Farming and foraging in Neolithic Ireland: an archaeobotanical perspective.
McClatchie, Meriel ; Bogaard, Amy ; Colledge, Sue 等
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Introduction
The introduction of agriculture is one of the defining
characteristics of the Neolithic in Europe. Ireland, located at
Europe's north-western margin, experienced this transition during
the fourth millennium cal BC. The main crops in Neolithic Ireland
(4000-2500 cal BC) were wheat (Triticum spp.) and barley (Hordeum spp.),
but until recently we knew little about their relative importance, the
intensity of agricultural activity or how their distribution varied
across space and time. International narratives on prehistoric
agriculture rarely mention the Irish evidence, except as an adjunct to
British research, despite indications of divergence between the two
regions (Cooney 2000; Bradley 2007). It is not clear if early
agriculture in Ireland reflects primarily special or symbolic
consumption in 'ritual' contexts (Edmonds 1999; Thomas 2003,
2008), or if crops provided a major component of daily subsistence, as
has been proposed for parts of central Europe (Monk 2000; Jones &
Rowley-Conwy 2007). New findings from a major study of plant
macro-remains from Neolithic Ireland provide insight into the variety of
crops recorded at different times and locations, broadening our
knowledge of Neolithic society.
Arable agriculture in Neolithic Ireland: the story so far
Recent perspectives on the arrival of agriculture into Ireland were
based upon a limited published archaeobotanical dataset, consisting of
10 sites at most (Monk 2000; Colledge et al. 2005; Jones &
Rowley-Conwy 2007; Stevens & Fuller 2012). New archaeobotanical data
have recently become available as a result of the many excavations
associated with large-scale infrastructural developments over the past
two decades (Grogan 2002; Smyth 2014; McClatchie in press). The
excavation reports are, in most cases, completed but unpublished: the
so-called 'grey literature'. A major research project,
"Cultivating Societies: Assessing the Evidence for Agriculture in
Neolithic Ireland", was established to re-evaluate the nature,
timing and extent of agricultural activity (Whitehouse et al. 2010,
2014). This paper presents the results of an analysis of the plant
macro-remains, exploring changes between the earlier and later
Neolithic. Further results are provided elsewhere, including comparison
of data from Ireland and Europe, and analysis of the management of
cultivation plots (McClatchie et al. 2014).
Methods of analysis
Archaeobotanical data were collated from 52 excavated sites (Figure
1), around two-thirds of which were unpublished at the time of
collation. Cereals were recorded at a further 17 Neolithic sites (Figure
1), but excluded from analysis because final excavation reports were
incomplete. As well as collating available radiocarbon dates, the
'Cultivating Societies' project undertook an extensive,
targeted AMS [sup.14]C dating programme, which provided 187 additional
dates to refine site chronologies further (Whitehouse et al. 2014). The
dates were obtained from short-lived species (mainly cereal grains and
hazelnut shell, Corylus avellana L.). They were calibrated and modelled
in OxCal (Bronk Ramsey 2008), using Bayesian statistics to improve
precision. Based on these results and associated archaeological
evidence, five chronological phases were defined: Early Neolithic (I
& II), Middle Neolithic (I & II) and Late Neolithic (Table 1;
Whitehouse et al. 2014). For the purposes of the present analysis, the
Middle Neolithic II and Late Neolithic sites were combined due to the
small number of sites available (five Middle Neolithic II, four Late
Neolithic and two Middle Neolithic II/Late Neolithic). Where calibrated
date ranges spanned different periods, sites were assigned to a broader
Neolithic category (NEO). Analyses explored the frequency of different
categories of plants across time and space, including the use of
cumulative and summed radiocarbon calibrations (cf. Rick 1987) to
investigate dated plant remains. For the purposes of quantification,
three cereal grain fragments were counted as one whole grain. Assessment
of grains per litre of soil could not be undertaken because very few
reports recorded the volume of soil from each individual sample.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Category and chronology of sites
Data from plant macro-remains were available from a total of 437
samples from 390 contexts at 52 sites (Table 2; Online supplementary
material Table S1). The 52 sites were recorded over the course of 47
excavations, most of which yielded material from a single chronological
phase; two excavations produced evidence for multi-phase activity
(Knowth and Lismullin), with each phase treated separately (see Table
SI). The new [sup.14]C dating programme revealed that several sites
contained later material that had become incorporated into Neolithic
deposits (Table S1; Whitehouse et al. 2014). For example, plant remains
dating to the early medieval and later periods were recorded within
Neolithic deposits at Castletown Tara, Knowth, Tankardstown South,
Kilgobbin and Lismullin. Additionally, Mesolithic deposits at
Clowanstown contained plant remains dating to the Neolithic period. The
presence of intrusive material underlines the importance of obtaining
multiple [sup.14]C determinations when attempting to understand the
chronology of Neolithic sites.
