Transcript
Page 1: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic LandscapeArchaeology

Barry Taylor

Since the 1970s, research into Mesolithic landscapes has been heavily influenced by eco-nomic models of human activity where patterns of settlement and mobility result fromthe relationship between subsistence practices and the environment. However, in recon-structing these patterns we have tended to generalize both the modes of subsistence andthe temporal and spatial variability of the environment, and ignored the role that culturalpractices played in the way subsistence tasks were organized. While more recent researchhas emphasized the importance that cultural practices played in the way landscapes wereperceived and understood, these have tended to underplay the role of subsistence and havecontinued to consider the environment in a very generalized manner. This paper arguesthat we can only develop detailed accounts of Mesolithic landscapes by looking at the spe-cific forms of subsistence practice and the complex relationships they created with the en-vironment. It will also show that the inhabitation of Mesolithic landscapes was structuredaround cultural attitudes to particular places and to the environment, and that this can beseen archaeologically through practices of deposition and recursive patterns of occupation atcertain sites.

Introduction

Historically, we have studied Mesolithic landscapesthrough the economic interactions between peopleand their environment. Drawing parallels with an-thropological studies of hunter-gatherers, patterns ofMesolithic activity are assumed to have related to theavailability of environmental resources. As the natureof the environmentwould have differed both spatiallyand seasonally, the character of activity is assumed tohave varied across the landscape as groups exploiteddifferent types of resources, in different places and atdifferent times of the year.

In seeking to identify such patterns archaeologi-cally, we have generally taken one of two approaches.The first has been to model activity within the land-scape by predicting the way people would haveresponded to the resources provided by the environ-ment. In some cases these models are relatively in-formal and based largely upon inferences of human

behaviour drawn from ethnographic examples (e.g.Clark 1972; Simmons 1975). In others, more formalmathematical models have been constructed in whichthe relationships between patterns of activity and re-sources are established through calculations of factorssuch as yield, risk and efficiency (e.g. Jochim 1976;Mithen 1990; Price 1978). The second has been to in-fer a relationship between patterns of settlement andmobility and the environment on the basis of spatialvariability seen in archaeological assemblages acrossparticular landscapes. Here, sites are placed into cate-gories of economically interrelated types drawn fromthe ethnographic record, such as hunting camp orbase camp, on the basis of functional interpretationsof the archaeological material. Spatial patterning inthe distribution of site types is then explained interms of the organization of tasks in relation to in-ferred environmental resources and cycles of seasonalmobility (e.g. Jacobi 1978; Mellars 1976). These twomethods are not mutually exclusive and predictive

Cambridge Archaeological Journal 28:3, 493–510 C© 2018 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Researchdoi:10.1017/S0959774318000021 Received 25 July 2016; Accepted 5 December 2017; Revised 19 November 2017

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 2: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Barry Taylor

models of behaviour (whether formal or infor-mal) are frequently used to interpret spatial pat-terning in the archaeological record (e.g. Donahue& Lovis 2006), while mathematical models oftendraw upon functional interpretations of site types(e.g. Price 1978).

The widespread application of such approacheshas had a profound influence on Mesolithic archaeol-ogy. Categories of site type, particularly ‘base camps’and ‘hunting camps’, have become an established partof our lexicon, as has the concept of a seasonally mo-bile society. However, since the 1990s, there has beengrowing criticism both of the way in which patternsof settlement and mobility have been reconstructedand the resulting view this creates of Mesolithic land-scapes and life more generally. To begin with, Jochim(1991) has argued that the models of seasonal mobil-ity employed by archaeologists failed to appreciatethe more flexible, variable patterns seen in the ethno-graphic record. While archaeological models empha-sized broad, cyclical seasonal rounds, ethnographicaccounts describe considerable diversity in scales ofmobility and site location, either within a particularseason, or from year to year (Jochim 1991). Similarly,the categorization of sites into a narrow range of func-tional types has been criticized for generalizing themore complex patterns of site organization recordedin the ethnographic literature and failing to recog-nize both the degree of variability seen in archaeolog-ical assemblages and the fact that many are generatedthrough repeated, but different, episodes of activity(Conneller 2005; Spikins 1999). Finally, Spikins (1999)has argued that the effect that the environment hadupon the spatial patterning of activity is, at best, anestimate, given our poor understanding of Mesolithicecologies and the relative yields of different plant andanimal resources.

In response to these criticisms, more sophisti-cated models of Mesolithic landscapes have been de-veloped that deal more directly with nuances of thearchaeological data and the economic relationshipsbetween activity and environment (e.g. Jochim 1998;Myres 2015; Spikins 1999). At the same time, therehas been a move towards more social accounts ofMesolithic landscapes, which have addressed a grow-ing dissatisfactionwith the earlier, more economicallyfocused approaches. While methodologies have var-ied, a key theme is that landscapes were created andreproduced through the habitual, routine practices ofpeople’s lives. Here, the spatial and seasonal patternsin subsistence and settlement, the movement of ma-terials and the making of things are seen as creat-ing connections between people, places and times inthe landscape (e.g. Amkreutz 2013; Conneller 2005;

Edmonds 1997; McFadyen 2006). Related to this hasbeen a change in the way we have viewed people’srelationship with the environment. Rather than see-ing human action as being determined by environ-mental resources, ethnographic studies have shownhow interactions with plants, animals and the land-scape more generally are structured by cultural rules(e.g. Jordan 2003a; Nelson 1983). These can includeparticular ways of moving through the landscape, theappropriateness of particular places or times for cer-tain forms of activity, and acts of deposition that ac-company economic practices such as the killing of an-imals. Drawing on these ethnographic observations,a number of studies have discussed how people’s en-gagement with plants and animals in the Mesolithicmay have been structured by similar rules, noting inparticular the presence of prescribed forms of depo-sition relating to the disposal of animal remains andartefacts made from them (e.g. Conneller 2004; Over-ton & Taylor in press; Taylor et al. 2017).

While these approaches have resulted in richernarratives of Mesolithic life, several issues remainoutstanding. First, these recent accounts have beencriticized for relying upon broad, cross-cultural ob-servations when discussing how Mesolithic peopleperceived and understood their landscape (e.g. Jor-dan 2003b). Jordan has argued that a more fruitful ap-proach would be to consider the way that people ‘en-culturate’ their landscape through interrelated ritualand economic practices, as seen in the ethnographicrecord from hunting societies in Northern Eurasia(Jordan 2003a,b). According to Jordan, these resultin distinctive material assemblages, often associatedwith particular places, that could be used to identifycomparable forms of activity in the Mesolithic. Sec-ond, few studies have provided a detailed accountof people’s relationship with their environment thatdeals with both the richness and diversity of the lo-cal ecology and the specific practices through whichpeople engaged with it. This can only be achievedthrough amore detailed application of local palaeoen-vironmental data and a move away from broad de-scriptions of economic activity, such as ‘hunting’,‘gathering’ and ‘foraging’.

This paper will address these issues througha case study set in the early Mesolithic land-scape of Lake Flixton in the eastern Vale of Pick-ering (North Yorkshire, UK). Drawing on recentpalaeoenvironmental and archaeological work in thearea, the paper will discuss the ways in whichpeople engaged with their environment and howeconomic practices, as well as cultural traditions,structured the ways in which they inhabited thislandscape.

494

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 3: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology

Figure 1. Location of Lake Flixton.

The Mesolithic landscape of Lake Flixton and theeastern Vale of Pickering

Lake Flixton lay at the eastern end of the Vale ofPickering, a narrow valley separating the uplands ofthe North York Moors (to the north) from the York-shire Wolds (to the south) (Fig. 1). The lake formedat the start of the Late Glacial Interstadial and grad-ually infilled with calcareous and organic sedimentsthroughout the Late Glacial and early Post Glacial(Taylor 2012). These sediments have preserved fau-nal remains, wood and an array of organic ma-terial culture, as well as pollen and plant macro-fossils that provide a record of the contemporaryenvironment.

Fieldwork carried out in this area since themid 1940s has recorded evidence for early Mesolithicactivity from numerous locations around the lake(Fig. 2). The best known of these is Star Carr, whereexcavations in the mid twentieth century recordedlarge assemblages of faunal remains andmaterial cul-ture made from animal bone, antler and wood withinthe lake-edge deposits (Clark 1954). Using data fromthis and other sites in the area, generations of ar-chaeologists have sought to identify patterns of earlyMesolithic activity within this landscape, focusing in

particular on the relationship between settlement andmobility and the environment.

