2007 Eskmeals(Human-Environment Interactions)

8/3/2019 2007 Eskmeals(Human-Environment Interactions)

1/19

2

Human-environment Interactions

during the Late Mesolithic of the

Cumbria Coastal Plain:The evidence from Eskmeals

Clive Bonsall

The Eskmeals area on the narrow coastal plain of southwest Cumbria contains one of the

richest concentrations of Late Mesolithic sites in north-west England.The Eskmeals sites

were discovered during fieldwalking by Jim and Peter Cherry in the 1960s and 1970s(Cherry & Cherry, 1986), and three of the sites were investigated by the present author

between 1974 and 1986 (Bonsall, 1981; Bonsall, et al., 1986, 1989). This paper

summarizes the results of the Eskmeals archaeological excavations and the associated

palaeoenvironmental work.

THE PHYSICALSETTING OF THE ESKMEALS SITES

The Eskmeals coastal foreland

TO south of the present estuary of the River Esk is an area of land

known as the Eskmeals foreland, which has been built up by coastal

processes during the Holocene (Fig. 2.1). The eastern margin of the

foreland is defined by a sharp break of slope that can be traced from the

River Esk north of Newbiggin to south of Stubb Place. To the landward glacial

sediments underlie an undulating topography of moderate relief that rises

steadily inland to over 200 m in a few kilometres. The coastal foreland itself is

formed by marine, estuarine and aeolian sediments resting on an eroded surface

of glacial deposits. A complex sequence of shingle ridges has been produced by

the dominant northwards-directed longshore movement of littoral sediment,and in the lee of the shingle ridges estuarine sediments have accumulated.

The aeolian deposits that have developed on the surface of the shingle


2/19

26 STUDIES IN NORTHERN PREHISTORY

Fig. 2.1.Geomorphological

map of the Eskmeals area.

Key:

1. peat-filled basins;

2. present salt marsh;

3. estuarine sediments;

4. wind-blown sandsheet;

5. constructional sand

dunes;

6. sharp break of slope;

7. moderate break of

slope;

8. present streams;

9. former stream

channels;

10. glacial sediments;

11. alluvial fans;12. made ground;

13. shingle ridges (after

Bonsall et al. 1989).


3/19

ridges comprise a seaward area of constructional dunes eastwards of which a large,

nearly flat, sand sheet has developed. A series of channels transect the glacial

deposits and apparently terminate at the edge of the coastal foreland. It is likely,

however, that the lower portions of some of the channels continue below thecoastal sediments. These channels, particularly along their present lower portions,

have sediment infills that accumulated contemporaneously with the formation of

the coastal foreland and thus preserve valuable evidence of mid- to late-Holocene

environments.

Traces of Mesolithic occupation occur mainly on the glacial deposits along the

edge of the foreland, within a few hundred metres of the break of slope which

marks the limit of the early Holocene marine transgression. Mesolithic artefacts

have also been recovered from the shingle ridges surrounding the Williamsons

Moss basin which are known to have formed by c.6950 cal BP. Over 30 lithic

scatters with a definite or suspected Mesolithic component have been recorded to

date (Fig. 2.2), exposed where the modern vegetation was disturbed by ploughing

or burrowing animals. Between 1974 and 1986 sites were investigated at Monk

Moors and Williamsons Moss.

Development of the coastal foreland

The evidence relating to sea-level change and shoreline development in the

Eskmeals coastal zone has been discussed by Bonsall et al. (1986, 1989). The

evolution of the coastal foreland is illustrated in Fig. 2.3 and may be summarized

as follows: Early Holocene sea-level rise culminated in the contemporaneous erosion of

the landward glacial deposits and formation of the innermost shingle ridge

between c.7450 and 7850 cal BP. Estuarine sedimentation began in the lee of

this shingle ridge (Fig. 2.3a). Mean High Water of Spring Tides was then c.2 m

above that of today. Subsequently, and with only a slight fall in sea level, the greater part of the

shingle ridge complex that underlies the Eskmeals foreland was constructed.

