- A significant degree of mobility is accepted for both Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic societies. Within the Mesolithic, social groups would have been required to travel to exploit a diverse range of seasonal resources or geographically constrained resources through, presumably, an annual cycle. The length, character and duration of such journeys are unknown. The harsher climate during the Upper Palaeolithic is inferred to have militated against year-round presence, with human incursions being episodic during warmer episodes.
- Some possible scenarios have been postulated through comparison with ethnographic evidence. Red deer might be exploited in upland areas during the summer months, with marine and shore-based resources in coastal environments preferred during the winter. It is impossible to determine exactly how these journeys were accomplished. Choices were limited, with movement on foot perhaps the most likely means of travel.
- This peripatetic cycle of movement reinforces the minimal mass of material that would be transported with the expectation that all future requirements could be met along the way. The characterisation of West Challoch as having been formed through dozens of episodic visits (Ballin 2021) emphasises the potential for communities to have established itineraries. Excavations at Laigh Newton, Starr, Smittons, Evan Road and Kirkhill Farm, as well as the surface collection work in the uplands Edwards et al 1983), evidences the penetration of all upland areas along the river valleys.
- Movement by water can be inferred, given both the occupation of southern Arran in the Mesolithic and the occasional find of tools manufactured from pitchstone (a material indigenous to Arran) from the mainland, including Ballantrae and West Challoch.
- We have no surviving examples of any boat or waterborne craft, nor marine paraphernalia (paddles, oars, anchors etc). The diverse Mesolithic toolkit available would be entirely capable of processing the timber and hides required to build one. A lightweight vessel could have been used to navigate inland waterways and also inshore marine environments.
- The recovery of two antler harpoons from river beds at Cumstoun and Shewalton or the argument Barsalloch lithics suggests the manufacture of fish traps (Cormack 1970) does not evidence water travel, nor do we have modern research evidence for inshore or deep water fishing from the region that could inform the use of waterborne craft.
- Lithic analysis has used traits within tool types to argue for technological influence from various sources, including northeast Ireland and the north of England (Lacaille 1954, Coles 1964). More recently, following large-scale analyses of a substantial lithics assemblage from West Challoch, cultural affinities have been mapped to continental countries like Germany and Denmark (Ballin 2021). The process of the dissemination of these traits is uncertain, and whether direct individual travel over these distances to South West Scotland was achieved is unknown. This same assemblage also included a small admixture of Yorkshire flint, how this reached South West Scotland is unclear.
- The absence of a burial record prevents the use an aDNA or other analytical techniques to inform on geographic origins or mobility of individuals.
Comments 1
Perhaps reference here to the flint core axe from Loch Ryan which might suggest direct exchange with N Ireland (unless it is a post medieval casual import). Ref.: A. Saville. A Flint Core-tool from Wig Sands, Kirkcolm, near Stranraer, and a consideration of the absence of Core-tools in the Scottish Mesolithic.
TDGNHAS Series III, 77 (2003), 13Reference