Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Caching your savings: The use of small-scale storage in European prehistory

Penny Cunningham
Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QE, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Understanding of European prehistoric storage practices tends to focus on the long-term and large-scale storage of cereals from the Neolithic onwards. In addition, storage is often associated with the development of sedentism and social complexity. Through the use of anthropological and ethnographic data this paper demonstrates that storage by both huntergatherers and farmers is more complex. New storage categories, such as closed and open caches, and portable storage, are suggested as ways of understanding whether similar storage practices were used during European prehistory. We learn that although direct evidence for storage is difcult to nd in the archaeological record, a combination of ethnographic data and indirect evidence demonstrates that storage, especially this use of small-scale storage, was practiced in prehistory. In the conclusion, this paper demonstrates that storage during the Mesolithic (11,3006000 BP) would have played a vital role in the lifeways of huntergatherers and that for the Neolithic (6000 4500 BP) the use of small-scale storage of a variety of foods would have been equally important as the storage of grain. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 6 February 2010 Revision received 21 August 2010 Available online 22 January 2011 Keywords: Storage Caches Portable storage Ethnographic Pits Huntergatherers Farmers Mesolithic Neolithic

Introduction A number of archaeological and anthropological papers published in the 1980s concluded that huntergatherers would only use storage under exceptional circumstances and that storage leads to greater levels of social complexity and sedentism. In turn, storing food restricts or even prevents mobility (Binford, 1980; Halstead and OShea, 1989; Ingold, 1983; OShea, 1981; Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil, 1989; Soffer, 1989; Testart, 1982; Woodburn, 1980). Consequently, within archaeological literature discussions on the use of storage by mobile huntergatherers during European prehistory is limited to only the occasional use of small-scale storage; whereas discussions focusing on the use of storage by farmers tends to centre on the large-scale and long-term storage of cereals. One could argue that the main problem with understanding storage practices in prehistory lies in the direct evidence of storage, in the form of pits, granaries, pottery vessels and silos in the Neolithic and subsequent periods and the lack of such direct evidence during the Mesolithic (Cunningham, 2008, 2010). However, as Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil (1989, p. 40) suggested, in situations where direct evidence of storage may be missing from the archaeological record, forms of indirect evidence, including resource specialisation, permanent settlements and mass capture technology, support the use of storage in prehistory. Although these forms of
Address: Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, Devon, EX4 4QE, UK. E-mail address: p.m.cunningham@exeter.ac.uk
0278-4165/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2010.12.005

indirect evidence may be seen during the Mesolithic, few researchers have considered any of them as indicating storage. Furthermore, ethnographic evidence demonstrates that some mobile huntergatherers use a variety of storage methodologies that may leave little trace in the archaeological record (Stopp, 2002). By using ethnographic data and archaeological evidence, this paper sets out to challenge current understanding of prehistoric storage practices. The rst section explores storage categories as a means of understanding different forms and perceptions of storage from the anthropological and archaeological literature. By demonstrating the practical and social use of small-scale storage, the second section highlights the use of portable storage and caches as important methods of storage to more recent huntergatherers and farmers. This section does not mean to dismiss the importance of large-scale and long-term storage, but to highlight that other forms of storage may have been equally important. Nor I am suggesting that the anthropological examples of various storage practices from arctic Canada, Eastern North America and California are necessarily the same storage practices used during European prehistory. Instead, I use these examples to highlight that there are many different methods of storing food. An outline of the principles of adaptation and evolutionary progression (in terms of storage), and the dichotomy this creates in the understanding and the interpretation of storage in the Mesolithic and later periods, forms the third section. The archaeological examples discussed in this section highlight how archaeologists tend to focus on large-scale storage with little mention of the uses, let alone the importance, of small-scale storage during the

136

P. Cunningham / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144

Mesolithic and Neolithic. In the fourth section, I explore the important and vital role that three forms of small-scale storage (portable storage, and closed and open caches) may have played in prehistory. The fth section draws on the conclusions from the preceding discussions to introduce indirect and direct archaeological evidence of small-scale storage during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods of northern Europe. I conclude by suggesting that in focusing on the role of caches, this paper is able to demonstrate how storage played a vital role in prehistoric lifeways. We also learn that once we begin to explore indirect forms of evidence, especially evidence of mass gathering/ processing, pits and storage technology, we nd that there is evidence of a variety of storage practices from European prehistory. No longer can storage be equated only with cereals, nor should it be viewed as being only important in relation to the development of social complexity and sedentism. Anthropology, ethnography, archaeology and storage Within archaeology, the use of ethnographic analogy has been widely debated (Pluciennik, 1998; Smith, 1992; Spikins, 2000; Tilley, 1996; Zvelebil and Fewster, 2001). Although there are clearly questionable uses of ethnographic analogy to understand prehistoric peoples behaviour, ethnographic data does help us to identify different ways of behaving and clearly demonstrates the complexities of huntergatherer lifeways. Throughout this paper, ethnographic analogy is used in two ways. Firstly, I use an uniformitarian analogy (Zvelebil and Fewster, 2001, p. 151) where the methods of pit storage in the more recent past are considered to be similar to those used in prehistory. Secondly, ethnographic analogy is used to demonstrate that there are many different ways of being huntergatherers and farmers (Hather and Mason, 2002, p. 5; Zvelebil and Fewster, 2001, p. 153). Anthropological and ethnographic data clearly demonstrates that storage does not necessarily mean the saving of food in containers for later consumption; it can have many other meanings based upon the type of activities that bring about the practice of storage. Thus many anthropologists and archaeologists have categorised storage in a number of different ways. Ingold (1983, p. 544) suggests that several factors are important in the development of storage including population increase, sedentism, trade and risk buffering. To clarify these issues in more detail, Ingold categorises storage in three ways: ecological, practical and social storage (Ingold, 1983, p. 545). Ecological storage refers to a concentration of nutrients at a particular point in the ow of energy from plants to animals. Feeding waste or unwanted resources to animals that are then later slaughtered, is a form of ecological storage (Ingold, 1983, p. 555). Practical storage is a series of rational solutions to the problems of activity scheduling, which includes activities that do not give any immediate return, such as the maintenance of storage facilities, preservation of food ready for storage, making and maintaining hunting/trapping equipment, and the clearance of plots for cultivation and animal husbandry. Nomadic peoples may practice practical storage because it allows for the construction of storage facilities, such as caches, granaries, pits and storage platforms, at the place of extraction. The construction of storage facilities enables the availability of storable foodstuff in several locations and thus it does not necessarily curtail peoples movement (Ingold, 1983, p. 558). However, in these circumstances, storage in caches may only be possible by nomadic people who have territories; those nomadic groups who have no territory being less likely to depend upon storage. With social storage, the focus is on the appropriation of resources and materials that give rights to their distribution; consequently, stored resources become a symbol of property and/or

