Amazon Web Services



Chapter 4: Palaeolithic and Mesolithic HighlandsCaroline Wickham-Jones and Susan Kruse with contributions from Karen Hardy and Scott Timpany4.1 Introduction The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods cover all human activity prior to the introduction of farming. Despite substantial evidence for Palaeolithic settlement in England as far back as 400,000 years at sites like Pakefield and Boxgrove, in the Highlands there is, as yet, no secure evidence prior to the Late Upper Palaeolithic, at the end of the last Ice Age. This chapter, therefore, covers a period of some 7,000 years, over half the period of human activity in the Highlands. At the time of National ScARF in 2012, late Palaeolithic activity in the Highlands was only hinted at, based on a tanged point from the multi-period lithic scatter at Shieldaig in Wester Ross (MHG7704; Ballin and Saville 2003), discovered in the 1970s in a disturbed surface layer. Nevertheless, this evidence is hard to find: population levels were low and groups left little trace of their passing. An indication that more sites await discovery came in 2017 when Late Upper Paleolithic lithics were discovered at South Cuidrach on Skye (MHG59071; Hardy et al 2020), similar to those from lowest undated levels at An Corran on Skye (MHG6497; Saville et al 2012). At another significant site at Inchnadamph in northwest Sutherland, the finds have been shown to be more recent, though early faunal material such as reindeer antler provides a good indication of environmental conditions at the time (Palaeolithic and Mesolithic panel, 2.1; Saville 2005). Studying fragile Palaeolithic archaeology is about much more than just looking for traces of human communities. The National ScARF panel provides a good background to research up to 2012, including issues of dating (Palaeolithic and Mesolithic panel 5.2.1). For the Highlands as a whole there is no overview, but key sites which feature in discussions of the Scottish Mesolithic include Rum and those identified through the Scotland’s First Settlers project (see Case Study X). It is salutary to realise that, while there have been some excavations since 2012, notably the continuing work at Camas Daraich in Skye, work at Staffin, and on the exciting shell midden sites at Tarradale, in actual fact our understanding of the earliest settlement of Highland Region has advanced little since the work on ScARF in 2012. We know little more, for example, about Palaeolithic activity in the area despite new modelling that suggests the deglaciation of the area may have commenced at least 5000 years earlier than that previously estimated (Shennan et al 2018). Many of the questions, in both this document and the original ScARF report, require targeted research projects rather than smaller-scale site excavations, and funding for research is hard to come by. The Scotland’s First Settlers Project (SFS) highlighted the difficulties comparing sites in detail. Some investigations have undertaken only test pits and trenches, while only a few comprise the excavation of large areas. While excavations of this early period, such as at Sand (Case study X), tend to sieve all contexts, other investigations, particularly fieldwalking projects, are necessarily based on partial collection. Furthermore, preservation varies widely. Different types of sites also create particular biases. Middens, by definition, comprise rubbish, and often lack aspects of settlement evidence. The SFS project also noted the value of sustained investigation over time and different seasons, noting that long term archaeological interest on Scalpay resulted in the identification of many more sites. The period between 14,000 – 6,000 years ago was a time of dynamic change – those who lived in the Highlands throughout these millennia experienced a world that was undergoing continual change in many different ways. Flexibility and adaption were key to survival, based upon deep knowledge and understanding of the world of which individual communities were a part. Investigations of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods focus keenly on environmental issues, which are discussed more fully in Chapter 3.2.Sites are identified through diagnostic artefacts (section 4.4) or radiocarbon dating (section 4.3). We rely on the presence of recognisable lithic type fossils in order to date and categorise sites and, given the current gaps in lithic typologies, this comprises a significant weakness. In general, the archaeological record contains many poorly understood and vulnerable find spots. For the Mesolithic microliths and microburins are the key finds, but possible changes in artefact styles mean that we may be missing many sites (Hardy and Wickham Jones 2009, 9.5).While radiocarbon dating is useful for the identification of sites, issues relating to this period are discussed in Ashmore 2004b. Other sources of dating offer considerable potential. The identification and dating of tephra layers are also useful (Edwards 2004, 66-67; see also Chapter X, Land and Environment). Optically-stimulated luminescence profiling holds out future possibilities for relative dating (National ScARF Science panel 1.4). Nevertheless, gaps in the archaeological evidence remain, notoriously between 5000 and 4000 BC (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009, 9.5). Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Scotland is still a picture which is emerging, and one, as highlighted in National ScARF, which needs targeted fieldwork.Strengths and Weakenesses of Highland material for the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods Before suggesting research questions and recommendations (see section 4.9), it is useful to identify the regional archaeology strengths and weaknesses for this period and to characterise these as either “within reach of a solution” (opportunities) or with no obvious solution (threats). Some relate to all periods and are outlined in Chapter X, Land and Environment, which should also be read.StrengthsBroad scale surveys such as SFS provide a good basis with which to target research questions.Large scale excavations as at Rum and Sand provide important evidence for the Highlands and Scotland as a whole. Smaller scale investigations as at An Corran and Tarradale show the potential for further work.Good preservation occurs in many places, eg at Tarradale and Sand.Museums with pre-existing collections of lithics provide an excellent opportunity for the re-examination of primary material without costly fieldwork. This includes fieldwalking assemblages from Easter Ross, Inverness and Caithness, as well as older excavation finds.A large body of environmental investigation exists and provides opportunities for integration, though with local variations. WeaknessesCoastal lands have been lost to rising sea levels, with resultant loss of archaeological evidence (as demonstrated at Clachan Harbour, Raasay). Many sites lie below more recent peat formation (as at Oliclett, Caithness).The picture, to date, is partial due to the small number of sites. Gaps exist particularly in some areas (eg inland), and time periods (eg Late Mesolithic).OpportunitiesLarge areas without development permit sustained fieldwalking and other projects.ThreatsIncreased coastal erosion threatens many sites.4.2 Environmental EvidenceDuring the long period from c. 12000 BC to c. 4000 BC, there were significant changes in landscape and environment. The broader history of environmental change, and specific crisis points have been covered by several authors, most notably Richard Tipping in various papers relating to ScARF in general and Argyll in particular (Tipping 2012; 2017). Some of these multi-period trends are discussed in Chapter X, Land and Environment. There is a need for further multi-proxy studies, drawing upon targeted locational evidence which can take account of site specific idiosyncrasies.The development of the coastal topography and landscape of Scotland is particularly complex with much variation even across relatively short distances. At this point it is important to note the influence of local topography on relative sea-level change which means that broadscale models such as those which seek to provide an idea of the changing relative sea-levels around the shores of the North Sea, are not suitable for analysis of the impact of this change on individual human communities. For that, it is necessary to undertake specific research targeted at particular lengths of coastline. In addition, while relative sea-level change is not, generally, an overnight disaster in human terms, the potential significance of individual events such as the Storegga tsunami of 6,200 BC should not be forgotten. The effects of the tsunami can be seen at various coastal locations in Scotland including Inverness (P&M panel 3.4.2; Dawson et al 1990); for coastal communities it would have been catastrophic (see Edwards 2004, 67).The coverage of the last Scottish ice sheet provides a useful tabula rasa from which to start and, though precise details are lacking, the initial warming of the north Atlantic area is generally taken to have begun around 12,700 BC. It should be noted here that recent models push initial deglaciation of the last British Ice sheet to around 25,000 BC (Shennan et al. 2018). This early warming, together with favourable precipitation, encouraged the development of biological productivity seen in organic soils and vegetation, and – importantly – the sea (Schmitt 2018). In many parts of Scotland at the end of the Late Glacial, shorelines were higher than today, despite the fact that absolute sea-level was around 120m lower. This is due to the impact of isostatic recovery which means that the land, freed from the weight of ice upon it, has since risen faster than the rising sea-levelsaround it (Dawson 2018; Wickham-Jones 2018).At this point in time, Britain was still attached to the continent by the landscape of Doggerland with the result that those who wished to explore the northern landscape as it opened up from under the weight of ice, could travel on foot, or along the coastal seaways (Ballin and Wickham-Jones 2017). It is worth noting, however, that research suggests that those who occupied the northwestern expanses of Europe at this time were more at home among a gentler, lower topography of plains and valleys. The emerging upland landscape of the Highlands would not only have provided scope for exploration, it would also have taken people out of their comfort zone.These favourable conditions were not to last, and the onset of the Younger Dryas, around 10,900 BC, took place over a few decades and included a sharp decline in temperature and a return to glacial ice cover in specific areas such as the Grampians, Cairngorms and the vicinity of Loch Lomond. While the presence of ice does not mean that we should rule out human activity, it would certainly have made life more difficult, and survival required adaption and flexibility. The current lack (though not