Jump to content

Irish Mesolithic: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Created page with ''''Ireland’s Later Mesolithic''' ''Chronology & Technology'' Ireland’s Later Mesolithic period begins around 7500 BP (Before Present) with the occurrence o...'
 
No edit summary
Line 35: Line 35:
Subsistence appears to have involved a broad spectrum of faunal resources: Newferry subsistence data have shown a focus on salmonids and eels <ref>Brinkhuizan, D. 1977. Appendix I: The fish remains. In Recent Excavations at Newferry, Co. Antrim, by P.C. Woodman, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43:197.</ref>; Ferriter’s Cove has demonstrated exploitation of seafish, shellfish, and wild pig <ref>McCarthy, M. 1999.</ref> <ref>Woodman, P.C. 1990. The Mesolithic of Munster: A preliminary assessment. In the Mesolithic in Europe: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh, by C. Bonsall (ed.), pp. 116-132. University of Edinburgh Press.</ref>; and midden sites along the coast of the province of Leinster indicate consumption of sea mammals (e.g., seals), oysters, and limpets <ref>Woodman, P.C. 1986. Problems in the colonization of Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 49:7-17.</ref>.
Subsistence appears to have involved a broad spectrum of faunal resources: Newferry subsistence data have shown a focus on salmonids and eels <ref>Brinkhuizan, D. 1977. Appendix I: The fish remains. In Recent Excavations at Newferry, Co. Antrim, by P.C. Woodman, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43:197.</ref>; Ferriter’s Cove has demonstrated exploitation of seafish, shellfish, and wild pig <ref>McCarthy, M. 1999.</ref> <ref>Woodman, P.C. 1990. The Mesolithic of Munster: A preliminary assessment. In the Mesolithic in Europe: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh, by C. Bonsall (ed.), pp. 116-132. University of Edinburgh Press.</ref>; and midden sites along the coast of the province of Leinster indicate consumption of sea mammals (e.g., seals), oysters, and limpets <ref>Woodman, P.C. 1986. Problems in the colonization of Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 49:7-17.</ref>.


Some authors have wondered about this uncomplicated picture <ref>Woodman, P.C. and E. Anderson. 1990. The Irish Later Mesolithic: A partial picture. In Contributions to the Mesolithic of Europe, by P.M. Vermeersch and P. Van Peer (eds.), pp. 377-387. Leuven University Press.</ref> <ref>Cooney, G. and E. Grogan. 1994. Irish Prehistory: A Social Perspective. Dublin: Wordwell Ltd.</ref> <ref>Kimball, M. 2000b.</ref> in light of its contrast with contemporary trends for other Mesolithic societies. For example, in Denmark and North America’s Northwest coast, this period represented intensification in food resource extraction, increased sedentism, and incipient social inequality <ref>Kimball, M. 2000b.</ref>. However, three observations undermine this expectation for Ireland’s Later Mesolithic.
Some authors have wondered about this uncomplicated picture <ref>Woodman, P.C. and E. Anderson. 1990. The Irish Later Mesolithic: A partial picture. In Contributions to the Mesolithic of Europe, by P.M. Vermeersch and P. Van Peer (eds.), pp. 377-387. Leuven University Press.</ref> <ref>Cooney, G. and E. Grogan. 1994. Irish Prehistory: A Social Perspective. Dublin: Wordwell Ltd.</ref> <ref>Kimball, M. 2000b.</ref> in light of its contrast with contemporary trends for other Mesolithic societies. For example, in Denmark and North America’s Northwest coast, this period represented intensification in food resource extraction, increased sedentism, and incipient social inequality <ref>Kimball, M. 2000b.</ref>. However, three observations undermine this expectation for Ireland’s Later Mesolithic.