The shingle ridges around Williamsons Moss were deposited prior to 6950 cal

BP and a new phase of shingle ridge development which had been preceded bya net fall in relative sea level of c.1 m was underway by 4950 cal BP. This

intermediate sequence of shingle ridges continued to form until after 3900 cal

BP (Fig. 2.3b), their formation being accompanied by progressive abandon-

ment of the estuarine sediments landwards of the shingle ridges. The sea subsequently fell by 0.8-1.1 m and a further phase of shingle ridge

development was in progress by 3000 cal BP (Fig. 2.3c). There have been at

least two periods of sand dune activity on the foreland, the first between 3500

and 1700 cal BP, and the second sometime after c.1400 cal BP. An earlier

phase of sand dune activity may be suggested by a very sandy facies near the

base of the estuarine sediments closest to the main shingle ridge complex.This

would have occurred at sometime between 6950 cal BP (probably after 6300

cal BP) and 3750 cal BP.

HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS DURING THE LATE MESOLITHIC 27


4/19


Fig. 2.2.Distribution ofMesolithic sites in the

Eskmeals area (after

Bonsall et al. 1989).


5/19

Settlement location and coastal change

The Eskmeals sites are all situated on seaward-facing slopes overlooking stretches

of former coastline that experienced predominantly estuarine conditions during

the period of Mesolithic settlement, whereas settlement traces are lacking in areaswhere estuarine conditions were never established during the mid-Holocene for

example south of Stubb Place. This pattern is repeated in coastal areas

throughout Europe where late Mesolithic settlements typically are found in

sheltered locations around estuaries, lagoons or marine inlets (cf. Larsson, 1991).

Several authors have observed that river estuaries offer a greater abundance and

variety of potential food resources than most other coastal environments (e.g.

Jacobi, 1973; Clarke, 1976; Bonsall, 1981). Other resources may also have been a

significant factor in settlement location at Eskmeals. The only locally available

source of flint would have been the shingle deposits of the coastal foreland. Thesedeposits would also have been the most accessible sources of sand and stones

known to have been used extensively for construction purposes (see below). The

main site locations at Monk Moors and Williamsons Moss would have been

ideally situated to exploit these resources.

Another interesting feature of the site distribution is the tendency for lithic

scatters to occur along the margins of former channels cutting across the glacial

sediments. This relationship is particularly evident to the landward of

Williamsons Moss (Fig. 2.4) but was also noted at Monk Moors (see below).The

significance of these channels for Mesolithic settlement is uncertain. It seems

doubtful that they acted as sources of fresh water. Although the channels wouldhave carried away rainwater running off the slopes adjacent to the coastal

foreland, during the mid-Holocene they are unlikely to have been occupied by

perennial streams. Certain of the channel mouths, however, would have provided

a means of access to the foreshore particularly in the area between Monk Moors

and Stubb Place where, at the maximum of the transgression, the sea was actively

eroding a cliff some 3-15 m high. It is also possible that where estuarine

conditions obtained the channels had economic significance. Salmon and sea

trout are known to spawn in large numbers in the mouths of small channels and

feeder streams leading into the present estuary. It has been suggested that lithicscatters often represent former rubbish dumps (Bonsall, 1992), and in some

instances wet channel margins may have been chosen simply as convenient places

for disposal of occupation refuse (cf. Bonsall et al., 1993).

Since environmental factors such as the nearby presence of estuarine

conditions appear to have had a major influence on Mesolithic site location, it

may be presumed that the chronology of settlement at the different sites will

relate to coastal evolution and the progressive establishment of suitable

conditions in the Eskmeals area. As estuarine conditions were first established

(between 7450 and 7850 cal BP) in the area between Monk Moors and

Newbiggin, settlement may have first occurred in that area at that time. In

contrast, the Williamsons Moss site faced onto the open coast until after the

construction of the shingle ridges that formed the Williamsons Moss basin at



6/19


Fig.2.3.Evolutionofthe

Eskmealscoastalforeland.

Key:1.sh

ingleridges;2.estuarineareas;

3.glacialsediments;4.marked

breakofslope;5.featurebound

ary;6.streams.Oneachdiagra

mt

he

archaeolo

gicalsitesknowntohavebeenoccupiedattherelevantperiodareshown(afterBonsalletal.,1989,withrevision).