Following the excavation of Star Carr, Clark in-terpreted the site as a seasonally occupied residen-tial camp inhabited in the winter and spring (Clark1954, 10). This was revised in the early 1970s, whenhe placed the site within a model of seasonal upland–lowland migration where communities aggregated atStar Carr duringwinter and spring, but dispersed intosmaller groups during the summer as they movedonto upland sites following migrating herds of reddeer (Clark 1972). Clark’s model was based largelyupon ethnographic analogy and observations ofmod-ern red deer populations. In the following years, how-ever, it received a firmer archaeological foundationthrough work carried out by Jacobi (1978), who iden-tified functional differences in lithic assemblages be-tween lowland sites in the Vale of Pickering, southYorkshire and Lincolnshire and broadly contempo-rary upland sites in the southern Pennines and NorthYork Moors. This, he argued, reflected differences inhunting, butchery and craft activities carried out inthe woodedwinter lowlands and the more open sum-mer uplands.

In the following decades, reanalysis of the mate-rial from Clark’s excavations and new investigationsat other sites around the lake led to a more detailedconsideration of patterns of activity within this land-scape. Legge and Rowley-Conwy (1988) reinterpretedStar Carr as a hunting camp occupied in the summerby hunters who visited the area to predate upon ju-venile red deer. Subsequent work by Rowley-Conwy(1995) led him tentatively to interpret Seamer Carras a summer residential camp and Barry’s Island (apeninsula at the western end of the lake) as a poten-tial winter base. Both studies also assumed that thelake formed part of a seasonal migratory cycle, pos-sibly involving winter base camps on the North Seacoast. Following further excavations at Star Carr, Mel-lars (1998) reinterpreted the site again, this time as asummer base camp used by groups exploiting localplant and animal resources, while possibly also un-dertaking short-term hunting trips to the North YorkMoors and journeys to the coast. More recently, Don-ahue and Lovis (2006) placed activity around LakeFlixton into a more extensive settlement pattern thatextended from the Pennines to the North Sea coast.In this model, Star Carr acted as a residential win-ter base, while sites at Seamer Carr functioned aslogistical camps from which groups embarked onshort-distance forays onto the North YorkMoors, andlonger-distance expeditions onto the Pennines. Sea-sonal migration took these groups to residential siteson the coast in the summer and autumn, though

495

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 4: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Barry Taylor

Figure 2. Areas of early Mesolithic activity recorded around Lake Flixton. Sites referred to in the text: (1) Star Carr;(2) Seamer Carr Site K; (3) Seamer Carr Site C; (4) Barry’s Island; (5) Flixton School Field; (6) Flixton School HouseFarm; (7) Flixton Island site 1; (8) No Name Hill. (Contours represent the terrestrial topography at 1 m intervals.)

sites around Lake Flixton continued to be used forhunting.

A similar economically focused approach hasbeen applied to other British Mesolithic landscapes.On a regional level, Mellars (1976) identified a sea-sonal pattern of upland–lowland mobility based ondifferences in the composition of lithic assemblagesfrom sites across Britain and Wales. Following Clark(1972), he argued that the sheltered lowland areaswere occupied in the winter by groups who dispersedto small upland hunting camps in the summer. Eco-nomic patterns of settlement were also identified inthe southeast of England on the basis of variabilityin lithic assemblages from different geological con-texts (Mellars & Reinhardt 1978). This was interpretedas reflecting variations in economic practices takingplace in the different environments that would haveformed in these areas. On a more local scale, earlyMesolithic activity in the Kennet Valley (Berkshire)has been discussed in terms of temporary home basesand hunting camps located to exploit plant and ani-mal resources (e.g. Ellis et al. 2003; Healy et al. 1992).Further north, Bonsall (1981) suggested that the distri-bution of late Mesolithic sites at Eskmeals (Cumbria)reflects shifting areas of economic activity along the

estuary of the River Esk, while late Mesolithic coastalmiddens inWestern Scotlandwere interpreted as spe-cialized processing siteswithin awider pattern of eco-nomic activity (Bonsall 1996).

Since the turn of the millennium, new researchhas focused on the cultural as well as the economicaspects of people’s interactions with the Lake Flix-ton landscape. Analysis and refitting of lithic assem-blages from sites around the lake, undertaken by Con-neller (2000; 2005; Conneller& Schadla-Hall 2003), hasshown that activity was far more complex and var-ied than earlier models had suggested. Rather than aseries of functionally interrelated site types, locationsaround the lake were being revisited on multiple oc-casions, often for very different reasons. By drawingtogether the different scales and tempos of action atthese locations, Conneller showed how the landscapewas actively produced through tasks that made con-nections between people, places, materials and times.Conneller (2004; Conneller & Schadla-Hall 2003) andChatterton (2003) also noted that much larger assem-blages of osseous artefacts and faunal remains werepresent at Star Carr than at other sites in the local area.This led Chatterton to argue that the site was the focusfor ritual feasting and deposition following successful

496

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 5: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology

hunts, while Conneller argued that it acted as a placein the landscape appropriate for the deposition of an-imal remains.

These studies formed part of a growing bodyof work on the British Mesolithic that considered theways in which landscapes and environments wereperceived and understood by the people who inhab-ited them (e.g. Cobb 2007; Mcfadyen 2006). The re-mainder of this paper will show how we can developthiswork further by considering inmore detail the na-ture of people’s interactions with their environment,and the underlying patterns of activity that structuredthe way they inhabited their landscape.

The early Mesolithic landscape of the Lake Flixtonbasin

By the time Mesolithic groups arrived in this land-scape Lake Flixton would have been a large bodyof water, flanked by shallow embayments and hillypeninsulas, and with two small islands (Fig. 2). Aspecies-rich wetland environment was present withinthe shallower lakemargins, comprising beds of Phrag-mites reeds and stands of sedge, bur-reed, cattails andrush, with communities of aquatic plants (white andyellow water-lily and species of pondweed) grow-ing in the deeper water. The composition of these en-vironments differed around the lake in response tothe habitat preferences of the different plants, whiletheir extents varied as undulations in the topogra-phy of the basin created significant differences in wa-ter depth (Taylor 2011; 2012) (Fig. 3a). At the water’sedge, stands of aspen and species of willow and birchwere growing along with nettles, species of fern, andfen plants suited to wet soils (Taylor 2012, 438). Be-yond this was an undulating landscape of small, lowhills interspersed with areas of low-lying ground andwater-filled hollows flanked to the north and southby the steeper slopes of the adjacent uplands. Opengrassland and scrub was initially present across thisarea, before birch woodland, with a rich and diverseunderstory, became established (Dark 1998, 169–70).

These environments developed throughout theearly Mesolithic. Within the lake, the depth of watergradually shallowed, allowing swamp and fen envi-ronments to colonize the shallow embayments andexpand into the basin from c. 8500 cal. bc (Fig. 3b &c). At around the same time, hazel began to growlocally (Taylor 2012, 243). Initially, the tree proba-bly formed small, discrete stands, but in the follow-ing centuries it expanded rapidly, replacing birch andshading out much of the understory vegetation (Dark1998, 170). By the end of the early Mesolithic (c. 7500cal. bc), fen and carr filled the shallow embayments

Figure 3. Extents of the wetland environments withinLake Flixton during the early Mesolithic. (Contoursrepresent the terrestrial topography at 1 m intervals).

497

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 6: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Barry Taylor

and formed a dense fringe of vegetation around thelake, with swamp and aquatic communities expand-ing further into the basin. Above the shore, peat-forming wetlands had started to encroach over low-lying ground, while elm and oak had begun to growwith hazel within the terrestrial woodlands (Dark1998, 170) (Fig. 3d).

Sites in the landscapeThe largest and most extensively excavated sitearound the lake is Star Carr, which occupied a largepeninsula at the western side of the basin (Fig. 2).The site is best known for the excavations carried outby Grahame Clark, which recorded a large assem-blage of osseous material culture (including barbedantler projectile points, bone bodkins and scrapingtools, antler mattocks and axes and red deer antlerfrontlets or masks) as well as animal bone, antler,and flint that had been deposited in the reedswampat the edge of the lake (Clark 1954). Recent excava-tions at the site have recorded several post-built struc-tures on the shore, associated with dense concentra-tions of worked flint and animal bone, and a series oflarge timber platforms or trackways within the adja-cent reedswamp (Conneller et al. 2012; Milner et al. inpress), along with smaller quantities of animal bone,antler, worked flint and osseous artefacts (Milner et al.in press).

The site was occupied between c. 9300 cal. bc and8500 cal. bc (Conneller et al. 2016, fig. 4), though thescale and focus of activity may have changed overtime (Dark et al. 2006, 198). Seasonality indicators inthe faunal assemblage recorded by Clark show that,of those animals where age-at-death could be deter-mined, the majority were being killed in late winteror early spring (mostly February to March, but witha smaller proportion in April/May), with more oc-casional kills in the summer and autumn/early win-ter (Carter 1997; 1998; Legge & Rowley-Conwy 1988).This suggests periods of more intensive occupationfocused on the early part of the year (though notnecessarily a single, consistent phase of activity), fol-lowed by more discrete episodes of activity on otheroccasions.

