Substantial settlement in the European Early Mesolithic: new research at Star Carr

Substantial settlement in the EuropeanEarly Mesolithic: new research at StarCarrChantal Conneller1∗, Nicky Milner2, Barry Taylor1 & Maisie Taylor2

The authors rewrite the character of EarlyMesolithic settlement in Europe with theirnew research at one of its most famous sites.The picture of small mobile pioneering groupscolonising new land is thrown into contention:far from being a small hunter-gatherer camp,Star Carr in 9000 cal BC extended for nearly2ha and involved the construction of anestimated 30m of lakeside waterfront and atleast one post-built house. With some justice,they suspect that the ‘small groups’ of EarlyMesolithic Europe may have their rationalein the small excavations of archaeologists.

Keywords: Europe, Star Carr, Early Mesolithic, settlement, hut, platform, wetland, workedtimber

IntroductionThe pioneer settlers who reoccupied northern Europe towards the end of the Younger Dryascold event and the start of the Holocene are considered to have lived in small, dispersedgroups and to have been highly mobile. We report here new results from the excavations atthe site of Star Carr, England, dating to about 9000 cal BC, which show it be over 80 timeslarger than the small, ephemeral sites considered typical of the period. A large platform,

1 Archaeology (SAHC), University of Manchester, Mansfield Cooper Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M139PL, UK (Email: chantal.conneller@manchester.ac.uk; barry.taylor1@manchester.ac.uk)

2 Department of Archaeology, University of York, King’s Manor, York YO1 7EP, UK (Email:nicky.milner@york.ac.uk; maisietaylor7@gmail.com)

* Author for correspondence

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.ANTIQUITY 86 (2012): 1004–1020 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/086/ant0861004.htm

Chantal Conneller et al.

or platforms, comprised of worked timbers is a unique feature for this date and covers atleast 30m of lake edge. A post-built hut structure with signs of long-lasting or repeatedoccupation has also been found.

We make the case that pioneer groups here invested significant amounts of time andlabour in building structures in favoured landscape settings—behaviour that in northernand western Europe is more typically associated with changes in socio-economic organisationseveral thousand years later.

The Pleistocene/Holocene transition in north-west EuropeDuring much of the Younger Dryas cold event (c.10 900–9600 cal BC), northern Europe washeld in the grip of tundra or park tundra conditions (Usinger 2004). There is considerabledebate over the northerly extent of human occupation during this period but it is likely thatmost of northern Europe (e.g. Scandinavia, northern Germany, northern France, Britain andpossibly Belgium) was abandoned and remained largely uninhabited apart from incursionsby the occasional hunting party (Terberger 2004; Crombe et al. 2011). The Younger Dryasended abruptly with rapid climatic warming at about 9600 cal BC and was followedby the Preboreal, when open woodlands of birch and pine gradually colonised northernEurope.

The later part of the Younger Dryas and the beginning of the Preboreal markedthe recolonisation of northern Europe by Final Palaeolithic (Ahrensburgian and epi-Ahrensburgian) and Early Mesolithic groups. The groups who migrated into these emptylandscapes are considered to have been small in size and highly mobile, ‘pioneer’ ratherthan ‘residential’ communities (Housley et al. 1997). For example, in Sandy Flanders,Belgium, 25 years of intensive survey revealed that Early Mesolithic sites are numerousbut tend to be small in size (<20/25m2) and as a result are thought to represent highlymobile groups of relatively small size (several families) (Crombe et al. 2011). Further north,in Norway, colonising groups generated small sites that were only occupied briefly. Herecolonisation of the entire coast of Norway appears to have taken place over a few hundredyears, commencing at c. 9800 cal BC. This evidence has been seen to indicate small groupsof marine adapted hunter-gatherers who spent most of their time in boats (Bjerk 2009).Similar sites in eastern Middle Sweden have also been viewed as the product of highly mobilepeople with a developed boat culture (Wikell et al. 2009).

Similar points have been made on the basis of research in central Europe (an area notabandoned during the Younger Dryas). Here evidence for small Early Mesolithic sites andhigh mobility contrasts with Late Palaeolithic sites, which tend to be larger and producedense concentrations of artefacts (Jochim 1998, 2006; Fischer 2006; Tolksdorf et al. 2009).This has led Gramsch (2004: 197) to suggest a gradual immigration of new hunter-gatherergroups made up of a small number of families.

The explanation for high levels of mobility and small group size in inland areas tends tobe attributed to the emergence of forested environments over the course of the Preboreal andthe nature of associated faunal species such as elk, aurochs, red and roe deer. In woodlandenvironments these animals are either relatively solitary or live in small, dispersed groups

C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Substantial settlement in the European Early Mesolithic

which consequently may have led to people moving continuously through the landscape insearch of prey (Fischer 2006; Crombe et al. 2011).