First, it is now generally accepted (although nonetheless still surprising) that Ireland lacked large terrestrial ungulates – for example, red deer (elk) – during the Later Mesolithic period <ref>Woodman, P.C. and M. McCarthy. 2003. Contemplating sime awful(ly interesting) vistas. In Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain, by Ian Armit, Eileen Murphy, Eimar Nelis, and Derek Simpson (eds.), pp. 31-39. Oxbow Books: Osford.</ref>. Although contemporary maritime foraging societies that did follow a trajectory towards social complexity did not center their subsistence economy on these mammals, they often provided an important supplement to a marine-focused diet <ref>Kimball, M. 2000b.</ref>. Without clear evidence for a rich, reliable, and stationary aquatic or marine food source, it is difficult to envision a similar trend for Ireland. After more research, Strangford Lough <ref>Williams, B. and T. McEarlean. 2002. Maritime archaeology in Northern Ireland. Antiquity 76:505-511.</ref> <ref>McCartan, S. 2002. Prehistory. In Strangford Lough: An Archaeological Survey of the Maritime Cultural Landscape, by Thomas McEarlean, Rosemary McConkey, and Wes Forsythe (eds.), pp. 41-55. Blackstaff Press: Belfast.</ref> may contradict this assertion because of northeast Ireland’s relatively early sea-level peak at ca. 6500 BP <ref>Carter, R.W.G., R.J.N. Devoy, and J. Shaw. 1989. Late Holocene sea levels in Ireland. Journal of Quaternary Science 4(1):7-24.</ref> – thereby increasing chances for longer sequences – and evidence for oyster exploitation in the form of numerous prehistoric middens.
First, it is now generally accepted (although nonetheless still surprising) that Ireland lacked large terrestrial ungulates – for example, red deer (elk) – during the Later Mesolithic period <ref>Woodman, P.C. and M. McCarthy. 2003. Contemplating sime awful(ly interesting) vistas. In Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain, by Ian Armit, Eileen Murphy, Eimar Nelis, and Derek Simpson (eds.), pp. 31-39. Oxbow Books: Osford.</ref>. Although contemporary maritime foraging societies that did follow a trajectory towards social complexity did not center their subsistence economy on these mammals, they often provided an important supplement to a marine-focused diet <ref>Kimball, M. 2000b.</ref>. Without clear evidence for a rich, reliable, and stationary aquatic or marine food source, it is difficult to envision a similar trend for Ireland. After more research, Strangford Lough <ref>Williams, B. and T. McEarlean. 2002. Maritime archaeology in Northern Ireland. Antiquity 76:505-511.</ref> <ref>McCartan, S. 2002. Prehistory. In Strangford Lough: An Archaeological Survey of the Maritime Cultural Landscape, by Thomas McEarlean, Rosemary McConkey, and Wes Forsythe (eds.), pp. 41-55. Blackstaff Press: Belfast.</ref> may contradict this assertion because of northeast Ireland’s relatively early sea-level peak at ca. 6500 BP <ref>Carter, R.W.G., R.J.N. Devoy, and J. Shaw. 1989. Late Holocene sea levels in Ireland. Journal of Quaternary Science 4(1):7-24.</ref> – thereby increasing chances for longer sequences – and evidence for oyster exploitation in the form of numerous prehistoric middens.

Revision as of 19:09, 18 May 2010

Ireland’s Later Mesolithic


Chronology & Technology


Ireland’s Later Mesolithic period begins around 7500 BP (Before Present) with the occurrence of a pan-Ireland and Isle of Man macrolithic (large stone flake/blade) industry produced solely through hard hammer (hammer stone vs, for example, antler baton) percussion [1] [2]. No transitional industry has yet been identified that bridges the gap between this industry and the Early Mesolithic microlithic (very small flake/blade) industry that preceded it [3].

The Later Mesolithic period ends around 5500 BP and is followed about 500 years later by a ubiquitous Neolithic lithic (stone tool) industry based on soft hammer and indirect percussion, pressure flaking, and bifacing [4]. As with the Early and Later Mesolithic, no industry has yet been found that represents a transition between the Later Mesolithic and Neolithic. With these rather abrupt beginning and end points, the material culture of the Later Mesolithic marks a unique, island-oriented forager adaptation.

Until recently there have been few signs of variation across the approximately 2000 years that comprise the Later Mesolithic period – no identifiable trends toward regionalization or intensification, no noteworthy differences in settlement patterns across space or time. However, as with all static models of human society, this one has reflected data, analytical, and interpretative limitations rather than reality.

The island’s extensive bog and alluvial deposits undoubtedly have concealed informative settlement evidence and its acidic soils have decomposed and destroyed significant amounts of organic archaeological material. Furthermore, rising sea levels, which peaked between 6500 and 4000 BP [5], have eroded and submerged most of the coastal and estuarine evidence for foraging (hunting and gathering) lifeways.

