Durham Research Online
Deposited in DRO: 14 January 2015 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Bishop, R.R. and Church, M.J. and Rowley-Conwy, P.A. (2014) 'Seeds, fruits and nuts in the Scottish Mesolithic.', Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland., 143 . pp. 9-72. Further information on publisher's website: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/psas/contents.cfm?vol=143CFID=7702CFTOKEN=7196F531- 8B7C-4890-8C914BB17721A57F
Publisher's copyright statement: This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Additional information:
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Proc Soc Antiq Scot 143 (2013), 9–71 SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 9
Seeds, fruits and nuts in the Scottish Mesolithic Rosie R Bishop*, Mike J Church* and Peter A Rowley-Conwy*
ABSTRACT Over the past few decades, the potential importance of plants within European Mesolithic economies has frequently been discussed, but there has been little systematic consideration of the archaeobotanical evidence for Mesolithic plant consumption in Scotland. This paper assesses the use of plants in the Scottish Mesolithic economy using the archaeobotanical evidence from 48 sites. It is argued that plants were systematically, and, in some cases, intensively exploited in Mesolithic Scotland. Though plant remains were extremely sparse at most sites, it is suggested that uneven archaeological sampling and taphonomic factors, together with the relatively short duration of occupation of many sites, may be responsible for the restricted range and frequency of edible taxa in most assemblages.
INTRODUCTION Though some have argued for the importance of plants within European Mesolithic European Mesolithic ‘hunter-gatherers’ have subsistence strategies (Clarke 1976; Mellars often been perceived primarily as hunters rather 1976a: 30; 1976b; Mason et al 1994; Zvelebil than gatherers (eg Jarman 1972; Price 1987: 1994; Mithen et al 2001; McComb 2009; Holst 288). Processual approaches in Mesolithic 2010), and there has been discussion about the subsistence studies have concentrated on the potential role of Mesolithic communities in the ranking of ‘staple’ resources, and there has been management of wild plant resources (Harris an over-emphasis on the species that have been 1989; Zvelebil 1994; Warren et al 2014), little FRQVLGHUHGWREHRIPRVWFDORULÀFLPSRUWDQFH systematic archaeobotanical research has been such as red deer and marine foods, at the undertaken to substantiate these suggestions. expense of foodstuffs thought to be of relatively This is largely a consequence of the widespread PLQRUVLJQLÀFDQFHVXFKDVZLOGSODQWV )LQOD\ assumption that plant remains are rarely 2000; Milner 2009: 71). This is in spite of the preserved in the Mesolithic, and as a result, fact that plants are widely acknowledged to detailed environmental sampling and analysis play a crucial physiological and nutritional has not been routinely undertaken on Mesolithic role within the human diet (eg Speth 1989; sites (Mason et al 1994: 54; Hather & Mason King 1994: 196; Zvelebil 1994: 58; Vaughan & 2002: 2). In fact, where appropriate methods Geissler 1997: 200) and that abundant evidence have been employed, diverse assemblages of exists for the importance of plants within many plant remains have frequently been recovered past and present hunter-gatherer economies (Hather & Mason 2002: 2; Mason et al 2002: (Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 10; Moerman 1998: 195). 15; Crowe 2005: 8–9; Anderson 2006: 242; Instead, research has focused on stone Rowley-Conwy & Layton 2011: 855). WRROV²WKHPRVWIUHTXHQWO\SUHVHUYHGÀQGVRQ
* Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 10 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Mesolithic sites – which have primarily been of land being covered in blanket bog, moors YLHZHG DV PHDW DQG ÀVK KXQWLQJSURFHVVLQJ and mountains and the probable destruction tools rather than plant processing implements of lowland Mesolithic sites as a result of (Clarke 1976: 452; Finlayson & Edwards 2003: development (Wickham-Jones 2004b: 2). 122; Warren 2005: 86). This is contrary to recent Therefore, though a number of shell middens use-wear and artefact residue analysis results, have been excavated, they form only a very which have shown that many Mesolithic stone minor proportion of Mesolithic sites in Scotland tools were used for multiple purposes, including (Wickham-Jones 2009: 478–9) and arguably wood and plant processing (Grace 1992: 62; the contents of middens cannot be regarded as Finlayson 2004: 224–5; Hardy 2004: 44; Hardy typical of the overall Mesolithic diet. & Shiel 2007; Milner 2009: 66). The marine-orientated view of the In Scotland, this situation has been com- Mesolithic economy has been further pounded by the nature of the history of research. emphasised by recent isotopic analyses of the 6LQFHPRVW0HVROLWKLFVLWHVLGHQWLÀHGRQWKHHDVW human bone from the Oronsay shell middens, coast of Scotland consist of unexcavated lithic which have produced highly marine signatures scatters (Finlayson 2004: 222), evidence for the (Richards & Mellars 1998; Schulting & use of edible plants has rarely been recovered, Richards 2000; 2002). However, due to the reinforcing the view that meat was the primary current uncertainties of the marine reservoir foodstuff consumed. Moreover, research-driven correction that should be applied to dates of this excavation projects in Scotland have focused period from individuals with marine-dominated on west coast shell midden sites rather than diets, the calibrated dates from these bones on terrestrial sites, because of the excellent KDYHÁXFWXDWHGDFURVVWKH0HVROLWKLF²1HROLWKLF organic preservation in shell middens and the transition in different publications (Richards GLIÀFXOW\ RI ORFDWLQJ LQODQG VLWHV :LFNKDP & Sheridan 2000; Schulting & Richards 2002; Jones 2004b: 2; 2009: 478). Arguably this has Milner & Craig 2009). Consequently, it is further skewed perceptions of the Mesolithic possible that several of the radiocarbon dates diet. Since shell middens are specialised sites are contemporary with dates from the earliest involving marine exploitation (Wickham-Jones Neolithic period (Schulting & Richards 2002). 2009: 481), it is perhaps unsurprising that plant Even if these human bones are accepted to be remains are relatively less abundant in such ‘Mesolithic’, arguably their isotopic signatures contexts compared to marine resources. Also, are not representative of the overall Mesolithic many shell middens were excavated in the 19th economy. Since only four dated human bones or early 20th century, before the development of from two of the Oronsay shell middens have modern sampling procedures (Wickham-Jones been analysed, they may represent groups of 2004b: 5), and so no plant remains have been coastal hunter-gatherers with more marine- recovered from these sites. Equally, the plant orientated diets than inland communities remains recovered from modern excavations (Milner et al 2003; Milner 2009: 66). Indeed, of Scottish shell middens have rarely been isotopic analyses on Mesolithic human bones studied in detail, with research focusing almost from elsewhere in Britain and Ireland have exclusively on animal resources (eg Mellars produced a much more varied picture, with some &RQVHTXHQWO\WKHWUXHVLJQLÀFDQFH individuals with a predominantly terrestrial diet, of plants in such contexts remains uncertain. some with a more marine-orientated diet and Furthermore, shell middens are often highly others with mixed diets (Schulting & Richards YLVLEOHHDV\WRDFFHVVDQGDUHHDVLO\LGHQWLÀHG 2000; Richards et al 2003; Milner 2009: 66). as a result of coastal erosion. In contrast, inland Moreover, palynological evidence highlights VLWHVDUHPXFKKDUGHUWRÀQGGXHWRODUJHDUHDV the potential importance of plants within the SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 11
Scottish Mesolithic. There is an extensive body units and academics researching Mesolithic of pollen evidence for small-scale, human- Scotland (see Acknowledgments). In addition, woodland manipulation in Mesolithic Scotland sites with Mesolithic radiocarbon dates (eg Bohncke 1988; Edwards 1996a; 2000; 2004; from Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 2009; Edwards & Ralston 1984; Edwards & 1970–2010 were also investigated further Sugden 2003; Hirons & Edwards 1990; Tipping where possible. However, some of these sites 1995a; b), which may provide support for the were either still in the initial stages of the active role of hunter-gatherers in managing wild post-excavation process or had not yet been plants. Thus, the role of plants within Scottish fully published. Therefore, the review is a Mesolithic subsistence strategies requires comprehensive, but not a complete list of all reassessment. Mesolithic sites with plant remains in Scotland. This review seeks to assess the evidence Sites were included in the review if they met for the importance of plants within Scottish the following criteria. All Mesolithic sites where Mesolithic subsistence strategies, using WKHUHPDLQVRIFKDUUHGQXWVIUXLWVURRWVWXEHUV the archaeobotanical data from 48 Scottish parenchyma or seeds have been recovered by Mesolithic sites, together with ethnobotanic hand-collection or sampling were included in evidence for wild plant gathering. The following the database. In addition, sampled sites where research questions will be addressed in this wood charcoal was the only plant component paper: recovered were included in the database of sites (Table 1), since it was considered that edible :KDWHYLGHQFHLVWKHUHIRUWKHJDWKHULQJ plant remains should have been recovered from processing and cooking of wild plants in the these sites if they had been present. These sites Scottish Mesolithic? are only included in this paper with regards to ,VWKHUHDQ\HYLGHQFHWKDWSODQWXVHZDVODUJH the total number of site blocks (see next section scale and intensive in the Scottish Mesolithic? IRUGHÀQLWLRQRID¶VLWHEORFN· DQGWKH\DUHQRW &RXOGKD]HOQXWVKDYHEHHQXVHGDVDVWDSOH listed in results Tables 3–6. The charcoal from food in the Scottish Mesolithic? these sites, together with the charcoal from :KDWLVWKHIXWXUHSRWHQWLDORIWKH6FRWWLVK the other sites in Table 1, will form the subject archaeobotanical resource for studying of a future paper on wood procurement and Mesolithic plant exploitation? management strategies. While it would have been preferable to only include sites where sampling was undertaken to ensure the data was METHODOLOGY representative of the plant remains present on site (van der Veen 1984: 193; Jones 2000: 79), DATA SELECTION this would have severely restricted the number Following the methodology of Bishop et al of sites available for synthesis because sampling (2009), a database of 48 Mesolithic sites with on Mesolithic sites has not been systematically archaeobotanical remains was compiled (Table undertaken. Plant remains from natural soil 1) by systematically searching through regional SURÀOHVZHUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHGDWDEDVH and national journals, major monograph series Plant remains were considered to be and excavation reports produced after 1960. Site Mesolithic in date if they were from secure references were also obtained from previous contexts and were either directly radiocarbon reviews of plant macrofossils and Mesolithic dated or associated with material radiocarbon radiocarbon dates (Dickson & Dickson 2000; dated to within accepted chronological ranges Ashmore 2004b) and unpublished data from for the Mesolithic period in Scotland, c 8600– several sites was obtained from archaeological 4000 cal bc (Ashmore 2004a; 2004b), or if they 12 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013 2002 Gooder & Engl 2002; available bulk samples, no further information available Cressey 2004; Wickham- Jones et al 2004 total sampling, bulk samples, sieving Dunbar 2008 total sampling, bulk VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ Flitcroft & Heald 1997; QRLQIRUPDWLRQDYDLODEOH $IÁHFNHWDO 2·%ULHQHWDO
judgement sampling, bulk Cook & Engl 2002; scoops occupation wet sieving of most Searight 1990 ÀUHVSRWV possible hearth pit structure) structure) occupation layers soil wet sieved to 5mm, Dickson 1985; layer , but no hearths or deposits, no further a pit stake-holes , post-holes, judgement sampling, Crone 1997; Johnston old ground surface
possible hearth pits , a possible hearth ecofacts and incorporating available M containing artefacts and no further information Wordsworth et al 1985 and a layers, LMI occupation and shallow hollow (stake- information available LMII LMII charcoal spread and bulk samples, no further 1997 LMII and a scatter, LMI lithic and
DQGDOLWKLFVFDWWHU VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ *RRGHU
bc bc bc bc bc bc bc cal cal cal cal cal artefacts
millennium cal
millennium millennium Camas Daraich 6 &DUQ6RXWKHUQ 1 Castle Street late 8th–late 7th 8 DVVRFLDWHGZLWK 1 0 late 8th–early 6th ÁLQWVFDWWHUV built Mesolithic structures information millennium Biggar Common cal 5 millennium 2 mid 6th–early 5th Aird Calanais 2 3 early 6th–mid 5th millennium Auchareoch 3 Beattock 1 4 late 8th–late 7th 2 late 7th–early 6th Miller Ailsa View 1 2 mid 8th–early 7th LMI millennium number zone 1 Table block 'HVFULSWLRQRIHDFKVLWHLQWKHUHYLHZ)RUDGHVFULSWLRQRIWK HZRRGODQG]RQHFODVVLÀFDWLRQVVHH0HWKRGRORJ\VHFWLRQ/0, OD WHU0HVROLWKLF, /0,, ODWHU zone Mesolithic II; M: Mesolithic. The locations of the sites are shown in illus 1. bold text Site description column ind icates contexts recovery the plant remains Site number Site Woodland Site period Period Site description Sampling information References SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 13 2008 information 3mm EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ available 100% sampling, bulk VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ Hastie 2003b; Lawson 5HHG 6DYLOOH Sampling information References natural features features a possible old ground with post- EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ *RRGHU +DOO burnt walling no further information pits and an occupation VXQNHQÁRRU surfaces , pits a scoop and stake-holes (phase shell midden , occupation 3-stage cluster sampling; Boyd & Kenworthy dated and included in this analysis ) further VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQQR $WNLQVRQ internal furniture), and (oval structure with holes and LMI holes DQGDOLWKLFVFDWWHU VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQWRPP around it and VORWIHDWXUHVZLWKLQÁRRU LMII 1 & 2 only in this old ground surface, a pit total sampling, bulk Ward 2005a, 2005b, 2005c
VXUIDFHVSRVVLEOHVWDNH built structures and EXONVDPSOHVDQGÁRWDWLRQ ² 0HOODUV to 1mm; all soil wet-sieved 1978; Peacock 1987; 1979, LMII
M 3 pits ( only pit 5 securely hand collection, bulk Alldritt 2002;
bc bc bc bc cal cal cal
zone block zone Mesolithic artefacts sand layer and
Site Woodland Site period Period Site description horizon around structure Elginhaugh 14 2 associated with M lithic concentration in judgement sampling, Clapham 2007; Hanson feature QRGHÀQLWH anthopogenic East Barns 13 2 late 9th–early 8th millennium analysis) Daer Valley Site 84 12 hearth , stake-holes and 2 late 5th millennium cal bc millennium Cramond 11 2 early–late 9th LMI lithic scatter,
hearths to millennium available Cnoc Coig 10 1 early 5th–early 4th Pit 5 millennium cal &KDSHOÀHOG ODWHWK²PLGWK Site number 14 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013 1996, 1997; Proudfoot 1999, 2001 2005; Miller 2005 1998b
100% sampling, bulk VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ Murray & I orthcoming; Timpany bulk samples, no further Boardman 2005; Ritchie
Sampling information References further information further
no information available Peterson & Proudfoot layer GU\VLHYLQJWRPP QR 0DFNHQ]LHHWDO windbreak in sand layer cut feature containing surfaces beneath barrow pits and a lithic scatter no information available Donnelly & Macgregor pits and old ground a pit occupation layer and no information available Mercer 1972–4 pits , post-holes, hollows no sampling, soil sieved Wickham-Jones et al 1990 occupation layer , pits total sampling, bulk Holden 1996; Wickham- and LMII LMI Early: LMII
curving line of pits stake-holes, slots and lithic to 3mm LMI LMI VKDOORZVFRRSVOLQHDU cut, possible hearth, VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ -RQHV 'DOODQG D
bc bc bc bc bc
cal cal cal cal cal artefacts bc ; late: mid–late 5th Late:
zone block zone
Site Woodland Site period Period Site description Barrow millennium Gallow Hill 17 2 7th millennium cal LMI; late–mid 5th structure) millennium Fordhouse 16 2 5th Garthdee 18 1 early: mid 8th–early early–mid millennium Glenbatrick Mesolithic Waterhole 19 2008 Irish Street 1 20 2 associated with M Mesolithic artefacts associated with M lithic scatter lithic scatter in a Kilellan Farm 21 1 associated with M areas of laid pebbles and scatter 0HVROLWKLFDUWHIDFWV ÁDWVWRQHVDSLWDQGOLWKLF LQIRUPDWLRQDYDLODEOH (possible scatter drying rack) drying millennium Kinloch 22 1 late 9th–late 7th millennium
(possible wind break or Fife Ness 15 2 early 8th–late 8th post-holes and stake-holes available Site number SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 15 2007 Hastie 2002; Warren Warren pers comm ² Wickham-Jones & Bonsall 1996
EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ available no further information 1998, 2003; Graeme no sampling, soil wet Mercer 1978–80; Moore
partially wet sieved to Sampling information References no sampling, main RFFXSDWLRQKRUL]RQ Mercer 1967–8
no information available Bonsall et al 1993;
stake-holes , 100% sampling of Alldritt 2011; Lee & occupation structures) structures) and scatter available scatter possible pit 3 conjoined stone rings in a scoop DUHDRIÁDW VLHYHGWRPP organic rich horizon old ground surface total sampling, bulk Robertson & scooped features EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ 0DFJUHJRUHWDO post-holes , pits hollows, features, bulk samples, natural features and thin occupation layers Woodward 2008, 2009a, ÁRWDWLRQWRSVRLO wet sieved to 4mm E :RRGZDUG gravel/sand layers LMI lithic scatter, cobble area and LMI
M LMI EHQHDWKDEDUURZ VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ :RRGZDUG containing artefacts and occupation deposit and no further information Miller & Ramsay 2001 LMI (stake and post structures, LMI lithic scatter, LMI lithic
bc bc bc bc bc cal cal cal cal cal artefacts bc zone block zone
Site Woodland Site period Period Site description
layers Manor Bridge 29 2 mid 9th–early 8th millennium millennium stones Lussa Wood 28 1 late 9th–mid 7th Downes millennium millennium ecofacts Long Howe 27 3 late 8th–early 7th Lon Mor 26 1 late 7th–early 4th lithic Littlehill Bridge cal 25 2 late 7th millennium external millennium Lealt Bay 23 1 associated with M lithics and ecofacts in 3mm Links House 24 3 late 8th–early 7th Site Mesolithic number 16 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013 al 2005; Simpson et Suddaby 2002; 2007 no further information
some soil sieved, no Mercer 1971–2 available further information available
Sampling information References Site B = judgement
structures EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ &UHVVH\ /\RQV post-holes structure) L-shaped stone 2 post-circle hearth within shallow bulk samples, sieving, Masters 1981 old ground surface total sampling, bulk Bishop et al 2010, 2011; gullies SLWVDQGdepression containing 0.35mm, no further EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQWR 0F&XOODJK D E incorporating hearths, RFFXSDWLRQÁRRUV , hearths Silver- hollow LMI
LMI lithic scatter, scoops and an FRQWDLQLQJDUWHIDFWVDQG ecofacts VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ %LVKRS Gregory et crest 1 and a possible post no further information forthcoming; Cressey & LMI artefacts and ecofacts information available LMI and stone walling Morton Morton A: lithic scatters, A: M; Site A = hand collection; Coles 1971 % VKHOWHUVZLQGEUHDNV ÁRWDWLRQ Morton and stakeholes (possible sampling, bulk samples,
bc bc bc bc ; & 2: alignment bc LMII Morton B: shell midden Morton bc LMII
cal cal cal cal cal 6th bc bc ; Morton B: zone block zone
post-circle 2: mid– LMI late 8th millennium
early 5th millennium early 6th–early 5th Site Woodland Site period Period Site description available Silvercrest 35 1 post-circle 1: late millennium North Carn 32 1 mid–late 7th millennium 7th–early millennium setting in an old land surface Northton 33 Redkirk Point 3 34 2006 2 late 8th–late 7th PLOOHQQLXPFDO late 8th–mid 7th cal (possible millennium Newton 31 1 late 8th–late 7th
Morton 30 2 Morton A:mid 8th–
stake-holes,
millenium
Site number cal SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 17 1996b Johnson & Cameron Johnson & Cameron 2012 hand collection, judgement sampling, bulk Clarke 1997 VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ Alexander et al 1997; no information available Baker 1998 100% sampling, bulk VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ Blake et al 2012a; Church DOE E total sampling, bulk VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ Cressey 2003, 2012; +DVWLHD ;
a large feature F24:25–50% Carruthers 2000; Hather ÀUHVSRWV QRLQIRUPDWLRQDYDLODEOH $IÁHFN (GZDUGV pits/tree bulk samples, no further Dickson 1997; Mercer & pit containing a post-hole random sampling of 0.5m 2000b; Mason & Hather GLVSRVLQJRINQDSSLQJ DQGÁRWDWLRQ RWKHU 0LWKHQHWDO a post-pit old ground surfaces 100% sampling, bulk shell midden Blake et al 2012b; Church a pit a large pit pits , a hearth and and arc of stake-holes F41 & F49: LMI; (probable hut reused for F30: grid squares, bulk samples 2000; Mithen debitage and plant LMII features: wet sieved to LMII LMII FRQWDLQLQJDUWHIDFWVDQG VDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ HWDOD D LMII LMII
LMII lithics scatter, LMII lithics F24: M; LMI 70 possible LMI 70 holes in old land information available Midgley 1997
bc bc bc ; bc bc bc bc
cal cal cal cal cal cal cal bc bc ; F41 & F49: 6th millennium cal late 8th–late 7th F30: late 5th LMII processing debris) to 3mm
Site Woodland Site period Period Site description Sampling information References millennium millennium Staosnaig millennium 40 millennium 1 cal F24: late 8th–early Summerston millennium 41 Temple Bay 2 42 3 late 5th millennium Tràigh na Beirigh 1 43 early-mid 6th 3 ecofacts late 5th millennium cal bc Spurryhillock 39 2 5th early–late 6NLOPDÀOO\ surface PLGWK²HDUO\WK millennium Smittons 38 2 mid 6th–late 5th number zone block zone number 7th Sketewan 36 2 mid–late Site millennium 18 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013 Timpany 2006 judgement sampling, EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ Carter 1993 column samples, dry sieving to 2mm, no further information Bonsall et al 1991, 1992, 1994; Russell et al 1995 EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQno further information *DOH &RRNHWDO available 2010; Vandorpe 2007 EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQno further information +DVWLH /DQFDVWHU available 2009; Murray et al Sampling information References pits , old EXONVDPSOHVÁRWDWLRQ :DUGG ecofacts ground surface every feature sampled pits shell midden pits and post-holes pit alignment