wealth. The ownership of a resource is very important and has implications on the notion of sharing and storing of a surplus (Ingold, 1983, pp. 559560; Stopp, 2002, p. 306). Social storage can also signify obligations and the means to ensure the repayment of debt, and access to resources outside ones territory (Soffer, 1989, p. 722). Social storage forms an important aspect of an extensive exchange system, but the nature of the exchange system is one that largely depends on the type of resource exchanged, the environment, the efciency of the direct storage methods and transport systems between communities (OShea, 1981, p. 172; Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil, 1989, p. 50). Soffer (1989, p. 722) also divides storage into three categories: social storage (as above), material storage and permanent storage. Material storage is the accumulation and processing of the storable resource, whilst permanent storage involves the construction of immovable storage features such as storehouses and pits which encourage permanent residence or at least restrict movement, enabling a change in social organisation and in particular, hierachization. Mobile and sedentary communities could equally practice social and material storage, but permanent storage is limited to sedentary communities or those with restricted mobility. In contrast, Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil (1989, p. 50) interpret social storage as having limited use to mobile communities unless there is immediate access to a productive resource point. Exchange of resources can only work when there is variance between communities or individuals. If all communities or individuals have the same quantities of resources then exchange does not work (Kelly, 1995, p. 168). Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil (1989, pp. 4547) also suggest that due to problems of access and transportation of stored resources, mobility and storage are largely mutually incompatible and that storage by huntergatherers only occurs when two resources are located near to each other and there needs to be an abundant resource to create a surplus. In addition, when it comes to issues of risk, due to problems of spoilage, mobility is less of a risk than storage. However, storage can be a solution to environmental problems associated with variability in access and the availability of resources. By practising storage, settlement occupation is extended and there are a number of social implications that have to be considered including the creation of a surplus that parallel farming societies. Thus, the practice of storage by huntergatherers leads to greater sedentism and social complexity. In other words, storage was practiced by complex (or collectors) huntergatherers but not by simple (foragers) huntergatherers (Binford, 1980) and that storage automatically leads to sedentism and therefore, was not practiced by communities that were highly mobile. These categories of storage, although widely accepted as legitimate, all involve both small-scale and large-scale storage practiced by both huntergatherers and farmers. Nevertheless, they tend to emphasise the practice of social storage as signifying social complexity, stratied society and agriculture. We also nd the mobile peoples use of storage is restricted and only occurs under particular circumstances, whereas storage practiced by farmers has both practical and social signicance. Consequently, long-term largescale storage is perceived as more important and signicant than small-scale short-term storage in the development of complex communities, leading to an under representation of the role that small-scale storage may have on social relations, whether for farmer or huntergatherer. The following section explores the use of small-scale and shortterm storage in more detail by highlighting ethnographic and archaeological data from the more recent past and demonstrates the complexity of storage practices. However, it is important to rst outline what is meant by large-scale and long-term storage: Long-term storage refers to the storage of foods beyond three months, taking most foods beyond their season of natural availability.

P. Cunningham / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144

137

Large-scale storage refers to the storage of a surplus that can be used for risk buffering, replanting (normal surplus) and exchange. In addition, a surplus can also be used to create social alliances, obligations and elites (Halstead, 1989, p. 68). Surplus may also involve the storage of an exceptionally abundant harvest, which is too large to consume quickly (Stopp, 2002, p. 306). Large-scale storage is often seen as involving the use of complex preservation techniques and large immovable facilities to store foods for a future, predictable, period of food shortage and is closely linked to sedentism and social complexity (Binford, 1980; Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil, 1989; Smith, 2003, p. 168; Testart, 1982). By changing the focus from large-scale to small-scale storage we can begin to develop a greater understanding of the use of storage in prehistory and move studies of storage beyond agriculture, sedentism and social complexity.

Small-scale storage Short-term storage refers to storage for a period of less than three months, allowing stored food to be eaten within its natural availability. Small-scale storage can require fewer facilities and simpler preparation than large-scale storage and the stored resources are also not usually required to act as a surplus for replanting but may be stored for a period of shortage or for exchange, there is also a limited number of people that small-scale storage can serve. Good examples of small-scale storage come from studies from subarctic Canada where foragers achieved storage in two ways: using specic processing methods and/or strategic caching (Stopp, 2002, p. 318). The use of specic processing methods includes the storage of small portable portions of food such as pounded dried meat and fat (pemmican) and dried berry cakes. This type of processing enabled small-scale storage and consumption of nutritious portable foods whilst moving from one camp to another. This would have been crucial, as without this type of storage, mobility would clearly be restricted (Stopp, 2002, p. 319). An alternative storage method involved strategically placing large and small caches of resources along travel routes, especially along waterways and near coastal areas (Stopp, 2002, pp. 319 320). Binford (1980) recognised the importance of caching but only in relation to settlement patterns. Balikci (1968, p. 81) and RowleyConwy and Zvelebil (1989, p. 48) suggest that for the Netsilik people of Canada, caching was a method of small-scale storage, and rather than a method of securing food for times of scarcity, the food stores were available when camps were reoccupied. Having the caches enabled the Netsilik to consume one resource whilst procuring another, and to continue to be nomadic, in a similar way to methods used to prepare for interannual uctuations. The evidence of nomadic groups from Canada indicates that storage through caching falls under Ingolds (1983, p. 558) xed point nomadism (Stopp, 2002, p. 319). Caching also relieves the problem of transporting large quantities of resources whilst ensuring that the same resources would be available when returning to an area as part of the seasonal rounds (Dunham, 2000, p. 243). When we consider the social benets of small-scale storage in the form of caches we can see that there is more to this method of storage. In Canada, small caches were generally the personal property of families. In times of food shortage, it was legitimate to open another familys cache, subsequently replenishing supplies through a form of gift giving. Therefore, caching worked as a type of resource sharing and risk reduction within the wider social network (Stopp, 2002, pp. 319320). The evidence from subarctic Canada implies that small-scale storage was used to buffer against

periods of scarcity for small communities, or extended families, in a similar way to large-scale storage (Stopp, 2002, p. 305). Storage pits from sites in Michigan (eastern North America), dated to the Late Woodland Period (ca. 10001600 AD) and to the nineteenth century, indicate that storage was associated with two location types; activity areas (transportation routes gathering/harvesting areas, gardens) and at settlements (Dunham, 2000, p. 230). Ethnographic evidence form North America demonstrate that storage pits were often hidden by very mobile communities, such as the Dakota, with the stored resources used by individual household or family groups. In contrast, more sedentary communities, such as the Iroquois, tended to store resource that were for larger community groups based upon clan lines (Dunham, 2000, p. 243). Dunham (2000, pp. 233234) suggests that in the 19th century, placing storage pits away from habitation sites indicated an element of concealment and mobility due to the reliance on seasonally abundant resources. The level of concealment varied from group-to-group and could be at household level where women hid corn form their husbands to prevent them eating the stored resources too quickly. In some communities returning to a settlement, after a period of abandonment, was controlled and restricted to prevent early arrivals consuming their neighbours stored resources (DeBoer, 1988, p. 2; Dunham, 2000, p. 244). Therefore, pit storage was a method of hiding resources, whether agricultural or wild resources, for a lean period and/or when returning to an area (DeBoer, 1988, p. 2). Sharing stored resources has both social and practical benets. Sometimes, sharing is between individuals, whilst at other times, between groups (Kelly, 1995, p. 164). The social ties created by sharing can be seen as a form of social storage where the receiver is obliged to reciprocate to the giver in some manner (Kelly, 1995, p. 167). For Kelly (1995, p. 168), the use of storage by hunter gatherer groups, when intragroup variance is high and intergroup correlation is low, leads to the use of storage when there are abundant harvests, and the use of social storage to create reciprocal exchange. Such behaviour can be seen in California where stored acorns were shared with other families, only if the receiving family had exhausted their supplies (Gould, 1987, p. 450). However, when there is both high intergroup correlation and high intragroup variance, there is restricted access to stored resources and there may also be an element of conict between groups. The use of pits for storage may reduce conict between groups as there are no visible signs of differential food storage between groups. On the other hand, it may be very difcult to truly hide the quantity of stored resources from other members of the household and/or community (DeBoer, 1988, p. 2). The ethnographic data suggest that huntergatherers can store small quantities of food and stay mobile, moving from one site to another according to seasonal uctuations in food resources (Testart, 1982, p. 524). However, equating large and small-scale storage with long and short-term limits our understanding of storage practices. Large and small quantities of food can be stored for varied durations. Pemmican is a good example of small-scale storage that can have either short or extended storage periods (Speth and Spielmann, 1983, p. 19), whilst ethnohistorical data indicates that large quantities of acorns can equally be stored for a long or short duration (Mason, 1992, p. 67). Small-scale storage can mean the storage of small amounts of food resources or it could mean the storage of large amounts of food using different methods and in different locations. For example, caches of meat and/or sh could either be in pits, on platforms, in small structures and/or beneath stone piles (Stopp, 2002, p. 314). In California, acorns were stored in both granaries and pits. The acorns stored in granaries were generally accessed on a regular basis, whereas the acorns in pits were kept in storage for a much longer period; often for beyond a year (Mason, 1992, p. 67).

