Edited by Trevor Kirk and Charles Johns with contributions from Kevin Camidge, Dan Charman, Ian Dennis, Ralph Fyfe, Andy M Jones, Steve Mills, Jacqui Mulville, Amelia Pannett, Paul Rainbird, Helen M Roberts, and Robert Scaife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The main characteristics of Scilly\u2019s Palaeolithic and Mesolithic resource are summarised in this review. These periods make brief cameo appearances in earlier assessments of Scilly\u2019s archaeological resource but, until recently, have produced scant archaeological and environmental evidence by comparison with Scilly\u2019s post-Mesolithic prehistory (Ashbee 1986; Ratcliffe 1989; Ratcliffe and Straker 1996; Johns et al<\/em> 2004). However, the depth and quality of environmental data, especially for the Mesolithic, has been substantially improved by the results of the Lyonesse Project (Charman et al<\/em> 2016). The Neolithic Stepping Stones project\u2019s excavations at Old Quay, St Martin\u2019s, in 2013 and 2014 recovered 57 microliths with possible Continental affinities (Anderson-Whymark et al<\/em> 2015; Garrow and Sturt 2017) and there is emerging evidence for other Mesolithic flintworking to supplement the Old Quay material (Pannett 2007). The main characteristics of Scilly\u2019s Palaeolithic (c <\/em>700,000 to 10,000 BP) and Mesolithic (c <\/em>10,000 to 6,000 BP) resource are summarised in this review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Current knowledge of the Palaeolithic environmental background of Scilly was summarised for SWARF (Hosfield et <\/em>al<\/em> 2008, 27). The earliest pollen evidence for vegetation in the Devensian in south-west England is from Scilly and published by Scourse (1985; 1986; 1991) as part of his research investigating the extension of the Irish Sea glacier. Formerly it was thought that glacial ice did not spread as far as the south of England in the last glacial episode (c <\/em>21,000 BP) but his research suggests that it reached the northern flanks of Tresco, Bryher and St Martin\u2019s. The resulting glacial deposits include flint (originally from the Irish Sea floor) that was subsequently exploited by prehistoric communities in Scilly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scourse also carried out pollen analyses on organic lenses thought to have accumulated in small lakes or ponds during the build-up of solifluxion of granitic head in Scilly. These are exposed in section at Carn Morval and Watermill Cove, St Mary\u2019s, and Bread and Cheese Cove, St Martin\u2019s, and the pollen suggested open, largely grassland-dominated herbaceous vegetation during the Upper Palaeolithic. Similar arctic tundra conditions were also identified in deposits from Porth Seal on St Martin\u2019s. High pinus<\/em> values were interpreted as evidence of climatic deterioration (cf<\/em> Hosfield et al <\/em>2008, 28).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The only possible Palaeolithic artefact from Scilly is an unprovenanced curved-backed point held at the Royal Cornwall Museum (Truro). This piece may be an Upper Palaeolithic \u2018penknife point\u2019, such as are found in cave sites throughout Britain (Berridge and Roberts 1986, 8-9; Fig 3.1), although similar points are also known from Mesolithic contexts on the mainland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This artefact is an intriguing indication that people were visiting the archipelago during the climatic improvements ahead of the Younger Dryas cold spell. The penknife point, a member of the continental Federmessergruppen<\/em>, ought to date to between 12,000 and 11,000 BP, after Scilly had become separated from the mainland. The distribution of earlier Upper Palaeolithic material from the Aurignacian (c\u00a0<\/em>31,000 BP), has led Paul Pettit (2008) to propose a small-scale colonisation event taking in the west of Cornwall, presumably including Scilly, thus allowing for the possibility of finds from that period, although there is currently no other evidence of human presence in Scilly during the Palaeolithic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fig 3.1 The unprovenanced penknife point from Scilly (photo: Anna Tyacke).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental evidence from Watermill Cove Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), St Mary\u2019s, is indicative of the potential for sites primarily known (or designated) for their geological qualities to illuminate the Palaeolithic environment and climate in Scilly. Extreme serendipity might also lead such sites to yield Palaeolithic material culture and\/or fauna.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The sub-surface bathymetry between the Isles of Scilly and Penwith, Cornwall, suggests that the archipelago may have been surrounded by the sea as early as c <\/em>12,000 BP (c\u00a0<\/em>13,130\u201312,700 cal BC). Rocks, such as the Seven Stones, and one or two others that are currently largely submerged, would have remained as islands for some millennia. Although this hypothesis is untested, a possible Late Glacial or Early Postglacial separation raises interesting questions related to island biogeography. The unusual small mammal fauna goes some way to support early island status. Pernetta and Hanford (1970) and Turk (in Butcher 1978, 99) discussed the apparently relict Postglacial survival of the root vole (Microtus oeconomus<\/em>) and the presence of the Scilly Shrew (Crocidura suaveolens<\/em>), which is only found on the Islands (cf<\/em> Hosfield et al <\/em>2008, 27).