The recolonisation of the British IslesIt seems likely that Britain was unoccupied during the Younger Dryas (Blockley 2009).Evidence for human presence re-occurs around 9600 cal BC with the appearance ofLong Blade sites. These are mainly found along the river valleys of southern Englandbut recent work has also revealed examples in the midlands (Cooper 2006) and the north-east (Conneller 2007). In the north of England, at least, Long Blade visits were relativelyrare and likely to represent occasional incursions by highly mobile groups, following herdsof horse. The earliest Mesolithic sites here represent a more permanent recolonisation ofthese areas. The sites in Britain have, as in continental Europe, been viewed as the productof small, highly mobile groups.

Star Carr is Britain’s best-known Preboreal site, first excavated in 1949–1951 by GrahameClark (1954) and dating to about 9000 cal BC. It is located in the Vale of Pickering,

0-50m50-100m100-150m150m+

Elevation

Scarborough

North Sea

North York Moors

Yorkshire Wolds

Palaeo-Lake Flixton

Star Carr

Figure 1. Map of east Yorkshire (the present Vale ofPickering) showing the former Lake Flixton and the locationof Star Carr.

northern England, near to the coastaltown of Scarborough (Figure 1). Duringthe Mesolithic period the site lay at thewestern end of a large lake (the palaeo-lake Flixton), which gradually infilled withpeat resulting in the preservation of organicmaterials. The excellent preservation at thesite resulted in the recovery of a widerange of food debris and material culture(including barbed antler points, red deerfrontlet ‘masks’, beads, antler mattocks andbone scrapers). However, despite this rangeof material culture, Clark’s interpretationof Star Carr has underpinned the ideathat human groups recolonising Britainwere small and mobile. Clark defined thelimits of the site by identifying where theworked flint concentration dropped off tonegligible values (five artefacts per squaremetre), resulting in a proposed occupationarea only c. 18 × 18m in extent. Clarkinterpreted the site as a camp occupiedby a handful of families during the winter

months. Following a review of the available data, he suggested this small site size was typicalof the camps of mobile hunter-gatherers, in marked contrast with subsequent Neolithicsites, which were found to be “a hundred times greater in area” (1954: 8).

The picture Clark so vividly painted was caricatured by Wheeler in a contemporarypublication: “as squalid a huddle of marsh-ridden food gatherers as the imagination couldC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

encompass” (Wheeler 1954: 231). This view has been perpetuated in subsequent decades;Ellis et al. (2003: 129), for example, suggest that occupation of the Kennet Valley, wherean important complex of Early Mesolithic sites (including Thatcham III) are located, mayhave been “minimal, short-lived and stochastic, but repeated.”

In Britain, therefore, as across north-west Europe, interpretations of the pioneerrecolonisation of northern Europe have suggested small scale sites, small group size and a highlevel of mobility. However the new programme of investigations at Star Carr undertaken bythe authors since 2004 has re-mapped the extent of Mesolithic occupation, and establishedthe nature of both dryland and wetland structures (Figure 2 & 3). These results producean alternative picture: the site is much larger than previously estimated and people builtsubstantial structures there. These in turn suggest a longer term occupation and larger groupsize, indicating that previous interpretations of Early Mesolithic lifeways, at least in parts ofEurope, need to be revisited.

New research at Star CarrSurvey

The new research project aimed to examine large areas of the dryland part of the site forthe first time, as well as to investigate questions that remained unanswered following earlierexcavations in the lake. Fieldwork began with surface survey, followed by a programmeof test-pitting and the excavation of larger trenches to the east of the area investigated byClark (Figure 2). In 2008, test pits were also excavated in the field to the north of theoriginal excavations, which revealed large quantities of Mesolithic material, mainly in theploughzone. A dense scatter of occupation debris to the north, now mainly ploughed out,was indicated by the analysis of Early Mesolithic material recovered from the surface by thelate Stuart Feather in the 1960s and totalling 90kg of worked flint. Together, this surveydemonstrates a much larger scatter of flint debris than previously known, extending acrossthe Star Carr peninsula over 200m to the south-east of the area investigated by Clark, andat least 80m to the north. The density of occupational debris uncovered during the currentproject is also greater than in the area excavated by Clark. The maximum density of lithicmaterial per square metre is 358 pieces, in comparison with 230 per square metre from the1949–51 excavations.