Other sites aremuch smaller, andwith the excep-tion of SeamerCarr sites C andKhave been the subjectof more limited investigation (Taylor 2012, 71). Evi-dence at these sites consists of scatters of worked flintdeposited on the drier ground at, or just above, thelake shore, sometimes accompanied by poorly pre-served animal remains (Lane & Schadla-Hall forth-coming). Pits and hearths have been recorded atSeamer Carr and No Name Hill (Lane & Schadla-Hall forthcoming) and arrangements of stake- and

post-holes were recorded in association with a seriesof pits and hollows at Flixton School House Farm(henceforth SHF) (Taylor & Gray Jones 2009; GrayJones & Taylor 2015). In contrast to Star Carr, muchsmaller quantities of material (generally animal bone,antler and utilized flint flakes and blades) have beenrecorded from the wetlands adjacent to these sites.

Many of these sites also show evidence for re-peated episodes of occupation (Conneller 2000; 2005;Conneller & Schadla-Hall 2003), and although thechronologies are relatively poor some phases of ac-tivity are broadly contemporary with Star Carr. AtNo Name Hill, Flixton Island and Flixton SHF smallassemblages of material were recorded at the baseof the lake-edge peat sequence, placing them in de-posits that had formed by c. 9000 cal. bc or earlier,while stratigraphically later material indicates occu-pation in the following centuries (Taylor 2011; 2012).In addition, Cummins has argued that phases of lo-calized burning recorded at Flixton School Field arecontemporary with burning events recorded by Dark(1998) at Star Carr (Cummins 2003, 293). The scaleand intensity of activity at these locations also var-ied throughout the period. Cummins (2003, 233–4)identified at least two periods of localized burning atFlixton School Field, each lasting over a century andmade up of intense episodes that spanned decades.A similar pattern was recorded on the north shore ofNo Name Hill, with at least three episode of burningin the early Mesolithic, two of which lasted severaldecades (Cummins 2003, 185). Taking the burning as aproxy for human activity, this suggests changes in thescale, intensity and/or character of activity at these lo-cations over time.

Economic practices around Lake Flixton

Much of our evidence for economic practices comefrom Star Carr, where the large-scale excavations inthe wetland deposits have provided information onthe exploitation and use of different plant and ani-mal species (Milner et al. in press). However, while theevidence is less comprehensive, comparable activitieshave also been documented at other sites, suggestingcommon forms of economic activity that were beingundertaken at multiple sites within the landscape.

In terms of plant use, most of the evidence re-lates to the exploitation of shrubs and trees for useas raw materials. At Star Carr this consists of the uti-lization of aspen, species of willow and, more oc-casionally, birch for construction and the making ofartefacts (Conneller et al. 2012; Milner et al. in press;Taylor 1998), and birch bark, either as a material or forthe extraction of tar (Clark 1954; Milner et al. in press).

498

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 7: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology

The collection and utilization of shrubs and trees canalso be inferred at No Name Hill, Flixton Island andBarry’s Island, based on the presence of axes and axe-sharpening flakes (Conneller 2000), and from clustersof stake- and post-holes at Flixton SHF (Taylor &GrayJones 2009), while scatters of burnt flint at themajorityof sites suggest the presence of hearths, which wouldinvolve the collection of wood for fuel (e.g. Conneller2000). Coppiced wood (either willow or aspen) hasbeen recorded at Star Carr (Milner et al. in press),Flixton SHF (Taylor 2012, 216), and No Name Hill(Cummins 2003, 108), though it is unclear whetherthese came from deliberately managed trees or re-sulted from the exploitation of natural coppice.

Tasks involving the collection of wetland plantscan also been inferred from scatters of utilized flintflakes and blades that have been recorded from thelake-edge deposits at Star Carr (Mellars & Conneller1998), No Name Hill (Conneller 2000, 210), Flixton Is-land (Taylor 2012, 457) and Flixton SHF (Taylor 2012,230). On the basis of use-wear studies carried outat other north European Mesolithic sites, these wereprobably used for collecting siliceous plants, such asbulrush, cattail or bur-reed, for use in themanufactureof cord, nets, or baskets (e.g. Van Gijn et al. 2001, 191).The wetland vegetation was also deliberately burnt atStar Carr (Dark 1998) and Flixton School Field (Cum-mins 2003), either to clear the lake-edge swamp or toremove invasive species and create monolithic standsof reed. Evidence for the collection of plant foods de-rives entirely from Flixton SHF, where carbonized re-mains of hazelnut, wild cherry and crab apple havebeen recorded (Gray Jones & Taylor 2015). However,yellow water-lily and species of cattail are known tohave been used for food during the Mesolithic (e.g.Out 2009, 359; Perry 1999, 234), and are likely to havebeen utilized by groups inhabiting this area.

A diverse range of animals was also hunted inthis landscape. Large andmediummammals, notablyred deer, but also elk, aurochs, roe deer and wildboar are all well represented in the faunal assem-blage from Star Carr (Clark 1954; Legge & Rowley-Conwy 1988; Milner et al. in press) and have beenfound in smaller quantities at Seamer Carr Sites C andK, Barry’s Island, Flixton School Field, Flixton SHFand No Name Hill (Cummins 2003; Rowley-Conwy1995; Taylor 2012; Uchiyama 2016). This material, aswell as the large quantities of barbed antler projectilepoints at Star Carr, indicate the importance of largegame hunting in this landscape.However, small gamehunting or trapping, as well as fowling and fishing,also played at least a part in the economic practices inthe area. The remains of smaller mammals (includingbeaver, pinemarten, badger, hare and fox) and species

of wild fowl have been recorded at Star Carr (Clark1954), while the bones of pike, perch and a speciesof carp have recently been discovered in Mesolithiccontexts at both Star Carr and Flixton Island (Robsonet al. 2016). While these generally occur in very smallquantities (with the exception of beaver), their poorrepresentation is more likely to be a product of dif-ferential preservation and recovery than a reflectionof their economic importance (cf. Robson et al. 2016).This also applies to microfauna, which may also havecontributed to people’s diets, but have failed to sur-vive archaeologically.

The diversity of hunting and gatheringThe practices involved in the collection of these dif-ferent plants or the hunting of these animals werediverse, involving specific forms of technology, skilland knowledge that varied depending upon the prop-erties or behaviours of the particular species andthe motivations of those undertaking the task. AtStar Carr, for example, the split timbers used in thewooden platforms came from willow and aspen treesselected for their straight growth and lack of sidebranches (Bamforth et al. in press). In contrast, thinnerstems (mostly willow), which were used to manufac-ture handles, hafts or artefacts such as digging sticks,were harvested from natural or deliberately managedcoppiced stands using axes (Milner et al. in press).Other plant species were collected in different ways:wetland plants, probably species of reed, were har-vested from the lake edge using large flint flakes andblades; the collection of hazelnuts and fruits wouldhave been carried out by hand, but probably also in-volved the use of baskets or bags made from hide orplant fibres; roots or tubers were probably extractedusing digging sticks or antler mattocks of the sortrecorded at Star Carr (Clark 1954, 14); and if peo-ple were utilizing water-lilies for food, then canoes orother watercraft would have been employed in orderto access areas of deep water.

A similarly diverse range of practices was in-volved in the hunting and killing of animals. At a gen-eral level the larger mammals were hunted by groupsof people using projectiles. Impact injuries caused byosseous or lithic weapon tips have been recorded onscapulae of two elk and a red deer from Star Carr(Legge & Rowley Conwy 1988; Noe-Nygaard 1975),and comparable injuries have been noted on bonesfrom large mammals at Mesolithic sites in Denmark(Leduc 2014; Noe-Nygaard 1974). Given the nature ofthe injuries and their locations on the skeleton, theseare thought to have been inflicted by arrows, darts, orthrowing spears fired frommultiple directions (Leduc2014, 488; Noe-Nygaard 1974, 242–3).

499

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 8: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Barry Taylor

Hunting strategies for these larger animals in-volved targeting solitary animals, or separating in-dividuals from herds (Legge & Rowley-Conwy 1988,42–3; Overton&Taylor in press); however, the specifictactics and technologies that were utilized and theattendant knowledge that people drew upon wouldhave varied considerably between species. Traditionalmethods of stalking elk, for example, differ from thoseof other largemammals due to the tendency of the an-imal to double back on itself (e.g. Nelson 1986, 106),while the tactics used to hunt and kill young red deerare likely to have differed from those employed forolder, more experienced animals. Similarly, methodsemployed when hunting aggressive animals wouldbe different to those used on species more prone toflight. This appears to have been the case with wildboar, where the presence of impact injuries caused byweapons such as axes on the skulls of the animalsfrom sites in Denmark (Noe-Nygaard 1974, 238) sug-gests that they may have been encountered at closerquarters than other species.

