Mesolithic

Introduction

The Mesolithic in the West midlands: previous research

The Mesolithic has been little studied in the West Midlands and in some respects has been neglected at a national scale. The most recent gazetteer of known finds, for example, was published nearly 30 years ago (Wymer 1977) and is now out of date. The only regional- scale studies are Saville’s (1981) analysis of the Mesolithic tool industries of central England and Bevan’s (1995) doctoral thesis on aspects of later Mesolithic settlement. Although there have been several excavations of Mesolithic sites and widespread surface collection of artefacts since 1980, there has been no attempt to collate or evaluate this evidence until very recently. It is notable that local and regional accounts of the Mesolithic in the West Midlands are almost completely absent from recent interpretative studies and period reviews (eg see Young 2000).

In this context, Myers’ (2007) review of the Mesolithic for the Regional Research Framework earlier prehistory seminar is an important contribution to our understanding of this period in the region. The present discussion of the evidence is based on that paper, Greig’s (2007) discussion of Holocene environmental evidence and references to the midlands evidence in a range of other interpretative studies.

Current research agenda in Mesolithic archaeology

The Mesolithic was a period of profound social and cultural changes, from the development of early Holocene hunter-gatherer societies to the adoption of farming, and it important to emphasise that the societies represented cannot be understood separately from their environments and the processess of rapid climatic warming, sea level rises and afforestation that took place in the period c 8000-4000 BC. The material record consists almost entirely of lithic assemblages, although there is also some evidence for built structures and other remains (see Mithen 1999 for an introduction to the nature of the evidence).

Current research themes in British Mesolithic archaeology are set out in a Prehistoric Society research document (1999), and key issues and debates are reviewed in several recent books and articles (eg Bevan and Moore 2003; Conneller and Warren 2006; Larsen et al 2003; Mithen 1999; Panter-Brick et al 2001; Smith 1992; Young 2000). These identify a number of general research themes that are relevant to the West Midlands:

  1. Environmental change and settlement at the Pleistocene/Holocene (Late Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic) boundary, c 9000-7000 BC (Prehistoric Society 1999, 4; Mithen 1999, 35-43; Smith 1992; Tolan-Smith 2003a).
  2. The geographical distribution and local adaptations of Mesolithic populations in relation to changing environmental conditions, resource availability and diet during the early Holocene (Prehistoric Society 1999, 4-5; cf Mithen 1999; Smith 1992).
  3. Large-scale organisation of Mesolithic societies: territories, migration ranges, and regional cultural or ethnic groups (Prehistoric Society 1999, 5; cf Bergsvik 2003; Jacobi 1976; Reynier 1998; Saville 2003; Smith 1992).
  4. Settlement, subsistence and other practices, including the nature of occupation sites, residential mobility and perceptions of landscape (Prehistoric Society 1999, 4-5; cf Grøn 2001; McFadyen 2006; Milner 2006; Mithen 1999, 49-55; Moore 2003; Whitelaw 1994; Zvelebil 2003).
  5. Lithic technologies, tool function and behaviour (Prehistoric Society 1999, 5; cf Lithic Studies Society 2004; Mithen 1999, 49-52; Warren 2006).
Map showing distribution of sites in the area.

Fig 2.3 Distribution of Mesolithic finds in the West Midlands (after Myers 2007, fig 2). Sites in the region with occupation features are numbered: 1. Lightmarsh Farm, Trimpley; 2. Dodderhill; 3. Sandwell Priory, West Bromwich; 4. Bourne Pool, Aldridge; 5. Kisses Barn Farm, Polesworth

Period subdivision

The Mesolithic can be divided broadly into early and late phases on the basis of both artefactual and environmental evidence (Mithen 1999, 43):

Early Mesolithic, c 8000-6500 BC: typified by ‘broad blade assemblages’ with large microliths such as obliquely blunted points. Subsistence practices appear to have been dominated by terrestrial large game hunting. Climatic warming resulted in sea-level rises, which led to the separation of Britain from the continent (c 6500 BC), and an afforestation process that transformed open landscapes into mixed broadleaved woodland.