M; LMI; Late: containing artefacts and M LMII pit 5: LMI scatter, Early: lithic
bc bc ² bc ; bc bc bc bc
cal cal cal cal cal cal 7th LMII 7th bc ; late: late 8th– bc ; other pits: late other zone block zone pit 2: early–late 6th LMII 6th millennium cal 5th millennium cal 9th–mid 8th pits: Site Woodland Site period Period Site description pit 3: early–late 5th millennium early Tulloch 44 1 pit 1: early–mid 6th Pits Wood millennium cal millennium Wood millennium millennium millennium available Upper Largie 46 1 Warren Field 47 mid–late 5th 1 Weston Farm 48 pit 5: late 8th–mid 2 early: late 6th–early millennium Site number millennium Ulva Cave 45 1 early 7th–late 5th SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 19 were from undated contexts securely associated chronological categories and the totals for each with Mesolithic artefactual material. Undated period from each site were listed as separate plant remains from unsecure contexts containing ‘site blocks’. Sites or contexts that could not radiocarbon dated material of both Mesolithic be placed into these period blocks, due to an and later date or concentrations of cereal grains DEVHQFHRIUDGLRFDUERQGDWHVRUDQLQVXIÀFLHQWO\ or post-Mesolithic artefacts were also excluded tight radiocarbon chronology, were classed as from the review. In addition, radiocarbon dated Mesolithic (8600–4000 ± 20 cal bc). Therefore, Mesolithic plant remains in contexts clearly of three chronological categories were used: Later post-Mesolithic date were excluded. However, Mesolithic I, Later Mesolithic II and Mesolithic. directly dated Mesolithic plant remains from These chronological groupings are clearly very secure contexts were included if only a single FRDUVHEXWÀQHUFKURQRORJLFDOFDWHJRULHVZHUH intrusive cereal grain or radiocarbon date of not possible for two main reasons. Firstly, post-Mesolithic date was present. some dates spanned multiple millennia, making the division of sites into millennium-scale categories problematic. Secondly, it was not GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL SITE always clear how undated plant remains related CLASSIFICATIONS to the different site phases when radiocarbon On the basis of changes in material culture, the dates from other materials spanned several Later Mesolithic in Britain is currently accepted millennia. to have begun at about 8400 cal bc (Saville 2008; The sites were further divided into three Passmore & Waddington 2012: 121). Whilst geographical categories based on Tipping’s several Scottish sites (Morton A, Glenbatrick ZRRGODQG FODVVLÀFDWLRQ VFKHPH Waterhole, Lussa Bay and An Corran) have for the period c 4000 cal bc ZRRGODQG ]RQH produced artefactual assemblages typologically 1 (Inner Hebrides, West Coast Mainland similar to material from radiocarbon dated Early DQG 1RUWK(DVW 6FRWODQG ZRRGODQG ]RQH Mesolithic English sites, these assemblages (Southern and Central Scotland), and woodland are not associated with Early Mesolithic ]RQH 1RUWKHUQDQG:HVWHUQ,VOHVRI6FRWODQG radiocarbon dates and there are currently no (see illus 1). Tipping’s (1994; 2004) ‘pine & Mesolithic sites with secure radiocarbon dates SLQHELUFK ZRRGV· ]RQH ZDV H[FOXGHG IURP from before c 8600 cal bc (Ashmore 2004b; the analysis because no Mesolithic sites with Saville 2004: 205). Consequently, the sites archaeobotanical remains were present in this LQ WKLV SDSHU ZHUH FODVVLÀHG DFFRUGLQJ WR area. Whilst it is recognised that the vegetation radiocarbon chronologies only. changed considerably between 8000–4000 cal In order to assess whether there were any bc WKHVH ]RQHV UHSUHVHQW XVHIXO JHRJUDSKLFDO chronological trends in the dataset, uncalibrated UHJLRQV IRU FRPSDULVRQ UHÁHFWLQJ WKH PDMRU radiocarbon dates from each site were calibrated ZRRGODQG ]RQHV DYDLODEOH IRU ZLOG SODQW using IntCal13 (Reimer et al 2013), within OxCal exploitation. Where possible, site features that v4.2 (Bronk Ramsey 2009). Since the Later were clearly spatially distinct were separated, Mesolithic of Scotland cannot be subdivided on and the totals for each spatial area from each the basis of artefact typologies (Mithen 2000: site were listed as separate ‘site blocks’. 6DYLOOH HDFKVLWHZDVFODVVLÀHG as Later Mesolithic I (8600–6000 ± 20 cal bc) DATA RECORDING AND ANALYSIS or Later Mesolithic II (6000–4000 ± 20 cal bc) using the arbitrary date of 6000 cal bc as the For each site in the review, the abundance of divider between these periods. Where possible, each plant taxon present within each assemblage different site contexts were separated into these was recorded numerically where possible and 20 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Key Woodland zone 1 Woodland zone 2 Woodland zone 3 Pine dominated woodlands Unwooded N 24 27
43 2
42 33 35 37 8 44 47 18 22 6 39 16 26 36 45 30 23 28 7&32 46 15 40 10 9 13 21 19 41 11 14 31 48 29 3 5 12 25 1 4 17 38 20 34
0 100 200 Km
Illus 1 Map of Scotland showing Mesolithic site locations. Numbers correspond to the sites listed in 7DEOHDQGZRRGODQG]RQHVDUHWDNHQIURP7LSSLQJ SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 21 on a scale of ‘present’ (‘P’), absent (blank), or have been problematic because plant remains ‘abundant’ (‘A’) when plant components were were only present in low frequencies in most not numerated in the archaeobotanical reports. assemblages. Additionally, the plant remains The sampling methodologies employed and from some sites probably represent palimpsests background information about each site was of multiple behavioural episodes and periods also recorded to aid the comparison between of site use. Consequently, in this review, the different sites (Table 1). The archaeobotanical plant macrofossil data will be considered on a VSHFLHV LGHQWLÀFDWLRQV ZHUH VXPPDULVHG E\ SUHVHQFHDEVHQFHEDVLVRQO\ grouping the plant taxa into different categories In order to provide a more detailed con- (a full list of the plant taxa and components in sideration of the role of plants within Mesolithic each of these categories is given in Table 2). economies and to understand the likely 1RPHQFODWXUHIRUWKHVFLHQWLÀFQDPHVIROORZV harvesting, processing and cooking methods Stace (2010). The term ‘seeds’ is used in the XVHGIRUVSHFLÀFSODQWVDZLGHUDQJHRIUHOHYDQW WH[W WR LQFOXGH DOO VPDOO ERWDQLFDO IUXLWVQXWV ethnobotanic sources were utilised. A full list achenes, fruits, nuts and caryopses (Table 2). of the ethnobotanical sources systematically Plant species classed as ‘cf’ were added to the consulted is given in Appendix 1. GHÀQLWH VSHFLHV LGHQWLÀFDWLRQV IRU H[DPSOH FI Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. was placed in the FUDEDSSOHVHHGIUXLWIUDJPHQWFDWHJRU\ 7DEOH RESULTS 4XDQWLÀFDWLRQ LQ 7DEOHV ² ZDV ZKHUH possible, based on numerical counts of plant This section presents the results of the components presented in the archaeobotanical review of 48 Scottish Mesolithic sites with UHSRUWV 7KH PDVVHV RI KD]HOQXW VKHOO ZHUH archaeobotanical remains, split into 57 site also noted, where this information was blocks (Table 1). Of these site blocks, 24 DYDLODEOH EHFDXVH LGHQWLÀFDWLRQV ZHUH QRW were classed as Later Mesolithic I, 20 as Later universally presented as numerical counts in the Mesolithic II and 13 as Mesolithic. There was archaeobotanical reports. Seed totals for plants DQ HYHQ VSUHDG RI VLWHV LQ ZRRGODQG ]RQHV with edible and inedible components are given DQGZLWKVLWHVORFDWHGLQHDFK]RQH LOOXV LQ 7DEOH 6SHFLHV LGHQWLÀFDWLRQV IRU SODQWV 1). In contrast, there are currently only six with edible seeds and seeds from plants with Mesolithic sites with archaeobotanical remains HGLEOHOHDYHVVWHPVVKRRWVÁRZHUVDQGURRWV LQ ZRRGODQG ]RQH DQ DUHD HQFRPSDVVLQJ are shown in Tables 4 and 5 respectively. Seeds the north of Sutherland, Caithness and the IURPLQHGLEOHSODQWVDQGVHHGVLGHQWLÀHGDWWRR Northern and Western Isles. The small number high a taxonomic level to be certain of edibility RI VLWHV LQ ZRRGODQG ]RQH LV D UHÁHFWLRQ RI are listed in Table 6. the lower level of modern development in this It was not possible to use semi-quantitative region compared to other areas of Scotland. or quantitative methods to analyse the plant Also, in situ Mesolithic archaeology has only macrofossil dataset because there were major been discovered in the Northern and Western discrepancies in the sampling, recovery and Isles in the last decade and so it is only recently recording methods employed between different that there has been any systematic search for sites. Also, the differential fragmentation of Mesolithic sites in this area (Bishop et al 2010; different types of plant remains means that 2011; Church et al 2012a; 2012b). quantitative methods would have been unsuitable The plant remains were recovered from for comparing different plant components, a range of different feature types, which are such as seeds and tubers. Direct quantitative representative of the diversity of Mesolithic comparisons between different sites would also features present across Scotland. These include: 22 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
pits, post-holes, scoops, (a) 100 VWDNHKROHV KHDUWKVÀUH spots, gullies, old ground 80 VXUIDFHVRFFXSDWLRQKRUL]RQV shell middens and possible 60 natural features (Table 1). 40 Of the 42 site blocks reviewed that noted the 20 sample processing procedure, Proportion of site blocks (%) EXON VDPSOLQJ DQG ÁRWDWLRQ 0 bulk sampling and dry or wet sieving hand collection was undertaken on 29 site flotation blocks, dry or wet sieving Processing strategy at 12 site blocks and hand collection only at one site block (illus 2a). Of the 12 (b) site blocks using dry or wet 100 sieving, all seven site blocks 80 WKDWPHQWLRQHGWKHPHVKVL]H XVHG D PHVK PP ZKLFK 60 would prevent the recovery of most charred seed remains. 40 Most reports did not record the type of sampling strategy 20 Proportion of site blocks (%) employed (van der Veen 1984: 193; Jones 1991b: 57), but for 0 the 25 site blocks where this total/random sampling judgement sampling 100% sampling information was noted, 13 Sampling strategy XVHG WRWDOUDQGRP VDPSOLQJ eight judgement sampling
DQGÀYHZHUHVDPSOHG (c) 100 (illus 2b). Small numbers of samples were analysed from 80 most sites, with the majority of the assemblages deriving 60 from fewer than 10 samples LOOXV F &RXQWVZHLJKWV 40 of edible plant remains were only available for 18 site Proportion of site blocks (%) 20 blocks. 0 Edible plant remains were <10 >10 present on most sampled sites and only 10 of the Number of samples sampled site blocks produced Illus 2 Sampling and processing strategies used on Scottish Mesolithic sites, wood charcoal without where this information was provided in the reports: (a) processing edible remains. Overall, strategy (N = 42), (b) sampling strategy (N = 26), and (c) number of Mesolithic samples (N = 29) KD]HO Corylus avellana L.) SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 23
3DUHQFK\PD $HUHQFK\PD $HUHQFK\PD 7DSURRW 7DSURRW 3DUHQFK\PD 3DUHQFK\PD 5RRWWXEHU VVS 5RRWWXEHU fertilis fertilis verna ) Bulbils L. Nutshell L. Cotyledon Huds. (ssp. Huds. (ssp. Huds. (ssp. verna ) Corylus avellana Corylus avellana Ficaria verna verna ) Ficaria verna QD QD QD QD QD QD QD 2 Table &RPPRQDQGVFLHQWLÀFQDPHVRISODQWFRPSRQHQWVLQFOXGHGLQHDFK SODQWJURXSLQ7DEOHV² Plant group Common name Latin name Plant part +D]HOQXWVKHOO +D]HOQXW :KROHKD]HOQXW +D]HOQXW /HVVHU&HODQGLQHWXEHUEXOELO /HVVHUFHODQGLQH /HVVHU&HODQGLQHWXEHUEXOELO /HVVHUFHODQGLQH" FI Ficaria verna ssp. /HVVHU&HODQGLQHWXEHUEXOELO /HVVHUFHODQGLQH 8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PDURRWvesicular material $JJUHJDWHSDUHQFK\PD 8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PDURRWvesicular material $TXDWLFDHUHQFK\PD 8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PDURRWvesicular material $TXDWLFDHUHQFK\PD" 8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PDURRWvesicular material 7DSURRW 8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PDURRWvesicular material 7DSURRW" 8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PDURRWvesicular material 8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PD 8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PDURRWvesicular material 9HVLFXODUSDUHQFK\PD 24 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
stone Plant part plant material fragment 3DUHQFK\PDVHDZHHGSURFHVVHG Seed Fruit 6WHP 5KL]RPH Seed Pericarp Seed Nut Nut Seed (L.) Á. Löve Nut L. sp. family Stem sp. Latin name FI3RDFHDH
cf Eleocharis Chenopodium album L. Galium aparine L. Jacq. Fruit stone cf Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jolis Seaweed cf Crataegus monogyna Jacq. Fruit QD QD cf Pyrus sp. Seed Atriplex FI Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. Seed Atriplex patula Carex sp. Fallopia convolvulus cf Crataegus sp. Fruit Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. Common name *UDVVVWHP"
Hawthorn? Knotted wrack seaweed? ,QGHWHUPLQDWHVWHP ,QGHWHUPLQDWHUKL]RPH Pear genus? Hawthorn genus? Plant group 6WHPUKL]RPH U QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PDURRWvesicular material 9LWUHRXVYHVLFXODUFDUERQLVHGPDWHULDO QD Seeds from other edible species Spike-rush genus? Hawthorn stone Seaweed fragment 6WHPUKL]RPH 6WHPUKL]RPH &UDE$SSOHVHHGIUXLWIUDJPHQW&UDE$SSOHVHHGIUXLWIUDJPHQW &UDEDSSOH" Pear pip &UDEDSSOH Seeds from other edible species Seeds from other edible species Sedge genus Fat-hen Seeds from other edible species Black-bindweed &UDE$SSOHVHHGIUXLWIUDJPHQW &UDEDSSOH Seeds from other edible species Cleavers Hawthorn stone Seeds from other edible species Orache genus Seeds from other edible species Common orache SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 25
Seed Seed Seed Seed Plant part Seed Nut Seed Caryopsis Seed Fruit Seed (L.) Seed L. L. Nut L. family Achene (L.) Vill. sp. Seed Lathyrus sp. sp. Lathyrus sp. Stellaria media Vicia Spergula arvensis L. FI Vicia Sinapis arvensis L. Vicia Polygonum aviculare Latin name Plantago lanceolata Ranunculus acris repens bulbosus L. Achene Rumex sp. FI Vicia
Chenopodiaceae Euphorbia helioscopia Poaceae family Viola sp. cf Hyacinthoides non-scripta Chouard ex Rothm. cf Luzula sp. Seed buttercup Common name Sun spurge Goosefoot family Grass family Bluebell? Wood-rush genus?
Seeds from other edible species 6HHGVIURPRWKHUHGLEOHVSHFLHV Common chickweed 9HWFKWDUHJHQXV Seeds from other edible species Corn spurrey 6HHGVIURPRWKHUHGLEOHVSHFLHV 9HWFKWDUHJHQXV" 6HHGVIURPRWKHUHGLEOHVSHFLHV 9HWFKWDUHJHQXV Seeds from other edible species Knotgrass Seeds from other edible species Charlock 6HHGVIURPRWKHUHGLEOHVSHFLHV 0HDGRZEXWWHUFXSFUHHSLQJEXWWHUFXS Plant group 6HHGVIURPRWKHUHGLEOHVSHFLHV 9HWFKWDUHJHQXV" Seeds from other edible species Ribwort plantain bulbous Seeds from other edible species Dock genus Other seeds Other seeds Seeds from other edible species Other seeds Violet genus Other seeds Other seeds
26 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
nutshells were by far the most frequent edible SODQWVSHFLHVUHFRYHUHG,QIDFWKD]HOQXWVKHOO was virtually ubiquitous and it was present at 39 of the 57 site blocks in this review (illus 3). Many assemblages also contained large quantities of nutshell, with particularly notable concentrations coming from Staosnaig on remains
Colonsay and Cramond, East Barns and Weston Farm in Southern Scotland. There was no chronological trend in terms of the presence of Plant part 6HHG $OOXQLGHQWLÀHGFDUERQLVHG Seed Calyx ODUJHFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIKD]HOQXWVEXWWKHUHZDV DGHFOLQHLQWKHSUHVHQFHRIKD]HOQXWVEHWZHHQ the Later Mesolithic I and Later Mesolithic ,,VLWHV KD]HOQXWVKHOOZDVSUHVHQWRQRI Later Mesolithic I site blocks and 50% of Later Mesolithic II site blocks. $W ÀUVW VLJKW WKLV DSSHDUV WR VXSSRUW Ashmore’s (2004a: 89) suggestion that there (Willd.) Rostk. & Fruit may have been a decline in the number of sites ZLWK KD]HOQXWV EHWZHHQ ² FDO bc. However, the apparent decline in the abundance RIKD]HOQXWVKHOOLVSUREDEO\DIXQFWLRQRIWKH Latin name cf 1DMDVÁH[LOLV QD Sparganium erectum L. Scleranthus annuus L. W. L. E. Schmidt VPDOO VL]H RI PDQ\ RI WKH /DWHU 0HVROLWKLF ,, sites and the consequent low volume of soil processed at these sites; where low volumes of soil are processed, the chance of recovering non- charcoal plant remains is considerably reduced. Furthermore, it is likely that the decline in the QXPEHURIUDGLRFDUERQGDWHVRQKD]HOQXWVKHOO after c 6000 cal bc (Ashmore 2004a: 89) was a result of the relative abundance of shell midden contexts on the Later Mesolithic II sites and the lack of sampling for plant remains on these sites. Added to this was the choice of material Common name Slender naiad ,QGHWHUPLQDWHVHHGV Branched bur-reed Annual knawel for radiocarbon dating, with many shell middens frequently dated using shell or bone, and several VLWHVGDWHGXVLQJFKDUFRDOGHVSLWHKD]HOQXWVKHOO being present. Other edible species were much more scarce (illus 3). With the exception of one site – Staosnaig – no sites had more than 30 plant remains from other edible species and many taxa ZHUHRQO\UHSUHVHQWHGE\DVLQJOHLGHQWLÀFDWLRQ There is some evidence that the inhabitants of Mesolithic Scotland exploited a diversity of Plant group Other seeds 8QLGHQWLÀHGFDUERQLVHGPDWHULDO 8QLGHQWLÀHGFDUERQLVHGPDWHULDO macroplant QD 2WKHUVHHGV Other seeds Other seeds edible plants. A range of edible fruit species SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 27
100
80
60
40 Proportion of site blocks (%)
20
0 Hazelnut Whole Lesser Unidentified Stem/ Seaweed Hawthorn Crab apple Pear Seeds from Other Unidentified shell hazelnut celandine parenchyma/ rhizome fragment stone seed/fruit pip other edible seeds carbonised tuber/ root/ species material bulbil vesicular material plant taxa/component
Illus 3 Summary of the main plant components present on Scottish Mesolithic sites (N = 57)
– hawthorn (cf Crataegus monogyna -DFTFI has revealed that edible roots, including lesser Crataegus sp.), crab apple (Malus sylvestris celandine, formed part of the assemblage (L.) Mill.) and pear (cf Pyrus sp.) – have been (Table 3). The analysis of this assemblage is recovered from four sites (Table 3) and a variety on-going and will form the subject of a future of edible seeds were present on nine site blocks paper. The presence of vesicular material and (Table 4). The archaeobotanical seed remains XQLGHQWLÀHGURRWVVWHPVUKL]RPHVDWWZRRWKHU from plants with edible leaves, shoots, stems VLWHVVXJJHVWVWKDWHGLEOHURRWVWXEHUVPD\DOVR or roots, which may have been eaten in the have been present on other Mesolithic sites. Mesolithic, have also been found on nine site blocks (Table 5). The seeds of several species that are probably not edible were also present in PLANT GATHERING, PROCESSING four assemblages (Table 6). AND COOKING IN THE SCOTTISH Edible roots and seaweed have only been MESOLITHIC LGHQWLÀHG WR VSHFLHV OHYHO DW WZR 6FRWWLVK Mesolithic sites (Table 3). At Staosnaig, the RECOGNISING WILD FOOD PLANTS IN edible root tubers of lesser celandine were ARCHAEOBOTANICAL ASSEMBLAGES recovered together with the remains of aquatic Plants that were consumed in the past may UKL]RPHV VHDZHHG IUDJPHQWV DQG ÁHVK\ WDS EHFRPH FKDUUHG LQ GRPHVWLF ÀUHV GXULQJ roots, which may also have been edible. Initial processing for consumption or storage by a assessment of the carbonised plant remains range of techniques, such as grinding, pounding, from recent excavations at Northton, Harris roasting, boiling or drying (Minnis 1981: 145;
28 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
material
8QLGHQWLÀHGFDUERQLVHG
Other seeds seeds Other
species
Seeds from other edible edible other from Seeds
Pear pip Pear
fragment
Crab apple seed/fruit seed/fruit apple Crab
Hawthorn stone stone Hawthorn
Seaweed fragment fragment Seaweed
Stem/rhizome Stem/rhizome
root/vesicular material root/vesicular
8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PD
bulbil bulbil
Lesser celandine tuber/ celandine Lesser Whole hazelnut Whole
1 P 1 2 P P
Hazelnut shell shell Hazelnut
Woodland zone Woodland Site number Site
1 2 459 (10.35g) 3 1 6 P 1 8 13 2 15 >234.38g (sample 2 volume = 246.8 litres) P 17 2 22 P 1 P 25 2 P Site Site 3 Table Summary of the plant macrofossils present at Scottish Mesolithic sites; where possible each site is split into chronological bl ocks (see Methodology section). 3 SUHVHQW $ DEXQGDQW([FHSWZKHUHRWKHUZLVHLQGLFDWHGQXP EHUVUHIHUWRQXPHULFDOFRXQWVRISODQWFRPSRQHQWV)RUDGHVFU LSWLRQRIWKHZRRGODQG]RQH FODVVLÀFDWLRQVVHH0HWKRGRORJ\VHFWLRQ6LWHQXPEHUVFRUUHVSRQ GWRVLWHORFDWLRQVLQLOOXV Later Mesolithic I Ailsa View Camas Daraich &UDPRQG3KDVHV²East Barns Fife Ness VDPSOHV Kinloch Links House G3–5 24 3 44 (1.03g) Auchareoch Fordhouse Barrow (E) Gallow Hill 16 2 P Littlehill Bridge
SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 29
material
8QLGHQWLÀHGFDUERQLVHG
Other seeds seeds Other
species
Seeds from other edible edible other from Seeds
Pear pip Pear
fragment
Crab apple seed/fruit seed/fruit apple Crab
Hawthorn stone stone Hawthorn
Seaweed fragment fragment Seaweed
Stem/rhizome Stem/rhizome
root/vesicular material root/vesicular
8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PD
bulbil bulbil
Lesser celandine tuber/ celandine Lesser Whole hazelnut Whole
3
Hazelnut shell shell Hazelnut
Woodland zone Woodland Site number Site
27 3 P Site Site 28 litres) * P North Carn 3 33 Northton 2001 2010 28 P P Northton P P 32 Silvercrest circle 1 33 1 Staosnaig F41 & 49 3 P 35 31 (sample volume = Warren Field (Other pits) 40 1 47 Weston Farm (early) 1 1 Later Mesolithic II >553.6g (sample 1 48 Aird Calanais 85 litres) 2 574 2 volume = 152 litres) 3 3 (sample volume = 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 Long Howe Lussa Wood 0DQRU%ULGJHNewton 28 1 P VDPSOHV 31 1 P 3
30 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
material
8QLGHQWLÀHGFDUERQLVHG
Other seeds seeds Other
species
Seeds from other edible edible other from Seeds
Pear pip Pear
fragment
Crab apple seed/fruit seed/fruit apple Crab
Hawthorn stone stone Hawthorn
Seaweed fragment fragment Seaweed
Stem/rhizome Stem/rhizome
root/vesicular material root/vesicular
8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PD
bulbil bulbil
Lesser celandine tuber/ celandine Lesser Whole hazelnut Whole
26 P 1 1 1 P P P 4 Hazelnut shell shell Hazelnut
P Woodland zone Woodland
2 Site number Site
10 1 A 30 2 39 2 40 1 25.4g (sample volume 42 = 36 litres) 3 P 44 1 46 1 (sample volume 1 = 68 litres) Site Site Weston Farm (late) 48 2 954 Cnoc Coig P 2 Summerston 41 Temple Bay* Upper Largie Fordhouse Barrow (L) Morton B 16 6NLOPDÀOO\ 2 Smittons 38 P Spurryhillock Staosnaig F30 Tràigh na Beirigh 1* Tulloch Wood 3 43 3 P
SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 31
material
8QLGHQWLÀHGFDUERQLVHG
Other seeds seeds Other
species
Seeds from other edible edible other from Seeds
Pear pip Pear
fragment
Crab apple seed/fruit seed/fruit apple Crab
Hawthorn stone stone Hawthorn
Seaweed fragment fragment Seaweed
Stem/rhizome Stem/rhizome
root/vesicular material root/vesicular
8QLGHQWLÀHGSDUHQFK\PD
bulbil bulbil
Lesser celandine tuber/ celandine Lesser Whole hazelnut Whole
3 P Hazelnut shell shell Hazelnut nuts)
