for submerged Mesolithic sites. It is argued that such methods may be crucial in the search for such sites.
The following paper by Garry Momber presents some very exciting finds for British Archaeology: with a
great deal of time and effort Garry has discovered submerged Mesolithic sites in the Solent (South England).

There are seven papers in the settlement section: three Mesolithic sites in Eastern middle Sweden (Mats
Larsson); a Mesolithic structure at East Barns, Scotland (John Gooder); two post-circles at Elgin, Scotland
(Ian Suddaby); South Haw, an upland Mesolithic site (Richard Chatterton); Mesolithic activity at
Hawkcombe Head, Somerset (Paula Gardiner); a Mesolithic house at Savecock, Cornwall (Jacqui Wood);
and rethinking Mesolithic settlement and the structure at Howick (Clive Waddington). Overall, these papers
provide a great deal of new and valuable data and information concerning settlement and structures in the
Mesolithic. The structure at East Barns is particularly fascinating because it is so similar to Howick in form,
content, and date, and is only 60km to the north of Howick. Waddington explores what appears to be an
increase in the occurrence of Mesolithic structures in the 8th millennium (also Mount Sandal and Broom Hill)
further in his paper and suggests an increase in settlement complexity and permanency emerging at this time.
The paper on South Haw, presents another fascinating site which was first discovered by collectors and more
recently has been researched by Richard Chatterton. It is particularly interesting because it is a rare example
of a late Mesolithic site, with dates that span the “transition”.

The final section on themes and perspectives includes a very detailed paper on territorial structure in
southern Norway by Torben Bjarke Ballin using models of territoriality, social networks and techno-
complexes. The two papers that follow have a very different flavour to all those preceding them: the first by
Graeme Warren takes a critical look at what may be meant by the term “culture” and the construction of
identity using the Mesolithic archaeology of Eastern Scotland; and the final paper titled “A post-processual
flight of fancy?” by Amelia Pannett discusses a number of sites in Caithness, Scotland, and proposes an
interpretation that focuses not on the economic or functional aspects of microlith production but on the
symbolic significance of their manufacture and their locales chosen for such activities.

Some of the papers are rather short, whereas others provide great detail (the paper by Bjarke Ballin even
contains a thorough appendix) but overall there is no doubt that the book provides a significant amount of
new data concerned with Mesolithic settlement around the North Sea. There are also varying degrees of
interpretation throughout. However, the papers by Waddington, Warren and Pannett particularly provide
some very interesting ideas and perspectives, which engendered much debate on the day of the conference
(hence Pannett’s title) and no doubt will continue to provoke further discussion in the future.
ISSN 0259-3548 24
MM 19:1

Miscellany

Northern Hunter Gatherer Discussion Forum

http://hgdiscussionforum.googlepages.com/home

The Northern Hunter-Gatherer discussion forum was begun in 2005 with the aim of providing a regular
informal and relaxed forum in which new research and new theoretical perspectives on prehistoric hunter-
gatherers can be discussed and debated. The forum is designed to promote discussion and to help develop
and foster links between those whose research addresses prehistoric hunter-gatherers.
Next meetings: June 20th, University of York, October 2008, University of Manchester. See website for
further details

Want to do a Masters in Mesolithic Studies?

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/gsp/publicity/mesolithicdet.htm

The course provides a background to European Mesolithic studies, exploring the ways in which the
Mesolithic has been interpreted from the 19th century, up to the present day. It also explores key topics such
as technology, consumption practices, death and burial, plants and animals and settlement, drawing on the
research that is carried out in the Archaeology department at the University of York. There are a number of
fieldtrips, hands-on practicals such as flint knapping, and opportunities to join research projects and
excavations.

Join the prehistoric society!

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/

Originally founded as the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia in 1908, the current name was established in
1935. The Prehistoric Society now has an international membership of around 2000 members. The
Prehistoric Society's interests are world wide and extend from the earliest human origins to the emergence of
written records. Membership is open to all, and includes professional, amateur, student and retired members
from over 40 countries. An active programme of events including lectures, study tours, research weekends
and receptions allows members to participate fully in the Society and to meet other members and interested
parties. The Society produces two publications: the annual journal, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
and the topical newsletter, PAST , which is published in April, July and November. Annual Research,
Conference and Student Travel Awards are available to members to enable excavations, research, visits to
conferences and travel abroad to sites and museums.
Ordinary rate £35, Student rate £17.50, see website for more details

Contributing to the next volume

Please send information on research, recent excavations, book reviews, conference summaries, radiocarbon
dates, announcements, recent publications, PhD summaries etc. Deadline 1st October 2008. Please send
contributions to mesolithicmiscellany@googlemail.com. Further details on
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/Mesolithic/index.htm

If you would like to be informed when the latest issue of MM is published and you are not already on the
mailing list, please send an email with the topic <subscribe> to the above email address. If you wish to be
removed from the mailing list please send an email with the topic <unsubscribe>. This publication is free of
charge.

ISSN 0259-3548 25