absence) of well dated evidence for human activity in much of Britain during the height of the Younger Dryas is telling. Perhaps it was the scale and speed of the environmental decline at this time that mitigated against human occupation, rather than the ability of the early community to survive harsh conditions.Mithen and his colleagues have spoken of the way in which populations were drawn northwards and westwards towards the end of the Younger Dryas as conditions ameliorated and highly productive coastlands became available (Mithen et al. 2015).Around 9,700 BC rapid amelioration of the environment occurred, and the Younger Dryas gave way to the period we know as the Holocene. Despite a period of relative improvement (albeit with cooler oscillations for example around 9,400 BC, 8,350 BC, 7,550 BC, and 7,350 BC), a marked deterioration has been recorded around 6,200 BC, known as the 8.2ka BP Event (Tipping et al. 2012). Within a few years, temperatures and rainfall both decreased, and windiness increased. These poor conditions may have lasted for up to 400 years. Wicks and Mithen have recently examined this event, assessing both the environmental impact and possible knock-on impact on the human population (Wicks and Mithen 2014). They note disturbance to vegetation, including the loss of woodlands, as well as an increase in sand blows and dune formation. The event is associated with a weakening of the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic (including the Gulf Stream). This is important because it means that those who lived in the Highlands of Scotland at the time would have been compromised on two fronts: terrestrial and marine.In this deterioration, did communities fail, or did everyone move away? Wicks and Mithen (2014) favour a scenario of population collapse due to falling birth rates and increased mortality as a result of the harsh conditions. They also suggest that low population density may well have reduced inherent lifestyle flexibility in the fact of such abrupt change. In fact, we have too little evidence to identify a single scenario, but that does not mean that we should avoid the question. It is worth noting that recent research in Greenland and Iceland suggests that where population density is already low there are some circumstances where environmental stress will not always lead to noticeably further diminishment. Targeted research designs could be constructed to examine individual elements (possible locations for displaced communities, potential evidence for mortality) of the problem for the Highlands.We should not forget that we also lack information relating to the periods of stasis in between the crises. Equally it is important to remember that, while gross models are useful, if we are dealing with individual human communities then we need the specific data relating to their situations both geographic and chronological.In contrast to the tsunami, which is likely to have resulted in considerable distress and loss of life, the drowning of Doggerland took place over many centuries and is likely to have been much less of a threat to low density coastal populations with inbuilt flexibility of lifestyle (Weninger et al 2008; Wickham-Jones 2020).The transition from glacial landscape to the recolonisation of the landscape with plants and trees may have been swift, but it was not uniform. It is still only patchily understood for the Highland area, although there is an increasing amount of data (Tipping 2004, 46; Kelley et al 2017). For example, sampling on Skye at Lochan An Druim, Lochaber has shown that tephra dating to c. 10,257-10,056 cal BP, predates the arrival of hazel. At Glen Spean, the area must have been deglaciated by 10,830 ± 37 cal BP (Kelley et al 2017, 130-132). In the past environmental reconstruction has relied heavily on palynology (the evidence of ancient pollen grains). However, a range of other data is now recognised (see Chapter 3.2), and more multi-proxy studies are needed.In general, birch and hazel were well established across most of Scotland at the start of the Mesolithic, with elm, oak, and pine colonising later (Tipping 1994; 2004; Bishop et al 2015). Some studies suggest that tree cover may have occurred later in parts of the Highlands, for example, at Loch of Winless and Aukhorn in Caithness (Peglar 1979; Robinson 1987; Tipping 1994, 17). Information on the interaction of the human population with plants and woodland in the Highlands is rare, though pollen information, and in some cases macrofossil data, is available from a number of sites showing Mesolithic activity. In a few cases this has been combined with wider core sampling, including Oliclett in Caithness (Tipping et al 2007a; Tipping 2008, 2105-2107) where peat formed over a Mesolithic lithic scatter, Camus Daraich (Cressey 2004a) and An Corran (Green and Edwards 2009) on Skye. Despite the numerous techniques employed at Oliclett, however, it was still not possible to determine whether peat formation was influenced in any way by human activity (Tipping 2008, 2010). The information from An Corran (MHG35899; Case Study X) is a salutary example of how localised the information can be. Three coring sites near to the site were chosen. They showed a transition in lake sediments from minerogenic silts and clays to more organic material at the beginning of Mesolithic, indicating a typical pollen succession of grasses, crowberry, juniper, birch and hazel-type plants, with variations between sites. Although varied, typically, birch and hazel dominated (Green and Edwards 2009). Identification of woodland management in the past has been made by analysis of large samples or by identifying palynological changes thought to be indicative of disturbance. It has been suggested that the sharp rise in hazel pollen in the Mesolithic reflected woodland manipulation. However, recent thinking suggests that this is more likely to derive from climatic factors (Tipping 1994, 9; Bishop et al 2015. 66ff). Human intervention is difficult to determine (see Chapter 3.2). It is generally believed that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers managed their resources to some degree, systematically exploiting wild plants or managing woodlands for food and fuel (Bishop et al 2015). However, data to assess this remains sparse in the Highlands. Evidence of burning is shown at a number of sites, for example in the Flow Country, Caithness (Robinson 1987; Charman 1992) and on Skye (Green and Edwards 2009). In some cases, this has been attributed to human activity, though whether deliberate or not remains open to question. At Kinloch, Rum, a sudden decline in alder and hazel combined with an increase in charcoal and grasses in the late Mesolithic was interpreted as human clearance (Hirons and Edwards, 1990), but this was not necessarily a single event, given the lack of dating precision (Bishop et al 2015, 68).There are, nevertheless, hints that Mesolithic communities selectively used native woodlands. Analysis of data from sites throughout Scotland concluded:‘Overall, the present data suggest that birch, elm and alder were avoided for burning as fuels to some extent. Considering the good burning qualities of hazel, oak and ash, the prevalence of hazel and oak and the rarity of ash charcoal can be attributed to the relative abundance of hazel and oak and the scarcity of ash in the environment. Thus, current evidence suggests that species availability had a strong influence on the choice of fuels exploited by Mesolithic people, but that species with poor combustion qualities were deliberately avoided in favour of species with good burning properties’ (Bishop et al 2015, 66).More detailed work on Highland sites is needed to see if the evidence supports this across the region.The excavations at Sand, Wester Ross (Case Study X), included good environmental analyses, particularly relating to the substantial quantity of wood charcoal. Most Mesolithic sites from northwestern Scotland focus on pollen. However, at Sand, information from pollen was less useful. Charcoal showed the familiar birch and hazel dominance, but also heather, apple, and small quantities of alder, ivy, holly, honeysuckle, pine and cherry; oak and elm were lacking. The motives for choosing the different woods are impossible to determine, but the interpretation of the excavators favoured the opportunistic foraging of deadwood. Many species were good for burning, but some such as ivy, honeysuckle and heather were poor, and these were perhaps for kindling, or they may represent the waste from woodworking or other manufacture, or even just an accidental by-catch (Austin 2009).Key sites for Mesolithic environmental evidence associated with human activity: Oliclett, Caithness: MHG29867; Tipping et al 2007a; Tipping 2008, 2105-2107 An Corran, Skye: MHG6497; Green and Edwards 2009; Saville et al 2012Camus Daraich, Skye: MHG36657; Cressey 2004a; 2004b); Wickham-Jones and Hardy 2004Kinloch, Rum: MHG3987; Hirons and Edwards 1990; Wickham-Jones et al 1990Sand, Wester Ross: MHG35892; Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009; Austin 2009; Green and Edwards 20094.3 Settlement EvidenceThe evidence for activity over this long period comes from caves/ rockshelters, middens, and surface scatters. Diagnostic artefacts evidence activity, though not its nature. Life thoughout the period was generally mobile, meaning that settlements were rarely permanent and varied greatly from larger multi-activity locations to short-lived specialist sites. Some lasted only a day or matter of hours. Archaeological evidence is sparse (see below), and to date no permanent settlements have been suggested for the Highlands, though evidence elsewhere in Scotland is beginning to be recognised (Robertson et al 2013). While some sites may have been visited on a regular, seasonal basis, others may have been occupied more frequently and some very rarely. Detail is lacking in the archaeological record, which relies heavily on ethnographic parallels for interpretation. Lithic scatters are the most visible sites, due to the durable remains. But all represent archaeology that has been disturbed (Wickham-Jones forthcoming), and few have been comprehensively investigated. They often indicate locations that have been used for millennia into later periods, so that detailed interpretation is difficult. The scatter at Oliclett, Caithness is a welcome exception where the site was sealed by peat, and investigation was aided by detailed environmental investigation which helped to fine tune the interpretation of activity (Pannett and Baines 2006; Tipping et al 2007a).Shell middens have received much attention, in part due to preservation and visibility, but in fact they are relatively rare in the Scottish Mesolithic (Wickham-Jones 2009b). They vary in size, and while most are coastal they can occasionally be found inland. Many are in locations that show long use, even into Neolithic or Bronze Age. There is much variation in midden type: some contain internal structures; different types