138

P. Cunningham / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144

Small-scale storage can also involve the storage of small amounts of several different types of foods including sh, meat, blood, fat and plants, in one location (Eidlitz, 1969, p. 98), rather than a single resource. Small-scale storage could also be associated with the storage of small amounts of ingredients that may have important usage such as for medicines and alcoholic drinks or perhaps for use during special events/ceremonies. Caching can involve the storage of large quantities of resources in several locations spread across a landscape that could represent small or large-scale storage (Stopp, 2002, p. 314). Returning to a cache a year or two later there is an expectation that there will be resources available. An alternative interpretation is to suggest that the combination of storing many different types of food in one location, or storing large quantities of resources in several locations, is a form of large-scale storage and spreads the risk of loss. A variety of storage methods have been recorded both ethnographically and archaeologically in Eastern North America including pits that were lined with bark or grasses. The food stored in pits included berries, maple, wild rice, maize, squash and nuts, stored in sacks, ceramic vessels, baskets, animal skin or bark containers and placed in the pits (Dunham, 2000, p. 230). Archaeological evidence from cache pits at Ne-con-ne-pe-wah-se-site in Michigan (North America) indicates that uncarbonised beechnuts, cherry, grape, raspberry, elderberry, pokeweed, sumac, bunchberry, chokeberry, witch hazel, cinquefoil and spicebush were all stored in a single pit (Cache Pit 17, diameter 50 cm and depth 60 cm). The plants represent resources that were used as food, medicine and dyes all stored together (Dunham, 2000, p. 247). Large-scale storage is often seen as involving the use of complex preservation techniques and large immovable facilities to store foods for a future, predictable, period of food shortage (Binford, 1980; Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil, 1989; Smith, 2003, p. 168; Testart, 1982). Ethnographic data demonstrates that mobile groups living in northern latitudes will sometimes use both complex preservation techniques and large storage facilities (Stopp, 2002). In California, we see semi-sedentary communities living in non-marginal environment using large storage facilities, such as acorn granaries, in a variety of locations (Mason, 1992) and in North Eastern America, mobile groups were also using a variety of storage methods (Dunham, 2000). When it comes to the relationship between storage and mobility, Soffer (1989, p. 722) suggests that methods used to prepare food for storage will determine the quantity of stored resources and the level of mobility. Drying food such as meat and sh increases their portability, allowing groups to either retain high levels of mobility or increase residential stability because of stored resources. Nevertheless, Soffer (1989, p. 722) also suggests that other methods such as freezing and caching restrict mobility, and groups practicing such storage techniques become more dependent on social ties due to the limited period in which they can keep their stored resources. Soffer (1989, p. 723) and Speth (1991, pp. 173174) place a great deal of emphasis on the difference between storing plant foods such as nuts and cereals, because of their long storage-life, as opposed to meat, sh and other plant foods including tubers and roots, that have a shorter storage-life. The long-term storage of foods has more of an impact on social organisation and relations between communities than the storage of perishable foods and short-term storage. The storage of perishable goods indicates that any surplus would be traded for other valuable items, increasing the need to maintain and create alliances, whereas those who store less-perishable foods do not need to make the same contacts. In turn, these alliances create a need for intensive harvesting of perishable foods for exchange purposes and feasting, whereas the harvesting of long-term foods such as cereals eventually leads to their domestication (Soffer, 1989, p. 723).

If we use Soffers (1989) interpretation, we can see that by establishing the types of food stored in prehistory we can extrapolate the level of storage and begin to think about levels of social interaction. Further support comes from ethnohistoric examples from Canada of caching, which indicate a form of short-term storage of frozen meat that led to a need to create greater social relationships and possibly increased residency, based upon the exchange of any surplus once the cached meat began to thaw or was removed from storage. However, does caching meat away from camps and settlements create a surplus for exchange in the same manner as cereal crops? In addition, ethnographic evidence has indicated that dried meat and sh will store beyond nine months if stored in the correct conditions (Eidlitz, 1969, p. 98), possibly increasing their exchange and social value. The archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence indicates a blurring of any concrete difference between long-term, short-term, large-scale and small-scale storage making it difcult to dene or differentiate between the forms of storage based on quantity and/or duration. For Soffer (1989, p. 729), the difference between long-term and short-term is that the former is more likely to be an important practice for sedentary communities and the latter can be practiced by highly mobile and sedentary groups. No matter the scale of storage, the duration can be either long or short and surely, the duration has to do with the types of foods, method of storage and social factors as well as levels of mobility. Furthermore, there is no clear dichotomy between different quantities and duration of storage based upon levels of mobility and sedentism. The method of storage, techniques used to prepare resources for storage, the nal use of the food, the quantities of storable foods and the environmental and climatic conditions of the storage location all played important roles in the size and duration of storage (Eidlitz, 1969, p. 173; DeBoer, 1988; Soffer, 1989, p. 727). Should we consider only large-scale storage as a method of controlling the distribution of the means of subsistence (Ingold 1983, p. 543)? We have to ask what role small-scale storage plays within the dynamics of both nomadic and sedentary communities. Caches of large quantities of resources in nomadic societies indicate that it is no longer possible to equate large-scale storage only to groups that are semi or permanently sedentary. As we can see, taking a broader view of storage practices questions some of categories of storage based upon whether the participants are huntergatherers or farmers as outlined in the previous section.

Adaptation and social evolution Before we can begin to develop an approach that draws attention to the importance of small-scale storage to both nomadic and sedentary communities, we have to consider why small-scale storage is not perceived to be as important as large-scale within archaeological discourse. Despite the evidence of a variety of storage methods used by huntergatherers and farmers in the more recent past only large-scale storage is discussed at any length and this is largely due to the theoretical inuences of adaptation and social evolution. Both theories inuence interpretations of the environmental and social mechanisms that created the need for, and development of, storage that creates a clear dichotomy between the uses of storage by huntergatherers and farmers. A clear example is the contention by Halstead and OShea (1989, p. 2) that storage by small groups (often equated with nomadism and the Mesolithic) is a response to environmental factors and for large sedentary communities (the Neolithic and later prehistoric periods) storage is a cultural phenomenon. Thus, archaeological periods inuence our perception of storage in European prehistory.

