Resource assessment: The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
The original Specialist Group consisted of John Davies (independent scholar), Peter Rowe (Tees Archaeology), Penny Spikins (Dept of Archaeology, University of York), Chris Tolan-Smith (independent consultant), Clive Waddington (Archaeological Research Services), Mark White (Dept of Archaeology, University of Durham), and Rob Young (Northumberland National Parks Authority).
The current text has been substantially re-written and revised by Dr. Rob Young with comments from members of the original Specialist Group.
INRODUCTION
Perhaps due to the relatively low visibility of Mesolithic remains compared with the monumentality of later prehistoric periods or the spectacular nature of Roman features in the North-East, very little work was carried out on this period in the region, before the 20th century.
Certainly, until the development of the Durham Archaeological Survey in 1983 (Haselgrove and Healy, 1992) and the Tyne-Solway Ancient Landscapes Project in 1992-3 (Tolan-Smith, 1997a), it would be fair to say that there was hardly any regional, academic, institutional, interest in the earlier periods of prehistory.
This situation is clearly borne out if one looks in the north east’s two leading archaeological journals for published articles that mention Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archaeology. In the Transactions of the Architectural and Archaeological Society of Durham and Northumberland/Durham Archaeological Journal for 1973-99, some 125 archaeological articles and substantial notes were published. Of these only four dealt with aspects of the period under study here. In Archaeologia Aeliana from 1976-2000, of the 266 archaeological articles and Museum Notes, only seven dealt with, or mentioned, earlier prehistory. In the period from 1999 up to 2017 only 2 papers dealing with early prehistory have appeared in Archaeologia Aeliana, and none in the Durham Archaeological Journal.
A similar lack of ‘professional’ interest in the Mesolithic can be seen if one looks at a recent distribution map for Mesolithic sites in Durham and Northumberland (Fig 1). This clearly reflects where local, and in the main, amateur, workers have been active since the early part of the twentieth century. The map also gives the lie to Clack and Gosling’s suggestion that Mesolithic activity was concentrated mainly on the east coast, and that the area between the Tyne and the Tees was important, because over half the known finds had been made there (Clack and Gosling, 1976, 15-16).
If one looks at the history of Mesolithic research in the region, in general terms, one can clearly see that, in the period before the First World War, both the uplands and coastal areas received almost equal amounts of, low-level, attention. After the First World War, and certainly until the 1950s, the fieldwork emphasis seems to have been focused on the current coastline of Northumberland and Durham and from the 1950s until the late 1980s the uplands and inland lowlands were the main areas of research activity. Currently there seems to be equal amounts of interest, again, in both upland and coastal locations.
THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
THE RESULTS OF REGIONAL RESEARCH BEFORE WORLD WAR 1
As early as 1880, the Rev. W. Howchin had recorded what we would now call Mesolithic lithic material from Allendale in the North Pennines (Howchin, 1880). These finds inspired C.T. Trechmann, an avid flint collector on the Durham coast (see below) to visit the region. He was intrigued by Howchin’s reference to the context of his Allendale finds. The Allendale site was in an area of vegetational erosion caused by fumes from a nearby lead-smelting chimney. The finds that Trechmann made on his visit to the location prompted him to seek out other upland areas with similar brick-built flues, or chimneys, used to take the poisonous fumes away from lead smelting sites and thus producing similar areas of vegetation erosion (Trechmann, 1905; 1912). From Allendale, Trechmann explored the area around the Blackton Smelt Mill chimney in Teesdale, and in 1905 he discovered an amazing array of material. He recorded at least 8 arrowheads of both barbed and tanged and leaf shaped form, denticulated blades, (the equivalent of prehistoric saw blades), Mesolithic microliths, around forty scrapers, dozens of flakes and thousands of chips and only six or so flint cores. He also recorded cores, flakes and chips of locally available chert in the assemblage and, on the strength of these finds, he progressed into Weardale and to the site above Rookhope from which he recovered a barbed and tanged arrowhead.
Trechmann’s upland researches may well have inspired the Weardale antiquarian and local historian William Morely Egglestone to visit the site, located on Redburn Common near Rookhope, and to collect further material. Indeed from 1910-1916 Egglestone was actively involved in tracing previous discoveries of flint and stone tools in Weardale. He published papers on lithic material from the Redburn Common site and on a range of stone axes and perforated stone tools that had been found in the dale. He actually went to the site and collected new material himself (Egglestone 1909-1910, 1911-1912a, 1911-1912b ).
The first manifestation of an archaeological interest in the present coastal area came in 1905 with the publication of a paper by C.T. Trechmann entitled ‘Neolithic Remains on the Durham Coast’. Most of the material that he reported on would now be classified as Mesolithic, and Trechmann was the first scholar to note the tendency of scatter sites to be located in sheltered spots on the edges of coastal denes, the steeply incised stream valleys which are a common feature of the contemporary Durham coastline. These scatters were also usually protected on the seaward side by low dunes. More importantly (though he did not really comment on the fact), Trechmann recorded, for the first time, the association of microlithic flint types with typologically later material (Trechmann 1905, 361-352). He also noted that flint material occurred less densely on the coast north of Sunderland, and suggested that this distribution was probably more apparent than real, reflecting differential coastal erosion and weathering. Throughout his long and distinguished research career Trechmann was one of the few early researchers to consider the possibility that the present coastline was not as it had been in the Mesolithic.