These conditions, along with a historical bias towards research in northeastern Ireland [6] [7], make it quite clear that the record is woefully incomplete. However, the gaps are not evenly distributed across the entire period. Anderson and Johnson [8] have pointed out that the best lithic data for the Later Mesolithic are associated only with its last 500 years (6000-5500 BP).

Only at Newferry is there a chronological sequence which spans the known Later Mesolithic and except for zone 3, for which there are contemporary sites, there are no comparable assemblages for the remainder of the material. If all the contexted material relates to the final phases of a period which lasted for at least 2000 years, then with the exception of a very few sites, none of which contain all the elements of a lithic assemblage, there is a possibility that the material representative of the first 1500 years is missing.

Thus, it is fair to say that 75% of the Later Mesolithic (7500-6000 BP) is impressively underrepresented. Ironically, it is with the last part of the Later Mesolithic that some workers have become most frustrated [9], who was stymied by his research into Ireland’s transition to the Neolithic:

Much further research is needed, and the outlook is unfortunately gloomy. Key sites of the right date will be hard to locate in river valleys and estuaries, and the funding of problem-oriented research is not easy. We may have to wait patiently for chance discoveries of the appropriate kind.

In truth, this pessimism might be better directed at the first three quarters of the Later Mesolithic, rather than the last quarter. The difference is not only in the availability of evidence, but also in the availability of new data arising from the evidence with the application of stable isotope analysis. Indeed, stable isotope analyses, in combination with the advantages of AMS dating, are cutting through the gloom and revealing glimpses of a surprisingly dynamic sixth millennium BP forager lifeway.


Later Mesolithic Mobility & Economy


Without exception, all Later Mesolithic sites and stray finds point to a residential mobility strategy [10] consisting of short-term food and raw material procurement and processing camps oriented toward coasts, estuaries, rivers and lakes. No inland, terrestrially-oriented sites have yet been identified. Regional surveys including the Lough Swilly Archaeological Survey in eastern County Donegal [11], the Bally Lough Archaeological Project in County Waterford [12] and the broader Barrow Valley Archaeological Survey in southeast Ireland [13] have confirmed this pattern.

Excavations at the floodplain site of Newferry in County Antrim [14], the coastal, industrial site of Bay Farm, also in County Antrim [15], and the coastal site of Ferriter’s Cove in County Kerry [16] highlight the small-scale, short-term nature of occupations. Analyses of fish remains from the Ferriter’s Cove excavation suggest a mid-summer to autumn use of that site [17] [18] by small groups of foragers. Preliminary work employing 18O stable isotope analysis of periwinkle (Littorina littorea) shells from a feature at Ferriter’s Cove suggests another visit by foragers in the late autumn or, possibly, winter [19]

Subsistence appears to have involved a broad spectrum of faunal resources: Newferry subsistence data have shown a focus on salmonids and eels [20]; Ferriter’s Cove has demonstrated exploitation of seafish, shellfish, and wild pig [21] [22]; and midden sites along the coast of the province of Leinster indicate consumption of sea mammals (e.g., seals), oysters, and limpets [23].

Some authors have wondered about this uncomplicated picture [24] [25] [26] in light of its contrast with contemporary trends for other Mesolithic societies. For example, in Denmark and North America’s Northwest coast, this period represented intensification in food resource extraction, increased sedentism, and incipient social inequality [27]. However, three observations undermine this expectation for Ireland’s Later Mesolithic.

First, it is now generally accepted (although nonetheless still surprising) that Ireland lacked large terrestrial ungulates – for example, red deer (elk) – during the Later Mesolithic period [28]. Although contemporary maritime foraging societies that did follow a trajectory towards social complexity did not center their subsistence economy on these mammals, they often provided an important supplement to a marine-focused diet [29]. Without clear evidence for a rich, reliable, and stationary aquatic or marine food source, it is difficult to envision a similar trend for Ireland. After more research, Strangford Lough [30] [31] may contradict this assertion because of northeast Ireland’s relatively early sea-level peak at ca. 6500 BP [32] – thereby increasing chances for longer sequences – and evidence for oyster exploitation in the form of numerous prehistoric middens.

