Anja Mansrud
University of Stavanger, Museum of Archaeology, Faculty Member
The settlements along the Norwegian Skagerrak coast from the period 3300-2350 cal. BCE (Middle Neolithic period) represented an epitome of the sub-Neolithic phenomenon, however, recent experience from archaeological, osteological,... more
The settlements along the Norwegian Skagerrak coast from the period 3300-2350 cal. BCE (Middle Neolithic period) represented an epitome of the sub-Neolithic phenomenon, however, recent experience from archaeological, osteological, palynological, and geological studies encourages a rethinking of this cultural complex. Here we reconstruct aspects of Middle Neolithic economies, mobility patterns, and pottery production traditions based on recent field work along the central stretch of the Norwegian Skagerrak coast. We find evidence of mixed economiescollecting, fishing, hunting, farming, husbandryand local pottery traditions structured by seasonal coastal-inland mobility patterns. We propose a redefinition of this archaeological complex from a 'Neolithic culture', or a sub-Neolithic phenomenon, to an ecohistorical regime. The diversity in mobility and subsistence in this geographical area reflect robust early fisher-farmer societies resilient in the face of environmental variations.
Research Interests:
Abstract: This chapter explores the issue of object and animal agency through a contextual analysis of bear claws in Iron Age cremations in South Norway (Sør-Norge). Bear claws were identified in 130 cremations, mainly dated within the... more
Abstract: This chapter explores the issue of object and animal agency through a contextual analysis of bear claws in Iron Age cremations in South Norway (Sør-Norge). Bear claws were identified in 130 cremations, mainly dated within the Roman and Migration periods (1–550 CE). The presence of bear claws is independent of economic status, age, or gender. They occur in male, female, and mixed cremations, occasionally also with children. Most burials contain only one claw. Rather than representing chiefs, shamans, or warriors as previously assumed, the archaeological evidence suggests that individuals cremated with bear claws were also farmers, herders, and hunters. Drawing on Norwegian folklore and a multi-species perspective, I employ a retrospective approach and investigate relations between humans, livestock and bears in the context of hunting and transhumance, arguing that bear claws were powerful agents, utilised for ritual and safeguarding purposes.
This paper investigates wheel-shaped net sinkers, that is hoops made of rods and with plaited birch bark fibres,clasping a sinker stone in the centre. Recently recovered from forest and mountain lakes of central Scandinavia, and dated to... more
This paper investigates wheel-shaped net sinkers, that is hoops made of rods and with plaited birch bark fibres,clasping a sinker stone in the centre. Recently recovered from forest and mountain lakes of central Scandinavia, and dated to AD 800–1300, these sinkers offer a glimpse into the use of birch bark during the Viking Age and the medieval period. By combining archaeological analysis and experimental replication, this paper firstly aims to explore the knowledge and skills involved in the making. Secondly, we investigate the relationship between the specific crafting process and the broader craft traditions and technologies of which the sinkers were a part, and we suggest that birch bark plaiting represents a technological and aesthetic craft tradition originating in Karelia
and Estonia. The sinkers were utilised in freshwater fishing and attached to the bottom line of gill or seine nets. We propose that this specific net fishing technology was introduced to central Scandinavia as a result of agricultural expansion from east to west around AD 800.
and Estonia. The sinkers were utilised in freshwater fishing and attached to the bottom line of gill or seine nets. We propose that this specific net fishing technology was introduced to central Scandinavia as a result of agricultural expansion from east to west around AD 800.
This article aims to contribute novel data and perspectives into the long-standing debate about economic strategies in the fourth and third millennium in South Norway, by introducing novel results from a Pitted Ware coastal site in Agder... more
This article aims to contribute novel data and perspectives into the long-standing debate about economic strategies in the fourth and third millennium in South Norway, by introducing novel results from a Pitted Ware coastal site in Agder County, southern Norway. The analysis of artifactual and faunal assemblages as well as lipid analysis from ceramics indicate a varied subsistence economy with terrestrial hunting, gathering, and specialized marine fishing strategies, targeting Atlantic bluefin tuna and seals. These procurement strategies were maintained throughout the middle and into the late Neolithic period (c. 3300-2200 BCE). No unequivocal evidence of cultivation was documented before the early Bronze Age, around 1700 BCE. This article maintains that exploring and explaining long-time continuity, and the environmental, cultural, and social mechanisms, which underwrite enduring traditions, remains a pertinent issue in Neolithic archeology. To broaden our understanding of the causes underlying cultural persistence, we need to move beyond a view of foraging peoples as either ecologically adapted or as economically optimized and employ a perspective that acknowledges the fundamental importance of human-animal relations in prehistoric lives and worldviews. Drawing on insights from relational anthropology and multispecies archaeology, we maintain that an animist ontology endured among the Pitted Ware groups and endorsed the foraging persistency characterizing the third millennium in Southern Norway.
How are we to understand and interpret intentional deposits of stone built-up over long time spans? The empirical point of departure for this contribution is a complex cairn located on a hilltop in Sauherad, Telemark, excavated in 2015.... more
How are we to understand and interpret intentional deposits of stone built-up over long time spans? The empirical point of departure for this contribution is a complex cairn located on a hilltop in Sauherad, Telemark, excavated in 2015. Twenty C14-samples date the site from c. 300 cal. BC to the present. Additionally, a single deposition of two Neolithic thin-butted axes of Funnel Beaker type (3800-3300 BC) was uncovered. The main phase of activity is related to the Early Iron Age (c. 300 BC-AD 450). No remains of Iron Age burials were identified, but it is argued that the Neolithic axes represent a secondary deposit related to the Iron Age activity. Taking the temporal depth and durability in the practice of removing stone as a point of departure, this paper explores how gathering and placing of stones may have been accorded meaning during various points in time and focuses particularly on the relationship between stone clearance, agriculture, fertility and ancestors.