Seven years later he published a further paper on ‘Neolithic Chipping Sites in Durham and Northumberland’ (Trechmann 1912). This included a discussion of lithic material from the uplands of County Durham as well as the coast, and it was the first attempt by a local archaeologist to discuss the relationship between Mesolithic and later material from upland and lowland/coastal locations. This is a theme which still dominates discussions of the Mesolithic in the north-east of England (e.g. Simmons, 1996; Young 1987; 2000b).
This paper was important for a number of reasons: it included, for example, the first published mention of a site at Crimdon Dene, north of Hartlepool which, as we will see, was to become an important archaeological location as the early years of the twentieth century progressed. Trechmann also speculated about sources of raw materials, suggesting that the upland flint came from the Yorkshire Wolds, while the ‘coastal’ flint artefacts were mainly made on pebbles from the local boulder clay. He also put forward a relative dating scheme for sites in both upland and lowland areas and concluded that whilst the material may or may not have been contemporary ‘there was no intercourse or exchange of materials between the two areas’ (1912, 81).
His discussion of the Northumberland coast was slight and he noted that lithic material was ‘practically absent from that part stretching from the mouth of the Tyne northwards to Whitley Bay. The only definite ‘chipping site’ that he recorded was at a location ‘a mile north of Newbiggin’ which produced some 400 pieces of flint (1912, 82).
THE RESULTS OF REGIONAL RESEARCH AFTER WORLD WAR 1-1950
After World War I, however, a new generation of independent archaeologists showed a closer interest in the seemingly ephemeral remains of early prehistory. In 1922 Francis Buckley produced a small note in the Antiquary's Journal on a ‘Pygmy Industry on the Northumberland Coast’, and another in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle -upon-Tyne on ‘Early Tardenois remains at Bamburgh’. These contributions discussed finds from Bamburgh and Craster, and, for the first time, clearly identified Mesolithic material in the area. Buckley linked the finds with the Belgian Tardenoisian industries (1922a; 1922b) and he followed this work up in 1925 with a more detailed discussion of the material. This paper on ‘The Microlithic Industries of Northumberland’ employed typological analysis to separate the coastal material into an ‘early Tardenoisian’, characterised by small scrapers and pointed blades and a ‘developed Tardenoisian’ which included semi-geometric microliths (Buckley 1925, 42-47). Over the next decade Buckley’s study prompted much discussion of the nature of the coastal finds in Durham and Northumberland.
In 1933 Arthur Raistrick and T. S. Westoll reported on a prolific site at Crimdon Dene on the Durham coast, first recorded by Trechmann in 1912 ( Trechmann, 1912; Raistrick and Westoll 1933, 139-144; see also Raistrick, Coupland and Coupland 1936 discussed below). Five thousand pieces of lithic material were recovered from beneath sand dunes on a spur of land between the shore and the burn. Some 230 cores were recorded, along with many blades and flakes with secondary working and over 100 microliths. The latter comprised mainly scalene triangles and rods of later Mesolithic form. Scrapers also occurred in large numbers. Projectile points of Neolithic- and Bronze Age type were also recorded in the assemblage.
In the same year, Raistrick also produced a detailed discussion of the distribution of Mesolithic sites in the north of England in general (Raistrick 1933a, 141-156). In a study clearly influenced by Buckley’s work, Raistrick speculated that the coastal sites of County Durham and Northumberland were earlier than those in the northern uplands and that they had more affinities with material from Belgium. He believed that the microlithic sites of the Pennines were the product of a later, inland, movement of people from the coast (1933a, 150 -152). Raistrick’s ideas about relations with the continent were further developed in a 1934 paper with G. Bennett-Gibbs, entitled ‘Prehistoric Invasions of Northumberland and Durham’.
1934 also saw Raistrick’s publication of one of the most detailed discussions of ‘Mesolithic Sites of the North East Coast of England’. In this contribution he discussed material from the area between Newbiggin and Lyne Hill and recorded flint scatters from three main locations; near Newbiggin itself; near Element Head and Sandle Holes on Newbiggin Moor; and north of the river Lyne at Lyne Hill
All the lithic material recovered from these sites came from the boulder clay cliff surface beneath layers of blown sand, a phenomenon that was noted at Nessend on Lindisfarne and to which we will return below. A possible ‘limpet hammer’ or bevelled pebble was recovered in association with the Newbiggin material (Weyman 1984, 42), while at Sandle Holes, Raistrick recorded two discrete layers of material separated by ‘three inches of soil’ (Raistrick 1934, 188). Just above the boulder clay at this site he noted microliths, chips and small blades, and in the upper layer he observed ‘larger cores and bulky chips and flakes of Neolithic type’ (1934, 188). Unfortunately all of these locations have now been eroded away either by the action of the sea or by quarrying.
