Permanent Settlement in Mesolithic Britain

Aberdeen

Regular Member
Messages
1,835
Reaction score
380
Points
0
Ethnic group
Scottish, English and German
Y-DNA haplogroup
I1
mtDNA haplogroup
H4
I found this press release from the University of Buckingham, which indicates that a settlement near what became Stonehenge was permanently occupied during much of the British Mesolithic.

www.buckingham.ac.uk/contact-us/information-for-the-media/press-releases/stonehenge-dig-latest-findings/


The authors of the press release seem to feel that, in addition to explaining why Stonehenge developed where it did, the permanent nature of the settlement calls into question how early Britons used the landscape during the Mesolithic, with land clearing and a permanent settlement being an important feature during a time when the population was presumed to be nomadic in nature. Here's part of what the University had to say.

"History will have to be rewritten – astonishing new findings reveal Amesbury is now the oldest place in the country, where history began, and is also the longest continuous settlement in the UK. Previously it was thought that Stonehenge was conceived by European immigrants but this shows that British settlers were behind its construction.
Carbon dating from an archaeological dig by the University of Buckingham shows that the parish of Amesbury, which includes Stonehenge, has been continually occupied for every millennium since 8820BC. The origins of Amesbury have been discovered as a result of carbon dating bones of aurochs (twice the size of bulls), wild boar and red deer following a dig at Vespasian’s Camp, Blick Mead, a mile and a half from Stonehenge last year.
The dates date the activities of the people who were responsible for building the first monuments at Stonehenge, made of massive pine posts, and show their communities continuing to work and live in the area for a further 3,000 years, close to the ‘dawn of the Neolithic’ when Stonehenge was first built. The results thus provide the “the missing link” between the erection of the posts between 8820 and 6590BC and the later siting of Stonehenge in 3000BC. The findings provide evidence which suggests that Stonehenge, rather than being seen as a neolithic new build in an empty landscape, should be viewed as a response to long term use of the area by indigenous hunters and home makers. The backstory to the monument has been discovered and with it the earliest British story.
Further startling finds from the dig challenge previous definitions of the Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures. Clearance of land, an activity previously thought to be a part of the ‘farming package’ brought in by Neolithic immigrants from the continent in the 5th millennium BC, appears to have taken place around a substantial area of the spring at Blick Mead between 7500 and 4600BC, a time when Mesolithic culture had been seen as purely nomadic. The persistent use of the site for nearly 3,000 years and the fact that many of the tools found were for domestic purposes rather than hunting ones also points to the fact that people were settling there – previously it was thought that there weren’t any settlers until Neolithic times."
 
A very interesting twist to our understanding of hunter/farmer cultural shift.

- it is possible that we see a transfer of religious beliefs these settled hunters to neolithic farmers, embracing the holy site and henge/calendar.
- might be the oldest continuous settlement ever.
 
8820 BC must be short after the forestes reappeared in England
during the youngest dryas , 11.700 - 9.600 it was all tundra
a new bread of people arrived from the south along with the forests
 
There have been some hints in other papers that perhaps, rather than the Neolithic revolution creating large settlements, the creation of large settlements gave rise to the Neolithic, as large amounts of food within a smaller geographical range were needed for the larger population now gathered in one place. The excavators at Gobekli Tepi made some claims like that, but they seem to have backtracked to some extent. The last thing I read was that they were hypothesizing that the settlement had a seasonal, ritualistic, cult purpose, connected perhaps to ancestor worship and/or a polytheistic animal centered worship, and then gradually became permanent. There were some other similar claims made about settlements in the Balkans, although I don't remember if the same purpose was hypothesized for that area. There's also evidence of the same site being used by people with different cultural packages. How much of that involved migration isn't known.

Might some of this correlate with the proposals made by some researchers that the very large increase in population coincides with a time just prior to the Neolithic and not as a result of the Neolithic at least in the Near East and areas like the Balkans? Or, at least, is it a process that began in the very late Mesolithic in the Near East and which then accelerated with the Neolithic?

Another question that's very interesting is whether the search for symbolic meaning predates these economic and then political systems.

I think Jericho would still be the oldest continually inhabited settlement in the world, followed by Aleppo.
 