Other forms of technical practice would havebeen used to capture and kill the smaller mammals.Beavers are likely to have been killed at their lodges byhunters using spears or bows, or caught in submergedtraps (Boas 1905, 510); pine marten would have beencaught in deadfalls set in cubbys (branches used todisguise the trap) (Nelson 1986, 240), and hareswouldbe caught in spring-pole snares, or a simple snare setacross a trail (Nelson 1986, 136–9). Different practiceswould have been used to hunt birds, either using netsor projectiles, while nets, harpoons, or bows and ar-rows would have been used for fishing (Robson et al.2016).

Cutting across this diversity in practice were dif-ferences in the scales at which tasks were undertakenand the social contexts in which they were carriedout. Depending upon the circumstances and motiva-tions behind a particular activity, the scales at whichthey were carried out would vary significantly, fromthe expedient selection of a single willow stem toreplace a broken haft to the intensive collection ofreeds or food plants. Similarly, the number of peo-ple involved in tasks, and the social composition ofthese groups, could differ. Some tasks were intrinsi-cally cooperative, involving the collaborative effortsof groups of people. This would be particularly trueof large mammal hunting, but would also be the casein tasks such as the felling of large trees for tim-ber, the harvesting of reeds at the water’s edge, orthe collection of food plants. In contrast, tasks suchas checking traps and snares may have been under-taken alone, or in the company of smaller groups ofpeople.

While we cannot directly observe the social com-position of these groups, we should not assume thatthe binary gender division of labour often presentedin the archaeological literature, where hunting is car-ried out by men and older boys (e.g. Donahue &Lovis 2006, 253) and the collection of plant foodsis undertaken by women and younger children, iscorrect. The ethnographic record shows that the re-lationship between subsistence tasks and gender iscomplex and far from universal. In some cases,large mammal hunting is an all-male activity, thoughwomen still trap and fish (e.g. Willoughby 1963); inothers, women participate in all aspects of hunting,though not always the act of killing the animal (e.g.Jarvenpa & Brumbach 2006). The same is true of thecollection of plants, which can be associated withparticular genders or undertaken by everyone (e.g.Jolles 2006; Willoughby 1963). In addition, the hunt-ing of certain animals or the collection of particu-lar plants can be restricted to a specific gender, or toparticular individuals (e.g. McGuire & Hildebrandt1994).

Furthermore, participation in some tasks mayhave varied with age. Elderly adults, for example, donot always participate in large mammal hunting, butmaintain active roles in trapping and snaring, tasksthat are also carried out bymotherswith younger chil-dren (e.g. Nelson 1983, 134). Similarly, the role of chil-dren in subsistence practices gradually develops asthey learnt the requisite skills (e.g. Jolles 2006). Finally,while participation in certain tasks may have been de-fined by gender or age, the tasks themselvesmay haveformed parts of collaborative projects involving thecooperation of other people. Building the structuresat Star Carr or Flixton SHF, for example, involved arange of tasks, such as collecting the thin stems usedfor the frame, bark or reed for the walls and roof, andplant materials for the floor, each of which may havebeen undertaken by different groups of individuals(e.g. Willoughby 1963, 44).

Though the evidence for subsistence aroundLake Flixton is unlikely to be complete, it is clear thatthere is significant diversity in economic practices andthat this has implications for the way we understandthe inhabitation of this landscape. Rather than view-ing such practices in terms of broad categories of ac-tivity (e.g. hunting) and the exploitation of generic en-vironments (e.g. wetlands), people were undertakingvery specific tasks, focusing on particular plant or an-imal species and utilizing specific forms of technol-ogy, skill and knowledge. As such, interactions withthe environment were complex, varying in character,scale and the social context in which they took place.Furthermore, when we consider this diversity in

500

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 9: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology

relation to the contemporary environment, we can be-gin to see how patterns of activity were structuredacross the landscape.

Patterns of settlement and mobility

Broadly speaking, the organization of different eco-nomic tasks would have related to the distribution ofenvironmental resources. However, the diversity ofplant and animal species and the spatially and tem-porally varied character of the environment meantthat particular tasks would have been undertakenin different, and often very specific, places aroundthe lake.

At a very general level, the collection of plantswould have been tied to particular environments de-pending upon the ecological preferences of the targetspecies. In some cases species were common enoughthat they could be collected at a wide range of lo-cations, as was the case for the collection of wet-land plants, which has been documented at severalsites around the lake. In others, variations in abun-dance would have meant that plants were not onlylimited to particular ecological habitats, but to spe-cific places within them. Plant macrofossil analysishas suggested that the distribution of wetland speciesmay have been uneven around the lake (Taylor 2012,427). The same would have been true of hazel dur-ing the early appearance of the tree in the landscape,and also species such as cherry and apple, which arepoorly represented in the local pollen records. Fur-thermore, even amongst the more common species,plants with the specific characteristics that people re-quired, such as straight growth in the willow andaspen trees used for producing split timbers, wouldhave been unevenly distributed.

Different forms of hunting, trapping and fishingwould also have focused on particular areas wherespecific species could be killed, trapped, or caught.Deer and elk, for example, are likely to have vis-ited thickets of willow and aspen, or more open ar-eas within the woodland to browse on young plants.These animals would also have favoured open ar-eas around the edges of thickets with clear lines ofsight and unimpeded escape routes, and avoided lo-cations that limited mobility and visibility (e.g. Rip-ple & Beschta 2004). Aurochs may have come to ar-eas around the edge of the wetlands to feed on reedsand sedges (Hall 2008) and elk, which graze on wet-land plants (particularly pondweed), would have vis-ited areas of the lake where these were most abun-dant. Similarly, the behaviours and habitat prefer-ences of smaller mammals, birds and fish would havemade them easier to shoot, trap, or catch at particu-

lar locations. Communities of waterfowl, for example,may have inhabited the swamp-filled embaymentsat Seamer Carr or Lingholme, while the presence ofbeaver-gnawed wood at Flixton SHF (Taylor 2012,175) shows that the animal was visiting wooded ar-eas along the shore. Similarly, pike are attracted to thedetritus of human occupation and so may have beenshot or caught at the lake edge near to areas of settle-ment (Robson et al. 2016).

The areas where tasks were undertaken wouldalso have varied temporally. To begin with, thegrowth patterns of different plants would have fo-cused tasks associated with their collection to par-ticular places at certain times of the year. This istrue of plant foods, where gathering fruits and nutswould have been limited to the times of year theseripened (late spring–early summer for wild cherry,late summer for hazelnuts), but it would also haveaffected tasks such as the collection of reed or net-tle for use as a material, as these tend to die inthe winter and cannot be worked. Similarly, hunt-ing practices would have varied throughout the yearas the habitats and behaviours of animals changed.Seasonal variations in plant growth would have re-sulted in differences in the availability of food foranimals, changing their movement within the land-scape while also altering the cover for hunters ap-proaching their prey or waiting in ambush. Further-more, seasonal changes in animal behaviour relatingto breeding patterns, such as the red and roe deer ruts,would have altered the distribution and abundanceof animals of particular ages, affecting the locationswhere they could be hunted and killed. Finally, if peo-ple were revisiting the landscape at different times ofthe year, then the social composition of the groupsundertaking these tasks could also have changed. Inthis way, not only would patterns of activity changethroughout the year, but they may also have involvedpeople of differing ages, genders, kin groups and soforth.

Structured patterns of activityThese interactions between forms of economic prac-tice and the spatial and temporal variability of the en-vironment resulted in a complex and diverse patternof human activity within the landscape. Yet withinthis diversity was a structure to the way in which ac-tivity was organized. The distributions of plants andanimals may have been spatially and temporally var-ied, but were also consistent and predictable at thescale of human lifetimes. As a result, tasks such asthe collection of particular plants or the hunting ofcertain animals would have involved repeated visitsto the same places at similar times, creating recursive

501

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 10: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Barry Taylor

patterns of movement and activity within the land-scape. But while these patterns may have relatedto the distribution of environmental resources, theywere not necessarily determined by them. Certainforms of human activity would have modified theenvironment in ways that would have affected thedistribution of plants and animals. The harvestingof coppice from natural stands, for example, wouldhave caused the plants to produce renewed growthof long, straight poles, creating a resource that peo-ple would return to on inter-annual cycles. Similarly,the management of the reedbeds by burning wouldhave taken place in the spring (Law 1998), with peo-ple returning to the area later in the year to harvest theplants when they reached their maximum height.