The starting point for the present paper is a recent discovery of a well-preserved bone or antler fishhook, which turned up in a test pit during an underwater survey outside Tømmervigodden in Søgne,... more
The starting point for the present paper is a recent discovery
of a well-preserved bone or antler fishhook, which turned
up in a test pit during an underwater survey outside
Tømmervigodden in Søgne, southernmost Norway. The
hook is the third archaeological bone find from submarine
context in Søgne. Tømmervigodden is located two kilometers
away from Hummervikholmen, a submarine site known for
revealing the oldest human remains from Norway, dated to
the Middle Mesolithic (c. 8300-6300 cal. BC). Furthermore,
a harpoon has been found in Lundeelva, approx. eight
kilometers inland to the northeast. These finds demonstrate
the extraordinary conditions for preservation of organic
remains in the area.
This article present the artefact and we discuss the issue
of dating and deposition based on typology, context, and
shoreline displacement curves. How old is the fishhook? How
did it end up in the sea, and why is it so well preserved?
The site is located in one of three areas along the Norwegian
coast with potential for transgressed Mesolithic sites. The
sea levels has fluctuated in Vest-Agder since the end of the
Ice Age, and the sea has periodically been both higher and
lower than today.
The location close to Hummervikholmen and another
Mesolithic site located on dry land at Tømmervigodden,
initially suggested a Mesolithic date. However, the form of
the fishhook, with a barb and elongated knob for attachment
of the line, differs considerably from well-dated Mesolithic
fishhooks in the region. The newly discovered fishhook
has a distinct barb, an attribute previously considered a
Neolithic trait. A precise dating would be crucial, but the
closest typological parallels are undated stray-finds and
C14-analysis would have destroyed the small object. Hence,
dating of the hook requires a new assessment of the typology
and chronology of the Stone Age fishhooks.
Based on chronological and regional comparisons,
we argue for a Middle Neolithic date of the fishhook from
Søgne. Based on current knowledge of the local shoreline
displacement curve and the formation processes influencing
the seabed, we further suggest that the fishhook was lost at
sea during fishing, when the sea level was at least five meters
above present
of a well-preserved bone or antler fishhook, which turned
up in a test pit during an underwater survey outside
Tømmervigodden in Søgne, southernmost Norway. The
hook is the third archaeological bone find from submarine
context in Søgne. Tømmervigodden is located two kilometers
away from Hummervikholmen, a submarine site known for
revealing the oldest human remains from Norway, dated to
the Middle Mesolithic (c. 8300-6300 cal. BC). Furthermore,
a harpoon has been found in Lundeelva, approx. eight
kilometers inland to the northeast. These finds demonstrate
the extraordinary conditions for preservation of organic
remains in the area.
This article present the artefact and we discuss the issue
of dating and deposition based on typology, context, and
shoreline displacement curves. How old is the fishhook? How
did it end up in the sea, and why is it so well preserved?
The site is located in one of three areas along the Norwegian
coast with potential for transgressed Mesolithic sites. The
sea levels has fluctuated in Vest-Agder since the end of the
Ice Age, and the sea has periodically been both higher and
lower than today.
The location close to Hummervikholmen and another
Mesolithic site located on dry land at Tømmervigodden,
initially suggested a Mesolithic date. However, the form of
the fishhook, with a barb and elongated knob for attachment
of the line, differs considerably from well-dated Mesolithic
fishhooks in the region. The newly discovered fishhook
has a distinct barb, an attribute previously considered a
Neolithic trait. A precise dating would be crucial, but the
closest typological parallels are undated stray-finds and
C14-analysis would have destroyed the small object. Hence,
dating of the hook requires a new assessment of the typology
and chronology of the Stone Age fishhooks.
Based on chronological and regional comparisons,
we argue for a Middle Neolithic date of the fishhook from
Søgne. Based on current knowledge of the local shoreline
displacement curve and the formation processes influencing
the seabed, we further suggest that the fishhook was lost at
sea during fishing, when the sea level was at least five meters
above present
Research Interests:
A Late Mesolithic site with traces of comprehensive stone adze production. For English summary, see ch. 2.7.10.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Mesolithic Archaeology, Settlement Patterns, Lithic Technology, Mesolithic Europe, Mesolithic/Neolithic, and 8 moreSettlement archaeology, Neolithic pottery, Projectile technology, Early Neolithic, Middle Neolithic, Late Neolithic, Lithic Analysis, Lithic Raw Material Sourcing, Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, and Early and middle mesolithic in Skandinavia
Middle Mesolithic (8300–6300 calBC) sites in eastern Norway appear as distinct lithic clusters often associated with hearths. In this paper, a theoretical and methodological framework for analysing such locales is explored. We focus on... more
Middle Mesolithic (8300–6300 calBC) sites in eastern Norway appear as distinct lithic clusters often associated with hearths. In this paper, a theoretical and methodological framework for analysing such locales is explored. We focus on how spatial arrangements can be interpreted in terms of social practice and world views, taking the question of how settlements relate to abandoned sites as our point of departure. GIS-based intra-site distribution analysis and Minimum Analytical Nodule Analysis (MANA), set within a chaîne opératoire framework, offers a methodology for targeting technological and temporal aspects of lithic clusters. Our analysis points to mobility in the utilization of the landscape and a settlement organization that was mobile within confined landscapes. Within the Oslo Fjord area, inhabited and abandoned camps were visually present along the coast and estuaries, creating a social environment, which directed the procedures of where to set up a new camp.