Late Mesolithic, c 6500-4000 BC: typified by ‘narrow blade assemblages’ with small microliths to make tools suitable for a diverse range of hunting and processing tasks. Broad-spectrum subsistence practices included the hunting of woodland game such as red and roe deer and wild pig, and intensive exploitation of both woodland plant resources and marine resources.

Research assessment: current knowledge and understanding of the evidence

The distribution of Mesolithic finds in the West Midlands is shown in Fig 2.3 (from Myers 2007). Finds densities in the region (especially of Early Mesolithic material) are relatively low in comparison with other parts of Britain (see Smith and Openshaw 1990). Most Mesolithic artefacts have been found in surface contexts, but systematic collection has rarely been undertaken and finds locations are usually imprecise. Surface finds are also very uneven in spatial terms, with significantly more recorded in Warwickshire and Worcestershire than other counties in the region. A major problem identified by Myers (2007) is the questionable value of HER databases for studying the distribution of Mesolithic artefacts, which are all too often listed simply as ‘prehistoric’, and there have been few attempts to study museum or private collections to identify Mesolithic artefacts among larger lithic assemblages. Excavations of Mesolithic sites are also exceptionally rare, although a few have produced evidence for features and possible structures.

Environmental data

Three well-dated palaeo-environmental sequences from sites at Crose Mere, Shropshire (Beales 1980), The King’s Pool, Stafford (Bartley and Morgan 1990), and Wilden Marsh, Worcestershire (Brown 1988), provide the main sources of information for climate change and environmental conditions during the early Holocene in the West Midlands (Greig 2007, 42-3). Although there is variation from one site to another, the West Midlands evidence conforms to the generally recognised sequence of woodland colonisation in Britain after the last glaciation: marked by the spread, successively, of birch, hazel, pine, elm and oak, and finally lime and alder. This culminated in mixed broadleaved woodland known as the ‘wildwood’, consisting primarily of oak, alder, hazel and elm (ibid; cf Rackham 1980). In chronological terms, this process in the West Midlands spanned the period c 9500/8500 BC to c 7200/7000 BC, by which time mixed broadleaved woodland was fully developed at all three sites (Greig 2007, 42). It is important to emphasise, however, that there was considerable local variation in the extent of clearings, the density and appearance of woodland cover and the types of woodland present (eg carr woods dominated by oak, alder and willow in valley bottoms; while woodlands on drier land were possibly dominated by lime; ibid).

Faunal evidence of Mesolithic date is very sparse, with only one site in the region producing a significant assemblage of large ungulate remains (King Arthur’s Cave, Herefordshire: aurochs, elk, red deer, roe deer, wild pig and horse). Examples of wolf and beaver, and small mammals, have been found at other sites (ibid). There is also very little evidence for the impact of human populations on the environment, although woodland burning is suggested at King’s Pool, Stafford, and Impney Farm, Droitwich (ibid).

Mesolithic sites and lithic artefacts

Most of the Mesolithic finds recorded in the West Midlands are the result of unsystematic surface collection, although a few areas have attracted more systematic programmes of fieldwork, often carried out by amateurs (Myers 2007, 31), including the Clun and Kinver areas in Shropshire, the Weaver Hills, Staffordshire, Halesowen and Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, and the New Red Sandstone Hills and Wolvey area in Warwickshire. It is notable, in contrast, that the extensive North-West Wetlands survey in north Shropshire produced very few Mesolithic artefacts (Leah et al 1998). In general terms, the distribution of Mesolithic artefacts from surface contexts suggests a preference for well-drained elevated terrain close to water sources (Myers 2007, 31), This pattern may, however, be a product of uneven fieldwork (which has concentrated on ploughed fields in areas with free-draining soils) and post-depositional processes, especially in river valleys where erosion and alluviation may have led to widespread destruction or concealment of Mesolithic sites. The presence of Mesolithic artefacts in areas with clay soils (ibid) suggests that Mesolithic activity may have been more widespread and in more diverse topographical and geological locales than generally assumed.