The wetland platform

During the original excavations, Clark recorded a substantial deposit of largely unmodifiedbirch stems within the peat that had formed at the edge of the lake (Clark 1954: 17). This,he argued, had been laid down deliberately to stabilise the wetland deposits and had actedas a platform or occupation surface. Subsequent study suggested that this represented acombination of roots from trees higher in the sequence, wood washed up on the edge ofthe lake and beaver-felled wood (Coles 2006). However, in 1985 artificially-worked timberwas discovered during the excavation of a trench for environmental sampling (VP85A:Mellars & Dark 1998). This consisted of a parallel arrangement of deliberately worked

CII Ext SC21SC22

VP85 Ext

Excavations by Clark 1949-1952

Excavations by the VPRT1985-1992

Excavations by CC, NM & BT 2004-2010

Extent of Early Mesolithic archaeology

Early Mesolithic terrestrial environment

Early Mesolithic lake & wetland environments

Modern River Hertford

Figure 2. The locality of Star Carr, showing excavation campaigns and the extent of Mesolithic evidence. The site was bisectedby the canalisation of the River Hertford in the early nineteenth century.

VP85A extension

Cutting II extension

Cutting II

Approx. extent of the lake and wetland deposits

Approx. extent of the terrestrial landscape

Split timbers

Structure

Split timbers observed inClark’s section

Figure 3. Dryland and wetland at Star Carr, showing timber platforms and dryland structure.

split-timbers that had been laid down directly onto peat. Although only a small part of thestructure was observed, it appeared to run diagonally along the shore rather than directlyinto the lake. This structure differs substantially from the brushwood ‘platform’ reportedin the original excavations because these timbers represent the definite products of humanlabour.

Detailed study by M. Taylor revealed that the wood had been artificially split, and sometimbers had additional traces of tool marks (Taylor 1998). The techniques exploited thenatural tendency of wood to split along the grain. Ridges and tool marks on the timbersindicate that parallel grooves were cut across the grain and the wood between them was splitout: the slots or grooves helped control the area to be split. The sharp edges of the split woodappear to have undergone additional smoothing, whilst one timber had been split twice tomake a true plank, only a few centimetres in thickness. Most of the timbers were laid downwith their flat surface uppermost.

Split timbers

North South

Edge of Clark’s excavation

Edge of 2010 excavation

Figure 4. Section through wetland deposits, showing split timbers lying beneath the brushwood in Cutting II.

This structure of split aspen/willow timbers was, however, only seen in a 1m-wideexcavation and a major aim of the new research was to discover more about it. To thisend between 2004 and 2010 seven different areas of the lake edge were investigated. Thefour most westerly trenches all revealed evidence for split timbers that had been laid downparallel with the lake shore (Figure 3). Significantly, worked timbers were also glimpsedin the section of one of Clark’s trenches (Cutting II), less than 5m to the west (Figure 4).These lay beneath what was interpreted as Clark’s brushwood platform, suggesting that theplatform of worked timbers had been present in at least parts of the original excavation, buthad not been recognised. A sequence of worked timbers, overlain by brushwood, was alsorecorded in SC24 (Figure 5). The timbers from the recent excavations had also been splitand hewn and, though macroscopic evidence for working was much less obvious than in the1980s due to the severe degradation of the site, tool marks could again be glimpsed on oneof the timbers (Milner et al. 2011). Despite the small scale of the excavation trenches, it isclear that many of the planks must have been extremely long, demonstrating sophisticatedcarpentry techniques.

In all cases, the planks had been laid down within an environment of reed swampforming in shallow, standing water. Preliminary palaeoenvironmental analysis has suggestedthat the structure was in use at a time when the depth of water at the site was becomingshallower due to the gradual accumulation of the peat, though the timbers and thedeposits around them remained at least seasonally submerged. After some time peatbegan to form over the timbers, although in at least some areas the platform continuedto stabilise the deposits, allowing easier access into the wetlands. Plant macrofossils fromsamples taken from above one of the planks in trench VP85A were more broken andpoorly preserved than from other deposits, whilst the peat itself contained a much smallerC© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Split timbers

Edge of Trench SC24

Figure 5. Split timbers shown in plan in Trench 24, partially overlain by a brushwood layer.

component of reed and other plants. This is likely to reflect the effects of trampling, whichdisturbed the peat as it was forming and suppressed the growth of vegetation over thetimbers.

The recent excavations have also allowed a better understanding of the ‘brushwood’platform recorded by Clark. Analysis of the woody deposit in Trench SC24 has shown thatit was made up of willow and/or aspen stems, some of which are likely to have fallen fromtrees growing by the shore. However, the ends of several stems had also been cut, suggestingthat some of the wood at least derived from human action such as the deliberate depositionof branches to stabilise the peat or as waste from the management and exploitation of thelake edge trees.