of shellfish dominate; and some include significant amounts of animal bone; a few have microliths, for example Sand, Wester Ross; and some, like Risga, Lochaber contain significant quantities of knapping debris from the manufacture of tools. As excavations at Sand showed (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009), it is important to investigate the site away from the midden in order to gain a fuller picture of activity (P&M panel 4.2.2).PalaeolithicAs conditions ameliorated in the Upper Palaeolithic, coastal landscapes with associated archaeological material are well evidenced along the eastern shores of Doggerland (for example in western Sweden, Schmitt 2018) and one has to assume they also existed to the west. This opens up the possibility for human activity in Scotland at this early stage and, indeed there are a number of isolated finds of Ahrensburgian-style points, known as tanged points, which occur on coastal sites around the north and west of Scotland, and are generally used to support this view (Ballin and Wickham-Jones 2017). These finds, dated approximately to the end of the Younger Dryas (on stylistic rather than scientific grounds) occur from Orkney, Tiree, Islay, and in the Highlands from Shieldaig, Wester Ross (MHG77040; Ballin and Saville 2003). Other lithics identified as Late Upper Paleolithic have been found at An Corran (MHG6397; Saville et 2012; Case study X) and South Cuidrach, Skye (MHG59071) where work is ongoing . This latter site will also provide information on the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic interface (Hardy et al 2020).Further work is needed at Shieldaig to complement the ongoing work at South Cuidrach. Excavations in the 1970s at Shieldaig showed preserved stratigraphy, sealed under peat. More recent trial trenching (Birch 2013) confirmed the archaeological potential here. This site is, nevertheless, much disturbed by quarrying, a water treatment plant and electricity trenches, and work is recommended before further destruction takes place (Birch 2013, 25). At South Cuidrach the site appears extensive, but is threatened by an active track which is causing erosion (Hardy et al 2018; 2020). Both sites are multi-period, and require detailed dating and palaeoenvironmental analysis. While Shieldaig and South Cuidrach demonstrate the potential that further work might yield more detail of settlement activity on site, it should not be forgotten that Palaeolithic material is just as likely to be found elsewhere. Furthermore, the re-examination of lithic collections in museums has been identified as a significant source of data (P&M panel, Theme 1 recommendations). Inland caves are also a potential resource, including Creag nan Uamh (Inchnadamph) in northwest Highland where animal bones dating to the Upper Palaeolithic have been found, though no human activity can be demonstrated at this period. These caves offer a significant resource for the analysis of Late Upper Palaeolithic Scotland, however, through the study of proxy material such as animal populations and the palaeoenvironment. New Palaeolithic sites do occur with increasingly frequency now that the artefactual evidence is more likely to be recognised. In Islay, at the site of Rubha Port an t-Seillach, an extensive lithic assemblage has been excavated and undergone rigorous investigation (Mithen et al. 2015). Mithen and his team interpret this site as indicative of the coastal colonisation of northern Britain, and, in view of the mountainous nature of the interior and the apparent lack of familiarity of contemporary groups with highland landscapes, perhaps this emphasis on the seaways is not surprising. It means, nevertheless, that subsequent exploration of the interior might be expected, though the evidence is likely to be scarce. The problems of investigating exploratory and colonizing activity where groups travel light and leave little footprint, are increasingly recognised. Indeed, in parts of eastern Scotland related finds are coming to light, particularly along the big river systems (Wickham-Jones et al. 2017; forthcoming).With more sites it will be possible to conduct more detailed investigation into the precise origins of these early populations. Parallels with homelands in Doggerland and links across to northern/north-central Europe might be explored (Ballin and Wickham-Jones 2017). We need more sites like Rubha Port an t’Seilich in the Highlands (and Scotland).MesolithicVarious models have been proposed for settlement in the Mesolithic period. Wicks and Mithen (2014) identified:? The arrival of one or more hunter-gatherer (Mesolithic) groups into the area around 8,500 BC; A general increase in population until 6,200 BC;? A significant drop in population by about 90% by 5,500 BC;? Low density settlement until about 4,800 BC;? Rising population until around 4,300 BC;? Declining population levels until about 3,800 BC, at which point some Neolithicactivity is observed;? The disappearance of Mesolithic communities by around 3,400 BC.Elsewhere Mithen (2017) has proposed five stages:1. Exploration and pioneering settlement, prior to 7,400 BC;2. Residential settlement, 7,400 – 5,800 BC;3. Population decline, 5,800 – 5,000 BC;4. Re-colonisation, 5,000 – 3,800 BC;5. Transition to Farming, 4,200 – 3,200 BC.More recently, Waddington and Wicks (2017) have undertaken similar analysis for the east of Scotland and northeast England, and they identify a familiar pattern:1. Initial colonisation around 8,500 – 8,300 BC;2. Population spread – 8,000 BC, moving into the interior around 7,770 BC;3. Fluctuating Population – 7,350 – 6,600 BC;4. Population reduction – 6,600 – 7,600 BC;5. Population rise – 5,600 – 5,400 BC6. Decline – 5,400 – 4,800 BC7. Transition – 4,800 – 4,000 BC.The precise details and fluctuations vary across these models, which is only to be expected given the differing nature of the separate areas and the detail available, though the overall trends hold good. While this analysis is useful for ordering our thoughts, it is worth noting that the lack of similar densities of Mesolithic sites across the Highlands means that we cannot simply lift models like these into our area. They do help us to provide a nice narrative, but we have to be careful because we do not actually have the precise evidence on which to confirm it. It is important to make sure that we do not bend the evidence to confirm pre-existing paradigms drawn from elsewhere, we need to make use of our own sites to identify trends pertinent to our area first.Waddington also addresses the impact of the loss of the Doggerland landmass (Waddington 2015). His work has implications for possible interpretations of Mesolithic settlement in our area in that he suggests that land loss on this scale led to social instability, evidenced by the arrival of new groups with narrow-blade microliths and the construction of large round structures such as those excavated at Mount Sandel, Northern Ireland (Woodman 1985) and South Echline near Edinburgh (Robertson et al. 2013). While his models have been much discussed and are at present controversial, once again they provide interesting research statements that could be used to direct future investigation.The scarcity of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in Highland Region provides one of the main research gaps which it is necessary to fill. Most proposed Mesolithic sites are unexcavated. The number of excavated and dated sites is still very small (see Table X). The scarcity of well-dated sites hinders our interpretation of these communities. Research such as that of the Scotland’s First Studies Project (see Case study X); Hardy & Wickham Jones 2009), which provided a landscape – or indeed seascape – focus over an area with varied topography and geology, provides a hint of the rewards of wider studies, but even here few sites were investigated in detail.SiteAreaDatings SMLSCommentsSourceOliclettC6th millennium BC or earlierxsealed by peatMHG29867; Tipping et al 2007aBerriedale BraesCAwaiting resultsxAlso stakeholes, pits and hearthsPeteranna & Williamson 2018Fortrose & Rosemarkie WWWER7034-6700 BCCharcoal (birch) from lower fill of pit which was reused in the Bronze AgeMHG60875; Fraser 2014TarradaleERAwaiting results; includes 7th millennium BCx?Shell middens, on top and base of raised beach, with good preservation. Dating of artefacts and charcoalPeteranna & Brich 2017c; Tarradale through time website Castle St, InvernessI7025-6462 BC6604-5712 BCxOld datesMHG3673; Wordsworth 1985Essich Rd, InvernessI4230-3987 BCCharcoal at base of plough truncated pitEHG4990Culduthel Farm Rd, InvernessI4900-4710 BCBurnt animal bone in pitMHG48627SlackbuieWay, InvernessI6530-6390 BCCharcoal from lower fill of pitMHG55808; Kilpatrick 2012Muirtown, InvernessI4651-4345 BCxShell midden, dated by oak charcoalMHG3741Torbreck Farm, InvernessI4850-4530 BCBurnt animal bone in fill of part natural depression and part cutMHG46296Balmakeith, NairnN5980-5750 BCOak charcoal in pit. No other Mesolithic artefactsMHG54960; McNichol 2011SandWRA number of dates spanning 8th - 6th c millennium BCxxRock shelter and midden, with good preservation. Important excavationMHG35892; Hardy & Wickham-Jones 2007 (SFS 4); Case Study XCamas DaraichSkye4 dates, 7th millennium BCxLithic scatter on a raised beach, including objects of Rum bloodstone and narrow blade microliths.MHG36657; Wickham-Jones & Hardy 2004An Corran (Site A)Skye8 dates 7th-early 4th millennium BCxxAnimal bone, and lithic and bone tools in shell midden which has multi-period activity. Other nearby sites also with lithic scatters (Sites C (SFS 30), E (SFS 101) and F (SFS 193)MHG6497; Saville et al 2012; Hardy & Wickham-Jones 2009, Case Study XStaffin BaySkyeEarly 7th millennium BCxLimited excavation; charred hazelnuts and bones,and lithicseLee 2016Loch a Sguirr 1Skye6640-6420 BC6222-6020 BCxxMulti-period rock shelter and midden Test pitting. MHG58707; Hardy & Wickham-Jones 2007 (SFS 8)Clachan Harbour, RaasaySkye7598-7542 BC7353-7084 BCLithics in and beneath peat in now intertidal zone. Additional dates show sea level change datingMHG52892; Ballin 2010; Cressey et al 2010Loch Doilean SunartL5465-5224 BC4596-4456 BC4356-4235 BCxBurnt hazelnut shells from recessed platform and raised terrace. Small scale lithic working.MHG552; Ellis 2016; Ballin 2016Risga, Loch SunartL5250-4600 BC4910-4550 BC xxExcavated in 1920s, and 1990s. Good preservation. MHG148; Pollard 2000; Ashmore 2004aKinlochRumA number of dates, spanning all MesolithicxLithic working site, pits, stake holes. Multi-period activity. Further evidence nearby – see EHG5330MHG3987; Wickham-Jones 1990; Birch 2018a; Case study XTable X: Radiocarbon dated Mesolithic sitesKey: SM:shell midden; LS: Lithic scatterExcluded from Table X are sites which have yielded Mesolithic radiocarbon dates in soil horizons which cannot be attributed to human activity, or the Mesolithic period is considered residual. These include Balnuaran of Clava (MHG3013; MHG4366); Stoneyfield (Raigmore) cairn (MHG45834; MHG54911; see Ashmore 2004a, 115); Lochloy, Nairn (MHG54243); Comar Wood Dun (MHG55867), Lairg, Sutherland (though possibly representing woodland clearance; McCullach and Tipping 1998).SiteAreaSMLSCommentsSourceFreswick CxMicroliths and other early lithics reputedly found in multi-period links area. Re-analysis neededMHG1669; Lacaille 1954PullyhourCx75 lithics including scalene micro-triangles, micoliths and microburins under Bronze Age henge. Mainly flintMHG59814; Lamdin-Whymark and Bradley 2011Battle MossCxDiscovered during excavations relating to investigation of stone rows. Publication awaitedMHG61689BadanlochSxGreat quantities of flint artefacts reported in 19th century. Finds said to be Mesolithic – needs examiningMHG10584Baile Mhargait, InvernaverSxSurface scatter of flaked artefacts, including one narrow blade microlithMHG11392LittleferrySxxMidden and lithics from Mesolithic onwards. Prolific siteMHG11663; Bradley 2017Milton of CullodenIxxTest trench. Site much disturbedMHG18470Lower SlackbuieIxMainly Neolithic site, but Late Mesolithic artefacts, some with signs of heating; (ASDA site)EHG3271; Garry ndKingsteps QuarryNxImplements and flakes reputedly Mesolithic MHG6947Culbin SandsNxxLarge site overlapping into Moray, with multi-period findsCanmore 15941Loch GartenB&SxLithic scatter, well inlandMHG51764; Saville 2007Dunachton / Loch InshB&S?Various lithics associated with layer of charcoal. Possible lithic scatterMHG4451; DES 1986; report attached to MHG4451Glen ShieldaigWRxExcavated in 1970s. Large collection including one Palaeolithic point and microliths, as well as later period lithicsMHG7704; Ballin & Saville 2003; Birch 2013RedpointWRxLarge lithic scatter eroding from dunes over a large areaMHG7639; Hardy & Wickham-Jones 2009, site SFS 9Applecross ManseWRxSurface collection and shovel pitting. No later material recoveredMHG37293; Hardy & Wickham-Jones 2009, site SFS 75FearnmoreWRx6 test pits recovered large assemblage of lithics, including 3 microliths. Quartz predominated.MHG37316; Hardy & Wickham-Jones 2009, site SFS 104Lub Dubh Aird, Loch TorridonWRxLithic scatter in intertidal zone. One possible Mesolithic scraper, the rest undiagnosticMHG54901; Hardy et al 2015South CuidrachSkyexPaleolithic and Mesolithic lithics. Surface collection and testpitting, with more work planned 2020MHG59071; Hardy et al 2018; 2020OrbostSkyexSurface collection and trial trenchMHG35171ScalpaySkyexTest pitting and surface collection at various sites by SFS project, with 5 sites producing Mesolithic lithics (Scalpay 3, 6a, 6b, 7 and 8), all but Scalpay 8 are lithic scattersMHG37347, MHG54191, MHG58711, MHG58712, MHG38713; Hardy & Wickham-Jones 2009, SFS 33, 198, 195, 196, 197Acharn FarmLxCollected from extensively ploughed field. Large percentage are flint. Includes microliths and microburinsMHG497; Gray 1974-1975Barr River, MorvernLxTest pitting in 1970s in area disturbed by forestry work recovered Mesolithic lithicsMHG489; Mercer 1979North Barr River, MorvernLxSurface collection and limited excavation in 2010 on disturbed site. Mesolithic and laterMHG53627; MacGregor 2019; Finlay 2019Sanna BayLx?Multiperiod dune site found early 20th century. Includes ‘shell heaps’, various lithic artefacts including coresMHG14370Cul na Croise / Drynan Bay, ArdnamurchanLxMultiperiod dune site, heavily disturbed by WWII shelling. Mesolithic artefacts include flintMHG356; Engl and Peteranna in prepBruach Na Maorach, Kentra Bay, ArdnamurchanL?xSmall number of flint and quartz artefacts found under peat pre 1950s. Placename means Shellfish BankMHG75Allt Lochan na CeardaichLxSurface collection in 1980s after forestry ploughingMHG39319; Ballin 2016Dahl HouseLxUnstratified finds discovered when digging drains. Late Mesolithic and laterMHG301; Ballin 2016Rubh'an Achaidh MhoirL?xQuartz and flint artefacts found pre 1950s. Also ‘shell-refuse and bones’MHG4157RaonapollRumxLithic scatter, disturbed by roadworksMHG58342Table X: Shell Middens and Lithic scatters containing Mesolithic lithics, but without radiocarbon datingThe relatively small numbers of sites mean that it is misleading to map sites and to single out significant, or interesting sites; we are merely looking at locations where the whims of recent archaeologists and communities have led to deeper research. Nevertheless, it is useful to see where activity has taken place, if only to highlight the gaps and to suggest areas for further work. Although many sites manifest as lithic scatters (see Table X and Table X) there is a need to improve how we record and deal with scatter sites (see Wickham-Jones forthcoming). Curiously, though lithic scatter sites comprise a significant archaeological resource (the Highland HER records over 70 lithic scatter sites), they are often poorly understood and poorly managed. There are, for example, few scheduled lithic scatter sites in Scotland. Single finds also present problems as many of these may well not be in primary locations, spread by later manuring or other activities.The current distribution of material is very coastal, and likely influenced by modern bias (P&M panel 6.1). We need to examine the interior of the country, including not just the montane areas, but also the gentler topography: glens and access routes. There are exceptions, for example at Loch Garten, Badenoch and Strathspey (MHG51764), and elsewhere in Scotland inland sites have also been identified (Warren et al. 2018; Wickham-Jones et al 2020). Finally, of course, we need to consider how relative sea-level change may have skewed the picture. Intertidal sites such as Lub Dubh Aird (MHG5490q; Hardy et al 2015), and Clachan Harbour (MHG52892; Ballin et al. 2010) act as a reminder that the sites we find on land do not reflect the original archaeological resource.The major investigations in Highlands have been very much centred on the west coast, but increasingly there has been more attention to the east with fieldwalking finds from Caithness, Easter Ross and Inverness and the Tarradale through Time project. Excavation evidence around Inverness is almost all from developer-funded studies which carry their own limitations, and at present can only suggest generalised activity. Exceptions are a shell midden at Muirtown (MHG3741) and lithic working at Castle Street (MHG3673; Wordsworth 1985). It is likely that development has destroyed much of the evidence near the Inverness shore.StructuresThere is relatively little evidence for Mesolithic structures throughout Scotland (see Wickham-Jones 2004; Natl ScARF 4.1.2; Robertson 2013). While in the last decades more substantial evidence of hut-like structures has been found in southern Scotland (Mithen and Wicks 2018), only from Camas Daraich (MHG36657; Hardy ref needed), Kinloch, Rum (MHG3987; Wickham-Jones 1990) and Berriedale Braes, Caithness (Peteranna & Williamson 2018) have structures been proposed for the Highlands. The use of caves and rockshelters is well documented in the Highlands on the west coast, (eg by the Scotland’s First Settlers Project; Case study X; Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009), and there are hints of early activity at Smoo Caves in northwest Sutherland (Pollard 2005, 8). Caves hold great potential for preserving Mesolithic activity. No evidence survives of east coast use of caves, but deglaciation and sea level changes are likely to have resulted in some preservation under water, as is the case to the west. However, the SFS project showed that in their study area most Mesolithic and early Prehistoric sites were not generally large rockshelters, but rather open air scatters or undiagnostic sites. This has implications on how we should prospect for sites in the future (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009, 9.3).4.4 Daily Life evidenceIn general, the Mesolithic lifestyle was flexible and adaptable: if a bad year meant a poor autumnal harvest of nuts, berries and roots, then it could often be made up by foraging in the intertidal and coastal zone. Only if both failed were communities really threatened. As Wicks and Mithen (2014) note (see section 4.3), varying conditions were not just a problem resource-wise; increased winds would also impact on sea-travel with possible knock on effects on mobility and mortality. They develop their research to include analysis of secure radiocarbon dates as a proxy for population levels in the west of Scotland. While this has its weaknesses, not least the fact that it is driven by the vagaries of excavators, it does highlight an interesting pattern and is certainly a useful way in which to generate discussion of the possible impact of environmental downturns.FoodA great deal of attention has been focussed on Mesolithic subsistence, and the relationships between mobile foragers and available resources (see P&M panel, 6.1). As much of the Mesolithic evidence in the Highlands is from midden sites, these have heavily influenced the interpretation of food, to the detriment of wider nutritional and resource studies. Mesolithic shell middens do occur in the Highlands (see section 4.3, Table X and X), but intensive survey work such as that of the SFS project found fewer than anticipated (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009), suggesting that other types of site need to be considered. We need to beware of drawing wide ranging conclusions from a few, possibly atypical, sites, and focus on recovering more data across the board, and the use of multi-proxy data.Evidence from shell middens and cave sites does, nevertheless, indicate some of the larger animals available to Palaeolithic and Mesolithic hunters in the Highlands. At the Inchnadamph caves of Creag nan Uamh (MHG11410) and Uamh an Claonaite brown bear was found and dated to 11641-11411 cal BC, 26095-25654 cal BC and 48088-43514 cal BC, reindeer to 12,129-11861 cal BC and wild horse 11628-11400 cal BC. Wild horse and bear were clearly in the Highlands at time of the Palaeolithic lithics found at Shieldaig and Skye. Bear would not have been present in full glacial conditions, since most cave entrances would not have been accessible (Birch and Young 2009).The evidence to date for Mesolithic animals in Scotland is outlined in Kitchiner et al (2004; see also Barnett 2019). The evidence from Highland sites depends on good preservation. From Sand, Wester Ross (MHG3592), there was evidence of red deer and probably wild boar, as well as fox, dog, wolf, otter, badger. Most of the animal bone here was fragmentary and unidentifiable, but it did provide information about butchery practices. Interestingly, despite the coastal distribution and good excavation strategies there was only limited evidence here for seal or whale (Parks and Barrett 2009). A similar rich record was recovered from An Corran, Skye (MHG6497), although the site is complicated by later use and mixing of deposits in antiquity. Red deer dominated the mammal record here; the lack of evidence of primary butchery among the bones suggesting that they were killed elsewhere (Bartosiewicz, László 2012). Shell