2004
DOI: 10.1179/146141004790734441
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition on the Channel Islands: Adopting Agriculture in an Emerging Island Landscape

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is particularly noteworthy that the Late Mesolithic seems very sparse, and use of the islands may have been intermittent (Patton 1993b), particularly in the case of the more isolated Guernsey (Jersey remained attached to the Cotentin peninsula for longer). While a small number of new sites are being found, most notably Lihou, it remains difficult to conceive of the process of neolithization as one in which indigenous groups played a major role, as recently suggested by Bukach (2004). The nature of the earliest Neolithic sites in terms of their material culture (pottery, polished stone axes and stone bracelets, some of which are made from materials not found on the islands (Patton 1995a, 130)), economy (domesticated plants and animals) and funerary/ceremonial behaviour (monumental mortuary architecture), all show clear links with western France, and point to an incoming population.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is particularly noteworthy that the Late Mesolithic seems very sparse, and use of the islands may have been intermittent (Patton 1993b), particularly in the case of the more isolated Guernsey (Jersey remained attached to the Cotentin peninsula for longer). While a small number of new sites are being found, most notably Lihou, it remains difficult to conceive of the process of neolithization as one in which indigenous groups played a major role, as recently suggested by Bukach (2004). The nature of the earliest Neolithic sites in terms of their material culture (pottery, polished stone axes and stone bracelets, some of which are made from materials not found on the islands (Patton 1995a, 130)), economy (domesticated plants and animals) and funerary/ceremonial behaviour (monumental mortuary architecture), all show clear links with western France, and point to an incoming population.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in the Channel Islands has been discussed at various times before (e.g. Kinnes ; Patton ; Bukach ; Guyodo and Hamon ; Sebire ; Sebire and Renouf ; Marcigny et al . ).…”
Section: The Channel Islands Transitionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…At one end of the spectrum, for example, Kinnes suggested that ‘the neolithic settlement of Guernsey seems to be an early example of sea borne colonisation ...’ but added ‘... perhaps taking advantage of existing hunter‐fisher networks’ (, 27). At the other end of the spectrum, in making the case for a relatively substantial contribution on the part of the indigenous population, Bukach suggested a model ‘where indigenous adoption and colonisation are not mutually exclusive events, but instead act in tandem along the Neolithic frontier’ (, 161). Ultimately, neither of these models is really very far away from the other.…”
Section: Later Mesolithic and Earlier Neolithic Evidence From The Chamentioning
confidence: 99%