The archaeological evidence also suggests thatthe organization of activity within the landscape wasbound up in cultural practices as well as economicconcerns. To begin with, the decisions to occupyplaces in the landscapewere not solely dictated by theavailability of environmental resources. As has beendiscussed, many sites around the lake were revisitedon multiple occasions (e.g. Conneller & Schadla-Hall2003). Where these have been dated, we see recur-sive patterns of activity, often spanning centuries, dur-ing which time the character of the local wetland andterrestrial environments changed significantly (Taylor2011, 77–8; 2012, 456). In these cases, it is difficult tosee how there can be a consistent relationship betweenoccupation and the availability of resources, and in-stead these places appear to have been regarded asappropriate locations to visit. Furthermore, from thevariability in the forms and scales of activity that oc-curred at these locations (e.g. Conneller & Schadla-Hall 2003), the appropriateness of such places was notdefined in terms of specific practices. Rather, thesewere appropriate places where (and perhaps when)broad suites of tasks could be undertaken.

Such patterns are well attested in the ethno-graphic record of traditional hunting and gatheringsocieties in the northern regions of Eurasia and Amer-ica. Jordan (2003a), for example, describes how thelandscapes of the Khanty include sacred areas wherehunting or gathering are prohibited, and places, of-ten defined by environmental or topographic features,where economic tasks, feasting, or acts of depositionare carried out. Similarly,Nelson (1983)mentions howspecific locations in the landscape of the Koyukon areconsidered lucky and are re-visited during huntingor foraging expeditions, while Hill (2012) describeshow locations are actively avoided or afforded specialtreatment by indigenous hunting societies in areas ofAlaska, Canada and Greenland. These ways of mov-ing through and acting within the landscape relate to

people’s interactionswithwhatwould be described ina western ontology as ‘supernatural’ forces, includinganimals and plants that are considered to be sentientand self-aware and guardian spirits that protect them,ancestral spirits, and a suite of other ‘non-human per-sons’ (e.g. Jordan 2003a; Nelson 1983).

The archaeological evidence also suggests thatpeople were selectively utilizing certain materialsfor particular tasks. Red deer antler was used ex-clusively for the manufacture of projectile points(Conneller 2011, 62), while bone scraping tools andbodkins were made from the metapodial elements ofaurochs and elk, respectively (see Clark 1954, 160–62). And while we cannot see it archaeologically, foodplants are likely to have been selected for their taste,flavour and appropriateness as something to be con-sumed (e.g. Milner 2005), while plant materials mayhave been used selectively for certain tasks, a patternthat has been observed by Price (2009) in the Dan-ish Mesolithic. Comparable practices are also docu-mented ethnographically and again relate to an ontol-ogy where aspects of the environment are consideredto be animate. TheMescalero and Chiricahua Apache,for example, considered some plants to be genderedand would use them for specific tasks (Castetter &Opler 1936,17), while Nelson (1983, 52) describes howthe Koyukon believe a particular plant to be malev-olent and will avoid using it. Though we should becautious in drawing direct ethnographic parallels, thesimilarity in practices suggests that comparable be-liefs structured the way Mesolithic groups interactedwith their environment.

Finally, there is evidence for deliberate forms ofdeposition and disposal of materials deriving fromor relating to economic activities, that again showmarked similarities with practices documented in theethnographic record that relate to appropriate waysof engaging with the environment (e.g. Hill 2012; Jor-dan 2003a; Nelson 1983; and see also Conneller 2004).The best known is Star Carr, where osseous mate-rial culture, animal remains and worked flint weredecommissioned and/or curated and then depositedinto the lake (Taylor et al. 2017). However, compa-rable acts of deposition have also been recorded atother sites. Excavations at No Name Hill recovered atranchet axe head and a complete barbed point fromthe lake-edge deposits (Taylor 2011, 76–7) and frag-ments of three more points have been identified fromthe faunal assemblage from the site (Ben Elliott pers.comm., 2015). The combination of complete and bro-ken points and the absence of associated shafts orhandles suggest comparable practices of decommis-sioning and curation to those recorded at Star Carr.At Flixton SHF, a small assemblage of aurochs bone

502

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 11: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology

Figure 4. (Colour online) Aurochs bones from Flixton SHF (Overton & Taylor in press).

that had either been placed in a bag or bound to-gether was recorded from deposits that formed in asmall pond adjacent to the lake (Overton & Taylor inpress) (Fig. 4), and a peck-marked stone was founddeliberately broken and placed over a pit containingthe waste from hazelnut roasting (Gray Jones & Tay-lor 2015) (Fig. 5). Finally, Conneller (2000; 2005) iden-tified caches of flint nodules at several sites aroundthe lake. Though we lack the exact motivation behindthese depositional acts, their similarity to practices de-scribed in the ethnographic literature strongly sug-gests that they relate to cultural rules regarding appro-priate ways of engaging with the environment. If weaccept this, then we should also consider that aspectsof subsistence practice, such as the locationswhere an-imals were hunted, the species of plants that were col-lected and the locations that people occupiedmay alsohave been dictated by cultural as well as ecologicalfactors.

Taken together, the evidence from sites aroundthe lake and our understanding of the environmentdescribes recursive patterns of activity organizedaround the availability of resources, but also struc-tured through established ways of inhabiting thelandscape. These were articulated through acts of de-position and the repeated occupation of appropriateplaces, and by implication specific ways of movingthrough the landscape. The following sectionwill con-sider how the identification of these recursive patternsof activity can be used to apprehend something of theway in which Mesolithic groups inhabited the land-scape around Lake Flixton.

Discussion: inhabiting Lake Flixton

The years following the arrival of Mesolithic groupssaw a burst of activity around the lake. Most of theevidence for this earliest period of occupation comes

503

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 12: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Barry Taylor

Figure 5. (Colour online) Pit containing hazelnut roasting debris from Flixton SHF. The large cobble (left) has beenutilized and deliberately broken.

from Star Carr, but relates to a suite of different tasksthat were being undertaken at a range of locationswithin the landscape. Some tasks were carried outwithin the vicinity of the site. Here people used flintflakes and blades to collect species of reed growingat the water’s edge, used axes to cut long, straightwillow stems from stands of natural or managed cop-pice, felled larger trees (bothwillow and aspen) grow-ing in areas of denser woodland, and gathered woodfor fuel. If they were consuming similar food plantsto other groups in Northern Europe, then people alsowaded into the reedswamp along the shore and useddigging sticks and baskets to collect the rhyzomes ofbulrush, and used watercraft to harvest the seed podsof water-lilies growing in deeper water nearby.

Other tasks took people to different placesaround the lake, where they hunted, set traps andsnares and collected plants. Groups of people armed

with projectiles visited thickets of willow and aspento track and kill animals such as red deer and elk, orlocations at the water’s edge to ambush other largemammals as they came to drink. In other cases peoplehunted or trapped beaver, possiblywaiting in ambushnext to lodges in the lake or at areas of the shore richin aspen where the animals came to feed, caught pikeand perch using projectiles or spears at the water’sedge or fromwatercraft, and set and checked deadfalltraps and snares in areas of the terrestrial landscapewhere pine marten and other mammals were active.

Journeys to these, and other locations involvedencounters with different environments as people fol-lowed paths through areas of woodland to reachlocations inland from the lake, waded throughreedswamp to access discrete stands of particularwet-land plants and skirted around dense, impenetrablethickets of willow and aspen. Other journeys were

504

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 13: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology

taken in boats, probably made from birch bark or an-imal hide on wooden frames. Here people launchedamongst the beds of reeds and sedges growing at theshore before paddling through communities of water-lilies into open water as they headed to either of theislands, or to locations at other points along the lakeshore.

These journeys, and the tasks that were asso-ciated with them, probably took people to othersites around the lake where evidence for very earlyepisodes ofMesolithic activity has also been recorded.At No Name Hill, people were using flint flakes andblades, as well as composite tools incorporating mi-croliths, within the reedswamp on the north shore ofthe island, and were bringing parts of the carcasses ofanimals (including red deer, elk and wild boar) ontothe site (Taylor 2011, 77; 2012, 410). People were alsousing flint flakes and blades as well as formal toolsat the water’s edge and on the drier ground abovethe shore (Conneller 2000). Flint blades in the earli-est deposits at Flixton Island (Site 1) and Flixton SHFalso attest to broadly contemporary phases of activ-ity at these locations, again involving tasks carried outwithin or at the edges of the reedswamp (Taylor 2012,457–8), and again some of the activity on the adjacentdryland is probably contemporary.