Second, based on the settlement evidence, it is likely that population density was quite low. One frequently boards a flight of fancy when deciding to estimate prehistoric population numbers, but the attempt is irresistible. Following the lead of Milner and colleagues’ calculations for Britain [33], if we take the low end of ethnographic forager population density estimates (0.1/km2) and factor in Ireland’s current area (84,000 km2), we arrive at a population estimate of 8,400 individuals at any one time, spread thinly along the island’s extensive coastlines, lakeshores and river valleys. This number simply may not have been large enough to support or require the complex social phenomena that occurred elsewhere.

Third, Later Mesolithic lithic technology and raw material procurement patterns reinforce the scenario of a generalized forager adaptation, i.e., one that is characterized by low population, high mobility, and egalitarian social organization. In addition to its macrolithic nature, one of the features of the Later Mesolithic toolkit that sets it apart from those outside of Ireland is the fact that there is no stylistic variability in the broad blades and flakes found across the island [34] [35]. They all are made the same way – hard hammer percussion – and offer no hint of regional variation that might be indicative of differing social identities. Woodman [36] cited this phenomenon as evidence for cultural insularity; Cooney and Grogan [37] argued that it represented frequent interaction among forager groups; Kimball [38] suggested it reflected an adaptation to a high mobility lifeway and variation in subsistence resource distribution. In truth, Later Mesolithic social identities might have been expressed through a completely different medium, such as tope-skin or pig-skin clothing, tattoos, canoe paddles, or some other material that has long since disintegrated.