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Current evidence suggests that at the end of the last glaciation the archipelago may have consisted of a single landmass roughly 17km long and 8.5km wide stretching from the Western Rocks to the Eastern Isles and from Peninnis to Shipman Head. Palaeogeographic reconstructions by the Lyonesse Project indicate a rapid rise in sea-level during the late Mesolithic. The continuous land mass of Scilly that existed at 9000\u20137000 cal BC, including areas as far west as Annet and the Western Rocks, shows separation of St Agnes and these other western islands from the mainland by around 5000 cal BC, although part of the area between St Mary\u2019s and St Agnes would have been tidal flats. The other significant change in the nature of the coastal environmental over this period was the development of more extensive intertidal zones in a number of locations. Prior to the opening of St Mary\u2019s Sound, a significant intertidal area developed on the northern side of the Western Rocks and in the north-western part of St Mary\u2019s Sound between St Agnes and St Mary\u2019s. While the main islands were still a single land mass until about 4000 cal BC, extensive intertidal areas were present in St Mary\u2019s Road, west of Samson, and also to the north east of St Mary\u2019s out towards the Eastern Isles. Very extensive intertidal areas were present in the western side of St Mary\u2019s Road throughout the period 6000\u20134000 cal BC (Charman et al<\/em> 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fig 3.2 Inferred submergence model c 7,000 BC showing the distribution of Mesolithic sites. Based on data from the Lyonesse Project (Charman et al 2016) and shown as simulations of the modern Admiralty Chart. Land area (brown) is defined as above MHWS, and the intertidal area (green) as between chart datum and Mean High Water Springs(MHWS). Blue and white areas are below chart datum (dark blue 0 to-5 m CD, pale blue -5 to -10 m CD, white < -10 m CD).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Preceding work on the Mesolithic environmental background of Scilly was summarised by Hosfield et <\/em>al<\/em> (2008, 41) for SWARF. The longest pollen sequence was that at Higher Moors, with Late Mesolithic oak-ash and hazel woodland at the base of the sequence dated to 5725\u20135379 cal BC (HAR-3695; 6630\u00b1100). Birch scrub in this context may indicate woodland regeneration following small-scale clearance by gatherer-hunters. The Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic intertidal peats at Par Beach on St Martin\u2019s and at Porth Mellon on St Mary\u2019s indicate mixed deciduous woodland with birch, oak, hazel, lime, holly, alder and willow (Scaife 1984; Ratcliffe and Straker 1996; Hosfield et al<\/em> 2008, 41).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Samples of intertidal peat taken from Porth Hellick, St Mary\u2019s, in September 2010 for the Lyonesse Project suggest that significant tree cover had developed by 9637\u20139281cal BC (SUERC-32915; 9915\u00b135 BP), within perhaps a few hundred years of the start of the Holocene at about 9900\u20139500 cal BC or 11,700\u00b199 years before AD 2000 (Charman et al<\/em> 2016; Walker et al<\/em> 2008).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Porth Hellick profile suggests that there was spatial diversity in vegetation in the earliest Holocene before major tree expansion, with higher levels of willow (Salix<\/em>) compared to St Mary\u2019s Road. Although the date of the tree expansion is ambiguous, there is no doubt it was rapid and both the Porth Hellick and St Mary\u2019s Road cores show a simultaneous expansion of oak (Quercus<\/em>) and hazel (Corylus<\/em>). Birch was a major associated species at St Mary\u2019s Road but was less common at Porth Hellick. Both locations show the forest was quite diverse, however, with ivy (Hedera<\/em>), mountain ash (Sorbus<\/em>) and honeysuckle (Lonicera<\/em>) all present (Charman et al<\/em> 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The character of the forest cover was with oak and hazel as dominant taxa with other species less common except in favourable locations. The arrival and expansion of hazel and oak at the same time is a perhaps a little unusual in the context of other sites in southern Britain, where oak often precedes hazel (Birks 1989). Hazel may well have spread by water transport up western coasts and arrived in Scilly at the same time as oak was continuing its steady migration into the south west after the last glacial (Birks 1989). The early environment on Scilly would have been a closed forest of oak-hazel with open areas in the low lying wetlands such as those at Porth Hellick and St Mary\u2019s Road (Charman et al<\/em> 2016).