alexandru dinu mesolithic and neolithic pigs of the northern balkans astragali vs. teeth as markers...

25
Mesolithic Miscellany March 2008 Volume 19: Number 1 Editorial The future of Mesolithic Miscellany?? I thought it would be of interest to the Mesolithic research community to mention that Mesolithic Miscellany has been reviewed recently in a couple of publications. Firstly, Caroline Wickham-Jones in her “on the web” reviews in British Archaeology (available on line http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba.html ) described MM as: specialised but quality, up-to-date, serious and informal communications, with invaluable back numbers. A model for others?A more detailed critique of MM has been published by Graeme Warren (University College Dublin) in issue 22 of Internet Archaeology, (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue22/ ) an edition dedicated to the Mesolithic including articles arising from the “Gathering our thoughts” Mesolithic Postgraduate Research Forum, as featured in MM 18.1. For those of you who have not seen this, or who do not have access to Internet Archaeology, I will pick out some of the key points Graeme makes, in order to stimulate further discussion. Graeme writes: “Like encountering any friend you haven't seen for a decade, especially one from the 1980s, it is interesting to work out what has changed and what hasn't. And it's intriguing to try and imagine how this old friend is going to fit into your new life - especially with their two planned visits to your inbox a year...This is especially true for MM as it re-emerges into a very different academic landscape than it had occupied even in 1996, when it entered hibernationAs he explains, the early editions of MM tended to contain very short contributions, often one page, including field results, reviews of research and recent publications. One of the significant differences is that the articles have become much longer and referenced in full: a recent paper “is 3,500 words of discussion and four pages (!) of references”. However, some things have barely changed. The look of MM is much the same, although now it is published on-line, colour photographs can be used. When I took over as editor of MM, I made the decision to keep the format much as it always had been, and when I wrote my first editorial I asked for “virtually any information of relevance to the European Mesolithic is welcome within the page of the newsletter" (MM 1.1, p1). But, as Graeme points out, in Mesolithic studies much has changed, and many of the bright young things who drove the development of MM and the MEIC are now the senior figures in the discipline; some have retired.” (MEIC = Mesolithic in Europe International

Upload: xeroxxerox111

Post on 27-Jul-2015

181 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

Mesolithic Miscellany

March 2008 Volume 19: Number 1

Editorial

The future of Mesolithic Miscellany?? I thought it would be of interest to the Mesolithic research community to mention that Mesolithic Miscellany has been reviewed recently in a couple of publications. Firstly, Caroline Wickham-Jones in her “on the web” reviews in British Archaeology (available on line http://www.britarch.ac.uk/BA/ba.html) described MM as: “specialised but quality, up-to-date, serious and informal communications, with invaluable back numbers. A model for others?” A more detailed critique of MM has been published by Graeme Warren (University College Dublin) in issue 22 of Internet Archaeology, (http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue22/) an edition dedicated to the Mesolithic including articles arising from the “Gathering our thoughts” Mesolithic Postgraduate Research Forum, as featured in MM 18.1. For those of you who have not seen this, or who do not have access to Internet Archaeology, I will pick out some of the key points Graeme makes, in order to stimulate further discussion. Graeme writes: “Like encountering any friend you haven't seen for a decade, especially one from the 1980s, it is interesting to work out what has changed and what hasn't. And it's intriguing to try and imagine how this old friend is going to fit into your new life - especially with their two planned visits to your inbox a year...This is especially true for MM as it re-emerges into a very different academic landscape than it had occupied even in 1996, when it entered hibernation” As he explains, the early editions of MM tended to contain very short contributions, often one page, including field results, reviews of research and recent publications. One of the significant differences is that the articles have become much longer and referenced in full: a recent paper “is 3,500 words of discussion and four pages (!) of references”. However, some things have barely changed. The look of MM is much the same, although now it is published on-line, colour photographs can be used. When I took over as editor of MM, I made the decision to keep the format much as it always had been, and when I wrote my first editorial I asked for “virtually any information of relevance to the European Mesolithic is welcome within the page of the newsletter" (MM 1.1, p1). But, as Graeme points out, in Mesolithic studies “much has changed, and many of the bright young things who drove the development of MM and the MEIC are now the senior figures in the discipline; some have retired.” (MEIC = Mesolithic in Europe International

Page 2: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

2

Conferences). He also states, “the quantity of Mesolithic research in Europe is overwhelming and it is impossible to keep on top of the subject in the way it might have been possible to 20 years ago.” Graeme suggests that at some stage we must face up to the hard truth: “any information of relevance to the European Mesolithic is setting itself a tricky task. Once we assume that we cannot read everything about Europe, wherever it stops, difficult questions about the 'Mesolithic in Europe' as a research community are raised. MM, it seems to me, needs to address these questions if it is to re-think its role in assisting that community.” The problem seems to be, in Graeme’s eyes, that the research community gave nothing by way of direction for the new MM, and, arguably, there is now a mismatch between the form of the newsletter and the current research and academic context. Some of the ways in which he thinks MM could gain a new lease of life involve asking questions about what the European Mesolithic community is prepared to contribute, and ways in which this can be sustained. His key suggestions are: • MM should move towards shorter articles and a true newsletter style: the newsletter should be populated by shorter reviews of key issues in regions/nations/specialist fields, and these should not be referenced to facilitate production, opinion and speed of production. MM might consider a 'podium' as used in many news-based publications. • Greater use of web publication could be made. Certainly a discussion board/mailing list should be considered. • Book reviews (critical to promoting debate), conference reviews and museum reviews will remain vital and fieldwork updates are an important aspect of the newsletter, but these should be short, not full interims, and they should make links to resources elsewhere. He concludes by saying that: “I hope the comments made in this review are seen as a contribution towards rethinking the role MM plays in fostering this research community…. MM can play a central role in the Mesolithic research community of the 21st century, but it may have to re-imagine itself first.” As the editor I am very pleased that such issues have been raised and would like to thank Graeme for starting up this discussion! To date, I have not tried to set an agenda or develop a certain format, and do accept that MM could be taken forward in different ways. I am currently reviewing the web resources and how to develop them. However, the content of MM is largely contingent on members of the Mesolithic research community providing material for publication and I am very keen on more responses and thoughts to the suggestions put forward by Graeme, perhaps for publication in the next issue. Please do write in! This volume In this volume there are three main papers. The first by Søren Andersen reports on his recent excavations at the shell midden at Havnø, Denmark, including some rather intriguing finds; the second by Alexandru Dinu, Adina Boroneant, Adrian Balasescu, Andrei Soficaru and Doru Miritoiu considers the scientific evidence for pig domestication in the Iron Gates region; and the third by Liv Nilsson Stutz, Lars Larsson and Ilga Zagorska describes their exciting new findings at Zvejnieki. Graeme Warren has also provided a note on a new project he is running, which seeks to provide a point in time review of the adoption of agriculture and to identify key research problems for the future. Interested parties are encouraged to contact him about the project and associated seminar, to be held in Dublin in May. New publications have always been an important element of MM and so in this volume I have expanded this section. Some authors have alerted me to their publications, but I have also trawled the journals for some other recent papers. The list I provide is by no means exhaustive and I would welcome further information. A number of books on Mesolithic topics have also been published recently (and more to come later in the year- see the next volume!). These provide a vast wealth of new data and perspectives, including the identification of areas of Mesolithic human defecation, the analysis of Mesolithic human and animal footprints, the excavation and reconstruction of Mesolithic structures, the study of 23,000 km² of submerged landscape in the North Sea, and much, much more!

Nicky Milner

Page 3: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

3

A report on recent excavations at the shell midden of Havnø in Denmark

Søren H. Andersen Moesgård Museum, 8270 Højbjerg, Denmark, e-mail: [email protected]

The Danish shell middens, “Køkkenmøddinger”, from the Stone Age are world famous. A special group, the so called “stratified middens”, i.e. middens with layers from the Late Mesolithic Ertebølle culture (at the bottom) and the Early Neolithic Funnel Beaker culture (at the top) are of special importance because they contain occupation layers covering the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: an event which has been 14C dated in these middens to 3950 cal BC. Therefore this type of Køkkenmødding offers the best and most reliable information on the introduction of the oldest farmers in Southern Scandinavia. Not only do they offer excellent opportunities for 14C dating based on different materials, e.g. shell, bone and charcoal, but they also have a very fine stratigraphic resolution within the settlement deposits. On such sites it is possible to analyze the environment, both land and marine, through time and literally measure observed changes. During the last 25 years a series of systematic excavations of such shell middens have taken place in Jutland, e.g. Norsminde, Bjørnsholm, Visborg and Krabbesholm, and a series of preliminary surveys have already been published (Andersen 1991, 1993, 2005; Enghoff 1991, 1993). All these investigations have been organised as interdisciplinary research teams of archaeologists and natural scientists from Denmark and Britain, following a more than 150 year old tradition in Danish shell midden research (Andersen 2007). One of the sites chosen for this type of research is the Havnø shell midden in Eastern Jutland, where excavations have taken place over the last four years and the plan is to continue for another two to three years. With regards to the Havnø investigation the team has consisted of archaeologists, a botanist, a geologist, two zoologists, specialists in charcoal analysis and marine molluscs and a marine biologist. In 1894 a small excavation was first conducted at Havnø, but since then this midden has not been the subject of further investigation. In the recent excavations, a long trench has been placed through the midden to obtain a clear insight into the stratigraphy, combined with larger squares in and to the rear of the midden proper to look for settlement structures such as house constructions. In the Stone Age, Havnø was a very small island (“Havnø”actually means the island with a port), only c. 800-900 m long, c. 200-300 m wide which was situated far out and isolated in the mouth of the Mariager Fiord (figure 1). In this period the island was surrounded by extensive areas of shallow sea and tidal flats to the north, east and west, while to the south it bordered the fjord with its deeper waters and the opening out to the salty and nutritious Littorina Sea.

