Re: British Vegetarianism is 8,000 years old?
Stewart Mac Intyre (stewart@eutech3.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 17 Oct 1995 00:27:40 GMT
stewart@eutech3.demon.co.uk (Stewart Mac Intyre) wrote:
>I came across this over the weekend. It posses some interesting
>questions to archaeology and anthropology. I would be interested to
>hear other people views on the finds and deductions! Has any other
>sites been found in the UK or World Wide of similar age and social
>culture?
>...
>British Vegetarianism is 8,000 years old?
>'Archaeologists on the Hebridean Island of Colonsay have found
>conclusive evidence of what they believe to be the earliest British
>community of vegetarians. In a shallow, circular pit, the
>archaeologists found the remains of thousands of roasted hazelnuts.
>There was a noticeable absence of animal bones or fish remains. The
>pit has been dated to the Mesolithic period, 8,000 years ago. The
>complete lack of animal remains has convinced experts that Colonsay
>vegetarians lived exclusively on the foods they gleaned from local
>vegetation'
>'The Scale of the activity, unparalleled elsewhere in Scotland,
>suggests the possibility that Colonsay contained a community of
>enforced vegetarians,' reported the Council for British Archaeology.
>... The Vegetarian; Autumn 1995 ...
>...
toomey@denr1.igis.uiuc.edu (Rick Toomey) wrote:
[cut...]
> My first question about the interpretation would be:
>
> Is the lack of bone in the site a result of prehistoric human
> behavior or is it a result of taphonomic processes?
>
> Bone frequently does not preserve well/at all in open-air
> sites. Is there any reason to assume that bone would
> preserve well in this particularly case?
>
> On the other side, there are many sites that do not have
> plant remains but do have bone. Are these evidence of
> cultures that do not use plant products? They certainly
> have not been interpreted as such.
>
> Another important question is about the nature of the site.
> Is the site some sort of "special use" site that does not
> represent the general lifestyle of the people. Or, is the
> site a seasonal occupation that doesn't represent the
> diet of the full year?
>
> I certainly would not say that an 8000 year old vegetarian
> culture is not possible, I would just like to see a more
> complete analysis of the site, before accepting the quoted
> evidence.
beckerms@ucsu.colorado.edu (Becker Mark Steven) wrote:
[cut...]
> Based on the given information, it seems a bit suprising that this site
> is taken as evidence for vegetarianism. Sites like this from this time
> period and others are not uncommon. For example, take many of the New
> World sites in the Great Basin where Native American groups would
> aggregate and collect pinon nuts. This in itself is not evidence for
> vegetarianism but seasonality specialization. Considering that Mesolithic
> people are generally believed to be residentially mobile (people move to
> the food resources as opposed to moving the food resources to the
> people), this type of site is to be expected. Also, I would expect little
> or no other evidence of other foods such as meat or fish at a specialized
> nut collection site. It is very probable that we shall find other
> behavior groups from this time period and same region that have
> specialized hunting or fishing sites that contain no nuts or other plant
> material. In short, this nut collection site is probably part of a
> subsistence system rather than the subsistence system. However, I look
> foward to hearing more details that suggest otherwise.
> Mark
Molnard@pdx.edu (Darin R. Molnar) wrote:
[cut...]
> Hazelnuts must be leached before being eaten. This could have been a leaching
> pit, as well as a storage or roasting pit. What, exactly, is happening
> throughout the site? This is a pretty sweeping statement. . .
>
Callie@writepage.com wrote:
[cut...]
> Unless they excavated the whole island, they can only conclude
> they have found a large 8000 year old hazlenut roasting site.
> One could also conclude from the grinding stones concentrated in some
> Arizona sites that the natives lived exclusively on mesquite beans ...
> when the site was only used for a few weeks a year and only to harvest
> and grind the beans for transport.
> Or you could conclude from the buffalo leaps (which show no signs of
> vegetable diet) that the natives were total carnivores.
> Perhaps the island was periodically visited for harvesting nuts.
Rick, Mark, Darin and Callie seem to have picked up on the same area
of questioning that I started down before posting the thread, thanks
for the examples etc. etc.. I had very mixed feelings when I first
read the article in the Vegetarian Mag. But with the quoted
reported from the British Archaeology, I felt that it would be
interesting to hear what views other people had.
dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
[cut...]
> Well, the story was in British Archaeology, June 1995 -- here are
> some relevant bits:
>
> The story os headed 'Mesolothic food industry on Colonsay'.
>
> "Evidence of large-scale Mesolithic nut processing, some 9,000 years
> old, has been found on the Hebridean island of Colonsay. It provides an unusal
> insight into communal activity and forward planning in the period, and
> raises the intriguing possibility of a Mesolithic community forced by
> circumstances to become temporary vegetarians.'
>
> It goes on to say the pit might 'have been where hazelnuts were roasted and
> shelled, or where they were stored for later use, or simply a kind of land-
> fill dump...'
> The enforced vegetarianism of those on the island may have been because
> 'deer and other large game may not have existed on the isand at the time.'
Thanks Doug ... I was hoping someone would lead us to the original
source and reference. I now have a copy!
namon@ibm.net wrote:
> I cry FOWL! Why would these avid corpse-eaters, who allegedly had
> to stoop to vegetarianism in your opinion, not eat fowl, small game,
> their dogs and cats, as well as fish, and yes, why not each other?
> After all, they say that humans taste like pork. < especially of late, since
> the porker species were enhanced with the human growth gene>
o-boy! :-(
dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
> I'm quoting British Archaeology, but may not have made it clear.
>
> Not my opinions -- it's the Vegetarian Mag. that's arguing that this
> proves something about vegetarianism. I agree about fish and small
> fowl.
Doug gave a good summary of quotes from the original article in the
British Archaeology News June 1995 (page 5) and along with the full
quote (from the source, edited in the Vegetarian Mag.).
... 'The Scale of the activity, unparalleled elsewhere in Scotland
(despite extensive fieldwork) suggests the possibility that Colonsay
contained a community of enforced vegetarians so long as they remained
on the island.' ...
It can be seen why the Vegetarian Mag. picked up on it! However,
it could be said that the Vegetarian Mag. is not incorrect in its
summary, but for the word 'conclusive' and 'exclusively'
>'Archaeologists on the Hebridean Island of Colonsay have found
>conclusive evidence of what they believe to be the earliest British
>community of vegetarians. In a shallow, circular pit, the
>archaeologists found the remains of thousands of roasted hazelnuts.
>There was a noticeable absence of animal bones or fish remains. The
>pit has been dated to the Mesolithic period, 8,000 years ago. The
>complete lack of animal remains has convinced experts that Colonsay
>vegetarians lived exclusively on the foods they gleaned from local
>vegetation' Vegetarian Mag.
If the original article (British Archaeology News June 1995 page 5) is
read some further key points can be noted:
... 'community of forced by circumstances to become temporary
vegetarians' ...
... 'It (Colonsay) had been separated from Islay by 10 Miles of deep
water' ...
... 'intensive plant processing than they would otherwise have been,
simply because of the absence of large game' ...
Out of interest the site is quoted as being a pit:
... 'on a beach close to the shore, and was associated with two
smaller stone-lined pits, whose function remains obscure, a hearth
and a second cluster of pits that remain un-excavated' ...
I would agree with the comments made in the thread about fish, fowl
and small game. Specifically the fish considering the location
(island shore). Also some of the potential reasons for the lack of
animal remains are interesting. Thanks
Stewart Mac Intyre
Stewart@eutech3.demon.co.uk
|