c 15848g ( 30–40,000 1 412 >62 >2 1 1 21 18 33 11 whole Woodland zone Woodland
Site number Site
45 1 0.8g (sample mass = 251kg) Site Site Elginhaugh Glenbatrick Waterhole Irish Street 19 Lealt Bay 1 14 Lon Mor P 2 Morton A 20 Staosnaig F24 2 23 2 1 26 13 30 1 40 2 P 1 P 1 1 Carn Southern Castle Street &KDSHOÀHOG3LW 7 1 8 P 1 P 1? Mesolithic
Ulva Cave Warren Field (Pit 5) * NB: initial sample assessment only: analysis ongoing. 47 1 32 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Stahl 1989: 172; King 1994: 189; van der Veen plants were often minor dietary components, 2007: 979). They may also become carbonised or considered only as ‘famine foods’ by some DFFLGHQWDOO\GXULQJVWRUDJHRULIÀUHVZHUHOLWRQ farmers (Fenton 2000: 192; Tardío et al 2006: top of former processing areas, and deliberately 39), they may have been of great importance if the waste products were burnt as a fuel to hunter-gathering peoples reliant on wild (Minnis 1981: 145; van der Veen 2007: 979; resources. The use of ethnographic evidence to Sievers & Wadley 2008: 2916). assess wild plant consumption in the past should Establishing which charred plant remains therefore be treated with caution. in Scottish Mesolithic assemblages were The remains of wild plants can also enter deliberately gathered for food and deposited as the archaeological record by a number of other a result of these processes is highly challenging. taphonomic pathways, which may be unrelated or There is no clear-cut distinction between edible only partially related to domestic consumption. and non-edible plants because the palatability Wild plants may arrive on archaeological sites of sour, bitter and astringent plants is culturally through non-anthropogenic sources, such as – and perhaps genetically – determined (Johns the wind or birds, and other animals may act as (UWXù IDFWRUV ZKLFK vectors for seeds either externally on their fur are clearly impossible to establish for past or internally via consumption (Minnis 1981: populations. Also, many species that are 145; Pearsall 2000: 502; Sievers & Wadley poisonous, harmful or unpalatable can be 2008: 2911). Seeds and other plant remains made edible through elaborate processing may also become transported accidentally onto techniques (Johns 1994: 48). Such processing archaeological sites attached to human hair or methods usually leave little archaeological clothing. Similarly, isolated seeds can become WUDFH DQG VR LW LV XVXDOO\ GLIÀFXOW WR GLVFHUQ worked down into earlier layers as a result of whether these practices were undertaken in ploughing, or by burrowing earthworms or the Mesolithic. Even simple plant processing small mammals (Minnis 1981: 145) and so techniques, such as hearth or pit roasting, are there is a possibility that species represented GLIÀFXOW WR LGHQWLI\ DUFKDHRORJLFDOO\ EHFDXVH E\VLQJOHVHHGLGHQWLÀFDWLRQVPD\EHLQWUXVLYH hearths or pit features can be used for multiple LQWR 0HVROLWKLF KRUL]RQV &RQVLGHULQJ WKH ORZ purposes and for cooking many different IUHTXHQF\RIPDQ\RIWKHVSHFLHVLGHQWLÀHGLQ foodstuffs using divergent methods (King this review, it is conceivable that some of these 1994: 191). plants were deposited without deliberate human Historical or ethnographic evidence of wild collection in the Mesolithic. plant gathering by modern hunter-gatherers Even plants that were deliberately brought in North America and by traditional farming onto Mesolithic sites by humans may have peoples in Turkey, Europe and Russia, can give been collected for other purposes. Most wild important information about the edibility and plants have many potential non-edible uses: SURFHVVLQJ RI VSHFLÀF SODQW VSHFLHV UHFRYHUHG they may be used as medicines, cosmetics, IURP 6FRWWLVK 0HVROLWKLF VLWHV 6WROLFQiá toys or for dyeing, bedding, construction, tools, (UWXù +RZHYHUHGLELOLW\GRHV fuel, bedding, cordage, utensils, basketry and not necessarily equate to consumption in the hunting poisons, and some species might have Mesolithic since the range of food consumed become deposited on archaeological sites as a E\ D VRFLDO JURXS LV FXOWXUDOO\ GHÀQHG DQG result of these activities (Etkin 1994: 10; King plants that were historically or ethnographically 1994: 196; Tomlinson & Hall 1996; Moerman important may not have been important food )HQWRQ $V (UWXù sources in Mesolithic Scotland (Milner 2009: notes, ‘Almost all routine subsistence activities 74). It should also be noted that though wild and their social organisation, as well as most
SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 33
Vetch/tare seed Vetch/tare
Sedge nut Sedge
Ribwort plantain seed plantain Ribwort
Orache seed Orache
Knotgrass nutlet Knotgrass
Fat-hen seed Fat-hen
Dock seed Dock
Corn spurrey seed spurrey Corn 10 4 3
c Charlock seed Charlock
10 7 Black bindweed seed bindweed Black
2 1 1 9 1 1
Site Mesolithic &KDSHOÀHOG3LW Staosnaig F24 Warren Field (Pit 5) 1 Later Mesolithic II Morton B 6NLOPDÀOO\ Morton A 4 Table Edible seeds present at Scottish Mesolithic sites; where possible, each site is split into chronological blocks (see Methodolog y section). P: present. Numbers refer to numerical counts of plant components Later Mesolithic I Littlehill Bridge Silvercrest circle 1 Warren Field (Other pits) P 1 1 34 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013 of the material objects that we encounter in the processes and it is not always clear if charred rural daily life, are somehow related to plants’. plant remains represent food remnants. Regnell Furthermore, plants can be consumed as (2012) proposes that there are three main part of ritual practices, rather than primarily conditions under which archaeobotanical IRU FDORULÀF SXUSRVHV 0LOQHU )RU remains can be clearly interpreted as instance, if the Mesolithic pit alignment at Warren representing anthropogenic exploitation, Field, Crathes was a symbolic monument (Table ‘(1) occurrences in very large quantities, (2) 1), then it is possible that the plant remains presence in an environment in which the from the site became deposited as a result of plant does not belong naturally (ie appears as ‘ritual’ rather than domestic activities. With ´H[RWLFµ DQGRU REYLRXVVLJQVRISURFHVVLQJ the exception of Warren Field, all the sites in by humans’. He further notes that ethnological this review are considered primarily to provide evidence also provides supporting evidence evidence of ‘domestic’ economic activity. All for human exploitation (ibid). The following RIWKHVHVLWHVDUHVXJJHVWLYHRIWHPSRUDU\VHPL section will consider the possible evidence permanent settlement or specialised processing, (Tables 3–6) for the human collection of tool production or other economic activities; plants for consumption in Mesolithic Scotland WKRXJK FOHDUO\ VRFDOOHG ¶GRPHVWLFIXQFWLRQDO· through a consideration of the frequency of activities may have been embedded with social each species, the archaeological taphonomy and and symbolic meaning (Brück 1999). the ethnobotanic evidence for the use of each There is also no clear-cut distinction taxon. Since processing and cooking methods between plants used as foods and medicines. DUH GLIÀFXOW WR LGHQWLI\ XVLQJ DUFKDHRORJLFDO Ethnobotanical research in Europe and North- evidence, the likely processing methods and America suggests that many wild plants taphonomic pathway of each taxon into the have traditionally been collected for multiple archaeological record will also be considered purposes and may be considered both food and using ethnobotanic evidence (Appendix 1). medicines or ‘medicinal foods’ which were used to improve health or to prevent illnesses Hazelnuts (WNLQ ² 0RHUPDQ (UWXù Of all the species recovered from the Scottish 2000: 177; Pieroni 2005: 29; Tardío et al 2006: 0HVROLWKLF SODQW DVVHPEODJHV KD]HOQXWV DUH (UWXù &DUYDOKR 0RUDOHV the only indisputable foodstuff. Not only are 160, 164; Christanell et al 2010: 62; Nebel & KD]HOQXWVKHOOVYLUWXDOO\XELTXLWRXVRQ6FRWWLVK Heinrich 2010: 183; Pieroni 2010: 41; Tardío Mesolithic sites, they are also extremely 2010: 230). Nevertheless, different parts of the abundant on several individual sites (Table 3). same plant were often used for food than those ,W LV XQWKLQNDEOH WKDW KD]HOQXWV DFFXPXODWHG used for medicine (Moerman 1998: 16) and so on domestic hearths on so many sites and in the plant component preserved may provide a such large quantities by natural processes. The clue to whether the plant was collected for food 0HVROLWKLFGDWHRIKD]HOQXWFRQVXPSWLRQLVDOVR in the Mesolithic. not in doubt, given that many nutshells from Scotland have been directly radiocarbon dated (Ashmore 2004b). Though some ethnographic ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ETHNOBOTANIC accounts from Britain and North America note EVIDENCE FOR PLANT GATHERING, D IHZ WUDGLWLRQDO PHGLFLQDO XVHV IRU KD]HOQXWV PROCESSING AND COOKING IN THE (Gerarde 1597: 1251; Moerman 1998: 181–2; SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC Dickson & Dickson 2000: 260), historically As just discussed, plants can become deposited they have primarily been used for food in on Mesolithic sites as a result of a range of Britain (Lightfoot 1777: 587; Hill 1941: 41;
SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 35 Violet fruit Violet
9, 25 Vetch/tare seed Vetch/tare
22, 25, 31, 33
Spikerush nutlet nutlet Spikerush Sedge nut Sedge
Ribwort plantain seed seed plantain Ribwort
3, 25, 31 31, 33 33 3, 8, 9, Orache seed Orache
29, 32, 33, 35
tuber/bulbil tuber/bulbil Lesser celandine celandine Lesser
22, 25 3, 12, 28, Hawthorn fruit stone fruit Hawthorn
3, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32 Fat-hen seed Fat-hen
3, 9, 18, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37 Dock seed Dock
3, 9, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37
seed Common chickweed Common
3, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 35, 37 Corn spurrey seed seed spurrey Corn
c 10 2 4 7 25 Cleavers seed seed Cleavers
3, 12, 25, 29, 31, 35 Charlock seed seed Charlock
8, 25, 28, 8, 25, 28, 31, 32, 37 Buttercup achene achene Buttercup
10 7 1 21, 22, 25, 32 Site Site 5 Table 6HHGVLGHQWLÀHGRQ6FRWWLVK0HVROLWKLFVLWHVIURPSODQWVZLWKH GLEOHOHDYHVVWHPVVKRRWVURRWVÁRZHUVVDSDQGEXGV ZKHUH SRVVLEOHHDFKVLWHLVVSOLWLQWR FKURQRORJLFDOEORFNV VHH0HWKRGRORJ\VHFWLRQ O OHDYHVVK VKRRWVW VWHPI ÁRZHUU URRWVEXOEVVD VDSE EXGV 1XPEHUVUHIHUWRQXPHULFDOFRXQWVRI plant components. References are for the edibility of each component and correspond to ethnobotanic sources in Append ix 1 (GLEOHFRPSRQHQW O"U" OI OVK O OVWVK O"VK"VW" OVKVW OEI O OVK O U"VW" U"VD" VK"U" O"I"E" Later Mesolithic I Littlehill Bridge Staosnaig F41 & 49 Warren Field (Other pits) P Later Mesolithic II Morton B 1 P 1 2 6NLOPDÀOO\ Mesolithic &KDSHOÀHOG3LW Elginhaugh Staosnaig F24 1 19 2 412 1 1 9 Warren Field (Pit 5) 1 1 1 References (see Appendix 1) 36 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Howes 1948: 179; Loewenfeld 1957: 39; between different areas of woodland as the Cameron 1977: 70; Mabey 1997: 90; Milliken nuts ripened. Talalay et al (1984: 348) suggest & Bridgewater 2004: 40) and are still collected that the optimal harvesting time (in terms of for food by many in Britain today (Phillips yield per hour) was after the leaves had fallen 1983: 138; Mabey 2001: 122; Burrows 2005: but while the ripe nuts were still retained on 23; Irving 2009: 64). There is also considerable the trees, because of the higher visibility of the HWKQRJUDSKLFHYLGHQFHIRUWKHXVHRIKD]HOQXWV nuts. However, this does not take into account for food by modern hunter-gatherer groups competition with other nucivorous species. in North America and Canada (Gunther +D]HOQXWV FDQ DOVR EH FROOHFWHG ZKLOVW 1973: 27; Hamel & Chiltoskey 1975: 37; green and immature in August (Howes 1948: Ebeling 1986: 209; Gilmore 1991: 22; Kuhnlein 22) to reduce the competition with birds and & Turner 1991: 18; Moerman 1998: 181–2; rodents (Lightfoot 1777: 587; Carruthers Marles et al 2000: 150), though the species 2000: 414). Red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris), H[SORLWHG ZHUH $PHULFDQ KD]HOQXW Corylus bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus), wood americana :DOWHU &DOLIRUQLD KD]HOQXW mice (Apodemus sylvaticus) and great spotted (Corylus cornuta ssp. californica (A. de woodpeckers (Dendrocopos major) all &DQGROOH ( 0XUUD\ DQG EHDNHG KD]HOQXW FRQVXPH KD]HOQXWV DQG WKRXJK WKHLU UHPDLQV (Corylus cornuta ssp. cornuta), rather than the are rare in the fossil and archaeological records QDWLYH %ULWLVK KD]HO VSHFLHV Corylus avellana from Mesolithic Scotland, their widespread L.), which is absent from North America (ibid; presence in Scotland in the Mesolithic can be Flora of North America Editorial Committee inferred by the fact that they can live in the 1993+). habitats present during this period. They are +D]HOQXWVZRXOGKDYHEHHQJDWKHUHGIURP also known from archaeological sites of post- WKH WUHHV LQ 6HSWHPEHU2FWREHU XVLQJ FXW Mesolithic date in Scotland and from sites of EUDQFKHV WR EHQG GRZQ KLJK KD]HO EUDQFKHV Mesolithic date elsewhere in the British Isles to pick the nuts or to shake loose ripe nuts, and they are currently present in the Scottish and ripe nuts would also have been gathered fauna (Corbet & Harris 1991; Kitchener from the ground (Mabey 2001: 122; Burrows 1998; Yalden 1999; Kitchener et al 2004; 2005: 23). The annual gathering and processing McCormick & Buckland 2003; RSPB 2014). RI KD]HOQXWV PD\ ZHOO KDYH EHHQ D VRFLDO &RQVHTXHQWO\LWLVSRVVLEOHWKDWKD]HOQXWVPD\ experience involving groups of gatherers, have been collected in a green (milk-ripe) state as was often the case in 17th–19th century by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Scotland to Britain (Mabey 1997: 90; Finlayson 2005: PD[LPLVH WKH KD]HOQXW KDUYHVW &DUUXWKHUV 38). However, the trees would not have been 2000: 411; McComb 2009: 228; Holst 2010: climbed to gather the nuts (contra Finlayson 2874). In North America, hunter-gatherers 2005: 30) because the nuts would have been RIWHQFROOHFWHGKD]HOQXWVZKHQWKH\ZHUHVWLOO GLIÀFXOW WR UHDFK DW WKH HQGV RI WKH VOHQGHU green and the green nuts were either eaten branches whilst sitting in the trunk of the tree immediately without ripening or allowed to (Dickson & Dickson 2000: 258). Since not ripen in the sun for several days before being all nuts ripen simultaneously on a single tree, stored for winter use (Moerman 1998: 181; harvesting would most probably have been McComb 2009: 228). However, comparison undertaken in a series of stages across an area of the Staosnaig nutshell with modern semi- of trees (Mason 1996a: 2). There may also have ripe nutshell under an SEM suggests that the been differences in ripening times between nuts at this site were gathered when fully ripe different stands of trees (Talalay et al 1984: (Carruthers 2000: 412). Also, Loewenfeld 348) and perhaps hunter-gatherers moved (1957: 40) states that: SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 37
Unripe nuts should not be picked, as they shrink experiments, it has been suggested that during ZKHQGULHGORVHWKHLUSOHDVDQWÁDYRXUDQGVRRQ WKH 0HVROLWKLF KD]HOQXWV PD\ KDYH FRPPRQO\ become mouldy. As they store best if picking is been roasted in shallow pits lined and sealed delayed until some of the nuts begin to fall, it is ZLWKVDQGRUJUDYHORQWRSRIZKLFKDVPDOOÀUH DJRRGLGHDWRLQVSHFWWKHKD]HOEXVKHVGDLO\LI was lit for a short period (illus 4; Perry 1999: possible, and collect the nuts which have fallen 232; Score & Mithen 2000: 508; Hastie 2003b: until those on the bush are ready to be picked. 7). However, most ethnographic literature But as squirrels, dormice and the nuthatch DUHMXVWDVLQWHUHVWHGLQKD]HOQXWVDVZHDUHLW describes the use of hot coals for cooking rather would not do to allow them to go on falling for WKDQWKHGLUHFWXVHRIÀUH 7XUQHU .XKQOHLQ too long. 1982: 424–6; Pokotylo & Froese 1983: 130–1; Wandsnider 1997: 21–2; Hastie 2003b: 4). Furthermore, green nuts are more time- &RQVLGHULQJ WKLV LW LV SRVVLEOH WKDW KD]HOQXWV consuming to process than ripe nuts because may commonly have been roasted by mixing the husks adhere more tightly to the nuts the nuts into sand or earth and heated with hot (Talalay et al 1984: 351). Consequently, it is FKDUFRDO IURP D ÀUH WKDW KDG DOUHDG\ EXUQHG SUREDEOH WKDW ULSH KD]HOQXWV ZHUH RI JUHDWHU down (Holst 2010: 2874). This method, which importance to hunter-gatherers than green was used to cook nuts and roots by the !Kung in nuts in Mesolithic Scotland. There are several South Africa (Yellen 1977: 143), leaves behind practices that could result in the deposition of a shallow depression containing mixtures of charred nutshell on Mesolithic sites, of which ash, charcoal and sand (ibid: 87), similar to FRRNLQJZDVSUREDEO\DPDMRUFDXVH+D]HOQXWV Mesolithic features containing abundant nutshell FDQ EH GLIÀFXOW WR GLJHVW LQ ODUJH TXDQWLWLHV in Europe (Holst 2010: 2874). The depression in (Gerarde 1597: 1251; Mears & Hillman 2007: the ground results from the raking of the nuts, 26), and so it is probable that cooking was charcoal, ash and sand during cooking and was QHFHVVDU\WRPDNHKD]HOQXWVVXLWDEOHIRUXVHDV not a formal cooking pit (Yellen 1977: 87). a staple food. Ethnographic evidence suggests *LYHQWKDWDERXWRIKD]HOQXWVPD\EHFRPH WKDWWKRXJKKXQWHUJDWKHUHUVRIWHQDWHKD]HOQXWV charred during roasting (Score & Mithen 2000: raw, they were also frequently roasted, boiled KD]HOQXWURDVWLQJFRXOGKDYHEHHQDPDMRU in soups, cooked into a mush or ground and source of carbonised nutshell on archaeological mixed with other ingredients to make bread sites (illus 4). However, the potential absence or cakes (Gunther 1973: 27; Ebeling 1986: of formal cooking pits for this process (Yellen 209; Gilmore 1991: 22; Moerman 1998: 181; 1977: 87) presents a problem for recognising Marles et al 2000: 150). Bread can also be made roasting in the archaeological record. IURP JURXQG KD]HOQXWV ZLWKRXW PL[LQJ ZLWK 7KHUH DUH VHYHUDO EHQHÀWV RI KD]HOQXW other ingredients (McComb & Simpson 1999: URDVWLQJ 1RW RQO\ GRHV KD]HOQXW URDVWLQJ 14), a process which Lightfoot (1777: 587) LPSURYH ÁDYRXU DQG GLJHVWLELOLW\ LW DOVR noted was sometimes undertaken in Scotland increases the ease of grinding for bread or LQ WKH WK FHQWXU\ ,Q WKLV SHULRG KD]HOQXW cake-making and would have facilitated bread was thought to be particularly useful for transportation by reducing the mass of the nuts consumption on long journeys (Milliken & up to 50% (Stahl 1989: 181; Mason 1996b: Bridgewater 2004: 40), and it is interesting to 1; Mithen 2000: 435; Score & Mithen 2000: VSHFXODWHWKDWKD]HOQXWEUHDGPLJKWKDYHEHHQ 511; Mithen et al 2001: 228; Hastie 2003b: used for a similar purpose in the Mesolithic. 5; Mears & Hillman 2007: 26–8; Holst 2010: Based on the shape and composition 2874). Several authors have also proposed that of possible roasting pits found at various URDVWLQJ LQFUHDVHV WKH VWRUDELOLW\ RI KD]HOQXWV 0HVROLWKLFVLWHVLQ(XURSHDQGKD]HOQXWURDVWLQJ (Mithen et al 2001: 228; Hastie 2003b: 5; 38 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Mears & Hillman 2007: 28; Holst 2010: 2874). lower temperature (Alamprese et al 2009). Also, However, Mason (1996b: 1) argues that roasting trial storage experiments suggest that roasted would not increase storability and ethnographic KD]HOQXWV PD\ VWRUH OHVV ZHOO LQ SLWV WKDQ DQG KLVWRULFDO GHVFULSWLRQV VWDWH WKDW KD]HOQXWV unroasted nuts (Cunningham 2010). should be dried rather than roasted for storage Consequently, a further process that may (Howes 1948: 184; Loewenfeld 1957: 40; KDYH SUHVHUYHG KD]HOQXW VKHOO RQ 0HVROLWKLF Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 16; Moerman 1998: VLWHVLVWKHGU\LQJRIWKHQXWVEHVLGHWKHÀUHIRU 182). This is supported by modern commercial storage (Ebeling 1986: 209; Kuhnlein & Turner KD]HOQXW URDVWLQJ WULDOV ZKLFK VXJJHVW WKDW 0LWKHQ 'U\LQJKD]HOQXWV roasting at high temperatures actually reduces prior to storage prevents them from going VKHOI OLIH XQOHVV WKH QXWV DUH ÀUVW KHDWHG DW D mouldy and once dried, they can be stored for at
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Illus ,OOXVWUDWLRQRIWKHKD]HOQXWURDVWLQJSURFHVVFRQGXFWHGE\WKHDXWKRUVIROORZLQJWKHPHWKRGRORJ\SURSRVHG E\6FRUHDQG0LWKHQ D VKDOORZSLWOLQHGZLWKVDQGDQGÀOOHGZLWKKD]HOQXWV E SLWFRYHUHGZLWK DVKDOORZOD\HURIVDQG F VPDOOÀUHOLWRQWRSRIWKHSLW G OD\HURIFKDUUHGKD]HOQXWVDWWKHWRSRIWKHSLW DIWHUWKHUHPRYDORIÀUHDVKHVDQGWRSOD\HURIVDQG SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 39 least six months (Howes 1948: 185; McComb $IWHU FUDFNLQJ RU FRRNLQJGU\LQJ DQG 2009: 229; Cunningham 2010). The smoke, as WKHQ FUDFNLQJ WKH KD]HOQXW VKHOOV FRXOG DOVR ZHOO DV WKH KHDW IURP WKH ÀUH PD\ DOVR KDYH have become charred if they were deliberately helped to prevent mould attack (Howes 1948: WKURZQ RQWR ÀUHV WR GLVSRVH RI WKH XQZDQWHG $IXUWKHUEHQHÀWRIGU\LQJLVWKDWLWPDNHV nutshell after nut consumption (Kubiak-Martens KD]HOQXWV HDVLHU WR GHKXVN FRPSDUHG WR IUHVK 0F&RPE +D]HOQXW nuts (Talalay et al 1984: 351). In continental shell may also have been deliberately kept for Europe, nuts were traditionally sun-dried by use as kindling or as a fuel source because laying the nuts out on trays a few inches deep KD]HOQXW VKHOO EXUQV ZHOO DQG SURGXFHV D KRW during the day and frequently stirring them and ÁDPH 0XQVRQHWDO 0DVRQ E then covering them at night (ibid). With constant 2; Kubiak-Martens 1999: 123). Alternatively, hot weather this process took two to three days considering the durability of nutshell (Mellars (ibid). Clearly this drying method would not 1976b: 376), it may have become charred if a KDYHEHHQVXLWDEOHLQWKHFRROHUZHWWHUFOLPDWH ÀUHZDVOLWRQWKHVRLOVXUIDFHLQDQDUHDIRUPHUO\ RI 6FRWODQG DQG LW LV SUREDEOH WKDW ÀUH GU\LQJ used for nut cracking (Sievers & Wadley 2008). was necessary. Therefore, roasting and drying are both potential mechanisms for the charring Lesser celandine root tubers RIKD]HOQXWVKHOORQ0HVROLWKLFVLWHV Despite the fact that lesser celandine tubers As in some regions of 20th-century Europe, (illus 5) have only been recovered from two sites the nuts would probably have been cracked in Mesolithic Scotland (Table 3), it is highly individually on a stone or block of wood using likely that they were used as food. At Staosnaig, a hammer stone or wooden baton (Howes 1948: Colonsay, over 400 lesser celandine root tubers 32). Experimentation with hammerstones and and bulbils were recovered from a single pit DQYLOVRIGLIIHUHQWVKDSHVDQGVL]HVKDVVKRZQ context, together with nutshell radiocarbon that elongated pebble tools, like those found dated to the Mesolithic. Considering the secure at Staosnaig, were particularly effective for nature of the deposit, the lack of in-situ burning KD]HOQXW FUDFNLQJ 6FRUH 0LWKHQ in the pit and the large number of small, fragile, 511). Experiments suggest that 125g of kernel charred lesser celandine remains present, it per hour may be produced using this method is unlikely that the root tubers accumulated (Talalay et al 1984). It is also possible that naturally within the pit and so they were most wooden nut-crackers were produced from the likely deliberately deposited through human EUDQFKHV RI KD]HO WUHHV 0DEH\ action (Mason & Hather 2000: 421; Mithen et describes one such wooden nut-cracker made al 2001: 230). This contention is supported by IURPKD]HOZRRG the discovery of charred lesser celandine tubers from samples taken during recent excavations I have seen a pair of these made by a Sussex of the old ground surface at Northton, Harris hurdle-maker in the 1930s, which he used to (Table 3). carry when working in the coppices in autumn. Ethnographic and historic observations After shaping a piece of straight wood with his also support the idea that lesser celandine knife, he soaked it, doubled it over, and then roots may have been collected for food in the ERXQG LW WLJKWO\ ZLWK D VWULS RI VSOLW KD]HO XQWLO Mesolithic. While lesser celandine is not native it dried out. to North America, it has been introduced and +D]HOQXWV PD\ DOVR KDYH EHHQ FUDFNHG E\ modern hunter-gatherers have made use of the pouring cold water over nuts heated by burning roots for food (Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 317). vegetation on top of them (Carruthers 2000: The roots of several other members of the 414). Ranunculaceae family were also traditionally 40 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Illus 5 Illustration showing (a) lesser celandine growing in woods in spring; (b) lesser celandine growing in woods in October, showing that the plant is no longer visible above the ground. The roots are easily uncovered beneath leaves; (c) whole lesser celandine plant harvested in spring, showing root tubers and bulbils; (d) lesser celandine root tubers