P. Cunningham / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144

139

The Mesolithic period in Europe falls between the last Ice Age and the onset of farming. People generally followed a mobile huntinggathering-shing way of life based on seasonal rounds and were inuenced by environmental factors. However, we nd that there are different levels of social organisation, settlement and mobility across Europe with some groups having complex social organisation and/or more sedentary than others (Warren, 2005, p. 13). Thus it is difcult to nd a single denition that describes a universal Mesolithic period (Kozlowski, 2003) nor is it possible to pin-point the precise dates for this period that encompass the whole of Europe but generally the Mesolithic is considered to fall between ca.11,600 BP6000 BP (Warren, 2005). The Mesolithic period was followed by the Neolithic period, which generally saw people growing cereals, controlling domesticated animal and there is more evidence of a settled why of life. In addition, there are new innovations in technology and architecture. However, this transition was not universal for all hunter gatherer groups across Europe as some chose to continue to be huntergatherers whilst others rapidly adopted farming (Warren, 2005, p. 13). Furthermore, the Neolithic is also dened as a period of new ideologies and complex social relations (Thomas, 1999). The Neolithic period starts at different times across Europe but within a general timeframe of ca. 6000 BP4500 BP (Whittle, 1996). The perceived difference between the Mesolithic and Neolithic of Europe has had a profound impact on our understanding of storage. Both nomadic and sedentary communities can practice the different categories of storage outlined above, but the difference between small-scale and large-scale storage is often interpreted as an evolutionary progression, or an adaptation, from small-scale storage. In a similar way, the Mesolithic period, particularly, the late Mesolithic is perceived as being a precursor to the Neolithic. Therefore, the notions of evolution and adaptation emphasise the important role that long-term, large-scale storage, plays in the development of sedentary agricultural societies, whilst ignoring the role of other forms of storage particularly those used by nonagricultural groups. The use of the generic terms huntergatherers and agriculturalists as clearly dened and very separate subsistence, social and behavioural patterns, has a similar evolutionary trajectory and is relevant to our understanding of storage. This is not a new issue within archaeological discourse, many archaeologists and anthropologists have already discussed the inadequacies of these terms (Hather and Mason, 2002, pp. 45; Smith, 2001, p. 4) and in doing so, they have highlighted that there are many different ways of being huntergatherers and agriculturalists, which blur the difference between these two modes of subsistence. Some have tried to clarify this issue by dividing huntergatherers into categories such as complex and simple, or egalitarian and non-egalitarian, or forager and collector (Binford, 1980, p. 5; Mithen, 2000, p. 620; Miyaji, 1999; Rowley-Conwy, 1999, p. 137; Smith, 2001, p. 4). Similar divisions occur with farming communities, which are broken down into agriculturalists, pastoralists, cultivators and horticulturalists (Smith, 2001, pp. 1921). Ingold (1983, p. 543) states that agriculturalists, pastoralists and horticulturalists are used to dene primitive people, and have some relevance when considering peoples relationship with the control and distribution of the means of subsistence. An alternative view is to see these different modes of behaviour developing independently; for example, in some situations, pastoralism may increase the possibility of agriculture, but in others, pastoralism does not. Focusing on the distinctions made between different types of huntergatherers and farmers emphasises the importance placed on storage. For example, Binford divides huntergatherers into two types based on their behaviour: collectors, who practice storage, and foragers, who do not. Woodburn (1980, pp. 9899) uses a

similar differential once again based on whether huntergatherer communities stored food: the immediate returns system (foragers) and the delayed return system (collectors). Woodburn (1980, p. 99) does suggest that nomadic people who use immediate return systems may practice small-scale portable storage. Binford (1980, p. 12), advocates that foragers and collectors do not represent two types of subsistencesettlement systems but a graded series from simple to complex. Thus, the notion of evolution underpins all these divisions, as they are seen as a progressive movement from one to the other, from simple to complex, egalitarian to non-egalitarian, forager to collector (Rowley-Conwy, 2001, pp. 44 and 48). As there are some huntergatherer groups who do not fall neatly into these two categories, Rowley-Conwy (1999, p. 134, 2001, p. 42) takes these differentials a little further by creating a fourfold typology of huntergatherers. His typology ranges from highly mobile communities who do not have a great need for storage, to sedentary groups who depend upon storage (Table 1). Having a fourfold typology increases the variables with which to categorise huntergatherer behaviour and includes differentiating between those who are hierarchical and those who are territorial. Nevertheless, storage is still an important element of these categories (Rowley-Conwy, 2001, p. 42). Created as a general model by which to measure levels of huntergatherer complexity, it could be seen as implying a progressive movement. This is particularly relevant to archaeological categories, as the dating suggests that type 2 (early Mesolithic) is chronologically earlier than type 4 (late Mesolithic) (Rowley-Conwy, 1999, p. 137). These form a continuum from non-complex (type 1) to most complex (type 4) (Rowley-Conwy, 1999, p. 134) Applying this terminology to the fourfold typology, type 1 or OAS groups are non-complex, the rest forming a continuum towards the most complex type 4 groups. (Rowley-Conwy, 2001, p. 42). However, Rowley-Conwy (2001, pp. 5964) proposes that complex huntergatherer subsistence practices do not automatically lead to agriculture. There are numerous occasions where the archaeological record demonstrates a reversal from complex to simple. Complex huntergatherers include the Jomon (Japan) and Natuan (Levant) (types 3 and 4 respectively) both of whom were complex huntergatherers whose subsistence strategies did not automatically lead to agriculture (Rowley-Conwy, 2001, pp. 5657 and 5964). Rowley-Conwy (2001, p. 64) argues that the change from simple to complex, or even complex to simple, indicates adaptive responses to external stimuli, rather than a progressive development. Binford (1980, pp. 5 and 10) also sees storage as adaptive strategy when he is trying to determine why huntergatherers would choose a particular subsistence stratagem. The problem with taking the adaptive approach is that the environment determines human behaviour and decision-making (Leonard, 2001, p. 72). Consequently, there is no element of cultural choice, leaving people reacting within the constraints of their environment (Shanks

Table 1 Rowley-Conwys (1999, p. 134; 2001, p. 42) fourfold typology of huntergatherers for understanding complexity. Types 1. Serial specialists moving from resource to resource, with little or no logistic movement of resource or food storage 2. Logistic groups who do not defend territories 3. Logistic groups who do defend territories 4. Sedentary groups, who invariably defend territories and store resources