The available evidence indicates that the split timbers form part of one or more substantialstructures, spanning at least 30m of the lake-edge wetlands. Due to the small size of thecurrent excavations, the function of the structure is unclear. However, very few artefactswere recorded from around the timbers suggesting that the structures were not part of anarea from which material was discarded, but rather were intended to aid movement withinthe wetlands, possibly as landing places for boats.

The dryland structure (Structure 1)

In 2007 and 2008, an area excavation of 225m2 was opened on the dry ground north ofthe lake where occupation debris had been encountered during survey (Figure 2; Figure 3:SC23). This trench yielded nearly 8000 lithic artefacts and 210 pieces of heavily degradedanimal bone, and a structure was located. This took the form of a depression measuringabout 3m in diameter and around 20cm in depth, filled with dark sediment, surrounded by18 postholes creating a curvilinear zone about 4m across (Figure 6). Although the sedimentfilling the hollow was particularly dark, no evidence of charcoal or burnt plant macrosfossilswas recovered in sieving and flotation. Burnt flint was scattered sporadically throughout thehollow, but a small concentration in the south-central area may represent the remains ofa hearth. Micromorphological thin sections (analysed by Charles French) confirmed thatthe dark colour of the fill was a result of high organic content, probably resulting from theaddition of large amounts of organic matter, which had then become oxidised, humified andbioturbated. This suggests that plant material had originally been laid within the hollow;perhaps reeds used for flooring. Lithic material was strongly concentrated in the upper partof the feature. A similar phenomenon has been described for several Scandinavian Mesolithichuts. Grøn (2003: 695) suggests this is because organic material, such as branches or bark,was laid at the base of these structures, preventing lithic material from penetrating the base.

The structure appears to have been a place of intense activity, with high densities of lithicmaterial (>350 pieces per square metre) (Figure 7). Burins and burin spalls are particularlycommon and cluster in the north-eastern half of the structure. Microliths, microburins andscrapers were also recovered in large numbers. Two of three axes recovered during recentexcavations were all found in the structure; the other was immediately outside. One of theseis associated with a refitting scatter of resharpening spalls. Faunal remains were also foundwithin the structure; most had been pushed to the edges, though there was also a smallcluster adjacent to the possible hearth.C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

(199)(191)

(171)(169) (201)

(177)(179)

North South

(209)(201)

(207)(191)

(181)(199)

Darker fill

(158)(156)

(175)(167)

(179)(177)

(169]Burrow

(171)(173) (162)

Figure 6. Plan and sections of dryland Structure 1.

Figure 7. Structure 1: finds distribution plot.

Table 1. Maximum lithic densities per square metre of north-west EuropeanPreboreal sites.

Site Maximum lithic density per m2

Star Carr, England 358Flixton 2, England (Moore 1950) 274Seamer C, England 406Seamer K, England 199Thatcham III, England (Reynier 2003) 120Basse Veuves, France (Seara 2008) 100Closeau, France (Fagnart et al. 2008) 30–50Acquigny (area A), France (Souffi 2008) 30–50Haverbeck, Germany (Tolksdorf et al. 2009) c. 1400Klosterlund 1E, Denmark (Grøn 2003) 218Klosterlund 1W, Denmark (Grøn 2003) 454Draved 35, Denmark (Grøn 2003) 269Barmosen I, Denmark (Grøn 2003) c. 1700Rørmyr 2, Norway (Skar & Coulson 1985) 50–75

Currently the longevity of this structure is uncertain, as insufficient organic samples werepresent throughout the profile to permit the kind of intensive dating programme that wouldallow Bayesian analysis. However the number and stratified position of some of the postholessuggests that the structure had been repaired or rebuilt on at least one occasion.

DiscussionThe extent of continuous occupational debris at Star Carr covers an area of roughly19 500m2, a much larger site than envisaged by Clark, and it casts doubt on his model ofsmall family groups occupying the area on just a couple of occasions. It is larger even thanthe areas (1850–12 000m2) proposed by Rowley-Conwy (1983) as indicators of sedentaryLate Mesolithic (Ertebølle) camps in Denmark. The densities of occupational debris are alsogreater than most, though by no means all, sites of this date (Table 1).