Excavations that have deliberately targeted known Mesolithic sites are very rare in the West Midlands, although there are some examples of excavations of later sites that have produced significant Mesolithic evidence. The excavation of a multi-period lithic scatter at Bourne Pool, near Aldridge, West Bromwich, produced over 2000 artefacts including basally-retouched points that suggest an Early Mesolithic phase of activity in the mid to late 7th millennium BC (Saville 1972-3; Myers 2007, 32). Significant artefact assemblages, mostly Late Mesolithic, have also been recorded in excavations at Sandwell Priory in West Bromwich (Hodder 1991), Lightmarsh Farm Camp, Worcestershire (over 1400 artefacts; Jackson et al 1996), Dodderhill, Worcestershire, and at Kisses’ Barn Farm, Corley Camp and Rollright in Warwickshire. Smaller assemblages have been found beneath round barrows in the Staffordshire Peak District, the Roman road at Chaddesley, Worcestershire, and medieval deposits at the Durrance moat site in Worcestershire (including an Early Mesolithic tranchet axe) (Myers 2007, 29-30, 32). Features such as stakeholes, gullies and hollows associated with Mesolithic artefacts have been recorded at several sites in the region, including Lightmarsh Farm and Dodderhill, Worcestershire; Sandwell Priory; Bourne Pool, Aldridge; and Kisses’ Barn Farm, Warwickshire (see Fig 2.3 for site locations). Although these are mostly poorly preserved, they suggest the presence of settlement structures and activity areas, which are rare at a national scale.

Excavations of caves and rock shelter sites in Staffordshire have also produced small quantities of lithic material (Myers 2007, 29), including Early Mesolithic artefacts from Wetton Mill Rockshelter in the Manifold valley, and Late Mesolithic artefacts from a small rockshelter site at Rugeley.

Spatial patterns and regionality

It has been suggested that a distinctive regional pattern of settlement can be recognised in the British Mesolithic, with relatively intense occupation of both northern/eastern England and southern/western England, separated by an extensive area across the midlands and central Wales in which Mesolithic artefacts are sparse (Tolan-Smith 2003b, 116; cf Smith and Openshaw 1990). This in some respects reproduces the model proposed for the Later Upper Palaeolithic by Campbell (1977, 158-60, map 46) and Smith (1992, 165-7), although Tolan-Smith (2003b, 116-17) suggests that the midlands was not simply a ‘buffer zone’ or ‘resource reservoir’ between distinct populations, but may have been a dangerous area of conflict and competition that was rarely traversed even by hunting parties. Myers (2007) strongly rejects this view, arguing that the character and scale of Mesolithic activity in the midlands remains under-investigated, and that low finds densities may in any case relate to distinctive regional patterns of resource procurement and settlement mobility. The distribution map of Mesolithic find spots derived from HER data (Fig 2.3) certainly shows no increases in densities towards the north/east and south/west peripheries, which might be expected given that the region more than spans the ‘unoccupied’ zone defined by Tolan-Smith (extending 100 km north-south; 2003b, 116). Instead, the distribution map shows a relative concentration of Mesolithic activity in the central uplands and eastern part of the region.

Processes of long term change in the Mesolithic of the West Midlands

At present, very little is known about social and economic changes in the West Midlands during the Final Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic transition, Early to Late Mesolithic phases, or the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition (discussed in detail in the next section). The rarity of Early Mesolithic material, in particular, prevents comparisons with Final Upper Palaeolithic and Late Mesolithic evidence, and the general absence of well-stratified archaeological sequences and absolute dating evidence for any part of the period c 9000- 4000 BC (Myers 2007) undermines detailed study of long-term change in settlement patterns, economic practices and social organisation.

Research agenda and specific research questions

Social and economic change

Research priorities in Mesolithic studies in the West Midlands include investigation of the Upper Palaeolithic to Early Mesolithic transition, the nature of social, economic and

cultural changes during the Mesolithic, and the transition from hunting and gathering to farming during the Late Mesolithic. Colonisation processes (see Tolan-Smith 2003a) and changing modes of occupation demand particular attention, especially the change suggested from Early Mesolithic seasonal residence systems that were part of long distance migratory cycles in open grassland landscapes, to Late Mesolithic ‘tethered mobility’ settlement patterns within relatively fixed local territories in woodland landscapes. These have very different implications for the scale and spatial organisation of social groups and community dispersal and aggregation (Smith 1992, Spikens 2000). This will require a good deal more detailed investigation of occupation sites (especially of Early Mesolithic and Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic date) and the recovery of detailed evidence for changes in environmental conditions, resource availability and diet (Myers 2007, 28, 34; cf Prehistoric Society 1999, 4-5).