140

P. Cunningham / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144

and Tilley, 1992, p. 56). Alternatively, Mithen (1990, p. 7) explains that human behaviour and in particular decision-making are the driving forces of adaptation; and seen in this light, individuals become active and exible in their behaviour. We can see that Rowley-Conwys (2001) interpretation of the rise and fall of complexity within huntergatherer societies and his understanding of adaptation, ts with Mithens (1990, p. 7) approach to human behaviour. We can also see how evolutionary progressions and adaptation underpin some interpretations of Mesolithic behaviour. In Richmonds (1999) discussion on the variety of plant food available in Mesolithic Britain, he states: This would have included a wide variety of nuts, berries, bulbs, roots, tubers, rhizomes, owers, fungi, lichens and wild grasses, and represents in most instances an abundance of foodstuffs during most seasons, which would have been increased if storage potential existed (Richmond, 1999, p. 6). Thus for Richmond (1999), storage simply was not an option during the Mesolithic, particularly the early Mesolithic. Mithen (2000, pp. 385388 and 618) displays a similar viewpoint when interpreting pits F43, F47 and F49 from a Mesolithic site at Staosnaig (Scotland), as roasting pits only. He rejects that they may also have been storage pits because this does not t into his overall interpretation of the site (Mithen, 2000, pp. 618619). For Mithen (2000, p. 618), opportunistic foragers briey occupied the early Mesolithic site at Staosnaig, and as Binford (1980) tells us, foragers do not practice storage. Yet these opportunistic foragers at Staosnaig could have cached large quantities of hazelnuts in the pits (F43, F47, F49), knowing that they had food on their return to the island. Small-scale storage is also not seen as a signicant activity in the early Neolithic; this is not because of the lack of evidence, but because of the practice of equating storage with grain. From the Neolithic, grain had to have been stored (normal surplus), but this does not exclude the possibility of storing other food resources. The shape of early Neolithic pits tends to suggest that they could not store grain successfully; consequently, these pits had other functions (Richmond, 1999, p. 11; Thomas, 1999, p. 64). However, neither Thomas (1999) nor Richmond (1999) considered the storage of other foods, including nuts, in any Neolithic pits; these pits were simply not used for storage. Furthermore, DeBoers (1988) study of storage pits from eastern North America indicates that the shape of pits can be altered through, ploughing, excavation and cleaning which makes identifying a pit as a storage pit on shape alone difcult. Smith (2001) suggests that there is a middle ground between huntinggathering and agriculture that is very complex and difcult to categorise. For Smith (2001), the conceptual frameworks of food procurement and food production are more relevant to this middle ground than terms such as simple and complex. Food procurement includes activities such as hunting, gathering and shing, typically practiced by huntergatherers. He splits food production between low-level food production (with and without domesticates) and agriculture. Low-level food production is not just associated with farming communities but can include huntergatherers. For example, the causal sowing of seeds during plant harvesting (Smith, 2001, p. 28) or the coppicing of hazel for wood which in turn increases nut yields could both be considered as lowlevel food production (Cunningham, 2008, p. 65). Low-level food production is the least problematic of the terms that are used to describe the middle ground between hunting/gathering and agriculture as this categorisation is based upon human plant/animal relationships and includes both intensive and non-intensive strategies. By recognising that food procurement and production is

complex, Smith (2001) highlights how difcult it is to make a distinction between farmers and huntergatherers. Like Rowley-Conwy (2001), Smith (2001, pp. 3334) also suggests that those living in the middle ground between hunter gatherers and framers are neither on their way to becoming farmers nor are they extensions of huntergatherers but a separate group who have developed long-term and successful solutions to a wide range of local cultural and environmental contexts. Thus, the concept of a middle ground, as outlined by Smith, may be a suitable concept from which to begin to consider the use of storage in European prehistory. However, we have to be careful not to dismiss the use of storage by huntergatherer groups that may lie just outside of this middle ground. Ethnographic evidence of storage and especially the variety of methods that have been employed in the more recent past to store food indicate that our understanding of storage in prehistory should not be categorised by archaeological periods. The above discussion clearly demonstrates how perceptions of storage are underpinned by theoretical concepts rather than archaeological evidence. In other words, although large-scale storage of cereals in prehistory was a signicant practice and one that had both social and practical importance, we should not underestimate other forms of storage as these are equally important to our understanding of past human behaviour. Re-vitalising storage in European prehistory To determine whether storage was practised during the Mesolithic and early Neolithic we have to consider the role of smallscale storage particularly the use of portable storage and caches. Portable storage As it is easier to carry resources such as nuts, berries and meat when converted into a single dried resource than as individual items, portable storage involves considerable processing of food resources. An advantage of combining a variety of resources such as meat, fat, nuts, berries and possibly sh, is that the food is highly nutritious, and it will keep for several months. Therefore, we do not have to consider this as short-term storage only. More importantly, without the use of portable storage, long distance movement is restricted. In fact, we could say that long distance mobility was very difcult without such methods of ensuring that enough storable foods were available. In addition, leaving a settlement for a few days on an extended hunting/gathering expedition, or even for social or ceremonial purposes, would require portable resources. Thus, the use of portable storage would not be restricted to only mobile communities; those living a sedentary lifestyle would also require such forms of storage when leaving the settlements. Therefore, portable storage is vital to both huntergatherers and farmers. Caches From the ethnographic data, I have identied two types of caching; open and closed caches. Open caches This is where caches are left in obvious positions along route ways, at settlements and gathering/kill sites. The stored resources may be owned by a small community, but also available to a larger social network. In some circumstances, people outside the community may use such caches in times of hardship and any used resources must be reciprocated. Open caches can be both above and below ground, they also may be a method of displaying wealth, territorial boundaries and a means of landscape encultura-

P. Cunningham / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144

141

tion. Such an open display may be a method of displaying wealth and land or territory ownership (Bradley, 2005; DeBoer, 1988, p. 1). Closed caches This is where caches are discreet and hidden at similar locations to open caches. In contrast to open caches, knowledge of their location is restricted to just a few. Storing food in pits is perhaps the easiest way to secretly store resources; however, above ground storage could have been disguised to resemble natural features. Such caches would ensure that there were enough resources when returning to an area or whilst travelling long distances. Alternatively, within a large sedentary or semi-sedentary settlement, they could ensure resources were available during a lean period or saved for special occasions. Closed caches may also be a means by which individuals, or small groups, hide their surplus, or avoid sharing their resources, with the wider community. By emphasising the importance of caching and portable storage to both huntergatherers and farmers, we can begin to consider the social and practical benets of storage and how we can see the evidence of storage in the archaeological record. Discussion: prehistoric storage To help determine whether small-scale storage was practised during the Mesolithic and early Neolithic we have to consider both direct and indirect forms of evidence including resource specialisation, mass gathering/hunting and permanent settlements (RowleyConwy and Zvelebil, 1989). As the ethnographic evidence clearly demonstrates that storage pits can be located at a settlement, along a route way, at a gathering/hunting/shing site and outside of the immediate settlement area, the location of storage pits is also an important consideration (Balikci, 1968; Dunham, 2000; RowleyConwy and Zvelebil, 1989; Soffer, 1989). In addition, we also need to reect on the types of food suitable for storage and storage methods, in particular the use of underground storage in pits. Pits are a common feature of many Mesolithic and Neolithic sites. Nevertheless, it is difcult to determine the use of pits in the archaeological record but they may have had a variety of uses including for storage. DeBoer (1988, pp. 34) suggests, from archaeological and ethnographic data, that a storage pit would be either cylindrical or bell-shaped, that the original context of a pit rarely survives in the archaeological record and that pits were lled with debris deliberately or naturally through erosion. However, hazelnut and acorn storage experiments have demonstrated that both species store in cylindrical and bowl shaped pits (Cunningham, 2005, 2008, 2010; McComb, 1996). The shape of a pit can also change over time due to re-use, ploughing, erosion and archaeological excavation making it very difcult to determine the use by shape alone (DeBoer, 1988, p. 4). Thus, the use of pits for storage is a possibility and should be considered when interpreting the function of pits and when determining activities that may have taken place. Ethnographic data clearly demonstrates that a whole variety of food can be stored in pits, including nuts, berries, fat, meat and sh. Some foods may need to be processed to aid their storage ability. Hence, some tools may indicate the processing of plants for storage. Furthermore, storage pits may have been lined and/or capped with various materials such as, stones, basketry, clay and bark. Therefore, evidence of sh/meat drying racks, food processing, pits, basketry and craft activities may indicate the use of storage. As we can see, there is a variety of difference forms of indirect evidence that can be used to suggest the use of storage. However, we should not think of storage as only the means with which to store food there are also numerous social benets to food storage. The categories that are being emphasised in this paper: portable