Archaeobotanical data were not obtainable from any Early Neolithic
I sites, which reflects the paucity of sites dating to this period
(Whitehouse et al. 2014). Archaeobotanical data from a total of 28 Early
Neolithic II sites were examined (Table 2), the majority of which were
rectangular structures/houses. Pit and post-hole complexes, some of
which probably represent the fragmentary remains of structures,
dominated the 10 Middle Neolithic I sites examined (Table 2). Eleven
sites were dated from the Middle Neolithic II to the Late Neolithic
period (Table 2), including pit/post-hole complexes, structures and
passage tombs. Three sites were assigned to the NEO period, as they
could not be dated to any specific sub-period (Table 2).
Plant remains were present in a wide variety of contexts (Figure
2). At the Early Neolithic II sites, they were mainly recorded in
structural features, such as slot-trenches and post-holes. Plant remains
were also recorded in pits, ditches, hearths and burnt mounds/troughs.
At the Middle Neolithic I sites, most plant remains were recorded in
pits and occasionally in structural features. Most plant remains at the
Middle Neolithic II to Late Neolithic sites were found in structural
features and pits, as well as in hearths, and turf layers and mound
deposits associated with tombs. The vast majority of plant remains were
preserved by charring. Waterlogged remains were recorded at just three
sites: Clowanstown burnt mounds, turf layers at Newgrange passage tomb
and ditch fills at Rathdooney Beg barrow.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
Plant categories recorded
Several plant categories were recorded at the 52 examined sites.
Hazelnut-shell remains were most common, being present at 87% of sites
(45/52), closely followed by cereal remains, which were recorded at 77%
of sites (40/52). Fruit remains were present at approximately one-fifth
of sites (19%; 10/52), dominated by crab-apple {Malus sylvestris L.) and
bramble (.Rubus spp.), with occasional evidence for elder (Sambucus
nigra L.). Other wild plant remains were found at almost half of the
examined sites (46%; 24/52); many appear to represent inadvertent
harvesting of arable weeds growing alongside the cereals. Flax (Linum
usitatissimum L.) remains were relatively rare, being recorded at only
4% of sites (2/52; including [sup.14]C-dated flax). Fabaceae seeds (pea
family) were present at 2% of sites (1/52), but it is probable that
these represent wild plants rather than cultivated legumes. Although pea
(Pisum sativum L.) remains were found in a Neolithic deposit at
Castletown Tara, [sup.14]C dating revealed that they were medieval
(UBA-14682: 374T28 BP, cal AD 1447-1631).
Analysis of the types of plants recorded during different time
periods revealed interesting patterns (Figure 3). Cereals were present
at 86% (24/28) and 90% (9/10) of the Early Neolithic II and Middle
Neolithic I sites, respectively. This contrasts sharply with evidence
from the Middle Neolithic II to Late Neolithic sites, where cereals were
recorded at only 36% of sites (4/11; two Middle Neolithic II sites and
two Late Neolithic sites). Furthermore, none of the Middle Neolithic II
to Late Neolithic cereals have been directly dated, and it is possible
that at least some may reflect later activity at Neolithic sites. While
the difference between earlier and later periods seems striking, formal
statistical testing is not straightforward, because insufficient
information is available on the number and volume of deposits sampled at
each site, and it is possible that the pattern is influenced by
differences in sampling strategies (discussed in greater detail below).
Cumulative radiocarbon calibrations of directly dated cereal remains
(Figures 4 & S2) indicate that agriculture appeared simultaneously
in all areas of Ireland during the Early Neolithic II period. Very few
radiocarbon dates are available from either cereals or hazelnut shell
during the later Neolithic (Figure 5).