consumed by North American hunter-gatherers ‘Doctrine of Signatures’ (Ranson 1949: 16–17; (Gunther 1973: 30; Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: Darwin 1996: 145), which linked the visual 318; Moerman 1998: 468–9). Lesser celandine similarity of the root tubers to haemorrhoids, roots have also been used historically as food rather than originating from any medicinal in Scotland in times of famine (Darwin 1996: effects of consuming the tubers (Pierpoint 145) and are collected for food today by modern Johnson 1862: 17; Hogg & Johnson 1864: foragers in Britain (Irving 2009: 73; Mears & 115; Grieve 1992: 181; Dickson & Dickson Hillman 2007: 106). Though lesser celandine 2000: 264). Having said this, considering that has traditionally been used as a cure for piles British Pharmacopoeia has reintroduced lesser in Britain (Gerarde 1597: 669; Pierpoint celandine as a cure for piles, it is possible Johnson 1862: 17; Ranson 1949: 39; Grigson that despite the dubious origin of the cure, the 1975: 50; Grieve 1992: 181; Darwin 1996: plant does indeed provide effective treatment 145; Milliken & Bridgewater 2004: 206), this for this condition (Grieve 1992: 181; Dickson tradition derived from the 15th and 16th century & Dickson 2000: 264; Mason & Hather 2000: SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 41
423). Therefore, the possibility that the roots Pokotylo & Froese 1983: 130–1; Kuhnlein & were collected for medicinal purposes cannot Turner 1991: 17; Mason & Hather 2000: 422; be discounted, but it seems more likely that the Mithen 2000: 433). They could also have been root tubers were collected for food in Mesolithic roasted (Irving 2009: 73), perhaps in the ashes Scotland. RI WKH ÀUH RU XVLQJ KRW FKDUFRDO PL[HG ZLWK The lesser celandine root tubers may have sand (Yellen 1977: 143). As with nuts, roots been harvested by uprooting by hand or using and tubers can be stored for long periods once a pointed wooden digging stick, like those dried, and the root tubers may have been dried used by hunter-gatherers in North America beside a hearth (Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 16). and Canada (Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 15). *LYHQ WKDW PRVW RI WKH URRW WXEHUVEXOELOV DW Alternatively, they may have been dug up using Staosnaig and Northton were well preserved antler mattocks, like those found in the Scottish DQG ZHUH LGHQWLÀDEOH WR VSHFLHV OHYHO LW LV Mesolithic (Bonsall & Smith 1989; Smith 1989; likely they were already dry prior to charring Bonsall & Smith 1990; Zvelebil 1994: 55; (Hather 1993: 22; 2000a: 46; Mason & Hather Mears & Hillman 2007: 30), which, amongst 2000: 417; Bishop 2013) or were charred by the other purposes, have been suggested to have drying process if they were slowly dried and functioned as digging tools (Saville 2004:200). left too long beside the heat (Mithen 2000: 438; The two main situations in which lesser Bishop 2013). Therefore, the lesser celandine celandine roots could have become charred tubers probably represent a stored dried product and preserved are during cooking prior to that was accidentally charred or tubers that consumption and drying for storage. It is were charred accidentally whilst being dried for unlikely that lesser celandine roots would be storage. consumed raw, because all Ranunculus/Ficaria species contain protoanemonin, a poisonous Seaweed substance, which can be reduced or removed by Only one fragment of charred seaweed was cooking or drying (Forsyth 1968: 35; Frohne & present in the Mesolithic assemblages (Table Pfänder 1984: 309; Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 3). The fragment of possible knotted wrack 231; Mason & Hather 2000: 422; Milliken (cf Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jolis) & Bridgewater 2004: 32). However, Grieve seaweed from Staosnaig probably represents a (1992: 181) notes that lesser celandine has a deliberately gathered foodstuff since all British low acridity compared to the other Ranunculus/ seaweeds, except sea sorrels (Desmarestia Ficaria species and a small-scale study suggests sp.), are edible (Milliken & Bridgewater that the protoanemonin is mostly concentrated 2004: 52; Mears & Hillman 2007: 61) and LQ WKH ÁRZHUV DQG VWHPV UDWKHU WKDQ WKH URRWV it is improbable that it became accidentally and leaves (Bonora et al 1988). Considering this, charred and deposited within a pit outwith the together with the fact that the protoanemonin immediate vicinity of the seashore. Knotted content can be reduced by cooking and that there wrack is a common seaweed that is easily is ethnographic evidence for the consumption collectable, since it is abundant on rocks and of the roots of Ranunculus species (see above; ERXOGHUV LQ WKH PLGGOH VKRUH ]RQH 1HZWRQ Lightfoot 1777: 292), there is no reason to reject 1931: 220; Kosch et al 1963: 32). In Iceland the idea that lesser celandine was eaten in the and Greenland, knotted wrack seaweed was Mesolithic. historically collected for food in times of famine Roots have traditionally been cooked either (Hallsson 1964: 399; Aaronson 2000: 235), and by steaming in a pit over hot rocks under layers though it does not have a history of human use of vegetation and earth or by boiling (Lightfoot in Britain and Europe, it has been much used 1777: 292; Turner & Kuhnlein 1982: 424–6; as an animal fodder and fuel source (Hallsson 42 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
1964: 400; Chapman 1970: 69; Indergaard & (Grieve 1992: 385; Darwin 1996: 149); they Minsaas 1991: 23) and meal made from this also have numerous traditional hunter-gatherer species is now used as a health food (Indergaard medicinal uses (Moerman 1998: 183–4). & Minsaas 1991: 54; Vaughan & Geissler If the hawthorns were eaten in the Mesolithic, 1997: 194; Irving 2009: 363). Though seaweed they may have been consumed raw (Kuhnlein can be burnt as a fuel (Fenton 1978: 206), the & Turner 1991: 236–7; Moerman 1998: 183– availability of wood in Mesolithic Scotland 4; Burrows 2005: 7; Tardío et al 2006: 67) or suggests that knotted wrack was more likely DIWHUURDVWLQJLQWKHDVKHVRIDÀUH .XKQOHLQ to have been collected for consumption than Turner 1991: 236). Hawthorns may also have for use as a fuel. The seaweed fragment from EHHQ GULHG IRU VWRUDJH (UWXù 2XW Staosnaig may have been charred accidentally HLWKHUZKROHRUE\ÀUVWSURFHVVLQJ during cooking or drying for storage. Seaweeds into cakes (Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 236–7; are commonly cooked by frying, steaming, Moerman 1998: 183–4; Mears & Hillman 2007: boiling or adding to soups and stews (Kuhnlein 216–17). North American hunter-gatherers & Turner 1991: 27–33; Irving 2009: 362). traditionally preserved hawthorns by crushing, Ethnographic descriptions show that hunter- removing the skins and stones, pressing into gatherers have traditionally preserved seaweeds FDNHV DQG GU\LQJ E\ WKH ÀUH LELG 7KXV WKH for future consumption by sun drying or drying charred hawthorn stones in the Mesolithic RQUDFNVRYHUÀUHV .XKQOHLQ 7XUQHU assemblages may represent the waste material 27–33). As with the lesser celandine tubers, the deposited after consuming the hawthorns raw, VORZ GU\LQJ RYHU D ÀUH ZRXOG VHHP WKH PRVW or preparing them for storage, or they may have likely method of preservation of moisture-rich become charred accidentally during cooking or seaweed in archaeological samples. GU\LQJLIFRQGLWLRQVZLWKLQWKHÀUHH[LVWHGWKDW would preserve the stone but not the fruit. Fruits and berries It is also questionable whether pears formed Despite considerable evidence for the part of the Scottish Mesolithic diet. Stace (2010: consumption of hawthorns historically in 200) states that wild pear (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Britain (Lightfoot 1777: 256; Pierpoint Burgsd.) is not native to Britain and Clapham Johnson 1862: 98; Hedrick 1919: 198; Phillips et al (1987: 244) suggest that it was probably 1983: 139; Mabey 1997: 215), as well as by introduced. Both authors agree that Plymouth hunter-gatherers in North America and Canada pear (Pyrus cordata Desv.) was probably (Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 236–7; Moerman native, but given that its current distribution 1998: 183), the collection of hawthorns for food is restricted to: ‘2 hedges near Plymouth’ by Mesolithic people in Scotland is open to and ‘3 sites near Truro’ (Stace 2010: 200), it question. Given that only single hawthorn stones is not clear if this species was ever native to have been recovered from two sites (Table 3), it 6FRWODQG 7KH GLIÀFXOW\ RI LGHQWLI\LQJ LI SHDU is possible that they may have been transported forms part of the natural vegetation of Scotland to these sites by natural processes and there is is further compounded by the fact that the also an element of doubt over whether they can wood and pollen of Malus and Pyrus species be securely dated to the Mesolithic. However, are indistinguishable (Out 2009: 352). Also, considering their relatively high mass, natural there is little ethnographic evidence for the use deposition or bioturbation and redeposition of wild pear in Britain and several authors have is unlikely. Hawthorn berries have also been noted that it is small, hard, tasteless or inedible used historically in Britain as a cardiac tonic, (Pierpoint Johnson 1862: 99; Mabey 1997: 200; a diuretic, and were also used to correct high Mears & Hillman 2007: 223). It is possible or low blood pressure and cure sore throats that drying makes wild pears palatable, since SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 43 ethnobotanic records from Slovakia note that accidentally whilst being dried or cooked by a Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. was consumed after ÀUHEHIRUHFRQVXPSWLRQRUVWRUDJH GU\LQJ 6WROLFQiá EXWFRQVLGHULQJWKH One method of preserving apples for questionable native status of wild pear and the storage, used by modern hunter-gatherer groups fact that only one pear pip has been discovered in North America, was to mash the fruits up, (Table 3), it seems unlikely that it is a remnant press them into small ‘cakes’ and dry them by of Mesolithic consumption. WKH ÀUH RU LQ WKH VXQ 0RHUPDQ On the other hand, the presence of large Alternatively, they may have been cut into quantities of crab apple pips and fruit fragments thin slices or halves and hung on twine to air at Staosnaig (Table 3) does suggest that crab dry (Ellison et al 1978: 172; Kohler-Schneider apples were deliberately collected. Though the 2007: 215), or cut into halves or quarters to dry consumption of crab apples have been used E\WKHÀUH²DVLVHYLGHQWIURP1HROLWKLF%URQ]H KLVWRULFDOO\ WR UHOLHYH EXUQV LQÁDPPDWLRQV $JH VDPSOHV IURP 6FRWODQG 6ZLW]HUODQG spasms, sprains, bruises and cramps (Gerarde Austria and Denmark (Helbaek 1952; Jacomet 1597: 1277–8; Lightfoot 1777: 258; Pierpoint et al 1989; Church 2002; Jacomet 2007: 243; Johnson 1862: 100; Grieve 1992: 46–7; Darwin Kohler-Schneider 2007: 212). Crab apples may 1996: 151), they have primarily been eaten for also have been dried on a basketry griddle over food in Britain (Hill 1941: 39; Grigson 1975: hot embers or by having heated stones rolled 193; Phillips 1983: 131; Grieve 1992: 45–9; over them (Wiltshire 1995: 392). Mabey 1997: 201; Mears & Hillman 2007: 222; Irving 2009: 296). Most fresh crab apples are Edible seeds very bitter and astringent and require cooking 9HWFKHVWDUHV DUH WKH PRVW SUREDEOH ZLOG or drying to make them palatable (Lightfoot seeds gathered for consumption in Mesolithic 1777: 258; Pierpoint Johnson 1862: 100; Grieve 6FRWODQG7KRXJKWKHVHVHHGVDUHRQO\LGHQWLÀHG 1992: 46; Wiltshire 1995: 391; Mabey 1997: to genera, most Vicia or Lathyrus species have 201; Dickson & Dickson 2000: 247; Mears & edible seeds (Mears & Hillman 2007: 177–85; Hillman 2007: 222). Indeed, Moerman (1998: Irving 2009: 131). Vicia and Lathyrus species 334) makes no reference to any North American grow in pods, are easy to collect and open and, hunter-gatherers who ate the native crab apple unlike many seeds, do not require dehusking (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.) without drying or grinding prior to consumption. Though they or cooking. Crab apples can also be dried for are only present in very small quantities, the future use (Helbaek 1952: 111; Renfrew 1973: seeds of Vicia or Lathyrus species are present 139; Moerman 1998: 334; Mears & Hillman in three Scottish Mesolithic assemblages (Table 2007: 222) and could either be consumed dried 4), suggesting their presence may not have been or rehydrated after storage, since astringency merely accidental. Seeds of several wild native is still reduced even when they are rehydrated species of these plants were eaten historically in (Wiltshire 1995: 394; Moerman 1998: 334). Britain, Holland, France and Sweden (Pierpoint Considering the astringency of raw crab apples Johnson 1862: 80; Hedrick 1919: 327, 592–3; (Lightfoot 1777: 258) and the poor preservation Fenton 2000: 192) and are still collected by of fresh crab apples during carbonisation modern gatherers today in Britain (Phillips (Helbaek 1952: 111; Carruthers 2000: 412), 1983: 95; Mears & Hillman 2007: 179–80; it is unlikely that the burnt fruit fragments Irving 2009: 242, 231–6). Hunter-gatherers in represent apple core debris that was disposed North America have also extensively exploited RIRQWRDÀUHDIWHUWKHIUXLWKDGEHHQFRQVXPHG Vicia and Lathyrus species for food (Ebeling in a fresh state. Therefore, it is probable that 1986: 241; Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 190, the crab apples from Staosnaig were charred 192; Moerman 1998: 595–6) and many used 44 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013 an infusion of the roots or the whole plant for Poland and Russia and by hunter-gatherers various medicinal purposes (Moerman 1998). in North America, and concentrations have However, the seeds are not noted by Gerarde been recovered from the stomach contents of (1597: 1053–4), Kuhnlein & Turner (1991), seven prehistoric North-West European bog Moerman (1998) or Grieve (1992) as having bodies (Hedrick 1919: 160; Grigson 1975: 104; medicinal properties. Ebeling 1986: 146; Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: Though the seeds can be eaten raw in small 152; Grieve 1992: 366; Moerman 1998: 154–5; quantities (Phillips 1983: 95; Moerman 1998: Burrows 2005: 34; Behre 2008: 68). Though the 299; Mears & Hillman 2007: 179), they were leaves, stems and roots have some medicinal probably cooked before consumption or soaked uses, the seeds are not noted by Gerarde (1597: in water because the seeds of some Vicia and 259), Kuhnlein & Turner (1991), Moerman Lathyrus species are toxic if eaten raw in (1998: 154) or Grieve (1992) to have been large quantities (Cooper & Johnson 1984: used as a drug. Ethnographic evidence from 146; Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 192; Frohne & North America suggests that the seeds would Pfänder 2005: 196, 213). Considering that most have been processed by grinding into a mush hunter-gatherer groups in North America boil RUE\SDUFKLQJDQGWKHQJULQGLQJLQWRÁRXUWR or roast Vicia or Lathyrus species before eating make bread, or dried for future use (Kuhnlein them (Moerman 1998: 595–6), the seeds were & Turner 1991: 152; Moerman 1998: 154–5). probably charred accidentally during roasting Therefore, the most likely activities that would because seeds prepared by boiling are unlikely result in the carbonisation of fat-hen seeds to have been preserved in archaeobotanical in archaeological assemblages are parching, assemblages (Minnis 1981: 149). Dried Vicia cooking to make bread or drying for storage. or Lathyrus SRGVVHHGV FDQ DOVR EH GULHG IRU The seeds of the other edible species are less storage (Moerman 1998: 595–6). The seeds of certain Mesolithic foodstuffs (Table 4). Though yellow-vetch (Vicia lutea L.; native to Britain) there is either ethnographic, historical or and common vetch (Vicia sativa ssp. sativa; contemporary evidence for human consumption not native to Britain) were historically added of the seeds of black bindweed (Renfrew 1973: WR VRXSV DQG ÁRXU IRU EUHDGPDNLQJ LQ )UDQFH 182; Darwin 1996: 139; Mears & Hillman 2007: and Spain, and in Holland and France the seeds 260), charlock (Milliken & Bridgewater 2004: of bitter-vetch (Lathyrus linifolius (Reichard) 37), corn spurrey (Pierpoint Johnson 1862: Bässler; native to Britain) were roasted (Hedrick 53; Darwin 1996: 94; Milliken & Bridgewater 1919: 327, 592–3; Tardío et al 2006: 56). 2004: 37; Irving 2009: 246), knotgrass (Mears Fat-hen is also a likely Scottish Mesolithic & Hillman 2007: 259; Irving 2009: 176) and dietary component. Though no more than 10 ribwort plantain (Mears & Hillman 2007: 288; seeds were recovered from any individual site, Irving 2009: 250), the seeds of these species are its presence in three different archaeobotanical only present in low frequencies at one or two assemblages suggests deliberate collection sites, and they could easily have arrived on each rather than accidental charring (Table 4). Like site as a result of non-anthropogenic processes. Vicia and Lathyrus seeds, fat-hen is easy to All of these species are common agricultural harvest and process and can produce return weeds and indicators of disturbed ground, which rates similar to cultivated cereals (Stokes & would have been found growing around human Rowley-Conwy 2002; Mears & Hillman 2007: occupation areas (Long 1929: 104; Clapham 166). The seeds can be easily stripped from the et al 1987; Stace 2010). There are also several seed head and require only gentle rubbing and seeds that come from genera that include several winnowing to remove the sepals (ibid). Fat-hen species with edible seeds (Table 4), such as the seeds have been eaten historically in Britain, docks (Rumex crispus L., Rumex maritimus L.) SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 45
(Moerman 1998: 498), oraches (nine Atriplex Poisonous and inedible plants sp. listed, but none native to the UK) (ibid: 114– Small numbers of seeds from poisonous or 17) and sedges (multiple native edible Carex inedible plants were also recovered (Table 6). sp.) (Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 76; Moerman The latex that exudes from the stems of the sun 1998: 138; Mears & Hillman 2007: 324), but VSXUJH FDXVHV LQÁDPPDWLRQ WR WKH VNLQ ZKHQ since not all species in these genera are known touched and consumption of the plant can to be edible, human collection is uncertain. If FDXVH LQÁDPPDWLRQ RI WKH PRXWK DQG WKURDW eaten, the seeds of all of these plants would gastroenteritis, vomiting and diarrhoea (Forsyth have been processed by drying and parching 1968: 74; Cooper & Johnson 1984: 117; Frohne EHIRUHEHLQJJURXQGGRZQLQWRÁRXUDQGHLWKHU & Pfänder 2005: 190–1). The seeds and bulbs eaten raw with water or boiled into a mush or of the bluebell are also poisonous to humans baked into bread (Moerman 1998; Anderson (Cooper & Johnson 1984: 169–70; Grieve 2006: 260–1). If these seeds were deposited on 1992: 424). In addition, several taxa – cf wood- archaeological sites through human action then rush family, cf slender naiad, annual knawel and they were probably charred accidentally during branched bur-reed – were not recorded as edible parching, drying or cooking. or poisonous in any of the ethnobotanical, historic or modern practical plant collection Edible shoots, roots and leaves references consulted (see Appendix 1). The seeds from a number of plants with edible Considering that 44 different references were leaves, shoots, roots and stems were present in consulted (Appendix 1), it seems unlikely low frequencies in the Mesolithic assemblages that these species would have been important (see Table 5 and Appendix 1 for references). sources of food. The leaves and seeds of several The frequency of the references in Table 5 gives species in the goosefoot (Chenopodiaceae) an indication of the strength of the supporting and grass (Poaceae) families are also edible, evidence for the edibility of these plant EXW ZLWKRXW LGHQWLÀFDWLRQ WR JHQXV RU VSHFLHV components. As previously noted, several of this is highly speculative and so the seeds of WKHVHVHHGLGHQWLÀFDWLRQV HJRumex sp., Atriplex these species were listed in Table 6 together sp., Carex sp., Ranunculus sp., Eleocharis sp., with the inedible plants. The presence of this Viola sp.) are only to genus level and so it is poisonous and non-edible material highlights QRWFHUWDLQZKHWKHUWKH\DUHGHÀQLWHO\IURPWKH the fact that at least some of the seeds recovered edible species in these genera. Also, the seeds from Mesolithic sites were naturally rather than of plants that were gathered for their leaves, anthropogenically deposited. shoots, stems or roots are highly unlikely to be preserved in archaeobotanical assemblages. Leaves, shoots and stems would have been INTENSIVE PLANT USE IN THE SCOTTISH KDUYHVWHGDQGHDWHQEHIRUHWKHSODQWVÁRZHUHG MESOLITHIC? and set seed whilst the plants are young and soft (Hill 1941: 11; Cameron 1977: 56; Pieroni INTENSIVE PLANT USE IN MESOLITHIC 2005: 29; Behre 2008: 71) and the roots would HUNTER-GATHERER ECONOMIES KDYH EHHQ JDWKHUHG DIWHU ÁRZHULQJ &DPHURQ In hunter-gatherer societies utilising plants 1977: 56). Therefore, while it is possible that intensively, Zvelebil (1994: 37) proposed all of the plants listed in Table 5 were eaten that ‘people would be expected to engage in in Mesolithic Scotland, the seeds were most the conservation of their food resources, in probably deposited by natural processes or the development of specialised tool kits for as a result of deliberate seed collection for plant processing, and in the storage of plant consumption or medicines. foods’. As part of such a strategy, important 46 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
1?
