All forager (or hunter–gatherer) societies construct niches, many of them actively by the concentration of wild plants into useful stands, small-scale cultivation, burning of natural vegetation to ...encourage useful species, and various forms of hunting, collectively termed ‘low-level food production’. Many such niches are stable and can continue indefinitely, because forager populations are usually stable. Some are unstable, but these usually transform into other foraging niches, not geographically expansive farming niches. The Epipalaeolithic (final hunter–gatherer) niche in the Near East was complex but stable, with a relatively high population density, until destabilized by an abrupt climatic change. The niche was unintentionally transformed into an agricultural one, due to chance genetic and behavioural attributes of some wild plant and animal species. The agricultural niche could be exported with modifications over much of the Old World. This was driven by massive population increase and had huge impacts on local people, animals and plants wherever the farming niche was carried. Farming niches in some areas may temporarily come close to stability, but the history of the last 11 000 years does not suggest that agriculture is an effective strategy for achieving demographic and political stability in the world's farming populations.
Over the past few decades the potential role of Mesolithic hunter–gatherers in actively constructing their own niches, through the management of wild plants, has frequently been discussed. It is ...probable that Mesolithic hunter–gatherers systematically exploited specific woodland resources for food and fuel and influenced the ‘natural’ abundance or distribution of particular species within Mesolithic environments. Though there has been considerable discussion of the pollen evidence for potential small-scale human-woodland manipulation in Mesolithic Scotland, the archaeobotanical evidence for anthropogenic firewood and food selection has not been discussed in this context. This paper assesses the evidence for the active role of Mesolithic hunter–gatherer communities in systematically exploiting and managing woodlands for food and fuel in Scotland. While taphonomic factors may have impacted on the frequency of specific species in archaeobotanical assemblages, it is suggested that hunter–gatherers in Mesolithic Scotland were systematically using woodland plants, and in particular hazel and oak, for food and fuel. It is argued that the pollen evidence for woodland management is equivocal, but hints at the role of hunter–gatherers in shaping the structure of their environments, through the maintenance or creation of woodland clearings for settlement or as part of vegetation management strategies. It is proposed that Mesolithic hunter–gatherers may have actively contributed to niche construction and that the systematic use of hazel and oak as a fuel may reflect the deliberate pruning of hazel trees to increase nut-yields and the inadvertent – or perhaps deliberate – coppicing of hazel and oak during greenwood collection.
•Wood charcoal and macrofossil data from 47 Scottish Mesolithic archaeological sites are reviewed.•Hazel and oak were the main trees exploited for fuel and hazel for nut-gathering.•Humans influenced woodland ecology by using wood for fuel and construction.•The use of wood for these purposes may reflect deliberate or inadvertent coppicing.•Pollen evidence for management is equivocal, but clearings may reflect human use.
The transition in north-west Europe from the hunter–gatherer societies of the Late Mesolithic to the pioneer farming societies of the early Neolithic is not well understood, either culturally or ...palaeoecologically. In Britain the final transition was rapid but it is unclear whether novel Neolithic attributes were introduced by immigrants who supplanted the native hunter–gatherers, or whether the latest Mesolithic foragers gradually adopted elements of the Neolithic economic package. In this study, relatively coarse- (10 mm interval) and fine-resolution (2 mm), multi-proxy palaeoecological data including pollen, charcoal and NPPs including fungi, have been used to investigate two phases of vegetation disturbance of (a) distinctly Late Mesolithic and (b) early Neolithic age, at an upland site in northern England in a region with both a Neolithic and a Late Mesolithic archaeological presence. We identify and define the palaeoecological characteristics of these two disturbance phases, about a millennium apart, in order to investigate whether differing land-use techniques can be identified and categorised as of either foraging or early farming cultures. The Late Mesolithic phase is defined by the repetitive application of fire to the woodland to encourage a mosaic of productive vegetation regeneration patches, consistent with the promotion of Corylus and to aid hunting. In this phase, weed species including Plantago lanceolata, Rumex and Chenopodiaceae are frequent, taxa which are normally associated with the first farmers. The early Neolithic phase, including an Ulmus decline, has characteristics consistent with ‘forest farming’, possibly mainly for domestic livestock, with an inferred succession of tree girdling, fire-prepared cultivation, and coppice-woodland management. Such fine-resolution, potentially diagnostic land-use signatures may in future be used to recognise the cultural complexion of otherwise enigmatic woodland disturbance phases during the centuries of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition.
•We compare Late Mesolithic and early Neolithic palaeoecology from the same peat site.•Fine resolution pollen, non-pollen palynomorph and AMS radiocarbon analyses are used.•Differences in ground flora, event duration and lasting impacts can be distinguished.•Assuming human origin, this suggests changed cultural activity in the early Neolithic.•There is continuing evidence for the use of fire and the presence of grazing animals.