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Hazelnut shell remains were commonly present at both the Early
Neolithic II and Middle Neolithic I sites (93% or 26/28 Early Neolithic
II sites; 90% or 9/10 Middle Neolithic I sites). During the Middle
Neolithic II to Late Neolithic period, there was a decrease in the
number of sites where nutshell remains were recorded (73% or 8/11
sites), although not as marked as that seen with cereals. Fruit remains
were recorded at just under one-fifth of Early Neolithic II sites
(5/28), absent from the Middle Neolithic I sites and present at just
over one-third of the Middle Neolithic II to Late Neolithic sites
(4/11). Remains of other wild plants were found at around half of all
the Early Neolithic II and Middle Neolithic II to Late Neolithic sites
(14/28, 6/11), but at just under one-third of the Middle Neolithic I
sites (3/10). Flax was present at a small number of the Early Neolithic
II sites (2/28) but absent from later deposits. A further discovery of
flax, directly [sup.14]C-dated to the Middle Neolithic I, was reported
at Tullahedy in County Tipperary, after the collation of data was
completed (McClatchie 2011).
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Many of the cereal remains from the Early Neolithic II sites were
associated with rectangular structures. Cereals were most often found in
the slot-trenches, but were also present in associated post-holes,
post-pits, stake-holes and pits. Almost all of the Middle Neolithic I
sites contained cereal remains, most often recovered from pit/posthole
complexes. In contrast, most of the Middle Neolithic II to Late
Neolithic sites did not contain cereal remains. Where cereals were
recorded, they were associated only with structures/possible structures.
Cereals were absent from the Middle Neolithic II to Late Neolithic
burial sites and pit/post-hole complexes.
Where data were available, the number of cereal grains at each site
was assessed (30 of the 40 sites where cereals were recorded). Most
sites contained between 1 and 25 grains. Large cereal assemblages (more
than 100 grains) were recorded at five sites, of which four were dated
to Early Neolithic II (>400 grains from possible structure at
Caherabbey Upper; >700 grains from rectangular house at Caw; >150
grains from burnt mounds at Clowanstown; >2100 grains from
rectangular houses at Tankardstown South), with the fifth being a NEO
site (>250 grains from cremation pit complex and other activity at
Castletown Tara). The exact quantities were not reported for 10 sites
where cereals were present, but re-analysis of the plant remains from
Middle Neolithic I Baltinglass passage tomb has revealed another large
cereal assemblage (>150 grains).
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Cereal types present
The cereal remains consisted of wheat and barley (Figure 6). Wheat
dominated at the Early Neolithic II sites, but barley was also recorded
at just over half of these. Wheat again dominated at the Middle
Neolithic I sites, with barley recorded at less than one-quarter of
sites. Barley was found at slightly more of the Middle Neolithic II to
Late Neolithic sites than wheat, but this is based on a very small
number of sites (four), and may not be representative of cereal
preferences during this later period. No geographic or environmental
patterning is apparent in the occurrence of wheat and barley, but the
lack of sites in western areas limits the reliability of this
observation.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
Although oat was present at eight sites, [sup.14]C dating of the
oat grains at two of these sites (Monanny and Lismullin) revealed that
the grains were later intrusions rather than Neolithic. Oat remains
have, however, been directly radiocarbon dated to the Early Neolithic at
Balbridie in Scotland (Fairweather & Ralston 1993). Oat is unlikely
to have been cultivated during the Neolithic period, instead reflecting
wild oat as a weed of wheat and barley crops (Zohary et al. 2012).
Where identifiable beyond indeterminate wheat or barley, a variety
of wheat and barley types were recorded, including emmer wheat (Triticum
dicoccum Schlibl.), possible einkorn wheat (T. monococcum L.), naked
wheat (T. aestivum/durum/turgidum L.), hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare
L.) and naked barley (H. vulgare L. var. nudum) (Figure 7). Emmer wheat
was the dominant cereal type during the Early Neolithic II and Middle
Neolithic I periods. There are also a small number of records of naked
wheat and possible einkorn wheat. It should be noted, however, that only
grains from naked wheat and possible einkorn wheat were present; chaff
rather than grain is a more reliable indicator of wheat species (Hillman
et al. 1996). Naked barley was more commonly recorded than hulled barley
during the Early Neolithic II period.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Turning to the Middle Neolithic II to Late Neolithic sites,
although emmer wheat and naked wheat were both present, the small number
of sites precludes determination of which wheat type was more important.
In the case of naked wheat, chaff was again absent. Barley was present
but not identified to type.
Variety of crops present
While cereals were recorded at the majority of examined sites, most
individual sites contained evidence for only one crop type (wheat or
barley; Figure 8). This trend was most noticeable at the Middle
Neolithic I sites, where only 11% (1/9) of sites containing crops
revealed evidence for more than one type. By contrast, more than one
crop type was recorded at over 40% of the Early Neolithic II sites
(10/24). It is notable that where barley was present, it was often a
component of a mixed assemblage. Flax was similarly only recorded at
sites where a variety of crops was present.