There have been some hints in other papers that perhaps, rather than the Neolithic revolution creating large settlements, the creation of large settlements gave rise to the Neolithic, as large amounts of food within a smaller geographical range were needed for the larger population now gathered in one place. The excavators at Gobekli Tepi made some claims like that, but they seem to have backtracked to some extent. The last thing I read was that they were hypothesizing that the settlement had a seasonal, ritualistic, cult purpose, connected perhaps to ancestor worship and/or a polytheistic animal centered worship, and then gradually became permanent. There were some other similar claims made about settlements in the Balkans, although I don't remember if the same purpose was hypothesized for that area. There's also evidence of the same site being used by people with different cultural packages. How much of that involved migration isn't known.

Might some of this correlate with the proposals made by some researchers that the very large increase in population coincides with a time just prior to the Neolithic and not as a result of the Neolithic at least in the Near East and areas like the Balkans? Or, at least, is it a process that began in the very late Mesolithic in the Near East and which then accelerated with the Neolithic?

Another question that's very interesting is whether the search for symbolic meaning predates these economic and then political systems.

I think Jericho would still be the oldest continually inhabited settlement in the world, followed by Aleppo.

It's an interesting issue, I think. I've wondered whether agriculture developed in a fertile river delta where large numbers of people could settle and remain stationary, for a time, while relying on the plentiful plants and fish available nearby, and agriculture then became necessary as the population gradually outstripped the resources available to a fishing and gathering population. But I think there's another possible model, whereby a nomadic population could support one or more stationary populations that are providing essential goods and/or services. I was initially thinking of something like tool production, since I've tried flint knapping and decided it was something best left to professionals - it requires real expertise. But people might also be willing to trade food for the services of a cult centre, if it was also a healing centre. In these scenarios, you have a relatively small population providing a specialized good or service that they trade to nomadic hunter/gatherer types. So I think there's more than one way to have a permanent settlement as part of a non-agricultural and largely nomadic population. But if the general population increased beyond a certain point then yes, you either figure out how to do agriculture (or more likely learn from your neighbours) or you experience a population crash. Those would be the only choices. But the settlement near Stonehenge, which was apparently its precursor, may have been unique in Britain. I would say that we need more archeology in order to figure out whether this one site was an anomaly related to some kind of specialization or whether permanent settlements were a common feature of Mesolithic Britain.
 
It's an interesting issue, I think. I've wondered whether agriculture developed in a fertile river delta where large numbers of people could settle and remain stationary, for a time, while relying on the plentiful plants and fish available nearby, and agriculture then became necessary as the population gradually outstripped the resources available to a fishing and gathering population. But I think there's another possible model, whereby a nomadic population could support one or more stationary populations that are providing essential goods and/or services. I was initially thinking of something like tool production, since I've tried flint knapping and decided it was something best left to professionals - it requires real expertise. But people might also be willing to trade food for the services of a cult centre, if it was also a healing centre. In these scenarios, you have a relatively small population providing a specialized good or service that they trade to nomadic hunter/gatherer types. So I think there's more than one way to have a permanent settlement as part of a non-agricultural and largely nomadic population. But if the general population increased beyond a certain point then yes, you either figure out how to do agriculture (or more likely learn from your neighbours) or you experience a population crash. Those would be the only choices. But the settlement near Stonehenge, which was apparently its precursor, may have been unique in Britain. I would say that we need more archeology in order to figure out whether this one site was an anomaly related to some kind of specialization or whether permanent settlements were a common feature of Mesolithic Britain.

I don't see the point.
These people who are presumed to be the first builders at Stonehenge have nothing to do with agriculture. They were hunter-gatherers.
What is strange is that when farmers came they continued building on the same site, but appearantly with other materials and probably also in another style.

The same for Göbekle tepe. The constructions predate the neolithic. The builders were hunter-gatherers who had some domesticated pigs and drystone houses, they were sedentary.
But the difference is, Göbekli Tepe has been abandoned during the neolithic.
It seems to me, here also the farmers were intruders coming from elsewhere.
 