storage, open and closed caches, is a means through which we can marry both the practical and social aspects of small-scale storage in prehistory. The Mesolithic sites of Lough Boora in Ireland (McComb and Simpson, 1999, p. 10; Ryan, 1980) and Mount Sandel, Northern Ireland (Woodman, 1985) have evidence of the use of storage. Using indirect evidence, such as an abundance of charred hazelnut shells, possible meat and/or sh drying racks and hut structures, Woodman (1985, pp. 129136) interprets pit F/56 from Mount Sandel as a hazelnut storage pit. By Soffers (1989) criteria (outlined above), Mount Sandel has evidence of both long-term storage in the form of hazelnuts, and short-term in the form of meat and sh. By taking into account the availability of resources and their storage potential, we can suggest the evidence from Mount Sandel indicates a combination of both long and short-term storage practices. However, the quantities of stored food are unknown as they would have depended on the size of the hazelnut harvest, and the availability of sh and other animals. During the early Mesolithic Lough Boora was located by a lake and surrounded by hazel shrub. By the side of the lake, a small cache of 487 uncarbonised whole hazelnuts was found in a shallow pit; within the vicinity of the pit were hearths, burnt animal bones and microliths perhaps indicating a temporary camp. We can also suggest that some of the pits at Staosnaig (Scotland) were storage pits (Mithen, 2000), storing food for a return visit to the island. There is also evidence of the storage of water chestnuts in pits within dwellings at Sarnate (Lativa) (Zvelebil, 2008, p. 33). At Vorotsev 2, in the Ukraine, storage pits were found outside of, but near to, dwellings. There are similar sites in Russia including Ugolnovo 1, Petrushino and Nizhnee Verete 1 with storage pits located outside of dwellings (Dolukhanov, 2008, pp. 292295). In addition, a possible storage pit has been identied at a habitation site at Auneau (France) (Verjux, 2003, p. 266) and two possible hazelnut storage pits were found at an early Mesolithic camp-site at Verrebroek Dok 1 (Belgium) (Sergant et al., 2006, p. 1000). These examples demonstrate the possible different uses of storage in the Mesolithic. The evidence from Mount Sandel is indicative of semi-sedentary occupation, possibly seasonal (Woodman, 1985, p. 168) or year round by different groups. Similar to Mount Sandel, Sarnate (Latvia) is interpreted as a being occupied during all seasons (Zvelebil, 2008, p. 34). Sites with evidence of storage in Ukraine and Russia again suggest a high level of occupation (permanent and/or semi-permanent) with the storage pits being associated with dwellings (Dolukhanov, 2008). When associated with dwellings, we can interpret the use of storage as a means in which to save resources for a time of food shortage or for special occasions. At Mount Sandel and Sarnate the storage facilities were located within dwellings suggesting closed caches where knowledge (and possibly ownership) of the stored resources were restricted to a few. Whereas at Vorotsev 2, Ugolnovo 1, Petrushino and Nizhnee Verete, storage facilities were located outside of the dwellings, perhaps suggesting a community level of storage in open caches. In contrast, Lough Boora could be interpreted as a temporary site, possibly situated along an important lakeside pathway, where hazelnuts were stored in a closed cache. Perhaps knowledge of the pits location was restricted to a few people. Thus, we can interpret the cache of hazelnuts at Lough Boora as evidence of the storage of hazelnuts in anticipation of a return visit to the site after a period of absence. The small cache of nuts would have made it possible to reoccupy the site when other resources were in short supply (DeBoer, 1988, p. 2). At Staosnaig, there are several pit features located near the beach, possibly indicating that if these pits were used for storage they were made visible to those passing by and therefore were forms of open caches and markers within the landscape. In contrast, they may have been closed caches with knowledge of their

142

P. Cunningham / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144

existence restricted to a few, the nuts may have been kept secret to use for exchange or a time of food shortage. The evidence of storage indicates frequent and possibly planned visits at a time when other foods may have been in short supply. We can also suggest that storing hazelnuts in small pits indicates that small groups returned to the site, possibly only retrieving the stored nuts from one pit at a time. Such caches may also have been an important means of overcoming the problem of transporting resources back to larger more permanent settlements. If we also consider indirect evidence of storage, as suggested by Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil (1989, p. 40), such as mass gathering, perhaps the large quantities of nuts and other plants found at lAbeurador (France) indicates the use of storage (Valdeyron, 2008, 198). We could say that the large quantity of hazelnut shells from Stasonaig indicate mass gathering and that the island was specically visited to gather a large harvest of hazelnuts. Indicating that as hazels tends to produces an abundant crop of nuts biannually that the gatherers knew the most appropriate time to visit the island to gather a large mast of hazelnuts. There is little direct evidence of storage in the Iron Gates (Romania/Serbia), but basic preservation techniques of smoking and drying sh indicating the use of small-scale storage. Bonsall (2008) uses environmental evidence to suggest that it would have been very difcult to survive a severe winter in the Iron Gates without stored resources but little evidence of such practices has been identied in the archaeological record. However, Bonsall (2008) is looking for evidence of the large-scale storage of resources and almost dismissing the relevance of small-scale storage to the communities of the Iron Gates perhaps hindering the identication of storage facilities. The recent re-interpretation of a hearth at Schela Cladovei (Romania) as a possible stone-lined storage pit indicates how evidence of storage facilities may be miss-interpreted (Bonsall, 2008, p. 261). More importantly, this re-interpretation indicates that the signicance of storage during the Mesolithic is beginning to be recognised: Storage can be an important component of exchange systems; surplus food may be traded and dried foods, especially, which
Table 2 List of sites with evidence of small-scale storage. Site name and location Mount Sandel, Northern Ireland Lough Boora, Ireland Date 95389305 BP 89807475 BP Context

weigh less and preserve longer, can be transported over large distances. People also stored food for social reasons storage facilitated social gatherings and the allocation of time to nonsubsistence activities (Bonsall, 2008, p. 262). Bonsall (2008, p. 262) also suggests that keeping dogs at the Iron Gates during the Mesolithic could be seen as a means of indirect storage or in Ingolds terms (1983, p. 555), ecological storage, where dogs were kept, fed leftovers and then eaten. Similarly, we can also suggest that the feeding of human food waste to wild pigs in parts of Scandinavia during the Mesolithic was form of ecological storage (Zvelebil, 2008, p. 32). Some of the V-based pots of the Erteblle (southern Scandinavia) may have been used for storage and the large vessels found in the Baltic region were used to process or store seal oil (Bailey, 2008, p. 370; Zvelebil, 2008, p. 34). The evidence for pit storage in the Mesolithic can be very ambiguous, partly because there is little evidence regarding the function of pits, but rather than dismissing the use of pit storage, we can consider the presence of pits as a signier of storage, leading to alternative interpretations such as with the re-interpretation of the hearth at Schela Cladovei (Romania) (Bonsall, 2008). In addition, storage appears to have been used throughout the period by both mobile and semi-sedentary huntergatherers and therefore should not be viewed as leading to social complexity and sedentism. Fields et al. (1964) study of Neolithic storage pits in Britain revealed the variety of shape and design. At Hurst Fen (England) some of the storage pits contained single pots and other pits were much larger and potentially could have contained several vessels (Clark, 1960; Field et al., 1964). Pits with a single pot indicate small-scale storage, and pits that contained many pots suggest a larger scale of storage. It is difcult to determine whether these represent open or closed caches, but as there are several pits in one location, it is more likely that they are a series of closed caches. Storing food in pottery vessels is just one method of pit storage; the simplest method is to place the food directly into the pit. For example, the pits at Dogs Farm (England) may have been dug for hazelnut storage and then used for ceremonial purposes (Robinson, 2000, p. 87). The evidence from Neolithic sites indicates that food

