- The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic encompass a period before the adoption of agriculture. All materials required for food, clothing, tools, shelter and other needs had to be acquired from the immediate surroundings. The inhabitants of our region would have followed a mobile nomadic lifestyle, moving across a territory which could fulfil their needs through the changing seasons. That territory may have extended out of the region, especially in the Upper Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic.
- We have no evidence from the region relating to subsistence in the Upper Palaeolithic (12,500 to 9800 BC), with only occasional lithics showing intermittent presence. The late Glacial period was a harsh, cold climate that supported a restricted range of animals and plants, with large game such as reindeer providing a valuable source of food. The envisaged model would be for Upper Palaeolithic communities to have followed herds that moved into the region as the climate permitted, retreating to less challenging climes when the cold conditions became too extreme (Ballin et al 2018).
- The warming early Holocene climate resulted in less extreme seasonality, which enabled a much wider range of plants and prey animals to flourish. This created the environment that human communities could more stably exploit and live within, recognised as the Mesolithic.
- The long-established theoretical model which structures our understanding of the Mesolithic lifestyle in northern Britain is the ‘seasonal round’, originally defined through ethnographic studies (Wright 2012, 45). This proposes that social groups follow defined routes through their territories, exploiting specific resources as and when they become plentiful. For example, they may hunt in upland areas during the summer, and return to the coast to weather the winter in a more hospitable location with a broader range of resources.
- We have no evidence from the region relating to subsistence in the Early Mesolithic (9800 to 8400 BC). Evidence which directly attests to the exploitation of resources starts to appear in the Late Mesolithic (8400 to 4000 BC) for our region. We are wholly reliant on those excavations that have recovered palaeo-environmental or faunal evidence to start exploring how the environment was utilised (as opposed to its potential). However, levels of preservation of such material are particularly poor:
- Wood charcoal from hazel and occasionally oak indicates the types of timber exploited for heat and cooking;
- Burnt red deer bone was recovered from Low Clone, suggesting hunting of this animal. Further, the use of deer antler for the manufacture of barbed antler points is attested from finds recovered from Cumstoun and Shewalton. This does not necessarily mean that antler implements derived from hunted prey as cast antler may have been used. The composite tools made from microliths (which we have recovered from nearly all late Mesolithic sites) are assumed to include arrows and barbed points, conducive to hunting small and large game;
- Exploitation of marine and freshwater resources suggested by barbed antler points (for fishing), the presence of some marine shell at Barsalloch (intertidal gathering) and the proposal that the lithic technology at Barsalloch favoured the manufacture of basketry and fish traps (Cormack 1970, 80). Upper reaches of rivers may have been favoured for hunting seasonal visitors such as spawning Atlantic salmon in early winter, or nighttime summer fishing on lower reaches of slow-flowing rivers to catch eels. There is no direct evidence for fish or aquatic mammals being caught or processed;
- Charred hazel nutshells are common. These can be in significant quantities as from Barassie, Auchareoch, Smittons, or in smaller numbers as from Laigh Newton, Hunterston and Hallmeadow. Heat-treating hazelnuts to remove moisture, making the nut more durable, is a recognised aspect of plant processing during the Mesolithic (Mithen 2004). Ripe hazelnuts are predominantly found in September and October, suggesting that this was an autumnal task, with drying making this a year-round resource, though the charred shell will not be discarded until consumed; and
- There is no evidence for the gathering or processing or any other plant, fruit or rhizomes.
- Analogy with modern hunter-gatherer societies allows us to understand some available choices as to how Mesolithic communities could have exploited their environment. Inference informed through analysing or experimenting with the repertoire of material culture types is also possible. Another means is by examining palaeoenvironmental data to see how sites might be placed to exploit resources and their seasonality.
- Upland sites such as Evan Road, Laigh Newton, Smittons and Starr, at a distance from the coast, may have been seasonal camps used for hunting red deer, fishing for spawning Atlantic Salmon or accessing chert deposits in the uplands. The limited structural evidence on these sites supports the possibility of short-term use. Such upland sites tend to be situated close to either a watercourse or to bodies of inland water. This suggests that they were located in open ground on the edges of woodland. Such a location would have offered a wider range of resources, in particular plant species such as soft fruits and also hazel, which tends to favour the woodland margins.
- In these upland areas, there may be the first discernible evidence for humans influencing their environment (Chapter 3). Fluctuating tree pollen levels in paleoenvironmental data has suggested human-led woodland clearance to create clearings to promote grazing animals like red deer. The decline of tree cover is coupled, in some places, with airborne charcoal, which might denote deliberate burning (Birks 1972, Birks 1975). Such cleared areas would have brought further benefit by encouraging a more diverse range of plant species, and hence a wider variety in smaller animals. Evidence of change has been identified in the environs of Loch Doon, the River Ken and on Arran. However, there is still ongoing discussion as to whether this decline could be a naturally occurring. This explains the presence of charcoal as a combination of domestic burning with natural wildfires.
- The assessment that coastal sites at West Challoch, Dunure Road, Monamore Bridge, Littlehill Bridge, Barsalloch and Low Clone were invested with more durable settlement suggests either occupation over a longer period or more reliable repeat visits. This may reflect a breadth of stable or overlapping seasonal resources enabling longer occupation or sustained occupation in times of limited seasonal resources.
- The range of resources exploited in these locations will have differed due to the milder, coastal climate, with sites appearing to be placed in open areas with a preference for raised beaches close to watercourses (Barsalloch and Low Clone) and river banks (Monamore Bridge). A diverse range of small animals and plants would have been available in these locations, including the ubiquitous hazelnuts when in season. Coastal sites offered access to a wide range of marine and foreshore resources, while lagoon locations (Girvan and Ballantrae) would have been rich in fish and wildfowl.
- The wide range of lithic types typically found on Late Mesolithic sites attests to the development of a versatile toolkit which could be applied in various ways. Microliths at Luce Bay were recovered in a way which suggested that they had been arrayed as barbs or armatures within organic hafts, suggesting use as harpoons or spears. These could have been used for hunting land mammals such as red deer, marine mammals such as porpoise and perhaps also large fish.
- The harvesting of shellfish from the foreshore is generally accepted as likely to have played a significant role in Mesolithic subsistence practices. Elsewhere in Scotland, shellfish were harvested on a large scale, with substantial shell middens identified in Argyll, the Inner Hebrides and the Forth Valley.
- While some marine shell was recovered from Barsalloch, in general, the modern excavated settlement sites are lacking in this waste material from foreshore gathering. This may reflect either a regional practice (not to use this resource) or processing sites have not been captured by our recent programmes of research. Likewise, the modern excavations do not have any of the ‘Obanian’ rocky foreshore toolkit, like limpet hammers and limpet scoops. Several potential shell midden and cave sites are detailed by Tony Pollard in his assessment of Region A – South West Scotland (Pollard 1994). These include a shell midden overlain by Stranraer, one at the foot of Castle Hill in Ardrossan and another in West Kilbride.