1 knawel seed * bur-reed family family naiad spurge fruit † family seed † seed † seed ** seed ** fruit † seed * seed † M 3? 1 1? LMI P LMI 2 LMII 1 /0,, LMII 1 Period Branched Annual Bluebell Goosefoot Grass Slender Sun Violet Wood-rush 6 Table ,QHGLEOHRUSRLVRQRXVVSHFLHVDQGVHHGLGHQWLÀFDWLRQVDWWRRKL JKDWD[RQRPLFOHYHOWREHFHUWDLQRIHGLELOLW\1XPEHUVUHIHU WRQXPHULFDOFRXQWVRI plant components. Those marked with * are known to be poisonous, those † not have edible seeds and ** LGHQWLÀFDWLRQVWRIDPLO\OHYHORQO\ Site
Littlehill Bridge Morton B 6NLOPDÀOO\ Northton 2001 Staosnaig F24 Upper Largie Warren Field (Pit 5) M 1 SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 47 resources, which were only seasonally reoccupied at a future date, or for short-term available, such as fruits and nuts, would have storage during the occupation of a temporary been deliberately targeted for large-scale settlement (Rowley-Conwy & Zvelebil 1989: gathering. In order to maximise the use of 48; Cunningham 2011: 3). This would have plants gathered on a large scale and to prevent been an important way of ensuring that food wastage of surplus, storage or feasting would was immediately available on the reoccupation have been undertaken. The storage of plants of a site and of providing a food supply whilst gathered on a large scale would have helped obtaining further resources (ibid). to minimise risk against seasonal and inter- annual food shortages, reduce transportation RECOGNISING INTENSIVE PLANT USE IN THE GLIÀFXOWLHVEHWZHHQJDWKHULQJSURFHVVLQJVLWHV ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD and more permanent settlements, and would have provided material for exchange and social Intensive plant use can be recognised in the GLVSOD\FRQWURO RI UHVRXUFHV 5RZOH\&RQZ\ archaeobotanical record by identifying sites & Zvelebil 1989; Mithen 2000: 435; Bonsall with high-density plant assemblages, which 2008: 262; Cunningham 2010: 24; 2011: 137). provide evidence for the large-scale collection The storage of foods, such as fruits, would and processing of particular plants. High- also have been a key mechanism of preventing density plant deposits can be created in a VHDVRQDOQXWULWLRQDOGHÀFLHQFLHVE\SURYLGLQJ number of ways: vitamins that were unavailable in winter. For $FFLGHQWDOGHOLEHUDWH FKDUULQJ RI instance, the Inuit in west and north-west SURGXFWVZDVWHSURGXFWVGXULQJWKHODUJH Alaska traditionally gathered berries in large VFDOH SURFHVVLQJ RU GU\LQJURDVWLQJ IRU quantities in autumn for winter consumption storage. (Anderson et al 1998: 231; Burch 1998: 208). $FFLGHQWDO FKDUULQJ RI SURGXFWVZDVWH Though conducted for social and political products during the large-scale processing reasons, feasting – the communal consumption or cooking for feasting. of food, often on a large scale – is another way 3. Accidental charring of an in-situ stored of dealing with surplus gathered foods (Hayden product or preservation of an in situ 2001; Milner 2009: 79). stored product in waterlogged conditions. Particular plants may also have been targeted for storage on a much smaller scale. In the archaeobotanical record, feasting deposits Small-scale storage would have been an would be indistinguishable from high-density important method of creating portable high- plant deposits created during processing for energy foods for transportation or for storage storage. Both types of deposit may be dominated in pits along routes between specialised activity by large concentrations of products or waste sites and would have aided mobility (Kuhnlein products. However, it should be noted that & Turner 1991: 16; Cunningham 2010: 25; though feasting involving plants occasionally 2011: 3). For example, dried fruits and berries occurs, most ethnographic examples of feasting would have been a valuable food source for relate to the increased consumption of meat or mobile hunter-gatherers since they have a high ÀVKUDWKHUWKDQSODQWIRRGV +D\GHQ FDORULÀFFRQWHQW 86'$ DQGRQFHGULHG Rowley-Conwy & Owen 2011: 327). Therefore, are easily transportable because of their low high-density plant deposits are more likely to mass and volume (Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 16; represent the preparation of plants for storage Cunningham 2011: 140). Small-scale storage of rather than feasting remnants. surplus may also have taken place in temporary Where preservation conditions were camps, to be utilised when the sites were favourable, samples recovered from storage 48 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013 contexts should be dominated by plant products, also provides evidence of drying for small- though waste products may also be present scale storage. As previously discussed, the if the plant did not require full processing SUHVHUYDWLRQ RI URRWVWXEHUV DQG VHDZHHG LV before drying for storage (cf Hillman 1981). extremely poor if they are charred when fresh Unfortunately, direct evidence for storage DQG WKH\ DUH PRVW OLNHO\ WR EH LGHQWLÀDEOH WR in the Mesolithic is extremely rare in the species if they have been dried prior to charring archaeological record. There is little evidence (Hather 1993: 22; 2000a: 417; Mason & Hather for storage facilities in Mesolithic Britain 2000: 417). because pottery is absent and organic containers do not survive in non-waterlogged conditions ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR INTENSIVE &XQQLQJKDP ,WLVDOVRGLIÀFXOWWR PLANT USE IN MESOLITHIC SCOTLAND identify plant storage pits because they can be used for multiple purposes unrelated to storage There are several sites which had notably large and the stored contents of pits would only come FRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIKD]HOQXWVKHOO (DVW%DUQVLQ LQFRQWDFWZLWKÀUHLQH[FHSWLRQDOFLUFXPVWDQFHV East Lothian, Weston Farm near Newbigging, (Cunningham 2010: 10; 2011: 141). Plant stores Cramond in Edinburgh and Staosnaig on can be preserved in waterlogged deposits, but &RORQVD\ 7DEOH 0RUHWKDQJRIKD]HOQXW unfortunately Mesolithic waterlogged sites shell was recovered at East Barns, but the density are rare in Britain. Furthermore, considering of nutshell across the site was not particularly that most Mesolithic structures were probably high (c 1g per litre of soil) because the nutshell fairly small and short-lived (Wickham-Jones was recovered from a range of contexts from 2004a) compared to later prehistoric structures, across the site including pits, an occupation the storage of plant products in the roofs of KRUL]RQDQGWKHÀOORIWKHVWUXFWXUH7KHODUJHVW structures close to domestic hearths would be sample of nutshell contained 25g (c 2g per less frequent than in later periods (cf Rowley- litre of soil). At Weston Farm, a concentration Conwy 2000: 44–7; cf Jones & Rowley-Conwy RI KD]HOQXW VKHOO IUDJPHQWV ZDV GHSRVLWHG 2007: 401 on Neolithic structures). Therefore, in a shallow pit (834 fragments in c 25 litres there would be much less opportunity for RI VRLO WRJHWKHU ZLWK EXUQW ERQH KD]HO DQG the accidental charring of plant stores in the willow charcoal and lithics. The nutshell from Mesolithic than in later prehistory. Cramond was present in most samples across the The small-scale storage of plant foods is even site and large quantities of highly fragmented PRUHGLIÀFXOWWRUHFRJQLVHEHFDXVHKLJKGHQVLW\ KD]HOQXW VKHOOV ZHUH IRXQG FRQFHQWUDWHG plant deposits would not be created during within two shallow pits, together with small preparation for storage. It is possible though, amounts of charcoal, burnt bone and lithic to infer the existence of small-scale storage by material (density information not available). It considering the taphonomy of the preserved LV GLIÀFXOW WR DVVHVV WKH VLJQLÀFDQFH RI WKHVH plant remains. Small-scale storage in hunter- UHVXOWV EHFDXVH RI WKH GLIIHUHQW TXDQWLÀFDWLRQ gatherer societies is best recognised through the methods used: the mass was measured at East presence of highly seasonal resources on a large Barns, fragments counted at Weston Farm and number of sites in a study-area, because without a semi-quantative abundance scale was used for storage, all the sites where a particular resource the Cramond assemblage. It is also uncertain LV LGHQWLÀHG ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ RFFXSLHG LQ WKH how common such concentrations of nutshell same season. ZHUHLQ0HVROLWKLF6FRWODQGEHFDXVHKD]HOQXW 7KH LGHQWLÀFDWLRQ RI VPDOO TXDQWLWLHV RI VKHOOKDVQRWEHHQIXOO\TXDQWLÀHGRQPRVWRWKHU PRLVWXUHULFKIRRGVVXFKDVIUXLWVURRWVWXEHUV sites and sample volumes have rarely been and seaweed, in archaeobotanical assemblages published. SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 49
However, considering the highly frag- nut kernels in the deposits, there is no evidence mented nature of the nutshell and the absence WKDWWKHKD]HOQXWVUHSUHVHQWDQDFFLGHQWDOO\EXUQW RI KD]HOQXW NHUQHO IURP DOO WKUHH RI WKHVH store. Mithen (2000: 434) proposes that the assemblages, there is no evidence that any of KD]HOQXWV ZHUH DFFLGHQWDOO\ FDUERQLVHG ZKLOVW WKH SLWV FRQWDLQHG WKH UHPQDQWV RI KD]HOQXW being roasted within the smaller pit features stores burnt in situ. It is possible that the nutshell surrounding F24 and were deposited within F24 from Weston Farm and Cramond was derived as a means of rubbish disposal. Given the short IURP WKH SLW URDVWLQJ RI KD]HOQXWV HVSHFLDOO\ duration of deposition within the pit (ibid), the considering that the shallow morphology of the large-quantity of nutshell and the fact that raw SLWVLVVLPLODUWRURDVWLQJSLWVLGHQWLÀHGDWRWKHU KD]HOQXWV DUH LQGLJHVWLEOH ZKHQ FRQVXPHG LQ sites (Hastie 2003b: 7; Perry 1999: 232; Score & large quantities (Gerarde 1597: 1251; Mears & Mithen 2000: 508; Holst 2010). The fragmented Hillman 2007: 26), it is improbable that the nuts nature of the nutshell may also be suggestive would have been eaten raw without cooking. of roasting (Score & Mithen 2000; Hastie It therefore seems unlikely that the nutshell 2003b: 7). Considering the presence of the other UHSUHVHQWV WKH DFFLGHQWDOGHOLEHUDWH XVH RI environmental and artefactual material in these cracked nutshells as a fuel after the consumption pits, it is also possible that the nutshell represents of the raw nuts, though it is also possible that discarded waste material that was deliberately the nuts were charred accidentally during drying deposited or naturally accumulated in the for storage rather than during roasting. Whatever pits from the surrounding deposits (Miksicek the mechanism of preservation at Staosnaig, 1987: 226), perhaps after roasting or drying for KD]HOQXW FROOHFWLRQ DQG SURFHVVLQJ KDG FOHDUO\ storage. Overall, all that can be said is that the taken place on a substantial scale. quantities of nutshell recovered from these three Whilst clear evidence for large-scale VLWHVFOHDUO\DWWHVWWRWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIKD]HOQXWV KD]HOQXW H[SORLWDWLRQ LV VR IDU OLPLWHG WR D in the economy, but without further analysis of single site in Scotland, a number of particularly these assemblages, none provides indisputable notable concentrations of nutshell have been evidence of the large-scale collection, processing recovered from other areas of North-West RUVWRUDJHRIKD]HOQXWV Europe (Mellars 1976b: 376; Zvelebil 1994: On the other hand, the assemblage from 41; Cotton 2007; Holst 2010; Warren et al Staosnaig F24 provides clear evidence of 2014: 5). For example, at the site of Howick intensive plant use. At this site, a large pit in North-East England, more than 200,000 contained the fragmented nutshells from an FKDUUHG KD]HOQXW IUDJPHQWV ZHUH UHFRYHUHG HVWLPDWHG ² ZKROH KD]HOQXWV from a range of contexts within a hut structure, DV ZHOO DV RQH ZKROH KD]HOQXW NHUQHO DQG with particularly dense concentrations VHYHUDOIUDJPHQWVOHVVHUFHODQGLQHWXEHUV associated with some features (Cotton 2007). bulbils, several charred crab apples, occasional $SSUR[LPDWHO\KD]HOQXWVKHOOIUDJPHQWV carbonised seeds, sparse charcoal fragments were recovered from multiple phases of the and abundant lithics. There are several possible FHQWUDOKHDUWKVXJJHVWLQJWKDWKD]HOQXWVZHUH processes that could have resulted in the charring routinely and intensively used (ibid). There DQG GHSRVLWLRQ RI WKH KD]HOQXW VKHOO LQ WKLV is also evidence that in-situ nut roasting took feature. Mithen (2000: 434) argues that the plant place within the structure: a pit with a heat- remains from F24 were not carbonised within HIIHFWHGOLQLQJDQGÀOOFRQWDLQHGDSSUR[LPDWHO\ the pit itself, due to a lack of clear evidence FKDUUHG KD]HOQXW IUDJPHQWV LELG for in situ burning and the infrequent nature of Similarly at Duvensee, in Northern Germany, wood charcoal within the pit. Considering this, a series of hearths contained thick layers of WRJHWKHU ZLWK WKH UDULW\ RI ZKROH KD]HOQXWV RU VDQG DQG FKDUUHG KD]HOQXW VKHOOV FRPSULVLQJ 50 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
RYHUZKROHKD]HOQXWV ZKLFKDUHKLJKO\ 0HVROLWKLFVLWHVZKHUHKD]HOQXWVZHUHUHFRYHUHG VXJJHVWLYH RI ODUJHVFDOH KD]HOQXW URDVWLQJ ZHUHRFFXSLHGLQ6HSWHPEHU2FWREHUGXULQJWKH (Holst 2010). This evidence supports the VKRUW SHULRG ZKHQ KD]HOQXWV ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ LGHD WKDW ODUJHVFDOH KD]HOQXW FROOHFWLRQ DQG available for exploitation (Dark 2004; McComb processing for consumption was common in 2009: 230). Thirdly, as previously discussed, the Mesolithic North-West Europe and may have most likely mechanism for the preservation of been more widespread in Scotland than has so WKH PRLVWXUHULFK OHVVHU FHODQGLQH URRW WXEHUV IDUEHHQLGHQWLÀHGLQWKHDUFKDHRORJLFDOUHFRUG bulbils, crab apple and seaweed remains at Similarly, there are no direct examples of Staosnaig and Northton was by charring during LQ VLWX EXUQWZDWHUORJJHG 0HVROLWKLF KD]HOQXW drying for storage. Thus, despite the limited stores in Scotland, but examples are known quantity of archaeobotanical material currently from the Irish Mesolithic, suggesting that available, there is some evidence that plants deposits of this kind might survive in Scotland were exploited in a systematic and intensive where favourable conditions exist. For instance, manner in Mesolithic Scotland. at Lough Boora, Ireland, approximately 500 XQFDUERQLVHG ZKROH KD]HOQXWV ZHUH UHFRYHUHG from a shallow feature interpreted as a storage HAZELNUTS: A STAPLE FOOD IN THE pit (McComb & Simpson 1999). MESOLITHIC? In the absence of direct evidence for storage, the existence of plant storage in Mesolithic 7KH DEXQGDQFH RI KD]HO LQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW Scotland can be inferred in a number of ways. DQG KD]HOQXW VKHOO RQ 0HVROLWKLF VLWHV LQ )LUVWO\FRQVLGHULQJWKHVHDVRQDOLW\RIKD]HOQXW North-West Europe, has led many to suggest production and short window of time (usually WKDW KD]HOQXWV PD\ KDYH EHHQ D VWDSOH IRRG two to eight weeks) from September to October source in the Mesolithic (Mellars 1976b: 376; ZKHQ KD]HOQXWV DUH DYDLODEOH IRU FROOHFWLRQ Zvelebil 1994: 62; Dickson & Dickson 2000: (Hill 1941: 41; Howes 1948: 184; Loewenfeld 257; Holst 2010; Regnell 2012). In addition 1957: 40; Mabey 2001: 122; Holst 2010: 2878), to the 34 Scottish sites included in this review, it is clear that the gathering of large quantities KD]HOQXWVKDYHEHHQUHFRYHUHGIURPDWOHDVW RIKD]HOQXWVVXFKDVDW6WDRVQDLJZRXOGKDYH English and Welsh sites (Mellars 1976b: 376; required a short, intense period of gathering, Zvelebil 1994; Cotton 2007; Dark 2007), 18 GU\LQJURDVWLQJ DQG XOWLPDWHO\ VWRUDJH WR Irish sites (Warren et al 2014), 28 Southern maximise the harvest and to prevent wastage Scandinavian sites (Zvelebil 1994; Robinson (McComb & Simpson 1999: 7; McComb 2007) and two Northern German sites (Zvelebil 2009: 228; Holst 2010; Cunningham 2011: 1994) of Mesolithic date (illus 6). Syntheses 6HFRQGO\ WKH XELTXLW\ RI KD]HOQXWV RQ of Neolithic archaeobotanical assemblages in 0HVROLWKLFVLWHVVXJJHVWVWKDWKD]HOQXWVWRUDJH North-West Europe (Moffett et al 1989; Jones & ZDVDFRPPRQSUDFWLFH,IKD]HOQXWVDUHSXUHO\ Rowley-Conwy 2007; Robinson 2007; Bishop indicators of seasonal collection in the autumn, et al 2009; Kirleis et al 2012; McClatchie et al then 39 of the 57 site blocks discussed in the in press) have also highlighted the importance review would have been occupied in the autumn RI KD]HOQXWV ZLWKLQ 1HROLWKLF HFRQRPLHV LQ or several seasons including the autumn. More the region, showing a degree of continuity probably, some of the sites were occupied in the of economic practice from the Mesolithic– autumn, others for repeated visits or periods of Neolithic. time over several seasons and others would have +D]HOQXWV ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ LPSRUWDQW been visited at other periods during the course resources for hunter-gatherers, since they are of the year. It is highly improbable that all of the high in energy and fat, containing approximately SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 51
35
Scotland 30 Ireland Southern Scandinavia 25
20
15 Number of sites
10
5
0 hazelnut acorn lesser celandine roots/tubers fruit vetch/tare waterlily shell remains tubers/bulbils (total) remains seeds seeds
plant taxa/component
Illus 6 Comparison of the plant macrofossil records from Mesolithic sites in Scotland (Table 3), Ireland (Warren et al 2014) and Scandinavia (Robinson 2007)
400kcal per 100g when fresh (Howes 1948: 7KRXJK LW LV GLIÀFXOW WR DVVHVV WKH 3) or about 650kcal per 100g when dried SURGXFWLYLW\ RI KD]HO LQ WKH 0HVROLWKLF WKH (Holland et al 1991: 314) and could have ZLGHVSUHDG DYDLODELOLW\ RI KD]HO ZLWKLQ WKH SURYLGHGVXIÀFLHQWFDORULHVIRUXVHDVDVWDSOH environment (Tipping 1994; 2004) and the food (Loewenfeld 1957: 36; Jarman et al 1982: H[LVWHQFH RI XQVKDGHG KD]HOGRPLQDWHG 68). As discussed previously, they can also be woodlands in many areas would have provided easily collected in large quantities and stored WKHLGHDOHQYLURQPHQWIRUKD]HOWRÁRZHUDQG over the winter, providing a reliable winter food provide abundant nuts for exploitation (Dickson source (Howes 1948: 184; Mellars 1976b: 376; & Dickson 2000: 258; Holst 2010: 2876). McComb & Simpson 1999: 3; Carruthers 2000: 8VLQJHVWLPDWHVRIWKHFDORULÀF\LHOGSURGXFHG 'LFNVRQ 'LFNVRQ +D]HOQXWV IURP PRGHUQ FRPPHUFLDO KD]HO RUFKDUGV LQ are also a much more predictable resource and %ULWDLQ DQG WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI KD]HO LQ HDUO\ require less energy to process than meat (Jacobi Holocene pollen diagrams in England, Jacobi 1978: 82–3; Hastie 2003b: 4). (1978: 82) has suggested that a 0.75–1 mile 52 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013 square area of woodland would have supplied 343; Mason 1996b: 3; McComb & Simpson HQRXJKKD]HOQXWVIRUIRXUIDPLOLHVIRURI 1999; Carruthers 2000: 414; Rackham 2003: WKHLUGLHWIRUIRXUPRQWKV0RUHXVHIXOÀJXUHV 210; Irving 2009: 64; McComb 2009). It should DUHDYDLODEOHIURPKD]HOQXWFDORULÀFUHWXUQUDWH also be remembered that the values commonly experiments, which show that processing time TXRWHGLQVXSSRUWRIWKHSURGXFWLYLW\RIKD]HO rather than harvesting time is the major factor relate to modern planted woodlands (ibid) LQÁXHQFLQJ UHWXUQ UDWHV 7DODOD\ HW DO or incomparable ecological environments, 356; Holst 2010: 2877). Experiments with such as North America (Holst 2010, table 2), WKH $PHULFDQ KD]HOQXW Corylus americana and there is no detailed data available on the Walter), suggest that a single person working SURGXFWLYHW\ RI QDWLYH KD]HO LQ XQPDQDJHG for eight hours (collecting and cracking KD]HOGRPLQDWHG ZRRGODQGV &RQVHTXHQWO\ nuts) could produce the necessary calories HVWLPDWHVRIKD]HOQXW\LHOGVLQWKH0HVROLWKLF NJ NFDO QXWPHDW SHU KRXU IRU should be treated with caution. approximately three adults for one day or Having said this, considering the abundance a single adult for three days (Talalay et al RIKD]HOLQWKH6FRWWLVK0HVROLWKLFHQYLURQPHQW 1984: 356). Holst (2010: 2877–8) estimates (Birks 1989; Tipping 1994; Edwards & that approximately ‘950 storable nuts (0.9kg Whittington 2003), even allowing for the nutmeat, 5,130kcal per hour) could be obtained H[SORLWDWLRQ RI KD]HO E\ RWKHU QXFLYRURXV per person per hour, equivalent to about 7,600 VSHFLHV LW VHHPV OLNHO\ WKDW KD]HOQXW DYDLO nuts (6.8kg nutmeat, 40,800kcal) per day’, or ability would have exceeded the capacity of the allowing for a 30% loss rate, ‘4.8kg nutmeat available labour for nut harvesting rather than (28,800kcal) per person per day’ and that an vice versa (Holst 2010: 2878). It should also individual could produce 44% of the required EH QRWHG WKDW KD]HOQXW VWRUDJH ZRXOG KDYH DQQXDO HQHUJ\ LQ WKH GD\ KD]HOQXW VHDVRQ been an important way of minimising shortages As Holst (2010: 2878) points out, these return during years with poor harvests (cf Rowley- rates greatly exceed estimates produced for Conwy & Zvelebil 1989) and that modern wild cereals – c 900–1,200kcal per hour – and commercial nut growers shoot large numbers acorn return rates – c 850–1,350kcal per hour RI JUH\ VTXLUUHOV WR SURWHFW WKHLU KD]HO WUHHV (Barlow & Heck 2002) – showing the potential (Mason 1996a: 2). Consequently, it seems LPSRUWDQFHRIKD]HOQXWVLQWKHGLHW SUREDEOHWKDWGXULQJWKHVKRUWLQWHQVHKD]HOQXW However, there are several factors that could JDWKHULQJ VHDVRQ LQ 6HSWHPEHU2FWREHU SRWHQWLDOO\ KDYH OLPLWHG WKH XVH RI KD]HOQXWV VSHFLDOLVHG KD]HOQXW SURFHVVLQJ FDPSV ZRXOG DVDVWDSOHIRRG)LUVWO\KD]HOQXWSURGXFWLYLW\ have been established in the vicinity of varies inter-annually (Cunningham 2011: 142), SDUWLFXODUO\ SURGXFWLYH KD]HO ZRRGODQG DUHDV especially with cold and wet weather in April to protect the nuts from other nucivorous and May during pollination (Mason 1996a: 2). species and to dry the nuts for storage Secondly, competition with other animals would (McComb 2009: 228; Holst 2010: 2878). Such KDYHUHVWULFWHGKD]HOQXW\LHOGVDQGUHGXFHGWKH camps could have been occupied throughout reliability of this resource (McCullagh 1989b: the winter to make use of the stored nuts, as 43). Though the full potential impact of red well as other plant resources gathered for VTXLUUHOV RQ KD]HOQXW \LHOGV LQ SRVWJODFLDO winter storage (Clarke 1976: 474). Therefore, forests is uncertain, modern experiments and JLYHQWKHXELTXLW\RIKD]HOQXWVKHOORQ6FRWWLVK observations suggest that grey (non-native) 0HVROLWKLF VLWHV WKHLU DYDLODELOLW\ FDORULÀF VTXLUUHOV KDYH D PDMRU LPSDFW RQ KD]HOQXW properties and storability, it is clear that yields since they consume the nuts before they KD]HOQXWVZRXOGKDYHEHHQDNH\DVSHFWRIWKH are ripe (Howes 1948: 179; Talalay et al 1984: Mesolithic diet. SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 53