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is clear evidence of forest disturbance in the St Mary\u2019s Road area from as early as 6600\u20136462 cal BC (SUERC-38100; 7695\u00b135 BP) and repeatedly after 5980\u20135761 cal BC (SUERC-28995; 6980\u00b135 BP) until perhaps until 4713\u20134547 cal BC (OxA-25690; 5784\u00b133 BP). The more fragmentary evidence from Great English Island Neck, between St Martin\u2019s and Nornour, is not sufficient to record sequences of disturbance and recovery similar to those in St Mary\u2019s Road, but charcoal does occur in association with a transition to more open ground in several profiles there. It thus appears that fire was a frequent event in the Mesolithic woodland on Scilly and it is possible that this reflects Mesolithic woodland management for red deer (see section 3.3.4 below for further discussion). The disturbance led to temporary declines in oak, but favoured regrowth of birch and willow in St Mary\u2019s Road (Fig 6.5). From c<\/em>\u00a06000 cal BC the forest composition became a little more diverse, with alder (Alnus<\/em>), elm (Ulmus<\/em>) and lime (Tilia<\/em>) all present in low amounts, and sporadic occurrences of heather (Calluna<\/em>), suggesting a diversification of the under storey. Ash (Fraxinu<\/em>s) is also present in the later sediments after 4703\u20134456 cal BC (OxA-23861; 5720\u00b155 BP) (Charman et al<\/em> 2016). \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Forest cover reduced quite rapidly from c\u00a0<\/em>5000 cal BC in St Mary\u2019s Road and elsewhere. There is a very large reduction in oak at 5218\u20135017 cal BC (SUERC-40882; 6170\u00b135 BP), but with little change in other tree taxa. Hazel declines rapidly at 5031\u20134841 cal BC (SUERC-38084; 6040\u00b135 BP) but the final decline in tree cover is from birch woodland at 4457\u20134351 cal BC (OxA-25681; 5570\u00b132 BP). These changes appear to have been partly associated with fire events, but they may also have been related to rising sea levels in these low-lying areas. Increases in sedges (Cyperaceae) suggest that woodland cover gave way to increasing wetland extent, rather than being replaced by dryland vegetation, and the initial decrease in oak occurs before the large charcoal peak that is associated with a decline in willow. Close to Nornour, burning is associated with an initial decline and recovery of birch cover but the final reduction in birch is correlated with an increase in the Chenopodiaceae, which includes several saltmarsh taxa, reflecting increasing maritime influence from sea-level rise. Thus the change from early Holocene woodland to open ground in the lowlands was apparently driven by the combined effects of human disturbance and burning and partly by changing hydrological conditions related to sea-level rise (Charman et al<\/em> 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conventionally, it has been considered that Scilly was not permanently settled until the Bronze Age, with the presence of a few Mesolithic flints interpreted as representing rare seasonal visits from Cornwall by groups of hunter-gatherers in paddled boats (for example, Ratcliffe 1989; Ratcliffe and Johns 2003). Paul Ashbee reviewed the evidence for Mesolithic occupation of Scilly in the Silver Jubilee volume of Cornish Archaeology<\/em> (1986, 195\u20136), noting the lack of distinctive lithic material from the Islands but stressing the impacts of later prehistoric sea-level rises. He also emphasised the apparent persistence on Scilly of an essentially \u2018Mesolithic\u2019 subsistence economy based on the exploitation of marine and seashore resources \u2013 fishing, fowling, marine hunting and deer exploitation \u2013 into later prehistory, this pattern of subsistence being similar to that found on the majority of British insular sites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Until recently the artefactual evidence had not increased greatly since the Mesolithic period review by Peter Berridge and Alison Roberts in the same volume (1986), the most important discovery being the 20 or so pieces of flint collected from the cliff face at Old Quay, on the south coast of St Martin\u2019s. This is the only identified Mesolithic flint-working site on the Islands (Ratcliffe 1989, 33; 1994, 13). St Martin\u2019s is the island closest to the mainland and this part of the archipelago is likely to have been the first landfall for voyagers from Cornwall. Old Quay is located in a sheltered position in the lee of Cruther\u2019s Hill, it occupies a terrace overlooking the central flats to the south and is not far from the excellent source of glacial pebble flint around White Island (Fig 8.3) and Great Bay on the more exposed northern side of St Martin\u2019s (cf<\/em> Anderson-Whymark et al<\/em> 2015, 961).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two diagnostic flints recovered from the cliff section at Old Quay in 2012 were identified as trapezoidal microliths dating to the Early Mesolithic (8500\u20136000 cal BC), according to the classifications by Clark (1934) and Butler (2005) (Fig 8.2). The similarity between the two is remarkable and they may have been made by the same person (Dennis et al<\/em> 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Table 3.1 Mesolithic flints from Scilly (based on Anderson-Whymark et al 2015, table 1).