Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98 (2 volumes).

Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98 (2 volumes). STEVEN MITHEN (ed.). Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology: theSouthern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988-98 (2 volumes). xlii+651pages, 297 figures, 177 tables. 2000. Cambridge: McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research is a research institute of the University of Cambridge in England. HistoryThe Institute was established in 1990 through a generous benefaction from the late Dr D. M. McDonald, a well-known and successful industrialist. ; 1-902937-06-6 (1-902937-07-4 (Vol. 1),1-902937-11-2 (Vol. 2)) hard-back 88 [pounds sterling]. Between 1988 and 1995 Dr (now Professor) Steven Mithen mounted amajor campaign of fieldwork and research to investigate Mesolithicsettlement on the islands of Islay and Colonsay off Scotland's westcoast. For the UK, this ambitious project was in many ways atrend-setter, not least in the scale of the inter-disciplinary surveywork, the use of exploratory test-pitting as a fieldwork technique andthe application of experimental and computational studies. Dedicatedpost-excavation work from 1995 to 1998 has enabled Mithen and hiscollaborators to produce these appropriately monumental volumesremarkably soon after project completion. The project and itspublication undoubtedly represent a fantastic achievement for allconcerned. At the heart of the books are the final reports on fieldwork andexcavation, in particular at the important sites of Bolsay Farm on Islayand Staosnaig on Colonsay, which between them produced most of the insitu In place. When something is "in situ," it is in its original location. artefactual adj. 1. of or pertaining to an artefact.2. made by human actions.Adj. 1. artefactual - of or relating to artifactsartifactual , palaeoenvironmental and structural evidence recoveredby the project. Other sites on Islay at Aoradh, Coulererach, Gleann Mor,Kindrochid, and Rockside were less productive or less intensivelyinvestigated, but all produced data of significance. These archaeological reports are the filling of a very thicksandwich of associated studies, too many to itemize To individually state each item or article.Frequently used in tax accounting, an itemized account or claim separately lists amounts that add up to the final sum of the total account on claim. or comment on here,which include vegetation history, sea-level change, raw materialavailability, predictive modelling, the use of pebble tools and even,somewhat tangentially since the project did not find any such tools, themanufacture of antler harpoons. Wrapping the sandwich are Mithen'sdetailed overview of the Scottish Mesolithic before this project (avaluable contribution and a good read in its own right) and hisextensive conclusions in the light of the project's results. Thebreadth of research and the intellectual vision are extremelyimpressive. One is reminded of some possible inspirations (Renfrew 1979;Renfrew & Wagstaff 1982), though the acknowledged precedent wasprovided by Mellars (1987), whose work on Oronsay -- the tiny islandbetween Colonsay and Islay -- foreshadows Mithen's project in manyways. In terms of the three specific aims of the project, luck was notwholly on Mithen's side. Neither the earliest colonization ofScotland nor the Mesolithic/ Neolithic transition could be addresseddirectly because the project failed to recover relevant data. All theMesolithic evidence acquired by the project appears to relate to theperiod c. 8100-6800 BP, well after the initial occurrence of anarrow-blade Mesolithic in Scotland and well before the terminalMesolithic as represented by the Oronsay shell-middens (c. 6200-5400BP), which in their regional isolation now become more mysterious thenever. The third aim, the nature of Mesolithic settlement in an avowedlylandscape archaeology context, became by default the project's mainfocus, though even here there were disappointments. Only one location,Staosnaig on Colonsay, really came up trumps as far as producingfeatures and ecofacts as well as lithic lith��ic?1?adj.Consisting of or relating to stone or rock.Adj. 1. lithic - of or containing lithium2. lithic - relating to or composed of stone; "lithic sandstone" artefacts. None of the Islaysites, with the exception of Kindrochid, which with hindsight wasperhaps given insufficient attention, could provide any comparison inthis regard. Site interpretation was therefore reliant in the main onfunctional interpretation of the lithic artefacts, with consequent hugeuncertainties (2: 616-20). These uncertainties are magnified because, not surprisingly giventhe available data, the chrono logical parameters of each site remainunresolved. Even at Staosnaig, the only site with a good series ofostensibly high-integrity radiocarbon dates, Mithen chooses to dismissthe relatively wide range they indicate in favour of a somewhatinstinctive opinion that the occupation was short-lived somewhere around7700 BP. The main problem, however, is that it is impossible to know ifany of these sites are strictly contemporary with one another andtherefore part of a synchronous settlement system or not. There is,incidentally, one rather alarming circumstance reported here of a singlehazelnut shell fragment being radiocarbon dated twice and producingentirely discrepant dis��crep��ant?adj.Marked by discrepancy; disagreeing.