Håndteringen av døde kropper i forbindelse med gravritualer henger nøye sammen med synet på kroppen og individet (Bloch 1986, 1988, Fowler 2004). Gravskikk og behandlingen av det døde legemet er dermed blant de viktigste kilder vi har til... more
Håndteringen av døde kropper i forbindelse med gravritualer henger nøye sammen med synet på kroppen og individet (Bloch 1986, 1988, Fowler 2004). Gravskikk og behandlingen av det døde legemet er dermed blant de viktigste kilder vi har til kunnskap om forhistoriske menneskers kropps-og personoppfatninger. Dyrekropper har tilsynelatende hatt en betydningsfull rolle i forbindelse med utførelsen av ritualer, på lik linje med menneskekropper (Jennbert 2002, 2004). Eksempelvis viser osteologiske undersøkelser at det ikke er uvanlig med deponeringer av dyrebein i gravanlegg fra jernalder. Dette fenomenet har tradisjonelt blitt tolket som " matrester etter gravgildet eller ferdakost som den gravlagte skulle nyte godt av " (Herteig 1955:50. Se også Rygh 1877, Petersen 1916, McKinley 1989b:244). Foranledningen til den dødes behov for mat i graven har støtte i den førkristne eskatologien, hvor både forestillingen om graven som den dødes oppholdssted, og ideen om en lang ferd til dødsriket, er parallelle forestillinger (Steinsland 1990:64, Näsström 2001). Dyrebeina kan nok i visse tilfeller ha stått som symbolske representasjoner for ernaeringsmessig viktige dyreslag, som hadde til hensikt å sikre den avdøde nødvendig naering på reisen til dødsriket. Det er imidlertid flere mulige forklaringer på at dyrebein gjenfinnes i graver. Praksisen har trolig hatt en kompleks og flertydig mening som uttrykker spesifikke verdier og holdninger i forhold til døden og kroppslige levninger. I denne artikkelen vil jeg diskutere nedleggelser av dyrebein i graver som et utgangspunkt for å tolke førkristne identitets-og personoppfatninger. Et relasjonelt og kontekstuelt personbegrep? Alle måter å erkjenne personer på er kulturelle konstruksjoner, og i den vestlige verden fremstår kroppen og individet som svaert sentrale i forståelsen av personbegrepet (Fowler 2004). Innenfor den vestlige (kristne) kulturen betraktes individet som en autonom, avgrenset enhet med selvstendig identitet, der selvet er fysisk fastlåst til kroppen hos det enkelte individ. Men det finnes andre måter å vaere en person, som ikke i samme grad vektlegger individualiteten. I kulturer hvor slekten og kollektivet står sterkt, vektlegges i større grad den kollektive identiteten (Bloch 1988).
Research Interests:
The E18 project is a cultural heritage management excavation project initiated by The Norwegian Public Road Administration’s construction of a new highway from Bommestad to Sky in Vestfold county, south-eastern Norway (chapter 1). The... more
The E18 project is a cultural heritage management excavation project initiated by The Norwegian Public Road Administration’s construction of a new highway from Bommestad to Sky in Vestfold county, south-eastern Norway (chapter 1).
The project is organised by the Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo. Two field seasons have been carried out, and a total of nine Middle Mesolithic (8300–6300 cal. BC) sites have been excavated.
The project has been organised with a project staff of five archaeologists working in the project for three years (chapter 1 and 2). Hege Damlien and Steinar Solheim have been in charge of the project. In total, 28 field archaeologists have been employed during the two field seasons. A project council consisting of four members have been appointed by the Museum of Cultural History’s director for quality insurance of the project’s administrative, economic, and archaeological operations and results. Representatives from the Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Vestfold County Council have functioned as observers.
AIMS
Since 2000, the Museum of Cultural History has carried out several large-scale excavation projects in the Oslofjord region. Sites dating from the very first occupation of the region throughout the Mesolithic and into the Neolithic have been investigated (c. 9000–2400 cal. BC).
Earlier projects have mainly excavated Early and Late Mesolithic coastal settlement. Very few coastal sites dated to the Middle Mesolithic period (8250–6350 cal. BC) have been investigated in Eastern Norway, making it the least known phase of the region’s Stone Age (chapter 3). In addition, as a consequence of Holocene transgressions only a few well-preserved sites dated to the period have been investigated in Southern Norway in general. The sites excavated by E18 Bommestad–Sky were thus expected to provide empirical data of high scientific value in a regional as well as national perspective. As all the sites could be shoreline dated to the first half of the Middle Mesolithic period, the Museum of Cultural History pointed out the following aims as important for the project to clarify (Glørstad 2011). The project should:
• Identify and analyse technological, typological, and chronological variations in the artefact assemblages. This also includes variations in raw materials.
• Identify and analyse site organisation by studying find distribution and structures such as hearths, cooking pits and dwellings.
• Discuss changes from mobile to more stable settlement patterns in light of the excavation results.
• Prepare empirical data for future research and large-scale analysis of the cultural history of the Oslofjord region.
SITES AND SETTLEMENT
Nine sites, all dated to the Middle Mesolithic period (8300–6300 cal. BC), have been excavated. The sites have produced empirical data and results that will be of interest in an international perspective (compare for example Sørensen et al. 2013). The sites are well preserved, as few modern disturbances (e.g. farming) have been identified at the sites. Due to the region’s acidic soil, the find assemblages con¬sist of lithic material but no organic remains.