Work by Dark (Mellars & Dark 1998), based on close interval dating of increased levelsof macro and micro-charcoal in pollen profiles taken from the site, suggests that Star Carrwas repeatedly re-occupied. If charcoal can be considered a proxy for human occupation,then Star Carr may have been used intermittently over 200–300 years (Dark et al. 2006),indicating this was a significant place in the landscape for some time. Dark suggests twomain phases of occupation, the first lasting around 80 years, followed by a gap of 100years when visits were rare, followed by a period of more intermittent occupation lasting150 years. Relatively few radiocarbon dates on artefacts exist from Star Carr. Those that do,suggest that the most spectacular organic artefacts from the site date to the first phase ofoccupation, indicating that complexity was present at, or near, the start of the occupationof the site. Despite the temporal depth of the sequence, the large size of the site and thedensity of occupation debris suggest more than simply repeated occupation by small familygroups. This is reinforced by the discovery of substantial structures.

The size of the platform of worked timbers appears unique for this date and region.Contemporary evidence exists for the use of bark, and even wooden planking, as flooringwithin huts or living structures (e.g. at Ulkestrup and Holmegaard IV, Denmark andDuvensee, Germany) (Grøn 2003); however, the sophisticated splitting of large timbers andthe construction of a wooden structure on this scale is unparalleled. Wooden boats, skisand fish traps have been preserved on a number of Mesolithic sites in Denmark, Sweden,Russia, Germany and Ireland, but these post-date the Preboreal, and become more frequentfrom 6000 BC. The only similar Early Mesolithic structure is a platform reported for thesite of Bølling SøVest IV, Denmark, though this was constructed through the staking downof unmodified brushwood (Andersen & Møbjerg in press). Platforms and trackways arebetter known from the Neolithic period onwards from sites such as Alvastra in Sweden(Malmer 2002) or Hatfield and the Somerset Levels in England (Brunning & Watson2010). Later Mesolithic and Neolithic stone and brushwood platforms are also known fromIreland (Fredengren 2009). The evidence from Star Carr indicates that, as early as thePreboreal, woodworking techniques were already sophisticated and seemingly the extensionof a well-established industry.

The scale of woodworking involved in the Star Carr split timber platform is alsosignificant. Cutting down trees and splitting timbers without the use of metal axes wouldhave been a long and laborious process (Taylor 1998). This is likely to have involved severalindividuals and may have required the sort of communal labour more usually associated withthe construction of Neolithic monuments. The Star Carr timber platform can be added to agrowing corpus of evidence for the communal construction of wooden, monumental-scalestructures during the Mesolithic. In England these include the Stonehenge car park postalignment, two postholes at Hambledon Hill, Dorset, and a probable posthole at BoscombeDown, Wiltshire. From the diameter of pits at Stonehenge, the posts could have stoodup to 3m high (Allen & Gardiner 2002). Monumental wooden posts are also known fromMesolithic Scandinavia, for example at Arup and Tagerup in Sweden (Andersson et al. 2004).

In the Late Mesolithic, large site size and substantial structures have been equatedwith sedentism, increased population and territoriality and linked to the presence of“complex hunter-gatherers” (Rowley-Conwy 1983: 29; Zvelebil 2008), groups characterisedby hierarchies which would arise to mitigate the problems associated with living in large,sedentary communities (Price & Brown 1985). These features have been seen as part of acomplex hunter-gatherer ‘package’ where the systems theory approach that underpins thesearch for complexity posits them as a series of interdependent consequences of certainconditions, such as societal circumscription, abundant resources and population increase(Price & Brown 1985: 8). By contrast, Early Mesolithic people are viewed as highly mobile.As Spikins discusses in an introduction to a recent synthesis: “Concepts of early pioneers,hardy explorers of previously unused terrain and a ‘shifting up’ and gradual infilling pervadediscussions of all regions” (Spikins 2008: 7). Depicted as a time of highly mobile colonisers,living in small groups, the Early Mesolithic provides a foil to the Late Mesolithic complexhunter-gatherers with large populations and increasing sedentism.

Critiques of the concept of complexity have emerged over the last decade in Mesolithicstudies (Rowley-Conwy 2001; Brinch Petersen & Meikeljohn 2007), and recent authorshave urged caution and the need for a consideration of the ambiguities of the evidence (e.g.C© Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Blankholm 2008). In particular, the equation of large sites with sedentary communitiesappears problematic. Repeated settlement disguises different occupation signatures, and itmay be that, over time, people used Star Carr at different seasons and for different lengths oftime. Mobility is also likely to have varied between different task-groups: it is still possiblethat some people moved over large territories, while others occupied the site on a morepermanent basis. While Star Carr appears to indicate longer-lasting and more substantialoccupation than many contemporary sites, it is likely to have been generated throughdifferent modes of occupation.