[Middle English discrepaunt, from Latin discrep dates. The wider implications of this are sodisturbing that it would be entirely appropriate for the radiocarboncommunity to investigate the matter in the hope for proof of an error. One of the best known discoveries of this project, and likely tobecome one of the most controversial, is the `pit' feature atStaosnaig. Containing over 49,000 pieces of flaked stone, over 60 coarsestone artefacts, more than 3000 g of charred hazelnut shells and over400 fragments of lesser celandine lesser celandinen.A Eurasian plant (Ranunculus ficaria) having heart-shaped leaves, solitary yellow flowers, and tuberous roots.Noun 1. , it is certainly problematic. Thereare some inconsistencies in the description of this `pit' (nothelped by the fact that the list of contexts for Staosnaig (table 5.2.1)is incomplete), such as whether it has an internal posthole/post-setting (yes on 2:432-3; no on 2: 378), but there seems to be noclear structural evidence in association. Nevertheless, the possibilitythat it is a tree-fall feature is rejected over-hastily, and without anyreference to such authorities as Newell (1981), in favour of the beliefthat it is the base of a hut. Surprisingly, but perhaps wisely, Mithenmakes no attempt to reconstruct what this hut may have looked like,other than sticking a pin in the ethnographic record and coming up witha `Navajo hogan hut' by way of obscure parallel. Another feature at Staosnaig which may have been misinterpreted isthe rectangular stone setting variously named feature 63 (2: 615), 64 or68 (2: 390-91). It was only half-excavated, but the photograph, sectionand incomplete plan (figures 5.2.49-50) suggest this could be an EarlyBronze Age short cist, which would be supported by the singleradiocarbon date of 3395 [+ or -] 60 BP. The very substantial quantities of hazelnut remains from Staosnaig-- it is estimated that the fill of the `pit' alone originallycontained the shells from some 300,000 nuts -- stimulates lengthy butimportant analysis and discussion of what was obviously a significantfoodstuff for Mesolithic communities. There is a value in maximizing theinformation to be drawn from what survives, but also a danger in losingperspective because of what does not -- in this case, any faunalevidence. This danger is apparent in the computer simulation ofMesolithic foraging on Islay. In addition to hazelnuts, the fill of the `pit' feature atStaosnaig produced significant remains of the tubers and bulbils oflesser celandine, leading to an interpretation that this plantcontributed in a definite way to the Mesolithic diet. Are the lessercelandine fragments really either contemporary with the Mesolithicoccupation or the result of anthropogenic an��thro��po��gen��ic?adj.1. Of or relating to anthropogenesis.2. Caused by humans: anthropogenic degradation of the environment. activity at all? Would it notbe possible to radiocarbon date some of these fragments to help resolvethis question? As would be expected, it is the lithic artefacts which loom largestin terms of material culture recovered by this project. The few undated un��dat��ed?adj.1. Not marked with or showing a date: an undated letter; an undated portrait.2. sherds of pottery from Kindrochid get short shrift, while the relativelylarge collection of sherds from Bolsay Farm, which includes Beaker ware,is recognized as marking later occupations which could be a complicatingfactor in the formation of the lithic assemblage at this site. Mithen, Nyree Finlay and Bill Finlayson can be credited with fullygrasping the nettle nettle,common name for the Urticaceae, a family of fibrous herbs, small shrubs, and trees found chiefly in the tropics and subtropics. Several genera of nettles are covered with small stinging hairs that on contact emit an irritant (formic acid) which produces a as far as the struck lithic artefacts are concernedand they show an admirable determination throughout this report to tryto do justice to their material, though in some instances -- such as the250,000+ artefacts from Bolsay Farm trench II -- defeat was admitted andfurther studies are promised. Mithen makes