The glacio-isostatic rebound in the Oslofjord region has led to permanent land uplift since the last Ice Age. Due to the geological situation, all Mesolithic and Neolithic sites have been situated on dry land from their time of use until today. In principal, the higher a site is situated above the present shoreline, the older the site is. Shoreline displacement curves and reconstructions of ancient shorelines are thus excellent tools for dating Stone Age sites and for outlining chronological site sequences. A situation like this is rather unique on a global scale as it allows studies of coastal settlement in a long time perspective.
The excavated sites can be dated between c. 8000–7400 cal. BC by shoreline dating and/or radiocarbon dating. The sites cover most of the first half of the Middle Mesolithic period. The narrow time frame within which the sites are dated provides a good opportunity to compare different societal and 305 material aspects within what can be considered an archaeologically contemporary time period.
In general, there are strong similarities in the archaeological assemblages found at the sites. Regarding the site’s layout and organisation, important variations can however be seen. Of importance is the discovery of a dwelling structure at the site Hovland 3 (chapter 15). A 35-cm thick lens consisting of a matrix of sand, charcoal, burned hazel nutshells, and lithic materials is interpreted as the remains of a pit house, c. 13 m2 large. Post holes are identified around the cultural layer, and hearths are seen inside and outside of the dwelling structure. In addition, cooking pits and a midden of fire-cracked rock are documented outside the dwelling. There are few signs of younger disturbances affecting the dwelling. The lithic assemblages are homogenous and typical for the Middle Mesolithic period, with a total number of 22 000 from the site. More than 4000 finds were retrieved from inside the dwelling. Hovland 3 is dated by 18 radiocarbon dates. Eight dates are from the dwelling, and ten dates are from associated structures. The site can be dated to c. 7600–7450 cal. BC.
While Hovland 3 shows signs of being used intensively and repeatedly, the other sites are of a more mobile character (chapter 18). The sites consist of a number of find concentrations of varying size and composition. Structures such as hearths and cooking pits are identified at several sites. In cases where hearths are preserved, the find distribu¬tion shows a relation to such structures.
In general, the find assemblages vary between 50 and 8000 lithic finds. The find’s character and the find composition indicate mobility and that the sites were parts of a larger settlement system. Raw materials and tools have been imported into and exported out of the sites, leaving varying stages of the tool-production process present at the sites.
The investigated time span is a period of change in material culture and lithic technology in Northern Europe. The excavation’s results have also provided us with indications of important changes in settlement patterns in the Mesolithic. The preceding Early Mesolithic period is understood as a highly mobile society, and the succeeding Late Mesolithic period has been interpreted as a period of stable and semi-sedentary societies. The results from E18 Bommestad–Sky do however indicate that settlement in the Middle Mesolithic period can be perceived as a more semi-sedentary society than previously assumed (e.g. Jaksland 2001). Thus, the society of this period shows more resemblances with Late Mesolithic than Early Mesolithic societies. As a consequence, discussions of important changes in coastal settlement in Scandinavia can be discussed in light of the data material generated by the project (chapter 19).
TECHNOLOGY AND TYPOLOGY
The artefact assemblages have primarily been classified according to morphological principles. Despite the chronological time span, the total lithic assemblage is homogenous and displays strong typological and technological similarities. Differences seem to be related to functional factors, like differences in activity and site types, rather than chronological variation. The artefact material from the excavated sites corresponds with other excavated Middle Mesolithic coastal sites in south-eastern Norway.
The dominating raw material used for tool pro¬duction is high-quality flint. The artefact assemblage is characterised by standardised blade production. Blades are produced from sub-conical and conical single-platform cores with regularly rejuvenated and facetted platforms with an angle close to 90 degrees. This lithic concept does, together with the high regularity of the blades, indicate the presence of pressure-blade technique as early as 8000–7900 cal. BC. Technological analysis of blade assemblages from the site Nordby 2 indicates that pressure technique was applied for the production of microblades and bladelets, in combination with indirect and direct techniques for the production of macroblades. Practically every stage of blade and blade-tool pro¬duction is recorded on the sites.
Among the recovered tools are triangular microliths, barbed points, bores, burins, burins on snapped blades (rulers), scrapers and knives dominantly made from blades. Microburin technique seems to be absent, and microliths are produced using snap-break techniques. The presence of both triangular microliths and barbed points conforms to a previous hypothesis that there is no chronological difference between the types. Flint-core axes and production waste are recorded at some of the sites. The use of non-flint raw materials is limited and seems pri¬marily to be connected with production and use of ground-pecked axes and hatchets made from local raw materials, like diabase, hornfels, and metarhy¬olite. Some waste material from axe production is recovered. This indicates production of non-flint axes as early as 8000–7900 cal. BC.
The project is organised by the Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo. Two field seasons have been carried out, and a total of nine Middle Mesolithic (8300–6300 cal. BC) sites have been excavated.
The project has been organised with a project staff of five archaeologists working in the project for three years (chapter 1 and 2). Hege Damlien and Steinar Solheim have been in charge of the project. In total, 28 field archaeologists have been employed during the two field seasons. A project council consisting of four members have been appointed by the Museum of Cultural History’s director for quality insurance of the project’s administrative, economic, and archaeological operations and results. Representatives from the Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Vestfold County Council have functioned as observers.