Settlement, economy and community

There is considerable potential in the West Midlands for investigating local adaptations by Mesolithic communities to particular environmental conditions and landscape settings. Key research aims must be to identify and investigate occupation sites, to characterise different kinds of settlements and activities, and relate these to wider residence patterns, social groups and systems of resource exploitation. This will require landscape studies organised at an appropriate analytical scale (see Darvill 2003) to integrate the evidence for social practices from well-preserved occupation sites with the evidence from surface lithic scatters (Myers 2007, 32-5). The presence of possible structures and activity areas at Mesolithic sites in the region suggests that there is considerable research potential for analyses of social practices within occupation areas and perhaps settlement organisation (cf Grøn 2001; Smith 1992, 29-34; Whitelaw 1994). Other important research themes in this context include the perception and meaning of landscape (see: Moore 2003; Zvelebil 2003), environmental manipulation by Mesolithic communities (eg deliberate burning to facilitate hunting in open clearings; Moore 2003), and diet and population mobility (eg based on stable isotope studies of human skeletal material; Richards and Schulting 2003).

Lithic artefacts

A fundamental aspect of Mesolithic research in the West Midlands should be systematic study of the principal archaeological resource, lithic artefacts, especially in relation to technologies, tool function and behaviour. Analysis of existing lithic artefact collections in museums and full publication of excavated site data would considerably enhance the research potential of this material (Myers 2007, 35). A number of key research aims in lithic studies in the region can be identified (ibid; cf Lithic Studies Society 2004):

  1. Refinement of lithic artefact chronologies, especially in relation to Early Mesolithic variants, possible intermediate industries containing basally- trimmed microliths and early to mid 4th millennium BC types.
  2. Chronological evaluation of technological and typological changes in comparison to changes in the locations and sizes of sites (which elsewhere in Britain appears to be closely related; Myers 2007, 34).
  3. Identification of ‘assemblage-types’ (and thus consistent technical and behavioural categories in site use) in Early and Late Mesolithic assemblages through quantitative and comparative analysis of artefact assemblages.
  4. Definition of raw material types and artefact reduction sequences to study stone tool manufacturing technologies, and investigation of intra-site discard patterns and tool use (cf Lithic Studies Society 2004, 4-5).

Spatial patterns and regionality

A clear research priority in regional terms should be to determine the overall spatial pattern of Mesolithic activity in the West Midlands, especially in relation to the interpretative framework proposed by Tolan-Smith (2003b) and recent discussions of territoriality, regionality and the possible presence of distinct ethnic or cultural groups in the European Mesolithic (cf Bergsvik 2003; Jacobi 1976; Reynier 1998; Saville 2003; Smith 1992). Central research aims, in this context, should be to determine whether the midlands was a sparsely inhabited region during the whole or part of the Mesolithic (Tolan-Smith 2003b), and to identify typologically distinctive assemblages and artefact types in the region (such as ‘midlands basally-trimmed microliths’) that may represent distinct cultural identities, social groups or demographic relationships (Myers 2007, 32, 34). A major methodological issue in this context is the reliability of existing HER databases for constructing distribution maps of Mesolithic find spots, and how these may (or may not) reflect the original density and intensity of occupation at different times during this period (ibid; cf Lithic Studies Society 2004, 3; Smith 1992, 27-43).

Research aims and methods

The research agenda and key research questions outlined above have major implications for methods of resource assessment, curatorial practices, fieldwork methods, and networks of communication and data gathering in Mesolithic archaeology in the West Midlands.