clear the need for anexplicit and reproducible typology to allow inter-assemblage comparisonand with his colleagues develops an extremely elaborate attributeanalysis to underpin the assemblage characterization. Unfortunately,there are some problems here, especially with respect to the mostdiagnostic element, the microliths. Inexplicably, these authors elect to call one of their microlith mi��cro��lithn.A minute calculus, usually multiple and resembling coarse sand.microlitha minute concretion or calculus. types a `backed blade'. A backed blade is most characteristicallyan Upper Palaeolithic tool, though it does occur in Mesolithicassemblages, and there is indeed an example from Staosnaig (figure5.2.56), which is referred to as a `backed piece'. I do not believethe term `backed blade' will be accepted for general use withreference to microliths in Mesolithic studies in Scotland and so byitself this puts the analyses undertaken by this project at adisadvantage. It is not the only problem of this kind, and three further examplesmay be given. Firstly, the authors have coined the term `leafpoint' to indicate a microlith with `two sides backed bymicrolithic mi��cro��lith?n. ArchaeologyA very small blade made of flaked stone and used as a tool, especially in the European Mesolithic Period.mi retouch to produce two convex sides converging to a point atone or both ends' (1: 68). The same term is used to describe whatis clearly a Neolithic leaf-shaped arrowhead from B olsay Farm (figure4.10.29), which has fully invasive retouch. Secondly, obliquely bluntedpoints are not included in the microlith classification for thisproject, though the illustrations suggest they are present (e.g. figures4.4.14 & 5.2.55). Thirdly, the attribute analysis of the microlithssub-divides `base morphology' into five variants, one of which is`break snap' (1: 68). This is said to include`post-manufacture' occurrence and therefore to imply that brokenmicroliths are counted within the samples of complete microliths usedfor classification and measurement. When it is realized that, forexample, 397 (41%) of the Bolsay Farm microliths have a `breaksnap' base, there are serious implications for the integrity of thesamples. These detailed terminological and typological problems causedifficulty and concern when it comes to understanding and using theanalyses in this report. Moreover, this concern is heightened when thelithic artefact See artifact. illustrations are considered. The authors fly in theface of Verb 1. fly in the face of - go against; "This action flies in the face of the agreement"fly in the teeth ofgo against, violate, break - fail to agree with; be in violation of; as of rules or patterns; "This sentence violates the rules of syntax" convention by not using symbols to indicate the presence/absenceof bulbs or break-lines to indicate incomplete artefacts. This makes itparticularly hard to evaluate the microlith illustrations. The latterhave the very useful innovation of each implement being labelled withinthe drawing with its typological classification, though this attractsattention to the frequent mismatch between the label and theillustration. To take just one example, the microliths from Rockside(figure 4.4.14) include a microlith labelled as a leaf point which hasretouch shown on only one edge (cf. definition above). When it comes to comparing the lithic artefact assemblages from thedifferent sites investigated by the project, there are problems ofsample size and taphonomy ta��phon��o��my?n.1. The study of the conditions and processes by which organisms become fossilized.2. The conditions and processes of fossilization. to be considered. It is hard to justify apercentage comparison between the types of microlith from Coulererach(n=32) and Bolsay Farm (n = 969), while in the case of the Gleann Motassemblage the unexplained high presence of indeterminate forms (140 outof 327) is ignored when calculating the percentage of scalene scalene/sca��lene/ (ska��len)1. uneven; unequally three-sided.2. pertaining to one of the scalenus muscles. triangles. Finally, with respect to the lithic artefacts, there is thequestion of functional analysis. Here one hoped for an advance on atopic which has continually thwarted understanding in Mesolithicstudies. Not one hafted microlith has ever been found in the UK, so theinterpretation of this implement type has rested on the few examplesfound hafted or impacted in skeletal material elsewhere in Europe,suggesting a main function as the compound armatures for projectile projectilesomething thrown forward.projectile syringesee blow dart.projectile vomitingforceful vomiting, usually without preceding retching, in which the vomitus is thrown well forward. points. This was famously disputed, largely on theoretical grounds, bythe late