AIMS
Since 2000, the Museum of Cultural History has carried out several large-scale excavation projects in the Oslofjord region. Sites dating from the very first occupation of the region throughout the Mesolithic and into the Neolithic have been investigated (c. 9000–2400 cal. BC).
Earlier projects have mainly excavated Early and Late Mesolithic coastal settlement. Very few coastal sites dated to the Middle Mesolithic period (8250–6350 cal. BC) have been investigated in Eastern Norway, making it the least known phase of the region’s Stone Age (chapter 3). In addition, as a consequence of Holocene transgressions only a few well-preserved sites dated to the period have been investigated in Southern Norway in general. The sites excavated by E18 Bommestad–Sky were thus expected to provide empirical data of high scientific value in a regional as well as national perspective. As all the sites could be shoreline dated to the first half of the Middle Mesolithic period, the Museum of Cultural History pointed out the following aims as important for the project to clarify (Glørstad 2011). The project should:
• Identify and analyse technological, typological, and chronological variations in the artefact assemblages. This also includes variations in raw materials.
• Identify and analyse site organisation by studying find distribution and structures such as hearths, cooking pits and dwellings.
• Discuss changes from mobile to more stable settlement patterns in light of the excavation results.
• Prepare empirical data for future research and large-scale analysis of the cultural history of the Oslofjord region.
SITES AND SETTLEMENT
Nine sites, all dated to the Middle Mesolithic period (8300–6300 cal. BC), have been excavated. The sites have produced empirical data and results that will be of interest in an international perspective (compare for example Sørensen et al. 2013). The sites are well preserved, as few modern disturbances (e.g. farming) have been identified at the sites. Due to the region’s acidic soil, the find assemblages con¬sist of lithic material but no organic remains.
The glacio-isostatic rebound in the Oslofjord region has led to permanent land uplift since the last Ice Age. Due to the geological situation, all Mesolithic and Neolithic sites have been situated on dry land from their time of use until today. In principal, the higher a site is situated above the present shoreline, the older the site is. Shoreline displacement curves and reconstructions of ancient shorelines are thus excellent tools for dating Stone Age sites and for outlining chronological site sequences. A situation like this is rather unique on a global scale as it allows studies of coastal settlement in a long time perspective.
The excavated sites can be dated between c. 8000–7400 cal. BC by shoreline dating and/or radiocarbon dating. The sites cover most of the first half of the Middle Mesolithic period. The narrow time frame within which the sites are dated provides a good opportunity to compare different societal and 305 material aspects within what can be considered an archaeologically contemporary time period.
In general, there are strong similarities in the archaeological assemblages found at the sites. Regarding the site’s layout and organisation, important variations can however be seen. Of importance is the discovery of a dwelling structure at the site Hovland 3 (chapter 15). A 35-cm thick lens consisting of a matrix of sand, charcoal, burned hazel nutshells, and lithic materials is interpreted as the remains of a pit house, c. 13 m2 large. Post holes are identified around the cultural layer, and hearths are seen inside and outside of the dwelling structure. In addition, cooking pits and a midden of fire-cracked rock are documented outside the dwelling. There are few signs of younger disturbances affecting the dwelling. The lithic assemblages are homogenous and typical for the Middle Mesolithic period, with a total number of 22 000 from the site. More than 4000 finds were retrieved from inside the dwelling. Hovland 3 is dated by 18 radiocarbon dates. Eight dates are from the dwelling, and ten dates are from associated structures. The site can be dated to c. 7600–7450 cal. BC.
While Hovland 3 shows signs of being used intensively and repeatedly, the other sites are of a more mobile character (chapter 18). The sites consist of a number of find concentrations of varying size and composition. Structures such as hearths and cooking pits are identified at several sites. In cases where hearths are preserved, the find distribu¬tion shows a relation to such structures.
In general, the find assemblages vary between 50 and 8000 lithic finds. The find’s character and the find composition indicate mobility and that the sites were parts of a larger settlement system. Raw materials and tools have been imported into and exported out of the sites, leaving varying stages of the tool-production process present at the sites.
The investigated time span is a period of change in material culture and lithic technology in Northern Europe. The excavation’s results have also provided us with indications of important changes in settlement patterns in the Mesolithic. The preceding Early Mesolithic period is understood as a highly mobile society, and the succeeding Late Mesolithic period has been interpreted as a period of stable and semi-sedentary societies. The results from E18 Bommestad–Sky do however indicate that settlement in the Middle Mesolithic period can be perceived as a more semi-sedentary society than previously assumed (e.g. Jaksland 2001). Thus, the society of this period shows more resemblances with Late Mesolithic than Early Mesolithic societies. As a consequence, discussions of important changes in coastal settlement in Scandinavia can be discussed in light of the data material generated by the project (chapter 19).
TECHNOLOGY AND TYPOLOGY
The artefact assemblages have primarily been classified according to morphological principles. Despite the chronological time span, the total lithic assemblage is homogenous and displays strong typological and technological similarities. Differences seem to be related to functional factors, like differences in activity and site types, rather than chronological variation. The artefact material from the excavated sites corresponds with other excavated Middle Mesolithic coastal sites in south-eastern Norway.
The dominating raw material used for tool pro¬duction is high-quality flint. The artefact assemblage is characterised by standardised blade production. Blades are produced from sub-conical and conical single-platform cores with regularly rejuvenated and facetted platforms with an angle close to 90 degrees. This lithic concept does, together with the high regularity of the blades, indicate the presence of pressure-blade technique as early as 8000–7900 cal. BC. Technological analysis of blade assemblages from the site Nordby 2 indicates that pressure technique was applied for the production of microblades and bladelets, in combination with indirect and direct techniques for the production of macroblades. Practically every stage of blade and blade-tool pro¬duction is recorded on the sites.