We currently lack the chronological resolutionnecessary to determine how the episodes of activitywe see archaeologically formed parts of broader pat-terns of settlement and mobility, and how these mayhave varied either seasonally or inter-annually. Asdiscussed, if the seasonality data from Clark’s assem-blage at Star Carr are representative of activity at thesite more generally, then the main focus of occupationmay have been in the earlier part of the year, withless intensive activity in the later summer and au-tumn. However, whether this reflects an annual pat-tern of seasonal of mobility with groups visiting thearea at different times and for different reasons, orinter-annual variations in the timing and character ofoccupation, is difficult to determine. What we can sayis that, during particular visits to the landscape, differ-ent tasks created recursive patterns of movement andaction of differing temporal and spatial scales aroundthe lake. Some tasks were associatedwith specificmo-ments, such as the initial arrival of a group at a sitewhen people worked together to collect long stemsused to make the frames for structures, and harvestedreeds or bark to be worked into material for the walls,roof and floor. Others operated on routine cycles, suchas the daily collection of firewood or the checkingof traps and snares, or regular hunting, fishing orforaging expeditions. To some extent these patternsof movement and action were structured around the

spatial and temporal availability of particular plantsand animal: particular not only in the case of the spe-cific species, but also age (in the case of animals) andgrowth patterns (in the case of plants). However, ashas been discussed, cultural factorsmay also have dic-tated the choice of plant and animal species that weretargeted, influencing theways inwhich peoplemovedthrough and acted within the landscape.

As subsequent generations occupied this land-scape, they continued to return to the same locations.While the initial visit to these sites may have beenmo-tivated by economic concerns, such as the availabil-ity of particular resources, something about them, ortheir history, marked them out as appropriate placesto return to (cf. Mithen 2000, 606). As has been dis-cussed, some of these locations were also markedthrough acts of deposition and disposal relating tosubsistence activities, notably hunting, but also plantuse and flint working. As Jordan (2003b) has argued,such recursive structures of activity, where patterns ofmovement, occupation, economic practice and relatedacts of disposal and deposition are bound up in thecosmological significance of particular places, animalsandplants, enculturate the landscape.As he states, theact of inhabiting these landscapes articulates particu-lar ways of understanding the world, which are bothstructured by and recreated through participation inthe routine habitual practices of daily life.

Around Lake Flixton these ways of inhabitingthe landscape were both historical, referencing ear-lier episodes of occupation, and dynamic, chang-ing throughout much of the early Mesolithic. To be-gin with, patterns of movement and activity associ-ated with economic practices would have changedthroughout the period as both the wetland and ter-restrial environments developed. The expansion ofswamp environments into the shallower parts ofthe basin and the embayments at Seamer Carr andLingholme, the development of fen and carr at theshore, and the appearance and subsequent expansionof hazel across the terrestrial landscape would havealtered the habitats of different animals and the pres-ence and abundance of different plant species. Thescale and intensity of activity around the lake also sug-gests that decisions as to the appropriateness of par-ticular locations (and by implications ways of mov-ing through the landscape) were dynamic. As dis-cussed earlier, if we take the evidence for localizedburning events at Flixton School Field, No Name Hill(Cummins 2003) and Star Carr (Dark 1998; Dark et al.2006) as proxies for human activity, then there is con-siderable variation in the intensity of occupation atthese (and potentially other) locations through time.Crucially, sites were not abandoned permanently, but

505

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 14: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Barry Taylor

were reoccupied after decades or centuries, suggest-ing relatively short-term responses to specific events,such as the death of an individual or the associationsof particular placeswith bad luck (e.g. Lavrillier 2016).

To the Mesolithic groups that inhabited the area,this was a landscape rich in history. The routine prac-tices of daily life drew upon existing understand-ings of appropriate forms of behaviour when makingdecisions as to the places people visited, the plantsand animals they collected or hunted, the ways cer-tain materials were used, and methods of disposaland deposition. Particular places were known as ar-eas suitable for the hunting or trapping of certainanimals, or the collection of particular plants, or aslocations that were appropriate for occupation orother forms of activity. These places were markedby the residues of previous visits, such as the re-mains of hearths or structures, ground disturbanceand changes in vegetation, but also by the memoriesof past events and knowledge of their wider cosmo-logical significance. Some of these places were soughtout and revisited, the tasks undertaken there articu-lating existing understandings of that location and itswider significance while adding to the physical andmnemonic residues associatedwith it. Otherswere ac-tively avoided, the physical remains of earlier occu-pation acting to remind people of their inappropriate-ness, and the possibilities of danger.

This understanding of the landscape was learnt,articulated and recreated (at least in part) through theeconomic practices that people undertook. These tookpeople to different parts of their landscape, at differ-ent times, and with different members of the commu-nity, and involved interactions with different plantsand animals. These interactionswere physical, involv-ing bodily strength and kinaesthetic knowledge de-ployed in the use of weapons or tools and the han-dling andworking of plantmaterials and the bodies ofanimals. And they were also skilled, requiring a suiteof technical and cultural knowledge that related to thegeography of the landscape, the ecology, behaviourand properties of plants and animals, and the appro-priate ways of conducting oneself in relation to theworld.

These sets of skill and knowledge would be spe-cific to individuals and situated at particular points intheir lives. Practices would be learnt, either throughdirect instruction, observation of others, or active par-ticipation, but would develop through time as ex-isting skills were honed and understanding was en-hanced through experience. What is more, if we as-sume that the way people participated in tasks re-lated to aspects of their identity, such as gender andage, then these abilities would vary between individ-

uals, while also changing throughout the course oftheir lives. These tasks were also inherently social, in-volving interactionswith different people, frommem-bers of the immediate family and peer group to widerkin-networks and the community as a whole. Withinthese different contexts, interactions would have beenbound up in broader social relations, such as fam-ily or other social hierarchies, peer relationships andgender and age divisions, which would be articulatedthrough participation in a particular task.

Far from determining the nature of subsistence,the environment was intricately bound into it, andthrough this into the lives of the people inhabitingthis landscape. Subsistence tasks, which formed amedium through which people engaged with theirenvironment, were also a forum for social interactionand the means by which different social relationshipswere articulated. It was this interplay between thephysical nature of the environment, the cultural atti-tudes towards it and the array of technical and socialpractices through which people engaged with it andeach other, that ultimately shaped the lives and liveli-hoods of Mesolithic people.

Conclusion

Thisway of thinking about the Lake Flixton landscape(and Mesolithic landscapes more generally) providesa very different account from the more traditional,economically focused narratives that continue to in-fluence our understanding of the period, and ex-pands upon more recent studies that have exploredthe ways in which Mesolithic people understood theworld they inhabited. To begin with, the relationshipbetween economic activity and the environment isdemonstrably more complex than previous accountshave suggested, involving a dynamic interplay be-tween a suite of different subsistence tasks and highlyvaried plant and animal communities. Particular taskstook people to specific places at certain times, creat-ing recursive patterns of activity that varied in char-acter and scale and that changed as the local environ-ments developed. And while activity was organizedaround the spatial and temporal patterning of the en-vironment, it was also structured by cultural attitudestowards particular plants, animals and places in thelandscape.

The result is a richer account of people’s lives,one in which human action was based upon knowl-edge, experience and an understanding of the world.Achieving this requires us to reconfigure the way wethink about subsistence and the principles throughwhich it was organized. We must move awayfrom broad categories of economic activity (such as

506

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 15: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology

hunting, gathering or fishing) to the specifics of sub-sistence practice in order to pick apart the complexrelationships between people and their environment.Lithic scatters, faunal assemblages and palaeobotan-ical remains all provide evidence for the differentforms of activity that people undertook, the attendantknowledge, skill and technologies they involved, andthe interactions they createdwith particular plant andanimal communities. From thiswe can explore the dif-ferent temporal and spatial scales that such activitiesoperated on, the recursive patterns of activity they cre-ated within the landscape, and how these would havebeen structured (at least in part) by the variability inthe local environment. Where palaeoecological data ispresent, this latter point can be explored further bymapping different forms of activity onto the spatialand temporal patterning of the local environment.

We must also recognize that subsistence prac-tices were structured by cultural factors, and thatthis is reflected in the formation of the archaeolog-ical record. Formal practices of deposition and dis-posal, often associated with economic tasks, weretaking place during the European Mesolithic and arereflected in the character of faunal and artefact as-semblages (see Taylor et al. 2017). By reassessing as-semblages that have previously been interpreted inpurely economic terms, we may begin to identify pat-terns in the treatment of particular plants, animalsand other materials that could lead to a better under-standing of the underlying principles through whichsubsistence practice was organized. Equally, the factthat Mesolithic people returned to the same locations,and that this may relate to cultural as well as eco-nomic factors, has already been recognized (e.g. Bar-ton et al. 1995; Mithen 2000). Again, identifying com-parable patterns of occupation at other locations, andestablishingmore detailed chronologies for them,willhelp us to see how these ‘persistent places’ formedpart of a structure to the way Mesolithic groups in-habited their landscape.

