Elizabeth Lawton-Matthews

In recent years development-led excavations have  transformed regional Mesolithic datasets across Britain and Ireland. Studies of the results of these projects have highlighted the frequency with which supposedly mundane features such as pits are encountered on Mesolithic sites. Whilst pits have long been recognised on individual sites, it is only from analyses of large datasets that it has become possible to identify the ways in which pits and features in general can contribute valuable spatial, artefactual and geoarchaeological/palaeoenvironmental information to develop our understanding of life in the Mesolithic. This also facilitates comparison with the Neolithic of both regions, where a rich tradition of pit digging has been well documented archaeologically.

Recent reviews of the evidence for pit digging, and material recovered from pits, have highlighted the prevalence of these features across a wide range of Mesolithic sites, as well as a diversity of interpretations. In this paper the authors compare the results of two systematic reviews of Mesolithic pits from England and Ireland, comparing and contrasting these to evidence from Scotland and Wales as appropriate. This comparative perspective emphasises both the diversity of practices involving pits, and the importance of developing suitable future approaches to Mesolithic features.

In recent years development-led excavations have transformed regional Mesolithic datasets across Britain and Ireland. Studies
of the results of these projects have highlighted the frequency with which supposedly mundane features such as pits are encountered
on Mesolithic sites. Whilst pits have long been recognised on individual sites, it is only from analyses of large datasets that it has
become possible to identify the ways in which pits and features in general can contribute valuable spatial, artefactual and geoarchaeological/palaeoenvironmental
information to develop our understanding of life in the Mesolithic. This also facilitates comparison with
the Neolithic of both regions, where a rich tradition of pit digging has been well documented archaeologically. Recent reviews of the
evidence for pit digging, and the material recovered from pits, in England and Ireland have highlighted the prevalence of these features
across a wide range of Mesolithic sites, as well as a diversity of interpretations of their uses. At the same time obstacles preventing
complete analysis are presented by a lack of sampling and poor recording.
In this paper the authors compare the results of two systematic reviews of Mesolithic pits from England and Ireland, comparing and
contrasting these to evidence from Scotland and Wales as appropriate. Both reviews uncovered extensive evidence for the presence of
pits at sites of diverse purpose, and in varied landscape settings. The evidence from pit-fills points to various uses including site clearance
and refuse disposal, deposition and possible caching, and burial. The spatial evidence indicates some interesting trends such as
reuse and recutting as well as the presence of pit alignments. While there were similarities between the uses of pits in Ireland and England,
some differences in character were also noted. The comparative perspective offered by this paper emphasises both the diversity
of practices involving pits, and the importance of developing suitable future approaches to Mesolithic features.

This paper reviews the evidence for the significance of pits in the
Mesolithic of Ireland. Pits have not always been considered an important aspect of the Mesolithic in Ireland, but a systematic island-wide review of the data demonstrates that they are common on Mesolithic sites, and highlights important patterns in the ways these features are excavated, filled, and sometimes marked. Pits have been considered important features of the Neolithic of Britain and Ireland, and consideration of the Irish Mesolithic data contributes to a broader comparative analysis. Problems in the recording and analysis of pits are highlighted.

Lawton-Matthews, E. and Warren, G. 2015. Pits in the Irish Mesolithic. In Bicho et al. (eds.) Muge 150th: The 150th Anniversary of the Discovery of Mesolithic Shell Middens (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pp. 139 -152

Archaeology has focused on the mortuary context since its inception. The earliest antiquarians took advantage of prominent burial monuments and other grave contexts in their search for curios and information about past societies. While burials tell us much about the ways in which people buried their dead, they have also been a valuable resource for reconstructing the ways in which people lived. Today, the technical advances made in the study of human remains themselves allow for more detailed study of past peoples than ever before. With that change has come an added responsibility concerning the proper handling of human remains.

During this two-day event, co-organised between the Universities of Groningen and Leiden, we aim to start a discussion between researchers interested in studying cultural and emotional aspects of burial practices, and those using human remains as a data source for lifestyle and population studies. We want to encourage the overlap of these two areas of study, to which the issue of ethical practices is crucial. The event is primarily, but not exclusively, targeting early-career researchers and members of ARCHON (the Dutch Research School of Archaeology).

On Thursday April 19, a one day symposium open to the general academic community will be held. The day's talks are divided into three sessions (see below) and we cordially invite you to submit a proposal for a 15-20 minute paper intended for one or more of these sessions.

This session considers hunter-gatherer kinship, its relationship to material culture, and its variation across different situations, times and places. The session focuses particularly on material culture in order to deepen knowledge of kinship in hunting and gathering societies, and as a way to bridge archaeology and anthropology. This session focuses on hunter-gatherer kinship – including marriage, descent, fosterage, alliance and other forms of social relations, and its material correlates. While kinship has benefited from years of anthropological study, less emphasis has been placed on the specific role of material culture in creating and maintaining kinship ties. Meanwhile archaeologists have been frustrated in their attempts to understand the nature of prehistoric kinship structures. Recent advances in DNA and isotope analyses have given the topic new momentum, but in their enthusiasm for these new techniques, archaeologists run the risk of neglecting the role of material culture. This session calls for engagement with material culture not only as a point of connection between anthropological and archaeological approaches, but also as a means of