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2013 and 2014, excavations at Old Quay, St Martin\u2019s, by the Neolithic Stepping Stones project, which was investigating the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition within the western seaways of Britain, recovered 57 comparable microliths within a much larger spread of 5738 pieces of prehistoric worked flint from the small fields behind the cliff. The artefact scatter was contained within the ploughsoil and subsoil and residually within later features. No features dating to the Mesolithic period were identified (Garrow and Sturt 2017). The microliths are considered to fall within the t<\/em>rap\u00e8ze \u00e0 bases d\u00e9cal\u00e9es<\/em> and trap\u00e8ze rectangle court <\/em>classifications. Intriguingly, no parallels have so far been found in any other Mesolithic assemblage from Britain or Ireland and the closest affinities are with examples found in north-east France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark dating to the Late \u2013 Final Mesolithic, c<\/em> 6000\u20135500 cal BC (Anderson-Whymark et al<\/em> 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This interpretation obviously poses important questions about both the origins of Scilly\u2019s Mesolithic population and maritime mobility and cross-Channel contacts during the Mesolithic. However, it should be noted that the majority of flint scatters in Cornwall have not seen any kind of analysis, let alone publication, making it difficult to make meaningful comparisons between these microliths from Scilly and potentially contemporary assemblages on the mainland (Andy M Jones, pers comm).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new lithic evidence points to a definite Mesolithic presence on Scilly but there is not yet enough data available to assess whether the Islands supported a permanent all-year-round hunter-gatherer community. Scilly is rich in natural resources but was a comparatively small island and getting there involved a short but dangerous and daunting journey on the open Atlantic. The Early Mesolithic landmass was only approximately 80 sq km in area and according to predicted population densities for hunter-gatherers in an area of this size five to eight individuals would be low and nine to 16 would be high (Gamble et al<\/em> 1999; Binford 2001; Warren 2015, fig 4.1). Significant Mesolithic activity is currently only represented by the one site at Old Quay but there is a large quantity of flint present and we cannot really say how many people created it and over what length of time (Duncan Garrow, pers comm). It is also possible that further sites in Scilly await discovery or have been lost to rising sea levels (cf<\/em> Warren 2015; Thomas 1985, 105).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other remote island groups in the British Isles (for example, the Western and Northern Isles of Scotland) are beginning to produce more evidence of Mesolithic occupation (Saville 2000; Wickham Jones and Firth 2000; Melton and Nicholson 2004; 2007; Gregory et al<\/em> 2005). Evidence from elsewhere in Britain implies a specialized coastal economy at an early stage in the Mesolithic and high reliance on marine protein by individuals (P\u00e9rez-Fern\u00e1ndez 2013, 147). On some islands and coastal sites substantial shell middens, rich in marine and terrestrial detritus, attest to long-term and intensive Mesolithic occupation: Oronsay in the Outer Hebrides, for example (Mellars and Andrews 1987; Schulting and Richards 2002), or Culver Well on the Isle of Portland, Dorset (Palmer 1999). So far no middens like these have been found on Scilly (or in Cornwall). It is possible that they were part of a localised expression of Mesolithic identity peculiar to these other places, but if such middens formerly existed in Scilly or on the Cornish mainland it is highly probable that they would have been lost to historic sea-level rise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fig 3.4 Test pitting by the Neolithic Stepping Stones project at Old Quay, St Martin\u2019s, in September 2013 (Photograph: Hugo Anderson-Whymark).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In common with more northerly British outer island groups, and unlike the Channel Islands (e.g. Lister 1995), there is no evidence for pre-glacial fauna on Scilly.\u00a0 Research suggests the Islands were periglacial during the Ice Age and, while there is the possibility of continuity for some terrestrial species (e.g. the Scilly Shrew), the survival of any other species remains unknown.\u00a0 Even in the absence of terrestrial food species the Islands would have provided substantial marine resources for any early settlers.\u00a0 There is recent evidence suggestive of human occupation as early as the sixth millennium cal BC from burning events in the pollen record (Charman et al<\/em> 2016) and this date is in agreement with data from Scottish isles where even the more remote northerly island groups, with a similarly sparse terrestrial fauna, were inhabited (e.g. Shetland and Orkney). British inner islands and coastal sites have provided the best evidence for early human animal interactions through the direct reconstruction of diets using stable isotope analysis of skeletal remains. Analysis revealed that Mesolithic people who lived relatively close to the coast relied on a wide resource base, exploiting a significant proportion of marine and terrestrial foods (e.g. Schulting et al<\/em> 2003).