Ecological modelling of possible acquisition, breeding and consumption of livestock suggests a number of features relevant to discussion of exchange systems. In particular, and as noted by Case (1969), the establishment of cereals and livestock would have been precarious. For example, those bringing in or acquiring livestock from the Continent (whom I will call primary units, with one assumed here to be in East Yorkshire) would almost certainly have had need to replenish their initial flocks and herds with new stock brought from mainland Europe. Equally, secondary units (such as those in western Yorkshire and the Peak District) acquiring livestock from the primary one would have needed to replenish their herds and flocks either by 'trade' with the Continent directly, or with each other and/or the primary unit. Similarly, tertiary units (such as might be postulated to exist in the Lake District) would have been interdependent upon each other and/or the secondary ones. In short, the 'spread' of 'farming' would have required and been dependent upon a web of exchange and obligations of the kind postulated for the movement of axes.
Most importantly:
It is also probable that a feature of the exchange patterns associated with access to consumption or the actual acquisition of the exotic domesticates would probably have been the existence of 'centres', with feasting and gifting part of the process. Moreover, part of the exchange associated with that feasting and gifting may have been the 'giving' of labour so that part of the domesticates package was monument building. Consequently, sites and buildings such as Balbridie (Fairweather and Ralston 1993) and Ballygalley (Simpson 1996) appear to correspond to what one might expect of a society/societies actively engaged in either consuming or spreading/acquiring domesticates.
© Internet Archaeology/Author(s)
URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue26/4/2.html
Last updated: Wed May 27 2009