References

  1. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1978. The Mesolithic in Ireland: Hunter-Gatherers in an Insular Environment. BAR British Series 58. Archaeopress: Oxford.
  2. ^ McCartan, S. 1994. A Later Mesolithic site at Rhendhoo, Jurby. Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society Proceedings 10(2):87-117.
  3. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1981. Problems of flint utilization in eastern Ireland. In Third International Symposium on Flint, by F. Englesen (ed.). Staringia 6:113-115.
  4. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1994. Towards a definition of Irish Early Neolithic lithic assemblages. In Stories in Stone, Proceedings of the Anniversary Conference at St. Hilda’s College, Oxford, April 1993, by N. Ashton and A. David (eds.), pp. 213-218. Lithics Studies Society Occasional Paper 4
  5. ^ Carter, R.W.G., R.J.N. Devoy, and J. Shaw. 1989. Late Holocene sea levels in Ireland. Journal of Quaternary Science 4(1):7-24.
  6. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1978.
  7. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1993. The prehistory of South-West Ireland – An archaeological region or a state of mind? In Past Perceptions: The Prehistoric Archaeology of South-West Ireland, by E.S. Twohig and M. Ronayne (eds.), 6-15. Cork University Press: Cork
  8. ^ Anderson, E. and G. Johnson. 1995. Irish Later Mesolithic flint technology: Further developments. In Annus Archoeologiae: Archaeological Research 1992, by E. Grogan and C. Mount (eds.), Proceedings of the OIA Winter Conference 1993 held in University College Dublin 30 January 1993, pp. 7-21.
  9. ^ Whittle, A. 1990. Proglomena to the study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and Ireland. In Rubane et Cardial, by D. Cahen and M. Otte (eds.), pp. 209-227. E.R.A.U.L. 39, Liege.
  10. ^ Binford, L.R. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.
  11. ^ Kimball, M. 2000a. Human Ecology and Neolithic Transition in Eastern County Donegal, Ireland: The Lough Swilly Archaeological Survey. BAR British Series 300. Archaeopress: Oxford.
  12. ^ Green, S. and M. Zvelebil. 1990. The Mesolithic colonization and agricultural transition of south-east Ireland. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 56:57-88.
  13. ^ Zvelebil, M., M.G. Macklin, D.G. Passmore, and P. Ramsden. 1996. Alluvial Archaeology in the Barrow Valley, Southeast Ireland: The “Riverford Culture” re-visited. The Journal of Irish Archaeology 7:13-40.
  14. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1977. Recent excavations at Newferry, Co. Antrim. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43:155-199.
  15. ^ Woodman, P.C. and G. Johnson. 1996. Excavations at Bay Farm 1, Carnlough, Co. Antrim, and the study of the “Larnian” technology. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 96C:137-235.
  16. ^ Woodman, P.C., E. Anderson, and N. Finlay. 1999. Excavations at Ferriter’s Cove, 1983-95: Last Foragers, First Farmers in the Dingle Peninsula. Wordwell Ltd: Bray.
  17. ^ Irving, B. 1999. Fish scales. In Excavations at Ferriter’s Cove, 1983-95: Last Foragers, First Farmers in the Dingle Peninsula, by P.C. Woodman, E. Anderson, and N. Finlay, pp. 92-93. Wordwell Ltd: Bray.
  18. ^ McCarthy, M. 1999. Faunal remains. In Excavations at Ferriter’s Cove, 1983-95: Last Foragers, First Farmers in the Dingle Peninsula, by P.C. Woodman, E. Anderson, and N. Finlay, pp. 85-92. Wordwell Ltd: Bray.
  19. ^ Kimball, Michael J., William Showers, Sinead McCartan, Bernard J. Jenna. 18O Analysis of Littorina littorea Shells from Ferriter's Cove, Dingle Peninsula: Preliminary results and interpretations. In From Bann Flakes to Bushmills: Papers in Honour of Professor Peter Woodman, edited by Nyree Finlay, Sinead McCartan, Nicky Milner and Caroline Wickham-Jones. Prehistoric Society Research Paper 1, Oxbow Books and the Prehistoric Society, 2009.
  20. ^ Brinkhuizan, D. 1977. Appendix I: The fish remains. In Recent Excavations at Newferry, Co. Antrim, by P.C. Woodman, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 43:197.
  21. ^ McCarthy, M. 1999.
  22. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1990. The Mesolithic of Munster: A preliminary assessment. In the Mesolithic in Europe: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Edinburgh, by C. Bonsall (ed.), pp. 116-132. University of Edinburgh Press.
  23. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1986. Problems in the colonization of Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 49:7-17.
  24. ^ Woodman, P.C. and E. Anderson. 1990. The Irish Later Mesolithic: A partial picture. In Contributions to the Mesolithic of Europe, by P.M. Vermeersch and P. Van Peer (eds.), pp. 377-387. Leuven University Press.
  25. ^ Cooney, G. and E. Grogan. 1994. Irish Prehistory: A Social Perspective. Dublin: Wordwell Ltd.
  26. ^ Kimball, M. 2000b. Variation and context: Ecology and social evolution in Ireland’s Later Mesolithic. In New Agendas in Irish Prehistory: Papers in Commemoration of Liz Anderson, by Angela Desmond, Ginal Johnson, Margaret McCarthy, John Sheehan, and Elizabeth Shee Twohig (eds.), pp. 31-43. Wordwell Ltd.: Bray..
  27. ^ Kimball, M. 2000b.
  28. ^ Woodman, P.C. and M. McCarthy. 2003. Contemplating sime awful(ly interesting) vistas. In Neolithic Settlement in Ireland and Western Britain, by Ian Armit, Eileen Murphy, Eimar Nelis, and Derek Simpson (eds.), pp. 31-39. Oxbow Books: Osford.
  29. ^ Kimball, M. 2000b.
  30. ^ Williams, B. and T. McEarlean. 2002. Maritime archaeology in Northern Ireland. Antiquity 76:505-511.
  31. ^ McCartan, S. 2002. Prehistory. In Strangford Lough: An Archaeological Survey of the Maritime Cultural Landscape, by Thomas McEarlean, Rosemary McConkey, and Wes Forsythe (eds.), pp. 41-55. Blackstaff Press: Belfast.
  32. ^ Carter, R.W.G., R.J.N. Devoy, and J. Shaw. 1989. Late Holocene sea levels in Ireland. Journal of Quaternary Science 4(1):7-24.
  33. ^ Milner, N., O.E. Craig, G.N. Bailey, K. Pedersen, and S.H. Andersen. 2004. Something fishy in the Neolithic? A re-evaluation of stable isotope analysis of Mesolithic and Neolithic coastal populations. Antiquity 78(299):9-22.
  34. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1978.
  35. ^ Woodman, P.C. and E. Anderson. 1990. pp. 377-387.
  36. ^ Woodman, P.C. 1978.
  37. ^ Cooney, G. and E. Grogan. 1994.
  38. ^ Kimball, M. 2000a.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_Mesolithic&oldid=362864409"