middens generally preserve good evidence of fish and shellfish. At Sand a large fish assemblage comprised mainly wrasse and cod, and their size suggests inshore fishing (Parks and Barrett 2009). A bone object from Risga, Lochaber has been identified as a fish hook, a very rare find if the identification is correct (P&M panel 3.3.2).Shellfish in middens show different middens dominated by different shellfish (P&M panel 4.2.2). At Sand shellfish was abundant, especially limpets, periwinkles, dogwhelks, mussels and even crabs (Milner 2009a; Milner 2009b). The evidence was interpreted as suggesting fairly non-intensive collection, as the midden is considered small when compared to others in Europe. Alternatively, processing may have occurred on the shore, perhaps when the weather was good. Shellfish had many uses: as food, bait, for decoration, as a raw material, and, in the case of dogwhelks, a source of dyestuff (Milner 2009a).Similarly, midden sites in the Highlands show differential exploitation of birds. Sand in Wester Ross was dominated by razorbills and guillemots, while across the sound at An Corran, puffin dominated the bird remains (Bartosiewicz, László 2012, 57). The great auk is rare in the Scottish Mesolithic record, but finds include Risga, Lochaber (P&M panel 3.3.2) and An Corran, Skye (Bartosiewicz 2012, 57). Both the bird and fish evidence can also supply evidence of seasonality (Parks and Barrett 2009; Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009 9.4.9). Wild plants were also collected, with hazelnuts by far and away the most common surviving evidence, due to their preservation when charred (P&M panel, 6.1). Abundant evidence of hazelnuts survives from Sand (Austin 2009). Other plants are likely to have been exploited, though less easy to document; see, for example, the discussion in Mithen (2000).Limited isotopic data elsewhere in Scotland shows dietary distinction between Mesolithic fish eaters and Neolithic meat (and cereal) eaters. The problem however, is the lack of human remains for isotopic analysis in the Highlands, as for much of Scotland (P&M panel 5.2.3). The transition to farmingThe transition to farming is still little understood for Scotland and the Highlands. At present, the constraints of the archaeological record mean that we rely on information from outwith the area, and on traditional archaeological material, such as stylistic analyses of pottery and stone tools, when elsewhere the contribution of information from genetic analyses, in particular, is helping to refine interpretation.At this point, it is worth recalling Wicks and Mithen’s (2014) postulated population decline prior to the advent of the Neolithic. Does the lack of later sites reflect this, or does it reflect our inability to locate those sites? Once again it is a question of ‘watch this space’. More sites, more information, improved analysis – including dating, will all help to produce a more nuanced picture.National ScARF P&M panel (6.2) outlined the current theories as of 2012 of the transition to agriculture with two main theories. The first suggested farming and other aspects arrived in Scotland through networks of trade and exchange, with indigenous adaptation, the other that it was direct colonisation from the continent, accounting for farming, pottery and other new innovations. Data with good preservation was needed, with good dating of late Mesolithic sites, integrating climate change evidence. Further work at Tarradale, Easter Ross may shed light here, as initial trenching suggest occupation covers this time period.However, traditional studies of the transition have been overturned by more recent aDNA research which supports continental colonisation. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of localised Mesolithic human remains to refine the interpretation. Issues such as overlapping populations and lifestyles therefore remain to be explored. For example, human remains from Oronsay middens suggest the possibility that a Mesolithic lifestyle continued there up to c. 3850 BC (Mithen 2017 5.2.2). Without more sites, better dating, good stratigraphy and preservation and ideally human remains, Highlands currently cannot contribute to this debate. Material CultureFar more than other periods, identification and interpretation of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic activity depends largely on artefacts. Some, such as Palaeolithic points and Mesolithic microliths are key diagnostic indicators, but increasingly excavation from dated contexts is providing information on the range of other objects and their uses, together with insights into procurement of raw materials and workmanship (see also Section 4.7).StoneMuch of the evidence for Palaeolithic and Mesolithic activity in the Highlands is dependent on the recognition of diagnostic lithics. The general overview of material culture for these periods was discussed by Saville (2004). Lithic identification and analysis were also discussed with references in National ScARF (P&M panel, 4.1.1, 5.4), together with a good discussion of microliths as case study ‘Chronological developments - ‘Broad’ and ‘Narrow Blade’ technologies’ and a download on ‘ScARF Lithic identification and analysis’. Further work since National ScARF on Scottish and Highland material includes work by Torben Ballin (2019; forthcoming) who argues for the need for systematic terminology, essential if comparisons are to be made. A broad consensus is emerging, though there is still some individual nomenclature, and the need to understand historic terminology remains (P&M panel, 5.4). Training to allow more people to identify significant types, and to enable the classification of material from fieldwalking as well as the reassessment of museum collections is necessary. In Aberdeenshire the successful programme organised by Mesolithic Deeside bears testament to the value of this sort of programme ( and -Wickham-Jones et al forthcoming. PalaeolithicEvidence for Palaeolithic activity in the Highlands is slim, and confined to distinctive lithics (see section 4.4).The find of an Ahrensburgian tanged point, which date in Scotland to 10800-9800 cal BC (Ballin forthcoming), from Shieldaig, Wester Ross (MHG77040) is one of only a few from secure contexts across Scotland, although in this case a disturbed layer (Ballin and Saville 2003). Recent lithic finds from An Corran (MHG8497; case study X) and South Cuidrach, Skye (MHG59071) also appear to date to this period (Hardy et al 2020); further ongoing analysis and investigation with radiocarbon dating is in progress at this latter site. MesolithicWith the advent of the Holocene, classic changes in artefact assemblages occurred across this corner of northwest Europe, manifest as the introduction of microlithic industries. These are generally interpreted as representative of the introduction of new hunting technologies, namely the bow. Microliths are made on blades, the manufacture of which requires very specific knapping techniques. In general, when a site contains evidence for the manufacture of blades rather than flakes, it is regarded as a possible Mesolithic site (larger blades can also be an indication of Palaeolithic or Neolithic material). Microliths, and the blade industries on which they are based, divide into two types: broad (> 8mm wide), and narrow (<8mm wide). In England, broad blades predate narrow blade material and the change has been related to increasing isolation, and local development after the loss of continental connection through Doggerland sometime before 7500 BC (Jacobi 1976), though current thinking suggests that the picture may be more nuanced. Broad blade assemblages do occur in Scotland including in the Highlands but the interpretation of the evidence has been problematic not least because broad blades often postdate narrow blade material (P&M panel, 4.1.1). Nevertheless, increasing finds of broad blade artefacts across the country, including at An Corran and South Cuidrach on Skye, mean that it is not possible to dismiss the occurrence of broad blades here. While microliths are our most diagnostic lithic find for the Mesolithic, the exact way they were used is still discussed (P&M panel 5.2.2). They are thought to have been used in arrows, but may also have been hafted for other tasks; one explanation is unlikely to account for all of them. Micro-wear analysis should be a more standard tool for the examination of well contexted assemblages (Saville 2006, 187-188).We tend to identify Mesolithic sites through the presence of narrow blade microliths. The scarcity of later sites suggests that we are not recognising the later stone tools. Many lithic scatter sites have prolific lithics but lack microliths, sites such as the lithic scatters at the edge of the raised beach at Staffin in Skye. Sites such as these are often dismissed as ‘nondescript’ in our quest for type fossils; they may well help to fill some of the gaps in our knowledge. Surely they are precisely the type of site we should be digging in order to understand just where they do fit into the picture of prehistoric activity. The complete disappearance of all that we recognise as Mesolithic within a few centuries of the appearance of recognisably Neolithic material has long been noticed. But in actual fact, in many places, it may have started to take place earlier – we just do not recognise what happens to the Mesolithic over time. Not only do we need more sites, we also need to be examining some of those poorly understood generic lithic scatters.Bone and AntlerBone and antler only survive where conditions are favourable. In Highland, Sand, Wester Ross, Risga, Lochaber and Tarradale have produced barbed points/harpoons: characteristic but not common Mesolithic finds (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 3.4.6; Grant 2020; Saville 2004, 197ff). The Risga example preserves a basal perforation which would have allowed it to be fixed to a shaft. The function of these points is debated, but they could have been for thrusting or as throwing weapons, for both fishing and hunting. Dates have been obtained elsewhere in Scotland, from 7th and 6th millennia BC, but none from Highland have been dated so far (Saville 2004, 197-198).At Tarradale two T-axes (antler mattocks) were also found. Together with the example from Risga Lochaber, Highland now accounts for three of the seven known mattocks from Scotland, the others being from central and western sites (Peteranna and Birch 2017c; Grant 2020; Saville 2004, 198-200). The functions of these tools are also debated: woodworking, digging and butchery have all been suggested (Saville 2004, 199-200). The Risga example has been dated to 5250-4600 cal BC (Saville 2004, 201). The Tarradale examples have not been dated, but bones and charcoal in the same area produced late Mesolithic dates (Grant 2020; see radiocarbon datasheet).Other bone and antler objects such as points and bevel-ended tools, as well as coarse stone tool types, have a wider chronological range and cannot be