7/19

c.6950 cal BP, implying that after this date that locality would have been more

attractive for settlement. It is therefore interesting that the earliest dated

occupation at Monk Moors was at c.7650 cal BP, while the earliest dated

occupation at Williamsons Moss was at c.6350 cal BP (see below).This apparentrelationship between periods of site occupation and environmental conditions

suggests that as sea level fell, occupation may have continued longest in the Monk

Moors-Newbiggin area where estuarine conditions lasted longest (cf. Fig. 2.3),

and that Williamsons Moss would have retained its attraction for human

settlement as long as an open lake occupied the area of the present moss.

THE MONKMOORS SITES

Archaeological excavations at Monk Moors between 1974 and 1977 investigated

two lithic scatters which lay on opposite sides of a small infilled channel near the

point at which it is truncated by the sharp break of slope that defines the edge of

the coastal foreland (Bonsall, 1981). These are unstratified, surface sites.

Within the excavated areas the archaeological remains occurred mainly in the

upper 30 cm of a soil which is developed in stony reddish till. The sites proved

to have been severely disturbed by recent agriculture. The lithic artefacts

were mixed through a topsoil (Ap-horizon) overdeepened by ploughing, and

structural remains were preserved only as truncated features at the top of the

underlying B-horizon. With the exception of small amounts of wood charcoal

and rare carbonized fragments of hazelnut shells, no organic materials hadsurvived. A small exploratory trench excavated through c.1.5 m of silty clays

infilling the channel between the two sites revealed no finds of archaeological

significance.

Large assemblages of flaked stone artefacts were recovered from the excavated

areas, that from Site 1 (to the north of the infilled channel) comprising over

30,000 artefacts. The Monk Moors sites (and Williamsons Moss) show a close

resemblance in the forms of the artefacts present and the composition of the

assemblages (Fig. 2.4). The retouched tools show a predominance of narrow

blade microliths (characteristic of Mesolithic sites in northern Britain postdatingc.10,350 cal BP) and scrapers. Among the dbitage both bipolar and platform

cores are well represented. Heavy-duty implements, such as core axes and

bevelled stone implements, are conspicuously absent from the Eskmeals sites.

Small pebbles of flint, and occasionally chert or tuff, appear to have been the only

lithic materials utilized for toolmaking and, presumably, were collected from

shingle ridges near to the sites.

Other traces of prehistoric human activity at Monk Moors comprised

numerous pieces of red ochre recovered from the topsoil on both sites, a series of

hearths and stake holes identified on Site 1, and several shallow depressions

(possibly hearths) and a pit on Site 2. Interpretation of these features isproblematic. They may be traces of actual habitation, but are perhaps better

explained in terms of activities involving processing or storage of food or raw



8/19


Fig. 2.4.Lithic artefacts from Monk Moors site 1: a. microliths; b. scrapers [1-2], burin [3],

bipolar (scalar) core [4] (after Bonsall, 1981).


9/19

materials (Bonsall, 1981). Moreover, radiocarbon dating indicates that they relate

to more than one phase of occupation (Table 1). Charcoal from a hearth on Site

1 was dated as 6750 155 BP (BM-1216), indicating that the hearth relates to

use of the site during the Mesolithic. This feature formed part of a linear clusterof hearths and stake holes which may belong to a single phase of occupation.

Charcoal samples from a second hearth on Site 1 (isolated from the main group)

and a hearth and a pit on Site 2 gave dates respectively of 3650 120 BP (BM-

1395), 4050 55 BP (BM-1385) and 2860 50 (BM-1386) BP, suggesting that

these features relate to post-Mesolithic activity.

It is apparent from the radiocarbon and other evidence that the two sites

investigated were occupied on a number of occasions between c.7650 and 2900cal BP, indicating that the coastal foreland retained its attraction for settlement

long after the Mesolithic period. The pattern of repeated occupation of the same

site locations implied by these data also opens the possibility of more than one

episode of Mesolithic occupation at Monk Moors.

THE WILLIAMSONS MOSS SITE

The archaeological site investigated lies at an elevation of c.7.5 m O.D. and is

centred on a low spur extending north westward from a ridge of till towards theshingle ridge at the margin of Williamsons Moss. The land rises steadily to the

east of the site to a height of 15 m O.D. On either side of the spur the landsurface

falls gently to a point lower than the top of the shingle ridge and has been subject

to ponding of water behind it resulting in the accumulation of fine alluvial

sediments. These attain their greatest thickness in the southern part of the site

where they infill a narrow channel cut into the till one of a series of channels

that once drained the surrounding slopes (Fig. 2.5).