It is probable that the number of bulk soil samples analysed from
each site has influenced the variety of crops recovered. Most sites do
not have a record of the total number of samples analysed (i.e. the
number of samples where plant remains were present and absent), but an
assessment could be undertaken of the number of samples where plant
remains were recorded. At sites where cereals were absent (Figure 9),
only five or fewer samples at each site contained any type of non-wood
plant macro-remains. This was particularly apparent at the Middle
Neolithic II to Late Neolithic sites; cereals were absent from many of
these, but wild plants were also relatively rare, being present in very
few deposits. This suggests that either plant-related activities were
not significant at these sites or, more probably, that too few samples
were taken to reflect plant use properly. Conversely, a wider variety of
crops was more often found at sites where plant remains were present in
a larger number of samples.
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]
Discussion
The inclusion of unpublished sources along with published
literature reveals a much larger quantity and variety of evidence than
acknowledged in previous studies. Cereals, hazelnut shells and fruits
have, in fact, been found at many sites. Emmer wheat was the most
important cereal, while barley (naked and hulled) and flax were also
recorded. The earliest evidence for cereals was mainly associated with
the Early Neolithic II rectangular houses. Although these rectangular
houses were relatively short-lived, having been built and occupied for
not more than a century (McSparron 2008; Whitehouse et al. 2014),
agriculture persisted, continuing into the Middle Neolithic I period.
There does appear to have been a significant shift in behaviour,
however, from the Middle Neolithic II period, when both cereals and
'domestic' structures become rarer in the archaeological
record. Interpreting this change is made difficult by the fact that
rectangular houses are the most intensively sampled sites, and their
disappearance provides us with far fewer well-sampled sites.
Although radiocarbon dates indicate that cereals were present
across Ireland in the Early Neolithic II period, 3750-3600 cal BC
(Figure 4), the geographic distribution of Irish sites containing
cereals suggests an eastern and southern bias (Figures 1 & 4). It
would be unwise to infer that this indicates early agriculture was
focused on the eastern and southern seaboards, as this distribution is
strongly influenced by the locations of recent infrastructural
developments that involved large numbers of archaeological excavations.
Fewer large-scale infrastructural projects have been carried out in
western and northern areas of Ireland, which may explain why fewer
Neolithic excavations have been undertaken there. Interestingly, the
Irish pollen record reveals strong evidence for early agriculture around
the north and west coasts of Ireland (Whitehouse et al. 2014). When
combined, the plant macro-remains and palynological evidence indicate
that farming activities were probably carried out in all coastal areas
of the island. In contrast, sites in the Irish midlands often show
rather muted or unclear anthropogenic signals in their pollen records
(Selby et al. 2005), suggesting limited landscape use by farming
communities. This corresponds with archaeological evidence, as there are
relatively few Early Neolithic II sites in the midlands, despite the
completion of many modern infrastructural projects in the region
(Whitehouse et al. 2014).
The earliest cereal macro-remains in Ireland date to the Early
Neolithic II period, suggesting that arable farming was not firmly
established until c. 3750 cal BC, although there are occasional examples
where the date ranges extend earlier (Figures 4 & S2). The absence,
thus far, of cereal remains from the Early Neolithic I period is
significant. The earliest evidence for domesticated animal remains in
Ireland has been found at Ferriter's Cove, County Kerry, where
cattle bone was dated to the mid-fifth millennium cal BC, thus
pre-dating the Neolithic by some centuries (Woodman et al. 1999). No
further secure records (that do not suffer from large age ranges) of
early domesticated animal remains have been uncovered, and thus
Ferriter's Cove may represent an early phase of contact,
'failed' colonisation or simply the remains of a joint of meat
transported over to Ireland (Sheridan 2010; Rowley-Conwy 2011). During
the Early Neolithic I period, there are rare examples of engagement with
Neolithic practices; for example, the construction of the Magheraboy
causewayed enclosure, although dating of this site is potentially
problematic, given how much earlier it is than similar enclosures across
Britain (Cooney et al. 2011). More secure is the recent comprehensive
dating and Bayesian modelling of human bone from the Poulnabrone portal
tomb, placing the beginning of deposition here firmly before 3750 cal BC
(Schulting 2014). It was not until the Early Neolithic II period,
however, that the full Neolithic 'package', including arable
farming, was embraced across Ireland. Due to a paucity of sites, the
economic basis of the preceding Early Neolithic I period remains unclear
and should be a focus for further research.