JUST A HAZELNUT BASED PLANT wild plants, many of which are virtually ECONOMY? archaeologically invisible. Several authors have emphasised the wide variety of resources 7KH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI KD]HOQXWV WR 0HVROLWKLF exploited by Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, and plant subsistence strategies should not be have seen the increased exploitation of nuts over-estimated. Though only recovered in LQ WKH 0HVROLWKLF DV D SDUW RI D GLYHUVLÀHG very small quantities, the recovery of a range subsistence strategy (Clarke 1976: 475–6; Price of edible fruits (hawthorn, crab apple and 1989: 48). Clarke (1976: 464) suggests that there SRVVLEO\SHDU DQGVHHGV HJIDWKHQDQGYHWFK were between 250–450 edible plant species in tare) in Scottish Mesolithic assemblages, temperate deciduous woodlands in Europe and and the presence of lesser celandine tubers at ethnographic evidence from North America and Staosnaig and Northton, hints at the potential Canada indicates that temperate hunter-gatherers contribution of these species to the Scottish usually exploit a wide range of plant species, Mesolithic diet. The presence of these species with at least 1,649 species in North America on other Mesolithic sites in North-West and 550 species in Canada known to have been Europe also provides supporting evidence exploited for food (Kuhnlein & Turner 1991: 10; for the exploitation of these resources by Moerman 1998: 15). Indeed, Anderson (2006: hunter-gatherers in Mesolithic Scotland. 242) estimates that between 60–70% of the diet Charred hawthorn stones were present in of most tribes in California consisted of plants. small quantities at Westward Ho!, England Despite Keeley’s (1992) prediction that hunter- (Vaughan 1987), and at Ringkloster, Denmark, gatherer plant use declines in higher latitude and uncharred hawthorn fruitstones were regions where plants are more seasonal, there abundant in waterlogged samples from three is considerable historic and archaeobotanical Scandinavian sites (Robinson 2007), perhaps evidence for the importance of wild plants in indicating intentional gathering. Possible the diet in temperate parts of Europe and Asia. carbonised crab apple remains have also been Archaeobotanical evidence from Abu Hureyra in recovered from Goldcliff, Wales (Dark 2007), Syria, shows that in the Epipalaeolithic hunter- and from several Irish sites (Warren et al 2014) gatherers exploited over 250 wild plants species and uncarbonised crab apple seeds were also for food (Hillman 2000: 397). Furthermore, present in waterlogged samples from Tybrid Eurasian countries with detailed ethnobotanical Vig, Denmark (Robinson 2007). Moderate and historic records of plant use indicate wild concentrations of carbonised and uncarbonised plants were extensively and routinely used for fat-hen seeds have been reported from three food historically, even in agricultural societies, sites in Scandinavia and carbonised Vicia and were not merely utilised in times of famine. Lathyrus seeds from four Irish sites and one For instance, across Spain, 419 edible plants Scandinavian site (illus 6; Robinson 2007; have been recorded as being used historically Warren et al 2014). Charred lesser celandine and by contemporary people, of which 206 tubers are absent from Southern British species were wild vegetables (Tardío et al 2006: Mesolithic assemblages, but they are present in 33; Tardío 2010: 214). Indeed, in contemporary several Mesolithic and Neolithic assemblages in Eurasia, ethnobotanical research shows that North-West Europe (eg Robinson & Kempfner even today between 48–143 species (48 1987; Bakels 1988: 159; Fairbairn 1999; Out recorded for Italy, 59 for Portugal, 84–143 for 2009: 357–8; Warren et al 2014). different regions of Turkey) are recognised as In addition to these potential foodstuffs, it food plants by older inhabitants in certain areas is also likely that Scottish Mesolithic hunter- (UWXù &DUYDOKR 0RUDOHV gatherers utilised a wide diversity of other 153; Nebel & Heinrich 2010: 176). In Britain, 54 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Lightfoot (1777) listed about 80 edible plants predictability, storability, high carbohydrate in Scotland, and contemporary plant gathering content and year-round availability (Clarke guides in Britain list over 250 edible plants 1976: 476; King 1994: 187; Hardy 2007: 6). In (Irving 2009). the highly forested environment of Mesolithic Archaeobotanical evidence from other 6FRWODQG HGLEOH URRWVWXEHUV ZRXOG DOVR KDYH areas of North-West Europe also highlights been more readily available than annual seeds that a range of other fruits, nuts and seeds (Clarke 1976: 476) and would probably have were most probably exploited by Mesolithic provided the major carbohydrate component hunter-gatherers in Scotland: elder (Sambucus of the diet, as in most modern hunter-gatherer nigra L.), sloe (Prunus spinosa L.), crowberry societies today (Vincent 1985: 132). Moreover, (Empetrum nigrum L.) and guelder-rose ethnographic research shows that the energy (Viburnum opulus L.) have all been recovered and time expended was much greater for the from assemblages in England, Wales and gathering and processing of seeds than for Ireland (Vaughan 1987; Dark 2007; Warren et tubers (Hardy 2007: 5), suggesting that tubers DO DQG FDUERQLVHGZDWHUORJJHG UHPDLQV may have had a greater importance in hunter- of sloe (Prunus spinosa L.), wild strawberry gatherer diets than seeds. Humans also faced (Fragaria vesca L.), rosehip (Rosa sp.), much less competition with other animals for UDVSEHUU\EODFNEHUU\ Rubus idaeus /Rubus URRWVWXEHU H[SORLWDWLRQ +DUG\ WKDQ fruticosus L. agg.), dewberry (Rubus caesius IRUKD]HOQXWFROOHFWLRQEHFDXVHURRWVDQGWXEHUV L.) and guelder-rose (Viburnum opulus L.) JURZ XQGHUJURXQG DQG DUH PRUH GLIÀFXOW IRU are represented in Scandinavian Mesolithic other animals to access. assemblages (Robinson 2007). 7KHGHDUWKRIHGLEOHWXEHUVURRWVUHFRYHUHG Two other particularly notable absences from archaeological samples can be explained from Scottish Mesolithic assemblages are E\WKHIDFWWKDWFKDUUHGURRWVWXEHUVDUHUDUHO\ waterlily seeds and acorns. Yellow and white recognised by archaeobotanists, because water-lily (Nuphar lutea / 6PNymphaea WKH\ FDQQRW EH LGHQWLÀHG XVLQJ FRQYHQWLRQDO alba L.) seeds have been recovered in large archaeobotanical methods, requiring specialist quantities from several Irish and Scandinavian VNLOOVDQGDQ6(0IRUIXOOLGHQWLÀFDWLRQ 0DVRQ VLWHVDQGFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIFKDUUHGZDWHUORJJHG et al 1994: 55; Zvelebil 1994: 48; Hather & acorns (Quercus sp.) from several Scandinavian Mason 2002: 2). Roots and tubers have been sites (illus 6; Zvelebil 1994; Robinson 2007; frequently found in European assemblages Warren et al 2014). The edible components which have been analysed appropriately (Hather RI WKHVH SODQWV KDYH D KLJK FDORULÀF FRQWHQW & Mason 2002: 5; Mason et al 2002: 195). For DSSUR[LPDWHO\²NFDONJIRUDFRUQV H[DPSOHWKHHGLEOHWXEHUVEXOEVURRWVRISLJQXW DQG NFDONJ IRU \HOORZ ZDWHUOLO\ VHHGV (Conopodium majus *RXDQ /RUHW UDPVRQV (Barlow & Heck 2002; USDA 2014)) and wild garlic (Allium cf ursinum L.) and possible there is substantial ethnographic evidence for sea beet (Beta vulgaris spp. maritima (L.) the large-scale exploitation of these plants by Arcang.) have been recovered from the Danish modern hunter-gatherers in North America Mesolithic sites of Tybrind Vig and Halsskov (Moerman 1998). Consequently, these plants (Kubiak-Martens 1999; 2002). The presence ZHUH SRWHQWLDOO\ VLJQLÀFDQW ZLWKLQ 0HVROLWKLF RI YHVLFXODU PDWHULDO DQG VWHPVUKL]RPHV DW hunter-gatherer economies in Scotland. four Scottish Mesolithic sites, suggests that Similarly, edible roots and tubers have XQLGHQWLÀHG HGLEOH URRWVUKL]RPHVWXEHUV PD\ rarely been recovered from Scottish Mesolithic have been present at several sites. sites, but they may have formed an important Furthermore, many edible plants may not component of the Mesolithic diet because of their KDYH EHHQ FDORULÀFDOO\ LPSRUWDQW FRPSRQHQWV SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 55 of the plant economy, but they may have +D]HOQXWVKHOOLVDOVRPXFKPRUHIUHTXHQWO\ played an essential nutritional role in the diet recovered from sites where the only recovery (Etkin 1994: 2–3). In particular, the importance PHWKRGXWLOLVHGLVKDQGFROOHFWLRQDQGRUZHW of edible leaves has probably been severely dry sieving with coarse meshes due to its higher underestimated in the Mesolithic diet. Leafy visibility, whereas small plant remains are green plants were probably important dietary not recovered using such methods (Renfrew components for Mesolithic hunter-gatherers 1973: 21; Minnis 1981: 143; Wagner 1988; since they are easy to collect and are high in King 1994: 190; Pearsall 2000: 502). Though vitamins and minerals (King 1994: 187). Since ÁRWDWLRQZDVHPSOR\HGRQPRVWVLWHVDQRWDEOH they are usually eaten in a raw state at the proportion (31%) of site blocks were derived point of collection and are extremely fragile, IURPKDQGFROOHFWHGRUZHWGU\VLHYHGVDPSOHV leaves are not preserved in archaeobotanical (illus 2a). It is important to note that, with the DVVHPEODJHV .LQJ (UWXù exception of three site blocks that contained less ,QSDUWWKHQXPHULFDOIUHTXHQF\RIKD]HOQXWV WKDQ ÀYH QRQKD]HOQXW LGHQWLÀFDWLRQV 0RUWRQ relative to other plant remains in Mesolithic $ 6WDRVQDLJ )) DQG &DUQ 6RXWKHUQ assemblages probably relates to the fact that VHHGV IUXLW UHPDLQV DQG SDUHQFK\PDYHVLFXODU nutshell is a waste product of consumption. PDWHULDOURRWVVWHPVZHUHRQO\UHFRYHUHGIURP +D]HOQXW VKHOOV ZRXOG EH GHOLEHUDWHO\ the sites where bulk samples had been taken and GLVFDUGHG²RIWHQRQWRGRPHVWLFÀUHV²RUXVHG ÁRWDWLRQ HPSOR\HG 7KH VPDOO YROXPH RI VRLO as a fuel, whereas tubers, seaweed, fruits and processed may also be responsible for the lack seeds are likely to have been consumed and RIQRQKD]HOQXWUHPDLQVDWPDQ\VLWHV LOOXVF would only be charred occasionally during &OHDUO\WKHODUJHUWKHVDPSOHVL]HWKHJUHDWHU cooking or processing accidents (Munson et al the diversity of species recovered from a site 1971: 427; Jones 2000: 80; Mithen 2000: 437; (Jones 1991a: 64), but the extent to which this Pearsall 2000: 204; Jones & Rowley-Conwy was a problem is uncertain because the type of 2007: 400). This problem is highlighted by sampling strategy employed was only detailed WKH IDFW WKDW RQO\ RQH ZKROH KD]HOQXW NHUQHO for half of the site blocks (49%). Whilst some has been recovered from Mesolithic Scotland, assemblages from sites where a total sampling despite the abundance of nutshell. Moreover, strategy had been employed contained low KD]HOQXWVKHOOVDUHVPDOOGHQVHDQGUREXVWDQG volumes of plant macrofossils, such as Links therefore are more likely to fall quickly into the House, all the sites with large plant macrofossil DVKHVRIGRPHVWLFÀUHVDQGEHFDUERQLVHGDQG assemblages were well sampled: Staosnaig F24, preserved than lighter seeds and moisture-rich Cramond, Weston Farm and East Barns. This WXEHUV OHDYHV VHDZHHG DQG KD]HOQXW NHUQHOV suggests that the dearth of plant remains other which would more frequently be burnt to ash WKDQ KD]HOQXW VKHOO LQ WKH 6FRWWLVK 0HVROLWKLF (Munson et al 1971: 427; Hillman 1981: 140; is partially a consequence of the sampling Minnis 1981: 149; Wilson 1984; Popper 1988: strategies employed. 56; King 1994: 187–8; Carruthers 2000: 411; Mithen 2000: 437; Score & Mithen 2000: 508; Wright 2003: 578; Dark 2004: 2; Pieroni 2005: FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS 29; Anderson 2006: 267). Considering the low chance of edible seed carbonisation, it is There is considerable potential to develop probable that seeds were deliberately collected, understanding of Mesolithic plant exploitation even when present in low frequencies in in Scotland. Large Mesolithic plant macrofossil archaeobotanical assemblages (Carruthers assemblages are extremely scarce in Scotland 2000: 413). due to the lack of systematic sampling and 56 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
ÁRWDWLRQ RI 0HVROLWKLF GHSRVLWV DQG WKH VPDOO 0HVROLWKLFGLHW7KHIXOOLGHQWLÀFDWLRQRIVXLWDEOH VDPSOH VL]HV XVXDOO\ DQDO\VHG 7KH FRQVLVWHQW parenchyma fragments using an SEM should presence of plant remains on most sites, even also be a research priority for any future analysis where no sampling or minimal sampling has of Mesolithic plant assemblages in Scotland. been undertaken, suggests that plant remains In addition, as noted by Hather (2000a), to may be more common on Mesolithic sites in ensure that more complete parenchyma remains Scotland than has previously been supposed. are recovered from Mesolithic assemblages, Since plant remains are typically only present it is imperative that sub-samples for manual in low densities on Mesolithic sites due to the ÁRWDWLRQDUHWDNHQLIODUJHYROXPHVRIVRLODUH more temporary nature of occupation and the WREHSURFHVVHGXVLQJDÁRWDWLRQWDQN lower rates of deposition than in later periods, it is essential that future excavations of Mesolithic VLWHV ZKHUH SRVVLEOH ÁRDW PRUH WKDQ WKH CONCLUSION average (cO VDPSOHVL]HXVHGIRUODWHUSHULRG sites. A potential problem with this suggestion In conclusion, this review has shown that LVWKDWVLWHVRUIHDWXUHVDUHRIWHQRQO\LGHQWLÀHG evidence for plant use was more widespread on as Mesolithic after the material has been Scottish Mesolithic sites than has previously sampled and dated (Suddaby 2007: 68; Dunbar been recognised, suggesting that plants were key 2008: 47; Johnson & Cameron 2012: 17). This resources within Scottish Mesolithic subsistence is particularly problematic for multi-period strategies. Despite the scarcity of plant remains developer-funded excavations where there may LQ 6FRWWLVK 0HVROLWKLF DVVHPEODJHV KD]HOQXW not be further opportunity to take additional shell was consistently present on most sites. samples or identify additional Mesolithic This suggests that, far from being of incidental features through radiocarbon dating. However, LPSRUWDQFH KD]HOQXWV ZHUH D GHOLEHUDWHO\ in research-driven excavations, there is usually targeted species, which formed an important RSSRUWXQLW\ WR UHWXUQ WR LGHQWLÀHG 0HVROLWKLF component of the Mesolithic diet. Indeed, the sites and take larger samples of material. For GLVFRYHU\RIWKHKLJKGHQVLW\GHSRVLWRIKD]HOQXW instance, small-scale sampling of an eroding shells at Staosnaig, Inner Hebrides shows that section at the site of Northton, Harris, Western plants were sometimes processed on a large- Isles in 2001 recovered a small assemblage scale in the Scottish Mesolithic. Though no of Mesolithic plant macrofossils (Table 3; EXUQW KD]HOQXW VWRUHV KDYH EHHQ LGHQWLÀHG DQG Gregory et al 2005; Simpson et al 2006). The KD]HOQXWV ZHUH RQO\ SUHVHQW LQ ORZPRGHUDWH 100% sampling of a small trench at the site frequencies in most assemblages, the presence LQ ² SURGXFHG D VL]DEOH DVVHPEODJH RI RIKD]HOQXWVRQPRVWVLWHVVXJJHVWVWKDWWKHSODQW Mesolithic plant remains, which is currently was routinely and systematically exploited and under investigation (Bishop et al 2010; 2011; VWRUHG IRU IRRG EHFDXVH KD]HOQXWV ZHUH RQO\ Bishop 2013). Therefore, of key importance available for a limited period in the autumn. for understanding the nature of Mesolithic The consumption of the other species subsistence is the routine sampling, analysis discussed is more open to question because and publishing of large archaeobotanical other plant remains were extremely rare in samples from Scottish Mesolithic sites, within the Mesolithic archaeobotanical assemblages an explicit research framework. reviewed. However, the presence of the Future research should also aim to develop carbonised remains of lesser celandine, seaweed, understanding of the types of roots and tubers FUDE DSSOHV KDZWKRUQ YHWFKHVWDUHV DQG IDW consumed on Mesolithic sites in Scotland, as hen in several assemblages, together with the these may have formed a key component of the ethnobotanic evidence for the use of these SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 57 resources, suggests that these plants also formed 29. Mabey 2001 part of the Scottish Mesolithic diet. Considering 30. Marles et al 2000 the taphonomy of different wild plants and the 31. Mears & Hillman 2007 diversity of plants in hunter-gatherer diets past 32. Milliken & Bridgewater 2004 33. Moerman 1998 and present, it is likely that a much greater range 34. Nebel & Heinrich 2010 of plants was exploited by Scottish Mesolithic 35. Phillips 1983 KXQWHUJDWKHUHUV WKDQ KDV EHHQ LGHQWLÀHG 36. Pieroni 2010 archaeologically. It is also probable that the 37. Pierpoint Johnson 1862 relatively short duration of occupation of 38. Ranson 1949 many sites and the limited sampling strategies 39. Renfrew 1973 employed by archaeologists, are responsible 6WROLFáQi for the restricted range and frequency of edible 41. Tardío 2010 42. Tardío et al 2006 taxa in most assemblages. Further sampling of 43. Vaughan & Geissler 1997 Mesolithic sites and more detailed analysis of 44. Voronina 2000 Mesolithic archaeobotanical assemblages is required to fully establish the nature of plant subsistence in the Scottish Mesolithic. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research forms part of an Arts and Humanities APPENDIX 1: ETHNOGRAPHIC SOURCES 5HVHDUFK&RXQFLO 8. IXQGHG3K'VWXGHQWVKLS $+ CONSULTED , DZDUGHG WR 5% DQG VXSHUYLVHG E\ 0& and PRC. The authors would like to acknowledge the 1. Behre 2008 archaeobotanical work undertaken by Scott Timpany 2. Bryant 1783 (Garthdee, Warren Field), Mhairi Hastie (Cramond, 3. Burrows 2005 0DQRU %ULGJH 6NLOPDÀOO\ :DUUHQ )LHOG -HQQLIHU 4. Cameron 1977 Miller and Susan Ramsay (Ailsa View), Charlotte 5. Carvalho & Morales 2010 O’Brien (Aird Calanais), Diane Alldritt (Links 6. Christanell et al 2010 +RXVH 0LFKDHO &UHVVH\ 6NLOPDÀOO\ 6LOYHUFUHVW 7. Cooper & Johnson 1984 Susan Lyons (Silvercrest), Tim Holden (Fife Ness), 8. Darwin 1996 Allan Hall (East Barns), Rowena Gale and Patricia 9. Ebeling 1986 Vandorpe (Upper Largie) on Scottish Mesolithic plant 10. Egoumenidou & Michaelides 2000 remains and to thank them for their permission to use (UWXù the data from their unpublished reports. We would 12. Evelyn 1699 also like to thank the following for information, access 13. Fenton 2000 and permission to use unpublished data and reports: 14. Forsyth 1968 Mhairi Hastie from CFA Archaeology (Cramond, 15. Frohne & Pfänder 1984 0DQRU%ULGJH6NLOPDÀOO\ 6FRWW7LPSDQ\IRUPHUO\ 16. Frohne & Pfänder 2005 from Headland Archaeology (Garthdee, Warren 17. Gerarde 1597 Field), Mel Johnson from CFA Archaeology and 18. Gilmore 1991 Kirsty Cameron formerly of CFA Archaeology 19. Grieve 1992 6NLOPDÀOO\ +LODU\0XUUD\DQG&KDUOHV0XUUD\IURP 20. Gunther 1973 Murray Archaeological Services (Garthdee, Warren 21. Hamel & Chiltoskey 1975 Field), Murray Cook and John Gooder from AOC 22. Hedrick 1919 Archaeology (Ailsa View, East Barns, Upper Largie), 23. Hill 1941 Jennifer Thoms from AOC Archaeology, Jennifer 24. Hogg & Johnson 1864 Miller and Susan Ramsay formerly from GUARD, 25. Irving 2009 Daniel Lee and Naomi Woodward from the Orkney 26. Kuhnlein & Turner 1991 Research Centre for Archaeology and Aberdeen 27. Lightfoot 1777 University (Links House, Long Howe), Graeme 28. Mabey 1997 Warren from University College, Dublin (Manor 58 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Bridge), Caroline Wickham-Jones from Aberdeen Ashmore, P 2004b ‘A date list (to October 2002) University (Fife Ness), John Lawson of the City of for early foragers in Scotland’, in Saville, A Edinburgh Council Archaeology Service (Cramond), (ed) Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours, Tam Ward of Biggar Museum Trust (Daer Valley Site 95–157. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of 84, Weston Farm). We would also like to thank the Scotland. three referees for their recommendations. Atkinson, J A 2002 ‘Excavation of a Neolithic RFFXSDWLRQVLWHDW&KDSHOÀHOG&RZLH6WLUOLQJ· Proc Soc Antiq Scot 132: 139–92. REFERENCES Bakels, C C 1988 ‘Hekelingen, a Neolithic site in the swamps of the Maas estuary’, in Kuester, H (ed) Aaronson, S 2000 ‘Algae’, in Kiple, K F & Ornelas, Der Prähistorische Mensch und seine Umwelt, K C (eds) The Cambridge World History of Food, 155–61. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss. 231–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University %DNHU ) 0 ¶6XPPHUVWRQ ODQGÀOO VLWH Press. Balmuidy’, Discovery and Excavation in $IÁHFN 7 ¶6PLWWRQV HQFORVXUH 0HVROLWKLF Scotland (1998): 126. ÁLQWV· Discovery and Excavation in Scotland Barlow, K R & Heck, M 2002 ‘More on acorn eating (1983): 5–6. GXULQJWKH1DWXÀDQ ([SHFWHGSDWWHUQLQJLQGLHW $IÁHFN 7 / (GZDUGV . - &ODUNH $ and the archaeological record of subsistence’, ‘Archaeological and palynological studies at the in Mason, S L R & Hather, J G (eds) Hunter- 0HVROLWKLFSLWFKVWRQHDQGÁLQWVLWHRI$XFKDUHRFK gatherer Archaeobotany: Perspectives from Isle of Arran’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 118: 37–59. the northern temperate zone, 128–45. London: Alamprese, C, Ratti, S & Rossi, M 2009 ‘Effects of Institute of Archaeology, UCL. URDVWLQJFRQGLWLRQVRQKD]HOQXWFKDUDFWHULVWLFVLQ Behre, K 2008 ‘Collected seeds and fruits from herbs a two-step process’, Journal of Food Engineering as prehistoric food’, Vegetation History and 95: 272–9. Archaeobotany 17: 65–73. Alexander, D, Cowie, T G, Finlayson, B & Clarke, Birks, H J B 1989 ‘Holocene isochrone maps and C 1997 ‘Excavation of pits containing decorated patterns of tree-spreading in the British Isles’, Neolithic pottery and early lithic material of Journal of Biogeography 16: 503–40. possible Mesolithic date at Spurryhillock, Bishop, R R, Church, M J & Rowley-Conwy, P 2009 Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot ‘Cereals, fruits and nuts in the Scottish Neolithic’, 127: 17–27. Proc Soc Antiq Scot 139: 47–103. Alldritt, D M 2002 ‘Plant remains’, in Atkinson, Bishop, R R, Church, M J & Rowley-Conwy, P 2010 J A ‘Excavation of a Neolithic occupation site ‘Northton, Harris’, Discovery and Excavation in DW&KDSHOÀHOG&RZLH6WLUOLQJ·Proc Soc Antiq Scotland, New Series 11: 178. Scot 132: 173–8. Bishop, R R, Church, M J & Rowley-Conwy, P A 2011 Alldritt, D M 2011 Links House, Stronsay, ‘Northton, Harris’, Discovery and Excavation in Orkney LHS08 and LHS09: Carbonised plant Scotland, New Series 12: 185–6. macrofossils and charcoal. Unpublished report Bishop, R R 2013 Plant Gatherers, Plant Managers for Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology. or Agriculturalists? The Importance of Wild Anderson, K 2006 Tending the Wild: Native American and Domestic Plants in Mesolithic and Neolithic knowledge and the management of California’s Scotland. Unpublished PhD thesis. Durham: natural resources. California: University of Department of Archaeology, Durham University. California Press. Blake, E R R, Church, M J & Nesbitt, C 2012a Anderson, W B, Anderson, W W, Bane, R, Nelson, R K Data Structure Report of Small-Scale Sampling & Towarak, N S 1998 Kuuvangmiut Subsistence. of a Mesolithic Shell Midden at Tràigh na Traditional Eskimo Life in the Latter Twentieth Beirigh, Cnip, Lewis, 2011. Unpublished report. Century. Washington: National Parks Service. Durham: Department of Archaeology, Durham Ashmore, P 2004a ‘Dating forager communities in University. Scotland’, in Saville, A (ed) Mesolithic Scotland Blake, E R R, Church, M J & Nesbitt, C 2012b and its Neighbours, 83–94. Edinburgh: Society of Data Structure Report of Small-Scale Sampling Antiquaries of Scotland. of the Mesolithic Site at Teampuil Bágh, Toe SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 59