It's an interesting issue, I think. I've wondered whether agriculture developed in a fertile river delta where large numbers of people could settle and remain stationary, for a time, while relying on the plentiful plants and fish available nearby, and agriculture then became necessary as the population gradually outstripped the resources available to a fishing and gathering population. But I think there's another possible model, whereby a nomadic population could support one or more stationary populations that are providing essential goods and/or services. I was initially thinking of something like tool production, since I've tried flint knapping and decided it was something best left to professionals - it requires real expertise. But people might also be willing to trade food for the services of a cult centre, if it was also a healing centre. In these scenarios, you have a relatively small population providing a specialized good or service that they trade to nomadic hunter/gatherer types.
A trading post/religious center makes most sense.
Was the first wooden henge erected by hunter-gatherers, or both wooden and later stonehenge by farmers?

So I think there's more than one way to have a permanent settlement as part of a non-agricultural and largely nomadic population. But if the general population increased beyond a certain point then yes, you either figure out how to do agriculture (or more likely learn from your neighbours) or you experience a population crash.
I don't think any population losses or crashes had any bearing on long term center or cultural changes. Decadal population fluctuations due to hunger or diseases were quite a norm back then.
Recently I've read article about Elk population "collapse" in Yellowstone park, from tens of thousands to few thousands. People suspected wolves and bears, but when science was done, the main culprit turned to be lack of food. For last few years there were draughts in Yellowstone area causing lack of grass to sustain large Elk population.
We people love to see things going steady or progressing, but nature doesn't care of our wants, and sets the upper limit of population by food availability. Small and big population fluctuations are rather a norm in nature.
 
The same for Göbekle tepe. The constructions predate the neolithic. The builders were hunter-gatherers who had some domesticated pigs and drystone houses, they were sedentary.
e.
There were something in between. Not fully HGs and not complete farmers yet.
Even today's farmers go hunting sometimes but it doesn't make them HGs.
 
A very interesting twist to our understanding of hunter/farmer cultural shift.

- it is possible that we see a transfer of religious beliefs these settled hunters to neolithic farmers, embracing the holy site and henge/calendar.
- might be the oldest continuous settlement ever.

I would very much doubt it LeBrok. I read somewhere that Britain was totally separated from the continent by 6000BC. (through melting ice). This would not have the ideal situation for the oldest continuous settlement. I came across this site re DNA I found pretty interesting:-

'Recent work by Dr. Michael Hammer and first presented at the Family Tree DNA Administrators Conference in November of 2013 indicated that there was no early haplogroup R yet found in early burials. Initially, haplogroup R1b had been thought to have overwintered the ice ace about 12,000 years ago in Anatolia and Iberia, repopulating Europe after the ice melted. However, if that is true, then were are the R1b burials? Instead, we are finding haplogroup G and I and some E, but not any R. The first site to show any haplogroup R is R1b from a German Bell Beaker site dated to the third millennium BCE, or about 5,000 years ago.'

http://dna-explained.com/2014/01/16/stonehenge/
 
I would very much doubt it LeBrok. I read somewhere that Britain was totally separated from the continent by 6000BC. (through melting ice). This would not have the ideal situation for the oldest continuous settlement. I came across this site re DNA I found pretty interesting:-

'Recent work by Dr. Michael Hammer and first presented at the Family Tree DNA Administrators Conference in November of 2013 indicated that there was no early haplogroup R yet found in early burials. Initially, haplogroup R1b had been thought to have overwintered the ice ace about 12,000 years ago in Anatolia and Iberia, repopulating Europe after the ice melted. However, if that is true, then were are the R1b burials? Instead, we are finding haplogroup G and I and some E, but not any R. The first site to show any haplogroup R is R1b from a German Bell Beaker site dated to the third millennium BCE, or about 5,000 years ago.'

http://dna-explained.com/2014/01/16/stonehenge/

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The only Y haplotypes that have been found in Europe during the Mesolithic, as far as I know, are C and I. E and G are Neolithic.
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The only Y haplotypes that have been found in Europe during the Mesolithic, as far as I know, are C and I. E and G are Neolithic.

My main argument is re LeBrok comment on 'might be the oldest continuous settlement ever', which seems to be improbable considering the climate conditions and other areas on Euroasia would have been better contenders for this to occur.

The rest is something on the side I came across and wanted to share with you since the tread is on Stonehenge. I was glad that this was available.
 