ascribed to specific parts of the Mesolithic (Saville 2004, 204).The radiocarbon dating of the bevel-ended bone tools from An Corran, Skye indicated their continued use in the Neolithic and Bronze Age (Saville et al 2012, 74).While a number of lithic and bone/antler tools survive, identifying function is fraught with problems. Micro- and macro-wear analysis can help to resolve this and was recommended in National ScARF (P&M panel 5.2.2). Steven Birch’s experimental archaeology work based on material from Sand, Wester Ross was able to provide useful insights on using bone tools for processing plants, working hides and shellfish procurement. For example, the bone bevel-ended tools were unlikely to have been used as limpet scoops, but may well have been for hide working (Birch 2009). The study of residues on bone tools from Sand and Loch a’Sguirr was pioneering work, though results sometimes difficult to interpret (P&M panel 5.2.2, Hardy 2009).ShellThe worked remains of some cowrie and scallop shells at Sand show they were also utilised for non-food purposes. A few cut scallop shells were found, and one pointed shell shows it was used for cutting. The discovery of perforated cowrie shells clearly indicates a deliberate act even if the reasons are not clear. They could have been used for decoration, but ethnographic evidence show potentially wider uses, for example as fertility amulets (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 9.4.7), Other Scottish finds of perforated cowrie shells include from Oronsay, Ulva and Oban, and they are also found throughout northwestern Europe (Saville 2004, 200-202), Future work should look out for worked and modified shell.Wood/plants/hidesNo examples of Scottish Mesolithic art survive, but it is of course possible some was carved into wood or made of other organic materials (P&M panel, 6.1; Saville 2004). Nodules of haematite and ochre with surface wear from Sand suggest that they were used for the manufacture of pigments. Several bevel-ended tools here had chemical traces of iron or manganese oxide which also could have been used to add colour. Dogwhelk was possibly used for dyes (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009, 9.4.8). More work is needed on pigments in Mesolithic.Perforated cowrie shells mentioned above could have been used for jewellery, but as is the case elsewhere in Britain, there is little evidence of other artefacts which have been interpreted for decoration. No stone beads have been found in Scotland, as is known from Mesolithic England and Wales (Saville 2004, 202; P&M panel 6.1). Of course organic materials could have been used. 4.5 Craft and Industry evidenceMuch existing evidence for Mesolithic activity in the Highlands is from craftwork, both lithic and bone. Experimental archaeology and use-wear analysis have both been useful in identifying possible methods of production and potential uses of objects (P&M panel 5.3). Both terms craft and industry, sit slightly oddly in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic when 21st century concepts of production were not practised. LithicsMuch Mesolithic evidence comprises lithic scatter sites (where knapping and other activities have taken place; see section 4.3, Table X), and several of these have been recorded throughout the Highlands. They leave no doubt that the manufacture and use of stone tools was undertaken in all areas throughout the Mesolithic. The preferential preservation of stone should, however, be remembered. Our reliance on stone for information tends to say more about the way in which archaeology is practiced in the 21st century than about how people lived their lives in the past. Other artefacts, made of materials such as wood, bone, plant materials, or shell are likely to have been just as significant to the average Mesolithic hunter.The study of stone tools is, nevertheless, a major source of information about life in the Mesolithic. A number of studies have investigated raw materials (Palaeolithic and Mesolithic panel 2.2, 4.1.1, 5.2.2, 5.5 with refs). The Scotland’s First Settlers project analysed not only the artefacts themselves, but also visited major sources of raw materials and consulted with geologists (Wickham-Jones 2009a), a model approach to the issue. At Sand, Wester Ross, a comprehensive sieving policy ensured the detailed recovery of even the smallest finds. Bias in collection can be a factor (particularly for older projects), as well as the existence of expertise in identifying materials.In general, the Scottish picture shows that raw materials and artefacts tended to be locally made and used, and this is true across the Highlands. People tended to use local resources, though it has to be remembered that lifestyles were mobile so that ‘local’ is a very relative concept. There is, as yet, no evidence for the long distance exchange of goods or materials in Scotland at this time. Choice of material was conditioned by the needs of the task as well as by availability and the ease with which specific materials could be shaped as required, as shown at Sand, Wester Ross (Wickham-Jones 2009a). It is important to remember that the period in question lasted a long time and evidence for change throughout the period should be expected.Flint was generally sourced as pebble flints from both beach and glacial gravels. Gravel sources of flint are, however, scarce across much of the Highlands so that alternatives had to be sought. In the west, other materials included quartz, quartzite, and chert, as well as a range of localised siliceous rocks such as Rum Bloodstone, or baked mudstones. Flint is a chalcedonic silica, as are chert, agate and jasper, all of which have been found to have been used for stone tools in the Highlands (Wickham-Jones 2009a). The SFS project (Case study X) recovered very little flint, but a wide range of alternatives which served just as well (Wickham-Jones 2009a). In Lochaber, a number of Mesolithic sites, such as North Barr River, did make use of flint (MHG53627; MacGregor 2019; Finlay 2010). Flint is much more common in the eastern Highlands, and this is reflected in the local lithic assemblages; for example, at Inverness Castle Street flint dominated (MHG3673; Wordsworth 1985), and also at Tarradale across the firth (Grant 2020). At Inverness, the low proportion of core preparation and trimming waste, suggested that prepared nodules were brought in to the site (Wordsworth 1985). At the inland site of Oliclett in Caithness (MHG29867) the assemblage was based on flint and the analysis suggested that cores were selected and prepared at source before being transported to the site (Pannett and Baines 2006). In the area investigated by the Scotland First Settlers project in Wester Ross and eastern Skye, baked mudstone and tuffs sourced from Skye were made use of (Wickham-Jones 2009a). At Clachan Harbour on Raasay, Skye, excavation revealed a small assemblage of lithics along with preserved (natural) timbers and peat dated to the 8th millennium BC (Ballin et al 2010), at a site which is now in the intertidal zone. The problems of lithic identification are flagged by this site where differing geological opinions resulted in some doubt as to whether the material was a baked mudstone or a tuff. New research is constantly refining our understanding of the lithic raw materials. Another chalcedonic silica, commonly known as Rum Bloodstone outcrops on the island of Rum. Unsurprisingly it was the most common material used at Mesolithic sites on the island, including that at Kinloch (MHG3987; Wickham-Jones et al 1990; Birch 2018a). It is also found at other sites in the western Highlands, up to c. 80 km distance, including in Lochaber (Ballin 2016, 35; 2018), and is a good indicator of group mobility (see section 4.7). Rum Bloodstone is not always easy to knap, though it is easy to collect and holds a good working edge. Quartz and quartzite were also used on many sites though their knapping qualities can be more unpredictable. Worked quartz can be harder to identify, suggesting that it may be underrepresented in older published assemblages (Wickham-Jones 2009a). At Shieldaig, Wester Ross (MHG7704), quartz was the main material, although the Palaeolithic tanged point was of flint (Birch 2013; Ballin and Saville 2003).Another diagnostic lithic raw material is Arran Pitchstone a volcanic rock of limited origin in Arran. Although this was widely moved in later periods such as the Neolithic, Mesolithic use of Arran Pitchstone is more limited, though wider than other materials: up to 600kmn from the source (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009, 9.6.3; Ballin 2018, 251). Lithic scatter sites abound across the region and more localised studies such as SFS hold considerable potential to shed light on the nature of raw material use and the different types of site. At Lub Dubh Aird on Loch Torridon, Wester Ross (MHG54901), a scatter of predominantly flint artifacts and cores on the beach, is one of several on the loch. The nature of the finds, compared with other sites in the area suggests the possibility this was a site for gathering raw materials rather than domestic activities (Hardy et al 2015, 33-34). Further work into sources and distribution of the different materials across the Highlands would be useful. To date there is no evidence for quarrying or extraction (though it does occur elsewhere Scotland; Palaeolithic and Mesolithic panel 2.2) though sites may yet be found.Bone and Antler workingMesolithic shell middens provide the best evidence of the manufacture and use of bone and antler tools. While some of the workmanship was fairly straightforward, other objects such as points required more time and skill. Experimental work by Stephen Birch investigated possible manufacturing processes, combining them with the microscopic analysis of artefacts, and providing useful insights into possible techniques (Birch 2009a). The study of residues on bone tools undertaken by the SFS project on material from at Sand and Loch a’Sguirr was pioneering work, though results sometimes difficult to interpret (P&M panel 5.2.2, Hardy 2009). Other MaterialsDaily life in the Mesolithic and Palaeolithic required the working of many materials that have not survived to the present day. Some have been evidenced on waterlogged sites, such as wood, and bark, both of which survived at Tybrind Vig a submerged site in Denmark ). Stone tools played an important role in working other materials and occasionally, there might be indirect evidence such as the experimental work which shows that bone bevel-ended tools could have been used for processing hides (Birch 2009a). At Sand, Wester Ross the main identified mammal bones were red deer and some wild boar. Metapodials and phalanges were most common suggesting removal of hides occurred (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009, 9.4.9). It is important to remember how much differential preservation colours our view of material culture in the past. Experimental Centres such as the YEAR Centre at the University of York facilitate considerable research into Mesolithic technology such as the manufacture of birch tar, or uses of amber, but so far practical research like this is limited in Scotland. 