A partial excavation of the Williamsons Moss site was undertaken between

1981 and 1986 (Fig. 2.5). A palaeo-landsurface could be identified beneath the

alluvial sediments. Traces of Mesolithic occupation were demonstrated to occuron this palaeo-landsurface over an area of at least 7500 m2. Thus, unlike at Monk

Moors, over much of the site area the archaeological remains were in a sealed


Table 1.Radiocarbon dates for the Monk Moors sites. Calibrated ages have been calculated

using atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2004) and OxCal v 3.10 (Bronk Ramsey, 2005),

and are shown at 95.4% probability.

Lab ID Context 14C age BP Calibrated age(95.4%) BC

BM-1216 Site 1. Charcoal from hearth. 6750 155 60005350



BM-1386 Site 2. Charcoal from pit. 2860 500 12101900


10/19

context and showed few signs of postdepositional disturbance.

It was established by means of test pits that the greatest concentration of

artefacts occurred in an area roughly 50 x 30 m on the crest of the till spur. In

subsequent excavation an assemblage of more than 34,000 worked pieces of flint,chert and tuff, including over 600 microliths and other retouched tools, was

recovered from an area of just 125 m2 (Fig. 2.5: Area A). On the crest of the spur

there was no apparent build-up of alluvial material, the soils having developed

directly on till. Hence the archaeological remains there were unstratified. The

lithic artefacts were mixed through the upper 30-40 cm of the soil profile. This

mixing was probably caused principally by bioturbation (perhaps aided by human

occupation disturbance) rather than ploughing. The few structural features

identified, comprising hearths, small pits and several possible stake holes (Bonsall

et al., 1989: fig. 40), were truncated by the modern A-horizon.

In the lower-lying areas below the crest of the till spur lithic artefacts occurredmainly on the palaeo-landsurface beneath alluvial sediments, although artefact

densities were very low (usually


11/19

palaeo-landsurface, however, contains other evidence of human activity.

Excavation exposed a number of concentrations of medium and large rounded

stones forming a distinct layer on either side of the till spur. The stones contrast

with those in the surrounding sediments and were probably derived from nearbyshingle deposits.This layer is therefore interpreted as the remains of stone floors

(stone pavement) laid down to consolidate a poorly drained clayey soil easily

puddled by trampling. The main expanse of stone pavement examined lay

between the crest of the till spur and the infilled channel (Fig. 2.5: Area B). From

their stratigraphic context, the stone floors are presumed to relate to Mesolithic

occupation (Bonsall et al., 1986, 1989).

Two trenches were dug to investigate the deposits within the infilled channel

(Fig. 2.5: Areas E1 & E2). Consisting largely of silty clays (see below), these

deposits resemble the alluvial sediments in other parts of the site. Two types of

structure were found stratified within the channel sediments and appear to relate

to a palaeo-landsurface c.90 cm below that of today. One is a raft-type foundation

consisting of two sets of oak branches arranged in a grille or lattice pattern,

overlain by a layer of black, well-humified peat composed of twigs, branches and

bark interpreted as the remains of a layer, or series of layers of birch brushwood

placed on top of the timber lattice. Examples of this type of structure were found

in Area E1 (Fig. 2.6: Structure 1; Fig. 2.7) and Area E2. The second type of

structure consists of areas of made ground retained by a revetment of large

radial sections of oak trunks. An example of this type was partially exposed in

Area E1 (Fig. 2.6) and was overlain by a peaty layer containing abundant birchbark fragments interpreted as the remains of a bark floor (Fig. 2.6: Features 53 &

80). A similar feature, but lacking evidence of a birch bark floor, occurred in Area

E2. It can be suggested that these structures were built to consolidate soft ground

formed by the alluvial sediments infilling the channel. It seems likely that they

were intended to form platforms raised above the level reached by water

ponding behind the shingle ridge. Comparison with similar finds made at

Mesolithic sites in southern Scandinavia can be used to suggest that the layers of

birch bark associated with Structure 2 are remnants of the internal floors of one

or more buildings, possibly houses, constructed on the platform and adjacentchannel margin.