My main argument is re LeBrok comment on 'might be the oldest continuous settlement ever', which seems to be improbable considering the climate conditions and other areas on Euroasia would have been better contenders for this to occur.

The rest is something on the side I came across and wanted to share with you since the tread is on Stonehenge. I was glad that this was available.

I'm not sure how the Stonehenge site specifically relates to the controversy over whether R1b is late Neolithic or Bronze Age IE. Perhaps you could clarify.
 
I'm not sure how the Stonehenge site specifically relates to the controversy over whether R1b is late Neolithic or Bronze Age IE. Perhaps you could clarify.

my interest is not in the 'controversy' as you put it, but in the haplogroups in the area Dr. Hammer studies. (like I would be interested in any site of any particular importance). Is there anything wrong in that? If there is please explain because I really cannot figure out what that can be.
 
my interest is not in the 'controversy' as you put it, but in the haplogroups in the area Dr. Hammer studies. (like I would be interested in any site of any particular importance). Is there anything wrong in that? If there is please explain because I really cannot figure out what that can be.

Okay, if that was just something random that didn't have anything to do with the thread or the comment by LeBrok that you were replying to, perhaps you could have mentioned that. And I'm not certain why you think that Britain's separation from the rest of Europe about 8000 years ago wouldn't have prevented the Stonehenge site from continuing to be occupied. The rise in ocean level that made Britain an island obviously didn't prevent people from living on that island. So the comment still kind of mystifies me.
 
I'm not sure how the Stonehenge site specifically relates to the controversy over whether R1b is late Neolithic or Bronze Age IE. Perhaps you could clarify.

Stonehenge was created by the Megalithic culture, who created many menhirs, henges, and tombs with large stones in western Europe from 4,000-2,000BC. Henge monuments were common in Britain and Ireland, and oftenly were made of stone and with an alignment that had some type of astronomical significance, so Stone henge and the people who created did not come out of no where.

The Megalithic people could have been united by blood, culture, or a mix of the two. I don't think they were an ethnic group, because most known Megalithic monuments were built within a few hundred years and are all over western Europe, plus the people who built them oftenly had differnt pottery styles, house construction, etc.

Megalithic people were the first farmers in much of north-western Europe where they would have been like an ethnic group. There is already plenty of mtDNA, Y DNA, and autosomal DNA from Megalithic people, and it seems they were no differnt from the LBK people and Otzi. The only difference between the Megalithic people of Sweden(TRb culture) with the LBK culture and Otzi, is that they had more European hunter gatherer ancestry(overall around 40%) and their extra hunter gatherer ancestry specifically came from local Swedish hunter gatherers.

My guess is that the people who built stone henge mainly had Y DNA G2a(specifically G2a3b1), plus a good amount of native west European I2a1-P37.2(specifically I2a1a1-M26(already found in Megalithic people of France), I2a1c-L1294, and I2a1b-M423), E1b1b, and possibly some J1 and J2.

They had nothing to do with the dominate Y DNA of modern west Europeans R1b L11, which probably did come with Indo Europeans in the metal ages. The only good argument i have heard that Megalithic people had R1b L11 is modern Basque who have around 80% and could pass as being close to full blooded Megalithic people(basically the same as Sardinians, just extra WHG). Maciamo's hypothesizes about high ranking Indo European males having tons of children(who were raised by their mother's and were taught a native non-Indo European language) with native women, which would have allowed their Y DNA to become dominate may be an explanation.

In my opinion west Europeans in admixtures look mainly like an mixture of Irish and Sardinians. Irish-like ancestry is probably descended of Indo Europeans who arrived in the bronze age, and Sardinian-like ancestry is probably descended of the first west European farmers. Irish-like ancestry seems to have some east European-specific hunter gatherer ancestry(Baltic component in Eurogenes K13 is a great example), which makes sense if it's descended of Indo Europeans who came from eastern Europe.

Portalon a 4,000BP late Neolithic farmer from Spain though really complicates things, because he seems to have around as much middle eastern ancestry as other early European farmers but some ANE ancestry. Once genomes from copper age south-west Europe, Bell beaker culture, Unetice culture, and Nordic bronze age culture(may be coming soon) are finally sampled we will have a pretty good idea where modern west Europeans(incl. R1b L11) come from.
 