References Woodman (1985) Ryan (1980) and McComb and Simpson (1999) Mithen (2000) Sergant et al. (2006) Zvelebil (2008) Dolukhanov (2008) Dolukhanov (2008) Dolukhanov (2008) Dolukhanov (2008) Valdeyron (2008), p. 198, and Vaquer (1986), p. 15 Verjux, 2003, p. 266 Bonsall (2008), p. 260 Robinson (2000) Vencl (1996), p. 102 Vencl (1996), p.102 Vencl (1996), p. 102

Large, straight sided storage pit (F56), depth 4050 cm, diameter 100 cm, Shallow pit containing uncharred hazelnuts, diameter, 30 cm

Staosnaig, Scotland Verrebroek Dok 1, Belgium Sarnate, Latvia Vorotsev 2, Ukraine Ugolnovo 1, Russia Petrushino, Russia Nizhnee Verete, Russia lAberurador, France

80007500 BP Mesolithic ca.70004000 BP Mesolithic ca.92007200 BP ca.92007200 BP 10,4778636 BP ca.10,0008000 BP 90006500 BP 82007400 BP ca.4500 BP Neolithic Neolithic Neolithic

Stone lined pits: F43 diameter 76x58 cm, depth 18 cm. F49 diameter 98x70 cm Two storage pits: PitS80 depth 60 cm, Pit S89 depth 48 cm Pits with water chestnuts within dwellings Storage pits small hollows Storage pits near dwellings Storage pits near dwellings Storage pits outside of dwellings Large quantities of nuts and leguminous plants

Auneau, France Schela Cladovei, Romania Dog Farm, England Pgue, France Sitagroi, Greece Karanovo, Bulgaria

Cydrincal storage pits with straight sides and a depth of >150 cm Rectangular stone lined pit containing a large number of sh bones Large number of hazelnut shell fragments in pits Storage pit containing acorns and barley Acorns and grain in a storage pit Storage pit 100 cm in depth, diameter 50 cm, containing acorns and grain. Pits located within dwellings

Interpretation of pits as storage pits is based upon the content of the pits, presence of whole nuts, and whether they have been interpreted as possible storage pits in the literature.

P. Cunningham / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144

143

was stored for various durations in storage receptacles of different sizes and the practice of storing food in pits was not restricted to cereals (Robinson, 2000, p. 87). Furthermore, there is evidence of the pit storage of cereals, particularly barley mixed with acorns, in a variety of different sized pits from Neolithic sites in France, Bulgaria and Greece (Vencl, 1996, p. 102 and 103)(Table 2). During the Neolithic, grain, as a dietary staple, was probably stored above ground where it was easily accessible (Rowley-Conwy, 2000), but other plant foods could have been stored underground in small pits. This type of storage perhaps, suggests the use of wild plants as an important supplement to the diet, particularly when there was a poor cereal harvest. Therefore, the wild plants could have been stored in closed caches and saved in case of a poor harvest, for special occasions or ceremonial use. The evidence of storage from the Neolithic periods highlight the many ways in which plant food can be stored, but it seems that the emphasis placed upon cereals and large-scale storage has hampered any further discussions regarding this practice. Surely, we should be exploring in more detail the types of food available that were suitable for storage, the best methods by which to store these foods and how we can see these in the archaeological record. Furthermore, we should also consider why storage was being used and what it tells us about how people behaved in the past.

and to two anonymous referees whose comments and suggestions on an earlier version greatly improved this paper. Finally, I would like to thank my family, especially Keith, Nye and Martha who have provided me with constant support, love and inspiration.

References
Bailey, G., 2008. Mesolithic Europe: overview and new problems. In: Bailey, G., Spikins, P. (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 357371. Balikci, A., 1968. The Netsilik Eskimos: adaptive processes. In: Lee, R.B., DeVore, I. (Eds.), Man the Hunter. Aldine Pub Company, Chicago, pp. 7882. Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow smoke and dogs tails: huntergatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45 (1), 420. Bonsall, C., 2008. The Mesolithic of the iron gates. In: Bailey, G., Spikins, P. (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 238280. Bradley, R., 2005. Ritual and Domestic Life in Prehistoric Europe. Routledge, London. Clark, J.C.D., 1960. Excavations at the Neolithic site at Hurst Fen, Mildenhall, Suffolk (1954, 1957 and 1958). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 11, 202245. Cunningham, P., 2005. Assumptive holes and how to ll them: a series of experiments investigating the pit storage potential of hazelnuts and acorns. EuroREA 2, 5566. Cunningham, P., 2008. Food for Thought: Exploitation of Nuts in Prehistoric Europe. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Exeter, Exeter. Cunningham, P., 2010. Cache or carry: food storage in European prehistory. In: Millson. D. (Ed.), Replication and Interpretation: The Use of Experimental Archaeology in the Study of the Past. Oxbow, Oxford. DeBoer, W.R., 1988. Subterranean storage and the organization of surplus: the view from Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 7 (1), :120. Dolukhanov, P., 2008. The Mesolithic of European Russia, Belarus, and the Ukraine. In: Bailey, G., Spikins, P. (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 280301. Dunham, S., 2000. Cache Pits; Ethnohistory, archaeology, and the continuity of tradition. In: Nassaney, S., Johnson, E.S. (eds) Interpretations of Native North American Life: Material Culture Studies to Ethnohistory. Society for Historical archaeology and University of Florida, Gainsville, pp. 225260. Eidlitz, K., 1969. Food and emergency food in the upper circumpolar zone. Studia Ethnographica Uppsaliensia, 32. Field, N.H., Matthews, C.L., Smith, I.F., 1964. New Neolithic sites in Dorset and Bedfordshire, with a note on the distribution of Neolithic storage-pits in Britain. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 15, 352381. Gould, R.A., 1987. Comparative ecology of food-sharing in Australia and Northwest California. In: Harding, R.S.D., Teleki, G. (Eds.), Omnivorous Primates: Gathering and Hunting in Human Evolution. Colombia University Press, New York, pp. 422454. Halstead, P., 1989. The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early farming communities of Thessaly, Greece. In: Halstead, P., OShea, J. (Eds.), Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 6880. Halstead, P., OShea, J., 1989. Introduction: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty. In: Halstead, P., OShea, J. (Eds.), Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 18. Hather, J.G., Mason, S.L.R., 2002. Introduction: some issues in the archaeobotany of huntergatherers. In: Mason, S.L.R., Hather, J.G. (Eds.), HunterGatherers Archaeobotany; Perspectives from the Northern Temperate Zone. The Institute of Archaeology, London, pp. 114. Ingold, T., 1983. The signicance of storage in hunting societies. Man 18, 553557. Kelly, R.L., 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in HunterGatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. Kozlowski, S.K., 2003. The Mesolithic: What Do We Know and What Do We Believe? In: Larsson, L., Kindgren, H., Knutsson, K., Loefer, D., kerlund, A. (Eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Oxford, Oxbow. Leonard, R.D., 2001. Evolutionary archaeology. In: Hodder, I. (Ed.), Archaeological Theory Today. Polity Press, Cambridge, pp. 6598. Mason, S.L.R., 1992. Acorns in Human Subsistence. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London. McComb, A.M.G., 1996. The Ecology of Hazel Nuts in Prehistoric Ireland. Unpublished BSc. Dissertation. The Queens University Ireland, Belfast. McComb, A.M.G., Simpson, D., 1999. The wild bunch: exploitation of the hazel in prehistoric Ireland. Ulster Journal of Archaeology 58, 115. Mithen, S.J., 1990. Thoughtful Foragers: A Study of Prehistoric Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mithen, S., 2000. The Mesolithic in the Southern Hebrides: Issues of colonization, settlement and the transition to the Neolithic and farming. In: Mithen, S. (Ed.), HunterGatherer Landscape Archaeology: The Southern Hebrides Mesolithic Project 19881998, vol. 2. Cambridge Monographs Series, McDonald Institute, pp. 597626. Miyaji, A., 1999. Storage pits and the developments of plant food management in Japan during the Jomon period. In: Coles, B., Coles, J., Schu-Jrgensen, M. (Eds.), Bog Bodies, Sacred Sites and Wetland Archaeology. WARP Occasional Paper 12. University Of Exeter, Exeter, pp. 165170.