Despite difficulties in equating the evidence at Star Carr with sedentism, the site can beseen, more broadly, to indicate new ways of relating to the post-glacial landscape. In contrastto the focus on mobility that can be seen amongst Final Palaeolithic groups visiting the Valeof Pickering (Conneller 2007), by the Early Mesolithic particular places and landscapefeatures seem to have gained special significance. This can be linked to evidence for formaldeposition of artefacts made from red deer antler in the lake waters at Star Carr (Chatterton2003; Conneller & Schadla-Hall 2003; Conneller 2004) and the alteration of the lake edgevegetation through burning (Mellars & Dark 1998). These actions rooted people to thispart of the lake edge, leading to frequent return and reuse.

ConclusionsNew research at Star Carr has challenged current models suggesting that populationsrecolonising northern Europe consisted of small groups of highly mobile hunter-gatherers.Instead, the current work has yielded evidence for a large site with evidence for substantialconstructions: a large timber platform and a post-built structure. In addition, since less than5 per cent of the site has been excavated, and the archaeology of the larger, drylandcomponent has hitherto been neglected, there is considerable potential for additional hut-structures to be uncovered in the course of future excavations.

The new evidence suggests that pioneer groups, recolonising Britain after the YoungerDryas cold event, rapidly settled into the new landscapes they encountered. People investedconsiderable time and labour in modifying key landscape locations and it is highly probablethat larger groups congregated for long periods of time. The new results raise the questionof whether pioneer Mesolithic sites in other parts of northern Europe may have been larger,but not fully excavated due to the expectation that they will be small. Several of the Preborealsites with even higher lithic densities than Star Carr (Table 1), have only undergone limitedexcavation.

Preboreal Mesolithic sites are rare: in the area of the western and central Europeanplain, no more than 20 have been dated and the problem of lack of sites is exacerbatedby a problem of reliability of radiocarbon dates (Tolksdorf et al. 2009). More work isneeded to investigate whether Star Carr is unique, or whether longer-lasting settlement bylarge groups and long-standing commitment to particular landscape locations was a morecommon feature amongst pioneer groups. It seems unlikely to be a coincidence that StarCarr, the most thoroughly investigated Preboreal Mesolithic site in Europe, has also yieldedthe most abundant evidence for intensive settlement.

AcknowledgementsThe excavations at Star Carr have been funded by the British Academy (SG-44333, SG-47081, SG-50217),English Heritage (grant numbers 5536 and 6064), NERC (NE/I015191/1), the Vale of Pickering ResearchTrust, University of Manchester, University of York, The McDonald Institute, Cambridge, and UCL. We areindebted to the Vale of Pickering Research Trust for their support and the students who have participated in theexcavations 2004–10.

ReferencesALLEN, M.J. & J. GARDINER. 2002. A sense of time:

cultural markers in the Mesolithic of southernEngland, in B. David & M. Wilson (ed.) Inscribedlandscapes: making and marking place: 139–53.Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

ANDERSEN, S. & T. MØBJERG. In press. Early Mesolithicsettlements at Lake Bølling, central Jutland,Denmark, in P. Arias (ed.) MESO 2010. The EighthInternational Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe(Santander 13th –17th September, 2010). Oxford:Oxbow.

ANDERSSON, M., P. KARSTEN, B. KNARRSTROM & M.SVENSSON. 2004. Stone Age Scania: significant placesdug and read by contract archaeology. Lund: NationalHeritage Board.

BJERK, H. 2009. Colonising seascapes: comparativeperspectives on the development of maritimerelations in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition innorth-west Europe, in S. McCartan, R. Schulting,G. Warren & P. Woodman (ed.) Mesolithic horizons:papers presented at the Seventh InternationalConference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005:16–23. Oxford: Oxbow.

BLANKHOLM, H-P. 2008. Southern Scandinavia, in G.Bailey & P. Spikins (ed.) Mesolithic Europe: 107–31.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BLOCKLEY, S. 2009. Prehistory as a continuum in thediscussion of continuity and change in Britain,16,000–6000 cal BP, in S. McCartan, R. Schulting,G. Warren & P. Woodman (ed.) Mesolithic horizons:papers presented at the Seventh InternationalConference on the Mesolithic in Europe, Belfast 2005:627–31. Oxford: Oxbow.

BRINCH PETERSEN, E. & C. MEIKLEJOHN. 2007.Historical context of the term ‘complexity’ in thesouthern Scandinavian Mesolithic. ActaArchaeologica 78(2): 181–92.

BRUNNING, R. & J. WATSON. 2010. Waterlogged wood:guidelines on the recording, sampling, conservationand curation of waterlogged wood. Swindon: EnglishHeritage.