Figure 1: A map of the Mariager fiord in East Jutland with the location of Havnø as well as other shell middens, such as Visborg, marked with red dots. The green area represents the dry land in the Stone Age, light (and dark) blue represents the Littorina (Atlantic) Sea, and dark blue represents the modern sea. Due to a rise of land of c. 4-5m since the Stone Age, extensive areas of prehistoric sea are dry land today.

Page 4: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

4

The nearest mainland was c. 2 km to the northwest, where the large Visborg shell midden is located. Botanical investigations show that in the Stone Age the island was covered by primeval forest dominated by oak and elm with some hazel and birch. The Havnø island must have been a very favourable location for hunting, fishing and gathering in the Stone Age as not less than 10-15 different coastal settlements (mainly shell middens) have been recorded, out of which the Havnø midden is by far the largest and has the thickest shell deposits. The Havnø køkkenmødding itself is located at, and follows, the prehistoric coastline bordering the deep fiord which would have been the most favourable position for marine hunting and fishing as well as fowling and shellfish gathering. The midden is an oblong shape, just like all other Danish køkkenmøddinger, measuring c. 100 m in length, 25-27 m in width and with a shell horizon of c. 70-90 cm deep. Other investigations as well as 14C dates demonstrate that this characteristic shape is a combination of both a gradual horizontal and vertical accumulation and movement along the sea shore through time. In the location of the new section, the midden was built up by a series of 10-15 smaller, individual shell deposits, each measuring c. 3-4 m in diameter and c. 10-20 cm thick. It is impossible to tell how many of such small shell heaps the whole midden consists of but there is no doubt that it amounts into the hundreds. 14C dates, as well as the archaeological remains, demonstrate that the Havnø midden has been visited in the period 5000-3700 cal BC, i.e. the middle and younger Ertebølle and oldest Funnelbeaker culture. It is impossible to tell if the site was been in continuous use during this 1300 year long period; however, the stratigraphy does not demonstrate any breaks in the occupation. It is essential to stress that such coastal shell middens demonstrate a surprisingly long topographical continuity and local stability of occupation on the same spot, in this case over 1300 years but at other sites up to 1500 years, e.g. the site of Ertebølle (locus classicus). The subsoil is Late Glacial sandy clay, and the shell horizon covers the old land surface (vegetation horizon). In such cases the middens offer important possibilities for palynological investigations of prehistoric sealed surfaces and such an investigation is one of our future tasks. The cultural horizon(-s) is made up by shells of oyster, cockle, mussel and periwinkle mixed with settlement debris (flint debris, bone, charcoal and cooking stones (pot-boilers)) as well as food remains, i.e. bones of fish, sea birds and seal, as well as game from the forests (figure 2). There are also artefacts and tools of flint, bone and antler, as well as sherds of typical Ertebølle and Funnelbeaker vessels. In the midden layers we find settlement structures like hearths of two types (accumulations of ash and a layer of stones), pits and stake holes. The hearths are clearly settlement loci because we find high concentrations of cultural debris reflecting production and repair of tools and equipment as well as remains of food production and consumption. As usual in the Danish middens we also find scattered human bones at Havnø. These are probably from graves, but to date no in-situ burials have been recorded. So far there are no traces of well defined house structures in the midden proper, but in the coming years we are going to excavate larger areas to the rear of the midden, where we expect to find such structures.

Figure 2 (left): A section through the shell layer. Figure 3 (right): The surface of the bottom horizon in the Ertebølle midden, characterised by a uniform layer of (exclusively) large oysters.

Page 5: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

5

Figure 4 (left): During last summers excavation at Havnø a collection of c 40 ‘pearls’ of two completely new types was found in the Ertebølle layer. They are of circular or oblong shape and made of mother-of-pearl - most probably of flat oyster shells. The pearls are polished on the surface and all have a groove along the edge. Figure 5 (right): A concentration of cooking stones and cattle bones in the Earliest Neolithic horizon. The Havnø midden is principally made up of two shell horizons: a lower one from the Late Mesolithic and an upper one from the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and the Early Neolithic. The change from the Late Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic is easy to observe in the sequence: the Late Mesolithic shell layers are white-gray and dominated by large, whole molluscs (mainly oysters) and snails; in the Early Neolithic layers the oyster is less dominant, the shell matrix is more crushed and the layers are blacker because of a higher content of charcoal and many more cooking stones. The younger horizon is also very rich in faunal remains and in fact the Havnø material is today one of the largest, if not the largest, collections of Early Neolithic faunal material in Denmark. As the marine environment was of utmost economic importance for the Ertebølle population it is also obvious that investigations into the remains of the marine environment have been of special relevance and importance in this investigation. The oysters have especially been the focus of intense investigation, not so much because of their food value, but because this species is sensitive towards temperature and salinity and therefore is excellent as a “signal” of marine environmental change, e.g. alterations in temperature, salinity, the tide and the content of mineral sediments in the sea water. The oyster is the dominant marine mollusc throughout the whole midden sequence, but we can observe characteristic, relative changes among the species as well as in their size through time. In the very bottom the shell layer is characterized by a continuous layer exclusively of very large oysters, which form a characteristic horizon throughout the whole midden (figure 3). Higher up in the shell matrix there is a mixture of oyster, cockle, mussel and periwinkle. In the early Neolithic midden the number of cockles increase, but it is still the oyster, which dominates. One can observe that the size of the oysters gradually decrease through time so that in the uppermost layers the oysters are just half or two-thirds the size as in the deepest layers; at the same time there seems to be an increase in the number of deformed oysters in the Early Neolithic than earlier. An explanation could either be environmental changes or that the population has been over-exploiting the mollusc bank through time. Analysis in the University of York on oyster shells from the Ertebølle layer show that they have been collected in the early spring, i. e. March and April (Milner 2002). Unfortunately we have not yet had the possibility to analyse the shells from the Early Neolithic. A preliminary conclusion is that environmental change(-s) in the marine biotope took place contemporary with the introduction of a farming economy, but it is still impossible to tell if this factor was of any importance for this event. The stratigraphy indicates that the shift from the Ertebølle (Late Mesolithic) to the Funnel beaker (Early Neolithic) was fast on this site and took place within a very short time span around c. 3950 cal. BC. In the Ertebølle layers we find the usual range of artefacts, i. e. flake- and core axes of flint, tools on blades, and transverse arrowheads. Added to this are antler axes, fish hooks of bone, simple bone points and pointed bottomed vessels without ornamentation. In addition, during last summers excavation a collection of c. 40 “pearls” of two completely new types was found in the Ertebølle layer. They are of circular or oblong shape and made of mother-of-pearl, most probably from the flat oyster shells (figure 4). The pearls are polished on

Page 6: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

6

the surface and all have a groove along the edge. In the Early Neolithic horizon we find larger and finely polished flint axes and completely new forms of pottery (Funnel beakers) with new types of ornamentation. The economic basis of the population is well documented by the many animal bones, which demonstrate that hunting, fishing and shell gathering was of primary importance during both the Mesolithic and the Neolithic. Molluscs and the animal bones tell us that the site was visited at different seasons: in March-April (oyster), late summer (eel), while the birds indicate both summer and winter. It is impossible to tell if the shell midden was occupied throughout the whole year, but considered from a landscape perspective it is more reasonable to interprete that the Havnø køkkenmødding was a location which was visited at different seasons with the purpose of exploiting the excellent possibilities for fishing, sealing and bird hunting in the extensive reed marshes. Not only the fish hooks but also many bones of eel and flatfish tell us about fishing, and bones of sea birds such as swans, ducks, geese and cormorant are numerous and testify of fowling. In the fiord and along the beaches grey seals were captured. Mammals such as wild boar, red deer, roe deer, elk and aurochs have been found. In the Late Mesolithic the only domesticated animal is the dog, whilst we also find bones of cattle, pig and sheep/goat in the Early Neolithic horizons (figure 5). It is essential to underline that in the Early Neolithic the economy was still based on hunting, fishing and gathering the same animals as in the Late Mesolithic, but it was also supplemented by a small number of domesticated animals, mainly cattle. However, the number of domesticated animals is low and it is obvious that the basic economy was still fishing, hunting and gathering. Therefore, the population in this period could best be described as “fisher-farmers”. Even in 1894 the zoologists pointed out that with regards to the economy, the Havnø site had certain traits different from the site of Ertebølle, mainly a smaller number of large mammals and furred animals, while the number of sea birds was much larger; an observation which has been further supported by the new excavations and analysis. However, considering the small size of the island it is most improbable that the larger animals had been captured on the island. More probably the bones of these animals are the remains of provisions brought onto the island from settlements further into the long fiord, at least in the Ertebølle period. In regards to the domesticated animals from the Early Neolithic it is more difficult to determine if these could have been traces of small farming households on the island or if such food had also been transported to Havnø in this period. In conclusion, this site demonstrates the long coastal occupation on the same favourable positions in the Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic. The explanation for the continued habitation at Havnø is to be found in resource stability, mainly in the marine biotope. The transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic took place c. 3950 cal. BC and there was a fast change within the material culture: however, the economy gradually changed and was a long lasting process. During several centuries of the Early Neolithic the hunting, gathering and fishing economy continued and was based on the Mesolithic way of life, with the addition of a few new elements of domesticated animals. Bibliography • Andersen, S. H. 1991. Norsminde. A “Køkkenmødding” with Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Occupation. Journal of Danish Archaeology vol. 8, 1989, 13 – 40. • Andersen, S. H. 1993. Bjørnsholm. A Stratified Køkkenmødding on the Central Limfjord, North Jutland. With a contribution by Kaare Lund Rasmussen. Journal of Danish Archaeology vol. 10. 1991, 59 – 96. • Andersen, S. H., 2005. Køkkenmøddingerne ved Krabbesholm. Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 2005, 151 – 171. København. (English summary: New research on kitchen middens). • Andersen, S. H. 2007. Shell middens (“Køkkenmøddinger”) in Danish Prehistory as a reflection of the marin environment. In N. Milner, O. Craig and G. Bailey (eds.) Shell middens in Atlantic Europe, Oxford: Oxbow, 31-45. • Bratlund, B. 1993. The Bone Remains of Mammals and Birds from the Bjørnsholm Shell-Mound. A Preliminary Report. Journal of Danish Archaeology vol. 10, 1991, 97 – 104. • Enghoff, I. B. 1991. Fishing from the Stone Age Settlement Norsminde. Journal of Danish Archaeology vol. 8, 1989, 41 – 50. • Enghoff, I. B. 1993. Mesolithic Eel-Fishing at Bjørnsholm, Denmark, Spiced with Exotic Species. Journal of Danish Archaeology vol. 10, 1991, 105 – 118. • Milner, N. 2002. Incremental growth of the European Oyster, Ostrea edulis: seasonality information from Danish kitchenmiddens. Oxford: Archaepress, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1057.