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Small numbers of deer bones, mostly belonging to red deer, have been found among many of the later Bronze Age faunal assemblages of Scilly. It remains unclear whether these deer were the descendants of a population which had become established before the Late-glacial or Early Postglacial separation of Scilly from the mainland, or whether they were transported to Scilly by early settlers to establish a breeding population, and if so, when (Ratcliffe and Straker 1996, 36\u201337, table 4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul Ashbee (1982, 14) considered that an insular controlled deer economy seemed likely in Mesolithic Scilly, while Frank Turk identified some smaller red deer bones, Cervus elaphus<\/em>, from the Middle Bronze Age settlement at Nornour which he suggested were evidence for an indigenous population of great antiquity (Turk 1971, 94; 1978, 100). Deliberate seeding of red deer populations has been argued for Late Mesolithic Ireland (Woodman and McCarthy 2003) and in Scotland there is also strong evidence for the translocation of red deer to islands from the Neolithic onwards to adapt island environments for human use (Mulville 2010). However, the current zooarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence neither confirms nor denies that this was the case in Mesolithic Scilly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The identifiable Mesolithic flints indicate that fisher-gatherer-hunter peoples exploited the resources of the Islands. Coastal inundation is likely to inhibit the search for sites of this period but well-preserved submerged remains from the Mesolithic have been identified in the Solent. The evidence of domestic cattle in a midden at Ferriter\u2019s Cove in south-west Ireland, dated to 4495-4195 cal BC, has been proposed as a seeding of stock by Late Mesolithic peoples in an environment where indigenous large mammals had not existed prior to human seaborne colonisation (Woodman and McCarthy 2003). Domesticated cattle would only have been available on the European continent, suggesting long-distance contacts by sea, necessitating the rounding of the South West peninsula, perhaps even via Scilly, and showing that as far back as the Mesolithic contact by sea was not by necessity with nearest neighbours. As in many of the Scottish islands, deliberate seeding of red deer has been argued for Late Mesolithic Ireland, but it has also been proposed that the people there were more reliant on marine resources than their neighbours across the Irish Sea. This may have been true for the seasonal visitors to Scilly in the Mesolithic too, perhaps continuing into the Neolithic. In this regard, it is important to note the discovery and excavation of wooden fish traps along the former Liffey estuary in modern Dublin, the traps consisting of staked fences and baskets (McQuade and O\u2019Donnell 2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Scilly\u2019s Mesolithic coastline would have provided myriad opportunities for fishing and hunting grounds for seals and sea birds but had a relatively narrow intertidal zone compared to later times, with the most extensive opportunities for shellfish foraging and fish trapping occurring in the south-western areas around Broad Sound and North Channel. By the end of the Mesolithic, extensive intertidal development had occurred around the fringes of the main northern island, especially in the slowly flooding area of St Mary\u2019s Road, but also around the now separated St Agnes, Annet and Western Rocks. This transition in the coastal morphology could have led to a change in the main marine food sources in the later Mesolithic, with increasing access to food procured from foraging in intertidal areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No remains of prehistoric boats have been found in Scilly. The most likely type of boat used by Mesolithic adventurers to the Islands would have been hide boats made by stretching stitched-together animal skins over a lightweight framework of wood or wicker. This makes a very lightweight boat, which can be bowl- or boat-shaped. Hide boats vary in length from 1.5m (usually circular) to about 10m; 12m is the practical limit for this type of construction (McGrail 1998). Another common form of prehistoric boat is the log boat but European logboats are generally considered to be only suitable for use in extremely calm waters and not as seagoing craft (Ransley et al<\/em> 2011). There is no evidence of mast steps or the use of oars in Europe until the middle of the first millennium BC: \u2018Mesolithic and Neolithic seamen would have used paddles\u2019<\/em> (McGrail 2001).