Click here to see how to contribute

2. MESOLITHIC (c.9500 – c.4000 cal BC): RESEARCH AGENDA

Click here to see the recommended strategic objectives for this period.

2.1 Periods of transition

2.1.1: What can we deduce about the transition from late-glacial to early post-glacial hunter-gatherer societies?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
DATING TECHNIQUES, MESOLITHIC, LITHIC IMPLEMENT, HUNTING SITE
Linked Strategy(s):
Enhance understanding of the environmental background to Mesolithic activity, Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Investigate the topographic locations of activity foci

2.1.2: What can analyses of sites contribute to studies of continuity and change during the Mesolithic period?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC, AGRICULTURE AND SUBSISTENCE, HUMAN REMAINS, ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURE, FLINT, ANIMAL, BONE, HUMAN ASPECTS, PHYSICAL TECHNIQUES, MINERAL, DOMESTIC, OPEN SITE, OCCUPATION SITE, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT
Linked Strategy(s):
Enhance understanding of the environmental background to Mesolithic activity, Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic, Investigate the topographic locations of activity foci

2.1.3: How may we elucidate further the transition from the later Mesolithic to the earlier Neolithic?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
DATING TECHNIQUES, AGRICULTURE AND SUBSISTENCE, ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURE, FLINT, ANIMAL, BONE, HUMAN ASPECTS, PHYSICAL TECHNIQUES, MINERAL, DOMESTIC, OPEN SITE, OCCUPATION SITE, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT, LATE MESOLITHIC, EARLY NEOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Enhance understanding of the environmental background to Mesolithic activity, Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic, Investigate the topographic locations of activity foci, Investigate the transition from the Mesolithic to Neolithic

2.2 Spatial distribution of activity

2.2.1: How were open-air and cave/rock shelter sites distributed across the region, and how might the pattern of activity have changed over time?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MONUMENT, DATING TECHNIQUES, MESOLITHIC, CAVE, FEATURE, CAVE DEPOSIT, SITE, OPEN SITE, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT, PALAEOCHANNEL
Linked Strategy(s):
Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic, Investigate the topographic locations of activity foci, Exploring Doggerland: target submarine landscapes and the modern coastline

2.2.2: How were sites distributed across low-lying and upland areas, and in particular how many sites might be concealed beneath alluvium, colluvium and other masking deposits or beneath the sea?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURE, PHYSICAL TECHNIQUES, DEPOSIT, ALLUVIUM, CAVE DEPOSIT, DOMESTIC, OPEN SITE, OCCUPATION SITE, PALAEOCHANNEL, UNASSIGNED, COLLUVIUM
Linked Strategy(s):
Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic, Investigate the topographic locations of activity foci, Exploring Doggerland: target submarine landscapes and the modern coastline

2.2.3: How can HER records be updated to permit study of changing activity patterns between the earlier and later Mesolithic periods?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
DATING TECHNIQUES, MESOLITHIC, ARTEFACT SCATTER, ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURE, PHYSICAL TECHNIQUES, DEPOSIT, SITE, OCCUPATION SITE, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT, UNASSIGNED
Linked Strategy(s):
Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic

2.2.4: How can we ensure the extension of fieldwalking surveys to previously untargeted areas, and in particular to comparatively poorly studied landscapes (e.g. Coal Measures)?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC, SITE, PALAEOCHANNEL, UNASSIGNED
Linked Strategy(s):
Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate the topographic locations of activity foci

2.3 Identification of site types

2.3.1: How were caves and rock shelters utilised in this period and what was their relationship to open sites?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC, DOMESTIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Enhance understanding of the environmental background to Mesolithic activity, Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate the topographic locations of activity foci

2.3.2: How far may studies of the size, shape and locational characteristics of lithic scatters and analyses of the associated lithic artefacts contribute to the identification of site types in the later and earlier Mesolithic?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
RADIOCARBON DATING, MESOLITHIC, LITHIC IMPLEMENT, PHYSICAL TECHNIQUES, SITE, OCCUPATION SITE, LITHIC SCATTER
Linked Strategy(s):
Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic

2.3.3: What range of structural remains may survive on open-air sites across the region (particularly below alluvium and other masking deposits)?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
01/10/2019
Date of next review:
01/10/2024
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Investigate the topographic locations of activity foci, Exploring Doggerland: target submarine landscapes and the modern coastline

2.3.4: How can we enhance the lithic scatter data retrieved during fieldwalking to clarify the size and shape of activity foci?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity

2.3.5: How far can we elucidate by targeted excavation the character of sites represented by surface lithic scatters?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity

2.4 Lithic artefact chronologies

2.4.1: Can we refine further by detailed typological analyses of survey and excavation the chronology of Mesolithic lithic industries, and in particular those overlapping Late Upper Palaeolithic and earlier Neolithic traditions?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic, Investigate the transition from the Mesolithic to Neolithic

2.4.2: How far may radiocarbon dating contribute to refinement of lithic artefact chronologies?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic, Investigate the transition from the Mesolithic to Neolithic

2.4.3: Can we elucidate the potential impact of environmental change upon lithic artefact technology?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic

2.4.4: Can we shed further light upon variations in the lithic assemblages surviving in earlier and later Mesolithic industries?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic

2.5 Production, distribution and use of lithic artefacts

2.5.1: How precisely can we define the sources of lithic raw materials and the routes of movement of raw materials and/or finished artefacts?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Provenancing lithic raw materials: identify patterns of mobility, Develop a regional lithic raw material reference collection

2.5.2: Can we define with greater precision the spatial extent of typologically distinctive lithic assemblage types (Star Carr-type, Deepcar-type, etc.) and what may these distribution patterns imply?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic

2.5.3: What light may further site-based studies of lithic reduction sequences shed upon spatial and temporal variations in the organisation of lithic production and changes in lithic technology?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Characterise the regional and local evidence for Mesolithic activity, Investigate further the earlier Mesolithic lithic resource, Identify changing patterns of lithic artefact use in the later Mesolithic

2.6 Environmental change and food procurement strategies

2.6.1: What can analyses of cave deposits, palaeochannel fills, upland peats and other deposits with potential for preserved pollen, charcoal and other organic remains contribute to studies of the earliest stages of woodland clearance and plant domestication?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Enhance understanding of the environmental background to Mesolithic activity, Investigate the transition from the Mesolithic to Neolithic, Exploring Doggerland: target submarine landscapes and the modern coastline

2.6.2: How can we maximise the potential of palaeochannels, upland or coastal peats and other organically rich deposits as sources of data on Early Holocene landscapes and changes in subsistence strategies and diet?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Enhance understanding of the environmental background to Mesolithic activity, Investigate the transition from the Mesolithic to Neolithic, Exploring Doggerland: target submarine landscapes and the modern coastline

2.6.3: How far may studies of Mesolithic diet and mobility patterns be advanced by stable isotope analyses of human bone?

More information on this question
Status:
Active
Date accepted:
05/06/2019
Date of next review:
05/06/2021
Found in the following Frameworks:
East Midlands Historic Environment Research Framework
Categories:
MESOLITHIC
Linked Strategy(s):
Enhance understanding of the environmental background to Mesolithic activity, Investigate the transition from the Mesolithic to Neolithic, Exploring Doggerland: target submarine landscapes and the modern coastline

1 Comment

  1. vowen2
    vowen2

    Organisation:
    Archaeology South East
    Site/Project Name:
    Shardlow Quarry
    County/Unitary Authority:
    Derbyshire
    NGR
    SK 423286
    Report and Web Link:
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeologyse/publications/monographs; Krawiek, C, Howard, A J, Gearey, B 2017 Beside the River Trent: Archaeological Investigations at Shardlow Quarry, Derbyshire (Spoilheap Monograph 14). Archaeology South-East & Trent and Peak Archaeology
    Agenda Topic(s)

    2.6.1 What can analyses of cave deposits, palaeochannel fills, upland peats and other deposits with potential for preserved pollen, charcoal and other organic remains contribute to studies of the earliest stages of woodland clearance and plant domestication?
    2.1.2 What can analyses of sites contribute to studies of continuity and change during the Mesolithic period?
    Research Objective(s)

    2A Enhance understanding of the environmental background to Mesolithic activity
    2H Investigate the transition from the Mesolithic to Neolithic
    How has this work addressed the Research Agenda and Strategy?

    At Shardlow, significant evidence for the character of the landscape begins in the Mesolithic and suggests a wooded valley floor environment with multiple stable river channels and larger expanses of wetland. Whilst evidence for Mesolithic activity is relatively rare and restricted to a small cluster of flints, it is probably that this environment would have offered bountiful resources to these early hunter gatherer communities that roamed the region. During the Neolithic the main course of the Trent was located further to the north and the floodplain was bisected by several smaller stream channels. Whilst the floodplain was vegetated with alder carr, the higher Pleistocene terrace to the northwest of the river was cleared and occupied by a large Neolithic cropmark complex containing several barrows and a cursus monument. The (Aston) cursus, is around 1500m long and in planform comprises a rectangular ditch and bank now ploughed flat. This entire cropmark complex provides evidence for significant ritual and funerary activity beginning within this landscape, but the only possible votive evidence from the wetlands comprises a single polished stone axe-head recovered from within a palaeochannel.

Leave a Comment