Page 7: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

7

Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans: Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

Alexandru Dinu1, Adina Boroneant2, Adrian Balasescu3, Andrei Soficaru4, Doru Miritoiu4

1. UW Madison (adinu@wisc,edu); 2. Institute of Archaeology “V. Parvan”, Bucharest (boro30gmail.com); 3. Museum of National History, Bucharest, ([email protected]); 4. The Centre of Anthropological Research “Fr. Rainer”, Bucharest, ([email protected]) Introduction This study compares the metric data of pig remains from Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in southeast Europe, in order to determine if domestic traits are equally identifiable in both cranial and postcranial elements. The Danube Gorges, along the border between Romania and Serbia, is an area rich in archaeological sites. Some of the caves on the northern shore, like Veterani, were investigated archaeologically before 1900 and open sites like the ones located on the islands of Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul Mare, and Ostrovul Corbului, were partly excavated in the 1920’s and 1930’s (Paunescu 2000). During the early 1960’s, Romania and former Yugoslavia built a hydroelectric dam across the Danube and a large-scale archaeological project was initiated, leading to the discovery of a great number of sites on both shores of the river such as Lepenski Vir in Serbia, and Schela Cladovei in Romania. The faunal analysis at one of the Mesolithic Romanian sites, Icoana (Bolomey 1973), suggested that the hunter gatherer population may have exercised at least some degree of control over pigs. Most regrettably, some academics have subsequently misinterpreted these conclusions and although Bolomey never used the term “domestication”, the suid remains at Icoana were subsequently associated with the idea of possible domestication. It is usually accepted among zooarchaeologists that the most visible and reliable of the changes associated with animal domestication occur in the cranium. However, the interpretation of change in body size tends to remains problematic. As suggested by some studies, the variability of animal size may have been triggered by natural causes (Rowley-Conwy 1995). It has also been pointed out that metrics may not always offer strong evidence for diminishing size, and that an observed pattern such as this may be due to a larger number of females in the herd (Zeder 2006). Confusion may especially occur if the archaeological circumstances related to the interpretation of the recovered material and stratigraphic uncertainties present difficulties (Dinu 2007). According to previous research, there is a significant degree of size variability among the wild pig population along the Danube Valley in southern Romania (El Susi 1996). Could it be that the size of the Iron Gates prehistoric pigs were smaller, therefore producing a false image of economic developments? A comparative metric analysis of the Mesolithic Iron Gates, Neolithic and modern pigs from Romania has been studied in detail (Dinu et al. 2006); this paper will expand the comparative data incorporating information from the Mesolithic Iron Gates site of Vlasac, situated on the southern shore of the Danube (Bokonyi 1978), the Neolithic sites of Cascioarele, Bordusani and Harsova, chosen because they are situated on the lower end of the Lower Danube Valley of southern Romania, opposite to the Iron Gates, the Neolithic site of Sitagroi, northeastern Greece (Bokonyi 1986), and the Neolithic site of Divostin, Serbia (Bokonyi 1988) (figure 1). Teeth metrics In this study a comparative sample has been analysed, for which the provenience was known: pig skulls from Antipa Museum, the Department of Comparative Anatomy of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, and Museum of National History in Bucharest were listed as “wild” or “domestic” in the institutions’ records; the specimens from Dubova were wild pigs that had been poached and recovered from the locals. The archaeological specimens from Vlasac, Sitagroi, and Divostin have previously been identified as wild and domestic (Bokonyi 1978, 1986, 1988). As a result, the status of the rest of the material could be determined by comparison.

Page 8: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

8

Recent DNA analysis of the pig remains from Cascioarele has proved to be of importance in this analysis (Larson et al. 2007): the three large values from Cascioarele were genetically identified as wild European, as opposed to the rest of the batch that produced results associated with Neolithic Starcevo and Asia Minor domestic pigs. Interestingly, although there is a clear clustering of the Neolithic values demonstrating a break between the modern wild specimens and the Neolithic and modern domestic pig tooth sizes, it is also noticeable that the values from Sitagroi domestic Neolithic pigs slightly overlap with the modern wild values from Antipa Museum; possibly, the high values from Sitagroi represent either large males or very large older females. In order to verify the consistency in the size of wild specimens, values from the Iron Gates, Sitagroi, and Divostin pigs have been plotted together. The results shown in figure 3 present a grouping in the same range for all the samples. Bokonyi (1978, 46) mentions that the largest lower 3rd molar from the Mesolithic site of Vlasac is one of the largest ever measured and the largest tooth from the Antipa modern wild collection appears to be comparable.

Figure 2 (left): Sus lower 3rd molar maximum length; modern domestic, Neolithic domestic, and modern wild. Figure 3 (right): Sus lower 3rd molar maximum length; modern wild, Mesolithic, and Neolithic wild.

Figure 1. Sites presented in this paper. Sitagroi: red dot on the map of Europe; the Iron Gates region sites; Bucharest material: Institute of Archaeology “V. Parvan”; Museum of Natural Sciences “Emil Racovita”; Faculty of Veterinary Medicine – Laboratory of Comparative Anatomy; Museum of National History.

In figure 2 a comparison is made of the maximum length of the lower 3rd molar for the Neolithic sites of Cascioarele, Divostin, Bordusani, and Sitagroi, and the modern domestic and modern wild samples from Antipa and Dubova. The larger pigs from Cascioarele cluster together with the modern wild samples, while the smaller values from the same site cluster with the smaller Neolithic domestic pigs.

Page 9: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

9

Figure 4 (left): Sus lower 3rd molar maximum length, Mesolithic Iron Gates, modern domestic, and Neolithic; Figure 5 (right): Sus astragali maximum length. The Mesolithic samples have also been plotted against the modern domestic, Neolithic wild and domestic samples (figure 4). All the Mesolithic Iron Gates values clearly group in the same range as the Neolithic Sitagroi wild and the three Cascioarele samples genetically identified as “wild European”. Astragali metrics According to Bolomey (1973) there were 32 measurable Sus astragali at Cascioarele. However, we could find only 2: the rest of the collection could not be located. Due to the geological conditions the state of preservation at this site was excellent and consequently both pieces are measurable. At Icoana 37 Sus astragali were reported measurable (Bolomey 1973). Within the faunal collection located at the Institute of Archaeology “V. Parvan” in Bucharest, 109 pieces were found, of which 47 were measurable. We have plotted the maximum length of Sus astragali from the Mesolithic Iron Gates sites of Icoana and Vlasac against the Neolithic sites of Cascioarele, Divostin, and Sitagroi (figure 5). There is a clear grouping of samples from the Sitagroi and Divostin wild populations and Cascioarele and Vlasac (although for the latter site the lowest values are very close to the domestic range from Sitagroi). However, the sample from the Mesolithic site of Icoana is highly problematic because its range extends from the lowest Neolithic domestic pig values to almost the upper range of wild pigs. Could this suggest that at least part of the Mesolithic pig sample from Icoana represents domestic pigs? In order to find an answer to this question, we plotted Sus astragali from Icoana by the excavation depth ascribed to them. Surprisingly, small and large bones appear to have been present throughout the occupation of the site (figure 6).

Figure 6 (left): Size of Sus astragali from Icoana by depth; Figure 7 (right): Cervus astragalus size by depth at Icoana and Ostrovul Corbului

Page 10: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

10

If the smaller astragali are to be associated with domestic pigs, such admixture would suggest that the Mesolithic people inhabiting the Iron Gates already owned domestic pigs or at least exercised control over pigs as early as 8820-8540 BC (AA65564, one sigma, 67.2%; excavation level -1.40m) when they apparently settled at Icoana. However, if another species, Cervus elaphus (red deer) is considered as a control, a similar spread in size by depth is seen in the astragali at both Icoana and Ostrovul Corbului (figure 7). Comparing the two species, it is obvious that in both cases small and large bones appear at all depths and it may be safe to infer that such a picture is more consistent with the sex and the age of the hunted animals rather than any possible connection to human management. Some of these depths are dated very early, and arguably too early for defining a human–animal relationship other than hunting (Dinu 2007). Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult to explain why the pig astragali at the Mesolithic sites of Vlasac and Icoana do not show size ranges which are similar to each other. It is difficult to accept that at Icoana pigs of all sizes and ages were hunted, while at Vlasac only large pigs were killed. It may be that the size variation observed by El Susi (1996) may also be true in this case. Regrettably, the absence of ancient comparative material makes it impossible to conduct further investigation in this area. Bolomey (1973, 47) has also suggested the possibility of smaller animals occurring in the Mesolithic in the Iron Gates region, particularly Sus and Cervus elaphus. If this was true only for this area, it would mean that throughout time an observable increase in the size of teeth and bones would have occurred. However, the data shown for pigs and deer (figures 6 and 7) is consistent with the idea that over time there is no detectable size variability in these two species, with bones of all sizes occurring at all depths. In order to verify this alternative we have further compared the maximum length of Sus lower 3rd molar samples from different layers of excavation. Although the sample size is not very large, the result is significant (figure 8). It is shown that the various sizes are mixed at all levels suggesting that a regular pattern of variation in the lower 3rd molar length over time cannot be demonstrated. Discussion and conclusion It may be that in the case of certain species, and probably in relation to environmental circumstances, the hunter’s preferences played a significant role in the formation of the zooarchaeological record. Although generally the adult wild pig is an extremely determined and skilled fighter regardless of the sex of the animal, the meat of a younger female wild pig tends to be of better quality than that of the male and therefore constitutes a better food prize; there is also the possibility of capturing a large number of piglets. On the other hand, the tusks of the male wild boar were probably highly valued as a raw material for manufacturing tools, or perhaps as a hunting prize. It could be that the age and the sex of the Sus astragali from Icoana strongly influence the statistics. In fact, it appears that the age of the killed animals coincide with the most difficult period of the year for hunter gatherers in a continental temperate climate: the late winter and early-mid spring and the statistical representation of the pig age from Icoana (Dinu 2006) strongly suggests an intensive killing at this time of the year.

