I have a soft spot for Ireland and the Irish. My mother came from an old Anglo-Irish family who went to Ireland in the sixteenth century, essentially as English mercenaries to fight in the Desmond Wars of County Wexford. They built a moated tower house, Huntington Castle, on the borders of Counties Wexford and Carlow in 1625, and are living there to this day. My grandmother, Nora Robertson, wrote a wonderful account of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy which I keep by my bed and dip into regularly.23 I have never had the privilege of excavating in Ireland, but I would love to do a dig there one day.
It is well known that Ireland has a long tradition of close relations with the United States, and this extends to archaeology, too. I remember when I worked at the Royal Ontario Museum in the early 1970s being recommended to read the reports of the Harvard University Irish Project of the 1930s. Not only were these a model of how to do good field archaeology, but they were published promptly and in sources that were readily accessible to the ‘natives’, and in a language that they could understand. This was in contrast to what was going on elsewhere in the world, especially in the Near East, Western Asia and South America. I can imagine how indignant I’d feel if the standard reference work on the archaeology of East Anglia was published in Russian.
Ireland was cut off from the rest of Britain by rising sea levels at some time around 7500 BC. Thereafter anyone wishing to settle in what we still assume was an uninhabited island had to come by way of a short sea crossing. Actual physical evidence for Earlier Mesolithic boats has yet to be found in Britain, but dug-out, canoe-style logboats have been found in Denmark,24 and possible logboats of the Mesolithic to Neolithic transition period are known in Britain.25 These are generally too rigid and inflexible for long sea-crossings, unless fitted with outriggers or double hulls, and would more likely have plied inland waterways such as Lake Flixton (a possible paddle was found at Star Carr). We also know from rock carvings in Scandinavia and elsewhere that skin-covered craft existed in prehistory. These would have been similar to the curraghs that I remember seeing bobbing about in the Atlantic surf off County Galway as a boy. Such vessels could perfectly well have crossed the narrow channel separating Britain from Ireland in the mid-eighth millennium BC.
For a long time the version of the Irish Mesolithic established by the Harvard expeditions of the 1930s held sway, but then a young archaeologist working close to the river Bann, in County Antrim, changed all that. Peter Woodman’s discoveries at Mount Sandel, a settlement on a thirty-metre-high bluff or sandy bank alongside the river, showed that the gap that separated the world of the hunter/gatherers and the very first (Neolithic) farmers was by no means as wide as we used to believe. He has also helped to fill in that central void at Thatcham – the one surrounded by hearths and huge numbers of flints. I remember well when the first pictures of his dig appeared in the archaeological literature. I couldn’t believe my eyes: his meticulous excavations had revealed the clearest evidence possible for lightweight, tent-like houses built by these hunters of the Later Mesolithic.
The site has been dated by radiocarbon to about 6500 BC, so it’s significantly later than Thatcham or Star Carr, but in many respects it’s quite similar.26 It’s positioned near water in woods of birch and hazel, but unlike either English site, Peter Woodman’s excavations produced huge quantities of fishbones, of which salmon and sea trout were by far the commonest. This gives us an important clue as to the time of year the site would have been occupied. Both fish are migratory, and enter rivers from the sea to spawn in summer and autumn. It seems most probable that this was when the site was occupied. We don’t know where the occupants went for the rest of the year, although the seaside is a possibility. Other evidence shows that their food was not confined to these very delicious fish; they also ate eel, wild pig, various birds including game birds, and hazelnuts. I can think of worse diets.
Mount Sandel is principally famous for its lightweight houses, which are still, I believe, the oldest proven domestic structures in the British Isles. There were two types. Six examples of the first type were found. It consists of a roughly circular or oval arrangement of angled stake- or post-holes, plus a doorway; sometimes there’s also evidence for a central hearth. The house was probably built from curved or hooped poles covered with hides, and the average size was just over five metres across, giving a floor area of about thirty square metres, which is broadly comparable with the ‘void’ area at Thatcham.
The second type of house was more tent-like, and about half the size of the hooped pole structures. It consists of four banana-shaped, shallow ditches or gullies arranged in a rough circle. Presumably these were dug to take the run-off of water from a tent-like structure. There’s no evidence for post-holes, so we must assume the framework didn’t need to be securely anchored, being structurally stable and able to shed all but the severest of gales. In this instance the hearth was positioned outside, but opposite, the entranceway.
Both styles of structure are lightweight and appropriate to people whose pattern of life requires movement through the landscape. Can we call them houses? I don’t see why not. A house is where people choose to live. As soon as we start to talk about ‘huts’ – or worse, ‘shacks’ – we do these buildings a disservice. The small structure within the four gullies at Mount Sandel is undoubtedly a tent-house, the other is a house, albeit a lightweight one. I strongly dislike the term ‘hut’, which I see in the archaeological literature far too often. Huts are for wheelbarrows and garden tools, not for people.
We’ve looked at Mesolithic settlements in England and Ireland, but what was happening further north, in Scotland – was it too cold for settlement in postglacial times? The answer is that it wasn’t; Scotland has produced plentiful evidence of life in the period. One of the most revealing sites was excavated by John Coles, who lectured to me on the Palaeolithic at Cambridge and co-authored the standard textbook of the day.27 He also lectured on the European Bronze Age, and a few years later co-authored another standard work.28 At the time he was busily engaged in experimental archaeology, and was dipping his toes into the waters of wetland archaeology, which posterity will probably judge to have been his major contribution. So he’s a man of many parts, which is perhaps why he was invited to take over an existing Mesolithic excavation at Morton, in the Kingdom of Fife, in 1967. The main dig took place in 1969 and 1970.29
I should perhaps note here that we still know of no evidence for postglacial occupation in Scotland before about 9000 BC. To the best of my knowledge the earliest site on the mainland is currently Cramond, near Edinburgh, which has produced radiocarbon dates from hazelnut shells to around 8500 BC.30 This is remarkably early, given the fact that it is generally agreed that most of Scotland would still have been uninhabitable before around 9600 BC.
Like most other Mesolithic sites, Morton shows clear evidence for more than one episode of occupation, and there are at least two centres of interest, which are known as Sites A and B. Today these are located a short distance inland, but in the fifth millennium BC they would have been very close to the shoreline. Radiocarbon dates indicate the sites were occupied three or four centuries before 4000 BC. So we are now approaching the end of the Mesolithic in this particular part of Scotland. Elsewhere in Britain some formerly Mesolithic communities will already have started to adopt the techniques of farming – to become in effect Neolithic.
Morton isn’t far from St Andrews, the home of golf, and the countryside round about reflects this, being gentle and undulating. In the fifth millennium BC the area was cloaked in open oak woodland (with elm) and an under-storey of hazel. These woods probably didn’t extend right down to the shoreline, which is where we find our two areas of occupation.
I hesitate to call both Sites A and B settlements, because Site B was very specialised, being in effect a huge dump or midden – a mound no less – of seashells.