  • Myers (2007) observes that many field and curatorial archaeologists are unfamiliar with current themes in Mesolithic archaeology and Early Holocene environmental studies, and may need specific guidance for dealing with Mesolithic sites, especially with regard to the potential of lithic artefact analysis and site recognition and data recovery methods (eg English Heritage 2000, Lithic Studies Society 2004, Pollard 1998).
  • A fundamental requirement for future research on the Mesolithic of the West Midlands is improvement of local authority HER databases so that they include all known finds and sites (Myers 2007, 34-5). These provide the primary sources of archaeological data used in the development control process yet in some cases appear not to have taken account of available gazetteers of known evidence (ibid). It would assist research if these databases categorised artefactual material in more detail, at the very least in broad chronological terms.
  • The preparation of precise specifications for projects that are likely to encounter Mesolithic sites or artefacts is essential, especially with regard to appropriate surface collection and excavation methods for recovering Mesolithic evidence (ibid).
  • It is important that strategies are put in place for recognising and/or prospecting for Mesolithic material during excavations of later sites, including urban locations (high quality evidence, for example, has been recovered from urban sites in London; ibid).
  • Systematic surface collection of Mesolithic artefact assemblages is needed throughout the West Midlands, especially in areas which have attracted little previous work and/or where little is known about Mesolithic activity (eg river valleys). Surveys of different soil-types and topographic locations to identify preferred occupation or activity sites would be of considerable value, especially for predictive modelling of site locations.
  • There is considerable potential for more widespread and intensive use of systematic test-pitting methods as a means of prospecting for and evaluating Mesolithic sites. However, a critical requirement of such surveys is the need to use narrow intervals between both surface collection and test-pitting transects in order to locate small lithic artefact concentrations of 10m diameter or less (Myers 2007, 33-4; see Hey and Lacey 2001, for a discussion of sampling procedures on prehistoric sites).
  • Scatters of Mesolithic artefacts defined by surface collection and test pitting should be excavated as a standard procedure to recover artefacts in the topsoil and to explore possible features beneath (which may be relatively insubstantial and thus easily destroyed by machining) (English Heritage 2000).
  • Careful and detailed recording of the character, content and spatial distribution of lithic assemblages is essential. The development of excavation methods appropriate for investigating and analysing artefact- prolific scatters produced by numerous repeat visits to the same location, would be especially valuable (Myers 2007, 34-5).
  • Well-preserved Mesolithic sites with stratified artefact assemblages, structural remains and/or high quality environmental and dating evidence are of primary research importance in regional, national and international terms.
  • Systematic evaluation of cave sites in the region to identify stratified Mesolithic deposits, recover artefact assemblages and human remains, and collect radiocarbon dating samples, may be particularly rewarding (ibid).
  • The recovery of human remains would be exceptionally important for dating purposes, dietary and demographic studies, and for investigating mortuary and ritual practices (cf Conneller 2006).

Conclusion

The Mesolithic period is perhaps the least understood of the earlier prehistoric periods in the West Midlands, and has certainly suffered from a lack of concerted research at anything other than local scales. The region has relatively low densities of recorded Mesolithic finds in comparison with other parts of Britain, but Myers (2007, 28-9) argues strongly that this does not necessarily mean that occupation was sparse or that the region comprised a ‘buffer zone’ or ‘resource reservoir’ (cf Tolan-Smith 2003b, 116-17). Instead, he observes that current HERs have been especially ineffective in recording Mesolithic material, and that the character and scale of Mesolithic activity in the West Midlands remains under-investigated in all aspects (Myers 2007, 28-9, 31, 34-5).

In this context, there are clear priorities and areas of research potential for Mesolithic studies in the region. A key avenue of research at a large spatial scale is to determine whether the West Midlands was sparsely inhabited during all or part of the Mesolithic. Particular attention needs to be paid to colonisation processes and local adaptations to particular environmental conditions and landscape settings by Mesolithic communities (especially through landscape studies of lithic artefact scatters and excavation of occupation sites). There is also potential for investigating changes in the large-scale spatial organisation of residential, migrational and territorial patterns, and for studying social behaviour within occupation areas. Curatorial and field archaeologists in the West Midlands will have an extremely important part to play in redressing the history of under-investigation of this period in the region, especially by being aware of current research agenda, the need to recover Mesolithic artefacts in all depositional contexts, and the need to identify and excavate occupation sites.