Figure 8 (left): Icoana Sus lower m3 maximum length by depth; Figure 9 (right): Maximum length and breadth of lower 3rd molar from: Antipa (l:38.62; b: 20.66), Cascioarele (l: 39.78; b: 21.07), Icoana (l: 39.70; b: 18.90), Insuratei (l: 37.23; b: 20.13), Ostrovul Banului (l: 39.17; b: 22.92).

Page 11: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

11

On the other hand, most of the domestic pigs in Romania are also killed at the same time of the year, but at an age that makes it impossible to take measurements of the 3rd molar. Therefore, the available comparative data for modern domestic pigs is limited. Even so, it appears that there is a consistency in the clusters of the values shown in the graphs above: the modern domestic and the Neolithic pig lower 3rd molar measurements do fall within the same range, and the Mesolithic Iron Gates, the modern wild, and the Neolithic wild pig values fall in a separate range. There are two other important aspects with the data presented in this study that need to be emphasised. First there is the question of whether there is domestic pig in a Mesolithic assemblage: the small size of one lower 3rd molar from the Mesolithic site of Icoana has been used to suggest that it belongs to the domestic range (Bolomey 1973), an idea also suggested by Bokonyi (1978). Most regrettably, Bolomey never published the measurements she took at any of the Iron Gates sites, therefore we do not know if she was referring to the same tooth that we measured (as presented in figure 4). In order to analyse this further, we have also compared the available length and breadth measurements of this lower 3rd molar, to teeth of similar size from the village of Insuratei (modern domestic, collected by the authors), Antipa, Cascioarele, Ostrovul Banului; only a total of five teeth could be found to be within this size range. As seen in figure 9, the tooth from Icoana is a rather odd shape: it is longer than most of the others, but the narrowest by at least 1.23mm. The uncertainty of the tooth identification excludes a definitive statement regarding its status: however, a comparative analysis suggests that the smallest tooth in the Icoana faunal collection can only be associated with wild pigs (figure 4). More intriguing is the statement from the original study that at Icoana a canid mandible was found with a second premolar in an oblique position (Bokonyi 1978: 46). We could not find anything like this in the collection at the Institute of Archaeology “V. Parvan” in Bucharest. Instead, we found a Sus mandible fragment matching the above description (figure 10), and it is our assumption that perhaps there was a miscommunication. Interestingly, Bolomey (1973) never mentioned this particular Sus mandibula fragment but Bokonyi (1978, 46) generally considers malformations as the one presented here, as evidence for incipient domestication. Because another such example could not be found in order to prove a pattern, we can only label this sample as a genetic accident. In summary, this study suggests that where the metrics of a postcranial element, the astragalus, is considered alone it may have produced confusing conclusions with regard to the process of animal domestication. Clearly, the tooth size of the Mesolithic Icoana pigs puts them in the same group as the rest of the Iron Gates ancient and modern wild pigs. On the other hand, there is a clear differentiation between the tooth size of the Mesolithic Iron Gates pigs and Neolithic ones; the latter are consistently smaller. It is also more likely that at the Iron Gates sites no size variation occurred over time in teeth and astragali; at Icoana the same values are found at all levels of excavation. This study therefore concludes that the changes in the post-cranial skeleton are less reliable in offering clues about the process of domestication, and that they should not be considered alone when analysing data concerning this process.

Figure 10. Transversal lower 2nd and 3rd molars from Icoana.

Page 12: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

12

Bibliography • Bokonyi, S. 1978. The Vertebrate Fauna of Vlasac. In M. Garasanin (ed.) Vlasac: A Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron

Gates. Beograd: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 35-65. • Bokonyi, S. 1986. Faunal Remains. In E. S. Elster (ed.) Excavations at Sitagroi. Monumenta Archaeologica, vol. 13.

Los Angeles: The Institute of Archaeology, 63-100. • Bokonyi, S 1988. The Neolithic Fauna of Divostin. In A. McPherron and S. Dragoslav (eds.) Divostin and the

Neolithic of Central Serbia. Pittsburgh: Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh. 419-446. • Bolomey, A. 1973. An Outline of the Late Epipaleolithic Economy at the Iron Gates: The Evidence of Bones. Dacia

17, 41-52. • Dinu, A. 2006. The Question of Pig Domestication at Mesolithic Iron Gates. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of

Wisconsin in Madison, Deptartment of Anthropology. • Dinu, A. 2007. Mesolithic at the Danube's Iron Gates: New Radiocarbon Dates and Old Stratigraphies. Documenta

Praehistorica 34, 31-52. • Dinu, A., D. Meiggs, A. Balasescu, A. Boroneant, D. A. Soficaru, and N. Miritoiu. 2006. On Men and Pigs: were

Pigs Domesticated at Mesolithic Iron Gates of the Danube? Part One: Teeth Metrics. Studii de Preistorie 3/2005-2006, 77-98.

• El Susi, G. 1996. Vinatori, Pescari si Crescatori de Animale in Banatul Mileniilor VI I.Ch - I D.Ch. Timisoara: Editura Mirton.

• Larson, G., K. Dobney, P. Rowley-Conwy, J. Schibler, A. Tresset, J.-D. Vigne, C. J. Edwards, A. Schlumbaum, A. Dinu, A. Balasescu, G. Dolman, D. G. Bradley, A. Cooper, and U. Abarella. 2007. Pigs, Ancient DNA and the Origins of Neolithic Farming in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 15276-15281

• Paunescu, A. 2000. Paleoliticul si Mezoliticul din Spatiul Cuprins Intre Carpati si Dunare. Bucuresti: Editura AGIR. • Rowley-Conwy, P. 1995. Making First Farmers Younger: The West European Evidence. Current Anthropology 36,

46-353. • Zeder, A. M. 2006. Archaeological Approaches to Documenting Animal Domestication. In A. M. Zeder, G. D.

Bradley, E. Emshwiller, and D. B. Smith (eds.) Documenting Domestication. New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms. Berkeley: University of California Press, 171-180.

More Burials at Zvejnieki. Preliminary results from the 2007 excavation

Liv Nilsson Stutz*, Lars Larsson* and Ilga Zagorska**

* Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University,

** Institute of Latvian History at the University of Latvia, Riga

Zvejnieki is a large Stone Age cemetery and occupation site complex located on the North Eastern side of Lake Burtnieki in Northern Latvia (figure 1). The whole area around the lake is remarkably rich in archaeological finds and sites, and has played a central role in the development of Latvian prehistoric archaeology (Zagorska 2006). The most influential research project in the area was the excavations at Zvejnieki in the 1960s and early 1970s, directed by the late Francis Zagorskis which revealed the presence of extensive settlement layers and over 300 burials, of which the great majority have been dated to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (Zagorskis 1987, 2004). During the 1990s, Ilga Zagorska at the Institute of Latvian History at the University of Latvia, Riga, and Lars Larsson at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University, initiated a research collaboration that eventually came to incorporate a number of researchers from a wide range of fields, and who contributed with their respective analyses to the understanding of the site (Larsson and Zagorska 2006). As part of this renewed research effort, a new field project, including both excavation and survey, began in 2005. Geological and palaeoecological surveys were conducted in order to reconstruct the environmental history of the site (for a more detailed description, please see Eberhards 2006, Kalnina 2006, and for an introduction to the most recent results, please see Larsson 2007). The focus of the new archaeological excavations was to better understand the relationship between the settlements and the cemetery which still remain somewhat unclear (Larsson 2007). In 2005 and 2006, several previously unexcavated areas on the Zvejnieki site were investigated in order to identify occupation layers and determine the period of use. Similarly, previously unexcavated areas within the cemetery were investigated in order to locate and excavate new burials. While the majority of the cemetery was excavated in the 1960s and 1970s, parts of it were left unexamined. One reason for this is the presence of a farmhouse on the site. This farmhouse is now gradually falling apart, and this dilapidation has opened up areas around it for excavation. In 2006, the excavations immediately to

Page 13: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

13

the north of the house revealed several features, but none of them contained any human remains. To the east of the house the excavation efforts were more successful and several burials were uncovered (see below). In 2007 the research efforts of the Lativan-Swedish project were divided into two equal parts. One team conducted an extensive trial excavation of the neighbouring site, Brauksas, where the objective was to assess the potential of this new Mesolithic site. The other team continued to excavate the remains of the cemetery at Zvejnieki. This report will focus on the results from this cemetery excavation. Since the analyses are ongoing, all results reported here must be regarded as preliminary. The excavations at the cemetery The excavations at Zvejnieki in 2007 were exclusively devoted to the cemetery remains. For the excavation of the human remains, a field protocol based on the French approach anthropologie de terrain was implemented. The approach is taphonomically based, and combines detailed observations in the field with knowledge in biology about how the human body decomposes after death. All the remains are carefully uncovered, and their exact position is mapped in detail and photographed, in order to allow for a detailed analysis of the sequences of disarticulation, disturbance etc (for a more detailed description of the approach, see Duday et al. 1990; Nilsson Stutz 2003). The goal with this approach is to account in detail for the mortuary practices, and especially the handling of the body (including how it was placed in the grave, if it was wrapped or placed in a coffin, if it was manipulated during or after decomposition, etc). All artefacts and faunal remains encountered in the features were recorded using three dimensional coordinates.

Figure 2 (left): Burials 314 and 315. The two individuals appear to have been buried in two separate episodes. The individual in grave 315, has been deposited across the individual in grave 314. This has partially damaged the older grave. Further damage to both burials was later caused by the construction of a foundation related to a house construction. Figure 3 (right): Grave 313. The body was deposited on the back with the limbs in extension. (Photographs by Liv Nilsson Stutz).