Among the recovered tools are triangular microliths, barbed points, bores, burins, burins on snapped blades (rulers), scrapers and knives dominantly made from blades. Microburin technique seems to be absent, and microliths are produced using snap-break techniques. The presence of both triangular microliths and barbed points conforms to a previous hypothesis that there is no chronological difference between the types. Flint-core axes and production waste are recorded at some of the sites. The use of non-flint raw materials is limited and seems pri¬marily to be connected with production and use of ground-pecked axes and hatchets made from local raw materials, like diabase, hornfels, and metarhy¬olite. Some waste material from axe production is recovered. This indicates production of non-flint axes as early as 8000–7900 cal. BC.
Research Interests:
See under "Files" for links to DOI and the publisher's Open Access-platform to download the complete publication. With English captions, comprehensive English summaries (ch. 2.71.-2.7.16) and a section with nine chapters written in... more
See under "Files" for links to DOI and the publisher's Open Access-platform to download the complete publication.
With English captions, comprehensive English summaries (ch. 2.71.-2.7.16) and a section with nine chapters written in English, focussing on specific questions under discussion in current Stone Age research.
I forkant av byggingen av ny E18 mellom Tvedestrand og Arendal i Aust-Agder gjennomførte Kulturhistorisk museum, Universitetet i Oslo, omfattende arkeologiske utgravninger i årene 2014 til 2016. Innenfor den 23 km lange traséen ble til sammen 34 lokaliteter fra steinalderen undersøkt. I tid spenner lokalitetene fra ca. 9000 f.Kr. til 1700 f.Kr. og dekker med det nesten hele steinalderen fra tidligmesolitikum til og med seinneolitikum. I tillegg ble en lokalitet med gravhauger og hulveier fra jernalderen undersøkt. Resultatene fra undersøkelsene presenteres i denne publikasjonen. Resultatene fra E18 Tvedestrand-Arendal-prosjektet bidrar med ny og viktig kunnskap om steinalderen langs kysten i Aust-Agder, et område hvor steinalderen fram til nå har vært lite undersøkt. I tillegg til å øke kunnskapen om steinalderen i Aust-Agders kystlandskap har dette nylig framgravde, arkeologiske kildematerialet også et stort vitenskapelig potensial i overregionale og internasjonale sammenhenger.
With English captions, comprehensive English summaries (ch. 2.71.-2.7.16) and a section with nine chapters written in English, focussing on specific questions under discussion in current Stone Age research.
I forkant av byggingen av ny E18 mellom Tvedestrand og Arendal i Aust-Agder gjennomførte Kulturhistorisk museum, Universitetet i Oslo, omfattende arkeologiske utgravninger i årene 2014 til 2016. Innenfor den 23 km lange traséen ble til sammen 34 lokaliteter fra steinalderen undersøkt. I tid spenner lokalitetene fra ca. 9000 f.Kr. til 1700 f.Kr. og dekker med det nesten hele steinalderen fra tidligmesolitikum til og med seinneolitikum. I tillegg ble en lokalitet med gravhauger og hulveier fra jernalderen undersøkt. Resultatene fra undersøkelsene presenteres i denne publikasjonen. Resultatene fra E18 Tvedestrand-Arendal-prosjektet bidrar med ny og viktig kunnskap om steinalderen langs kysten i Aust-Agder, et område hvor steinalderen fram til nå har vært lite undersøkt. I tillegg til å øke kunnskapen om steinalderen i Aust-Agders kystlandskap har dette nylig framgravde, arkeologiske kildematerialet også et stort vitenskapelig potensial i overregionale og internasjonale sammenhenger.
Research Interests:
This session proposes multispecies approaches and understandings advanced within the ontological turn as analytical frameworks for exploring how hunter-gatherers past and present were living (well) with other species. Prehistoric... more
This session proposes multispecies approaches and understandings advanced within the ontological turn as analytical frameworks for exploring how hunter-gatherers past and present were living (well) with other species. Prehistoric archaeology, entailing the study of human and animal remains from the beginnings of humanity, on a global scale, can contribute in a unique way to explore what it means to be human in a world populated by non-human others. Throughout this time humans have lived with animals in multispecies environments. Animals have been bred, domesticated, buried, hunted, and fished, nurtured as pets and companions in addition to being exploited as food and materials. How humans have lived with animals varies within, and between, societies. A multispecies approach, inspired by ethology and biosemiotics, entanglement theory, and native ontologies acknowledges that prehistoric communities were entwined with non-humans in social as well as ecological and economic ways, and also has potential to bridge polarization between Western and indigenous ontologies, while still taking native perspectives seriously. We also embrace the concept of «egomorphism» (Milton 2005) assuming that humans perceive animals as similar to themselves and able to participate in various social relations. Archaeology is largely invisible in current debates about the Anthropocene and human influence on the environment. Although archaeological periods lie far beyond the onset of this geological epoch as currently defined, engaging with the debates encourages us to reflect on relations to nature and animals past and present, and our role and place in the world. Archaeological finds can challenge present norms and understandings and provide depth and diversity to the Anthropocene-debate which would not be accessible from anthropological, geographical or historical data. We welcome papers exploring multispecies relations from a variety of perspectives-relational, zoo/biosemiotic, ethiological, historical, anthropological, environmental and phenomenological, regardless of chronological, geographical or cultural context. Contributions may focus on methods, models, case studies or theoretical frameworks.