All farming in prehistoric Europe ultimately came from elsewhere in one way or another, unlike the growing numbers of primary centers of domestication and agricultural origins worldwide. This fact ...affects every aspect of our understanding of the start of farming on the continent because it means that ultimately, domesticated plants and animals came from somewhere else, and from someone else. In an area as vast as Europe, the process by which food production becomes the predominant subsistence strategy is of course highly variable, but in a sense the outcome is the same, and has the potential for addressing more large-scale questions regarding agricultural origins. Therefore, a detailed understanding of all aspects of farming in its absolute earliest form in various regions of Europe can potentially provide a new perspective on the mechanisms by which this monumental change comes to human societies and regions. In this volume, we aim to collect various perspectives regarding the earliest farming from across Europe. Methodological approaches, archaeological cultures, and geographic locations in Europe are variable, but all papers engage with the simple question: What was the earliest farming like? This volume opens a conversation about agriculture just after the transition in order to address the role incoming people, technologies, and adaptations have in secondary adoptions. The book starts with an introduction by the editors which will serve to contextualize the theme of the volume. The broad arguments concerning the process of neolithisation are addressed, and the rationale for the volume discussed. Contributions are ordered geographically and chronologically, given the progression of the Neolithic across Europe. The editors conclude the volume with a short commentary paper regarding the theme of the volume.
Westward Ho Rowley-Conwy, Peter
Current anthropology,
10/2011, Volume:
52, Issue:
S4
Journal Article, Conference Proceeding
Peer reviewed
Recent work on the four major areas of the spread of agriculture in Neolithic western Europe has revealed that they are both chronologically and economically much more abrupt than has hitherto been ...envisaged. Most claims of a little agriculture in Late Mesolithic communities are shown to be incorrect. In most places, full sedentary agriculture was introduced very rapidly at the start of the Neolithic. “Transitional” economies are virtually absent. Consequently, the long-term processes of internal development from forager to farmer, so often discussed in Mesolithic-Neolithic Europe, are increasingly hard to sustain. The spread of agriculture by immigration is thus an increasingly viable explanation. The crucial role of boats for transport and of dairying for the survival of new farming settlements are both highlighted. Farming migrations were punctuated and sporadic, not a single wave of advance. Consequently, there was much genetic mixing as farming spread, so that agricultural immigrants into any region carried a majority of native European Mesolithic genes, not Near Eastern ones.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from 686 wild and domestic pig specimens place the origin of wild boar in island Southeast Asia (ISEA), where they dispersed across Eurasia. Previous morphological ...and genetic evidence suggested pig domestication took place in a limited number of locations (principally the Near East and Far East). In contrast, new genetic data reveal multiple centers of domestication across Eurasia and that European, rather than Near Eastern, wild boar are the principal source of modern European domestic pigs.
Excavations at Abu Hureyra, Syria, during the 1970s exposed a long sequence of occupation spanning the transition from hunting-and-gathering to agriculture. Dung spherulites preserved within curated ...flotation samples from Epipalaeolithic (ca. 13,300–11,400 calBP) and Neolithic (ca. 10,600–7,800 calBP) occupations are examined here alongside archaeological, archaeobotanical, and zooarchaeological data to consider animal management, fuel selection, and various uses of dung. Spherulites were present throughout the entire sequence in varying concentrations. Using a new method to quantify spherulites, exclusion criteria were developed to eliminate samples possibly contaminated with modern dung, strengthening observations of ancient human behavior. Darkened spherulites within an Epipalaeolithic 1B firepit (12,800–12,300 calBP) indicate burning between 500–700°C, documenting early use of dung fuel by hunter-gatherers as a supplement to wood, coeval with a dramatic shift to rectilinear architecture, increasing proportions of wild sheep and aurochsen, reduced emphasis on small game, and elevated dung concentrations immediately outside the 1B dwelling. Combined, these observations suggest that small numbers of live animals (possibly wild sheep) were tended on-site by Epipalaeolithic hunter-gatherers to supplement gazelle hunting, raising the question of whether early experiments in animal management emerged contemporaneously with, or pre-date, cultivation. Dung was used to prepare plaster floors during the Neolithic and continued to be burned as a supplemental fuel, indicating that spherulites were deposited via multiple human- and animal-related pathways. This has important implications for interpretations of archaeobotanical assemblages across the region. Spherulite concentrations dropped abruptly during Neolithic 2B (9,300–8,000 calBP) and 2C (8,000–7,800 calBP), when sheep/goat herding surpassed gazelle hunting, possibly corresponding with movement of animals away from the site as herd sizes increased. As hunter-gatherers at Abu Hureyra began interacting with wild taxa in different ways, they set in motion a remarkable transformation in the ways people interacted with animals, plants, and their environment.
PDF