Conclusion Storage is a signicant act that on one hand enables food to be consumed at a later date, whilst on the other, having important social implications and as such has been widely discussed in archaeological and anthropological literature. Despite the archaeological evidence of storage pits and the use of ceramic vessels for smallscale storage during the Mesolithic and Neolithic, there are few discussions regarding the implications of such storage methodologies both in terms of the social and practical importance. Storage only becomes signicant after, or as a prelude, to the onset of agriculture and the long-term and large-scale storage of cereals. By focusing on small-scale storage, and especially the signicant use of caches, this paper has demonstrated that storage was an important practice that enabled people to continue to be huntergatherers and one that also continued when people became sedentary. We can see how storage enabled huntergatherers to remain mobile, increased social ties between groups and individuals, was a means of saving food for a later to date and helped solve the problem of resource transportation. In addition, by identifying indirect evidence, such as mass gathering/hunting, resource specialisation, environmental evidence and the presence of pits, we can begin to recognise the use of storage in the archaeological record. No longer can we view the use of storage in the Mesolithic as a prelude to the Neolithic (Valdeyron, 2008, p. 198); storage must be considered an important practice in its own right with both practical and social meaning throughout prehistory.

Acknowledgments This paper presents part of my PhD thesis and as such, there are many people who I own a great deal of thanks. Financial assistance, in the form of a Graduate Research Studentship, came from the School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources, University of Exeter, UK. There are many individuals, too many to name here, who I am indebted to for offering all sorts of support during my PhD, however, the most inuential and important discussions were always with my supervisor Dr. Alan Outram, to whom I owe a big thank you. I would also like to thank my PhD examiners for their constructive comments that helped to make this paper possible

144

P. Cunningham / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30 (2011) 135144 Speth, J., 1991 Nutritional constraints and late glacial adaptive transformations: the important of non-protein energy sources. In: Baton, N., Roberts, A.J., Roe, D.A. (Eds.), The Later Glacial in Europe: Human Adaptation and Environment Change at the End of the Pleistocene. CBA Research Report 77, London, pp. 169179. Speth, J., Spielmann, K.A., 1983. Energy source, protein metabolism and hunter gatherer subsistence strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 131. Spikens, P., 2000. Ethno-facts or Ethno-ction? Searching for the structure of settlement patterns. In: Young, R. (Eds.), Mesolithic Lifeways: Current Research from Britain and Ireland. Leicester University Press, Leicester. Stopp, M.P., 2002. Ethnohistoric analogies for storage as an adaptive strategy in northeastern subarctic prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21, 301328. Testart, A., 1982. The signicance of food storage among huntergatherers: residence patters, population densities, and social inequalities. Current Anthropology 23 (5), 523537. Thomas, J., 1999. Understanding the Neolithic, rst ed. Routledge, London (1991). Tilley, C., 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Valdeyron. N., 2008. The Mesolithic in France. In: Bailey, G., Spikins, P. (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 182202. Vencl, S., 1996. Acorn as food: again. Pamatky Archeologicke 87, 95111. Verjux, C., 2003. The function of the Mesolithic sites in the Paris basin (France). New data. In: Larrson, L., Kindgren, H., Knutsson, K., Loefer, D. kerlund, A. (Eds.), Mesolithic on the Move. Oxford, Oxbow, pp. 262268. Warren, G., 2005. Mesolithic Lives in Scotland. Gloucestershire, Tempus. Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Woodburn, J., 1980. Huntergatherers today and reconstruction of the past. In: Gellner, E. (Ed.), Soviet and western anthropology. Duckworth and Co LTD, London, pp. 95119. Woodman, P.C., 1985. Excavations at Mount Sandel 19731977. Northern Ireland Archaeological Monographs No. 2, Belfast. Zvelebil, M., 2008 Innovating huntergatherers: the Mesolithic in the Baltic. In: Bailey, G., Spikins, P. (Eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1859. Zvelebil, M., Fewster, K.J., 2001. Ethnoarchaeology and huntergatherers: pictures in an exhibition. In: Fewster, K.J., Zvelebil, M. (Eds.), Ethnoarchaeology and HunterGatherers: Pictures in an Exhibition. BAR International Series, vol. 955, pp. 143157.

OShea, J., 1981. Coping with scarcity: exchange and social storage. In: Sheridan, A., Bailey, G. (Eds.), Economic Archaeology. B.A.R. International Series, vol. 96, pp. 167183. Pluciennik, M., 1998. Deconstructing The Neolithic in the mesolithicneolithic transition. In: Edmonds, M., Richards, C. (Eds.), Understanding the Neolithic of North-western Europe. Cruithne Press, Glasgow, pp. 6184. Richmond, A., 1999. Preferred Economies: The Nature of Subsistence Base Throughout Mainland Britain During Prehistory. BAR, Oxford, p. 290. Robinson, M.A., 2000. Further considerations of Neolithic charred cereals, fruits and nuts. In: Fairbairn, A.S., (Ed.), Plants in Neolithic Britain and Beyond. Oxbow Books, Oxford, p. 8590. Rowley-Conwy, P., 1999. Economic prehistory in southern Scandinavia. In: Coles, J., Bewley, R., Mellars, P. (Eds.), World Prehistory: Studies in Memory of Grahame Clark. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 125129. Rowley-Conwy, P., 2000. Through a taphonomic glass, darkly: the importance of cereal cultivation in prehistoric Britain. In: Huntly, J.P., Stallibrass, S. (Eds.), Taphonomy and Interpretation: Symposia of the Association for Environmental Archaeology, vol. 14, pp. 4353. Rowley-Conwy, P., 2001. Time, change and the archaeology of huntergatherers: how original is the Original Afuent Society. In: Panter-Brick, C., Layton, R.H., Rowley-Conwy, P. (Eds.), HunterGatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 4272. Rowley-Conwy, P., Zvelebil, M., 1989. Saving it for later: storage by prehistoric huntergatherers in Europe. In: Halstead, P., OShea, J. (Eds.), Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk and Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 4057. Ryan, M., 1980. An early mesolithic sites in the Irish Midlands. Antiquity 54, 4647. Sergant, J., Cromb, P., Perdaen, Y., 2006. The invisible hearths: a contribution to the discernment of Mesolithic non-structure surface hearths. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 9991007. Shanks, M., Tilley, C., 1992. Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice, rst ed. Routledge, London (1987). Smith, C., 1992. Late Stone Age hunters of the British Isles. Routledge, London. Smith, B.D., 2001. Low-level food production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9 (1), 143. Smith, C.S., 2003. Huntergatherer mobility, storage, and houses in a marginal environment: an example from the mid-Holocene of Wyoming. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22, 162189. Soffer, O., 1989. Storage, sedentism and the Eurasian Palaeolithic record. Antiquity 63, 719732.