Figure 1: Zvejnieki is located on the North Eastern side of Lake Burtnieki in Northern Latvia.

Page 14: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

14

Results from the 2005 and 2006 excavation seasons The strategies for the 2007 season were based on the encouraging results from the two previous seasons. In 2005, an area of 8m by 4m was opened up east of the house. This area had previously been covered by a veranda and therefore had been inaccessible for excavation. Due to the construction of the veranda, a foundation wall cuts across the area. During this first season, the remains of two graves were encountered here. Grave 309 was disturbed and only the skull and the upper part of the thoracic cage remained. Also the second burial, grave 310, was disturbed and only the remains of the lower limbs and the pelvis were preserved. When the excavations continued in 2006, the investigation of the area was intensified and several features that could potentially be graves were identified. Two of these were distinguished by a blackish brown fill that contrasted sharply to the surrounding substrate of yellow gravel and sand. These features were carefully excavated in profile in order to document the stratigraphy. They were both rich in finds, including flint and bone artefacts, as well as fragments of fauna. On the last day of excavation in 2006, an articulated foot was found at the bottom of one of these features, but due to time restrictions, it had to be left in situ to be excavated the following season. The excavation of the other of these two features revealed no human remains and both were left to be completely excavated during the 2007 season. Two graves were found in features that could not be as easily distinguished from the surrounding substrate. They were more superficially located, and the fill was lighter in colour and more gravelly and sandy in consistency. One of them, grave 311, contained the fragmented remains of an individual placed on the back. The construction of the veranda had damaged extensive parts of the grave, and only the left side of the upper part of the body was preserved. Finally, grave 312 contained at least four individuals, three adults and one child placed close together, directed SW – NE, with the heads directed to the SW, extended on the back, and partially on top of each other (see also Larsson 2007). Due to the complications associated with the excavation of this feature, and the time constraints of the field season, only the remains of the child (teeth) and of one of the adults were extracted. The rest of the burial was documented, covered and left in situ for excavation in 2007. The excavations in 2007 The strategy for the 2007 season was initially to continue the excavation of the collective burial left in situ, and to investigate the two other features that had been partially investigated the previous year. However, when the team returned to the site we discovered that the collective grave (312) had been looted, and was almost completely destroyed. A few remains were found in situ, but the damage was extensive and a thorough osteological analysis will be required to confirm the exact number of individuals present in the burial. More burials were found as the remainder of the area was cleared. Close to the wall of separation between the trenches the remains of two individuals were found in greyish sandy sediment that contrasted against the sandy gravel substrate (figure 2). The preliminary taphonomic analysis indicates that the two individuals were buried in two separate episodes. The individual buried in grave 314 was lying N-S, with the head to the north, in extension on the back with a slight rotation to the left of the upper part of the body. The foundation of the veranda has cut across the mid section of the body and evacuated and/or destroyed the bones in that region. Further to the south, the distal parts of the femora, the tibiae and fibulae and the feet were excavated in the position that confirms that the body was placed in extension. Moreover, despite the partially very disturbed remains, the perfect articulation of the remaining bones (including for example the cervical vertebrae which are maintained in position by relatively unstable articulations, and the bones of the feet) indicates that the deposit was primary. The individual buried in grave 315 was lying across the individual in grave 314, placed WSW-ENE with the legs to the ENE, slightly diagonally across the upper part of the body. This individual was fragmentary. The remains present were limited to a couple of disarticulated ribs and vertebrae, the articulated left radius, left ulna, left hand, distal part of the left femur, both tibiae, fibulae and feet. The absence of the considerable amount of bones can probably be explained by disturbance relating to the construction of the veranda. The maintenance of the articulations of the hand and the two feet, along with their overall position, indicates that the deposit was primary, and that the body was placed on the back with the limbs in extension. The proximity to the individual in grave 314 is interesting. As mentioned above, it appears as if the two bodies were buried in two separate episodes. Further analyses will be devoted to this question, but it is possible that the disturbance of the right part of the upper part of the body of the individual in grave 314 was the result of disturbance related to the burial of the individual in grave 315, rather than the wall construction. This in turn would mean that the individual in grave 315 was deposited after the individual in grave 314, and at a point when this latter individual was at least in an advanced stage of decomposition which would render the bones susceptible to this kind of disturbance.

Page 15: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

15

Four more individuals were found in the two features that were partially excavated in 2006. Grave 313 (figure 3) contained an undisturbed and complete skeleton of an individual placed N-S, with the head directed to the south, and on the back with the limbs in extension. The maintained labile articulations of hands and feet clearly indicate that the deposit was primary. The body was placed on the bottom of a deep pit (50 cm). A couple of animal bone fragments were placed in close proximity to the body and could potentially be intentional depositions. Finally, the remains of three individuals (graves 316, 317, 318) were encountered in the second dark feature. At the bottom of the deep feature, the remains of two adult individuals were encountered lying side by side, directed E-W, with their heads to the east, and on the back with the limbs in extension (figure 4). Unfortunately the burial extended further west and in under the farmhouse and it could not be fully excavated this season. Only the upper half of the burial (the remains of the upper part of the bodies) has therefore been documented this year. The aim is to return in 2008 and complete the excavation. Both individuals were covered in ochre around the entire upper part of the body, and they were buried with a significant amount of amber. The northernmost individual, 316, had two amber rings of approximately 8 cm in diameter placed in the vicinity of the left shoulder. This individual also had what appears to be a belt of perforated amber beads across the pelvis (figure 5). Smaller amber beads were found in the direct proximity of the skulls of both individuals. With a total number of 41 amber pieces, containing both large oval elongated pendants and large pendants of irregular form, both shapes perforated with one or two holes for fastening, and smaller oval pendants, this makes this burial one of the richest in amber from this period and compares to other burials which were extremely rich in amber found at Zvejnieki (grave 212 with 57 pieces and grave 221 with 56 pieces). The presence of the unique large amber rings makes the finding very noteworthy. The preliminary taphonomic analysis indicates that at least one of the two individuals (317) was rather tightly wrapped in some kind of material at the time of burial. This phenomenon has been noted at several burials at the site (Nilsson Stutz 2006). A closer examination is needed to confirm the hypothesis. When excavating this feature, several isolated human bones were encountered, including several disarticulated vertebrae and a more or less articulated right forearm and hand. The articulated remains of the forearm were encountered, in the northern end of the feature. A right humerus was encountered adjacent to these bones, but it was disarticulated. The relative articulation of the bones of the forearm and parts of the hand indicates a primary deposit, an interpretation that would exclude that these human remains were simply part of the fill taken from the surrounding cemetery and used for this burial. Moreover, these bones do not belong to any of the two individuals buried further down in the feature (316 and 317) since the parts of the skeletons excavated were complete. Instead these remains could be those of a third individual, grave 318, buried prior to the burial of individuals 316 and 317. The stratigraphy of the filling of the feature could indicate that a more superficial feature was disturbed, as the deeper grave for the two individuals was dug. A full excavation of the feature and an analysis of all human remains in the feature are required to confirm this hypothesis. Summary of the results The results from the excavations at the Zvejnieki cemetery in 2007 are very interesting and promising. By now, the remains of a total number of 13 individuals have been excavated since 2005 (the exact number might be adjusted as the osteological analysis is carried out). The implementation of new methodologies (including anthropologie de terrain and micro-stratigraphy of the features) in the field is also very promising, and it will be interesting to evaluate the results. The preliminary analysis of the contents of the fill of the features, very rich in bone fragments and flint, indicates that the fill of the burial was taken from the cultural layers at the site. Moreover, the spectacular finds made this year (especially graves 316 and 317) indicates that this rich site still has a lot to offer in terms of insight into Mesolithic mortuary practices. For the future we hope that we will be able to investigate previously unexamined parts of the settlement areas as well as a continuation of the excavation of the cemetery.

Page 16: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

16

Figure 4 (left): Graves 316 and 317. The two individuals were deposited side by side and surrounded by ochre. Two large amber rings are deposited in the area of the left shoulder of individual 316. The bi-lateral pressure around the upper part of individual 317 indicates that this body was wrapped at the time of burial. (Photograph by Liv Nilsson Stutz). Figure 5 (right): Detail of the “amber belt” in the pelvic area of individual 316. For preservation reasons, the amber was lifted immediately after excavation (and this explains why it was no longer in situ when the picture in figure 4 was taken). (Photograph by Lars Larsson). Bibliography • Duday, H., Courtaud, P., Crubézy, E., Sellier, P., Tillier, A.-M. 1990. L’Anthropologie “de terrain”: reconnaissance et interprétation des gestes funéraires. In E. Crubézy, Duday, H., Sellier, P., Tillier, A.-M. (eds.) Anthropologie et Archéologie : Dialogue sur les ensembles funéraires. Bull. et Mém. de la Soc.D’Anthrop. de Paris. n.s., t.2, no. 3-4, 29-50. • Eberhards, G. 2006. Geology and the Development of the paleolake Burtnieks during the Late Glacial and Holocene. In: L. Larsson & Zagorska, I. (ed.) Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°, No. 52, pp: 25-51. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International. • Kalnina, L. 2006. Paleovegetation and human impact in the surroundings of the ancient Burtnieks lake as reconstructed from pollen analysis. In: L. Larsson & Zagorska, I. (ed.) Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°, No. 52, pp: 53-73. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International. • Larsson, L. 2007. Research at Zvejnieki, Northern Latvia. A preliminary report. Mesolithic Miscellany 18:1, 15-16. • Larsson, L. & Zagorska, I. 2006. (ed.) Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°, No. 52. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International. • Nilsson Stutz, L. 2003. Embodied Rituals and Ritualized Bodied. Tracing ritual practices in late Mesolithic burials. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, series in 8º, no 46. Lund: Almqvist and Wiksell International. • Nilsson Stutz, L. 2006. Unwrapping the dead. Searching for evidence of wrappings in the mortuary practices at Zvejnieki. In: L. Larsson & Zagorska, I. (ed.) Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°, No. 52, pp: 217-233. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International. • Zagorska, I. 2006. The history of research on the Zvejnieki site. In: L. Larsson & Zagorska, I. (ed.) Back to the Origin. New research in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Zvejnieki cemetery and environment, Northern Latvia. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8°, No. 52, pp: 5-24. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International. • Zagorskis, F. 1987. Zvejnieku akmens laikmeta kapulauks. Riga. • Zagorskis, F. 2004. Zvejnieki (N Latvia) Stone Age Cemetery. BAR International Series 1292. Oxford.