Cereals were mainly associated with the Early Neolithic II and
Middle Neolithic I sites, having been recovered from over 85% of them.
Early Neolithic II rectangular houses, Middle Neolithic I pit complexes
and other 'domestic' features dominate among the sites where
cereals were recorded. Sites that were not 'domestic' in
character, such as Baltinglass passage tomb, also contained
[sup.14]-dated cereal remains, highlighting their use in many different
locations and circumstances. Cereals were recorded in large quantities
at several sites, emphasising the importance of agriculture to at least
some communities. Even where cereals were recorded in small quantities,
the significance of gaining access to this new food, and the importance
of farming in developing new identities and relationships, should not be
underestimated. It is the regularity, rather than the quantity, with
which cereals are recorded from earlier sites that is more important,
especially given the truncated nature of many sites. This regularity of
appearance in many different contexts probably reflects daily, recurrent
behaviour, instead of special activities (see Fuller et al. 2014).
Earlier Neolithic communities were creating a sense of place not
only through the houses and tombs they built, but also through
cultivation plots, which were long-lived rather than temporary. Analysis
of the ecological attributes of arable weeds reveal that the earliest
farmers in Neolithic Ireland, Britain and elsewhere in northern Europe
were engaged in intensive management of relatively long-lived plots of
at least 10 years (McClatchie et al. 2014). Considerable resources were
invested in the creation and maintenance of plots, and when we also
consider the evidence for widespread uptake of farming, we can surmise
that agriculture had a significant impact on the daily lives of
communities. This does not mean that people turned away from foraging,
which continued to play a role, as evidenced by the recovery of hazelnut
remains at many sites, as well as fruits and other edible and useful
wild plants. Farming and foraging can be complementary components in
food-procurement strategies. Nut- and fruit-producing trees and shrubs
can quickly become established at the borders of ground cleared for
arable plots, thereby creating, perhaps temporarily, a more productive
and diverse food base. Such niches may also have been deliberately
encouraged along hedgerows, in the corners of fields or in set-aside
plots (Johnston 2005; 216).
Several European studies have highlighted an increase in the use of
wild plants during the later Neolithic; for example, in southern
Scotland (Bishop et al. 2009) and alpine areas of central Europe
(Jacomet 2007). In the latter region, extensive waterlogged preservation
has enabled the recovery of a greater variety of Neolithic wild-plant
foods than those found in charred assemblages (Colledge & Conolly
2014). In the case of Ireland, a decrease in the incidence of hazelnut
shell and an increase in fruit remains occurred during the Middle
Neolithic II to Late Neolithic period (fruits were found at the same
number of sites as cereals: 4/11 sites). The increase in fruit remains
may reflect diversification in food strategies or an increase in
suitable habitats for fruit procurement, such as increasingly open
woodlands, and perhaps promotional strategies to encourage growth
(Brozio et al. 2014; Whitehouse & Kirleis 2014).
One of the most remarkable aspects of the archaeobotanical record
from later Neolithic Ireland relates to cereals. When compared with the
earlier Neolithic (Early Neolithic II and Middle Neolithic I), cereals
were present at very few of the Middle Neolithic II to Late Neolithic
sites (only two Middle Neolithic II and two Late Neolithic sites). This
may reflect changes in storage, cooking or housing facilities, which
would affect the recovery of archaeobotanical remains, as has been
argued for in Spain (Antolin et al. 2015). Alternatively, the decrease
may imply that cereals became less important during the Middle Neolithic
II period; this situation may have continued into the Late Neolithic
period. Indeed, Stevens and Fuller (2012) have argued that cereals were
largely abandoned during the later Neolithic in parts of Britain, based
on a paucity of directly dated cereal remains when compared with
directly dated wild-plant remains. More recent analyses indicate,
however, that arable agriculture continued to be an important activity
in several regions of Scotland during the later Neolithic (Bishop 2015).
The picture from Ireland is also somewhat more complex. While there are
very few directly dated cereal remains from the later Neolithic, there
are also very few directly dated wild-plant remains (Figure 5),
providing a contrast with Stevens and Fuller's model.
The archaeobotanical evidence from Ireland does not support a
clear-cut increase in gathered foods at the expense of cereals, and we
cannot assume that there was a simple shift from cultivated to
wild-plant food strategies. Furthermore, the human stable carbon and
nitrogen isotope data do not indicate any return to the use of marine
foods along the coasts at this time (Schulting 2013), which one might
expect had farming comprehensively 'failed'. The pollen data
suggest a period of woodland regeneration, perhaps at the expense of
agricultural land (Whitehouse et al. 2014), but this does not
necessarily reflect increased pastoralism. Existing Irish data for
animal bone (Schulting 2013) and pottery lipids (Cramp et al. 2014) have
yet to provide a clear indication of maintained or increased pastoral
activity when compared with the earlier Neolithic. It thus remains far
from clear what the varying contribution of cultivars vs pastoral foods
was at this time.