At Lyne Hill Raistrick recorded two scatters of flint material ‘about 15 yards diameter and 100 yards apart’ (1934, 188). These were areas of high lithic concentration with some 3000 pieces being recovered in ‘two days’ work’ (1934, 188). We can only guess at the total number of finds made at these two locations, but Raistrick hints at the size of the assemblages in his comment that ‘..in a collection of over 5000 fragments from one site without any selection, over 12% show careful workmanship’ (1934, 192). He also says that the ‘principle area of the site was completely cleared, chips, implements, and every piece of flint present being collected, in order to get a census of the various types present in the culture as a whole’ (1934, 194). Table 1 is based on a collection of 2000 fragments from a 5yard (c. 15m) diameter area of the site. Eighty six percent of the total material recorded in this sample comprised ‘flint fragments and chips and a few small nodules from which odd flakes had been taken, leaving 14% worked flakes’ (1934, 194). It is this 14% of the sample that can be broken down as follows:
TYPE / %CORES / 10%
CORE SCRAPERS / 2%
SCRAPERS / 20%
BLADES / 29%
POINTS / 20%
MICROLITHS / 16%
GRAVERS / 2%
OTHERS / 1%
TOTAL / 100%
Table 1: A sample of lithic finds from Lyne Hill. Some categories have been amalgamated.
Raistrick noted that ‘the same proportions are maintained on other sites, except for the relative scarcity of microliths. These are still present everywhere, but reduced in numbers’ (1934, 194).
The remainder of Rasitrick’s paper gives a detailed account of other coastal and inland locations where flint scatters were recorded. The author drew attention to the potential relationship between ‘coastal’ and upland Pennine sites, but never developed the point and he was convinced that sites like Lyne Hill ‘had a fairly wide distribution along the coast, from Hartlepool to Bamburgh, everywhere resting on boulder clay and being covered by blown sand’ (1934, 197). On the basis of pollen analysis of peats at the mouth of the Lyne river and their relationship with the stratum in which the Lyne Hill lithic material was found, Raistrick suggested that the coastal sites may have been of late Boreal/early Atlantic date and that they were occupied into the ‘middle Atlantic or true Neolithic period’ (Raistrick 1934, 197). He further suggested that the upland sites, especially those in the Pennines, were slightly later in date. Finally, Raistrick found no stratigraphical support for Buckley’s earlier suggestion of two phases of ‘Tardenoisian’ activity on the coast (1934, 195). The implications and shortcomings of this kind of typological ‘dating’ has been discussed elsewhere (Young 1990).
In 1936, twenty-four years after it was first noted, Raistrick produced a detailed account of the context of the Crimdon Dene site, in collaboration with Mr and Mrs G Coupland. This was another of those important, but largely ignored, contributions to the evolution of Mesolithic studies in the north-east of England.
The paper points out that a further 9000 flints had been recovered since the 1933 statement on the site mentioned above, and this may have been one of the earliest Mesolithic ‘rescue’ programmes in the region (Raistrick, Coupland and Coupland, 1936, 207). The paper indicates quite clearly that the flint distribution was ‘most prolific at one or two restricted spots, a few yards in diameter’ (1936, 207). Again, as at Newbiggin, Lyne Hill, Element Head and Sandle Holes, and at sites like Filpoke Beacon discussed below, ‘The flint can be seen to be associated mainly with a thin grey sand layer, resting directly on the boulder clay surface and covered by the yellow sand of the sand dunes’ (1936, 207). The authors speculated that the grey sand ‘seen in places along the coast’ was residual material from a line of smaller sand dunes (1936, 207).
The paper suggests that the site had been a ‘manufactory’ for small implements, as the greater part of the material is chipping debris, ‘ either smallish chips or fragments of spoilt or broken blades and tools, all classified together as ‘roughs’ and numbering in the present collection about 6,500 (1936, 208). The rest of the site description is worth repeating verbatim here, as it gives us an insight into just how much material has been lost from this location (some of the finds are still preserved in Sunderland Museum):
‘Along with this is an abundance of cores, about 230, mostly of the typical nearly parallel sided type, and a large proportion of blades, of flat triangular or trapezoid section, nearly 1500 in all. Of the blades about half are broken, mostly at the end remote from the bulbar portion, and evidently rejected. Occasionally the broken blades, if the break is at all diagonal have been re-trimmed to make fairly serviceable points. In a separate category are the blades that have received secondary working along one or both edges, and the blades sometimes described as ‘batter back’, one edge being very effectively blunted by chipping, the other being a sharp edge not usually chipped. Microliths are present, rather more than a hundred being recorded, and are of the usual ‘harpoon barb’ form, long and well sharpened triangles, and ‘rods’ with secondary working over one or both long sides. In addition, to this material which is typical of all coastal sites, there is present a small percentage of larger artefacts, which include several beautifully worked arrow points of ‘leaf shape’ and ‘barbed ‘ form, formerly accepted as typical of Neolithic and bronze age cultures respectively. There are five leaf shaped arrow points and four barbed and tanged points, along with a few very heavy cores and points that on a usual surface site would be called Neolithic’.