Head Peninsula. Unpublished report. Durham: Boyd, W E & Kenworthy, J B 1991–2 ‘The use of Department of Archaeology, Durham University. wood as a natural resource at a Scottish Boardman, S 2005 ‘The charcoal’, in Ritchie, A Mesolithic site’, Glasgow Archaeological Kilellan Farm, Ardnave, Islay: Excavations of Journal 17: 11–23. a prehistoric to early Medieval site by Colin Bronk Ramsey, C 2009 ‘Bayesian analysis of Burgess and others 1954–76, 169–70. Edinburgh: radiocarbon dates’, Radiocarbon 51: 337–60. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Brück, J 1999 ‘Ritual and rationality: Some Bohncke, S J P 1988 ‘Vegetation and habitation problems of interpretation in European history of the Callanish Area, Isle of Lewis, archaeology’, European Journal of Archaeology Scotland’, in Birks, H H, Birks, H J B, Kaland, 2: 313–44. P E & Moe, D (eds) The Cultural Landscape: Bryant, C 1783 Flora Diætetica: or, History of Past, present and future, 445–61. Cambridge: Esculent Plants, Both Domestic and Foreign. Cambridge University Press. London: Printed for B. White. %RQRUD $ %RWWD % 0HQ]LDQL$QGUHROL ( Burch, E S 1998 The Inupiaq Eskimo Nations of %UXQL $ ¶2UJDQVSHFLÀF GLVWULEXWLRQ DQG Northwest Alaska. Fairbanks: University of accumulation of protoanemonin in Ranunculus Alaska Press. ÀFDULD L.’, Biochemie und Physiologie der Burrows, I 2005 Food from the Wild. London: New 3ÁDQ]HQ 183: 443–7. Holland Publishers. Bonsall, C 1996 ‘Lon Mor, Oban’, Discovery and Cameron, L 1977 The Wild Foods of Great Britain. Excavation in Scotland (1996): 136. Dorset: Prism Press. Bonsall, C 2008 ‘The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates’, in &DUUXWKHUV : - ¶7KH FKDUUHG KD]HOQXW VKHOO Bailey, G & Spikins, P (eds) Mesolithic Europe, and other plant remains’, in Mithen, S Hunter- 238–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University gatherer Landscape Archaeology: The Southern Press. Hebrides Mesolithic Project, 1988–1998, Bonsall, C & Smith, C 1989 ‘Late Palaeolithic and 407–15. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Mesolithic bone and antler artefacts from Britain: Archaeological Research. First reactions to accelerator dates’, Mesolithic Carter, S 1993 ‘Tulloch Wood, Forres, Moray: Miscellany 10: 33–8. The survey and dating of a fragment of pre- Bonsall, C & Smith, C 1990 ‘Bone and antler historic landscape’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 123: technology in the British late upper Palaeolithic 215–33. and Mesolithic: The impact of accelerator Carvalho, A M & Morales, R 2010 ‘Persistence of dating’, in Vermeersch, P M & van Peer, P (eds) wild food and wild medicinal plant knowledge Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe, 359– in a north-eastern region of Portugal’, in Pardo- 68. Leuven: Leuven University Press. de-Santayana, M, Pieroni, A & Puri, R K (eds) Bonsall, C, Robinson, M, Payton, R & Macklin, M Ethnobotany in the New Europe, 147–71. New 1993 ‘Lon Mor (Kilmore & Kilbride parish)’, York: Berghahn Books. Discovery and Excavation in Scotland (1993): Chapman, V J 1970 Seaweeds and Their Uses. 76. London: Methuen & Co. Bonsall, C, Sutherland, D & Lawson, T 1991 Christanell, A, Vogl-Lukasser, B, Vogl, C R & Gütler, ‘Excavations in Ulva Cave, western Scotland 0 ¶7KH FXOWXUDO VLJQLÀFDQFH RI ZLOG 1987: a preliminary report’, Mesolithic gathered plant species in Kartitsch (Eastern Tyrol, Miscellany 12: 18–23. $XVWULD DQG WKH LQÁXHQFH RI VRFLRHFRQRPLF Bonsall, C, Sutherland, D, Lawson, T & Russell, N changes on local gathering practices’, in Pardo- 1992 ‘Excavations in Ulva Cave, western de-Santayana, M, Pieroni, A & Puri, R K (eds) Scotland 1989: a preliminary report’, Mesolithic Ethnobotany in the New Europe, 51–75. New Miscellany 13: 7–13. York: Berghahn Books. Bonsall, C, Sutherland, D G, Russell, N J, Coles, G, Church, M J 2002 ‘Carbonised plant macrofossils’, Paul, C R C, Huntley, J P & Lawson, T J 1994 in Cameron, K ‘The excavation of Neolithic ‘Excavations in Ulva Cave, western Scotland pits and Iron Age souterrains at Dubton Farm, 1990–91: a preliminary report’, Mesolithic Brechin, Angus’, Tayside and Fife Archaeological Miscellany 15: 8–21. Journal 8: 19–76. 60 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Church, M J, Bishop, R R, Blake, E R R, Nesbitt, C, Cotton, J 2007 ‘Plant remains and charred wood’, Perri, A, Piper, S & Rowley-Conwy, P A 2011a in Waddington, C Mesolithic Settlement in the ‘Temple Bay’, Discovery and Excavation in North Sea Basin: A case study from Howick, Scotland, New Series 12: 187. North-East England, 147–62. Oxford: Oxbow Church, M J, Bishop, R R, Blake, E R R, Nesbitt, C, Books. Perri, A, Piper, S & Rowley-Conwy, P A 2011b Cressey, M 2003 FERG >4mm Charcoal Assess- ‘Tràigh na Beirigh’, Discovery and Excavation ment. Unpublished report. Edinburgh: CFA in Scotland, New Series 12: 194–5. Archaeology. Church, M J, Bishop, R R, Blake, E, Nesbitt, C, Cressey, M 2004 ‘Macroscopic organic material’, Perri, A, Piper, S, Rowley-Conwy, P A & Snape- in Wickham-Jones, C R, Hardy, K, Clarke, A, Kennedy, L 2012a ‘Temple Bay’, Discovery and Cressey, M, Edwards, K J & Newton, A ‘Camas Excavation in Scotland, New Series 13: 186. Daraich: A Mesolithic site at the Point of Sleat, Church, M J, Bishop, R R, Blake, E, Nesbitt, C, Perri, Skye’, Scottish Archaeological Internet Report A, Piper, S, Rowley-Conwy, P A & Walker, J 12: 55. 2012b ‘Tràigh na Beirigh 1’, Discovery and Cressey, M 2012 ‘Charcoal analysis’, in Johnson, M Excavation in Scotland, New Series 13: 190. &DPHURQ.¶$Q(DUO\%URQ]H$JHXQHQFORVHG Clapham, A J 2007 ‘Plant remains’, in Hanson, cremation cemetery and Mesolithic pit at W S Elginhaugh: A Flavian fort and its 6NLOPDÀOO\QHDU0DXG$EHUGHHQVKLUH·Scottish annexe, Volume 2, 571–614. London: Britannia Archaeological Internet Report 53: 31–2. Monograph Series, Society for the Promotion of Cressey, M & Lyons, S forthcoming ‘Environmental Roman Studies. evidence’, in Suddaby, I ‘Excavation of two Clapham, A R, Tutin, T G & Moore, D M 1987 Flora Mesolithic post-circles, Neolithic pits and of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge %URQ]H $JH IXQHUDU\ UHPDLQV DW 6LOYHUFUHVW University Press. Lesmurdie Road, Elgin, Moray 2002’, Scottish Clarke, C 1997 ‘Palaeoenvironmental results’, in Archaeological Internet Reports. Alexander, D ‘Excavation of pits containing Cressey, M & Suddaby, I 2002 Area R6, Lesmurdie decorated Neolithic pottery and early lithic Road, Elgin, Moray. Desk-based Archaeological material of possible Mesolithic date at Assessment, Evaluation, Excavations, Watching Spurryhillock, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire’, Proc Brief and Standing Building Survey. Unpublished Soc Antiq Scot 127: 20. report. Edinburgh: CFA Archaeology. Clarke, D L 1976 ‘Mesolithic Europe: The economic Crone, A 1997 ‘Charcoal from the pre-mound basis’, in Sieveking, G, Longworth, I H & deposits under cairn 2’, in Johnston, D A Wilson, K E (eds) Problems in Economic ‘Biggar Common, 1987–93: an early prehistoric and Social Archaeology, 449–81. London: funerary and domestic landscape in Clydesdale, Duckworth. South Lanarkshire’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 127: Coles, J 1971 ‘The early settlement of Scotland: 234–5. excavations at Morton, Fife’, Proceedings of the Crowe, I 2005 ‘The hunter-gatherers’, in Prance, G Prehistoric Society 37: 284–366. & Nesbitt, M (eds) The Cultural History of Cook, M & Engl, R 2002 ‘Ailsa View (Maybole Plants, 3–11. New York: Routledge. parish)’, Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, Cunningham, P 2010 ‘Cache or carry: food storage New Series 3: 108. in Prehistoric Europe’, in Millson, D C E (ed) Cook, M, Ellis, C & Sheridan, A 2010 ‘Excavations Experimentation and Interpretation: The use of at Upper Largie Quarry, Argyll and Bute, experimental archaeology in the study of the past, Scotland: New light on the prehistoric ritual 7–28. Oxford: Oxbow Books. landscape of the Kilmartin Glen’, Proc Soc Cunningham, P 2011 ‘Caching your savings: The use Antiq Scot 76: 165–212. of small-scale storage in European prehistory’, Cooper, M R & Johnson, A W 1984 Poisonous Plants Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30: in Britain and their effects on Animals and Man. 135–44. /RQGRQ +HU0DMHVW\·V6WDWLRQHU\2IÀFH Dark, P 2004 ‘Plant remains as indicators of Corbet, G B & Harris, S 1991 A Handbook of British seasonality of site-use in the Mesolithic period’, Mammals2[IRUG %ODFNZHOO6FLHQWLÀF Environmental Archaeology 9: 39–45. SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 61
Dark, P 2007 ‘Plant communities and human activity thoughts’, in Saville, A (ed) Mesolithic Scotland in the Lower Submerged Forest and on Mesolithic and its Neighbours, 55–72. Edinburgh: Society of occupation sites’, in Bell, M (ed) Prehistoric Antiquaries of Scotland. Coastal Communities: The Mesolithic in western Edwards, K J 2009 ‘The development and Britain, 169–200. York: Council for British historiography of pollen studies in the Mesolithic Archaeology. of the Scottish islands’, in McCartan, S, Schulting, Darwin, T 1996 The Scots Herbal: Plant lore of R G W & Woodman, P (eds) Mesolithic Horizons, Scotland. Edinburgh: Mercat Press. 900–6. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Dickson, C 1985 ‘Charcoal’, in Wordsworth, J ‘The Edwards, K J & Ralston, I 1984 ‘Postglacial hunter- H[FDYDWLRQ RI D 0HVROLWKLF KRUL]RQ DW ² gatherers and vegetational history in Scotland’, Castle Street, Inverness’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot Proc Soc Antiq Scot 114: 15–34. 115: 96. Edwards, K J & Sugden, H 2003 ‘Palynological Dickson, C 1997 ‘Plant remains’, in Mercer, R J & YLVLELOLW\DQGWKH0HVROLWKLFFRORQL]DWLRQRIWKH 0LGJOH\ 0 6 ¶7KH HDUO\ %URQ]H $JH FDLUQ DW Hebrides, Scotland’, in Larsson, L, Kindgren, H, Sketewan, Balnaguard’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 127: .QXWVVRQ . /RHIÁHU ' cNHUOXQG $ HGV 318–22. Mesolithic on the Move, 11–19. Oxford: Oxbow Dickson, C & Dickson, J 2000 Plants and People in Books. Ancient Scotland. Stroud: Tempus Publishing. Edwards, K J & Whittington, G 2003 ‘Vegetation change’, in Edwards, K & Ralston, I B M Donnelly, M & Macgregor, G 2005 ‘The excavation (eds) Scotland After the Ice Age: Environment, RI 0HVROLWKLF DFWLYLW\ 1HROLWKLF DQG %URQ]H archaeology and history, 8000 BC–AD 1000, 63– Age burnt mounds and Romano-British ring 82. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. groove houses at Gallow Hill, Girvan’, Scottish Archaeological Journal 27: 31–69. Egoumenidou, E & Michaelides, D 2000 ‘Gather- LQJKXQWLQJÀVKLQJ 7KHSURFXUHPHQWRIIRRG Dunbar, L J 2008 ‘An enclosure and other features at from the non-domesticated animal kingdom of Evan Road, Beattock, Dumfries and Galloway’, Cyprus’, in Lysaght, P (ed) Food from Nature: Tayside and Fife Archaeological Journal 82: Attitudes, strategies and culinary practices: 41–8. Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Ebeling, W 1986 Handbook of Indian Foods and International Commission for Ethnological Fibres of Arid America. California: University of Food Research, Umeå and Frostviken, Sweden, California Press. 8–14 June, 1998: 111–120. Uppsala: The Royal Edwards, K J 1996a ‘A Mesolithic of the Western Gustavus Adolphus Academy for Swedish Folk and Northern Isles of Scotland? Evidence from Culture. pollen and charcoal’, in Pollard, T & Morrison, Ellison, R, Renfrew, J, Brothwell, D & Seeley, N A (eds) The Early Prehistory of Scotland, 23–38. 1978 ‘Some food offerings from Ur, excavated Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. by Sir Leonard Woolley, and previously (GZDUGV.- E¶7KHFRQWULEXWLRQRI7RP$IÁHFN unpublished’, Journal of Archaeological Science to the study of the Mesolithic of southwest 5: 167–77. Scotland’, in Pollard, T & Morrison, A (eds) (UWXù ) ¶$Q HWKQRERWDQLFDO VWXG\ LQ &HQWUDO The Early Prehistory of Scotland, 108–22. Anatolia (Turkey)’, Economic Botany 54: 155– Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 82. Edwards, K J 2000 ‘Vegetation history of the (UWXù ) ¶:LOG SODQW IRRGV 5RXWLQH GLHWDU\ southern Inner Hebrides during the Mesolithic supplements or famine foods?’, in Fairbairn, A S period’, in Mithen, S Hunter-gatherer & Weiss, E (eds) From Foragers to Farmers: Landscape Archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Papers in honour of Gordon C. Hillman, 64–70. Mesolithic Project, 1988–1998. Volume 2, Oxford: Oxbow Books. 115–27. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Etkin, N L 1994 ‘The cull of the wild’, in Etkin, Archaeological Research. N L (ed) Eating on the Wild Side: The Edwards, K J 2004 ‘Palaeoenvironments of the Late pharmacologic, ecologic, and social implications Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods in of using noncultigens, 1–21. Tucson and London: Scotland and the North Sea Area: New work, new 8QLYHUVLW\RI$UL]RQD3UHVV. 62 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Evelyn, J 1699 Acetaria: a discourse of sallets. Gerarde, J 1597 The Herball or Generall Historie of London: B. Tooke. Plantes. Gathered by John Gerarde of London Fairbairn, A 1999 ‘The charred plant remains’, in Master in Chirurgerie. London: John Norton. Whittle, A, Pollard, J & Grigson, C The Harmony Gilmore, M R 1991 Uses of Plants by the Indians of of Symbols: The Windmill Hill causewayed the Missouri River Region. Lincoln and London: enclosure, Wiltshire, 139–56. Oxford: Oxbow University of Nebraska Press. Books. Gooder, J 2002 Ailsa View, Doonfoot Excavation: Fenton, A 1978 The Northern Isles: Orkney and Data structure report. Unpublished report. Shetland. Edinburgh: John Donald. Edinburgh: AOC Archaeology Group. Fenton, A 2000 ‘Wild plants and hungry times’, in Gooder, J 2004 ‘Ailsa View, Doonfoot’, Discovery Lysaght, P (ed) Food from Nature: Attitudes, and Excavation in Scotland 5: 167. strategies and culinary practices, 182–94. Gooder, J 2007 ‘Excavation of a Mesolithic House Uppsala: The Royal Gustavus Adolphus Academy at East Barns, East Lothian, Scotland: an interim for Swedish Folk Culture. view’, in Waddington, C & Pedersen, K (eds) Finlay, N 2000 ‘Deer prudence’, Archaeological Mesolithic Studies in the North Sea Basin and Review from Cambridge 17: 67–79. Beyond, 49–59. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Finlayson, B 2004 ‘The use of stone tools in Gooder, J & Engl, R 2002 ‘Ailsa View (Maybole Mesolithic Scotland: Function, value, decision- parish)’, Discovery and Excavation in Scotland making, and landscapes’, in Saville, A (ed) 3: 108–9. Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours, Grace, R 1992 ‘Use wear analysis’, in Healy, 221–8. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of F, Heaton, M & Lobb, S J ‘Excavations of Scotland. a Mesolithic Site at Thatcham, Berkshire’, Finlayson, B 2005 :LOG+DUYHVWHUV 7KHÀUVWSHRSOH Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 53–63. in Scotland. Edinburgh: Birlinn. Gregory, R A, Murphy, E M, Church, M J, Edwards, Finlayson, B & Edwards, K J 2003 ‘The Mesolithic’, K J, Guttmann, E B & Simpson, D D A 2005 in Edwards, K & Ralston, I B M (eds) Scotland ¶$UFKDHRORJLFDOHYLGHQFHIRUWKHÀUVW0HVROLWKLF After the Ice Age: Environment, archaeology and occupation of the Western Isles of Scotland’, The history, 8000 BC–AD 1000, 109–25. Edinburgh: Holocene 15: 944–50. Edinburgh University Press. Grieve, M 1992 A Modern Herbal: The medicinal, Flitcroft, C & Heald, A 1997 ‘Aird Callanish, Lewis’, culinary, cosmetic and economic properties, Discovery and Excavation in Scotland (1997): cultivation and folklore of herbs, grasses, fungi, 85. VKUXEVDQGWUHHVZLWKDOOWKHLUPRGHUQVFLHQWLÀF Flora of North America Editorial Committee, 1993+ uses. London: Tiger Books International. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Grigson, G 1975 The Englishman’s Flora. St Albans: 16+ vols. New York & Oxford: Flora of North Granada Publishing. $PHULFD $VVRFLDWLRQ KWWS ZZZHÁRUDVRUJ Gunther, E 1973 Ethnobotany of Western Washington: ÁRUDBSDJHDVS["ÁRUDBLG ODVWDFFHVVHG0D\ The knowledge and use of indigenous plants by 2012). native Americans. Seattle and London: University Forsyth, A A 1968 British Poisonous Plants. London: of Washington Press. +HU0DMHVW\·V6WDWLRQHU\2IÀFH Hall, A 2002 Plant Macrofossils from Prehistoric Frohne, D & Pfänder, H J 1984 A Colour Atlas of Deposits at North East Quarry (East Barns site), Poisonous Plants: A handbook for pharmacists, Dunbar, Scotland (site code AOC3787/3824). doctors, toxicologists, and biologists. London: Unpublished report for AOC Archaeology. Wolfe Publishers. Hallsson, S V 1964 ‘The uses of seaweeds in Frohne, D & Pfänder, H J 2005 Poisonous Plants: Iceland’, in de Virville, A D & Feldmann, J A handbook for pharmacists, doctors, (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth International toxicologists, biologists and veterinarians. Seaweed Symposium, 398–405. Oxford: London: Manson. Pergamon Press. Gale, R 2007 Upper Largie Phase III, Scotland: Hamel, B & Chiltoskey, M U 1975 Cherokee Plants &KDUFRDO LGHQWLÀFDWLRQ. Unpublished report. their Uses – a 400 Year History. Sylva: Herald Edinburgh: AOC Archaeology. Publishing. SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 63
Hanson, W S 2007 Elginhaugh: A Flavian fort and gatherers’, in Hather, J G & Mason, S L R (eds) its annexe. London: Society for the Promotion of Hunter-gatherer Archaeobotany: Perspectives Roman Studies. from the northern temperate zone, 1–14. Hardy, K 2004 ‘Microwear analysis of a sample of London: University College, Institute of ÁDNHG VWRQH WRROV· in Wickham-Jones, C & Archaeology. Hardy, K ‘Camas Daraich: a Mesolithic site at Hayden, B 2001 ‘Fabulous feasts. A prolegomenon the Point of Sleat, Skye’, Scottish Archaeological to the importance of feasting’, in Dietler, M & Internet Reports 12: 38–45. Hayden, B (eds) Feasts. Archaeological and Hardy, K 2007 ‘Food for thought: starch in Mesolithic Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, diet’, Mesolithic Miscellany 18: 2–11. and Power, 23–64. Washington: Smithsonian Hardy K & Shiel, R 2007 ‘Residue and use-wear Institution Press. analysis of stone tools’, in Waddington, C Hedrick, U P 1919 Sturtevant’s Notes on Edible Plants. Mesolithic Settlement in the North Sea Basin: A New York: State of New York – Department of case study from Howick, North-East England, Agriculture. 120–36. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Helbaek, H 1952 ‘Preserved apples and panicum Harris, D R 1989 ‘An evolutionary continuum of in the prehistoric site at Nørre Sandegaard in people-plant interaction’, in Harris, D R & Bornholm’, Acta Archaeologica 23: 107–15. Hillman, G C (eds) Foraging and Farming: The Hill, J 1941 Wild Foods of Britain. London: Adam & evolution of plant exploitation, 11–26. London: Charles Black. Unwin Hyman. Hillman, G 1981 ‘Reconstructing crop husbandry Hastie, M 2002 Carbonised Plant Remains from practices from charred remains of crops’, in Manor Bridge, Scottish Borders. Unpublished Mercer, R F (ed) Farming Practice in British report. Edinburgh: Headland Archaeology. Prehistory, 123–62. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Hastie, M 2003a Assessment of Selected Flots from University Press. St Fergus to Aberdeen Natural Gas Pipeline Hillman, G C 2000 ‘The plant food economy of Archaeological Excavations. Unpublished report. Abu Hureyra 1 & 2’, in Moore, A M T, Hillman, Edinburgh: Headland Archaeology. G C & Legge, A J Village on the Euphrates: From Hastie, M 2003b The Carbonised Plant Remains foraging to farming at Abu Hureyra, 327–422. Recovered from a Mesolithic Site Discovered New York: Oxford University Press. at Cramond. Unpublished report. Edinburgh: Hirons, K R & Edwards, K J 1990 ‘Pollen and related Headland Archaeology. studies at Kinloch, Isle of Rhum, Scotland, with Hastie, M 2004 Assessment of Samples from Crathes, particular reference to possible early human Warren Field. Unpublished report. Edinburgh: impacts on vegetation’, New Phytologist 116: Headland Archaeology. 715–27. Hastie, M 2012 ‘Archaeobotany’, in Johnson, M & Hogg, R & Johnson, G G 1864 Wild Flowers of Great &DPHURQ.¶$Q(DUO\%URQ]H$JHXQHQFORVHG Britain: Botanically and popularly described, cremation cemetery and Mesolithic pit at with copious notices of their history and uses. 6NLOPDÀOO\QHDU0DXG$EHUGHHQVKLUH·Scottish London: Horticultural Press. Archaeological Internet Report 53: 31–2. Holden, T 1996 Post-Sorting Assessment of Samples Hather, J G 1993 An Archaeobotanical Guide to Root from Craighead Golf Course, Fifeness (CGC96). DQG7XEHU,GHQWLÀFDWLRQ9ROXPH (XURSHDQG Unpublished report. Edinburgh: Headland South West Asia. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Archaeology. Hather, J G 2000a Archaeological Parenchyma. Holland, B, Welch, A A, Unwin, I D, Buss, D H, London: Archetype Publications. Paul, A A & Southgate, D A T 1991 McCance & Hather, J G 2000b ‘Wood charcoal from Staosnaig’, Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods. London: in Mithen, S Hunter-gatherer Landscape Royal Society of Chemistry and the Ministry of Archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Project, 1988–1998, 425–6. Cambridge: +ROVW'¶+D]HOQXWHFRQRP\RIHDUO\+RORFHQH McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. hunter-gatherers: A case study from Mesolithic Hather, J G & Mason, S L R 2002 ‘Introduction: Duvensee, northern Germany’, Journal of Some issues in the archaeobotany of hunter- Archaeological Science 37: 2871–80. 64 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Howes, F N 1948 Nuts: Their production and Jones, G 1991a ‘Numerical analysis in archaeobotany’, everyday uses. London: Faber & Faber. in van Zeist, W, Wasylikowa, K & Behre, K-E Indergaard, M & Minsaas, J 1991 ‘Animal and (eds) Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany, human nutrition’, in Guiry, M D & Blunden, G 63–80. Rotterdam: A A Balkema. (eds) Seaweed Resources in Europe: Uses Jones, G 2000 ‘Evaluating the importance of and potential, 21–64. Chichester: John Wiley & cultivation and collecting in Neolithic Britain’, in Sons. Fairbairn, A S (ed) Plants in Neolithic Britain and Irving, M 2009 The Forager Handbook: A guide to Beyond, 79–84. Oxford: Oxbow Books. the edible plants of Britain. London: Ebury Press. Jones, G & Rowley-Conwy, P 2007 ‘On the Jacobi, R M 1978 ‘Population and landscape in importance of cereal cultivation in the British the Mesolithic lowland Britain’, in Limbrey, Neolithic’, in Colledge, S & Conolly, J (eds) S & Evans, J G (eds) The Effect of Man on the The Origin and Spread of Domestic Plants Landscape: The Lowland Zone, 75–85. London: in Southwest Asia and Europe, 391–419. The Chameleon Press. London: University College London Institute of Jacomet, S 2007 ‘Neolithic plant economies in the Archaeology Publications. northern Alpine Foreland from 5500–3500 cal Jones, M 1991b ‘Sampling in palaeoethnobotany’, bc’, in Colledge, S & Conolly, J (eds) The Origins in Zeist, W, Wasylikowa, K & Behre, K (eds) and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany, 53– and Europe, 221–58. Walnut Creek: Left Coast 62. Rotterdam: A A Balkema. Press. Keeley, L H 1992 ‘The use of plant foods among Jacomet, S, Brombacher, C & Dick, M 1989 hunter-gatherers: A cross-cultural survey’, in Archäobotanik am Zürichsee. Ackerbau, Anderson, P C (ed) Préhistoire de l’agriculture: Sammelwirtschaft und Umwelt von neolithischen Nouveles approaches expérimentales et und bronzezeitlichen Seeufersiedlungen im Raum ethnographiques, 29–38. Paris: CNRS. Zürich. Zürich: Orell Füssli Verlag. King, F B 1994 ‘Interpreting wild plant foods in the Jarman, M R 1972 ‘European deer economies and archaeological record’, in Etkin, N L (ed) Eating the advent of the Neolithic’, in Higgs, E S (ed) on the Wild Side: The pharmacologic, ecologic, Papers in Economic Prehistory: Studies by and social implications of using noncultigens, members and associates of the British Academy 185–209. Tucson and London: University of major research project in the Early History of $UL]RQD3UHVV Agriculture, 125–47. Cambridge: Cambridge Kirleis, W, Klooß, S, Kroll, H & Müller, J 2012 ‘Crop University Press. growing and gathering in the northern German Jarman, M R, Bailet, G N & Jarman, H N 1982 Neolithic: a review supplemented by new Early European Agriculture: Its foundations and results’, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany development. Cambridge: Cambridge University 21: 221–42. Press. Kitchener, A C 1998 ‘Extinctions, introductions and Johns, T 1994 ‘Ambivalence to the palatability colonisations of Scottish mammals and birds factors in wild food plants’, in Etkin, N L (ed) since the Last Ice Age’, in Lambert, R A (ed) Eating on the Wild Side: The pharmacologic, Species History in Scotland: Introductions and ecologic, and social implications of using extinctions since the Ice Age, 63–92. Edinburgh: noncultigens, 46–61. Tucson and London: Scottish Cultural Press. 8QLYHUVLW\RI$UL]RQD3UHVV .LWFKHQHU$&%RQVDOO& %DUWRVLHZLF]/ -RKQVRQ0 &DPHURQ.¶$Q(DUO\%URQ]H ‘Missing mammals from Mesolithic middens: Age unenclosed cremation cemetery and A comparison of the fossil and archaeological 0HVROLWKLF SLW DW 6NLOPDÀOO\ QHDU 0DXG records from Scotland’, in Saville, A (ed) Aberdeenshire’, Scottish Archaeological Internet Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours, Report 53. 73–82. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Johnston, D A 1997 ‘Biggar Common, 1987–93: an Scotland. early prehistoric funerary and domestic landscape Kohler-Schneider, M 2007 ‘Early agriculture and in Clydesdale, South Lanarkshire’, Proc Soc subsistence in Austria: a review of Neolithic Antiq Scot 127: 185–253. plant records’, in Colledge, S & Conolly, J (eds) SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 65
The Origins and Spread of Domestic Plants in Macgregor, G, Donnelly, M, Miller, J, Ramsay, S Southwest Asia and Europe, 209–20. Walnut & Alldritt, D 2001 ‘A Mesolithic scatter from Creek: Left Coast Press. Littlehill Bridge, Girvan, Ayrshire’, Scottish Kosch, A, Frieling, H & Janus, H 1963 The Young Archaeological Journal 33: 1–14. Specialist Looks at Seashore. London: Burke. 0DFNHQ]LH - 5 :LFNKDP-RQHV & 5 &R[ $ Kubiak-Martens, L 1999 ‘The plant food component 2002 ‘A multiperiod site at 67–71 Irish Street, of the diet at the late Mesolithic (Ertebolle) Dumfries, the former British Legion club-house’, settlement at Tybrind Vig, Denmark’, Vegetation Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway History and Archaeobotany 8: 117–27. Natural History and Antiquarian Society 76: Kubiak-Martens, L 2002 ‘New evidence for the 119–39. use of root foods in pre-agrarian subsistence Marles, R J, Clavelle, C, Monteleone, L, Tays, N & recovered from the late Mesolithic site at Burns, D 2000 Aboriginal Plant use in Canada’s Halsskov, Denmark’, Vegetation History and Northwest Boreal Forest. Vancouver: UBC Press. Archaeobotany 11: 23–31. Mason, S 1996a Corylus Workgroup – Field Outing, Kuhnlein, H V & Turner, N J 1991 Traditional 11th October 1996, Kent. Unpublished report. Plant Foods of Canadian Indigenous Peoples: London: UCL. Nutrition, botany and use. Philadelphia: Gordon Mason, S 1996b Hazelnut (Corylus spp.) as a Past & Breach. Food Resource? Unpublished report. London: Lancaster, S 2009 ‘Palaeoenvironmental synthesis’, UCL. in Murray, H K, Murray, C & Fraser, S M Mason, S & Hather, J 2000 ‘Parenchymatous plant A Tale of Unknown Unknowns: A Mesolithic pit remains’, in Mithen, S Hunter-gatherer Landscape alignment and a Neolithic timber hall at Warren Archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Field, Crathes, Aberdeenshire, 15–20. Oxford: Project, 1988–1998, 415–25. Cambridge: Oxbow Books. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Lawson, J 2001 ‘Cramond, Edinburgh’, Discovery Mason, S, Hather, J G & Hillman, G C 1994 and Excavation in Scotland, New Series 2: ‘Preliminary investigation of the plant macro- 124. remains from Dolni Vetonice II, and its Lee, D & Woodward, N 2008 Links House, Stronsay, implications for the role of plant foods in Orkney. Excavations (Phase II). Unpublished Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe’, Antiquity report. Orkney: Orkney Research Centre for 68: 48–57. Archaeology Mason, S, Hather, J G & Hillman, G C 2002 ‘The Lee, D & Woodward, N 2009a ‘Links House, archaeobotany of European hunter-gatherers: Stronsay’, Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, some preliminary investigations’, in Hather, New Series 10: 141. J G & Mason, S L R (eds) Hunter-gatherer Lee, D & Woodward, N 2009b Links House, Stronsay, Archaeobotany: Perspectives from the northern Orkney. Excavations (Phase III). Unpublished temperate zone, 188–96. London: UCL. report. Orkney: Orkney Research Centre for Masters, L 1981 ‘A Mesolithic hearth at Redkirk Archaeology. Point, Gretna, Annandale and Eskdale District’, Lightfoot, J 1777 Flora Scotica or, a Systematic Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Arrangement, in the Linnæan Method, of the Natural History and Antiquarian Society 56: Native Plants of Scotland and the Hebrides. 111–14. London: B White. McClatchie, M, Bogaard, A, Colledge, S, Whitehouse, Loewenfeld, C 1957 Britain’s Wild Larder: Nuts. N J, Schulting, R J, Barratt, P & McLaughlin, London: Faber & Faber. T R in press ‘Neolithic farming in north-western Long, H C 1929 Weeds of Arable Land. London: Europe: archaeobotanical evidence from Ireland’, Ministry of Agriculture. Journal of Archaeological Science. Mabey, R 1997 )ORUD%ULWDQQLFD 7KHGHÀQLWLYHQHZ 0F&RPE $ 0 * ¶7KH HFRORJ\ RI KD]HO JXLGHWRZLOGÁRZHUVSODQWVDQGWUHHV. London: (Corlyus avellana) nuts in Mesolithic Ireland’, Chatto & Windus. in McCartan, S, Schulting, R, Warren, G & Mabey, R 2001 Food for Free. London: Harper Woodman, P (eds) Mesolithic Horizons, 225–31. Collins. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 66 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