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2006 Amelia Pannett carried out an initial assessment of the lithics collection held by the Isles of Scilly Museum, as part of the \u2018Islands in a Common Sea Project\u2019 (Pannett 2007). Clear evidence for Mesolithic activity was present in the archive, with several collections of blades, many of which showed characteristic signs of Mesolithic technology: platform preparation and dorsal scar patterns indicative of the use of a carefully prepared blade core. Crested and truncated blades were also recognised, together with two roughly manufactured microliths (Pannett 2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the unprovenanced character of the material examined in the lithic archive, it provided important details about the nature and potential of the resource on Scilly. The range of tools recovered by collectors is interesting and adds further to the current slight evidence for Mesolithic occupation in the Islands. Aside from the examination of excavated lithic assemblages, there are a number of known findspots which could be systematically investigated in order to recover complete in situ<\/em> assemblages, in particular Old Quay on St Martin\u2019s and a further scatter of lithics from a garden on the south side of the island. Both assemblages would benefit from assessment, perhaps using a test pitting strategy to determine the extent and nature of the in situ <\/em>material. Fieldwalking in available fields could also be undertaken to identify further scatters and determine their distribution within the landscape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is possible that further Mesolithic flints from Scilly reside unidentified in museum collections (e.g. Royal Cornwall Museum, British Museum) and in private collections. Review of stone assemblages from Scilly by a lithic specialist may reveal previously unidentified Mesolithic material in existing museum archives and private collections. It is important that the results of such a review should be widely disseminated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Mesolithic material at Old Quay, St Martin\u2019s, was surprising, both in terms of its character and the cross-Channel contacts it implied. As the authors pointed out \u2018in order to move our understanding of the prehistoric past forwards, it is very important that we let the archaeological record surprise us sometimes, and incorporate the unexpected into our narratives\u2019 (Garrow and Sturt 2017, 131). There is certainly considerable potential for carrying out further excavations at Old Quay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 49 radiocarbon determinations listed in Table 3.1 have all been calibrated using OxCal 4.3. Previous modelling of dates has not been used and all are expressed at the full 95.4% confidence level, rather than to the period to which the date may be weighted (for example at 89%). This means that the calibrated dates in the tables may vary significantly from the publications where they appear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n3.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Palaeolithic (c <\/em>700,000 \u2013 10,000 BP)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
3.2.1\u00a0\u00a0 Landscape and environmental background<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3.2.2\u00a0\u00a0 Palaeolithic archaeology<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/tr> <\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n 3.2.3\u00a0\u00a0 The Isles of Scilly resource: aspects and prospects<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3.3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mesolithic (c <\/em>10,000-6000 BP)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
3.3.1\u00a0\u00a0 Landscape<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3.3.2\u00a0\u00a0 Environmental background<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/tr> <\/tr> \n\n\n\n\n\nFig 3.3 Mesolithic submerged forest in St Mary\u2019s Roads (photo: Kevin Camidge).<\/em>\n\u00a0\n\n\n\n\n\u00a0<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n 3.3.3\u00a0\u00a0 Lithic evidence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\nLocation<\/strong>\n<\/td> \nArtefact type<\/strong>\n<\/td><\/tr> \nHigher Town, St Martin\u2019s\n<\/td> \nA single platform core\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOld Quay, St Martin\u2019s\n<\/td> \n59+ microliths (assemblages from eroding cliff-face combine Mesolithic and Neolithic flints and Early Neolithic Hembury-style Ware pottery)\n<\/td><\/tr> \nKnackyboy Carn, St Martin\u2019s\n<\/td> \nBorer-needle in association with flints in rock cleft\n<\/td><\/tr> \nThe Brow, Bryher\n<\/td> \nA Mesolithic or Neolithic blade and other flints\n<\/td><\/tr> \nThe Town, Bryher\n<\/td> \nA Mesolithic or Neolithic bladelet\n<\/td><\/tr> \nVeronica Farm, Bryher\n<\/td> \nPossible tranchet axe sharpening blade\n<\/td><\/tr> \nNew Grimsby, Tresco\n<\/td> \nPossible Mesolithic or Early Neolithic bladelet\n<\/td><\/tr> \nHalangy Down, St Mary\u2019s\n<\/td> \nGeometric microlith\n<\/td><\/tr> \nPorthcressa, St Mary\u2019s\n<\/td> \nUnfinished pecking hammer\n<\/td><\/tr> \nKlondyke Fields, St Mary\u2019s\n<\/td> \nTwo blades with facetted butts\n<\/td><\/tr> \nNewford