Structures 1 and 2 are dated by six radiometric 14C determinations (Table 2). A

sample of oak from the foundation of Structure 1 gave an age of 6015 75 BP

(UB-2544). Two samples of birch bark from the base and upper part of the

overlying layer of decayed brushwood respectively gave dates of 5555 40 BP

(UB-2545) and 5650 50 BP (UB-2546). Three samples of birch bark from the

two principal areas of bark flooring associated with Structure 2 gave ages of

5520 85 BP (UB-2712) and 5500 70 BP (GU-1664) [F80] and 5480 90

BP (UB2713) [F53]. The dates on bark should approximate most closely the

period of construction. These dates are statistically indistinguishable and indicatethat Structures 1 and 2 were built c.5550 BP. The difference in age ofc.450 years

indicated by the date for one of the foundation timbers of Structure 1 and those



12/19

for the decayed brushwood covering of this feature can be explained, in part, by

the (re-)utilization of old timbers for the foundation of this structure (Bonsall etal., 1989).

No diagnostic artefacts were found in direct association with either Structure 1

or Structure 2. Elsewhere on the site there are large numbers of diagnostically

Mesolithic artefacts and no clearly Early Neolithic artefacts, either of stone or

pottery. Moreover, the date of c.6350 cal BP assigned to the structures is

significantly older than the earliest securely dated occurrences of Neolithic

artefacts in northern Britain. The structural remains in Area E1, therefore, are

most likely to relate to occupation of the Williamsons Moss site by people who

possessed a Late Mesolithic material culture. No dates are available for the timber

structures in Area E2, but the general similarity in form, construction techniqueand stratigraphic context to those in Area E1 suggests that the Area E2 structures

also relate to Mesolithic occupation of the site.


Table 2.Radiocarbon dates for the Williamsons Moss site. Calibrated ages have been calculated using

atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2004) and OxCal v 3.10 (Bronk Ramsey, 2005),

and are shown at 95.4% probability.

Lab ID Context 14C age BP Calibrated age(95.4%) BC

UB-2544 Area E1.Wood (oak). Part of timber lattice

of Structure 1. 6015 750 52104710

UB-2546 Area E1. Bark fragments (birch). Part of

decayed brushwood covering of Structure 1. 5650 500 46004360

UB-2545 Area E1. Bark fragments (birch). Part of

decayed brushwood covering of Structure 1. 5555 400 44604330

UB-2712 Area F. Bark fragments (birch). Part of bark

floor on buried land surface. 5520 850 45504160

GU-1664 Area F. Bark fragments (birch). Part of bark

floor on buried land surface. 5500 700 45004170

UB-2713 Area E1. Bark fragments (birch). Part of bark

floor on timber and earth platform

(Structure 2). 5480 900 45004050

UB-2711 Area F. Charcoal from hearth in alluvial

sediments overlying buried land surface. 4925 165 42503300

BM-1396 Area B. Charcoal from hearth (F23) in

alluvial sediments overlying buried landsurface. 3756 104 25001900

UB-2568 Test Pit AP36. Charcoal from hearth in

alluvial sediments overlying buried land

surface. 3665 400 22001920

UB-2715 Area E2. Charcoal from hearth overlying

Structure 5. 3480 800 20301610


13/19


Fig.2.6.W

illiamsonsMoss,infilledchannel:structuralfeaturesinAreaE1afterBon

salletal.,

1989).


14/19

As at Monk Moors, there is some evidence for post-Mesolithic use of the

Williamsons Moss site. Artefacts, hearths, and lenses of introduced beach sand

and pebbles occurred within the alluvial sediments above the palaeo-landsurface,

although there was no indication of major or prolonged settlement activity

following the period of Mesolithic occupation. Three hearths at different levels

within the alluvial sediments have given radiometric 14C ages of 3665 40 BP

(UB-2568), 3755 105 BP (BM-1396) and 4925 165 BP (UB-2711)

consistent with their relative stratigraphic positions (Table 2).