4.6 Religion and Ritual evidenceVarious elements thought to relate to religion and ritual have been identified from Palaeolithic sites of this period across Europe. Clearly the Scottish evidence is such that detail is lacking here, though that does not mean that it did not play a part in life.With regard to the Mesolithic, ritual, or ceremonial, artefacts and sites have also been recognised and there is some indication elsewhere in Scotland of a richer side to life (eg the pit alignment at Warrenfield, Crathes; Murray et al 2009). It is also worth remembering that hunter-gatherer communities often place emphasis on natural places as special in some way and this may well have been the case in Scotland. Tentative evidence of this has been found at Chest of Dee, Aberdeenshire (Wickham-Jones et al 2020; forthcoming). Religion and ritual also permeate material culture though this can be difficult to recognise. The carved wooden baton found in 2013 in a bog at Maerdy, Wales has been linked to the Shigir Idol, an apparent Mesolithic ritual object from the Urals. Perforated cowrie shells found at Sand may have been for decoration, but ethnographic evidence shows that in some societies these objects were associated with fertility (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009, 9.4.7) and there are many other possible associations. Similarly, we may not be recognising symbolic objects in the archaeological record. While ritual sites and artefacts from the Mesolithic are lacking in Highland region that does not mean that they were absent and attention should be given to the recognition of future finds. No deliberate burials have been recognised in either the Palaeolithic or the Mesolithic across Scotland. The only human remains comprise isolated bones (mainly of digits), from the Oronsay middens (P&M panel 6.1). This picture has not changed in recent years, indeed since the discovery of the Oronsay material in the 1970s. This lack of evidence is itself an indication that whatever belief systems existed over this long period, they did not involve the deliberate deposition of the dead or cremated remains in a way that has survived to the present day. A number of theories have been proposed to fit this picture, and it is, of course, important to remember that burial customs themselves are likely to have changed over time. More than one pattern of activity may be involved. Without further evidence it is impossible to push the interpretation in any particular direction (P&M panel 6.1). Clearly any evidence, should there be some to be found, requires sites with very specific preservation conditions. The relatively recent recognition of Mesolithic cremation burials on an otherwise undiagnostic site in Ireland is worth remembering (Collins and Coyne 2003). 4.7 Transport and movement evidenceLifestyles in both the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic revolved around mobility within a wide territory, making the archaeology of the period almost by definition a study of movement: the movement of people through the landscape and the movement of resources. However, mobility can be difficult to demonstrate archaeologically (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009, 1.3). OriginsThe first groups to settle in the Highland Region towards the end of the last ice Age moved in from outside. Lower relative sea-levels and a dynamic coastline as the world recovered from the impact of the ice sheets mean that the origins for these communities have to be sought further afield, though precise evidence is, so far, lacking across Scotland. Movement around the northern shores of Doggerland as the coastline became ice free is one possibility as is movement across the interior of Doggerland. At sites like Howburn, South Lanarkshire and some of the Deeside sites there are early stone tools made of non-local flint that may well have been imported from Doggerland (Ballin et al 2018). Exploratory and colonizing groups were moving into unknown territory and tended to carry carefully curated raw materials in order to ensure survival. As communities settled down and learnt the lie of the land there is more evidence for the use of local stone and other raw materials on slightly later sites. With regard to the Mesolithic, the evidence for new populations is at present unclear. While population levels certainly grew and the lifestyle changed, this may have more to do with ameliorating conditions and developments in technology rather than the influx of new blood. Further evidence is needed. In Highland Region there is still very little evidence for the earliest Mesolithic groups, or, indeed, for the Late Upper Palaeolithic populations now seen to the east and south, though no doubt more will emerge in decades to come.The lack of human remains from the Highlands means there has been no possibility for isotopic analysis or aDNA (P&M panel, 5.2.3) both of which can shed light on mobility and origins. Nevertheless, the possibility of using animal bone from archaeological sites as a proxy is now being developed. While this also impacts on our understanding of the Mesolithic-Neolithic interface in the area, the advent of farmers into Highland is likely to follow the general pattern set up elsewhere across the country. The migration, in various episodes, of farming groups from the Continent is now generally accepted and supported by both artefactual and genetic evidence (see Neolithic chapter).Territory and MobilityEthnograpahic parallels have been used to estimate the range of hunter-gatherer-fishers in the landscape, but while these help to expand our interpretations, there are local issues of topography, environment, resources, and group preferences that need to be taken into account for any particular region. It is also important to remember that the peoples of the recent past, or present, can never be used as direct analogies for the people of the more distant past. Linking the nature of the movement to archaeological remains is also difficult. While many possibly types of site have been recognised (base camps, kill sites, butchery areas, overnight stops, preparation sites, and so on) it is hard to be certain as to their identification on the ground. Is it possible to distinguish a base camp from which people foraged over a period of some weeks, from a site made up of many different one night stopping points over a number of years (P&M panel, 6.1)? On occasion, the finds offer some clue as when a specific animal resource provides hints: at Sand seasonality among the bird bones suggested a particular focus to at least some of the activity (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009, 9.4.9). Further studies on well-preserved sites are needed. The long period in question also means that changes to well-established patterns of movement are likely, especially when the known fluctuations in climate are factored in. This highlights the need for regional studies with good dating.Movement of raw materialsGiven the limited nature of some raw material sources, in particular stone, these can be used to deduce aspects of mobility and thus provide some of the best evidence for mobility across the region in the Mesolithic. While it is not possible to determine whether material was obtained directly or transported via indirect exchange networks, the general lack of evidence for long distance exchange at this time should be noted. For the Highlands, the evidence of Rum Bloodstone is particularly interesting. While the source is localised to Rum, artefacts of Bloodstone occur up to c. 80 km from the source with a few outliers (Ballin 2016, 35; 2018) and there is evidence that it was knapped on site. A similar picture is emerging for the baked mudstones and tuffs from Skye (Hardy and Wickham-Jones 2009, 9.6.3). This pattern of mobility within a limited area is interesting, perhaps defining some sort of territorial familiarity and making the occurrence of occasional outliers even more noteworthy. Further work to identify the movement of specific lithic materials across the region, and any changes with time, would be particularly rewarding.Means of transportEvidence elsewhere suggests that the Late Upper Palaeolithic groups who moved into Scotland are likely to have travelled overland, though they were certainly able to cross major rivers and made use of coastal resources. By the time of the Mesolithic there is plentiful evidence from around northwest Europe that communities were not only travelling by sea, but that some groups were highly specialised in the exploration of marine and coastal landscapes. While no evidence of transport survives, the presence of numerous Mesolithic sites on the Scottish islands, shows that boats must have been common. Without traces, it is not possible to determine their nature. Logboats, craft made of bark, or framed boats covered with hides are all possible and a glimpse of the sort of craft that may have existed can be seen in some of the (only slightly later) Scandinavian rock art (P&M panel, 6.1). The different types of boat are not mutually exclusive. While logboats and small coracle type vessels were better on inland waters, hide or bark covered vessels might be more used at sea. Transport across land was often not as easy away from the watercourses, especially in forested areas. Routeways, though well-known may well have been invisible to the naked eye at this early period. Some sort of travois or sled would have been useful across open ground, though in most cases material goods would have to be carried by hand. The lack of archaeological evidence for such an important aspect of life is ironic.4.8 Conflict evidenceWhile there is, as yet, no evidence from Scotland for conflict in the Palaeolithic or Mesolithic it is important to remember that this was not the Garden of Eden and that there are sites across Europe with clear indications of violence. 