Page 17: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

17

The Adoption of Agriculture in Ireland: a point in time review, and towards national research priorities

Graeme Warren, UCD President’s Research Fellow 2007 – 2008

UCD School of Archaeology, K006, Newman Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland, [email protected] Project webpage: http://www.ucd.ie/archaeology/research/schoolresearch/adoptionofagricultureinireland/

The adoption of agriculture (the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition) is a key revolution in human history, and one of the most dynamic areas of archaeological research including environmental, genetic and linguistic material in addition to archaeological data. In Ireland, the latter includes substantial evidence recovered through development-led archaeological processes. At a European level Ireland has much to contribute to understandings of the adoption of agriculture, for example as an island with a limited terrestrial fauna and flora and with an idiosyncratic later mesolithic stone tool technology. Existing reviews of the transition in Ireland (c. 4000 BC) highlight key patterns but, in a context of a rapidly changing field, require development. The 2007 Review of Research Needs in Irish Archaeology developed by the Heritage Council (http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/Research_Needs/index.html), include the ‘Beginnings of Agriculture’ as a key national priority and a critical synthesis of the current state of knowledge across the broad spectrum of researchers is urgently required to realise the potential of this topic. This brief note outlines a new project, hosted in the UCD School of Archaeology, which seeks to provide a point in time review of the adoption of agriculture and to identify key research problems for the future. The project is enabled by a UCD President’s Research Fellowship; a one year research sabbatical. In the course of this year, I am conducting interviews with researchers in archaeology and other disciplines (genetics, palaeoenvironmental studies) in Ireland and overseas. Interviews have been sought with nearly 100 researchers. Within Ireland, this includes commercial archaeological companies and national archaeological institutions. Individuals from overseas provide invaluable broader contexts, ensuring that priorities generated in Ireland are truly at the international cutting edge. All data arising from these interviews will be analysed using recognised consensus building techniques and will form the basis for the creation of a provisional research strategy. One of the key, recognised, weaknesses of consensus building exercises is that those who dislike the conclusions attack the representativeness of the methods. In order to transcend this problem a rigorous methodology is applied here: a report is generated on each interview and is returned to the interviewee: only once they have signed off on the report as an accurate representation of their views is the information used in the final collation phase. The provisional document will be pre-circulated to all interested parties in advance of a seminar with international discussants, to be hosted at UCD May 17th 2008. Discussion at this seminar and invited comment on drafts will feed back into the publication of research priorities. All are welcome to the seminar, further details of which are available on the project web pages. Key questions that the project assesses include: • What is the current state of knowledge of the adoption of agriculture in Ireland? • How does this compare to other regions of Europe? • What have been the key developments in mesolithic – neolithic studies in the last 20 years? • What are the strengths and weaknesses of research into the transition? • What are the key questions for research in Ireland over the next 20 years? • Is it possible to establish priorities in this regard? • To what extent does the fragmentation of contemporary archaeological practice impact on our

understanding of this process? How might this be remedied? • Who are the key national and international partners in developing the field? Further information is available on the project web pages or by contacting Graeme. I would like to warmly invite all colleagues to contribute to the process of consensus building. Acknowledgements This project is enabled by a UCD President’s Research Fellowship. The Humanities Institute of Ireland have provided office facilities and the UCD School of Archaeology provides support in kind. Most thanks, however, go to the many individuals who are giving up their time to answer my questions: a better demonstration of intellectual generosity could not be asked for.

Page 18: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

18

Publications I have included details of a number of papers published over the last year (listed in alphabetical order). This is not an exhaustive list, and I would be very pleased to receive references and abstracts for other recent articles (published in 2007 or 2008) for the next edition of Mesolithic Miscellany. • A. Fischer, M. Richards, J. Olsen, D. E. Robinson, P. Bennike, L. Kubiak-Martens and J. Heinemeier (2007) The composition of Mesolithic food – evidence from a submerged settlement on the Argus Bank, Denmark. Acta Archaeologica 78 (2) 2007:163-178. Abstract: Well preserved food remains from a submerged settlement on the Argus Bank bear witness to the human consumption of fish, game, nuts and fruit. δ15N data derived from the bones of the inhabitants show that aquatic food was the dominant source of their dietary protein. The δ13C measurements demonstrate that much of this protein derived from marine animals, probably high trophic level fish. The isotopic data also imply that the two children represented in the analyses were predominantly breast-fed up to the age of 2-3 years. In addition these data indicate that an adult female consumed more marine protein than two males, while a dog consumed food of a lower trophic level than the humans. • Anders Fischer, Jesper Olsen, Mike Richards, Jan Heinemeier, Árny E. Sveinbjörnsdóttir and Pia Bennike (2007) Coast–inland mobility and diet in the Danish Mesolithic and Neolithic: evidence from stable isotope values of humans and dogs Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 2125-2150. Abstract: Here we present the stable isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen measured in bone collagen extracted from humans, dogs, herbivores and fish from Mesolithic and Neolithic coastal and inland sites in Denmark. Bones of freshwater fish from several Early Mesolithic lake-side sites have δ13C values surprisingly similar to those seen in marine fish. We propose a model, based on δ13C and δ15N, for the correction for both marine and hard water reservoir effect in radiocarbon dates. A strong reliance on aquatic protein is demonstrated for the Mesolithic inhabitants of the region from the middle of the Early Mesolithic onwards. A significant part of the protein in the diets of the dogs and humans from the Middle and Late Mesolithic was of marine origin, even at inland sites. This observation points to a high degree of (seasonal) coast-inland mobility. The isotopic evidence indicates that during the Neolithic small quantities of aquatic foods were still common sources of dietary protein. • M. A. Mannino, K. D. Thomas, M. J. Leng, M. Piperno, S. Tusa, A. Tagliacozzo (2007) Marine resources in the Mesolithic and Neolithic at the Grotta dell'Uzzo (Sicily): evidence from isotope analyses of marine shells, Archaeometry 49 (1) , 117–133. Abstract: Oxygen isotopes in shell carbonate samples from the marine rocky-shore intertidal gastropod Monodonta turbinata (Born) are investigated in both modern analogue specimens and in archaeological specimens from the Grotta dell’Uzzo (Sicily). Variations in shell edge values of δ18O in living specimens collected monthly over two years are closely correlated with monthly seawater temperatures measured at the time of collection, showing that the species can be used for palaeoseasonality studies. Analyses of shell edge δ18O values in archaeological specimens, from Mesolithic through to early Neolithic phases at the Grotta dell’Uzzo, enabled the inference of various seasons of collection of shellfish and how such seasonality varies between the different phases of occupation. Interesting similarities and differences exist between the seasons of marine shellfish exploitation and the seasons inferred from the vertebrate zooarchaeological assemblages. A major inference drawn from the analyses and discussion is that the exploitation of all marine resources (fish and shellfish) increased in the later Mesolithic and early Neolithic periods.

Page 19: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

19

• Lesley McFadyen (2007) Mobile spaces of Mesolithic Britain, Home Cultures vol 4, 117-128.

Abstract: This article examines how spaces were being made during the Mesolithic of Britain. Rather than focus upon material culture and landscape as separate analytical constructs, it demonstrates instead how they intersect and in so doing give rise to an understanding of space that is mobile and rendered through force. In investigating this the author asks whether objects not carried around by the occupants of Mesolithic Britain should be regarded as discarded (as has traditionally been the case), or should be seen as an ongoing and active component of how people make themselves at home. She goes on to suggest that people left things behind in the Mesolithic in order to create the possibility for future connections, making these objects anything but 'homeless'.

• M. McQuade and L. O’Donnell (2007) Late Mesolithic fish traps from the Liffey estuary, Dublin, Ireland, Antiquity, 81, 569-584. Abstract: An opportunity to investigate in advance of new construction led to the discovery of five Mesolithic hazel fish traps some 6.3m below mean sea level in the River Liffey. Closely paralleled on the continent of Europe they imply a well organised community that knew how to catch fish using the tide to make wattle-work and baskets and who undertook coppicing on an eight year cycle in about 6100-5700 cal BC. The likelihood of more Mesolithic remains under European towns that have remained attractive to fishers and settlers has considerable implications for Cultural Resources Management. Do we always know how to find and access such delicate and important traces? • Rick J. Schulting, Stella M. Blockley, Hervé Bocherens, Dorothée Drucker and Mike Richards (2008) Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis on human remains from the Early Mesolithic site of La Vergne (Charente-Maritime, France), Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 763-772. Abstract: We report here the results of stable carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis of human and faunal remains from La Vergne (Charente-Maritime, western France), a rare Early Mesolithic burial site (ca. 8500–8000 cal BC). The results for nine humans (average δ13C = −19.3‰; δ15N = 9.4‰) indicate a strongly terrestrial diet, dominated by animal protein, with the possibility of, at best, a slight contribution of marine-derived protein. Given lower sea-levels in the early Holocene, the site would have been some 60–80 km from the sea at the time of its use; nevertheless, contacts with the coast are shown by the presence of numerous marine shell beads in the graves. In the light of the stable isotope results, it is suggested here that such contacts most likely took the form of exchange with coastal communities whose remains now lie underwater. • Stephan Shennan and Kevan Edinborough (2007) Prehistoric population history: from the Late Glacial to the Late Neolithic in Central and Northern Europe, Journal of Archaeological Science 34 (8), 1339-1345.