Finally, we need to accept that subsistence prac-tices were underpinned by decisions made by knowl-edgeable social actors employing skill, technical ap-titude and an understanding of the world. Only inthis way can we appreciate the true complexity of theway people inhabited their landscapes, and of life andlivelihood in the Mesolithic.

Acknowledgements

This paper arose from my doctoral research, which wasfunded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council(AHRCDoctoral Award 2007/135399). Thanks to Paul Lanefor allowing me access to the unpublished archives of the

Vale of Pickering Research Trust, and to Nick Overton,Chantal Conneller and Nicky Milner for their comments onan earlier draft of this paper. Thanks are also due to AmyGray Jones for the thought-provoking and insightful discus-sions that led to this paper being written, and to the twoanonymous referees and John Robb, whose comments im-proved the paper significantly.

Barry TaylorDepartment of History & Archaeology

University of ChesterChester CH1 4BJ

UKEmail: [email protected]

References

Amkreutz, L., 2013. Persistent Traditions. A long term perspec-tive on communities in the process of Neolithisation in theLower Rhine Area. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

Bamforth, M., M. Taylor, B. Taylor, H. Robson, A. Radini &N. Milner, in press. Wooden structures, in Star Carr.A persistent place in a changing world, by N. Milner,C. Conneller & B. Taylor. York: White Rose UniversityPress.

Barton, R.N.E., P.J. Berridge, M.J.C. Walker & R.E. Bevins,1995. Persistent places in theMesolithic landscape: anexample from the Black Mountain uplands of SouthWales. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61, 81–116.

Boas, F., 1905. The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island. Leiden: E.J.Brill.

Bonsall, C., 1981. The coastal factor in the Mesolithic settle-ment of north-west England, in Mesolithikum in Eu-ropa, ed. B. Gramsch. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 451–72.

Bonsall, C., 1996. The ‘Obanian’ problem: coastal adaptationin theMesolithic of western Scotland, in The Early Pre-history of Scotland eds. A. Pollard & A. Morrison. Ed-inburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 183–97.

Carter, R.J., 1997. Age estimation of the roe deer (Capreoluscapreolus) mandibles from the Mesolithic site of StarCarr, Yorkshire, based on radiographs of mandibulartooth development. Journal of Zoology 24, 495–502.

Carter, R.J., 1998. Reassessment of seasonality at the earlyMesolithic site of Star Carr, Yorkshire, based on ra-diographs of mandibular tooth development in reddeer (Cervus elaphus). Journal of Archaeological Science25, 851–6.

Castetter, E.F. & M.E. Opler, 1936. Ethnobiological Studies inthe American Southwest, III: The ethnobiology of the Chir-icahua and Mescalero Apache. (University of NewMex-ico Bulletin 297, Biological Series 4(5).) Albuquerque(NM): University of New Mexico Press.

Chatterton, R., 2003. Star Carr reanalysed, in Peopling theMesolithic in a Northern Environment, eds. J. Moore &L. Bevan. (BAR International series S1157.) Oxford:Archaeopress, 69–80.

507

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 16: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Barry Taylor

Clark, J.G.D., 1954. Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Clark, J.G.D., 1972. Star Carr: A case study in bioarchaeology.Reading: Addison-Wesley Modular Publications.

Cobb, H.L., 2007. Media for movement and making theworld: exploring materiality and identity in theMesolithic of the northern Irish Sea Basin. Internet Ar-chaeology 22. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.22.6

Conneller, C., 2000. Space, Time and Technology: The EarlyMesolithic of the Vale of Pickering, North Yorkshire.Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.

Conneller, C., 2004. Becoming deer: corporeal transfor-mations at Star Carr. Archaeological Dialogues 11,37–56.

Conneller, C., 2005. Moving beyond sites: Mesolithic tech-nology in the landscape, inMesolithic Studies at the Be-ginning of the 21st Century, by N. Milner & P. Wood-man. Oxford: Oxbow, 42–55.

Conneller, C., 2011. An Archaeology of Materials: Substan-tial transformations in early prehistoric Europe. Oxford:Routledge.

Conneller, C., A. Bayliss, N. Milner & B. Taylor, 2016.The resettlement of the British landscape: towardsa chronology of Early Mesolithic lithic assemblagetypes. Internet Archaeology 42. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.42.12

Conneller, C., N. Milner, B. Taylor & M. Taylor, 2012. Sub-stantial settlement in the European early Mesolithic:new research at Star Carr. Antiquity 86, 1004–20.

Conneller, C. & R.T. Schadla-Hall, 2003. Beyond Star Carr:the Vale of Pickering in the tenth millennium BP. Pro-ceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 85–105.

Cummins, G., 2003. Impacts of Hunter-Gatherers on theVegetation History of the Eastern Vale of Pickering,Yorkshire. Unpublished PhD thesis, Durham Univer-sity.

Dark, P., 1998. Palaeoecological investigations, in Star Carrin Context: New archaeological and palaeoecological inves-tigations at the early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, NorthYorkshire, by P.Mellars&P.Dark. Cambridge:McDon-ald Institute for Archaeological Research, 111–208.

Dark, P., T.F.G., Higham, R. Jacobi & T. Lord, 2006. Newradiocarbon accelerator dates on artefacts from theearlyMesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire.Ar-chaeometry 48(1), 185–200.

Donahue, R.E. &W.A. Lovis, 2006. Regional settlement sys-tems in Mesolithic northern England: Scalar issuesin mobility and territoriality. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 25, 248–58.

Edmonds, M.R., 1997. Taskscape, technology and tradition.Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29, 99–110.

Ellis, C., J. Allen, J. Gardiner, P. Harding, C. Ingrem, A. Pow-ell & R. Scaife, 2003. An early Mesolithic seasonalhunting site in the Kennet Valley, southern England.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 107–36.

Gray Jones, A. & B. Taylor, 2015. Excavations at FlixtonSchool House Farm, North Yorkshire UK. 2008–9. Un-published archive report, University of Chester.

Hall, S.J.G., 2008. A comparative analysis of the habitat ofthe extinct aurochs and other prehistoric mammals inBritain. Ecography 31, 187–90.

Healy, F., M. Heaton & S.J. Lobb, 1992. Excavation of aMesolithic site at Thatcham, Berkshire. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society 58, 41–76.

Hill, E., 2012. The nonempirical past: enculturated land-scapes and other-than-human persons in southwestAlaska. Arctic Anthropology 49(2), 41–57.

Jacobi, R., 1978. Northern England in the eighth millen-nium bc: an essay, in The Early Post Glacial Settlementof Northern Europe. An ecological perspective, ed. P. Mel-lars. London: Duckworth, 295–332.

Jarvenpa, R. & H.J. Brumbach, 2006. Chipewyan soci-ety and gender relations, in Circumpolar Lives andLivelihood. A comparative ethnoarchaeology of genderand subsistence, eds. R. Jarvenpa & H.J. Brum-bach. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press,24–53.

Jochim, M.A., 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settle-ment. A predictive model. New York (NY): AcademicPress.

Jochim,M.A., 1991. Archaeology as long term ethnography.American Anthropologist 93, 309–19.

Jochim, M.A., 1998. A Hunter-gatherer Landscape. SouthwestGermany in the late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. NewYork/London: Plenum Press.

Jolles, C.Z., 2006. Inupiaq maritime hunters: summersubsistence work in Diomede, in Circumpolar Livesand Livelihood. A comparative ethnoarchaeology of gen-der and subsistence, eds. R. Jarvenpa & H.J. Brum-bach. Lincoln/London: University of Nebraska Press,263–86.

Jordan, P., 2003a.Material Culture and Sacred Landscape. Wal-nut Creek (CA): Altamira Press.

Jordan, P., 2003b. Investigating post-glacial hunter-gathererlandscape enculturation: ethnographic analogy andinterpretive methodologies, inMesolithic on the Move.Papers presented at the sixth international conference onthe Mesolithic in Europe, Stockholm 2000, eds. L. Larsen,H. Kingren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler & A. Akerlund.Oxford: Oxbow, 128–38.

Lane, P. & R.T. Schadla-Hall, forthcoming. Hunter-Gatherersin the Landscape: Investigations of the early Mesolithic inthe Vale of Pickering, North Yorkshire, 1976–2000. Cam-bridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Re-search.