CHATTERTON, R. 2003. Star Carr reanalysed, in L.Bevan & J. Moore (ed.) Peopling the Mesolithic in anorthern environment (British ArchaeologicalReports International Series 1157): 69–80. Oxford:Archaeopress.

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

COLES, B. 2006. Beavers in Britain’s past. Oxford:Oxbow.

CONNELLER. C. 2004. Becoming deer: corporealtransformations at Star Carr. ArchaeologicalDialogues 11: 37–56.

– 2007. Inhabiting new landscapes: settlement andmobility after the last glacial maximum. OxfordJournal of Archaeology 26: 215–37.

CONNELLER, C. & T. SCHADLA-HALL 2003. BeyondStar Carr: the Vale of Pickering in the 10th

millennium BP. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society69: 85–106.

COOPER, L. 2006. Launde: a Terminal Palaeolithiccamp-site in the English Midlands and its northEuropean context. Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety 72: 53–94.

CROMBE, P., J. SERGANT, E. ROBINSON & J. DE REU.2011. Hunter-gatherer responses to environmentalchange during the Pleistocene–Holocene transitionin the southern North Sea basin: FinalPalaeolithic–Final Mesolithic land use in northwestBelgium. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:454–71.

DARK, P., T. HIGHAM, R. JACOBI & T. LORD. 2006.New radiocarbon accelerator dates on artefacts fromthe Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, NorthYorkshire. Archaeometry 48: 185–200.

ELLIS, C., M. ALLEN, J. GARDINER, P. HARDING, C.INGREM, A. POWELL & R. SCAIFE. 2003. An EarlyMesolithic seasonal hunting site in the Kennetvalley, southern England. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 69: 107–35.

FAGNART, P., P. COUDRET & B. SOUFFI. 2008. Lesoccupations mesolithiques du gisement de Saleux(Somme), in J-P. Fagnart, A. Thevenin, T. Ducrocq,B. Souffi & P. Coudret (ed.) Le debut duMesolithique en Europe du Nord-Ouest: 107–34.Amiens: Societe Prehistorique Francaise.

FISCHER, L. 2006. Blades and microliths: changingcontexts of tool production from Magdalenian toEarly Mesolithic in southern Germany. Journal ofArchaeological Science 25: 226–38.

FREDENGREN, C. 2009. Lake platforms at Lough Kinale– memory, reach and place, in S. McCartan, R.Schulting, G. Warren & P. Woodman (ed.)Mesolithic horizons: papers presented at the SeventhInternational Conference on the Mesolithic in Europe,Belfast 2005: 882–86. Oxford: Oxbow.

GRAMSCH, B. 2004. From the Late Palaeolithic to theEarly Mesolithic in northeastern Germany, in T.Terberger & B. Eriksen (ed.) Hunters in a changingworld: environment and archaeology of thePleistocene–Holocene transition (ca. 11000– 9000BC) in northern central Europe: 183–201. Leidorf:Rahden.

GRØN, O. 2003. The Maglemose culture (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 616).Oxford: Archaeopress.

HOUSLEY, R., C. GAMBLE, M. STREET & P. PETTITT.1997. Radiocarbon evidence for the late glacialhuman recolonisation of northern Europe.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63: 25–54.

JOCHIM, M.A. 1998. A hunter-gatherer landscape:southwest Germany in the Late Paleolithic andMesolithic. New York: Springer.

– 2006. Regional perspectives on Early Mesolithic landuse in southwestern Germany. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 25: 204–12.

MALMER, M.P. 2002. The Neolithic of southern Sweden.Stockholm: Royal Academy of Letters.

MELLARS, P. & P. DARK. 1998. Star Carr in context: newarchaeological and palaeoecological investigations atthe Early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire.Cambridge: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch.

MILNER, N., C. CONNELLER, B. ELLIOTT, H. KOON, I.PANTOR, K. PENKMAN, B. TAYLOR & M. TAYLOR.2011. From riches to rags: organic deterioration atStar Carr. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2818–32.

MOORE, J. 1950. Mesolithic sites in the neighbourhoodof Flixton, north-east Yorkshire. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 16: 101–108.

PRICE, T.D. & J.A. BROWN. 1985. Prehistorichunter-gatherers. The emergence of culturalcomplexity. San Diego (CA): Academic Press.

REYNIER, M. 2003. Early Mesolithic Britain (BritishArchaeological Reports British Series 393). Oxford:Archaeopress.