Abstract: Summed probability distributions of radiocarbon dates are used to make inferences about the history of population fluctuations from the Mesolithic to the late Neolithic for three countries in central and northern Europe: Germany, Poland and Denmark. Two different methods of summing the dates produce very similar overall patterns. The validity of the aggregate patterns is supported by a number of regional studies based on other lines of evidence. The dramatic rise in population associated with the arrival of farming in these areas that is visible in the date distributions is not surprising. Much more unexpected are the fluctuations during the course of the Neolithic, and especially the indications of a drop in population at the end of the LBK early Neolithic that lasted for nearly a millennium. Possible reasons for the pattern are discussed. • Olena V. Smyntyna (2007) Late Mesolithic of the Ukrainian part of the Lower Danube region: New perspectives of human adaptation and interpretation of natural environments, Quaternary International vol. 167-168, 114-120. Abstract: Colonization of Ukrainian part of Lower Danube began in the interval 7.5–7.0 ka BP, when the regional landscape was mesophilous meadow steppe. Forest plots with small percentages of deciduous vegetation were present in river valleys, temporary estuaries, and on ridges. The faunal complex was

Page 20: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

20

dominated by aurochs, red deer, and wild boar. High biomass density, combined with the fact that the region had not been intensively explored previously, allowed relatively stable forms of human adaptation. This is illustrated by the presence of the base camp Mirnoe, the seasonal settlements Zaliznychne and Vasylivka, which display diverse forms of livelihood activity, and by the distinctive pattern of site distribution pattern. In this context, the beginning of auroch domestication in this region is conceptualized not so much as an adaptive response to subsistence source base shortage, but rather as a phenomenon caused, together with joint exploitation of the same settlement area, by resource spatial distribution. • Willy Tinner, Ebbe H. Nielsen and André F. Lotter (2007) Mesolithic agriculture in Switzerland? A critical review of the evidence, Quaternary Science Reviews 26, Issues 9-10, 1416-1431. Abstract: Accumulating palaeobotanical evidence points to agricultural activity in Central Europe well before the onset of the Neolithic, commonly dated at ca 5500–5200 cal BC. We reinvestigated an existing pollen profile from Soppensee with refined taxonomical resolution by further subdividing the Cerealia pollen type into Triticum t. and Avena t. because the sediments at this site currently provide the highest temporal resolution and precision for the period of interest among all sites in Switzerland. Our new results are in agreement with previous high-resolution investigations from Switzerland showing scattered but consistent presence of pollen of Cerealia, Plantago lanceolata, and other cultural plants or weeds during the late Mesolithic period (6700–5500 cal BC). Chronologically, this palynological evidence for sporadic agricultural activities coincides with a major break in material culture at ca 6700 cal BC (i.e. the transition from early to late Mesolithic). Here, we review possible arguments against palaeobotanical evidences of Mesolithic agriculture (e.g. chronological uncertainties, misidentification, contamination, long-distance transport) and conclude that none of these can explain the consistent pollen pattern observed at several sites. The palynological evidence can, of course, not prove the existence of pre-ceramic agriculture in Central Europe. However, it is so coherent that this topic should be addressed by systematic archaeobotanical analyses in future archaeological studies. If our interpretation should turn out to be true, our conclusions would have fundamental implications for the Neolithic history of Europe. Currently, it is intensely debated whether Central European agriculture developed locally under the influence of incoming ideas from areas where Neolithic farming had already developed earlier (e.g. southeastern Europe) or whether it was introduced by immigrating farmers. On the basis of our results, we suggest that agriculture developed locally throughout the late Mesolithic and Neolithic. Mesolithic trading networks connecting Southern and Central Europe also support the hypothesis of a slow and gradual change towards sessile agriculture, probably as a result of incoming ideas and regional cultural transformation. • Tim van der Schriek, David Passmore, Anthony Stevenson, Jose Rolao (2007) The palaeogeography of Mesolithic settlement-subsistence and shell midden formation in the Muge valley, Lower Tagus Basin, Portugal, The Holocene, 17, 369-385. Abstract: This paper reports the first detailed palaeogeographical analysis of the environmental context of late Mesolithic shell midden sites in the lower Tagus area and focuses on the lower Muge valley, which contains an internationally significant Mesolithic record. The lower Muge valley fill comprises buried estuarine and fluvial environments contemporary with Mesolithic settlement. Holocene environmental and palaeogeographic changes influenced Mesolithic settlement-subsistence and midden accumulation. The

sudden appearance of large late Mesolithic shell middens throughout Portugal represents a process of increased visibility and preferential preservation of the archaeological record. Prior to ~6100 cal. BC, aggrading valley floor environments did not occupy the entire width of the present lower Tagus floodplain and any sites located in the early Holocene valley are currently deeply buried. Shell midden occupation on terrace levels followed the establishment of aggrading estuarine environments, containing productive shell

beds, near the mouth of the lower Muge valley at ~6100 cal. BC. The critical factors in site choice appear to have been the nearby presence of (i) rich shell resources and (ii) freshwater environments. Long-term site occupation and (semi-)sedentary behaviour was favoured by the local presence, for over 2000 years, of rich resources from estuarine, freshwater and open woodland environments. Site abandonment (~5300—4800 cal. BC) coincided with the regional establishment of an open landscape (~5000 cal. BC) and the contraction of local estuarine environments (~5555—3800 cal. BC). The associated gradual decrease in resources and cultural interaction with the expanding early Neolithic communities may have influenced Mesolithic site abandonment.

Page 21: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

21

• Mapping Doggerland. The Mesolithic Landscapes of the Southern North Sea, edited by Vincent Gaffney, Kenneth Thomson, and Simon Fitch, (2007) Oxford: Archaeopress ISBN: 9781905739141, paperback £19.99 xii+131 pages; illustrated in colour and black and white “12,000 years ago the area that now forms the southern North Sea was dry land: a vast plain populated by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. By 5,500 BC the entire area had disappeared beneath the sea as a consequence of rising sea levels. Until now, this unique landscape remained hidden from view and almost entirely unknown.” This book is the result of an amazing study of the southern part of the North Sea which utilised 3D seismic data, provided by Petroleum Geo-Services, to map 23,000 km² of this “lost world”. The book starts by providing an outline of previous methodological approaches before explaining the methodology used here including the co-ordination of the marine survey data sources, an account of how the data sets were selected, the interpretation strategy (at Birmingham University the team can inspect the data on a powerwall using 3D glasses - see figure below - well worth a go if you ever get the chance!), and how the area was mapped digitally. The information in these initial chapters is very detailed and presents a fascinating insight into the development of the research design and the strategies employed. Following on from this, several chapters explain how the geomorphology is investigated and how features are interpreted; in chapter 7 an “atlas” of the palaeolandscapes is presented, which includes maps of palaeochannels; and chapter 8 outlines the potential for environmental reconstruction through borehole sediment data. The concluding chapter brings the data together and discusses the archaeology of the palaeolandscapes, opportunities for future research and threat mapping. The book is full of data which takes some time to work through, but it is very clearly presented and well explained. The project is incredible because of the sheer scale of the area covered, the speed at which the project has been completed and published and consequently the new information that this provides for archaeologists interested in this submerged landscape: “In comparison to the situation described by Flemming, a mere 3 years ago, the North Sea is no longer terra incognita” (pg. 108). They state that this project has demonstrated the potential of marine, remote sensed data for the exploration of the inundated Holocene land surfaces of the North Sea but clearly feel that there is more work to be done in new areas, as well as refine the work they have done by the integration of further data sets. The project team should be congratulated on revolutionising the way in which we can now study submerged landscapes in such a short space of time. This project was funded by the Marine Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund. Let’s hope that further funding will come their way so that their ambitions for future work can be realised. Finally it should be noted that one of the editors and lead researchers, Dr Kenneth Thomson, sadly died last year. The book has been dedicated to him. Further information can be found on the website: http://www.iaa.bham.ac.uk/research/fieldwork_research_themes/projects/North_Sea_Palaeolandscapes/index.htm

Cover of book and the HP Vista Centre Powerwall being used for seismic interpretation.

Page 22: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

22

• Prehistoric coastal communities: The Mesolithic of western Britain, edited by Martin Bell (2007), Council for British Archaeology: CBA Research Report 149, ISBN 1 902771 64 8, paperback, £40 60 ills, 250pp (http://www.britarch.ac.uk/pubs/latest.html) This volume provides a new perspective on the Mesolithic period, c. 6000-3000 cal BC in western Britain. Detailed evidence is presented from two main case study areas: the Severn Estuary and the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic shell middens in the Prestatyn area of north Wales. In both cases there is a particular emphasis on the use of a range of sources of palaeoenvironmental evidence to reconstruct the nature and context of human activity. The book starts off with a chapter by Martin Bell on the Mesolithic and Neolithic in the coastal zone of western Britain. This provides a thorough introduction to the study area with very detailed maps of all the sites, submerged forests and intertidal peats, and accounts of the history of research, explanations of the sediments, sea level change, dating of the forests, and an outline of the current research questions for the Mesolithic and the transition to the Neolithic. The first part of the book (18 chapters written by a number of specialists) studies a complex of Mesolithic sites at Goldcliff in the Severn Estuary. These lay around a former island which was surrounded first by forest and later by a highly dynamic wetland. These chapters set out an extraordinary wealth of information which is impossible to summarise here. Flint, worked wood, bone and antler tools have all been found and fully analysed. Perhaps the most well known discovery has been the Mesolithic footprints of both humans and animals. These are remarkable, perhaps because they provide a particularly tangible link with people and animals in the past. What is also notable is the wealth of information that can be ascertained from these hundreds of footprints: this includes the way in which children and adults were using these areas – some possible deer tracking, and children possibly playing in the mud; as well as the identification of crane from bird prints, which is interesting because this species is no longer resident in the UK. Another usual discovery is the possible identification of a human defecation area on the periphery of one of the sites, through the analysis of human intestinal parasites found during pollen analysis. As Martin Bell suggests, this “cast(s) new light on defecation practice in prehistory, a topic which is largely unconsidered, at least in a north-west European context.” (pg 225). The topic is important because of health implications and the human social use of space. In chapter 18, Martin Bell sums up all the evidence and paints a convincing picture of Mesolithic life in this area. Chapter 19 goes on to examine Mesolithic and Neolithic human activity and impact in the wider context of the Severn estuary. The book then moves on to study the shell middens at Prestatyn, north Wales. Again this is a comprehensive analysis of the data from the sites followed by a broader discussion of settlement patterns, diet and the Mesolithic Neolithic transition. The inclusion of this report on the shell middens is of great value to British Mesolithic studies because such sites are poorly represented in the archaeological record. The final concluding chapter on Mesolithic coastal communities in western Britain brings the key themes together. It

explores ecodynamism, fire and human agency, axes of movement, territory and patterns of movement, seasonality, islands and change. It also challenges an evolutionary model for the Mesolithic and examines the evidence for the transition to the Neolithic. This is a fantastic book with a wealth of detail and engaging interpretation. It is an exemplary palaeoenvironmental study and a must for anyone who is interested in Mesolithic life at the coast.