Farm, St Mary\u2019s\n<\/td> \nProbable broken blade microlith and a blade\n<\/td><\/tr> \nUnprovenanced flints\n<\/td> \nBroken blade microlith, obliquely blunted point\n<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>\n\n\n\n 3.3.4\u00a0\u00a0 Animals<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3.3.5\u00a0\u00a0 Economy and subsistence<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3.3.6\u00a0\u00a0 Transport<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3.3.7\u00a0\u00a0 The Isles of Scilly lithics resource: aspects and prospects<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3.3.8\u00a0\u00a0 Radiocarbon dates<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\nLab Ref<\/strong>\n<\/td> \n14<\/sup><\/strong>C age BP<\/strong>\n<\/td> \nCal BC @ 95%<\/strong>\n<\/td> \nSite<\/strong>\n<\/td> \nContext<\/strong>\n<\/td> \nReference<\/strong>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/thead> \nQ-2410\n\u00a0\n<\/td> \n34,500+ 985\n– 800\n<\/td> \n37559\u201336606\n<\/td> \nPorth Seal\n<\/td> \nOrganic deposit\n<\/td> \nScourse 1991\n<\/td><\/tr> \nQ-2408\n\u00a0\n<\/td> \n33,050+ 960\n-800\n<\/td> \n35936\u201334571\n<\/td> \nWatermill Cove\n<\/td> \nOrganic deposit\n<\/td> \nScourse 1991\n<\/td><\/tr> \nQ-2409\n\u00a0\n<\/td> \n25,670+ 560\n-530\n<\/td> \n28211\u201327561\n<\/td> \nPorth Seal\n<\/td> \nOrganic deposit\n<\/td> \nScourse 1991\n<\/td><\/tr> \nQ-2356\n<\/td> \n24,490+ 960\n-860\n<\/td> \n26836\u201326321\n<\/td> \nCarn Morval\n<\/td> \nOrganic deposit\n<\/td> \nScourse 1991\n<\/td><\/tr> \nQ-2358\n<\/td> \n21,500+ 890\n-800\n<\/td> \n24036\u20133673\n<\/td> \nCarn Morval\n<\/td> \nOrganic deposit\n<\/td> \nScourse 1991\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-38109\n<\/td> \n11385 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n11354\u201311186\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nSediment humin fraction from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-38108\n<\/td> \n11315 \u00b140\n<\/td> \n11312\u00ad\u201311131\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nSediment: humic acid from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-38104\n<\/td> \n11035 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n11077\u201310833\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nSediment humin fraction from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-38103\n<\/td> \n10950 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n10960\u201310761\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nSediment: humic acid from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-38102\n<\/td> \n10670 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n10757\u201310622\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nSediment humin fraction from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-38101\n<\/td> \n10535\u00b135\n<\/td> \n10656\u201310459\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nSediment: humic acid from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOxA-23858\n<\/td> \n9945 \u00b160\n<\/td> \n9746\u20139283\n<\/td> \nPorth Hellick\n<\/td> \nWood: single twig fragment, 19cm below surface of intertidal peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al 2016<\/em>\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-32915\n<\/td> \n9915 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n9637\u20139281\n<\/td> \nPorth Hellick\n<\/td> \nWood: unidentified twig, 24cm below surface of intertidal peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOxA-25790\n<\/td> \n9185\u00b145\n<\/td> \n8542\u20138293\n<\/td> \nGreat English Island Neck (Nornour Channel)\n<\/td> \nCharcoal, knotted wood fragment too distorted for identification, 0\u20131cm below surface of submerged peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40873\n<\/td> \n8740 \u00b1 35\n<\/td> \n7939\u20137614\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nOrganic clay: humin fraction from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40872\n<\/td> \n8375 \u00b1 35\n<\/td> \n7528\u20137354\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nOrganic clay: humic acid from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOxA-25612\n<\/td> \n7490 \u00b1 45\n<\/td> \n6436\u20136250\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nPlant remains, indet. possible stem fragments from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-38100\n<\/td> \n7695 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n6600\u20136462\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nSediment humin fraction from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> l 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-38099\n<\/td> \n7500\u00b135\n<\/td> \n6441\u20136254\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nSediment humic acid, from submerged clay & peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-28995\n<\/td> \n6980 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n5980\u20135761\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nPeat: humic acid,\u00a0 27\u201328cm below surface of submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nHAR-3695\n<\/td> \n6630\u00b1100\n<\/td> \n5725\u00ad\u20135379\n<\/td> \nHigher