Conclusions
This study represents the most comprehensive investigation of plant
macro-remains evidence from Neolithic Ireland to date. Cereals were
present at many sites during the earlier Neolithic, sometimes in large
quantities. Emmer wheat was the dominant crop, but barley was also
recorded at many sites. Flax was a further component of early
agriculture in Ireland, but cultivated legumes were not. Cereals were
recorded mainly at house structures and pit complexes, but also at tombs
and other 'non-domestic' locations. Analysis of arable weeds
indicated that Ireland's earliest farmers created a sense of place
and ownership by investing in fixed-plot intensive agriculture.
The picture from later Neolithic Ireland is far less clear. Plant
remains have been found at only a small number of sites. The rarity of
cereals may reflect a decrease in the importance of arable agriculture,
but a corresponding shift towards wild plants should not be
automatically assumed. The results of this study enable Ireland to be
considered in more detail when exploring the introduction and
development of agriculture in Neolithic Europe than has previously been
possible due to the unpublished status of much of the data.
doi: 10.15184/aqy.2015.212
Acknowledgements
The work reported here was funded by the Heritage Council, Ireland,
under the IN STAR programme 2008-2010 for the project 'Cultivating
Societies: Assessing the Evidence for Agriculture in Neolithic
Ireland' (Reference 16682 to Whitehouse, Schulting, Bogaard and
McClatchie). We would like to express our thanks to our project
partners, who provided invaluable advice and assistance: Jane Bunting
(University of Hull); Finbar McCormick (QUB); Finola O'Carroll
(CRDS Ltd, Republic of Ireland); Alison Sheridan (National Museums
Scotland); Jessica Smyth (University of Cardiff); Ronan Swan (National
Roads Authority); and Graeme Warren (UCD). The following archaeologists,
archaeobotanists and organisations are thanked for discussions, and for
providing access to Neolithic data and plant remains: ACS; ADS; Aegis
Archaeology; AML Archaeology; Arthur ApSimon; Centre for Archaeological
Fieldwork, QUB; James Conolly, Trent University; CRDS; Department of
Archaeology, UCC; Catherine Dunne; Eachtra Archaeological Projects;
Allan Hall, University of York; Rubicon Heritage; IAC; Judith Carroll
Network Archaeology; Kilkenny Archaeology; Susan Lyons; Margaret Gowen;
NAC; National Monuments Service; National Museum of Ireland; National
Roads Authority; School of Archaeology, UCD; Stafford McLoughlin
Archaeology; Stephen Shennan, UCL; TVAS Ireland; Ulster Museum; Valerie
J. Keeley. We would finally like to thank the editors and reviewers of
this paper for their helpful comments.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.15184/aqy.2015.212
References
ANTOLIN, E, S. JACOMET & R. BUXO. 2015. The hard-knock life.
Archaeobotanical data on farming practices during the Neolithic
(5400-2300 cal BC) in the NE of the Iberian Peninsula. Journal of
Archaeological Science 61: 90-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.05.007
BISHOP, R.R. 2015. Did Late Neolithic farming fail or flourish? A
Scottish perspective on the evidence for Late Neolithic arable
cultivation in the British Isles. World Archaeology 47: 834-55.
BISHOP, R.R., M.J. CHURCH & P.A. ROWLEY-CONWY. 2009. Cereals,
fruits and nuts in the Scottish Neolithic. Proceedings of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland 135: 47-103.
BRADLEY, R. 2007. The prehistory of Britain and Ireland. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618574
BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2008. Deposition models for chronological records.
Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 42-60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.019
BROZIO, J.P., W. DORFLER, I. FEESER, W. KIRLEIS, S. KLOOSS & J.
MULLER. 2014. A Middle Neolithic well from northern Germany: a precise
source to reconstruct water supply management, subsistence economy, and
deposition practices. Journal of Archaeological Science 51: 135-53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.03.029
COLLEDGE, S. & J. CONOLLY. 2014. Wild plant use in European
Neolithic subsistence economies: a formal assessment of preservation
bias in archaeobotanical assemblages and the implications for
understanding changes in plant diet breadth. Quaternary Science Reviews
101:193-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.07.013
COLLEDGE, S., J.W. CONOLLY & S.J. SHENNAN. 2005. The evolution
of Neolithic farming from SW Asian origins to NW European limits.