ROWLEY-CONWY, P. 1983. Sedentary hunters: theErtebølle example, in G.N. Bailey (ed.)Hunter-gatherer economy in prehistory: 111–26.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

– 2001. Time, change and the archaeology ofhunter-gatherers: how original is the ‘OriginalAffluent Society?’ in C. Panter-Brick, R. Layton &P. Rowley-Conwy (ed.) Hunter-gatherers: aninterdisciplinary perspective: 39–72. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

SEARA, F. 2008. Les occupations du Mesolithiqueancient et moyen du site des Basses Veuves aPont-sur-Yonne (Yonne), in J-P. Fagnart, A.Thevenin, T. Ducrocq, B. Souffi & P. Coudret(eds.) Le debut du Mesolithique en Europe duNord-Ouest: 169–82. Amiens: Societe PrehistoriqueFrancaise.

SKAR, B. & C. COULSON. 1985. The Early Mesolithicsite Rørmyr II: a re-examination of one of theHognipen sites, SE Norway. Acta Archaeologica 56:167–83.

SOUFFI, B. 2008. Le Mesolithique de HauteNormandie: taphonomie et interpretationchronoculturelle, in J-P. Fagnart, A. Thevenin, T.Ducrocq, B. Souffi & P. Coudret (ed.) Le debut duMesolithique en Europe du Nord-Ouest: 135–52.Amiens: Societe Prehistorique Francaise.

SPIKINS, P. 2008. Mesolithic Europe: glimpses ofanother world, in G.N. Bailey & P. Spikins (ed.)Mesolithic Europe: 1–17. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

TAYLOR, M. 1998. Identification of the wood andevidence for human working, in P. Mellars & P.Dark (ed.) Star Carr in context: new archaeologicaland palaeoecological investigations at the EarlyMesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire: 52–63.Cambridge: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch.

TERBERGER, T. 2004. The Younger Dryas–Preborealtransition in northern Germany – facts andconcepts in discussion, in T. Terberger & B. Eriksen(ed.) Hunters in a changing world: environment andarchaeology of the Pleistocene–Holocene Transition(ca. 11000–9000 BC) in northern central Europe:203–22. Rahden: Leidorf.

TOLKSDORF, J., K. KAISER, S. VEIL, N. KLASEN & H.BRUKNER. 2009. The Early Mesolithic Haverbecksite, northwest Germany: evidence for Preborealsettlement in the western and central Europeanplain. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 1466–76.

USINGER, H. 2004 Vegetation and climate of thelowlands of northern central Europe and adjacentareas around the Younger Dryas–Preborealtransition – with special emphasis on the Preborealoscillation, in T. Terberger & B. Eriksen (ed.)Hunters in a changing world. Environment andarchaeology of the Pleistocene–Holocene transition (ca.11000–9000 BC) in northern central Europe: 1–26.Rahden: Leidorf.

WHEELER, M. 1954. Archaeology from the earth.Harmondsworth: Penguin.

WIKELL, R., F. MOLIN & M. PETTERSSON. 2009. Thearchipelago of eastern Middle Sweden – Mesolithicsettlement in comparison with C14 and shorelinedating, in P. Crombe, M. van Strydonck, J. Sergant,M. Boudin & M. Bats (ed.) Chronology andevolution within the Mesolithic of north-west Europe:proceedings of an international meeting, Brussels, May30th –June 1s t 2007: 417–34. Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars.

ZVELEBIL, M. 2008. Innovating hunter-gatherers: theMesolithic in the Baltic, in G. Bailey and P. Spikins(ed.) Mesolithic Europe: 18–59. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Received: 9 March 2012; Accepted: 1 May 2012; Revised: 16 May 2012

Substantial settlement in the European Early Mesolithic: new research at Star Carr

Documents

Allen carr

Edward Hallett Carr. Tarih Nedir?

Allen Carr Greutatea Ideala

Geochemical indicators of preservation status and site deterioration at Star Carr

Corporate-Owned Real Estate Represents a Substantial Investment Universe

A substantial amount of hidden magnetic energy in the quiet Sun

The Mesolithic period in England: current perspectives and new research

The Substantial Evidence Rule and the Administrative ... - CORE

Substantial iron sequestration during green-clay authigenesis in modern deep-sea sediments

Artefact biographies of the Star Carr barbed points

Some Canadian-Grown Potato Cultivars Contribute to a Substantial

Metric dental change in the European upper paleolithic and mesolithic

Evidence for Mesolithic agriculture in and around central Europe?

Measuring Social Complexity in the European Mesolithic

Counting microliths: a reliable method to assess Mesolithic land use?

External validation of prognostic models for critically ill patients required substantial sample sizes

Radiocarbon dating of Mesolithic human remains in Belgium and Luxembourg

Mesolithic people in an open Mediterranean wetland

building a substantial european coal company - ASX

Star Carr in a Postglacial Lakescape: 60 Years of Research