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

Hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic
• 55 •
discs, and partially-drilled or broken beads recovered. Nab Head may have acted as a production
centre for these beads, which were then absorbed into an exchange system, resulting in finds of
examples at several inland sites.
Settlement evidence provides few clues as to social organization. The largest sites, such as
Culverwell, may represent either a large, semi-sedentary population or many short-term visits,
leading to a gradual accumulation of structural features. At present, we do not know which
applies, but in future, attempts to look systematically and in detail at the spatial structure of
settlements may prove helpful.
Estimating the overall population is also fraught with difficulties. Smith (1992b) has documented
the changes in site numbers each millennium during the Lateglacial and early Postglacial, finding
that by 7,000 BP, when the available land area was about 270,000 km 2 , stability had been reached.
If the Mesolithic inhabitants lived at population densities (0.01–0.02 persons per km 2 ) similar to
ethnographically documented hunter-gatherers in comparable environments, a total population
of 2,750–5,500 is implied. Such low figures are a reminder that hunter-gatherers typically have
very extensive foraging areas. Indeed, large numbers of sites, such as those from Islay to Rum
along Scotland’s west coast, may have resulted from a single human group travelling its length.
There is an alternative, however: that people were beginning to live a more sedentary lifestyle,
especially during the Late Mesolithic. Only future, problem-oriented research will provide an
answer.
OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS
The issue of population size, whether at single settlements or for the country as a whole,
encapsulates a set of outstanding problems. Others have been indicated: the role of plant foods
in diet; the nature of settlement patterns; and the reasons for variation in microlith form. A
considerable amount of innovative research is underway, including experimental knapping to
understand the cause of variation in microlith form, and the creation of predictive models for
settlement location. The further development of science-based archaeology is likely to have a
major impact on our understanding, but new theoretical approaches are also required: few have
viewed hunter-gatherer/land relationships other than from functional-ecological perspectives. It
is time to consider the symbolic/ideological nature of this relationship—although quite how this
can be achieved remains elusive.
It is perhaps only by exploring this issue that an understanding of the transition to the Neolithic
will be secured. For 5,000 years, people lived by hunting and gathering with a microlithic technology
and without monumental architecture. This hunting and gathering lifestyle probably continued
long into the Neolithic (Chapter 4). The loss of microliths from the archaeological record is
noteworthy; and the appearance of monuments suggests profound changes in non-subsistence
behaviour, perhaps involving entirely new perceptions of the landscape. Of all periods of British
prehistory, the Mesolithic has perhaps both the greatest need and potential for innovative research.
Acknowledgements
Line drawings are by Margaret Matthews and Kirsty Bambridge.
Key texts
Bonsall, C. (ed.) 1989. The Mesolithic in Europe. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Clark, J.G.D., 1954. Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, A. (ed.) 1995. Proceedings of the Man, Sea and the Mesolithic conference, Horsholm. Oxford: Oxbow
Monograph 53.