Lavrillier, A., 2016. The creation and persistence of culturallandscapes among the Siberian Evenkis: two concep-tions of ‘sacred’ space, in Landscape and Culture inNorthern Eurasia, ed. P. Jordan. Walnut Creek (CA):Left Coast Press, 215–31.

Law, C., 1998. The uses and fire-ecology of reedswamp veg-etation, in Star Carr in Context: New archaeological andpalaeoecological investigations at the early Mesolithic siteof Star Carr, North Yorkshire, by P. Mellars & P. Dark.Cambridge: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch, 197–206.

508

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 17: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology

Leduc, C., 2014. New Mesolithic hunting evidence frombone injuries at Danish Maglemosian sites: LunbyMose andMullerup (Sjælland). International Journal ofOsteoarchaeology 24(4), 476–91.

Legge, A. & P. Rowley-Conwy, 1988. Star Carr Revisited: A re-analysis of the large mammals. London: Centre for Extra-Mural Studies.

McFadyen, L., 2006. Landscape, inMesolithic Britain and Ire-land: New approaches, eds. C. Conneller & G. WarrenStroud: Tempus, 121–38.

McGuire, K. & W. Hildebrandt, 1994. The possibilities ofwomen and men: gender and the California MillingStoneHorizon. Journal of California and Great Basin An-thropology 16(1), 41–59.

Mellars, P., 1976. Settlement patterns and industrial vari-ability in the British Mesolithic, in G. Sieveking,I.H. Longworth & K.E. Wilson (eds), Problems in Eco-nomic and Social Archaeology. London: Duckworth,357–99.

Mellars, P., 1998. Postscript: major issues in the interpre-tation of Star Carr, in Star Carr in Context: New ar-chaeological and palaeoecological investigations at the earlyMesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire, by P. Mel-lars & P. Dark. Cambridge:McDonald Institute for Ar-chaeological Research, 215–42.

Mellars, P. & C. Conneller, 1998. Lithic assemblages, in StarCarr in Context: New archaeological and palaeoecologi-cal investigations at the early Mesolithic site of Star Carr,North Yorkshire, by P. Mellars & P. Dark. Cambridge:McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 83–98.

Mellars, P. & S.C. Reinhardt, 1978. Patterns of Mesolithicland-use in southern England: a geological perspec-tive, in The Early Post Glacial Settlement of Northern Eu-rope. An ecological perspective, ed. P. Mellars. London:Duckworth, 243–94.

Milner, N., 2005. Seasonal consumption practices in theMesolithic: Economic, environmental, social or rit-ual?, in Mesolithic Studies at the Beginning of the 21stCentury, eds. N. Milner & P.C. Woodman. Oxford:Oxbow Books, 56–67.

Milner, N., C. Conneller & B. Taylor, in press. Star Carr. Apersistent place in a changing world. York: White RoseUniversity Press.

Mithen, S., 1990. Thoughtful Foragers. A study of prehistoricdecision making. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Mithen, S. (ed.), 2000.Hunter-gatherer Landscape Archaeology:The southern Hebrides Mesolithic project. Cambridge:Macdonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Myres, A., 2015. A flint for all seasons? The organisation ofsettlement and technology in the Earlier Mesolithic ofnorthern England, inNo Stone Unturned: Papers in hon-our of Roger Jacobi, eds.N.Ashton&C.Harris. London:Lithic Studies Society, 167–90.

Nelson, R., 1983.Make Prayers to the Raven. AKoyukon view ofthe northwest forest. Chicago (IL): Chicago UniversityPress.

Nelson, R., 1986. Hunters of the Northern Forest. Designsfor survival among the Alaskan Kutchin (2nd edition).Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.

Noe-Nygaard, N., 1974. Mesolithic hunting in Denmark il-lustrated by bone injuries caused by humanweapons.Journal of Archaeological Science 1, 217–48.

Noe-Nygaard, N., 1975. Two shoulder blades with healedlesions from Star Carr. Proceedings of the Prehistoric So-ciety 41, 10–16.

Out, W., 2009. Sowing the Seed? Human impact and plant sub-sistence in Dutch wetlands during the Late Mesolithic andEarly and Middle Neolithic (5500–3400 cal BC). Leiden:Leiden University Press.

Overton, N. & B. Taylor, in press. Humans in the environ-ment: plants, animals and landscapes. Journal of WorldPrehistory.

Perry, D. 1999. Vegetative tissues from Mesolithic sites inthe northern Netherlands. Current Anthropology 40(2),231–7.

Price, S., 2009. Wood and wild animals: towards an under-standing of a Mesolithic world, inMesolithic Horizons.Papers presented at the seventh international conferenceon the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005, eds. S. McCar-tan, R. Schulting, G. Warren & P. Woodman. Oxford:Oxbow, 683–9.

Price, T.D. 1978. Mesolithic settlement systems in theNetherlands, in The Early Post Glacial Settlement ofNorthern Europe. An ecological perspective, ed. P. Mel-lars. London: Duckworth, 81–114.

Ripple, W.J. & R.L. Beschta, 2004. Wolves and the ecologyof fear: can predation risk structure ecosystems? Bio-Science 54(8) 755–66.

Robson, H.K., A. Little, A.K.G. Jones, et al., 2016. Scales ofanalysis: evidence of fish and fish processing at StarCarr. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.02.009

Rowley-Conwy, P., 1995. Mesolithic settlement patterns:new zoological evidence from the Vale of Picker-ing, Yorkshire. University of Durham and Universityof Newcastle upon Tyne Archaeological Reports 1994,1–6.

Simmons, I.G., 1975. The ecological setting of Mesolithicman in the highland zone, in The effect of Man on theLandscape: The highland zone, eds. J.G. Evans, S. Lim-brey & H. Cleere. (CBA research report 11.) York:Council for British Archaeology, 57–63.

Spikins, P.A., 1999. Mesolithic Northern England. Environ-ment, population and settlement. (BAR British series283.) Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Taylor, B., 2011. Early Mesolithic activity in the wetlands ofthe Lake Flixton Basin. Journal of Wetland Archaeology11(1), 63–84.

Taylor, B., 2012. The Occupation of Wetland Landscapesduring the British Mesolithic: Case Studies from theVale of Pickering. Unpublished PhD thesis, Univer-sity of Manchester.

Taylor, B., B. Elliot, C. Conneller, N. Milner, A. Bayliss,B. Knight & M. Bamforth, 2017. Resolving the issue

509

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

Page 18: Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology · Subsistence, Environment and Mesolithic Landscape Archaeology BarryTaylor Sincethe1970s,researchintoMesolithiclandscapeshasbeenheavilyinfluencedbyeco-

Barry Taylor

of artefact deposition at Star Carr. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 83, 23–42.

Taylor, B. & A. Gray Jones, 2009. Definitely a pit, possiblya house? Recent excavations at Flixton School HouseFarm in the Vale of Pickering. Mesolithic Miscellany20(2), 21–6.

Taylor, M., 1998. Identification of the wood and evidencefor human working, in Star Carr in Context: New ar-chaeological and palaeoecological investigations at the earlyMesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire, by P. Mel-lars & P. Dark. Cambridge:McDonald Institute forAr-chaeological Research, 52–63.

Uchiyama, J., 2016. From Awashimadai to Star Carr:a Japanese Jomon perspective on the subsis-tence strategies and settlement patterns ofEarly Mesolithic hunter–gatherers in the Valeof Pickering, UK. Quaternary International 419,17–26.

Van Gijn, A., Y. Lammers-Keijsers & R. Houkes, 2001.Vuursteen, in Hardinxveld-Giessendam de Bruin.Een kampplats uit het Laat-Mesolithicum en het begin

van de Swifterbant-cultuur (5500–4500 v. Chr), eds.L.P. Louwe-Koojimans, E.A.G. Ball, C.C. Bakels, et al.(Rapportage Archeologische Monumentenzorg 88.)Amersfoort: Rijksdienst voor het OudheidkundigBodemonderzoek, 153–92.

Willoughby, N.C. 1963. Division of labor among the Indi-ans of California. Reports of the University of CaliforniaArchaeological Survey 60, 7–79.

Author biography

Barry Taylor is Senior Lecturer in Archaeology at theDepartment of History and Archaeology, University ofChester. He has worked extensively in the eastern Valeof Pickering, co-directing the excavations at the Mesolithicsites of Star Carr and Flixton School House Farm (the latterwith Amy Gray Jones). He has also undertaken extensivepalaeoenvironmental surveys of the area, reconstructing thechanging character of the wetland environments and estab-lishing the relationship to patterns of human action and thelocal plant and animal communities.

510

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774318000021Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 15 Feb 2021 at 22:54:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.


Top Related