David Clarke (1976), and apparently disproved on the basis offunctional analysis in a preliminary report from this project (Finlayson& Mithen 1997). Thus one looked forward to a detailed substantiationof this position here but, regrettably, the case is not made. Use-wear analysis was undertaken of samples of microliths fromGleann Mor (by low- and high-power microscopy) and Bolsay Farm (bylow-power only), but no details of the science involved are provided andall assertions concerning the presence or absence of use wear, itsposition on the tool, the way in which direction of movement isindicated or the hardness of the contact material have to be taken ontrust. Those of us who are not use-wear specialists may never have fullyunderstood the photomicrographs which normally accompany such studies --as indeed they do here for the soil thin-sections (and the scanningelectron microscope scan��ning electron microscopen. Abbr. SEMAn electron microscope that forms a three-dimensional image on a cathode-ray tube by moving a beam of focused electrons across an object and reading both the electrons scattered by the object and work on the plant remains) -- but when they areentirely absent alarm bells start to sound. This unease is further compounded by the line drawings ofmicroliths with use wear (figures 4.3.18 & 4.10.37), since thesefail to show any indication at all of the presence of the wear traces(in contrast to the technique used to illustrate stained microliths(figure 4.10.38), which is also the only drawing to use orientationsymbols). The samples analysed for use wear are said to comprise onlycomplete or near-complete examples which could be classified to type;this is contradicted by the illustrations (figure 4.3.18), which includeseveral pieces specifically identified as fragments and others (e.g. no.12727), which look extremely dubious examples of the scalene trianglesthey are said to be. All in all, therefore, the use-wear study isdisappointing and unconvincing and the function of microliths remainsenigmatic. Despite the preceding reservations, this is a publication ofconsiderable academic merit which will be both a spur and a quarry forfuture studies. Though I have highlighted some shortcomings, these arefar outweighed by the many virtues of what will rightly become anecessary text for UK Mesolithic studies. Mithen's venture into theScottish Mesolithic was rewarding for him, and these tomes will in turnreward any readers with the stamina to tackle them. These readers shouldnot be restricted to Mesolithic specialists, since there is a wealth ofinformation here for students and scholars from many disciplines and noacademic library should be without copies. Price, size (and weight!) maypreclude a more casual readership, which would be a pity since anyonewith an interest in the past, present or future of these Hebrideanislands would find much food for thought herein. References CLARKE, D.L. 1976. Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis, in G. deG. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth & K.E. Wilson (ed.), Problems ineconomic and social archaeology: 449-81. London: Duckworth. FINLAYSON, B. & S. MITHEN. 1997. The microwear and morphologyof microliths from Gleann Mor, in H. Knecht (ed.), Projectiletechnology: 107-29. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): Plenum Press. MELLARS, P. 1987. Excavations on Oronsay: prehistoric human ecologyon a small island. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh University Press is a university publisher that is part of the University of Edinburgh in Edinburgh, Scotland. External linksEdinburgh University Press . NEWELL, R.R. 1981. Mesolithic dwelling structures: fact andfantasy, in B. Gramsch (ed.), Mesolithikum in Europa: 235-84. Berlin:VEB VEBIn currencies, this is the abbreviation for the Venezuelan Bolivar.Notes:The currency market, also known as the Foreign Exchange market, is the largest financial market in the world, with a daily average volume of over US $1 trillion. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. (=Veroffentlichungen desMuseums fur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte Potsdam, Band 14/15). RENFREW, C. 1979. Investigations in Orkney. London: Society ofAntiquaries of London The Society of Antiquaries of London (SAL) is a learned society, based in the United Kingdom, concerned with "the encouragement, advancement and furtherance of the study and knowledge of the antiquities and history of this and other countries". . RENFREW, C. & M. WAGSTAFF (ed.). 1982. An island polity: thearchaeology of exploitation in Melos. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . ALAN SAVILLE, Department of Archaeology, National Museums ofScotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland.a.saville@nms.ac.uk