4.9 Research Questions and RecommendationsThe repetition of research questions and priorities already identified on a country-wide basis (National ScARF) or from the Argyll Regional ScARF is of questionable value. Many of the Argyll recommendations equally apply to the Highlands. The recommendations below apply specifically to the Highlands. Highland Regional ScARFOverallA detailed dating programme is recommended. Many of the sites for this period are long-lived and multi-period, and targeted dating is necessary in order to demonstrate both trends and change over time. The identification of further Late Upper Palaeolithic sites in the region would improve understanding of the earliest settlement in the area. More work is needed on the transition from the Late Upper Palaeolithic to the earliest Mesolithic in Highland. Was there a break in population? What technological trends occured? This is a Scottish problem, highlighting the necessity of identifying early Mesolithic sites.The intertidal zone and submerged landscapes hold the potential for good preservation, and should be targeted for archaeological research.EnvironmentalMore multi-proxy studies are needed to determine the nature of the world within which people lived in Highland, of changes and fluctuations over time. Baseline studies exist but new techniques offer improved understanding and greater detail. Regional and local contexts should be built. Geographical gaps include: Badenoch and Strathspey, northwest Sutherland, Nairn and the Great Glen.The impact of the Storegga tsunami has been much publicised with regard to the site at Castle Street, Inverness but is little known elsewhere. Existing geoscience investigations of tsunami deposits in Highland need to be synthesised and made available to archaeology.Geoscience research relating to the processes of deglaciation and environmental change should be summarised and made available to archaeology. Multi-proxy isotope and aDNA studies of animal bones should be encouraged to shed light on early human populations. SettlementWhat are the origins and nature of the initial colonisation? The evidence for Palaeolithic-period activity in the Highlands needs to be investigated, including analysis of existing lithic collections. Only with more evidence can we address the nature of this initial colonisation, and the distinguishing periods of exploration and short-term activity or longterm settlement and colonisation. New sites need to be discovered in addition to further work (including dating and environmental investigations) at known Highland sites, such as Smoo Cave, northwest Sutherland, South Cuidrach on Skye and Shieldaig, Wester Ross. Is there evidence for the arrival of new populations in the Highlands at the start of the Holocene? Further investigation is needed to explore the relationships between population (and settlement) density and known climatic stresses, such as the 8.2 Ka cold event. What was the impact of the drowning of Doggerland in the Highlands? The identification of sites with good preservation might provide relevant evidence, including addressing the questions raised by Waddington’s theories (2015) that this led to increased social instability.More attention is needed to locating inland sites. Exploring up major river courses is one strategy.Further attention is needed to locate more sites in the eastern farmlands, for example around Nairn.As more sites are identified, we need to refine our interpretations of the Mesolithic economy, away from one of a predominant reliance on shell midden sites.Improved archaeological techniques offer the possibility of better understandings of the use of varying resources, including organic materials, across Highland Region. What is the role of caves and rockshelters? The SFS project identified a number of potential sites to explore on the west coast. Can others be identified in other areas?Given our lack of understanding of the diagnostic artefacts from some parts of our period, more sites are necessary and dating is a crucial aspect of determining artefactual sequences. Is it possible that we are not recognising the stone tools of the later Mesolithic?Given the ubiquity of lithic scatter sites, further work is advisable, especially on sites which are currently suffering erosion such as Redpoint, Wester RossMore work exploring the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic is needed, over different areas in the Highlands. Further work at Tarradale holds promise to investigate this transition in an area of lowland settlement. Elsewhere, investigation into peat formation may identify sites where evidence is currently buried. Does the evidence shed light on Wicks and Mithen’s postulated population decline prior to the advent of the Neolithic? Does the lack of later sites reflect this, or does it reflect our inability to locate these sites?Diagnostic ArtefactsThe Highland evidence for diagnostic raw materials such as bloodstone from Rum, mudstone from Skye and pitchstone from Arran should be gathered together to shed light on movements during the Mesolithic, with attention towards chronological differences. Highland evidence should be explored to investigate the transition in lithic technology between broad and narrow blade industries.Work to fill the gaps in our diagnostic lexicons, such as the artefacts of the later Mesolithic, is necessary.Religion and RitualThe rarity of human remains in the Mesolithic is an issue across Scotland. Further work on well preserved sites, not just middens but also rock shelters, may shed light on this important gap in our knowledge.Industry and CraftFurther work to distinguish between the functions of different sites would be rewarding.Lithic and other artefact analyses should take advantage of the full range of specialised techniques available such as microwear, residues, isotope and other analyses. Transport and MovementFurther work on raw material sources and distribution would help to shed light on mobility, territories, and contacts.******************************In the lists in National and Agyll ScARFs (see below), recommendations highlighted in yellow relate directly to the Highlands. Data compiled during the work of the Highland Regional ScARF can contribute towards other questions, and in particular, those highlighted in green. Recommendations highlighted in blue are particularly relevant to the Highlands, with possible data available to apply to the issue.National ScARFTheme 1: History and Current state of studies in ScotlandConsideration of the story of the discovery of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeology in Scotland so far suggests there is still much more research and investigation to be done, including:Detailed historiographic consideration of the recognition of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Scotland.Investigation of the intellectual history of studies of these periods in Scotland, including biographical research on key figures and excavations, e.g. Symington Grieve (on Oronsay) and Lacaille.Examination of existing lithic artefacts in museums and private and commercial collections to isolate diagnostic types and to document provenances.Enhancement of national and local records to ensure proper representation of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic evidence for development control and research purposes.Analysis and publication of existing backlog of fieldwork assemblages known or likely to include Mesolithic (and Palaeolithic) artefacts, including some key sites/assemblages which should be prioritised.Theme 2: EnvironmentKey areas for future work include:The effect of the environment on past communities, including both long-term processes and events such as the tsunami, as well as considering the impact of the human presence upon Scotland’s environment, vegetation, and animal prehensive surveys of the data available for all aspects of the environment and biotope through the Lateglacial and early Holocene.Exploring the development of Scotland’s coastline over time based on point data, considering the impact of sea-level change on contemporary populations, and integrating this with established projects including work on Doggerland.Development of predictive modelling for submerged site survival, and focused survey for submerged sites in likely locations.Liaison with Quaternary scientists over the reconstruction of the North Sea plain and its transgression through the Lateglacial and early Holocene.Theme 3: The Archaeological RecordKey areas for future work include:Detailed work on reconstructing conditions during the Lateglacial period and their implications for site location and survival.Systematic mapping and recording of cave potential for early sites, re-examination of existing cave assemblages, and targeted examination of new sites where appropriate.Synthesis of existing information on tool types and site locations, re-examination of existing assemblages, development of extensive dating strategies, and a focus on the publication of excavated sites.The excavations of the areas beyond the midden itself, especially the margins.Recognizing the combined archaeological and palaeoenvironmental potential of lateglacial kettle-holes and postglacial waterlogged deposits along river valleys.Theme 4: MethodologiesThe appropriate use of scientific techniques is an important factor for any archaeological project. Specific recommendations include:Examination of archaeological assemblages to gauge whether the procurement sites may be primary or secondary sources, and whether the raw material may represent any form of selection (flaking properties, colours and patterns, etc.);Comparison of archaeological samples with geological samples, in collaboration with geologists and in the field, as well as the lab, where possible;Field work to inspect potential source locations/quarries.Development of work on use-wear/residue analysis for lithic assemblages and more frequent application to excavated material.Understanding the dynamics of the formation of occupation deposits as well as identifying specific craft or processing activities within sites through the application of a range of methodologies to artefactual analyses, including use wear and contextual analysis.Experimental replication of artefactual and site processesTheme 5: LifestylesAnalysis of the relationship between inland and coastal communitiesFurther consideration of the issue of burial traditionsA focus on the possibility of waterlogged or submerged sites with enhanced preservation of material and artefacts rarely found elsewhereFurther work on art and decorationContinued analysis of the transition to farmingArgyll Regional ScARF research questionsMany of the detailed research questions in the Environmental section apply (Tipping 2017). For the chapter on Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Earliest Neolithic (Mithen 2017) the following major research themes were highlighted with extended discussion:5.3.1 The chronological pattern of human activity5.3.2 Exploration and pioneer settlement: when, where and how did people arrive in Argyll?5.3.3 Residential settlement: reconstructing mobility patterns, c 9400-7800 cal BP5.3.4 Population decline: the impact of climate change?5.3.5 Re-colonisation: was there Mesolithic 'sedentism' on Oronsay?5.3.6 Appearance of the Neolithic5.3.7 The demise of the Mesolithicand key priorities for future research:5.4.1 The Late Glacial: excavation at Rubha Port an t-Seilich and its environmental context5.4.2 The appearance of the Neolithic and the demise of the Mesolithic: targeted excavation, dating and environmental reconstruction5.4.3 Establishing the Mesolithic chronology: A programme of radiocarbon dating and Bayesian analysis: testing the 8.2 Ka model and reaching out to the Neolithic5.4.4 Heritage management of early prehistoric sites5.4.5 Writing the history of archaeology in Argyll ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download