"History will have to be rewritten – astonishing new findings reveal Amesbury is now the oldest place in the country, where history began, and is also the longest continuous settlement in the UK. Previously it was thought that Stonehenge was conceived by European immigrants but this shows that British settlers were behind its construction.Carbon dating from an archaeological dig by the University of Buckingham shows that the parish of Amesbury, which includes Stonehenge, has been continually occupied for every millennium since 8820BC.

Do they really think the people who built stone henge were full-blooded descendants of Mesolithic hunter gatherers who lived there thousands of years before? That is even crazier than saying modern people who live around stone henge are full-blooded decedents of the people who built stone henge. Why are so many people ignorant(seems to be intentional sometimes) to what has been discovered about human genetics?
 
Do they really think the people who built stone henge were full-blooded descendants of Mesolithic hunter gatherers who lived there thousands of years before? That is even crazier than saying modern people who live around stone henge are full-blooded decedents of the people who built stone henge. Why are so many people ignorant(seems to be intentional sometimes) to what has been discovered about human genetics?

At the same place before stonehenge there was a wooden henge dating back to almost 9,000 BC therefore Mesolithic. It might mean that this place was considered holy by both HGs and Farmers, therefore possibly continuation of similar believes related to the site.
The paper (first post) doesn't talk about genetic continuation but only hints at continues occupation of the site and Mesolithic Woodhenge and Neolithic Stonehenge being related to same believes. Possible cultural/religious continuation but not genetic (although there is 30 WHG in England, therefore some genetic continuity too).
 
Do they really think the people who built stone henge were full-blooded descendants of Mesolithic hunter gatherers who lived there thousands of years before? That is even crazier than saying modern people who live around stone henge are full-blooded decedents of the people who built stone henge. Why are so many people ignorant(seems to be intentional sometimes) to what has been discovered about human genetics?

Nobody is suggesting complete genetic continuity in Britain as a whole or in the Stonehenge area over such a long time period, and there's no reason to think that would be necessary in order for the Stonehenge complex to continue to be re-used for thousands of years, especially given that the archeological evidence suggests that the site was frequently restructured and used in different ways during that extensive period of use. That would indicate that there were several revisionings of the site during its continued use, so that it could continue to have meaning to different cultures over the centuries. Regular use of the site seems to have only ceased in the Bronze Age when, as it appears, forest groves replaced henges as the focal points for the spiritual lives of people in Britain.
 
Aberdeen and LeBrok are absolutely correct. This practice of subsequent groups re-using sacred sites is quite common. One of my favorite sites in Rome is the Basilica of St. Clement. It's always part of any walking tour that I recommend. The top level is a Basilica built in 1100 A.D. Below that is a 4th century Basilica that was converted out of the home of a Roman noble. Below even that is a temple to Mithras.
http://www.basilicasanclemente.com/index.php/tour/video

In the near east, archaeologists spend their whole lives excavating tells, digging tunnels down through civilization after civilization, and often, the sacred sites are always in the same place, even though the gods change.

Sometimes the people are newcomers, sometimes not, but they build their sacred precincts in the same location.
 
At the same place before stonehenge there was a wooden henge dating back to almost 9,000 BC therefore Mesolithic. It might mean that this place was considered holy by both HGs and Farmers, therefore possibly continuation of similar believes related to the site.
The paper (first post) doesn't talk about genetic continuation but only hints at continues occupation of the site and Mesolithic Woodhenge and Neolithic Stonehenge being related to same believes. Possible cultural/religious continuation but not genetic (although there is 30 WHG in England, therefore some genetic continuity too).

They said 8820-6590BC, plus they never said these Mesolithic wooden posts were erected at the same site as stone henge, just both are in Amesbury England. Wikpedia mentions that in 8,000BC there were wooden posts erected in west-east alignment(not a henge) in Britain, but was not in the Salisbury Plain like Stone henge, and it was not until the Neolithic that the Salisbury plain was cleared of it's forests by farmers. Wikpedia also says there are known similar structures known from Mesolithic Britain, except some in Scandinavia. The people who built stone henge were apart of a culture that took up much of western Europe at the time, and it probably has nothing to do with these Mesolithic woodon posts.
 

This thread has been viewed 18412 times.

Back
Top