European Journal of Archaeology 8: 137-56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461957105066937
COONEY, G. 2000. Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. London:
Routledge.
COONEY, G., A. BAYLISS, F. Healy, A. Whittle, E. Danaher, L.
Cagney, J.P. Mallory, J. Smyth, T. Kador & M. O'Sullivan. 2011.
Ireland, in A. Whittle, F. Healy & A. Bayliss (ed.) Gathering time:
dating the Early Neolithic enclosures of southern Britain and
Ireland'. 562-669. Oxford: Oxbow.
CRAMP, L.J.E., J. JONES, A. SHERIDAN, J. SMYTH, H. WHELTON, J.
MULVILLE, N. SHARPLES & R.P. EVERSHED. 2014. Immediate replacement
of fishing with dairying by the earliest farmers of the northeast
Atlantic archipelagos. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20132372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2372
Cultivating societies, n.d. Available at:
http://www.chrono.qub.ac.uk/instar (accessed 9 December 2015).
EDMONDS, M. 1999. Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic:
landscape, monuments and memory. London: Routledge.
FAIRWEATHER, A.D. & I.B.M. RALSTON. 1993. The Neolithic timber
hall at Balbridie, Grampian region, Scotland: the building, the date,
the plant macrofossils. Antiquity 67: 313-23.
FULLER, D.Q., C.J. STEVENS & M. MCCLATCHIE. 2014. Routine
activities, tertiary refuse and labor organization: social inferences
from everyday archaeobotany, in M. Madella, C. Lancelotti & M.
Savard (ed.) Ancient plants and people: contemporary trends in
archaeobotany: 174-217. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
GROGAN, E. 2002. Neolithic houses in Ireland: a broader
perspective. Antiquity 76: 517-25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00090645
HILLMAN, G.C., S. MASON, D. DE MOULINS & M. NESBITT. 1996.
Identification of archaeological remains of wheat: the 1992 London
workshop. Circaea 12: 195-209.
JACOMET, S. 2007. Neolithic plant economies in the northern alpine
foreland from 5500-3500 cal BC, in S. Colledge & J. Conolly (ed.)
The origins and spread of domestic plants in southwest Asia and Europe:
221-58. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.
JOHNSTON, R. 2005. A social archaeology of garden plots in the
Bronze Age of northern and western Britain. World Archaeology 37:
211-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438240500094853
JONES, G. & P. ROWLEY-CONWY. 2007. On the importance of cereal
cultivation in the British Neolithic, in S. Colledge & J. Conolly
(ed.) The origins and spread of domestic plants in southwest Asia and
Europe'. 391-419. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.
MCCLATCHIE, M. 2011. Analysis of non-wood plant macro-remains, in
R.M. Cleary & H. Kelieher (ed.) Archaeological excavations at
Tullahedy, County Tipperary: Neolithic settlement in north Munster.
162-85. Cork: Collins.
--In press. Cultivating societies: assessing the evidence for
cereal remains in Neolithic Ireland, in M. McClatchie, N.J. Whitehouse
& R.J. Schulting (ed.) Living landscapes: exploring Neolithic
Ireland and its wider context.
MCCLATCHIE, M., A. BOGAARD, S. COLLEDGE, N.J. WHITEHOUSE, R.J.
SCHULTING, P. BARRATT & T.R. MCLAUGHLIN. 2014. Neolithic farming in
north-western Europe: archaeobotanical evidence from Ireland. Journal of
Archaeological Science 51: 206-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.022
MCSPARRON, C. 2008. Have you no homes to go to? Archaeology Ireland
22(3): 18-21.
MONK, M.A. 2000. Seeds and soils of discontent: an environmental
archaeological contribution to the nature of the Early Neolithic, in A.
Desmond, G. Johnson, M. McCarthy, J. Sheehan & E. Shee Twohig (ed.)
New agendas in Irish prehistory: papers in commemoration of Liz
Anderson: 67-87. Bray: Wordwell.
RICK, J.W. 1987. Dates as data: an examination of the Peruvian
preceramic radiocarbon record. American Antiquity 52: 55-73.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/281060
ROWLEY-CONWY, P 2011. Westward Ho! The spread of agriculturalism
from central Europe to the Atlantic. Current Anthropology 52(S4):
S431-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/658368
SCHULTING, R.J. 2013. On the northwestern fringes: earlier
Neolithic subsistence in Britain and Ireland as seen through faunal
remains and stable isotopes, in S. Colledge, J. Conolly, K. Dobney, K.