Moors\n<\/td> \nPeat\n<\/td> \nScaife 1984\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40883\n<\/td> \n6325 \u00b1 35\n<\/td> \n5371\u20135219\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nPeat: humic acid, 20\u201321cm below surface of submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40884\n<\/td> \n6315 \u00b1 35\n<\/td> \n5361\u00ad\u20135220\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nAs SUERC -40883\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-26629\n<\/td> \n6230 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n5304 \u20135066\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nWood (Betula <\/em>sp.) embedded in ?eroded\u00a0 surface submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-32919\n<\/td> \n6215 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n5298\u20135059\n<\/td> \nGreat English Island Neck (Nornour Channel)\n<\/td> \nMonocot stems, Phragmites<\/em>? 2 cm below surface of submerged peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-28994\n<\/td> \n6175\u00b130\n<\/td> \n5218\u20135038\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nWood (Alnus glutinosa<\/em>) just below upper charcoal peak\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40877\n<\/td> \n6170 \u00b1 35\n<\/td> \n5218 \u20135017\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nPeat: humic acid, 11\u201312cm below surface of submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40882\n<\/td> \n6170 \u00b1 35\n<\/td> \n5218 \u20135017\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nPeat humin fraction, 14\u201315cm below surface of submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40881\n<\/td> \n6160 \u00b1 35\n<\/td> \n5214 \u20135010\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nPeat: humic acid, 14\u201315cm below surface of submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOxA-25613\n<\/td> \n6130 \u00b140\n<\/td> \n5211\u20134962\n<\/td> \nGreat English Island Neck (Nornour Channel)\n<\/td> \nc<\/em>\u00a030 monocot ?stem fragments, 1 cm below surface of submerged peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOxA-22484\n<\/td> \n6134\u00b134\n<\/td> \n5211\u20134989\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nWood (Betulaceae<\/em>) embedded in submarine peat 14\u201315cm below surface. Major decline in tree pollen\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40876\n<\/td> \n6120 \u00b1 35\n<\/td> \n5208\u20134958\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nPeat: humic acid, 11\u201312cm below surface of submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-38084\n<\/td> \n6040\u00b135\n<\/td> \n5031\u20134841\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nMonocot stem fragments + wood fragments, 27\u201328cm below surface of submerged peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-28993\n<\/td> \n6010\u00b135\n<\/td> \n4996\u20134802\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nLeaf (Phragmites <\/em>sp.) from seabed peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40875\n<\/td> \n6010\u00b135\n<\/td> \n4996\u2013\n4802\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nPeat: humic acid\u00a0 1\u20132cm below surface of submarine\u00a0 peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOxA-25614\n<\/td> \n5995 \u00b140\n<\/td> \n4991\u20134791\n<\/td> \nGreat English Island Neck (Nornour Channel)\n<\/td> \n2 monocot ?stem fragments, 5-6 cms below surface of submerged peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> l 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-40874\n<\/td> \n5965\u00b135\n<\/td> \n4944\u20134730\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nPeat: humic acid, as SUERC-40875\n<\/td> \nCharman et al 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-26631\n<\/td> \n5860\u00b135\n<\/td> \n4826\u20134617\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nWood (Salix <\/em>sp.) from submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOxA-25690\n<\/td> \n5784\u00b133\n<\/td> \n4713\u20134547\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nWood (cf<\/em> Salix\/Populus<\/em> sp.) 21\u201322cm below surface of submerged peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOxA-23861\n<\/td> \n5720 \u00b155\n<\/td> \n4703\u20134456\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nUnidentified woody stems, 9-10 cms below surface of submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nSUERC-26630\n<\/td> \n5680 \u00b135\n<\/td> \n4614\u20134406\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nLeaf: cf<\/em> Phragmites<\/em> sp. embedded in surface of ?eroded submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman et al<\/em> 2016\n<\/td><\/tr> \nGU-5061\n<\/td> \n5210\u00b150\n<\/td> \n4230\u20133947\n<\/td> \nPar Beach\n<\/td> \nBase of intertidal peat deposit\n<\/td> \nRatcliffe and Straker 1996\n<\/td><\/tr> \nOxA-21892\n<\/td> \n5614 \u00b137\n<\/td> \n4520\u20134359\n<\/td> \nSt Mary\u2019s Roads\n<\/td> \nLeaf: cf<\/em> Phragmites<\/em> sp. (D Charman) \u2013 not the same leaf as SUERC-26630. Embedded in surface of ?eroded submarine peat\n<\/td> \nCharman