VEGETATION HISTORY AND HUMAN IMPACTS

Palynological investigations were undertaken in conjunction with the

archaeological excavations at Williamsons Moss, in order to obtain information

on vegetation changes and possible human impacts around the time of the

Mesolithic occupation. Pollen profiles were obtained from the infilled lake basin

at Williamsons Moss and from the infilled channel deposits of the archaeological

site (Bonsall et al., 1986, 1989;Tipping, 1994).The Williamsons Moss pollen site is located c.270 m to the south west of the

archaeological site, in the deepest part of the infilled lake basin (Fig. 2.5, P1).


Fig. 2.7.Williamsons Moss, infilled channel: raft-type foundation (Structure 1) in Area E1

(after Bonsall et al., 1989).


15/19


16/19

the later phase (including a hearth, some sherds of Middle Neolithic pottery,

and a leaf-shaped arrowhead) appears slight compared to the extensive evidence

of Late Mesolithic occupation.

CHARACTER OF THE MESOLITHIC SETTLEMENT

In some parts of Europe such as southern Scandinavia many large coastal

settlements of the later Mesolithic are suspected as having served as residential

base camps occupied on a permanent or semi-permanent basis founded on

seasonal scheduling of coastal and inland resources (e.g. Rowley-Conwy, 1983).

Few of these sites have produced substantial architectural remains, but some have

faunal assemblages which suggest year-round occupation. Bonsall (1981)

proposed a model of the subsistence economy of Late Mesolithic groups in the

Eskmeals area which emphasized the role of fishing and coastal resources, and the

potential for year-round settlement. Unfortunately, the Eskmeals sites lack direct

evidence of subsistence activities in the form of animal and plant remains against

which this hypothesis could be tested.

The Williamsons Moss site, however, exhibits a number of features which

could be expected to have characterized the residential base of a sedentary

Mesolithic community. It is a large and complex site. The remains of Mesolithic

occupation extend over a substantial area and there are zones within the site area

which appear to have been associated with different activities, such as habitation

(the infilled channel) and refuse disposal or implement manufacture/use (thelithic scatter). From pedological evidence, Bonsall et al., (1989) envisaged a large

clearing for settlement which involved removal of trees and ground vegetation

and removal or erosion of the surface soil, resulting in exposure of the subsurface

mineral horizon over a substantial area around the till spur.

The architectural remains are among the most extensive and elaborate

recorded from a European Mesolithic site. There is also evidence that the

brushwood covering of Structure 1 and the bark floor overlying Structure 2 were

each renewed on several occasions (Bonsall et al. 1989; and below), implying use

of these structures over a number of years, even decades. The structural remainspreserved within the infilled channel, however, may represent only a small

proportion of the timber architecture originally present on the site. Systematic

probing has also demonstrated the presence large timbers in a small channel to

the north of the till spur (Fig. 2.4). Since the preservation of organic materials on

the site appears to be related to waterlogging and deep burial beneath alluvial

silts, any timber and bark structures erected in the better-drained areas beyond

the channel margins are unlikely to have survived.

It is likely that a sedentary Mesolithic community would acquire most of its

food and raw materials from within a short distance of the home base. Since raw

materials used in the manufacture of implements are likely to have been obtainedincidentally to the execution of other subsistence tasks (cf. Binford, 1979), the

intensive use of local materials reflected in the lithic assemblage from



17/19

Williamsons Moss implies that the Mesolithic population focused its activities on

the coastal zone.

There are, however, limits to what may be inferred from the available data.The

evidence from the Williamsons Moss site suggests sedentism, but does notdemonstrate it. From radiocarbon evidence alone it cannot be demonstrated that

the structures within the infilled channel relate to a continuous period of

occupation. The lithic scatter and areas of stone pavement cannot be dated

directly. Consequently, it cannot be proved that these features are

contemporaneous, nor that either relates to the phase(s) of occupation

represented by the timber platforms. Similarly, it is doubtful if from pedological

evidence the effects of a single large clearing for settlement could be distinguished

from those of a series of small contiguous or overlapping clearings associated with

separate occupation events.

