Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:11:02.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Bayesian Chronology for Mesolithic Occupation at Mount Sandel, Northern Ireland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2014

Alex Bayliss  and
Peter Woodman
Alex Bayliss
Affiliation:
English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–142 Holborn, London, EC1N 2ST
Peter Woodman
Affiliation:
6 Brighton Villas, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mount Sandel has long been an iconic site for the Irish Mesolithic, having produced evidence for a sequence of occupation huts and pits and the earliest radiocarbon dates for the Mesolithic on the island. This paper presents details of a recent programme of redating whereby the application of Bayesian modelling has confirmed the early date for the site but also helped to refine its internal chronology. The major phase of hut building at Mount Sandel took place within a much shorter period of time than had previously been thought, perhaps only a generation or two. The dating of pits of differing sizes suggests that many of them were created during other slightly later visits to the area. The implications of the dating programme for the place of Mount Sandel in the Irish Mesolithic, and for the chronology of the period and its relations with that on the British mainland, are discussed.

Résumé

Il y a longtemps que le Mont Sandel est un site iconique pour le mésolithique irlandais, ayant fourni des témoignages pour une séquence de huttes et de fosses d'une occupation et les plus anciennes datations au C14 pour le mésolithique sur l'île. Cette étude présente les découvertes d'un récent programme de redatation au travers duquel l'application du modèle bayesien a confirmé la date très ancienne du site, mais a également contribué à raffiner sa chronologie interne. La phase principale de construction de huttes au Mont Sandel a eu lieu sur une période de temps beaucoup plus courte qu'on ne l'avait pensé auparavant, peut-être seulement une génération ou deux. La datation des fosses de différentes tailles suggère que beaucoup d'entre elles furent creusées à l'occasion de nouvelles visites plus tardives à la région. On discute les implications de ce programme de datation pour la place du Mont Sandel dans le mésolithique irlandais, et pour la chronologie de la période et ses relations avec celle de la métropole britannique.

Résumen

Desde hace tiempo Mount Sandel ha sido considerado un yacimiento de carácter icónico para el Mesolítico irlandés, puesto que en él se ha encontrado evidencia de una secuencia de cabañAs de habitación y de pozos, además de las fechas obtenidas por carbono-14 más antiguas en la isla. Este trabajo presenta detalles de un reciente programa de re-datación, en el que, a través de la aplicación de modelos bayesianos, se ha confirmado la antigüedad del yacimiento y se ha contribuido a refinar su cronología interna. La fase más importante de construcción de cabañas en Mount Sandel ocurrió en un periodo de tiempo mucho más corto de lo que se pensaba originalmente, quizá en el espacio de sólo una o dos generaciones. La datación de los pozos de distintos tamaños sugiere que muchos fueron cavados durante visitas a la zona ligeramente posteriores. El trabajo trata de las implicaciones del programa de datación para el yacimiento de Mount Sandel en el Mesolítico irlandés, y para la cronología del periodo y sus relaciones con la cronología británica.