Research Interests:
We invite researchers to submit proposals to the session Animal and Plant Management in Prehistoric Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Communities at the 28 th EAA conference in Budapest. The aim of this session is to challenge the conceptual... more
We invite researchers to submit proposals to the session Animal and Plant Management in Prehistoric Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Communities at the 28 th EAA conference in Budapest. The aim of this session is to challenge the conceptual dichotomy between the "Mesolithic" and "Neolithic", by focusing on animal and plant management in prehistoric hunter-fishergatherer communities. The shift from foraging to farming and animal husbandry is often narrated as a turning point where humanity's relationship with the environment was profoundly altered. Resource management is fundamental to concept of the Neolithic and further linked to aspects such as storage, surplus accumulation, and social complexity. Recent findings however show that human involvement with the environment was biologically, socially, and economically complex long before the transition to agriculture. Multiple archaeological records point towards the existence of various resource management practices among hunter-fisher-gatherers long before, and independent of, the Neolithization process. Rather than being just "ecologically adapted" Mesolithic foragers actively engaged with, intervened, transformed, and cultivated the flora and fauna in their local landscapes. Examples include introducing novel plants to their environments, transferring fish fry between rivers and lakes, altering habitats attract grazing animals by burning and weeding, and constructing permanent trapping systems for various fish species and deer species. We invite papers addressing this topic independent of geographical scope and spatial scale. Contributions may focus on specific methods, models, case studies or theoretical frameworks such as niche construction theory and multispecies archaeology.
Research Interests:
Numerous archaeozoological studies, as well as the development of biomolecular approaches (stable isotope analysis, organic residue analysis, etc.) have revealed the important contribution of fish to human diets through space and time. In... more
Numerous archaeozoological studies, as well as the development of biomolecular approaches (stable isotope analysis, organic residue analysis, etc.) have revealed the important contribution of fish to human diets through space and time. In some cases, for example in a number of Mesolithic contexts, fishing constituted the main part of the subsistence economy. However, unlike other modes of subsistence (hunting, gathering, agriculture), fishing required humans to adapt to a whole different medium. As noted by the American anthropologist Gordon Hewes, due to their specific features, aquatic environments are a strange realm from the point of view of land-dwelling beings-"a universe with an additional dimension". Apart from affording particular sensory experiences, fishing also entangled humans in a web of relations with a multitude of aquatic creatures. Landscape socialization, human movement within the landscape, the location of camps and settlements, activities, and beliefs were intimately bound to, and influenced by, natural cycles of various fish species-their migrations, spawning locations, appearance and behaviours. Such interspecies engagements were also expressed materiallythrough the structured deposition of fish remains, the usage of fish teeth and vertebrae to adorn human bodies, and in fish-related iconography (sculpture, rock carvings, paintings). With these considerations in mind, we invite a wide range of contributions concerning socioenvironmental aspects of fishing beyond exploitation and diet. We welcome papers approaching this issue from a variety of perspectives-archaeozoological, historical, anthropological, environmental, phenomenological, multispecies, and relational, regardless of chronological, geographical or cultural context.
Research Interests:
This session proposes multispecies approaches and understandings advanced within the ontological turn, as analytical frameworks for exploring how hunter-gatherers past and present were living (well?) with other species. Prehistoric... more
This session proposes multispecies approaches and understandings advanced within the ontological turn, as analytical frameworks for exploring how hunter-gatherers past and present were living (well?) with other species. Prehistoric archaeology, entailing the study of human and animal remains from the beginnings of humanity, on a global scale, can contribute in a unique way to explore what it means to be human in a world populated by non-human others. Throughout the Holocene humans have lived with animals in multispecies environments. How humans have lived with animals varies within, and between, societies. Animals have been bred, domesticated, buried, hunted, and fished, nurtured as pets and companions in addition to being exploited as food and materials. We also reflect on the role of insects as cultural agents, by focusing on how insects have impacted hunter-fisher lifeways in the past and present, and what sort of challenges or solutions can insects represent to hunter-gatherers. A multispecies approach, inspired by ethology and biosemiotics, entanglement theory, and native ontologies, recognize that prehistoric communities were entwined with non-humans in social as well as ecological and economic ways. We further embrace the concept of «egomorphism» (Milton 2005), a perspective acknowledging that humans perceive animals as similar to themselves and able to partake in social relations, as a viable road to overcome the polarization between Western and indigenous ontologies, while still taking native perspectives seriously. Archaeology is largely invisible in current debates about the Anthropocene and human influence on the environment. Although archaeological periods lie far beyond the onset of this geological epoch as currently defined, engaging with the debates encourages us to reflect on relations to nature and animals past and present, and our role and place in the world. Archaeological finds can challenge present norms and understandings and provide depth and diversity to the Anthropocene-debate which would not be accessible from anthropological, geographical or historical data. We welcome papers exploring multispecies relations from a variety of perspectives – relational, zoo/biosemiotic, ethological, historical, anthropological, environmental and phenomenological, regardless of chronological, geographical or cultural context. Contributions may focus on methods, models, case studies or theoretical frameworks.