Tipping (1994) has suggested from palynological evidence that there is

unlikely to have been a large area of open ground around the channel at the time

of platform construction. This interpretation assumes that the pollen entering the

channel sediments was derived largely from vegetation growing on the margins of

the channel. If, however, Mesolithic settlement resulted in complete suppression

of the vegetation over a substantial area around the channel, as suggested by

Bonsall et al. (1989), then the pollen recruitment zone would have been

considerably enlarged and the pollen entering the channel sediments at that time

would reflect vegetation growing some distance (possibly hundreds of metres)

away. In effect, such a clearing would be invisible in the pollen record. It might,however, be reflected by an increase in the occurrence of microscopic charcoal in

the channel sediments. It is doubtful, therefore, whether pollen analysis by itself

can provide an accurate impression of the nature and scale of vegetation

clearances associated with Mesolithic settlement.

RETROSPECT

The Eskmeals Project has been an important addition to the archaeological record

of north-west England. In particular, it has made a significant contribution to ourunderstanding of humanenvironment interactions in the Late Mesolithic.Yet two

decades after the last trench was backfilled, the Monk Moors and Williamsons

Moss sites remain the only Mesolithic sites on the Cumbrian coastal plain to have

been systematically investigated within an interdisciplinary research framework.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, there are many questions concerning the Mesolithic

settlement of the Cumbrian coast that remain unresolved, not least those relating

to subsistence, sedentism and the transition to farming. These are an obvious

target for future research.



18/19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is dedicated to Clare Fell who took a keen interest in the Eskmeals

Project. She was a regular visitor to the excavations throughout the 12-year

duration of the project. I will always be grateful to Clare for her kindness and

support, and for her remarkable archaeological insights.

REFERENCES

Binford, L. R., 1979, Organization and formation processes: looking at curated

technologies.Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3): 255-273.

Bonsall, C., 1981, The coastal factor in the Mesolithic settlement of north-west

England. In B. Gramsch (ed.)Mesolithikum in Europa. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 451-

472.Bonsall, C., Sutherland, D. G.,Tipping, R. M. & Cherry, J., 1986, The Eskmeals Project

1981-5: an interim report.Northern Archaeology 7(1): 3-30.

Bonsall, C., Sutherland, D. G.,Tipping, R. M. & Cherry, J. 1989, The Eskmeals Project:

Late Mesolithic settlement and environment in north-west England. In C. Bonsall

(ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe. Edinburgh: John Donald, 175-205.

Bonsall, C. 1992, Archaeology of the south-west Scottish Highlands. In M. J. C.Walker,

J. M. Gray & J. J. Lowe (eds) The South-West Scottish Highlands: Field Guide.

Cambridge: Quaternary Research Association, 28-34.

Bonsall, C., Robinson, M., Payton, R. M. & Macklin, M. G. 1993, Ln Mr, Oban.

Discovery and Excavation in Scotland1993: 76.

Bronk Ramsey, C., 2005. OxCal Program v3.10. Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, University

of Oxford.

Cherry, J. & Cherry, P. J., 1986, Prehistoric habitation sites in west Cumbria: Part IV, the

Eskmeals area. CW2 lxxxvi: 1-17.

Clarke, D. L., 1976, Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis. In G. Sieveking, I.

Longworth & K. Wilson (eds) Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology. London:

Duckworth, 449-481.

Jacobi, R. M., 1973, Aspects of the Mesolithic Age in Great Britain. In S. K.

Kozlowski (ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe.Warsaw:Warsaw University Press, 237-275.

Larsson, L., 1991, Coastal adaptation in the early and middle Holocene of southern

Scandinavia.Journal of the Korean Ancient Historical Society Hanguk Sanggosa Hakbo 8:

93-118.

Parker, A. G., Goudie, A. S., Anderson, D. E., Robinson, M. A. & Bonsall, C., 2002, A

review of the mid-Holocene elm decline in the British Isles. Progress in Physical

Geography 26(1): 1-45.

Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H.,

Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L.,

Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A.,

Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R. W.,

Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J.

and Weyhenmeyer, C. E., 2004. INTCAL04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration,

0-26 kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46(3): 1029-1058.

Rowley-Conwy, P., 1983, Sedentary hunters: the Erteblle example. In G. Bailey (ed.)



19/19

Hunter-gatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 111-126.

Tipping, R. M., 1994, Williamsons Moss: palynological evidence for the Mesolithic-

Neolithic transition. In J. Boardman & J. Walden (eds), The Quaternary of Cumbria:

Field Guide. Oxford: Quaternary Research Association, 104-127.


Documents

2007 Eskmeals(Human-Environment Interactions)