McComb, A M G & Simpson, D 1999 ‘The wild 0HUFHU5- 0LGJOH\06 ¶7KHHDUO\%URQ]H EXQFK ([SORLWDWLRQ RI KD]HO LQ SUHKLVWRULF Age cairn at Sketewan, Balnaguard’, Proc Soc Ireland’, Ulster Journal of Archaeology 58: Antiq Scot 127: 281–338. 1–15. Miksicek, C H 1987 ‘Formation processes of McCormick, F & Buckland, P C 2003 ‘Faunal the archaeobotanical record’, Advances in change’, in Edwards, K J & Ralston, I B M Archaeological Method and Theory 10: 211–45. (eds) Scotland After the Ice Age: Environment, Miller, J 2002 Carbonised Macrofossil Plant Remains archaeology and history, 8000 BC–AD 1000, from Ailsa View, South Ayrshire, Scotland. 83–103. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Unpublished report. Glasgow: GUARD. Press. Miller, J 2005 ‘Palaeo-environmental analysis’, in McCullagh, R 1989a ‘Excavation at Newton, Islay’, Donnelly, M & Macgregor, G ‘The excavation Glasgow Archaeological Journal: 23–51. RI 0HVROLWKLF DFWLYLW\ 1HROLWKLF DQG %URQ]H McCullagh, R 1989b ‘Macro-plant remains’, in Age burnt mounds and Romano-British ring McCullagh, R ‘Excavation at Newton, Islay’, groove houses at Gallow Hill, Girvan’, Scottish Glasgow Archaeological Journal 15: 42–4. Archaeological Journal 27: 45–6. Mears, R & Hillman, G 2007. Wild Food. London: Miller, J & Ramsay, S 2001 ‘The palaeobotanical Hodder & Stoughton. remains’, in Macgregor, G & Donnelly, M A Mellars, P 1976a ‘Fire ecology, animal populations ‘Mesolithic scatter from Littlehill Bridge, Girvan, and man: A study of some ecological relationships Ayrshire’, Scottish Archaeological Journal 33: in prehistory’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric 10–11. Society 42: 15–45. Milliken, W & Bridgewater, S 2004 Flora Celtica: Mellars, P 1976b ‘Settlement patterns and industrial Plants and People in Scotland. Edinburgh: variability in the British Mesolithic’, in Birlinn. Sieveking, G, Longworth, I H & Wilson, K E (eds) Problems in Economic and Social Milner, N 2009 ‘Subsistence’, in Conneller, C & Archaeology, 375–99. London: Duckworth. Warren, G (eds) Mesolithic Britain and Ireland: New approaches, 61–82. Stroud: The History Mellars, P 1978 ‘Excavations and economic analysis Press. of Mesolithic shell middens on the island of Oronsay (Inner Hebrides)’, in Mellars, P (ed) Milner, N & Craig, O E 2009 ‘Mysteries of the The Early Post-glacial Settlement of Northern middens; change and continuity across the Europe, 371–96. London: Duckworth. Mesolithic-Neolithic transition’, in Allen, M Mellars, P 1979 ‘Excavation and economic analysis J, Sharples, N & O’Connor, T (eds) Land and of Mesolithic shell-middens on the island of People: Papers in memory of John G. Evans, Oronsay (Hebrides)’, Scottish Archaeological 169–80. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Forum 9: 43–61. Milner, N, Craig, O E, Bailey, G N, Pedersen, K & Mellars, P 1987 Excavations on Oronsay: Prehistoric $QGHUVHQ 6 + ¶6RPHWKLQJ ÀVK\ LQ WKH human ecology on a small island. Edinburgh: Neolithic? A re-evaluation of stable isotope Edinburgh University Press. analysis of Mesolithic and Neolithic coastal Mercer, J 1967–8 ‘Stone tools from a washing-limit populations’, Antiquity 78: 9–22. deposit of the highest post-glacial transgression, Minnis, P E 1981 ‘Seeds in archaeological sites: Lealt Bay, Isle of Jura’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 100: Sources and some interpretive problems’, 1–46. American Antiquity 46: 143–52. 0HUFHU - ² ¶0LFUROLWKLF DQG %URQ]H $JH Mithen, S 2000 Hunter-gatherer Landscape camps, 75–26 ft OD, N Carn, Isle of Jura’, Proc Archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Soc Antiq Scot 104: 1–22. Project, 1988–1998. Cambridge: McDonald Mercer, J 1972–4 ‘Glenbatrick Waterhole, a Institute for Archaeological Research. microlithic site on the Isle of Jura’, Proc Soc Mithen, S, Finlay, N, Caruthers, W, Carter, S & Antiq Scot 105: 9–32. Ashmore, P 2001 ‘Plant use in the Mesolithic: Mercer, J 1978–80 ‘Lussa Wood 1: The late-glacial Evidence from Staosnaig, Isle of Colonsay, and early post-glacial occupation of Jura’, Proc Scotland’, Journal of Archaeological Science 28: Soc Antiq Scot 110: 1–32. 233–4. SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 67
Moerman, D E 1998 Native American Ethnobotany. Pearsall, D M 2000 Paleoethnobotany: A handbook of Portland and Cambridge: Timber Press. procedures. California: Academic Press. Moffett, L, Robinson, M A & Straker, V 1989 Perry, D 1999 ‘Vegetative tissues from Mesolithic sites ‘Cereals, fruits and nuts: Charred plant remains in northern Netherlands’, Current Anthropology from Neolithic sites in England and Wales and the 40: 231–7. Neolithic economy’, in Milles, A, Williams, D & Peterson, R & Proudfoot, E 1996 ‘Fordhouse Barrow Garner, N (eds) The Beginnings of Agriculture, (Dun parish)’, Discovery and Excavation in 243–61. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports Scotland (1996): 12. International Series 496. Peterson, R & Proudfoot, E 1997 ‘Fordhouse Barrow 0RRUH 5 ( ² ¶&KDUFRDO LGHQWLÀFDWLRQ· in (Dun parish)’, Discovery and Excavation in Mercer, J ‘Lussa Wood 1: The late-glacial and Scotland (1997): 13. early post-glacial occupation of Jura’, Proc Soc Phillips, R 1983 Wild Food. London: Pan Macmillan. Antiq Scot 110: 30. Pieroni, A 2005 ‘Gathering food from the wild’, Munson, P J, Parmalee, P W & Yarnel, R A 1971 in Prance, G & Nesbitt, M (eds) The Cultural ‘Subsistence ecology of Scovill, a Terminal History of Plants, 29–43. New York: Routledge. Middle Woodland village’, American Antiquity Pieroni, A 2010 ‘People and plants in Lepushe: 36: 410–31. Traditional medicine, local foods and post- Murray, H K & Murray, J C forthcoming ‘An early communism in a northern Albanian village’, in Neolithic building and Mesolithic occupation at Pardo-de-Santayana, M, Pieroni, A & Puri, R K Garthdee Road Aberdeen’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot. (eds) Ethnobotany in the New Europe, 16–50. New York: Berghahn Books. Murray, H K, Murray, J C & Fraser, S M 2009 A Tale of the Unknown Unknowns: A Mesolithic pit Pierpoint Johnson, C 1862 The Useful Plants of alignment and a Neolithic timber hall at Warren Great Britain: A treatise upon the principal native vegetables capable of application as Field, Crathes, Aberdeenshire. Oxford: Oxbow food, medicine, or in the arts and manufactures. Books. London: William Kent. Nebel, S & Heinrich, M 2010 ‘The use of wild edible Pokotylo, D L & Froese, P D 1983 ‘Archaeological plants in the Graecanic area in Calabria, Southern evidence for prehistoric root gathering on the Italy’, in Pardo-de-Santayana, M, Pieroni, A & southern interior plateau of British Columbia: Puri, R K (eds) Ethnobotany in the New Europe, A case study from Upper Hat Creek Valley’, 172–88. New York: Berghahn Books. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 7: 127–57. Newton, L 1931 A Handbook of the British Seaweeds. Popper, V S 1988 ‘Selecting quantitative measurements London: The Trustees of the British Museum. in paleoethnobotany’, in Hastorf, C A & Popper, O’Brien, C, Church, M J & Ranner, H 2009 Aird V S (eds) Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Calanais, Lewis, Scotland Archive Report. methods and cultural interpretations of Unpublished report. Durham: Archaeological archaeological plant remains, 53–71. Chicago Services Durham University, Report 2170. and London: University of Chicago Press. Out, W 2009 Sowing the Seed? Human impact and Price, T D 1987 ‘The Mesolithic of Western Europe’, plant subsistence in Dutch wetlands during the Journal of World Prehistory 1: 225–305. late Mesolithic and Early and Middle Neolithic Price, T D 1989 ‘The reconstruction of Mesolithic (5500–3400 cal BC). Leiden: Leiden University diets’, in Bonsall, C (ed) The Mesolithic in Press. Europe, 48–59. Edinburgh: John Donald. Passmore, D G & Waddington C 2012 Archaeology Proudfoot, E 1999 ‘Fordhouse Barrow, Dun (NO 6658 and Environment in Northumberland. Till–Tweed 6053)’, Discovery and Excavation in Scotland Studies, Volume 2. Oxford: Oxbow Books. (1999): 111. Peacock, W R B 1978 ‘Probabilistic sampling in Proudfoot, E 2001 ‘Fordhouse Barrow, Dun (NO 6658 shell middens: A case study from Oronsay, 6053)’, Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, Inner Hebrides’, in Cherry, J F, Gamble, C & New Series 2: 122. Shennan, S (eds) Sampling in Contemporary Rackham, O 2003 Ancient Woodland: Its British Archaeology, 177–90. Oxford: British history, vegetation and uses in England. Archaeological Report, British Series 50. Kirkcudbrightshire: Castlepoint Press. 68 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013
Ranson, F 1949 British Herbs. Harmondsworth: Rowley-Conwy, P A 2000 ‘Through a taphonomic Penguin Books. glass, darkly: The importance of cereal cultivation Reed, R 1995 ‘Cramond Roman fort’, Discovery and in prehistoric Britain’, in Stallibrass, S & Huntley, Excavation in Scotland (1995): 53. J P (eds) Taphonomy and Interpretation, 43–53. Regnell, M 2012 ‘Plant subsistence and environment Oxford: Oxbow Books. at the Mesolithic site Tågerup, southern Sweden: Rowley-Conwy, P A & Layton, R 2011 ‘Foraging New insights on the “Nut Age”’, Vegetation and farming as niche construction: Stable and History and Archaeobotany 21: 1–16. unstable adaptations’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 366: Reimer, P J, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, J W, Blackwell, 849–62. P G, Bronk Ramsey, C, Grootes, P M, Guilderson, 73+DÁLGDVRQ++DMGDV,+DWWç&+HDWRQ Rowley-Conwy, P A & Owen, A C 2011 ‘Grooved T J, Hoffmann, D L, Hogg, A G, Hughen, K A, ware feasting in Yorkshire: Late Neolithic animal Kaiser, K F, Kromer, B, Manning, S W, Niu, M, consumption at Rudston Wold’, Oxford Journal Reimer, R W, Richards, D A, Scott, E M, Southon, of Archaeology 30: 325–67. J R, Staff, R A, Turney, C S M & van der Plicht, Rowley-Conwy, P A & Zvelebil, M 1989 ‘Saving it J 2013 ‘IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon for later: Storage by prehistoric hunter–gatherers age calibration curves 0–50,000 Years cal bp’, in Europe’, in Halstead, P & O’Shea, J (eds) Radiocarbon 55(4): 1869–87. Bad Year Economics: Cultural responses to risk and uncertainty Renfrew, J M 1973 Palaeoethnobotany: The , 40–57. Cambridge: Cambridge prehistoric food plants of the Near East and University Press. Europe. London: Methuen & Co. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 2014 ‘Great spotted woodpecker’, KWWS Richards, M P & Mellars, P 1998 ‘Stable isotopes ZZZUVSERUJXNZLOGOLIHELUGJXLGHQDPHJ and the seasonality of the Oronsay middens’, JUHDWVSRWWHGZRRGSHFNHU$FFHVVHG Antiquity 72: 178–84. Russell, N J, Bonsall, C & Sutherland, D G 1995 Richards, M P & Sheridan, A 2000 ‘New AMS dates ‘The exploitation of marine molluscs in the on human bone from Mesolithic Oronsay’, Mesolithic of Western Scotland: evidence from Antiquity 74: 313–15. Ulva Cave, Inner Hebrides’, in Fischer, A (ed) Richards, M P, Schulting, R J & Hedges, R E M 2003 Man and the Sea in the Mesolithic, 273–88. ‘Sharp shift in diet at onset of Neolithic’, Nature Oxford: Oxbow Books. 425: 366. Saville, A 2004 ‘The material culture of Mesolithic Ritchie, A 2005 Kilellan Farm, Ardnave, Islay: Scotland’, in Saville, A (ed) Mesolithic Scotland Excavations of a prehistoric to early Medieval and its Neighbours, 185–200. Edinburgh: Society site by Colin Burgess and others 1954–76. of Antiquaries of Scotland. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Saville, A 2008 ‘The beginning of the later Robertson, J & Woodward, N 2007 Data Structure Mesolithic in Scotland’, in Sulgowstowska, Z Report for the 2007 Excavation at Long Howe 7RPDV]HZVNL $ - HGV Man – Millennia – Tankerness, Orkney. Unpublished report. Environment: Studies in honour of Romauld Orkney: Orkney Research Centre for Schild, 207–13. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Archaeology. Sciences, Institute of Archaeology & Ethnology. Robinson, D E 2007 ‘Exploitation of plant resources Schulting, R J & Richards, M P 2000 ‘The use of in the Mesolithic and Neolithic of southern stable isotopes in studies of subsistence and Scandinavia: From gathering to harvesting’, seasonality in the British Mesolithic’, in Young, R in Colledge, S & Conolly, J (eds) The Origins (ed) Mesolithic Lifeways: Current research from and Spread of Domestic Plants in Southwest Asia Britain and Ireland, 55–65. Leicester: University and Europe, 359–74. Walnut Creek: Left Coast of Leicester Press. Press. Schulting, R J & Richards, M P 2002 ‘The wet, the 5RELQVRQ ' ( .HPSIQHU ' ¶&DUERQL]HG wild and the domesticated: The Mesolithic– grain from Mortens Sande 2 – a single grave Neolithic transition on the West Coast of site in northwest Jutland’, Journal of Danish Scotland’, European Journal of Archaeology 5: Archaeology 6: 125–9. 147–89. SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 69
Score, D & Mithen, S 2000 ‘The experimental Food Utilization in Eastern North America, URDVWLQJ RI KD]HOQXWV· in Mithen, S Hunter- 338–59. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical gatherer Landscape Archaeology: The Southern Society. Hebrides Mesolithic Project 1988–98. Vol 2, Tardío, J 2010 ‘Spring is coming: The gathering and 507–12. Cambridge: Oxbow Books. consumption of wild vegetables in Spain’, in Searight, S 1990 ‘Mesolithic activity at Carn southern Pardo-de-Santayana, M, Pieroni, A & Puri, R K raised beach, Isle of Jura’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot (eds) Ethnobotany in the New Europe, 211–38. 120: 7–16. New York: Berghahn Books. Sievers, C & Wadley, L 2008 ‘Going underground: Tardío, J, Pardo-De-Santayana, M & Morales, R 2006 ([SHULPHQWDOFDUERQL]DWLRQRIIUXLWLQJVWUXFWXUHV ‘Ethnobotanical review of wild edible plants in under hearths’, Journal of Archaeological Spain’, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society Science 35: 2909–17. 152: 27–71. Simpson, D D A, Murphy, E M & Gregory, R A 2006 Timpany, S 2006 Palaeoenvironmental Analysis of Excavation at Northton, Isle of Harris. Oxford: Samples from Pits 01, 05 and 06, Crathes Warren British Archaeological Reports, British Series Field. Unpublished report. Edinburgh: Headland 408. Archaeology. Smith, C 1989 ‘British antler mattocks’, in Bonsall, Timpany, S 2008 Palaeoenvironmental Analysis C (ed) The Mesolithic in Europe, 272–83. of Samples from Garthdee, Aberdeenshire. Edinburgh: John Donald. Unpublished report. Edinburgh: Headland Archaeology. Speth, J D 1989 ‘Early hominid hunting and Tipping, R 1994 ‘The form and fate of Scotland’s scavenging: The role of meat as an energy woodlands’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 124: 1–54. source’, Journal of Human Evolution 18: 329–43. Tipping, R 1995a ‘Holocene evolution of a lowland Stace, C A 2010 New Flora of the British Isles. Scottish landscape: Kirkpatrick Fleming. Part I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. peat and pollen-stratigraphic evidence for raised Stahl, A B 1989 ‘Plant-food processing: Implications moss development and climatic change’, The for dietary quality’, in Harris, D R & Hillman, Holocene 5: 69–81. G C (eds) Foraging and Farming: The evolution Tipping, R 1995b ‘Holocene evolution of a lowland of plant exploitation, 171–94. London: Unwin Scottish landscape: Kirkpatrick Fleming. Part II, Hyman. regional vegetation and land-use change’, The Stokes, P & Rowley-Conwy, P 2002 ‘Iron Age Holocene 5: 83–96. cultigen? Experimental return rates for fat hen Tipping, R 2004 ‘Interpretative issues concerning (Chenopodium album L.)’, Environmental the driving sources of vegetation change in the Archaeology 7: 95–9. early Holocene of the British Isles’, in Saville, A 6WROLFáQi5¶$OWHUQDWLYHVRXUFHVRIIRRGLQFHQWUDO (ed) Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours, Europe’, in Lysaght, P (ed) Food from Nature: 45–53. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Attitudes, strategies and culinary practices, 195– Scotland. 203. Uppsala: The Royal Gustavus Adolphus Tomlinson, P & Hall, A R 1996 ‘A review of the Academy for Swedish Folk Culture. archaeological evidence for food plants from 6XGGDE\ , ¶'RZQVL]LQJ LQ WKH 0HVROLWKLF" the British Isles: an example of the use of the The Discovery of two associated postcircles at Archaeobotanical Computer Database (ABCD)’, Silvercrest, Lesmurdie Road, Elgin, Scotland’, in Internet Archaeology 1. Waddington, C & Pedersen, K (eds) Mesolithic Turner, N J & Kuhnlein, H V 1982 ‘Two important Studies in the North Sea Basin and Beyond, 60–8. “root” foods of the northwest coast Indians: Oxford: Oxbow Books. Springbank Clover (Trifolium wormskioldii) Talalay, L T, Keller, D R & Munson, P J 1984 DQG3DFLÀF6LOYHUZHHG Potentilla anserina ssp. ¶+LFNRU\QXWVZDOQXWVEXWWHUQXWVDQGKD]HOQXWV SDFLÀFD)’, Economic Botany 36: 411–32. Observations and experiments relevant to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) their Aboriginal exploitation in eastern North 2014 USDA National Nutrient Database for America’, in Munson, P J (ed) Experiments Standard Reference KWWS QGEQDOXVGDJRYQGE and Observations on Aboriginal Wild Plant IRRGVOLVW $FFHVVHG 70 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013 van der Veen, M 1984 ‘Sampling for seeds’, in van Ward, T 2005b ‘Daer Valley Project (Crawford Zeist, W & Casparie, W A (eds) Plants and parish)’, Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, Ancient Man: Studies in palaeoethnobotany, New Series 6: 134. 193–9. Rotterdam: A A Balkema. Ward, T 2005c The Discovery and Excavation of a van der Veen, M 2007 ‘Formation processes of Mesolithic Site in Daer Valley. Unpublished GHVLFFDWHG DQG FDUERQL]HG SODQW UHPDLQV ² WKH report. Biggar: Biggar Museum Trust. LGHQWLÀFDWLRQ RI URXWLQH SUDFWLFH· Journal of Ward, T 2005d ‘Weston Farm’, Discovery and Archaeological Science 34: 968–90. Excavation in Scotland, New Series 6: 180. Vandorpe, P 2007 Upper Largie Plant Remains. Ward, T 2006 Excavations at Weston Farm 2003– Unpublished report for AOC Archaeology. 2004. Unpublished report. Biggar: Biggar Museum Trust. Vaughan, D 1987 ‘The plant macrofossils’, in Balaam, N D, Bell, M G, David, A E U, Levitan, Warren, G 1998 ‘Manor Bridge – “The Popples” B, Macphail, R I, Robinson, M & Scaife, (Peebles Parish) Mesolithic settlement’, R G ‘Prehistoric and Romano-British sites at Discovery and Excavation in Scotland (1998): Westward Ho!, Devon: Archaeological and 82. palaeo-environmental surveys 1983 and 1984’, Warren, G 2003 ‘Manor Bridge, Peebles (NT 229 in Balaam, N D, Levitan, B & Straker, V (eds) 391)’, Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, Studies in Palaeoeconomy and Environment New Series 4: 165. in South West England, 233–8. Oxford: British Warren, G 2005 Mesolithic Lives in Scotland. Stroud: Archaeological Report 181. Tempus. Vaughan, J G & Geissler, C 1997 The New Oxford Warren, G, Davis, S, McClatchie, M & Sands, R 2014 ‘The potential role of humans in structuring Book of Food Plants. Oxford: Oxford University the wooded landscapes of Mesolithic Ireland: a Press. review of data and discussion of approaches’, Vincent, A S 1985 ‘Plant foods in savannah Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 23: 629– environments: A preliminary report of tubers 46. HDWHQE\WKH+DG]DRI1RUWKHUQ7DQ]DQLD·World Wickham-Jones, C R 2004a ‘Structural evidence Archaeology 17: 131–48. in the Scottish Mesolithic’, in Saville, A (ed) Voronina, T 2000 ‘Gathering as an Aspect of the Mesolithic Scotland and its Neighbours, 229–42. Traditional Provision of Food in the Russian Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. North’, in Lysaght, P (ed) Food from Nature: Wickham-Jones, C R 2004b ‘The Mesolithic in Attitudes, Strategies and Culinary Practices: 6FRWODQG $FWLRQDUFKDHRORJ\IRUWKHWZHQW\ÀUVW Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the century’, Before Farming ² International Commission for Ethnological Wickham-Jones, C R 2009 ‘Them bones: Midden Food Research, Umeå and Frostviken, VLWHV DV D GHÀQLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH 6FRWWLVK Sweden, 8–14 June, 1998, 170–81. Uppsala: Mesolithic’, in McCartan, S, Schulting, R, The Royal Gustavus Adolphus Academy Warren, G & Woodman, P (eds) Mesolithic for Swedish Folk Culture. Horizons, 478–84. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Wagner, G E 1988 ‘Comparability among recovery Wickham-Jones, C R & Dalland, M 1998a ‘A small techniques’, in Hastorf, C A & Popper, V S (eds) Mesolithic site at Fifeness, Fife, Scotland’, Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical methods Internet Archaeology 5. and cultural interpretations of archaeological Wickham-Jones, C R & Dalland, M 1998b ‘A small plant remains, 17–35. Chicago and London: Mesolithic site at Craighead Golf Course, Fife University of Chicago Press. Ness, Fife’, Tayside and Fife Archaeological Wandsnider, L 1997 ‘The roasted and the boiled: Journal 4: 1–19. Food composition and heat treatment with Wickham-Jones, C R & Downes, J 2007 ‘Long special emphasis on pit-hearth cooking’, Howe’, Discovery and Excavation in Scotland, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: New Series 8: 147. 1–48. Wickham-Jones, C R, Clarke, A, Finlayson, B, Ward, T 2005a ‘Daer Valley 84’, Discovery and Hirons, K, Sutherland, D, Zetterlund, P, Butler, Excavation in Scotland, New Series 6: 179. S, Cook, G, Davidson, D, Dugmore, A, Durant, SEEDS, FRUITS AND NUTS IN THE SCOTTISH MESOLITHIC | 71
* (GZDUGV . *ULIÀWKV ' -RUGDQ ' .HPS for Palaeoethnobotany Proceedings of 9th M, Lee, S, Maker, B, Mccarten, S, Mccullagh, R, Syposium, Kiel, 1992, 385–97. Kiel: Oetker- Moffat, B, Parish, R, O’Neil, M, Terry, J, Braby, A Vosges. & Holm, J 1990 Rhum: Mesolithic and later sites Woodward, N 2008 ‘Links House’, Discovery and at Kinloch. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Excavation in Scotland, New Series 9: 137. Scotland Monograph Series Number 7. Wordsworth, J, Bradley, R, Dickson, C, Harman, Wickham-Jones, C R, Hardy, K, Clarke, A, Cressey, M, Mate, I & Harden, G 1985 ‘The excavation M, Edwards, K J & Newton, A 2004 ‘Camas RI D 0HVROLWKLF KRUL]RQ DW ² &DVWOH 6WUHHW Daraich: a Mesolithic site at the Point of Sleat, Inverness’, Proc Soc Antiq Scot 115: 89–103. Skye’, Scottish Archaeological Internet Report Wright, P 2003 ‘Preservation or destruction of 12. SODQW UHPDLQV E\ FDUERQL]DWLRQ"· Journal of Wilson, D G 1984 ‘The carbonisation of weed Archaeological Science 30: 577–83. seeds and their representation in macrofossil Yalden, D 1999 The History of British Mammals. assemblages’, in van Zeist, W & Casparie, W A London: T & A D Poyser. (eds) Plants and Ancient Man, 201–6. Rotterdam: Yellen, J E 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the A A Balkema. Present: Models for reconstructing the past. New Wiltshire, P 1995 ‘The effect of food processing on York: Academic Press. the palatability of wild fruits with high tannin Zvelebil, M 1994 ‘Plant use in the Mesolithic and its content’, in Kroll, H & Pasternak, R (eds) role in the transition to farming’, Proceedings of Res Archaeobotanicae International Workgroup the Prehistoric Society 60: 35–74. 72 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 2013