Research Interests:
Numerous archaeozoological studies, as well as the development of biomolecular approaches (stable isotope analysis, organic residue analysis, etc.) have revealed the important contribution of fish to human diets through space and time. In... more
Numerous archaeozoological studies, as well as the development of biomolecular approaches (stable isotope analysis, organic residue analysis, etc.) have revealed the important contribution of fish to human diets through space and time. In some cases, for example in a number of Mesolithic contexts, fishing constituted the main part of the subsistence economy. However, unlike other modes of subsistence (hunting, gathering, agriculture), fishing required humans to adapt to a whole different medium. As noted by the American anthropologist Gordon Hewes, due to their specific features, aquatic environments are a strange realm from the point of view of land-dwelling beings – “a universe with an additional dimension”. Apart from affording particular sensory experiences, fishing also entangled humans in a web of relations with a multitude of aquatic creatures. Landscape socialization, human movement within the landscape, the location of camps and settlements, activities, and beliefs were intimately bound to, and influenced by, natural cycles of various fish species – their migrations, spawning locations, appearance and behaviours. Such interspecies engagements were also expressed materially – through the structured deposition of fish remains, the usage of fish teeth and vertebrae to adorn human bodies, and in fish-related iconography (sculpture, rock carvings, paintings). With these considerations in mind, we invite a wide range of contributions concerning socioenvironmental aspects of fishing beyond exploitation and diet. We welcome papers approaching this issue from a variety of perspectives – archaeozoological, historical, anthropological, environmental, phenomenological, multispecies, and relational, regardless of chronological, geographical or cultural context.
Research Interests:
The aim of this session is to challenge the conceptual dichotomy between the “Mesolithic” and “Neolithic”, by focusing on animal and plant management in prehistoric hunter-fisher-gatherer communities. The shift from foraging to farming... more
The aim of this session is to challenge the conceptual dichotomy between the “Mesolithic” and “Neolithic”, by focusing on animal and plant management in prehistoric hunter-fisher-gatherer communities. The shift from foraging to farming and animal husbandry is often narrated as a turning point where humanity’s relationship with the environment was profoundly altered. Resource management is fundamental to concept of the Neolithic and further linked to aspects such as storage, surplus accumulation, and social complexity. Recent findings however show that human involvement with the environment was biologically, socially and economically complex long before the transition to agriculture. Multiple archaeological records point towards the existence of various resource management practices among hunter-fisher-gatherers long before, and independent of, the Neolithization process. Rather than being just “ecologically adapted” Mesolithic foragers actively engaged with, intervened, transformed, and cultivated the flora and fauna in their local landscapes. Examples include introducing novel plants to their environments, transferring fish fry between rivers and lakes, altering habitats attract grazing animals by burning and weeding, and constructing permanent trapping systems for various fish species and deer species. We invite papers addressing this topic independent of geographical scope and spatial scale. Contributions may focus on specific methods, models, case studies or theoretical frameworks such as niche construction theory and multispecies archaeology.
Research Interests:
SESSION 18 @ EAA2024 Along with hunting and agriculture, aquatic resources represented an important aspect of subsistence in past communities. The various fishing techniques are proven through the finds of artifacts such as fishing... more
SESSION 18 @ EAA2024
Along with hunting and agriculture, aquatic resources represented an important aspect of subsistence in past communities. The various fishing techniques are proven through the finds of artifacts such as fishing equipment, through pictorial representations, and bones.
In this session we want to discuss the role that aquatic resources played in prehistoric societies as well as methods and tools for assessing their societal impact. We aim to discuss the role of fish and marine mammals in the livelihoods of past communities, since for certain periods and cultures, the fish not only served as a food source, but also had a symbolic or mythological meaning. We aim at coming closer to answering the question of the internal and external perception of “fishers”.
We would like to invite contributions dealing with the use of aquatic resources and fishing techniques, but also theoretical contexts to discuss, for instance:
>> The importance of marine resources as food source and methods and techniques for aquiring them
>> the symbolic-religious meaning of the fish during different prehistoric periods
>> the archaeological analysis and evaluation of the relevance of aquatic resources in mixed economies
>> the social functions of fishing in certain communities. Were marine resources famine food, feast, seasonal abundance exploitation, export and trade, competitional, ‘social refugia’, etc.?
We want to welcome colleagues at all career levels and offer particularly young researchers a platform to present their research results.
We also encourage studies that go beyond data presentation and contextualize their findings in a social perspective. Hence. ideas and methodological discussions are as welcome as archaeozoological, iconographic or techno-typological studies, to name a few.
Along with hunting and agriculture, aquatic resources represented an important aspect of subsistence in past communities. The various fishing techniques are proven through the finds of artifacts such as fishing equipment, through pictorial representations, and bones.
In this session we want to discuss the role that aquatic resources played in prehistoric societies as well as methods and tools for assessing their societal impact. We aim to discuss the role of fish and marine mammals in the livelihoods of past communities, since for certain periods and cultures, the fish not only served as a food source, but also had a symbolic or mythological meaning. We aim at coming closer to answering the question of the internal and external perception of “fishers”.
We would like to invite contributions dealing with the use of aquatic resources and fishing techniques, but also theoretical contexts to discuss, for instance:
>> The importance of marine resources as food source and methods and techniques for aquiring them
>> the symbolic-religious meaning of the fish during different prehistoric periods
>> the archaeological analysis and evaluation of the relevance of aquatic resources in mixed economies
>> the social functions of fishing in certain communities. Were marine resources famine food, feast, seasonal abundance exploitation, export and trade, competitional, ‘social refugia’, etc.?
We want to welcome colleagues at all career levels and offer particularly young researchers a platform to present their research results.
We also encourage studies that go beyond data presentation and contextualize their findings in a social perspective. Hence. ideas and methodological discussions are as welcome as archaeozoological, iconographic or techno-typological studies, to name a few.