© Unknown
The changes that came about with the adoption of farming were radical indeed. Exactly why the change took place is still something of an archaeological mystery, but in reality it is likely that across the UK it occurred in many different ways, hence the problems for those archaeologists who seek a 'universal truth'. What we do know is that the cattle, sheep and crops that were the mainstays of the farmers' new lifestyle were not native to Britain; someone - or some people - must have introduced them, so there was, at least, an element of incursion. In some places these 'new fangled' features may well have been made use of by local hunters who were keen, or predisposed, to new ways. The mobile hunter-gatherer population of Britain are hardly likely to have been taken by surprise by the innovations offered by farming communities as they settled on to UK shores. The channel would hardly be a boundary to a society of seafarers whose intimate knowledge of the land meant that many of the ways by which farmers could husband their crops and animals must have made sense. At the same time, other activities such as inter-marriage or exchange of goods may well have played a part in the adoption of new ways; in some places episodes of aggression, even genocide, may have taken place.
Consequences of change
For my part, I am interested in the consequences rather than the mechanism of the change. Within a couple of hundred years of the arrival of the first sheep on British shores, it seems that the hunter-gatherer way of life had all but disappeared across the UK. Interestingly, the first Neolithic houses and monuments have very similar dates wherever they occur. From the south coast of England to the archipelago of Orkney the earliest archaeological evidence of farmers dates to the years around 3800 BC. Of course, this is only the stage at which we, as archaeologists, can find and recognise remains that we would classify as Neolithic. Nevertheless, it seems that farming was highly successful and it spread quickly. What is curious to me is the way in which all trace of the preceding Mesolithic apparently disappears around this time. A whole people apparently abandoned everything that identified them as a community - their way of life, their tool kit, their houses, religion, customs, rituals and even their diet: it was a complete switch of material culture in its widest expression - everything changed.
And these new changes, the changes brought about by farming, have had long term implications that continue to resonate today. Many of our common illnesses first developed at this time as people settled down, lived in larger communities, in close proximity to their animals, and dealt with waste and new foods. Fertile lands had to be managed; there is evidence of sophisticated manuring and fertilisation techniques from early on. Our relationship with the world began to change; we could practise control, but not on everything. Increased stresses included a fear of the wild: unproductive wild lands; wild animals; wild plants; and vermin. There was also the fear of famine, of uncontrollable weather. It was at this time that we first see a marked change in our attitudes to hunter-gatherers.
This is not to say that farming did not bring benefits, there were indeed advantages but there was also always a sting. More reliable food led to population increase, encouraged by the farmers' need for a workforce; with time these new adults needed land. Food surplus and a settled lifestyle facilitated innovation; we can track an exponential increase in technological development to the present day. Our addiction to energy took off: from hand drawn prehistoric ards, to oxen led medieval ploughs, to water and then steam, the emerging dominance of oil as a fuel in the 19th century, and our current package of nuclear/wind/wave. We have always needed energy but we can no longer provide it for ourselves.
Hunter-gatherer lifestyle
It is easy to sound depressing, but there are key traits of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that have survived down the millennia, albeit in a way that has left little separate material, archaeological, expression. Today, many of these traits occupy a high status role, despite their almost complete physical disappearance with the introduction of farming. Elements such as hunting and fishing, and the consumption of shellfish, for example all occupy 'special' places in British culture, though the archaeological evidence suggests that the resources of sea and moor were almost completely abandoned when the mainstay of life shifted to farmed animals and crops. Other traits are beginning to resurface in ways that may well hold some of the keys to the future. Increasing elements of our attitude to food, leisure, self sufficiency, and medicine all hark back to different times.
Nevertheless, the lessons of archaeology are never simple. Of course we could solve the problems of today if we reverted to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but global populations and changed circumstances make that impossible. This is not what I am advocating, and it is important to realise that there is no simple one stop solution. An analysis of the past offers more general advice; it is advice that we can heed, though we may not like the message. We need, for example, to reduce our individual energy consumption: we can do that. Insulation; appropriate generation; higher maintenance; local use; less gadgetry: the technology is there. We need to become more self-sufficient: we can do that; we need to re-embrace the local. We need to take a step back and consider the realities of progress, has our headlong rush taken us along the right path or are there alternatives? Economies of scale can be false economies; increasing specialisation can be loss of wisdom; industry can reduce ability.
A different perspective
There is a growing realisation that life, as we live it, is not sustainable and we should all be concerned. We devote books, magazines, courses and think tanks to the problem. But the existing analysis is shallow, it focuses on the present. We need to add the deeper understanding of time. Only by doing this can we understand the current issues: climate change; resource depletion; food scares, these are mere symptoms, not the problem.
In the end this is a book about questions not answers. Hopefully it provides the information to take a different perspective. You might not agree with me, but hopefully it will get you thinking. If we do not ask the right questions, we can never find the right answers. We need to get to the roots of the issues that concern us today. My contention is that archaeology has more to offer than an evening in front of Time Team. Deep archaeology is no longer just that boring sondage at the bottom of the trench; it is of relevance to the very basis of our lives today. It is exciting.
Archaeologists are good at digging, wearing stupid hats & grubbing around in middens, but that’s about it.