Zusammenfassung

Der Sandel ist seit langem eine ikonische Fundstelle für das irische Mesolithikum, da er sowohl eine Besiedlungssequenz in Form von Hütten und Gruben als auch die frühesten Radiokarbondaten des Mesolithikums der Insel erbracht hat. Dieser Artikel präsentiert Details eines neu aufgelegten und kürzlich durchgeführten Datierungsprogramms, das mit Hilfe der Baysianischen Modellierung das frühe Datum der Fundstelle bestätigen und eine interne Chronologie erstellen konnte. Die Hauptbesiedlungsphase von wahrscheinlich nur einer oder zwei Generationen stellte sich dabei als viel kürzer dar als es bisher angenommen worden war. Die Datierung von unterschiedlich großen Gruben deutet darauf hin, dass viele von ihnen zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt angelegt wurden. Weiterhin werden die Implikationen des Datierungsprogramms sowohl für die Fundstelle selbst in Bezug auf das irische Mesolithikum als auch allgemein für die Chronologie dieser Zeitperiode und ihre Beziehungen mit anderen britischen Fundstellen diskutiert.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 75 , 2009 , pp. 101 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, M.J. & Gardiner, J. 2002. A sense of time: cultural markers in the Mesolithic of southern England. In David, B. and Wilson, M. (eds), Inscribed Landscapes: making and marking place, 139–53. Honolulu: University of Hawaii PressGoogle Scholar
Ashmore, P. 1999. Radiocarbon dating: avoiding errors by avoiding mixed samples, Antiquity 73, 124–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C. & McCormac, F.G. 1997. Dating Stonehenge. In Cunliffe, B. & Renfrew, C. (eds), Science and Stonehenge, 39–59. London: Proceedings of the British Academy 92Google Scholar
Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey, C., Plicht, J. van der & Whittle, A. 2007a. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17, 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A., Waddington, C., Bronk Ramsey, C., Boomer, I. & Hamilton, W.D., 2007b. Absolute Dating. In Waddington, 2007, 65–74Google Scholar
Blockley, S.P.E., Lowe, J.J., Walker, M.J.C., Asioli, A., Trincardi, F., Coope, G.R., Donahue, R.E. & Pollard, A.M. 2004. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon chronologies: examples from the European Late-glacial. Journal of Quaternary Science 19, 159–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37, 425–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40, 461–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43, 355–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C., Higham, T. & Leach, P. 2004. Towards high precision AMS; progress and limitations. Radiocarbon 46, 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C.E., Cavanaugh, W.G. & Litton, C.D. 1996. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Chichester: WileyGoogle Scholar
Buck, C.E., Christen, J.A., Kenworthy, J.B. & Litton, C.D. 1994. Estimating the duration of archaeological activity using 14C determinations. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13, 229–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C.E., Kenworthy, J.B., Litton, C.D. & Smith, A.F.M. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65, 808–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C.E., Litton, C.D. & Smith, A.F.M. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 497–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, T. & Coyne, F. 2006. As old as we felt. Archaeology Ireland 20(4), 21Google Scholar
Dark, P., Higham, T.F.G., Jacobi, R. & Lord, T.C. 2006. New radiocarbon accelerator dates on artefacts from the early Mesolithic site of Star Carr, North Yorkshire. Archaeometry 48, 185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooder, J. 2007. Excavation of a Mesolithic house at East Barnes, East Lothian, Scotland: an interim report. In Waddington, C. & Pedersen, K. (eds), Mesolithic Studies in the North Sea Basin and Beyond, 49–59. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Jacobi, R.M. 1973. Aspects of the Mesolithic age in Britain. In Kozlowski, S. (ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe, 237–65. Warsaw: University PressGoogle Scholar
Lanting, J.N. & van der, Plicht J.. 1994. 14C AMS: pros and cons for archaeology. Palaeohistoria 35/36, 1–12Google Scholar
Mellars, P.A. 1974. The Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. In Renfrew, C. (ed.) British prehistory: a new outline, 41–99. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Mithen, S.J. 2000. Hunter-Gatherer Landscape Archaeology: the Southern Hebrides Project 1988–98. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute MonographGoogle Scholar
Mook, W.G. & Streurman, H.J. 1983. Physical and chemical aspects of radiocarbon dating. In Mook, W.G. & Waterbolk, H.T., Proceedings of the First International Symposium 14C and Archaeology, PACT 8, 31–55Google Scholar
Mook, W.G. & Waterbolk, H.T. 1985. Radiocarbon Dating. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation Handbook for Archaeologists 3Google Scholar
Needham, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Coombs, D., Cartwright, C. & Pettitt, P.B. 1998. An independent chronology for British Bronze Age metalwork: the results of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Programme. Archaeological Journal 154, 55–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, G.W. 1984. The Development of High-precision 14C Measurements and its Application to Archaeological Timescale Problems. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queen's University BelfastGoogle Scholar
Pearson, G.W., Pilcher, J.R. & Baillie, M.G.L. 1983. High-precision 14C measurement of Irish oaks to show the natural 14C variations from 200 BC to 4000 BC. Radiocarbon 25, 179–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., Plicht, J. van der & Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029–58Google Scholar
Ryan, M. 1980. An Early Mesolithic site in the Irish midlands. Antiquity 54, 46–7Google Scholar
Saville, A. 1981. Mesolithic industries in central England an exploratory investigation using microlith typologies. Archaeological Journal 138, 49–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saville, A. 2008. The beginning of the later Mesolithic in Scotland. In Sulgostowska, Z. & Tomaszewski, A.J. (eds), Man–Millennia–Environment: studies in honour of Romauld Schild, 207–14. Warsaw: Polish Academy of SciencesGoogle Scholar
Slota, P.J. Jr, Jull, A.J.T., Linick, T.W. & Toolin, L.J. 1987. Preparation of small samples for 14C accelerator targets by catalytic reduction of CO. Radiocarbon 29, 303–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.G., Pearson, G.W. & Pilcher, J.R. 1970. Belfast radiocarbon dates I. Radiocarbon 12, 285–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A.G., Pearson, G.W. & Pilcher, J.R. 1971. Belfast radiocarbon dates III. Radiocarbon 13, 103–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Polach, H.A. 1977. Reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19, 355–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P.J. 1986. A computer program for radiocarbon age calculation. Radiocarbon 28, 1022–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P.J. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suddaby, I. 2007. Downsizing in the Mesolithic? The discovery of two associated post-circles at Silvercrest, Lesmurdie Rd. Elgin, Scotland. In Waddington, C. & Pedersen, K., Mesolithic Studies in the North Sea Basin and Beyond, 60–8. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C. (ed.). 2007. Mesolithic Settlement in the North Sea basin: a case study from Howick, North-East England. Oxford: OxbowGoogle Scholar
Waddington, C., Bailey, G., Bayliss, A. & Milner, N. 2007. Howick in its North Sea context. In Waddington, 2007, 201–24Google Scholar
Ward, G.K. & Wilson, S.R. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20, 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickham-Jones, C.R. 2004. Structural evidence in the Scottish Mesolithic. In Saville, A. (ed.), Mesolithic Scotland: the early Holocene prehistory of Scotland and its European context, 243–60. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of ScotlandGoogle Scholar
Woodman, P.C. 1981. A Mesolithic camp in Northern Ireland. Scientific American 245, 120–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, P.C. 1985. Excavations at Mount Sandel, 1973–77. Belfast: HMSO, Northern Ireland Archaeological Monograph 2Google Scholar
Woodman, P.C. 1987. Excavations at Cass ny Hawin, a Manx Mesolithic site, and the position of the Manx microlithic industries. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 53, 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, P.C. 1997. Killuragh cave. In Bennett, I. (ed.), Excavations 1966: summary accounts of archaeological excavations in Ireland, 67–8. Bray, Co Wicklow: WordwellGoogle Scholar
Woodman, P.C. 2004. Retrospect and prospect. In Saville, A.. Mesolithic Scotland: the early Holocene prehistory of Scotland and its European context, 285–99. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of ScotlandGoogle Scholar
Woodman, P.C. in press. Challenging times: reviewing Irish Mesolithic chronologies. In Crombé, P., Van Strydonck, M., Sergant, J., Bats, M. & Boudin, M. (eds), Proceedings of the international congress ‘Chronology and Evolution in the Mesolithic of NW Europe’, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar PublishingGoogle Scholar