The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca

Hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic
• 51 •
characteristic of later stages of knapping. It appears that partially worked cores were carried
here, to be worked as efficiently as possible before being discarded. Coulererach lay about 100 m
from the Mesolithic coastline on which flint pebbles are likely to have been abundant, but Bolsay
Farm lies 6 km from this source.
Debitage analysis and site formation
When debitage can be refitted, more detailed information about knapping methods is obtainable.
At Early Mesolithic Hengistbury Head (Barton 1992), for instance, excavations recovered 35,444
pieces of debitage, a considerable number of which have been refitted. Most cores with opposed
platforms here displayed uneven use. Refitting also indicates that most, if not all, of the artefacts
were contemporary. This is important, as they were found dispersed vertically through windblown
sand deposits. Examples separated vertically by as much as 0.39 m have been rejoined,
demonstrating that their separation is due to post-depositional processes such as trampling and
bioturbation. Otherwise, this site might have been interpreted as a series of stratified deposits
from successive occupations.
Demonstrating contemporaneity between artefacts and features on a single site can occasion
difficulties. The artefacts at Oakhanger III covered more than 100 m 2 and surrounded four
hearths. Are these hearths and artefacts contemporary and indicative of a relatively large social
group, or do they simply reflect repeated visits by a small group? Radiocarbon dating cannot
necessarily resolve such problems, as the finest resolution appears to be±50 years.
The enormous size of the lithic assemblages at many sites indicates that certain locations were
repeatedly visited by Mesolithic foragers. While this may be accounted for purely in functional
terms—such as access to materials or good hunting—symbolic relationships with specific places
and landscape features linked to the inhabitants’ cosmology, about which we know nothing, may
be invoked.
Raw material sources and mobility patterns
Identifying the sources of raw materials found on sites is important in reconstructing past
mobility patterns. For instance, Early Mesolithic sites in the Pennines, both in the eastern
foothills, such as Deepcar, and on the summits, have artefacts made from a white flint originating
in the north Lincolnshire Wolds 80 km away. The frequency (80–99 per cent) of such artefacts
matches that found on sites immediately adjacent to the flint sources. Jacobi (1978) suggested
that this may reflect direct procurement by groups that exploited the Pennines in summer and
the eastern lowlands in winter. Portland chert, contrastingly, is found in only very small
frequencies in assemblages even from sites at distances less than 80 km from its source, such as
Oakhanger V and VII. Only one blade of Portland chert was identified in the assemblage of
186,000 artefacts there. Jacobi proposed that the distribution mechanism in this case may have
been gift exchange.
The distribution of bloodstone, which has its major source on Rum (Wickham-Jones 1990;
1994), is also informative. Assemblages containing bloodstone artefacts come from neighbouring
islands, notably Eigg and Skye, and from nearby mainland areas including Ardnamurchan and
the shell midden at Risga in Loch Sunart. This pattern may indicate the range over which people
from Rum moved during their seasonal cycles. Further away, on Colonsay and Islay for example,
bloodstone is absent from Mesolithic assemblages. These islands may, however, have provided
sufficient raw materials, so that bloodstone was not required.
Inferences can be drawn from variations in raw material use through time. During the earlier
Mesolithic, northern English assemblages are dominated by white flint; subsequently, there was
much greater use of poorer quality chert and translucent flint (Pitts and Jacobi 1979). This change