Manning & S. Shennan (ed.) The origins and spread of stock-keeping
in the Near East and Europe. 313-38. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.
--2014. The dating of Poulnabrone, Co. Clare, in A. Lynch (ed.)
Poulnabrone: an early Neolithic portal tomb in Ireland: 93-113. Dublin:
Wordwell.
SELBY, K.A., C.E. O'BRIEN, A.G. BROWN & I. STUIJTS. 2005.
A multi-proxy study of Holocene lake development, lake settlement and
vegetation history in central Ireland. Journal of Quaternary Science 20:
147-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jqs.891
SHERIDAN, A. 2010. The Neolithization of Britain and Ireland: the
'big picture', in B. Finlayson & G. Warren (ed.)
Landscapes in transition: 89-105. Oxford: Oxbow.
SMYTH, J. 2014. Settlements in the Irish Neolithic: new discoveries
on the edge of Europe (Prehistoric Society Research Papers 6). Oxford:
Oxbow.
STEVENS, C.J. & D.Q. FULLER. 2012. Did Neolithic farming fail?
The case for a Bronze Age agricultural revolution in the British Isles.
Antiquity 86: 707-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00047864
Thomas, J. 2003. Thoughts on the 'repacked' Neolithic
revolution. Antiquity 77: 67-74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00061354
--2008. The Mesolithic--Neolithic transition in Britain, in J.
Pollard (ed.) Prehistoric Britain: 58-89. Oxford: Blackwell.
WHITEHOUSE, N.J. & W. Kirleis. 2014. The world reshaped:
practices and impacts of early agrarian societies. Journal of
Archaeological Science 51: 1-11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2014.08.007
WHITEHOUSE, N.J., M. MCCLATCHIE, P. BARRATT, R. SCHULTING, T.R.
MCLAUGHLIN & A. BOGAARD. 2010. INSTAR--Cultivating societies.
Archaeology Ireland 24: 16-19.
WHITEHOUSE, N.J., R.J. SCHULTING, M. MCCLATCHIE, P. BARRATT, T.R.
MCLAUGHLIN, A. BOGAARD, S. COLLEDGE, R. MARCHANT, J. GAFFREY, P. REIMER
& M.J. BUNTING. 2014. Neolithic agriculture on the European western
frontier: the boom and bust of early farming in Ireland. Journal of
Archaeological Science 51:181-205.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.08.009
WOODMAN, P.C., E. ANDERSON & N. FINLAY. 1999. Excavations at
Ferriter's Cove, 1983-95: last foragers, first farmers in the
Dingle Peninsula. Bray: Wordwell.
ZOHARY, D., M. HOPF & E. WEISS. 2012. Domestication of plants
in the Old World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199549061.001.0001
Received: 24 November 2014; Accepted: 20 February 2015: Revised: 21
July 2015
Meriel McClatchie (1,2), Amy Bogaard (3), Sue Colledge (4), Nicki
J. Whitehouse (2,5), Rick J. Schulting (3), Philip Barratt (2,5) &
T. Rowan McLaughlin (2)
(1) School of Archaeology, University College Dublin, Newman
Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Republic of Ireland (Email:
meriel.mcclatchie@gmail.com)
(2) School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology,
Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 INN, UK
(3) School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, 36 Beaumont
Street, Oxford OX1 2PG, UK
(4) Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 31-34
Gordon Square, London WC1H OPY, UK
(5) School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Plymouth
University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK
Table 1. Chronology of the Neolithic in Ireland.
Period Date range
Early Neolithic I 4000-3750 cal BC
II 3750-3600 cal BC
Middle Neolithic I 3600-3400 cal BC
II 3400-3000 cal BC
Late Neolithic 3000-2500 cal BC
Table 2. Types of site where archaeobotanical remains were recorded.
Period No. sites Types of sites
Early Neolithic II 28 17 rectangular structures or
'houses' (single and multiple),
3 pit complexes, 3
non-rectangular structures, 1
causewayed enclosure (2 sites),
1 barrow, 2 burnt mounds
Middle Neolithic I 10 7 pit/post-hole complexes, 2
structures, 1 passage tomb
Middle Neolithic II 11 5 pit/post-hole complexes, 4
to Late Neolithic structures, 2 passage tombs
NEO 3 1 cremation pit complex and
settlement, 1 structure,
1 palisade