Figures show the cover of the book and some of the footprints found at Goldcliff

Page 23: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

23

• Mesolithic settlement in the North Sea Basin. A case study from Howick, North-East England, (2007), Oxford: Oxbow books, ISBN: 978 1 84217 246 9, hardback, £20

An indication of Mesolithic occupation at Howick was discovered on separate occasions by two amateur archaeologists, who each found flints eroding out of the cliff edge. This led to the excavation of a small test pit, followed by geophysics and then a full excavation season in 2000. In 2002 another excavation season was mounted to record in full all archaeological remains that were in danger of further erosion. I should mention that I was one of the co-directors of the project and so perhaps am biased, but the results of these excavations are exciting in that they have revealed a structure which has been shown to have been used for several generations: a rare occurrence for British Mesolithic archaeology. The edited volume details the findings. It starts with chapters on the field methodology (geophysics, fieldwalking, test pits, and excavation); it then

covers dating, stone tools and residue and use-wear analysis; this is followed by the palaeoenvironmental analysis (faunal and floral remains and a full study of the geomorphology and pollen); experimental reconstruction of the structure which has been carried out twice; and finally there are two chapters which discuss the interpretation and the wider North Sea context. One of the areas that I think should be highlighted here is the dating, carried out by Alex Bayliss (English Heritage). A Bayesian approach was taken, which is a mathematical modelling technique that combines the radiocarbon dates with the stratigraphic sequence. Three structures had been constructed on the site, all on the same footprint, with no evidence to indicate a gap between occupations. Within the centre of the structure were a series of hearths with burnt sand and charred hazelnut shells in situ. The hazelnut shells in stratigraphic sequence were dated and it was determined that the structure was constructed c. 7850 cal. BC and abandonment probably took place around 7650 cal. BC, indicating generations of occupation. The dating has also meant that the lithic material is securely dated. The lithics are classic narrow-blade industry, with scalene triangles being predominant and the dates suggests an earlier start for this type of industry than previously thought. The experimental reconstructions are also worth a mention. The first reconstruction happened because the chance arose as part of a BBC programme “Meet the Ancestors” when Howick was dubbed “Britain’s Oldest House”. The second was built two years later on the actual site itself and provided further opportunity to experiment with construction. This second house is felt to be the more faithful of the two (see images below). Both were based on the excavated evidence which included a sunken-floored pit, an internal ring of vertical timber supports, and a series of roofing poles. What is most important is that the constructions have prompted much discussion about how the hut may have been constructed and then maintained over such a long period of time. Overall, this book presents some rare and interesting insights into Mesolithic structures. The discussion which raises many issues concerning the permanence of structures, and the reasons for constructing them in the 8th millennium BC, will attract much debate for years to come.

Construction 1: thatched roof Construction 2: more upright, and turf was used for roofing

Page 24: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

24

• Mesolithic Studies in the North Sea Basin and Beyond. Proceedings of a Conference held at Newcastle in 2003. Edited by Clive Waddington and Kristian Pedersen (2007) Oxford: Oxbow books, ISBN: 978 1 84217 224 7, hardback £48

The volume originated out of a day conference conceived by Kristian Pedersen and held at Newcastle University. It followed the excavations at Howick and was used as a forum for discussing recent finds and Mesolithic research from countries surrounding the North Sea basin. With a series of new settlement sites appearing and a developing interest in the North Sea as a hub of Mesolithic settlement and interaction it was thought important to bring this new information together in a volume following the conference. This volume is also intended as a “useful sister volume” to the Howick monograph (see above). Overall, there are 16 papers which cover a number of themes: setting the scene, off-shore archaeology, settlement, and themes and perspectives.

The volume starts with a short introduction by Clive Waddington and Kristian Pedersen which considers the North Sea basin, how it has sometimes been considered a barrier, and the dynamic environment during the Mesolithic period. The setting the scene chapters elaborate on this further: Geoff Bailey describes the palaeogeography of the North Sea Basin and discusses sea level change and time depth; Adrian Osler takes a rather brief look at the North Sea from the perspective of a later period (AD 1300-1900) and considers seafaring and the sea as a highway; and Rob Young provides a very useful and thorough review of research on the coastal Mesolithic of North-East England. The second theme, that of off-shore archaeology, begins with a paper by Morten Engen and Penny Spikins on “A needle in a haystack” and the use of predictive modelling, limitations and challenges, in prospecting for submerged Mesolithic sites. It is argued that such methods may be crucial in the search for such sites. The following paper by Garry Momber presents some very exciting finds for British Archaeology: with a great deal of time and effort Garry has discovered submerged Mesolithic sites in the Solent (South England). There are seven papers in the settlement section: three Mesolithic sites in Eastern middle Sweden (Mats Larsson); a Mesolithic structure at East Barns, Scotland (John Gooder); two post-circles at Elgin, Scotland (Ian Suddaby); South Haw, an upland Mesolithic site (Richard Chatterton); Mesolithic activity at Hawkcombe Head, Somerset (Paula Gardiner); a Mesolithic house at Savecock, Cornwall (Jacqui Wood); and rethinking Mesolithic settlement and the structure at Howick (Clive Waddington). Overall, these papers provide a great deal of new and valuable data and information concerning settlement and structures in the Mesolithic. The structure at East Barns is particularly fascinating because it is so similar to Howick in form, content, and date, and is only 60km to the north of Howick. Waddington explores what appears to be an increase in the occurrence of Mesolithic structures in the 8th millennium (also Mount Sandal and Broom Hill) further in his paper and suggests an increase in settlement complexity and permanency emerging at this time. The paper on South Haw, presents another fascinating site which was first discovered by collectors and more recently has been researched by Richard Chatterton. It is particularly interesting because it is a rare example of a late Mesolithic site, with dates that span the “transition”. The final section on themes and perspectives includes a very detailed paper on territorial structure in southern Norway by Torben Bjarke Ballin using models of territoriality, social networks and techno-complexes. The two papers that follow have a very different flavour to all those preceding them: the first by Graeme Warren takes a critical look at what may be meant by the term “culture” and the construction of identity using the Mesolithic archaeology of Eastern Scotland; and the final paper titled “A post-processual flight of fancy?” by Amelia Pannett discusses a number of sites in Caithness, Scotland, and proposes an interpretation that focuses not on the economic or functional aspects of microlith production but on the symbolic significance of their manufacture and their locales chosen for such activities. Some of the papers are rather short, whereas others provide great detail (the paper by Bjarke Ballin even contains a thorough appendix) but overall there is no doubt that the book provides a significant amount of new data concerned with Mesolithic settlement around the North Sea. There are also varying degrees of interpretation throughout. However, the papers by Waddington, Warren and Pannett particularly provide some very interesting ideas and perspectives, which engendered much debate on the day of the conference (hence Pannett’s title) and no doubt will continue to provoke further discussion in the future.

Page 25: Alexandru Dinu Mesolithic and Neolithic Pigs of the Northern Balkans Astragali vs. Teeth as Markers of Domestication

MM 19:1

ISSN 0259-3548

25

Miscellany

Northern Hunter Gatherer Discussion Forum http://hgdiscussionforum.googlepages.com/home The Northern Hunter-Gatherer discussion forum was begun in 2005 with the aim of providing a regular informal and relaxed forum in which new research and new theoretical perspectives on prehistoric hunter-gatherers can be discussed and debated. The forum is designed to promote discussion and to help develop and foster links between those whose research addresses prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Next meetings: June 20th, University of York, October 2008, University of Manchester. See website for further details Want to do a Masters in Mesolithic Studies? http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/gsp/publicity/mesolithicdet.htm The course provides a background to European Mesolithic studies, exploring the ways in which the Mesolithic has been interpreted from the 19th century, up to the present day. It also explores key topics such as technology, consumption practices, death and burial, plants and animals and settlement, drawing on the research that is carried out in the Archaeology department at the University of York. There are a number of fieldtrips, hands-on practicals such as flint knapping, and opportunities to join research projects and excavations. Join the prehistoric society! http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/ Originally founded as the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia in 1908, the current name was established in 1935. The Prehistoric Society now has an international membership of around 2000 members. The Prehistoric Society's interests are world wide and extend from the earliest human origins to the emergence of written records. Membership is open to all, and includes professional, amateur, student and retired members from over 40 countries. An active programme of events including lectures, study tours, research weekends and receptions allows members to participate fully in the Society and to meet other members and interested parties. The Society produces two publications: the annual journal, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society and the topical newsletter, PAST , which is published in April, July and November. Annual Research, Conference and Student Travel Awards are available to members to enable excavations, research, visits to conferences and travel abroad to sites and museums. Ordinary rate £35, Student rate £17.50, see website for more details

Contributing to the next volume

Please send information on research, recent excavations, book reviews, conference summaries, radiocarbon dates, announcements, recent publications, PhD summaries etc. Deadline 1st October 2008. Please send contributions to [email protected]. Further details on http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/Mesolithic/index.htm If you would like to be informed when the latest issue of MM is published and you are not already on the mailing list, please send an email with the topic <subscribe> to the above email address. If you wish to be removed from the mailing list please send an email with the topic <unsubscribe>. This publication is free of charge.